This goes to one of my two or three top frustrations with this new AS. They've siginficantly devalued partner earnings unless you book through AS. But their partner offerings are random and inconsistent, certainly nothing like what you can do in terms of partner bookings through UA, for example. And then, even if you do find a partner flight bookable through AS at a reasonable price, you're taking on a significant risk in the event anything goes sideways because AS runs such a provincial operation they simply can't deal with something as simple as rebooking a canceled partner-operated flight. This whole new structure is just a house of cards, built on a patently inadequate foundation consisting of inadequate IT, inadequate cs, and aspirations that bear no relation to the underlying reality.

They haven�t even been able to properly integrate with Hawaiian codeshares. This should be the easiest and quickest issue to resolve.

the selection of flights available on AS is just laughable at times. I can go to LHR. But forget about adding a connection to anywhere else in Europe with cash. The mileage tickets are even more restrictive as I really don�t want to use only EI and FI within Europe. You have IB, BA and AY. If I search just intraeurope is better. But it�s just easier to book a separate cheap Ba ticket to LHR then pick up a lm award flight from there.

let�s see what this �new� loyalty program looks like. If it goes all revenue based (and I�m pretty sure it will). I think I�m now done with AS as they have gutted SFO. They keep saying LAX and SFO are part of thier calfornia strategy, but actions speak louder than words.

I can�t even get a proper posting of partner flights. Even when it�s thier ticket it posts wrong. I routinely call every two weeks to check in on cases cuz otherwise it will be forgotten and done whenever.

The roll out of the partner award flight postings have just been categorically wrong in all accounts is just shocking. Did anyone review and proof the process and coding that was going to happen�..then to argue with people over your terrible TCs and not be clear with minimum earning etc seems like an easy thing to specify and get right. AC and UA gets it right. Heck even BA gets it right.

my big advice to AS��grow up!

God help us if their programmers write their code based on what they find in the T&C.

I think the most frustrating thing for me on this gigantic mess they created for themselves is the apparent complete and total lack care to fix anything or deal with issues. They seemingly have stopped caring, stopped being responsive and stopped fixing things. Sometimes I think I should just status match to UA and be done with the madness.

1000% this. Booked partner business class flight with cash and unfortunately AS decided to end sfo-ord flying, impacting my ticket but they didint even tell me. Then when i try to get it rebooked im told option is to cancel with penalty (what?!?! Haha). Yeah that�s one way to handle things for your top fliers. I�m sure I can get it worked out in the end but it�s just such a bad operation now.

The business plan is moving faster than IT can keep up. It's that simple.

Sadly most corporations look at their IT as a cost center instead of a profit enabler. Therefore they are nicked and dimed to death, and this is the result.

This isn�t some advanced IT stuff to enable fancy new tech. It�s just basic flying operations and ticket selling 101. They likely invested more into all those care bear commercials.

Meh, it's not necessarily "fancy new tech", it's paying the experts to make Sabre play nice and sell tickets and post miles back to the right account, etc. It's like having an army of SAP people to make sure the back end ERP is doing what you want. It's hard, takes time, testing, and most importantly talent. Having seen some of their job reqs, they are not paying well and therefore not getting the talent they need.

AS IT has sucked for about 40 years. I started with them in 1982, retired in 2018. What I type next is 100% TINS. In 1991, I spoke with the COO at the time, Pat Glenn, as we were preparing to launch LAX-YYZ flying. A number of concerns were brought up, flight op issues, customer service issues and our IT product for not only flight planning, but ensuring compliance with some of the Transport Canada requirements. The response was an analog; Why would buy a Rolls Royce when a VW gets there just as fast and with less gas. Basically, make it work with what we have. From there on out, I witnessed AS do some of the stupidest sht. From de-icing a jet in GDX, building a gazillion dollar MX Base F-up in OAK to wadding up a jet in the Pacific. They don't spend one dime more than they feel they have too. Never have. On here we worry about the AL dishwashers and upgrade processors, navydevildoc nailed it. What makes any of us think that improving their IT is anywhere near the top of the spend list?

Edit: The jet de-icing in GDX was with vodka...

It�s not just that they aren�t paying well enough to acquire competent talent, they also don�t support their IT dept with the tools needed to succeed. A friend was literally given a transcript of an SVP talking about upcoming changes as the design requirements. Even if you�re a competent developer, I can�t imagine working in an environment where you�re rewriting logic based off your interpretation of a transcript. You also have to realize many employees are just doing a job and aren�t avgeeks so they lack context which leads to bugs or unintended logic unless you have a robust BA and QA team supporting you.

+1

there’s way too much obsession with ROI, combined with the failure to realize that IT (both the networks/ systems and the workforce) are indeed actual investments

robust systems function efficiently in the hands of a competent workforce that’s capable of both maintaining and modernizing the back end without breaking the customer/user interfaces on the front end

while it’s possible to estimate the recovery costs from various types of system disruptions (with duration ranging from minutes to hours), quantifying the cost *avoidance* of *not* having to take on those sort of unplanned efforts involves a lot of assumptions about (1) the actual robustness and reliability of the systems, and (2) systems users not trying to do things outside of the design conditions

all of which goes right back to obsession with ROI, and unwillingness to make investments for which a large part of the value proposition is in cost avoidance

I assume the T&C are also a �product� of someone (summer intern in legal department) taking that transcript and reworking it into some semblance of customer facing legal jargon.

You forgot starting YVR/SNA service ... oops!

As to those last two quotes, all they need is a handful of qualified native SABRE experts to get us through the jams - the back end functions just fine, on ancient and functional architecture. What they've done is put a triple amputee (GUI) in an old finely maintained Ferrari and expect it to perform properly, when you don't even have a foot for the clutch. And then when you need service, you get sent to the drive thru oil change place, not the Ferrari expert shop.

It�s like they got the worst chat gpt clone possible and then had an executive's kid interning over the summer publish it 😂

Barely MVP here, but been watching as a Seattle-ite since Alaska joined Oneworld. I would have never thought Doug Parker was someone I'd aspire to copy, but that's what Alaska seems to be doing now.