US Airways partly blames legacy systems for March glitch

700UW

Corn Field
Nov 11, 2003
37,637
19,369
NC
March 29, 2007 (Computerworld) -- Reliable, yet inflexible legacy systems were partly to blame for the glitch in US Airways Group Inc.'s self-serve kiosk system that led to long lines and delayed flights earlier this month, according to an e-mail sent to the airline's frequent fliers by a company executive.

The glitch was tied to the integration of reservation systems with America West Airlines. US Airways was using a system by Sabre Airline Solutions, while America West was using Electronic Data Systems Corp.'s Shared Airline Reservations System (SHARES). The two airlines, which merged in 2005, are now operating on the SHARES system.

"When we transferred the 7 million reservations from one system to the other, approximately 1.5 million of them didn't 'sync up' correctly, and our agents had to hand-process each reservation," said H. Travis Christ, the airline's vice president, sales and marketing, in the e-mail. "Many systems that were otherwise ready to go became bogged down with these reservations. We've since whittled the number of 'out of sync' reservations to a very small number."

In a telephone interview, Christ explained that most airline computer systems were built on legacy mainframe systems from the 1960s and 1970s. These systems are deeply embedded with everything like reservations, flight operations, airport operations and 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," he said in the e-mail to customers.

In the interview, Christ said these legacy systems were revolutionary at the time they were built, and they helped the airlines to move away from keeping reservations on 3x5 note cards. Then came air-travel software systems like Sabre, which coincided with the deregulation of the airline industry and the rapid growth of the business, Christ said.

But as more modern Web-based systems were introduced and the level of expectations of the technology changed from a business to a customer perspective, it became clear these legacy systems were nearing the end of their useful lives, he said.

US Airways CIO Joe Beery said there's nothing wrong with mainframes, but rather the concepts behind the architecture of the systems. Beery said the legacy systems were developed based on the premise that airlines used paper tickets. However, now that airlines use electronic tickets, those systems are outdated.

So the problem, Beery said, is that when it's time to make changes in the legacy systems or when there's a merger, IT has to continually rebuild those concepts.

"So it's the framework and how the architecture of the systems are built that really hold us back," he said. "There really isn't any [modern system] operating in the industry, at least for major carriers, that you would consider a modern architecture."

Both Christ and Beery acknowledged that ultimately US Airways will have to move to a more modern system, but they also know that system doesn't exist yet.

Airline analysts agreed that the airlines are facing an uphill battle in trying to adapt technology to the changing airline industry.

"There are two issues here. One issue is migration from one to another, which was problematic. The other issue is the functionality of legacy systems versus new generation systems," said airlines' analyst Bob Mann, president of R.W. Mann & Co. in Port Washington, N.Y.

"I've done this on numerous occasions as a consultant in numerous places around the world, and I've never had a screw up like that so I'm not sure why that happened," Mann said.

Mann added there is no new system that can handle all the functions needed by the airlines.

"They'd like to be on new generation systems so they can check revenue production moment by moment, but no new generation system can handle all the requirements that a legacy airline has," Mann said. "We're talking years, not months, for a new generation system to be developed. If one existed, everyone would be standing in line for it."

Henry Harteveldt, an analyst at Cambridge, Mass.-based Forrester Research Inc., said reservation system conversions are never as easy as people think they'll be. But US Airways took every step it possibly could have from a technology standpoint to address the challenge.

"But I don't think they understood all the implications, and they really failed by not having enough staff at key legacy US Airways hubs to help agents," Harteveldt said. "And I do believe that US Airways may have underestimated some aspects of the complexity of the migration, and in addition it came at a peak time -- spring break travel season."

Harteveldt said US Airways made its decision based on cost and the belief that it would be less inconvenient to disrupt America West than to disrupt US Airways.

"It's wrong to blame legacy systems -- it's disingenuous -- it's like they did eeney, meeny miney, moe [looking for something to blame]," he said. "A business person reading this would have said, 'Why didn't you just wait six months or a year.'"

Harteveldt said when US Airways migrated its reservation system, it was akin to doing both a brain surgery and a heart transplant at the same time, while throwing in a little plastic surgery for good measure.

Harteveldt said legacy systems are not as flexible as airlines would like, but both the Sabre and the SHARES systems have been modernized to some degree to make better use of service-oriented architecture and Web services to reduce their reliance on closed-end languages and to make the systems more flexible.

"It's very popular within the industry to blame legacy IT systems, and to an extent [Christ's] certainly right, but there have been transitions that have been successful and those don't get a lot of publicity," said Douglas Quinby, an analyst at PhoCusWright Inc. in Sherman, Conn.

