Originally Posted by
channa
She wasn't lying, rather, the tools are so bad, it takes a lot more effort to find accurate answers with UA these days.
To generalize, I think we can say that there is a segment of issues that have these characteristics:
1. It's not a bug in SHARES, SHARES is doing what it was pathetically designed to do, and
2. SHARES is giving correct, but incomplete or unhelpful information to the agent, and
3. An experienced and competent and motivated agent would know about the gaps in the information provided by SHARES and would know how to work around those limitations, and
4. There are agents who are neither experienced nor competent nor motivated, so, they give up and throw back to the pax whatever crap SHARES is throwing at them
In these types of cases, it's not a SHARES bug nor is it a lie that the pax is getting, but it's basically incompetence or laziness, and the consequence of the incompetence or laziness for the pax is now a lot higher than it was with Apollo, because desired outcomes can so rarely be achieved in SHARES without heroic efforts by both the agent and the pax whereas with Apollo, it automatically did the right thing more often than not.
That was a mouthful.
No wonder the agents have, for the most part, just given up.
No wonder, "there's nothing I can do" is the most commonly uttered phrase in $mi$ek's COdbUA company.
No wonder, I'm so exhausted from this that I don't know if I'll buy another ticket on COdbaUA again.
Originally Posted by
PTahCha
Or as Channa had pointed out, may not be the first option presented by SHARES.
That's covered under my "lazy" clause.
A good agent will know the limitations and be willing to make heroic efforts to work around them to help the pax.
Can't blame them for giving up. One can only sustain this amount of effort for so long.