Email: Progress update on our recent systems conversion
Apr 25, 2012 | 7:11 am
#46
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PHL
Programs: AA EXP MM, HHonors Lifetime Diamond, Marriott Lifetime Ti, UA Silver
Posts: 5,215
It will take a FEW MONTHS for them to add the ability to add upgrades within 24 hours of departure. I don't know if this is a joke or what, but this is and will be the problem with COdbaUA.
How many items need to be fixed? Major Items.
If it will take a team of developers several months to add a capability that was inherent in the PMUA system, then there is a major issue.
They will probably NEVER (until whatever system upgrade the CO apologists say is coming in a few years time) fix:
Instant Ticketing
Instant Refunds
Companion Upgrades (to be processed the way they still promise they do, but don't actually abide by their own policies)
ToD Issues
Upgrade Instrument Return (upon NOT clearing)
<<insert other issues here>>
I have absolutely no faith in their IT staff and their business-making decisions if they chose SHARES, yet need several months to fix a simple issue that should never have existed in the first place.
How many items need to be fixed? Major Items.
If it will take a team of developers several months to add a capability that was inherent in the PMUA system, then there is a major issue.
They will probably NEVER (until whatever system upgrade the CO apologists say is coming in a few years time) fix:
Instant Ticketing
Instant Refunds
Companion Upgrades (to be processed the way they still promise they do, but don't actually abide by their own policies)
ToD Issues
Upgrade Instrument Return (upon NOT clearing)
<<insert other issues here>>
I have absolutely no faith in their IT staff and their business-making decisions if they chose SHARES, yet need several months to fix a simple issue that should never have existed in the first place.
I'm currently working on a large project that is very software intensive. If one of our existing software modules needs to be fixed it typically takes one or two programmers a few days to a week to make even fairly substantial changes. Then there's a a similar period of testing and it's released.
The upgrade system already exists in Shares so we're not talking about re-inventing the wheel here. The upgrade system is simply not being given priority in the queue for updates and yes, the cynical person sees ToDs and has to wonder...
Apr 25, 2012 | 7:40 am
#47
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,092
The idea that the upgrade process should take months to fix is absurd.
I'm currently working on a large project that is very software intensive. If one of our existing software modules needs to be fixed it typically takes one or two programmers a few days to a week to make even fairly substantial changes. Then there's a a similar period of testing and it's released.
The upgrade system already exists in Shares so we're not talking about re-inventing the wheel here. The upgrade system is simply not being given priority in the queue for updates and yes, the cynical person sees ToDs and has to wonder...
I'm currently working on a large project that is very software intensive. If one of our existing software modules needs to be fixed it typically takes one or two programmers a few days to a week to make even fairly substantial changes. Then there's a a similar period of testing and it's released.
The upgrade system already exists in Shares so we're not talking about re-inventing the wheel here. The upgrade system is simply not being given priority in the queue for updates and yes, the cynical person sees ToDs and has to wonder...
I don't think any of us are in a position to judge how long this sort of upgrade should take. Remember that we're not dealing with a modern programming language or interface. SHARES technology is circa 1970's or so. Many of us who work in technology have to deal with legacy, but not that kind of legacy.
Second, CO's track record with changes is extremely poor. Because of how they've built things (with add-on on top of add-on), when they change one thing, they often break another. If they want more time to minimize some of that, I think that's a good thing.
In addition, I don't see why everyone is so down on the communication. Instead of tearing it apart, I think we should be appreciative that they're at least communicating something to us. They may not be addressing everything, but at least they're admitting something is wrong.
Remember that admitting mistakes is likely very challenging for this management team. I see this communication as a step in the right direction. While it may not stem all the bleeding, I'm glad that they are deviating from CO's previous Toyota-style "all is well" communication. That is a huge step forward for them as they begin to grow up.
Some of these changes, like upgrades inside 24 hours, have been CO system limitations for years. The fact that the needs of the business are now trumping technology limitations is a huge mindshift for them. In the past, if it were too difficult to change something in SHARES, IT would push back and that would usually be the end of it. We've seen the business needs take precedence with boarding zones, and now we're seeing it happen with upgrades. That indicates to me, at least, that there may be hope that they will, over time, begin to address some of the other limitations in SHARES that CO thought were too difficult, or never bothered to deal with, for all these years.
Apr 25, 2012 | 8:07 am
#48
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Chicago, IL
Programs: AAdvantage, MileagePlus(ick)
Posts: 296
I don't think any of us are in a position to judge how long this sort of upgrade should take. Remember that we're not dealing with a modern programming language or interface. SHARES technology is circa 1970's or so. Many of us who work in technology have to deal with legacy, but not that kind of legacy.
