You speak as though you have vested interest in UA as though you are emotionally tied up with the new design. I get that way sometimes, however despite your defense of UA the 'vast majority of customers' are represented here as regular UA.com users. Many of whom have been through previous website changes and made the needed adjustments. The voice this time says the previous version was better. Maybe it was too much too fast. I agree with a number of the complaints here and while not wanting to repeat the issues over and over on FT I have written to UA about them. And, unlike times past, these suggestions/concerns have fallen on deaf ears.
Bottom line, there were a number of the old features that we liked, but UA is not listening because the company�s revenue is far more important than the customer. I am sure there are studies on the balance between making money and keeping your customers happy. Let�s see how UA fares in the next five years.

Time to contact the United Execs and tell them what you think. I sent numerous emails yesterday and I got a call from the Corporate Office to discuss it. I made all of my points and encouraged them to read Flyer Talk (sent this link) to find out what some of their BEST CUSTOMERS think about it. I suggested they provide a link to the old site for their key customers. I relayed a story about Windows 8 and how people pushed back on it, which cost Steve Ballmer his job. This is no different. You can't change the look and feel on your best customers, you are inviting them to leave.

The HouCrew did exactly that when they selected the pmCO web site over the pmUA web site, and the world didn't end, did it?

I like the new layout. Yes, it's a little buggy, but that will get worked out.

The pmCO design was old, tired, and badly needed a refresh. It was optimized for desktop use, and like it or not, web design is evolving consistent with the reality that smartphones and tablets are becoming the driver or web design, not the desktop.

Man, I'm slow, you're all likely there already, but it finally hit me, they've done the Windows Tiles thing -- trying to design a system so focused on being used on tablets/phones and PCs that it has dumbed down the look of the PC version. And while big tiles are easy to push on a screen, they make complicated info best displayed in a grid really awful. Tiles are great for limited option and limited info displays, but really annoying when trying to do something complex like buy flghts. I dare say most normal business travelers would agree as we don't just pick point a to b based on date and price, we piece together around meetings, connection meetings, colleagues traveling with us, etc etc. (For the record, I also find the latest Southwest site really a negative step for what used to be a really simple, easy to use interface.)

Yep, it's UnitedforDummies.com now. The easiest fix is to provide their best customers with a link to the old site, the data doesn't care what site you are from as we know...

Nope. Actually zero emotional investment. That's why I keep pointing to facts rather than getting caught up in the specific aspects of the new site which affect me personally.

I strongly disagree with this view. FlyerTalk is a subset of a subset, not a representation of the broader world.



Had to go one way or the other and piss half the customers off. Hardly a surprise there.

+1 ^^

People need to act similarly and complain to UA execs.

My previous experience with the new site yielded a much higher fare for a Business ticket to Europe than the legacy site. I ended up booking on the legacy site and swore off the new site for that reason. That was a few months ago.

Today we don't know if the old site would continue to show different fares than the new one. At this point it doesn't matter - the new site is the de facto pricing regardless of what the old site provided. I just don't feel warm and fuzzy or at all trusting about it.

I agree. I got the new site for the first time today (didn't bother looking at the beta one), and it was ANNOYING and time consuming to look at all the connections to see where the stopover was and how long it was. (ORD-LIH is not a direct route.) When I saw the list was eight pages long, I quit at the end of page one. Fortunately, I didn't have to book today; I'm watching prices for this route but will watch less often now that it's such a pain to see flights.

For the record, I HATE that websites are now designed for tablets and phones, making them inefficient for computers--like the new UA site.

You can effectively filter by connecting airport by de-selecting those you want to avoid in the left hand side (expand the 'connections' menu). An improvement relative to the old site.

Indeed, such a shame that the new site gives you more choices to pick from, including the ability to easily filter on things like connection point or trip duration or even connection length. You can now quickly and easily exclude the long connections or the airports you do not want to spend time in.

WAY more options than the old site to get to the booking you want. Tell me again why that's bad.

I just vaguely remember the old pmUA site, but when it switched to continentals version, I don't recall disliking it this much, or having such a hard time booking flights. It was a change and one I didn't like, but I was able to book flights fairly easy, but now, this site is a disaster.

We must be talking about two different things. I just visited DL and AA and both offer a total price when searching for a R/T ticket. The new UA site shows pricing for each segment, requiring you to select the flights before you see a total with tax. Additionally as an above poster said, the one way pricing UA is showing is not true either, because it can't actually purchased at that price with out a return segment. The whole site is just one to many steps, and makes it hard to do business with UA.

Agree. I'm generally resistant to change. But my reaction to this site goes well beyond how I usually react to a changed interface (e.g., iOS, Netflix, etc.).

I just find the new site incredibly frustrating to use. The several improvements in functionality are far outweighed by the bugs, inconveniences, and generally confused layout. It's also very very slow to load flight results. And it is not getting any better over time.

These are exactly my thoughts. I really liked the old UA site, but moving to the CO site didn't bother me. This site is just frustrating to use. I now look at everything on Google flights first before I go to the UA site.

I probably will get used to it. But I actually learned to like the CO site, and I don't see that happening here without significant redesign.

And having done comparisons on the old and new site side by side (my desktop at home was defaulting to the old site), it is absolutely slower to display results for flight searches and especially noticeable with managing reservations -- which was already significantly slower on the CO site than the pmUA site. It seems like we're moving backward in some respects.