They bought gate displays - and the content of the PDA site matches up very closely with what FTers had been requesting.

CO has deployed only a handful of GIDS and the deployment of more is currently suspended as I understand it. They have not deployed them widely like some other carriers have chosen to do. Moreover, they implemented the PDA site a LONG time prior to the GIDS getting anywhere close to being a reality.

My experience tells me otherwise. I think when flying out of EWR (which is my main/only destination), Gold and Silvers on full fare classes are a significant part of the flying population. And let's not forget that unlike on AA and UA, it only takes 75k miles to be top dog status, which mean everyone and their mother are Plat. This year it's even worse with DEQM twice last year.

I think the difference that you see now is that CO gives all the non-elites a buyup offer so a lot of people windup in FC who never would have even made it on the list to begin with.

(My route is SFO-EWR)

You mean people buying F seats, right?

The non-elite "buy-up" on that route is a fare difference to a seat in the first class cabin. Hard to be too upset about not getting the upgrade when folks are willing to pay the asking fare for the F seat.

I respect the thought the OP has put into this, but like some others on here, I don't believe its necessary. IMO the upgrade list is accurate so I don't need to see why people are ahead of me. Just fix the real issue, which is that if I'm next in line, the next seat should go to me. More "transparency" on this list doesn't help this, nor does it benefit me if that isn't the problem.

Although the price of an F seat varies, and I have seen CO drop the price. So when one purchased their coach seat - the fare difference was high, but during check in the price of that F seat dropped and the fare difference is much less.

Are you quoting this as fact? (Source please) or just opinion?

I would think that the PDA site was developed first, as it is readily available to the masses armed with a handheld device. The Gate Displays came well after the PDA site....and display the same standby list FROM the PDA site. The GIDS are an extension of the PDA site, which had to be built first. Not the other way around. There is more availability to it, not just in front of a gate.

CO actually positioned it as "Gate Information Displays via PDA" when it was first launched.

When it was launched, CO was already behind most carriers in terms of gate displays, and there was growing pressure to get some sort of gate display info. CO responded with the PDA site.


Chicken and egg, really. The data is the same, so where it was used first is not really relevant. It all comes from the same system.

You could make the same argument for FLIFO. The PDA flight info pulls from the website system. The website pulls from the phone info that was developed years earlier. And so on. It's all the same data, so it doesn't really matter which came first. It's all the same data.

My point was that the idea that CO was innovative and responsive with the PDA site was only partly true. It's their lack of responsiveness (via lack of gate displays that competitors already had) which helped push the PDA site, which was indeed innovative.

This is my recollection of the deployment as well.

I also seem to recall a Do or mini-Do where CO Insider was furiously checking his BB on a regular basis, reviewing the PDA site while also hanging out with a bunch of us, hoping that it would be ready to launch on time.

Please view Post # 27 from this thread for the origination of the idea for this thread.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/conti...me-podium.html