Second, CO's track record with changes is extremely poor. Because of how they've built things (with add-on on top of add-on), when they change one thing, they often break another. If they want more time to minimize some of that, I think that's a good thing.
In addition, I don't see why everyone is so down on the communication. Instead of tearing it apart, I think we should be appreciative that they're at least communicating something to us. They may not be addressing everything, but at least they're admitting something is wrong.
Remember that admitting mistakes is likely very challenging for this management team. I see this communication as a step in the right direction. While it may not stem all the bleeding, I'm glad that they are deviating from CO's previous Toyota-style "all is well" communication. That is a huge step forward for them as they begin to grow up.
Some of these changes, like upgrades inside 24 hours, have been CO system limitations for years. The fact that the needs of the business are now trumping technology limitations is a huge mindshift for them. In the past, if it were too difficult to change something in SHARES, IT would push back and that would usually be the end of it. We've seen the business needs take precedence with boarding zones, and now we're seeing it happen with upgrades. That indicates to me, at least, that there may be hope that they will, over time, begin to address some of the other limitations in SHARES that CO thought were too difficult, or never bothered to deal with, for all these years.
Second, CO's track record with changes is extremely poor. Because of how they've built things (with add-on on top of add-on), when they change one thing, they often break another. If they want more time to minimize some of that, I think that's a good thing.
In addition, I don't see why everyone is so down on the communication. Instead of tearing it apart, I think we should be appreciative that they're at least communicating something to us. They may not be addressing everything, but at least they're admitting something is wrong.
Remember that admitting mistakes is likely very challenging for this management team. I see this communication as a step in the right direction. While it may not stem all the bleeding, I'm glad that they are deviating from CO's previous Toyota-style "all is well" communication. That is a huge step forward for them as they begin to grow up.
Some of these changes, like upgrades inside 24 hours, have been CO system limitations for years. The fact that the needs of the business are now trumping technology limitations is a huge mindshift for them. In the past, if it were too difficult to change something in SHARES, IT would push back and that would usually be the end of it. We've seen the business needs take precedence with boarding zones, and now we're seeing it happen with upgrades. That indicates to me, at least, that there may be hope that they will, over time, begin to address some of the other limitations in SHARES that CO thought were too difficult, or never bothered to deal with, for all these years.
Bravo, you saved me minutes of typing.
I for one am glad they're finally being "open" with us.
I have to imagine this has been a severe culuture shock for the newly arrived management in Chicago, and kudos for all of us holding the paddles.
Shares must be such an old, antiquated system, as you say, that things might not be able to be simply fixed.
But if we keep the pressure on, maybe they'll figure out we all pay their salaries and maybe not fully return, but get an airline close to what we used to like and enjoy.
Apr 25, 2012 | 8:13 am
#49
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Virginia, USA
Programs: UA GS/3MM, DL Gold/Million Miler, AA Exec Plat/Million Miler, Emirates Gold
Posts: 162
[QUOTE=channa;18457917]
In addition, I don't see why everyone is so down on the communication. Instead of tearing it apart, I think we should be appreciative that they're at least communicating something to us. They may not be addressing everything, but at least they're admitting something is wrong.
-------------------
Imagine that at work a vendor came to you and said "we are screwing up, we promise to fix stuff" with no commitments on time, success criteria etc. Would you consider that acceptable? I wouldn't...
These sort of promises are no different than a politicians campaign promises...
In addition, I don't see why everyone is so down on the communication. Instead of tearing it apart, I think we should be appreciative that they're at least communicating something to us. They may not be addressing everything, but at least they're admitting something is wrong.
-------------------
Imagine that at work a vendor came to you and said "we are screwing up, we promise to fix stuff" with no commitments on time, success criteria etc. Would you consider that acceptable? I wouldn't...
These sort of promises are no different than a politicians campaign promises...
Apr 25, 2012 | 8:21 am
#50
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near SEA
Programs: UA MM, AS MVPG75K, Marriott Lifetime Gold
Posts: 7,990
Just received as well...I'm glad MileagePlus is keeping us in the loop but the UDU process is still a crap shoot and a black hole as far as I'm concerned with SHARES. RN confirmable space for CR-1 and SWU upgrades remains limited to non-existent months and months out...but at least there will be a new website next year...and that's honestly a change I like as small as it may be.
Since the current boarding process is pretty much exactly what PMUA had, I'm guessing it's not them that are "slow learners".. most likely PMCO GAs that are complaining.
I don't think any of us are in a position to judge how long this sort of upgrade should take. Remember that we're not dealing with a modern programming language or interface. SHARES technology is circa 1970's or so. Many of us who work in technology have to deal with legacy, but not that kind of legacy.
