I just had the two 500 milers from my 75000 EQM award choice post within 5 days (the fine print said it could take 6-8 weeks). My observations are that UA.com really has improved the last two years and the ".bomb" reputation on this forum comes now mostly from the inability to handle complicated itns instead of it actually performing poorly on routine functions (and the level of the routine functions that the site can handle has risen). Occasionally a survey will pop up when using the site and I'm always ready with a suggestion for improvement (like adding an "accept" button for changed itns so you don't have to call in for minor changes and the ability to apply all discounts and certificates electronically). Maybe I'm off-base because I'm lucky or have simple needs, but for me, UA.com has come a long ways.

Has it gotten better? I definitely think so. The fact that we can choose seats online alone makes it better. Still, the reliability is awful! It is down a lot, we can't access our accounts on a semi-frequent basis, and I see more error messages on the bomb than anywhere else.

I generally agree with you, but many of us here expect more than just routine functionality.

It's sad that we have to appreciate the fact that .bomb is up to a mediocre level.

I think that basic functionality should work all the time.

However, it frustrates me when, for instance, you cant preview the seats before committing to it (I don't know what to call this stage). It is after you but the basics in and the choices pop up. You are supposed to be able to hover over the "seat" link and get the info.

But, I can usually find what I need - just those "advanced features" that are occasionally elusive.

1) UA.com has definitely improved in the past few years. Additions like seat selection, searching for upgrade-qualified fares, and searching for cheap fares +/- a few days are very welcome improvements.

2) Yes, I'd like to see UA.com handle some of the more complicated requests I throw at it, but what still really bugs me is that the basic stuff still doesn't work that well. Random errors where certain booked itineraries won't display, searches for F/C tickets that fail because your origin or destination is served by only single-cabin planes, upgradeable fare searches the return non-upgradeable fares, etc., are all significant annoyances to me. Add to that the slightly complicated things that, IMO, should work, such as being able to book upgradeable fares even when the last leg isn't served by UA metal (e.g. DEN-FLR on an H fare).

Overall, I think UA's site has improved from "poor" to "acceptable" in the past few years, at least when compared to airlines' web sites overall. It still has a long way to go, but if they could just improve the reliability (i.e. availability and ability to make the existing functionality work well), I think they could have a pretty good site without adding much in the way of new features.

The ability to authorize award travel is a biggie, though, and if they were looking to add new features, that would be near the top of my list of realistic requests. (I'd like to be able to specify fare class on each leg of a trip, too, but that's probably useful to a much smaller population overall.)

I sense a merge, but to answer the question...there's added functionality, but whether or not it works is a huge question. And reliability, let's not go there sister.

Preach it brother!

.bomb is such a pain.
But .bomb allows such loopholes that saves me money.

So I guess it all evens out. @:-)

It's easy to sum up: It's nowhere near as bad as the slams it gets around here where people are almost excited when they find a problem, but it's also nowhere near as reliable as it should be.

Even though AA.com doesn't have some of the features UA has on their website (though they have recently made some great strides in this regard), you really come to appreciate the reliability.

I would say that is the ONLY thing that is better.

It is STILL inferior to United Connection, from a decade ago. Why can't UA realize this?

Absolutely. We could do things on UCnxn that are still not possible on .bomb (e.g. view the whole cabin to decide which flight you'd take, rather than having to make a fake booking in an upgraded class; or view several days' prices/availability at a time - LH have had this for years).

But to be fair, UCnxn couldn't process upgrades and change seat assignments as a result. At least we can do that.

Once I get on the site, it's al good. But it's just so hit or miss. There have been two times over the past 2 weeks that I've bought last minute seats on a different airline because I couldn't get onto the site!!! So annoying!

Actually, IIRC it did allow you to request a 500 miler upgrade. After all, those were the days of all-paper upgrades. But this point is valid in that while it did what it did VERY well, there was a whole lot that it didn't do.

But for buying a ticket? Its only fault in that regard was that you couldn't specify a fare bucket. Otherwise, nothing better before or since.

I beg to differ.
It traded reliability and operability for some features. The two noteable ones being seat assignments and selection of upgradable fares. Plus the capability of finding connecting flights.

The the availability is at an all-time low. Star ug awards are dead since late March, sponsoring upgrades for CR1s and SWUs is unavailable (at least for me) for three weeks in a row.
Even LH which consistently has the most faulty and obsolete IT doesn't have outages that last so long .

Case in point. People might be SHOCKED to hear it, but AA.com's mileage functions go down once a month for maintenance in the middle of the night on Saturday too! But somehow, it's not a new thread every time it happens.

A scheduled few-hour maintenance is in no way comparable to an 8 months outage of *A upgrade awards, and a 22+ days lasting crippled sponsor upgrade functionality .