100,000 LCC travelers stuck...

[Dog Wonder]

I don't think you can blame the agents, but everyone really loves to blame "shares" for this, when Sharese is used by other large airlines and works fine. Continental uses Shares. I think the agents don't know the system well enough yet and that adds to the mess. The problem isn't SHARES, its more of the migration problem.

Can't you just once admit to management lacking foresight.

Even Doug is talking about spending whatever it takes to fix SHARES. A lot to late, but if it isn't broke why spend the money to fix it?

 

[Itestwell]

Apparently you have comprehension problems also.

CO uses a differant version of SHARES, they use the full version, and HP/US uses a bare boned version.

I keep hearing this... where is the evidence that CO has such a radically different version of Shares?

 

[700UW]

Let see did CO have a meltdown and strand 100,000 people?

 

[Itestwell]

Let see did CO have a meltdown and strand 100,000 people?

Has CO been using Shares for 2 weeks when the meltdown occurred? Don't think so...

The meltdown has more to do with US' implementation of the product, which we all agree was poor. Where is the evidence that CO has a radically better version of Shares?

 

[700UW]

I guess you cant read from the posting from the agents that say they cant do reroute functions, book international tickets and all those city pairs missing from the system.

 

[Itestwell]

I guess you cant read from the posting from the agents that say they cant do reroute functions, book international tickets and all those city pairs missing from the system.

And I guess you can't read that there are many bugs that need to be worked out, as stated many times by Parker. I am not defending the cr@p that has gone on here in the past few weeks, I just want you to tell me where you got the info that CO has such an advanced version of Shares, and US has the "bare bones" version. You simply cannot.

I would guess that the systems are similar, but the way ours was implemented on the East was obviously severely flawed.

Also, 700, with regards to the meltdown, had CO only been using Shares for 2 weeks when the crippling weather occurred?

 

[700UW]

When US switched to SABRE it had minor problems, more with the DECS side, did not have ticketing problems.

And you don't switch to a system that won't function, you dont switch to a system the brings down all the kiosks, which to date all of them are not functioning.

A real company fully tests a new system before they switch.

The SHARES cutover is a complete failure.

But hey keep drinking the koolade.

Funny when US switched to SABRE AA had agents all over the US system to assist with problems, didn't see HP send agents.

 

[Itestwell]

Ahh, the kool aide comeback...usually utilized when a defense is impossible. Again, I repeat, I realize the switch over was a large failure, I realize AA had agents all over the system to aide in the SABRE cutover (which was also by no means smooth), no argument here! Shares was a disaster! Still is!

Still can't show me proof that we "bought" a bare bones system compared to the "Cadillac" system that CO has. It's ok, you post your dancing Kool Aide man, I'll wait....

 

[BuffaloJoe]

And I guess you can't read that there are many bugs that need to be worked out, as stated many times by Parker. I am not defending the cr@p that has gone on here in the past few weeks, I just want you to tell me where you got the info that CO has such an advanced version of Shares, and US has the "bare bones" version. You simply cannot.

I would guess that the systems are similar, but the way ours was implemented on the East was obviously severely flawed.

Also, 700, with regards to the meltdown, had CO only been using Shares for 2 weeks when the crippling weather occurred?

"This all sounds very clunky. Why didn’t you convert to a more modern system?"

Ugh. How much time do you have? The short version is this:

Most airlines were built on “legacyâ€￾ mainframe systems from the 60's and 70's. These systems are deeply embedded in everything from reservations, to flight operations, to airport operations, to accounting. They are very reliable, but very inflexible. As our business changes, it’s as though we’re fighting with one hand tied behind our back.

You might respond: "So dummy, convert it to a 21st century system." We would like to do that and eventually will. Several technology companies are building more modern platforms, and we are in contact with them. In an industry where we lose money more often than we turn a profit, it's not easy to justify replacing a system that works with one that’s very expensive, untried and carries additional risk. But stay tuned; we'll get there.


That was an exerpt from my DM Newsletter that US sent me this AM. In PLAIN english, THEY TOOK THE CHEAP WAY OUT

 

[Itestwell]

"This all sounds very clunky. Why didn’t you convert to a more modern system?"