Second, CO's track record with changes is extremely poor. Because of how they've built things (with add-on on top of add-on), when they change one thing, they often break another. If they want more time to minimize some of that, I think that's a good thing.
In addition, I don't see why everyone is so down on the communication. Instead of tearing it apart, I think we should be appreciative that they're at least communicating something to us. They may not be addressing everything, but at least they're admitting something is wrong.
Remember that admitting mistakes is likely very challenging for this management team. I see this communication as a step in the right direction. While it may not stem all the bleeding, I'm glad that they are deviating from CO's previous Toyota-style "all is well" communication. That is a huge step forward for them as they begin to grow up.
Some of these changes, like upgrades inside 24 hours, have been CO system limitations for years. The fact that the needs of the business are now trumping technology limitations is a huge mindshift for them. In the past, if it were too difficult to change something in SHARES, IT would push back and that would usually be the end of it. We've seen the business needs take precedence with boarding zones, and now we're seeing it happen with upgrades. That indicates to me, at least, that there may be hope that they will, over time, begin to address some of the other limitations in SHARES that CO thought were too difficult, or never bothered to deal with, for all these years.
Second, CO's track record with changes is extremely poor. Because of how they've built things (with add-on on top of add-on), when they change one thing, they often break another. If they want more time to minimize some of that, I think that's a good thing.
In addition, I don't see why everyone is so down on the communication. Instead of tearing it apart, I think we should be appreciative that they're at least communicating something to us. They may not be addressing everything, but at least they're admitting something is wrong.
Remember that admitting mistakes is likely very challenging for this management team. I see this communication as a step in the right direction. While it may not stem all the bleeding, I'm glad that they are deviating from CO's previous Toyota-style "all is well" communication. That is a huge step forward for them as they begin to grow up.
Some of these changes, like upgrades inside 24 hours, have been CO system limitations for years. The fact that the needs of the business are now trumping technology limitations is a huge mindshift for them. In the past, if it were too difficult to change something in SHARES, IT would push back and that would usually be the end of it. We've seen the business needs take precedence with boarding zones, and now we're seeing it happen with upgrades. That indicates to me, at least, that there may be hope that they will, over time, begin to address some of the other limitations in SHARES that CO thought were too difficult, or never bothered to deal with, for all these years.
Glad to see some communication.
Apr 25, 2012 | 8:44 am
#51
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somewhere I've Driven To
Programs: HiltonHonors, IHG Hotels, DL Skymiles
Posts: 2,070
=============
Not fair to say.
============
Thank you.
===========
Thank you, as well.
Not fair to say.
I think it's more likely the change was initiated from the PMCO side, since they weren't familiar with the PMUA zone-style boarding process.
But regardless of that, I think that if you look at how much more work there is in SHARES for GA's vs. the system at PMUA, reducing the boarding process by four groups may be a necessity.
But regardless of that, I think that if you look at how much more work there is in SHARES for GA's vs. the system at PMUA, reducing the boarding process by four groups may be a necessity.
Thank you.
Thank you, as well.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Apr 25, 2012 at 9:25 am Reason: merge
Apr 25, 2012 | 9:16 am
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,092
Imagine that at work a vendor came to you and said "we are screwing up, we promise to fix stuff" with no commitments on time, success criteria etc. Would you consider that acceptable? I wouldn't...
These sort of promises are no different than a politicians campaign promises...
These sort of promises are no different than a politicians campaign promises...
I understand your point, but in this context, I think it's reasonable. Think of a large, arrogant company you may do business with (for me that would be Microsoft -- they're often late to the game with stuff, they're difficult with policies, pricing, etc., and customer service can be lacking). If they start coming forward acknowledging their errors, that's a huge step forward, IMO, even if it takes time to see the results.
Obviously if you need immediate results, you're always free to go elsewhere. But that doesn't mean the communication and admitting of problems is a bad thing. All I'm saying is it's a step in the right direction, and that this style of communication is radically different than what we've seen from the CO PR machine in the past.
Apr 25, 2012 | 9:42 am
#53
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SFO
Programs: COdbaUA Platinum 2MM
Posts: 5,602
Has anyone noticed at the bottom of this email:
To contact the sender, write to:
United Airlines MileagePlus
912 E. Centre St.
Rapid City, SD 57701
I thought South Dakota office was closed and everything moved to Houston.
To contact the sender, write to:
United Airlines MileagePlus
912 E. Centre St.
Rapid City, SD 57701
I thought South Dakota office was closed and everything moved to Houston.
