Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

clumsy SHARES rebooking after schedule change: would Apollo have done it better?

clumsy SHARES rebooking after schedule change: would Apollo have done it better?

Old May 19, 13, 1:27 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: NorCal - 1K 2MM
Posts: 1,999
clumsy SHARES rebooking after schedule change: would Apollo have done it better?

Held SJC-IAH-BWI with one direct flight number. ("Direct" in name only, of course, as usual an equipment change in IAH, so might as well be a connection). Schedule change eliminates the direct flight number, but after the change, there are separate SJC-IAH and IAH-BWI flights within a few minutes of my original timings, but of course with 2 different flight numbers. So SHARES instead rebooks me automatically on a different SJC-IAH-BWI "direct" flight (still a stop and change of equipment, but same flight number) many hours later, instead of preserving my flight times with the new connecting flight numbers. Had to phone and spend 40 minutes getting the connection instead, including the (admittedly knowedgable) CSR having to phone his supervisor to "open up space" on these wide open flights three months out.

I admit that this is perhaps a little subtle, in that any automatic rebooking would have to take one leg and turn it into two to have preserved my flight times. My question: did Apollo handle this any better on pmUA? Is this another strike against SHARES, or just too subtle to expect to every happen automatically? Most non-FT travelers are certainly never going to realize that they could have kept their original flight times after the change.
Starman is offline  
Old May 19, 13, 2:02 pm
  #2  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Programs: US CP ; LH FTL ; *G
Posts: 1,630
Seems logical for a system to rebook you from a one-segment flight to another one-segment flight. Imagine what would happen if the system started to rebook people from single-segment to multiple-segments.

Of course, carriers shouldn't be allowed to classify so-called direct flights as single segment, but welcome to the 'free market'.
burlax is offline  
Old May 19, 13, 4:34 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,910
Strictly speaking, SHARES does not do the rebooking. An external system actually does it. SHARES is only guilty by association
username is offline  
Old May 19, 13, 6:25 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SFO
Programs: AA Plat, IHG Plat, HH Diamond, Hyatt Plat, Hertz Gold
Posts: 1,933
PMUA was pretty awful at handling automatic rebookings for schedule changes also. I don't think it's noticeably better or worse, although the ability to confirm schedule changes online is miles ahead of the old .bomb. Remember having to call in to confirm all schedule changes, often even those with only ~5 minute changes in departure/arrival time?
Antipode is offline  
Old May 19, 13, 6:51 pm
  #5  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 52,914
Originally Posted by Antipode View Post
PMUA was pretty awful at handling automatic rebookings for schedule changes also. I don't think it's noticeably better or worse, although the ability to confirm schedule changes online is miles ahead of the old .bomb. Remember having to call in to confirm all schedule changes, often even those with only ~5 minute changes in departure/arrival time?
The one thing which I recall as significantly better with PMUA systems was that they didn't rebook you onto impossible (e.g. negative time) connections, which the current systems occasionally do. The old system also seemed better at not losing segments entirely, while I've had to call in to get segments re-added several times post-3/3.
exerda is online now  
Old May 19, 13, 6:59 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SFO
Programs: AA Plat, IHG Plat, HH Diamond, Hyatt Plat, Hertz Gold
Posts: 1,933
Originally Posted by exerda View Post
The one thing which I recall as significantly better with PMUA systems was that they didn't rebook you onto impossible (e.g. negative time) connections, which the current systems occasionally do.
I remember that happening with the old systems too.
Antipode is offline  
Old May 21, 13, 1:12 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The counter of lost hopes and dreams, and for the creation of new ones in DEN
Programs: MP Rehab... or something like that...
Posts: 317
old apollo had minimum connect times programmed in the system that would recognize "direct" flights and yes it did have it's limitations when looking at those types of flights but would compute as best as it could to reaccomodate... the only thing against it was if it didn't find another "direct" flight it would cause an error... but nothing that an average agent couldn't fix in a reasonable amount of time (30 minutes or less with research and new flight search.) this "shares" system in my experience, has a hard time recognizing minimum connect times in certain cities and just puts you on the next best available from a to b in disregards of trying to get from a to c with b being your layover city... it's not only rough on passemgers but also agents when we have to rebuild entire itins from scratch sometimes (even at the airport where even fewer agents are ticket trained and many have to call in to a help desk and explain multiple times and authorize in the record to accomodate a rwasonable schedule change... I say grrr... to that)
CleUnited is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread