[QUOTE=CJ1120;15502922(2) are planning to migrate to the StarNet system once the next release is available[/QUOTE]

"StarNet" is not a reservations sytem. It is essentially a hub that allows the Star Alliance partners to connect with each other. You may be thinking about the Altea platform by Amadeus. This is a reservations and departaure control system by Amadeus that many Star carriers use.

UA has had a long running project to covert to Altea for the last 7 years that was essentially cancled a couple of years ago.

UA will eventualy have to covert to next generation HP/Sabre/or Amadeus solution but i doubt that has been decided what the long term choice will be.

Both CO and UA had previously announced their intentions to migrate to a new reservations platform before the merger was finalized (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/conti...-platform.html). Might not be called StarNet but I believe that's what CJ1120 was talking about.

Correct. Whatever the next-gen Amadeus/Star Alliance Global Platform is called.

My point is, if that's the path, it might make sense for them to use SHARES first due to a quicker deployment time in transition to Amadeus.

Giving $misek the benefit of the doubt (and I can't believe I'm doing this), perhaps this is an interim measure until they come up with something new. After all why pay Apollo licensing fees for a couple years if they're really working on a redesign as they say?

Also, the rumor I heard is that many of UA's UI systems will survive, but they'll be ported to SHARES as the back end. If that's the case, that's really all we care about. If the agents' lives are easier, our lives are easier dealing with them. After all they already have enough on their plate with upsells and shenanigans to worry about.

Yes and Yes.

Apollo is extremely expensive and the rumor is that the "new" airport system will appear more like the current UA's system but SHARES will be the back end.

This is what I heard from the SVP of Airports whom I am close friends with, if so this will be excellent for IRROPS handling at the Airports. ^

That's very nice of you �hanna

I thot CO's website is generally considered to be better than .bomb, but I'm seeing opposite reactions?

I think each website has it's strong points, and while the CO website does shine in some areas, it can be rather overrated (just as I think UA's site is somewhat underrated.)

Anyways as long as they can maintain the functionality of what UA can currently do today (read: UA's GUI), I guess the specific back end host is somewhat irrelevant, but still it'll be an interesting time come Customer Day One.

W/r/t *A, IIRC the master plan is to eventually transition to a shared IT platform based on Amadeus 2.0 but who knows when that's going to reach technical viability, much less be ready for rollout across the *A partners. Also of note is that Amadeus was based off SHARES 'back in the day and of course SHARES became the successor to EA's SystemOne when a near-dead CO sold it off to EDS (now HP) in the early 90's to raise cash.

CO's website has some nice features, but so does UA's (the ability to view inventory buckets is a great feature). This is more about the backend systems.

UA's airport and reservations infrastructure is, I think, superior to CO's - I've been rebooked and rerouted in the space of 30 seconds on UA which it sounds like is far more laborious on CO. In addition, waitlisting for upgrades seems marginally better on UA (I don't quite understand why on a YBM-up on CO, the passenger has to keep checking for available space once it's booked). Finally, UA seems to be able to handle upsells at any point in the check-in process (OLCI, EasyCheckin, checkin agent, RCC agent, gate agent, customer service agent) that CO does not yet have?

UA wins on the ability to view inventory buckets with details.

CO wins on the ability to change and reissue a ticket online (yes, UA can sort-of do that, but only if you're not changing the origin and/or destination), award searches, level of detail provided on flight status (upgrade and flight standby lists available online, where is this plane coming from on flight status, details of in-flight amenities), and ability to mix up classes of service by flight segment as opposed to assigning a single class of service for the entire itinerary.

Another prediction of mine coming true. So far, the only prediction I've gotten wrong is the free booze at PCs going bye-bye. And that one I'm so glad I got wrong!

RNE, saying. "Now keep your fingers crossed that I am right about E+ staying."

I don't understand how you feel CO upsells more than UA as UA upsells first, E+, and premier lines at security. While these may not be options that you get as a 1K it is something I see day in and day out work at the UA counter.

The system is only as good as the rules for rebooking. If I can only book you on one airline then no matter the system it will take longer.

I have heard shares is to survive too. I would assume that a lot of the CO mobile site features are tied to the shares system so it would be easier to use that system.


As someone that is just learning Fastair I have to say that it is extremely confusing to use. For every operation online there are 3 to 6 ways to do the operation. This makes it hard to learn to properly navigate through and learn the system. It seems like everytime I ask someone for help in doing a task at work I learn another way to do so basically I have learned nothing as everyone tells me differnet ways to do things. UGH!!

No, a good company ultimately serves its customers first.

There has recently been a lot of research conducted and published (see Harvard Business Review and other journals) that have tracked companies over a long time.

The difference with UA's First Class upsell is that UA clear elites waitlisted for upgrades first prior to upsell. Upsell is only offered when there NF/NC>0.