That depends on what *your* perceived definition of a website is. If you're referring to the interface that the customer uses and interacts with on a daily basis, then I'd say AC has already purchased a COTS (well, as COTS as it can be) website. The issues lie with integration of the myriad of back-end legacy systems and legacy applications.

The other unique (and really stupid imho) issue that AC has is that they spun off their FFP program to a 3rd party company, and AC is beholden to that 3rd party company for the majority of customer related interactions. The level of AC/AP systems/application integration is piss-poor at best - again imho.

I'm surprised to hear that you like the UA site, I found post UA/CO merger the site went down in quality. I have no idea why they kept so much of the CO back-end, but they did.

The design is just lipstick on a pig. The real work for AC lies in getting proper integration in place for all of their back-end systems and applications, not having to rely on Aeroplan for all things customer account related and getting someone withing AC that is better able to manage the business relationship with IBM until a suitable alternative can be found.

Just to give you an idea of the train wreck that is dealing with IBM, I have been working with another client that has some portions of their web apps outsourced to IBM, and it will take close to three weeks to implement a very minor change to have a website output a URI string that is RFC compliant.

It'll be quite a bit more than $20m, how much more? I cannot say.

I think you underestimate just how many different systems and departments an airline like AC needs to use to keep the operation running as smoothly as it does.

I have dealt with a LCC that spent more than that just on their crew scheduling and fleet management infrastructure and applications.

AC has much more to deal with as well multiple fleet operations with multiple carriers adds more complexity and costs as well.

What makes you think any other operator would be willing to tell you? Good luck with that one.

You better come up with some very good numbers to convince the board that the move is a good one. The saying "nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM" rings quite true in the aviation industry.

As someone with experience in firing IBM from a large billion dollar company I can tell you that process takes a very long time.

I think this is why I said in another thread I'd take it on, but only for $1/day, and with the ability to clean up fat.

In the end, it becomes very political. Forklifting the company would be disruptive enough to harm the Canadian economy. Short-term pain for long-term gain, sure, but why should the current 55+ near-retirees of this decade be the ones who get shot?

As I said upthread, this is beyond the CTO. It would start with Calin. And I am married to a lawyer who practices in the same space. (corporate finance, securities, etc)

My S.O. is a financial planner/stock broker.

My experience (observer only) is that it is A LOT cheaper to just let the contract expire. Although there are lots of perils and traps with that approach too. The biggest one is that they likely have zero application or operational experience internally any more, and IBM takes everybody when the contract ends.

Yea, in my case, I just did the 3 CFA exams for kicks years ago.

Depends how long the contract is, sometimes they've wiggled into long long term service contracts and they're not providing the levels the organization needs.