channa

Nobody is trying to inflame. Just because what I say doesn't make CO look good, doesn't make it inflammatory. I speak from multiple years of experience of status on CO and other carriers including UA and DL.

It has almost always taken longer to rebook on CO than on UA when at the airport, even when staying inline.

In addition, in IRROPS situations, I have encountered far more resistance in swapping airports for reasonable alternates to get moving in the right direction. UA has gladly substituted SMF for SFO in an IRROP on a handful of occasions. Meanwhile, CO has pushed back on similar such requests, and I've had to escalate and/or make multiple phone calls to get the same result.

I suspect that the resistance is somewhat systems related. Since the system is so cumbersome, agents make excuses not to accommodate.

halls120

Really? One of my colleagues is married to a UA CSR. I showed him the above statement and asked him to check with the spouse, and was told that your claim is absolutely false.

channa

This is incorrect. UA agents can reissue tickets, but UA business process has the back office do them unless they're urgent. This helps free up agents to handle additional calls.

If you're travelling imminently or have a special request (e.g., I need to upgrade to snag this space), they will do it for you, but under normal circumstances (e.g., schedule change for a flight in 2 months), they'll just toss it in the hopper for the back office to do.

sxf24

I really don't think vague speculation being passed off as fact is contributing to the forum. Without qualifying your opinion as such or providing facts to support your statements, your posts serve no purpose but to further the inflammatory (and oft-repeated) party line of UA good, CO bad.

channa

I don't think UA is good or CO is bad. I think that CO isn't as good as it's often hype to be, and UA isn't as bad as it's often vilified to be. Big difference.

CO and UA both have their strengths and weaknesses. On this topic, I think that CO's interface for the agents is weak, and I'm glad that CO sees the light now and is working on a solution.

Lightman7

I have a friend who works for UA and just started SHARES training - my, oh my, how the foul language pours forth when he describes the system.

channa

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2.2; en-us; MB612 Build/KRNS-X4-1.1.10) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

I talked to an agent the other day who said she likes SHARES because she used to work for TWA and the interface will make her feel young again.

MSPGabe

My input on this whole thing...

For the record, I'm not currently a UA(X) employee, as I'm back in college. That said, I worked PWM for 2+ years. I consider myself incredibly proficient with FastAir, and more often than not if a coworker had a question, they'd come to me. I'm younger, and have worked with computers my whole life, so it really did come easy to me.

I was nervous when I first started training in FastAir. The first 5% of the program is difficult to learn, but the next 85% is very intuitive once you have that base. That last 5% most people don't learn and don't need to, stuff that we hardly ever do.

Just to reiterate, we don't use a mouse with FastAir. The Function keys combined with the Shift, Alt, and Control buttons pull up different menus, and we select options from these menus. For instance, to print a Gate Pass (If I remember correctly, it's been 3 months), we go Alt+F3, letter K. That's it. Super quick, super simple, type the Name, Gender and DOB and you're good. I've seen CO take about 2 minutes to do the same function. That's a real simple example that it takes longer with SHARES. Checking a bag? Alt+F7, Enter. Type in the number of bags, enter, and you're done. 4 keystrokes.

Did I find myself forgetting which menu a certain option (say, splitting a PNR) was? Sure, but it doesn't take long at all to find the right option and move on from there.

As far as IRROPS handling...let's assume there was availability on flights and we're not searching for flights, because that happens with any airline. No availability makes it tough regardless of which system you're on.

I've rebooked an entire 700 by myself in about 15 minutes, including issuing new tickets. Do the math. 4+ passengers a minute on the next available flight. I really wish I could show people just how easy it is (again, assuming availability) to rebook people via FastAir, including reissuing/revalidating the E-Tickets.

In contrast, I've witnessed a former coworker who works for CO rebook an E145 to EWR. 35 pax were going JUST to EWR, and they had 50 seats on the next flight. It took her 2 hours. And she knows the system! I've seen it in action, and pure keystroke wise, it's much longer. It's also much more prone to errors, causing people to have to take even longer.

Again, I've never worked with SHARES but two former coworkers now work for CoEx, one of them formerly working with FL and NW as well. Both agreed that FastAir was the easiest to learn and master, by far.

