I like the "Today's Prices" feature quite a lot... though I found even this morning that the prices it shows are not always accurate, especially when it shows what days have the lowest sale prices. I've found the same lowest price on other days that their calendar showed as higher.

If this is the finished product, consider it a major disappointment.

Very little difference from the previous version.

You know things are getting bad when the offer to win a $250 Fly Bucks card for participating in a critique of the new website has been reduced to $100.

https://www.research.net/s/QPKGQPD

Are you kidding me? They're changing the terms of a promotion that started weeks ago? Do they understand good PR at all?

Odd discovery today. I had set my clock back on my computer 1 year to run a different program. Went to book a flight on F9 and the 2010 calender loaded. Tried to scroll forward to September but the schedule was only loaded through Aug. 11, 2011. Do all websites load dates based off what the computer date is set?

They shouldn't. Javascript will pull the time off the local machine though and that is probably what is causing your symptom, but it is kind of sad the website doesn't account for this possibility.

When I read things like this I continue to be amazed that a large company like Frontier can be so technically incompetent. It's really embarrassing that such basic programming hasn't been implemented to set the correct date.

I'd give them them a partial benefit of the doubt on this one as it isn't as simple as it sounds, but definitely something that somebody should have caught. Unfortunately I am sure they have been working in "crunch-mode" for several months and that's how small bugs like this get over looked. I am not defending Frontier, since as a company they should be making larger investments in IT and their staff, but the individual developers are probably pretty exhausted by now of working late nights to try to get this behind schedule project in our hands.

A number of customers are complaining about baggage fees (one customer complained that she already paid $20 on the outbound flight - why did she also have to pay $20 on the return for a checked bag). Customers say that next time, they will fly WN, as WN has no bag fees (of course, with some of WN's fares, these days, customers are paying for checked bags, whether they have bags, or not; the fee is just not broken out).

The pricing matrix, which shows fares for Economy, Classic, and Classic Plus, is not real clear for those who are not regular Frontier customers. They simply do not understand what benefits are included with each particular fare, only the price. Some people are not viewing the included amenities, which are visible on the pricing page when rolling over the fare classes. Though customers are given the option to upgrade, right before completing the purchase, I believe that most will just click through to complete the original, lowest fare option.

Of course, if a customer books thru Expedia, Orbitz, etc., Economy is the only fare option. But, for those booking directly with Frontier, there must be a better way of making passengers more aware of the bundled fare options and their intrinsic value.

As someone who builds websites for a large company for a living, I have to disagree - it is simple, and sadly a coding practice like this does not indicate overlooking a "small bug", but a deep and fundamental lack of understanding of core web development competency.

I've also noticed that when typing in the name of From: and To: cities on the initial search page, if I tab away from the "From:" entry box and type the To: name in too quickly, it wipes out the first letter(s) that I had already typed, presumably because a callback is executing on the From: field change, and not checking existing values in the To: box in its return function. Having a race condition error like this on the page is another example of a lack of underlying development skills.

After searching through the code a bit I can't find anything that points explicitly to a third-party development company, however it is using a plugin called Skyscraper which Google indicates is part of WordPress - if this is a WordPress site, yikes... that may explain the performance issues they were having.

See the rest of my quote. When they are getting pushed, Javascript's "new Date()" is the quick answer to the problem if no one on their end has run into it before.

The new pages are definitely ASP.Net 4.0 Webforms. You can tell based on the WebResource.axd scripts, the "name" on all the input fields, and it is .Net 4.0 because the ids on those fields are "static" instead of the old nested way, which is a new feature in .Net 4.0.

I am fairly certain the old pages were done in Java, based on the .do extensions that old JSP sites like to use. This is also probably why the "new" site has been taking so long, since there was a massive technology shift taking place.

I see the same rockstars who built the website are apparently also sending out the e-mails:

Account Status as of November 29, 2011
Mileage Account Balance: XX,XXX
Tier Level: XX,XXX
Elite Qualifying Miles YTD: XX
Elite Qualifying Segments YTD: Ascent

(X's replace my actual #'s but they completely transposed the data fields).

I guess we should be glad that these folks are building websites rather than maintaining aircraft

Thanks, I let them know. Lucky I don't send emails anymore. But please give the poor guy a break, he's doing it by himself now. It's a very stressful job.

Sorry MostlyAir didn't realize it was just one person... sigh. Maybe someone from another department could at least perform a peer-review on e-mail campaigns? I certainly wouldn't trust myself to send something to that many people without a second set of eyes on it.

There are multiple test emails that are sent out before the send, but sometimes in the final file, where the data is stored, the columns accidently get switched around or the proof readers were blind to parts of the test email that they're used too, ie. the account information.

Hopefully he will have another co-worker soon! After I left for another department the next person didn't last very long. The email department has been a 2 person department since Nov 2010.