Beery said there will come a time when [all the airlines] will have to make a decision to move on to modern systems.

"Legacy systems are not going to go away tomorrow, but we can't continue to operate forever using technology that was developed in, and ties us to, the 1970s," Christ said
 
Hope your are reading this Art....

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!! See how out of touch this guys are in Tempe...they can and will spin anything!!! Just when you think it can't get any worse!
 
The discussions I had took on a slightly different tone. They gave me some additional information which actually made sense. I do not recall the specifics, but it had to to with the interface which was used to bridge the two systems--that certain functions were inadvertently left out of the final version (something like that).

All I can say is they are acutely aware of it, and are working 24/7 to resolve it and make things easier.

This doesn't let them off the hook, but it is a small consolation that they are aware of it. That said, I repeated that it should have not been cut over until all these things were fixed.

Stay tuned....
 
In all seriousness, they are brilliant at face to face conversations. Act really concerned, looking you right in the eye, and nodding of their heads as if they are taking in what you say.
For Christ to blame Sabre, which is an unbelievable airline computer system in just insane and arrogant. I sincerely hope your trip to Tempe was not in vain.
 
"Both Christ and Beery acknowledged that ultimately US Airways will have to move to a more modern system, but they also know that system doesn't exist yet.

Airline analysts agreed that the airlines are facing an uphill battle in trying to adapt technology to the changing airline industry."


And it's not like airlines are just awash in money to afford to develop new systems. These won't be updated until they absolutely have to.
 
March 29, 2007 (Computerworld) -- Harteveldt said US Airways made its decision based on cost and the belief that it would be less inconvenient to disrupt America West than to disrupt US Airways.


I don't get this...it was USAIRWAYS not AWA that got screwed. They pick the AWA shares system to keep not the sabre that most large airlines use. Am I missing the point here?? Or is he flat out lying again...oh yeah, spinning I mean.
 
The discussions I had took on a slightly different tone. They gave me some additional information which actually made sense. I do not recall the specifics, but it had to to with the interface which was used to bridge the two systems--that certain functions were inadvertently left out of the final version (something like that).

So is the implication that their outdated business analysts from the 1970s screwed the pooch and not the technology itself?

This verifies what I have been saying: people do these kinds of technology migrations with much, much less difficulty than LCC made for itself, regardless of what Travis "Baghdad Bob" Christ has to say.
 
Clue,

It was a combination of the technology and implementation in my opinion. It doesn't matter any more whose fault it is, it just needs to be fixed. I couldn't read my own notes, so I won't get specific, but they are aware of the issues that exist. As I said, what they do about it remains to be seen.

That said, the true cost of this is yet to be determined.

For what it's worth, I am forwarding all comments received directly to those who need to know.

More than that I cannot do.....
 
If you go to the real article on Computerworld, readers have left comments. These "readers" are IT people, not FFers, not airline employees. Here's what they said:

I would say blame it on the team who migrated their systems and did not do due diligence in testing the changes. We all have gone through migrations and architecture changes. They knew what type of systems they are dealing with. So don't just hope and pray that everything will work just fine.

"They are very reliable, but very inflexible." What is the other option unreliable, but very flexible. You have to maintain uptime and reliability.

Just call it what it was/is ... a screw-up on US AIR's part on many levels. I was one of the passengers that got jerked around all last week and I don't think I'll be flying US Air any time soon. This also seemed to be the general feeling of other that we waiting in the lines with me.

So the mainframe system was working OK? and the new system was not working correctly - is that correct? It seems to say the new system was not the reliable one.
And to say mainframes can't print eTickets? Really now. Isn't that just blameshifting?
This story line doesn't even make sense.


Ok. The third comment was from someone who was a passenger... but this publication is an IT journal (one I read from time to time as someone who teaches CS/IT and has a IT-based business). I think we all can make the proper conclusions independent of knowing the Tempe situation or not.
 
March 29, 2007 (Computerworld) -- Reliable, yet inflexible legacy systems were partly to blame for the glitch in US Airways Group Inc.'s self-serve kiosk system that led to long lines and delayed flights earlier this month, according to an e-mail sent to the airline's frequent fliers by a company executive.

The glitch was tied to the integration of reservation systems with America West Airlines. US Airways was using a system by Sabre Airline Solutions, while America West was using Electronic Data Systems Corp.'s Shared Airline Reservations System (SHARES). The two airlines, which merged in 2005, are now operating on the SHARES system.

