Nicholas Kralev Discusiion of Integrating UA & CO Systems

Discussion in 'United Airlines | MileagePlus' started by chitownflyer, Mar 7, 2012.  |  Print Topic

  1. chitownflyer
    Original Member

    chitownflyer Silver Member

    Messages:
    982
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    Status Points:
    870
    I am posting this link to Nicholas's article in which he discusses the merging of UA & CO's reservations systems. He details the postives and negatives of the situation. I do find it interesting that the new United will be having to train their agents again later in the year as they implement an advanced SHARES system that also uses aspects of the Apollo system from United's previous reservations system. The author's suggestion that United wait to implement systems integration until the more advanced SHARES system is developed seems prudent.

    http://nicholaskralev.com/2012/03/07/did-united-choose-the-best-rez-system/
     
    sobore likes this.
  2. HeathrowGuy
    Original Member

    HeathrowGuy Gold Member

    Messages:
    7,131
    Likes Received:
    10,591
    Status Points:
    12,520
    The article is garbage. Virtually every "factual" premise contained within the article -- some of which could have been verified in under 5 minutes with a google search - is wrong.
     
  3. Wandering Aramean
    Original Member

    Wandering Aramean Gold Member

    Messages:
    28,220
    Likes Received:
    61,766
    Status Points:
    20,020
    There is no more advanced SHARES being developed. A new UI is what's being developed. And, even if the hard costs to run both in parallel were nil, the costs from a policy and operational perspective would still be too great to keep things running that way longer than absolutely necessary.

    The only factual statement he got absolutely right is that things went a lot better than the HP/US merger. Maybe that isn't much of an accomplishment given how badly that one went, but this was certainly much better.
     
  4. Hannaman
    Original Member

    Hannaman Silver Member

    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    180
    Status Points:
    445
    He makes a very good point about usability of the system.

    "The real issue is Shares’ complexity, clumsiness, use-unfriendliness and lack of intuitiveness compared to Apollo."

    While he's really comparing to legacy UA's previous interface, Fastair, this point seems valid.

    This point as well jives with my discussions with legacy CO agents, "Those Continental agents, who also had some knowledge of Apollo, agreed with my first impressions of Shares. They also told me that Continental hadn’t invested much in modernizing Shares, but that was about to change. In a few months, they said, there will be a new version combining current features with some of the best Apollo functions."

    Again, he's referring to the overlay they are allegedly going to release, but the CO agents who worked next to UA agents (e.g., in the club) mostly liked Fastair.
     
    Scottrick likes this.
  5. Wandering Aramean
    Original Member

    Wandering Aramean Gold Member

    Messages:
    28,220
    Likes Received:
    61,766
    Status Points:
    20,020
    No doubt that the UI was better. But that is outweighed by many other things when it comes down to the need to pick one and to get it done as soon as was reasonably possible.
     
    Scottrick likes this.
  6. SFOtoORD

    SFOtoORD Silver Member

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    138
    Status Points:
    395
    I know every system migration has trade offs, but I will say that this SHARES transition is really making the agents sweat. We had a 76I>757 equipment swap Monday and I really felt bad for the agents. What a mess at the gate despite having about 4 people working the flight. Seat changes took a while, but the worst part was all the upgrades. They downgraded a ton of people, put them back on the list and then incorrectly upgraded different people. I bought a last minute Y fare and cleared at the gate while I saw another person who was downgraded on a paid C fare. I hope this new overlay lives up to the hype...although I guess when using native SHARES anything is better.
     
    desamo and Hannaman like this.
  7. chitownflyer
    Original Member

    chitownflyer Silver Member

    Messages:
    982
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    Status Points:
    870
    Would it not be possible for the new United to have developed the new UI and then done the CO-UA system integration or was the cost of running two separate systems even for a few more months prohibitive? Also have you any insight as what will come from the new UI? Thanks in advance.
     
  8. Wandering Aramean
    Original Member

    Wandering Aramean Gold Member

    Messages:
    28,220
    Likes Received:
    61,766
    Status Points:
    20,020
    I suppose "prohibitive" is relative, but there would have been a sizable cost component to renewing Apollo for another year. Plus it would have meant more of the same "we're not one company yet" crap that we've been dealing with for the past year.

    My understanding is that it is supposed to facilitate more of the front-line tasks via the GUI rather than via the command line interface. Beyond that, no, I don't have any details.
     
  9. desamo

    desamo Gold Member

    Messages:
    9,320
    Likes Received:
    10,970
    Status Points:
    14,975
    Ouch. :(
     
    redwoman likes this.
  10. redwoman

    redwoman Silver Member

    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    106
    Status Points:
    375
    Downgrading paid C is just evil.
     
    JLSocks likes this.
  11. SFOtoORD

    SFOtoORD Silver Member

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    138
    Status Points:
    395
    It does seem like the EUA system is quirky when it comes to 3-class aircraft.
     

Share This Page