It's a shame that the GUI overlay won't be ready in time. That way, UA could do it the way they know how, and CO could do it the way they know how...though all the other airlines are jealous of FastAir, so maybe they'd transition over.

As far as Apollo goes...I know very, very little. I know how to build PAWOBS, update Flifo, and that's it. But we can also update Flifo via FastAir. Let me tell you, FastAir is MUCH faster (And I learned the Apollo way first).

Updating Flifo in FastAir: F9, F3, 6, Out, 630P, delay code if applicable.
Updating Flifo in Apollo: F:S372911NOV:Out:1830:delay code (....I think. I honestly can't remember. I have to look at the paper we have posted every single time to make sure my syntax is correct and everything's in just the right place. Don't need to worry about that in FastAir)

channa

That's amazing.

CO has taken 15 minutes just rebooking me (or rebooking me + companion). And that does not include the prodding and cajoling that sometimes has to be done to convince CO to rebook in the first place.

Part of it is the software, but I think part of it is also business process. For inline tickets, UA often just reuses/reassociates the existing ticket to the new reservation, even if swapping airports (connecting or final destination) or changing the number of segments. CO, OTOH, likes to reissue tickets for every little change. And as you've pointed out, things like reissues can be cumbersome in SHARES.

I shudder to think what the CS lines will be like after the SHARES roll-out, and UA cancels a full 767. Or an outstation with low staffing levels cancelling a mainline flight.

UA-NYC

+1. Thanks for the great, informative post PWMRamper. Some say having an opinion based on past experiences doesn't add much to the conversation, especially if it's anti-CO. Looks like you've experienced first hand what many of us are saying. SHARES is a step back for the company.

HeathrowGuy

It is very much the case that many complex itineraries will not be instantly reissued by UA CSRs, while it's quite rare for CO agents to have to queue a booking for reissue.

SHARES is not a step backward --- and using Apollo would not be a step forward, either. The systems have different strengths and weaknesses (SHARES/EUA blows Apollo/UDU out of the water in terms of the ability of the reservation to be updated in real time, even after check-in, preventing the goofy scenario of trying to convince a UA agent you've been upgraded while s/he is convinced you're still in Coach because the DCS tells him/her so), and as posts from those who have used either or both systems as a routine part of their job attest, the key to any effective RES/DCS system use is familiarity and training.

channa

That has nothing to do with systems, it has to do with business process.

UA's position is to not tie up the agent with reissuing tasks unless necessary. CO, OTOH, ties up the agent (and the customer) until it's done.

To that end, UA CSRs will often queue not just complex itins, but also simple itins, because they have a department that specializes in that, and it helps them handle additional customers.

UA Insider

Hi Everyone,

It should come as no surprise that we are in the process of migrating several of our platforms into single systems for the new United. Our reservations system is one of these. As you can imagine, this is a comprehensive project that requires careful coordination of several moving pieces. One of the most important pieces is ensuring our front line colleagues are fully trained on this new platform. As part of this training, we’ve shared with our teams a target date. But, to be frank, there is flexibility that this date could change. Once we have a firm date, we’ll share it with you here (likely after the first of the year). In the meantime, we remain on track to complete our migration sometime late in the first quarter of 2012.

Shannon

Cbmaz

Lets be totally clear on this. The ONLY reason SHARES is being used is that it is now OWNED by United. Why should they subscribe to an expensive, outdated PSS system when they can use a system that they do not have to pay subscription fees. This is purely a business decision and like it or not United is a publicly traded company. BTW, CO already uses a on overlay res system called EZR which is similar to FastRes. FastSHARES is already being written now which will mirror or improve FastAir. By owning their own PSS system, UA is free to update and reprogram it as needed. There are two companies merging who used two different PSS systems, either way we look at it half of the employees were going to have to learn a new system anyway. The UA employees have to learn SHARES in order to understand the new FastSHARES just as the Co staff would have had to learn APOLLO to understand and operate FastAir. Both systems have their plusses and minuses and in the end it will work out.

FriendlySkies

+1

Last time through one of the RCCs, I spoke with a couple of the agents I know and heard the same thing.. One said she was ready to pull her hair out.