"When we transferred the 7 million reservations from one system to the other, approximately 1.5 million of them didn't 'sync up' correctly, and our agents had to hand-process each reservation," said H. Travis Christ, the airline's vice president, sales and marketing, in the e-mail. "Many systems that were otherwise ready to go became bogged down with these reservations. We've since whittled the number of 'out of sync' reservations to a very small number."

In a telephone interview, Christ explained that most airline computer systems were built on legacy mainframe systems from the 1960s and 1970s. These systems are deeply embedded with everything like reservations, flight operations, airport operations and 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," he said in the e-mail to customers.

In the interview, Christ said these legacy systems were revolutionary at the time they were built, and they helped the airlines to move away from keeping reservations on 3x5 note cards. Then came air-travel software systems like Sabre, which coincided with the deregulation of the airline industry and the rapid growth of the business, Christ said.

But as more modern Web-based systems were introduced and the level of expectations of the technology changed from a business to a customer perspective, it became clear these legacy systems were nearing the end of their useful lives, he said.

US Airways CIO Joe Beery said there's nothing wrong with mainframes, but rather the concepts behind the architecture of the systems. Beery said the legacy systems were developed based on the premise that airlines used paper tickets. However, now that airlines use electronic tickets, those systems are outdated.

So the problem, Beery said, is that when it's time to make changes in the legacy systems or when there's a merger, IT has to continually rebuild those concepts.

"So it's the framework and how the architecture of the systems are built that really hold us back," he said. "There really isn't any [modern system] operating in the industry, at least for major carriers, that you would consider a modern architecture."

Both Christ and Beery acknowledged that ultimately US Airways will have to move to a more modern system, but they also know that system doesn't exist yet.

Airline analysts agreed that the airlines are facing an uphill battle in trying to adapt technology to the changing airline industry.

"There are two issues here. One issue is migration from one to another, which was problematic. The other issue is the functionality of legacy systems versus new generation systems," said airlines' analyst Bob Mann, president of R.W. Mann & Co. in Port Washington, N.Y.

"I've done this on numerous occasions as a consultant in numerous places around the world, and I've never had a screw up like that so I'm not sure why that happened," Mann said.

Mann added there is no new system that can handle all the functions needed by the airlines.

"They'd like to be on new generation systems so they can check revenue production moment by moment, but no new generation system can handle all the requirements that a legacy airline has," Mann said. "We're talking years, not months, for a new generation system to be developed. If one existed, everyone would be standing in line for it."

Henry Harteveldt, an analyst at Cambridge, Mass.-based Forrester Research Inc., said reservation system conversions are never as easy as people think they'll be. But US Airways took every step it possibly could have from a technology standpoint to address the challenge.

"But I don't think they understood all the implications, and they really failed by not having enough staff at key legacy US Airways hubs to help agents," Harteveldt said. "And I do believe that US Airways may have underestimated some aspects of the complexity of the migration, and in addition it came at a peak time -- spring break travel season."

Harteveldt said US Airways made its decision based on cost and the belief that it would be less inconvenient to disrupt America West than to disrupt US Airways.

"It's wrong to blame legacy systems -- it's disingenuous -- it's like they did eeney, meeny miney, moe [looking for something to blame]," he said. "A business person reading this would have said, 'Why didn't you just wait six months or a year.'"

Harteveldt said when US Airways migrated its reservation system, it was akin to doing both a brain surgery and a heart transplant at the same time, while throwing in a little plastic surgery for good measure.

Harteveldt said legacy systems are not as flexible as airlines would like, but both the Sabre and the SHARES systems have been modernized to some degree to make better use of service-oriented architecture and Web services to reduce their reliance on closed-end languages and to make the systems more flexible.

"It's very popular within the industry to blame legacy IT systems, and to an extent [Christ's] certainly right, but there have been transitions that have been successful and those don't get a lot of publicity," said Douglas Quinby, an analyst at PhoCusWright Inc. in Sherman, Conn.

Beery said there will come a time when [all the airlines] will have to make a decision to move on to modern systems.

"Legacy systems are not going to go away tomorrow, but we can't continue to operate forever using technology that was developed in, and ties us to, the 1970s," Christ said
In which Century!
Wake up boys-THIS IS RIGHT BEFORE EYES_USE IT OR LOSE IT!
 
What's funny is that new generation reservations systems -do- exist.

There's Altea from Amadeus, which still has a dash of TPF thrown into the mix temporarily, but will be all open-systems based within a couple years. Large airlines like British Airways, South African and Lufthansa seem to be satisfied with it.

Radixx's system, currently used by a number of LCC's, seems to also be quite stable and nimble.

There are a couple of new designs coming out, including Future Air Core from Unisys and LH Systems. It's an entirely new design, with Oracle at the core and it runs on just any midrange platform including Windows, