Interesting Opportunity

[SparrowHawk]

Well US's switch to SHARES may have some benefit after all.

CO is looking for a Trainer experienced with SHARES for a training position in HOU.

Here is the link CTO Trainer Job at CO

So now stop the whining and somebody from US go out and get this job as it's likely a good one

 

[nycbusdriver]

Well US's switch to SHARES may have some benefit after all.

CO is looking for a Trainer experienced with SHARES for a training position in HOU.

Here is the link CTO Trainer Job at CO

So now stop the whining and somebody from US go out and get this job as it's likely a good one

Would an experienced USAirways employee even qualify? We were told (on this board, so it may just be rumor) during the switchover to Shares that the version LCC bought was the old, cheap, limited version of Shares (and that no other airline even used this version anymore.)

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Would an experienced USAirways employee even qualify? We were told (on this board, so it may just be rumor) during the switchover to Shares that the version LCC bought was the old, cheap, limited version of Shares (and that no other airline even used this version anymore.)

CO gives its staff the choice between native SHARES and their (QIK like, but surely better) GUI overlay. Most CO people prefer to use natives SHARES. The only US employees with access to that are in Tempe, so even the most experienced user of QIK would have nothing to offer CO.

Just sayin'.

 

[tadjr]

Only the (NO)Help desk people might be remotely qualified. Even then it would be questionable with some of the dealings I've had. Sad really too because there are SOME people out there that could do so much more if the company would let them. But, I guess mediocre, minimum is the new motto.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Well I don't know any of this. What I do know is that Trainer positions tend to pay pretty well and have a lower stress level in general. CO is supposed to treat their folks pretty well.

Qualified trainer should start at over $50K

 

[SS255]

If I saw "US Airways IT Department" on a resume, I would call that person in for an interview. I'd be curious as to how he or she would speak to the issue of "problem-solving abilities." Seriously. 😉

 

[SparrowHawk]

If I saw "US Airways IT Department" on a resume, I would call that person in for an interview. I'd be curious as to how he or she would speak to the issue of "problem-solving abilities." Seriously. 😉

I'd send the poor b*stard a sympathy card

This gig is essentially training agents

 

[phillyrules]

We dont know how to use Shares as the company has never let us have access to it only to QIK(pos)

 

[necigrad]

The only US employees with access to that are in Tempe

I use SHARES daily, and I have never worked in Tempe. I know a little of SHARES, going way back to the days when HP and CO were joined at the hip. SHARES is a good system, no better or worse (IMO) then SABRE. The reasons (again IMO) people cried like babies about QIK is twofold. First QIK sucks, and is all most see of SHARES. Second, many users (especially those who have been around for quite a while) hate change; since SABRE is THE way anything else can't be better.

SABRE and SHARED are very similar. Sure the commands are different, but that's it. They both use stupid special keys. They both use complex entry formats. They both use lame shells. SABRE and SHARES are both relics; with the advent of advanced PCs (think back to the early 90's for "advanced") computers, and thus the users, are actually outpacing the systems. There is no reason SABRE and SHARES need to be the way they are, and QIK is a way to overcome that.

And no, I'm not qualified for that position.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

SABRE and SHARED are very similar. Sure the commands are different, but that's it. They both use stupid special keys. They both use complex entry formats. They both use lame shells. SABRE and SHARES are both relics; with the advent of advanced PCs (think back to the early 90's for "advanced") computers, and thus the users, are actually outpacing the systems. There is no reason SABRE and SHARES need to be the way they are, and QIK is a way to overcome that.

And no, I'm not qualified for that position.

In many ways they are indeed similar. But for check-in and boarding control, the ACS funtion in Sabre rocked. Before ACS, Sabre used something (I think was called) NCS - Name Check-in-System, or something like that. The ACS package resembles the DCS function used in the QF and BA res systems.

For the purposes of checking availability and building a PNR, native Apollo, Sabre, and SHARES are very much alike. But, boy oh boy, does the QIK Gooey overlay suck big time.
Just about all experienced users of native systems prefer them to GUI overlays lile QIK and Fastair.

Maybe that is why everyone at CO that I know uses native SHARES and not whatever their gooey system is called. Kudos to CO for having enough respect for its employees that they have the choice of the native system. jetBlue will going to Sabre soon, but will have a GUI overlay. For their sake, I hope it will be better than QIK.

 

[tea42]

I loved the old shares...it was challenging...it made you think...it kind of pooled out the lazy....

I like QIK to a point...I thinkit was brought on because so many ha issues with shares because you actually had to learn stuff...the new system teaches you how to push buttons and thats it.


I still have my little aqua blue help "book"...it is falling apart but I used it many a time when I could nto find the entry I needed in QIK....

 

[john john]

I loved the old shares...it was challenging...it made you think...it kind of pooled out the lazy....

I like QIK to a point...I thinkit was brought on because so many ha issues with shares because you actually had to learn stuff...the new system teaches you how to push buttons and thats it.


I still have my little aqua blue help "book"...it is falling apart but I used it many a time when I could nto find the entry I needed in QIK....

Why did you have access to native SHARES

 

[SparrowHawk]

I use SHARES daily, and I have never worked in Tempe. I know a little of SHARES, going way back to the days when HP and CO were joined at the hip. SHARES is a good system, no better or worse (IMO) then SABRE. The reasons (again IMO) people cried like babies about QIK is twofold. First QIK sucks, and is all most see of SHARES. Second, many users (especially those who have been around for quite a while) hate change; since SABRE is THE way anything else can't be better.

SABRE and SHARED are very similar. Sure the commands are different, but that's it. They both use stupid special keys. They both use complex entry formats. They both use lame shells. SABRE and SHARES are both relics; with the advent of advanced PCs (think back to the early 90's for "advanced") computers, and thus the users, are actually outpacing the systems. There is no reason SABRE and SHARES need to be the way they are, and QIK is a way to overcome that.

And no, I'm not qualified for that position.

You said a lot in 2 small paragraphs regarding GDS's in general. If we have some senior G/A's who worked for Eastern then you know that SHARES was developed from "System 1". System One was a huge part of the reason Frank Lorenzo did what he did with CO & EA. He wanted what was one of the most advanced reservation systems out there at the time.

The problem with all of this technology is that it is based upon Computer Architecture and software that is 40+ years old. Back then and even up until the introduction of the Mac, software was all what is known as "Command Line" software. Anyone who had a DOS based PC remembers typing in commands.

Mac created the first really elegant GUI (Graphical User Interface) which essentially automates command lines much in the way one creates Macro's in Word or Excel. QIK and others attempt to do something similar since the training is quite expensive to get someone proficient on software that requires the entry of command line intructions. The old timers who were taught and have experience with typing in commands are usually faster than their GUI trained counterparts, but the training costs and learning curve for agents using commands creates a trade off of speed of transaction vs cost to train agents.

Plus the cost to migrate to something more modern is very prohibitive which is why in many industries like banking, airlines and others you see the old Mainframe approach. With Mainframes you again trade a lot of the whiz bang features for rock solid relability and in aviation reliability trumps virtually everything else.

 

[tea42]

Why did you have access to native SHARES

every now and then you could do shift n and type the old entry in-qik sometimes knew what I was"talking" about and would at least attempt to tell me where to find that function....sometimes I could even get a ticket to tkt thru tha entry...might be gone now...have been off for a few months ....didnt have "full access"....unless if you are talking about when I was with HP....