Ugh. How much time do you have? The short version is this:

Most airlines were built on “legacyâ€￾ mainframe systems from the 60's and 70's. These systems are deeply embedded in everything from reservations, to flight operations, to airport operations, to accounting. They are very reliable, but very inflexible. As our business changes, it’s as though we’re fighting with one hand tied behind our back.

You might respond: "So dummy, convert it to a 21st century system." We would like to do that and eventually will. Several technology companies are building more modern platforms, and we are in contact with them. In an industry where we lose money more often than we turn a profit, it's not easy to justify replacing a system that works with one that’s very expensive, untried and carries additional risk. But stay tuned; we'll get there.
That was an exerpt from my DM Newsletter that US sent me this AM. In PLAIN english, THEY TOOK THE CHEAP WAY OUT

Where does it say they PURCHASED a cheap version, compared to CO? I see no comparison with CO whatsoever. Again, I will not argue that the system is cheap and a mess, I just want to see where 700 and others make the claim that we bought a "bare bones version" as compared to CO. That's all.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

Where does it say they PURCHASED a cheap version, compared to CO? I see no comparison with CO whatsoever. Again, I will not argue that the system is cheap and a mess, I just want to see where 700 and others make the claim that we bought a "bare bones version" as compared to CO. That's all.

If you can not comprehend the english language, I am unable to assist you. :wacko:

 

[Itestwell]

Right now that information is strictly anecdotal. most of it is gleaned from reports posted by Gate Agents who know people who work for CO.

That's what I thought... Heard it from my mothers sisters husbands therapist....

Similar is a tough word because a 16" shell from a gun on a Battleship is "Similar" to a .22 rifle shell in that they are both essentially bullets. Now which would you rather be hit with?

Neither.. they're both harmful, but I have to be shot, so.....

This is an issue you can take the company to task on. While there is no "Good" time to attempt a system cutover one could argue that spring break week would be one of the worst or one of the best weeks to do it.

The best because most of the travelers are inexperienced and will take whatever excuse or crap reason and move on.

The worst because of the media and numbers stranded would cast your company in a bad light.

The facts are that it was handled poorly and an arbitrary date was established, so no one could or would pull the plug and go back until it got done right and maybe once you start these cutovers it might be best to just go forward. I will fault US for not having a "Plan B" in terms of contingencies if things didn't go well. To a customer, even a regular one like myself it appeared that no one knew what to do once the poop hit the fan. So as a customer it comes off that US doesn't care and I for one feel that they don't.

When you lose the connection with your customers you're going to have bigger problems down the road like yield erosion. Loads will go up as you discount deeper to make up for the yield erosion and then you further stress the already fragile system. and so it goes. On & On & On until you hit BK number 4 between the 2 companies.

Agreed 100%. No argument (or koolaide) here. Just wanted to see the proof where we purchased a DRASTICALLY cheaper form of Shares than CO has been operating successfully for years. I'll wait.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

I guess you cant read from the posting from the agents that say they cant do reroute functions, book international tickets and all those city pairs missing from the system.

As stated in another post, QIK is not the thing as SHARES. CO gives their people a choice between that system and their "gooey" (GUI) overlay. Most of the CO people (at the station visited) prefer native, especially for more complex transactions. Questions asked on the CO board about their system have gotten no answers because, well, nobody reads the CO board.

I don't know whether their standby lists have three lines per name or one. But do know that CO native SHARES can find routings that US QIK cannot. Not talking complex international connections here (CO can probably do this since their international presence is bigger than that of US). Just simple, direct domestic city pairs.

For the Tempe people who monitor this board: please consider letting US folks have a choice between QIK and native SHARES. Most east people who are used to typing command entires adapt fairly easily.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Let me say this one more time. I worked in res at another airlines using SHARES. It was very easy easier than SABRE imo. This crap we have does NOT even look like what I worked.

 

[crusher]

Is there a possibility that qik can be turned off? From what we have heard CO lets their newer agents use the overlay but by six months , they turn it off and almost strictly use native shares. If qik is the real problem rather than shares , get rid of qik.