Yup, the "new site" is only skin-deep at present. They'd hoped to have it rolled out across the board by the end of the summer, but critical bugs have kept them too busy to finish deploying the other sections yet. If you want to see just how old the old UA site feels, compare this:

http://www.jetblue.com/flying-on-jetblue/mint/

to this:

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...s/default.aspx

Not exactly lush, evocative, or aspirational!

Frustrating for those of us who love the new look and functionality, though apparently we're rare on FT.

Function >>> look. Any time w/ any site. The new site is not functional ... I don't care whether it looks better. And btw, if any link other than the booking page is reverting back to the old site then even the re-design is a joke ... like so many other things at UA these days.

+∞

Exactly. I don't understand the minor obsession some people have with how pretty the site is. I can certainly understand why a web designer, graphic designer, or those in a similar industry would have a professional interest, but any real traveler will take function over look any day.

Not exactly the same, but imagine if there was a thread about a new UA J seat and people were commenting about how it doesn't matter they aren't lie-flat because they're so aesthetically pleasing.

I'm fortunate to still get the old site on at least one device.

Can you provide some examples?

I like the feel and functionality of the booking engine, both for revenue and award travel. (although, as with all airlines, I usually search on google flights then click the link to access the airlines site for revenue tickets.)

Old United.com award calendar would only show dates with nonstop saver award availability if nonstop was checked.

New United.com can't do that even if you check nonstop only.

OK, valid point.

When I am searching award travel though, I usually want to see all the options that may have saver availability, even if it includes connections.

Additionally, with the new award search interface, you can click on the 'Stops' column header and it will show you all nonstop results at the top of the search.

I think the sorting and filtering with the new site is superior to the old interface.

This is what's known as hyperbole. Shocking, simply shocking to see it on FT.

I find the functionality of the new site far superior in one important respect: I routinely create itineraries with some segments in F, some in Y. This was difficult or impossible on the old site, trivially easy on the new one.

Yes, I'm aware it has bugs. But saying "the new site is not functional" just isn't helpful.

FT is overpopulated with a certain kind of travel hobbyist who only cares about expert functions and would be just as happy if the site were only accessible via a terminal window. Hell, they might even prefer it. But that's not the world we live in. Look and feel are incredibly important, especially for an ecommerce segment like travel: it leads directly to increased bookings and revenue. Sneering at those of us who compliment the tremendous strides UA has made in design is simply short-sighted.

#facepalm

I can assure you, after 20 years spent in ecommerce and related industries, that design improvements lead to increased revenue. Do you really think this is just an "obsession " with "how pretty the site is"?

What I do like about the new site is that is shows "lowest" "refundable" and "First Class" fares side by side. DL and AA (and OALs do this) and the hidden way that the earlier site worked was not user freindly, giving you some "buy up" offer once you clicked through. I often will modify the flight I book on DL because of a good FC fare, and this will allow the same on UA.

Now, if UA would just follow DL and AAL and stop doing TOD upgrades and just let people buy up front or sit in Y (absent getting an upgrade due to status) we might be actually going somewhere!

I agree with the -apparently- few of us who like the new website. As with any alterations, you will never get 100% improvement for everyone. I myself consider that the new design provides a ratio of improvements/shortfalls definitely greater than 50% and look forward to seeing this extended to the rest for UA.com .

Am I the only one who thinks it is fraud if UA shows one-way prices when I am searching for round-trips? I think this needs to be flagged with the DOT to be honest. If I search for r/t I want to see r/t pricing ... it's plain and simple.
Booked a ticket earlier today ... SLOW like hell ... spinning forever till it completed the transaction.

I think a lot of sites do it that way now. I tried it on the old and the new site and the price came out exactly the same for both.

I seem only able to get the new site, despite clearing cookies. It is frustrating and inefficient. Many of the itineraries for what should be at most a 12 hour trip are for 24-31 hours, and they are not even particularly cheap for the inconvenience of spending 2 days in transit.

When I separate the segments (multiple city) search to get only the connections I will consider, I get one leg with an unusual result: F is cheaper than E.

But when I then choose economy for the second segment, there is about a $500 disparity in the (supposedly lowest---at any rate the only one displayed) economy fare available to me depending on whether I chose the E or the cheaper F for the first segment, and of course they are different buckets.

Why is this not fare fraud? Is there some rule that says if I fly F on one segment I HAVE to fly a more expensive E fare for the second segment?

To whom and how should I report it?

First, to qualify my comments, I am not one of the "travel hobbyists". About 90% of my trips are for work.

And I have to say, I don't understand why you, as a customer, care so much about UA increasing its revenue with a web site. As I stated earlier, I can fully understand why someone in the industry would have a professional interest in the design. The other 99% of us want high functionality with an easy to use design.

I have no interest in helping UA increase revenue if it means I have to use a clumsy (clearly an opinion), buggy website. As a customer, I care about my experience using the site. If it's a good experience and UA increases revenue, that's a winning website.

I have no other way to answer your question, but it does seem like there are supporters of the site just because it's new and pretty. I doubt a lot of us customers are saying "wow, how great is it that this new site will help UA to get more money from us".

I really like the new intinerary search functionality and design (hoping it comes soon to changes to existing itineraries).

One question for an ecommerce expert: Is this whole sliding/expanding tile business on the new front page really expected to be a revenue enhancer? I've spent hours per day using the Web since the mid-90s, and I find it really annoying, because it makes it impossible to rely on the same functional elements always being in the same place on the page. So you have to waste time and attention looking around to see where the thing you want to click on is, instead of using "muscle memory" to just click where it always is.