Apr 25, 2012 | 9:47 am
#54
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 62,525
Apr 25, 2012 | 10:02 am
#55
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: DEN
Programs: Free checked in bag on UA & DL. Free icecream at Marriott checkin.
Posts: 2,862
I feel sorry for you that listening to PR nonsense from Jeff enhances your traveling experience.
Apr 25, 2012 | 10:16 am
#56
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Arlington, VA
Programs: UA 1K, AA PLT, SPG PLT
Posts: 1,612
Second, CO's track record with changes is extremely poor. Because of how they've built things (with add-on on top of add-on), when they change one thing, they often break another. If they want more time to minimize some of that, I think that's a good thing.
--clip--
Some of these changes, like upgrades inside 24 hours, have been CO system limitations for years. The fact that the needs of the business are now trumping technology limitations is a huge mindshift for them. In the past, if it were too difficult to change something in SHARES, IT would push back and that would usually be the end of it. We've seen the business needs take precedence with boarding zones, and now we're seeing it happen with upgrades. That indicates to me, at least, that there may be hope that they will, over time, begin to address some of the other limitations in SHARES that CO thought were too difficult, or never bothered to deal with, for all these years.
--clip--
Some of these changes, like upgrades inside 24 hours, have been CO system limitations for years. The fact that the needs of the business are now trumping technology limitations is a huge mindshift for them. In the past, if it were too difficult to change something in SHARES, IT would push back and that would usually be the end of it. We've seen the business needs take precedence with boarding zones, and now we're seeing it happen with upgrades. That indicates to me, at least, that there may be hope that they will, over time, begin to address some of the other limitations in SHARES that CO thought were too difficult, or never bothered to deal with, for all these years.
As I previously stated (and others as well
) taking several months to fix an issue (and not the only one, obviously) that was already provided in UA's system isn't acceptable.It's great that they are working on it and it 'will be done' eventually, I for one will not wait several months for each of these changes to be rolled out.
CO's management gambled (or they were ignorant) that these expectations from PMUAers weren't that critical, and to me at least (others here on FT), they lost.
If it takes several months to add functionality to an already functioning upgrade system, it will take even longer to correctly handle companion upgrades (which it has never done), take even longer to process tickets instantly, take way longer to automatically return uncleared upgrade instruments and further take longer (or forever) for them to work out ToD issues, which are making Jeff money, so they'll keep those in the system on purpose...
I for one cannot wait several months multiplied by each of their problems for an airline that can handle my needs. In addition, top that off with the intangibles that won't ever get fixed: agents that don't care, elites that are all the same and yes: calling MPSC for everything and having front-line agents who need supervisor approval for everything, while spending hours on the phone for the simplest of tasks.
-jeremy
Apr 25, 2012 | 10:18 am
#57
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Programs: UA 1K 3 Million/ex-many year GS, AA PLT/2 Mil, AS MVPG, HH Dia, Starwood Life Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,401
I certainly applaud the email and agree with channa that the (slowly) changing tone of their communications may be a positive sign. Also, I agree that fixing IT issues with missing and broken functionality will take time. However, where I think they are still missing the point is that it would be very simple for them to tell us how they want the program to work - in particular with respect to the TOD upgrade/CPU issues. That doesn't require any programming - just transparency. What is the policy to be? If it is currently somewhat broken, ok. If what we are seeing is the new policy, ok. Just be clear about the intended policy, and if bugs exist, what the short term mitigation approach is and what the long term fix timetable is likely to be. Flyers can decide how they want to react to the policy if they know it, but this mail continues to ignore this question - which then suggests what the policy answer probably is. At least be honest about it though.
Apr 25, 2012 | 10:26 am
#59
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: United Mileage Plus Premier
Posts: 806
Maybe that email just went to PMUA folks or the highest up of the elite levels....I did not get it but I am just a 20+ year Elite with CO who has fallen to the lowly level of silver now...Some of my email complaints have been answered, not very well but answered. One even included a $100 e-cert and another included 3000 MP miles, that have still not posted to my account after 10 days. Anyone want that e-cert? I have having a very hard time clicking the buy now button on the UA web site for my up coming trips, even with the e-cert and some travel bank money to use....
Apr 25, 2012 | 10:30 am
#60
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Maybe that email just went to PMUA folks or the highest up of the elite levels....I did not get it but I am just a 20+ year Elite with CO who has fallen to the lowly level of silver now...Some of my email complaints have been answered, not very well but answered. One even included a $100 e-cert and another included 3000 MP miles, that have still not posted to my account after 10 days. Anyone want that e-cert? I have having a very hard time clicking the buy now button on the UA web site for my up coming trips, even with the e-cert and some travel bank money to use....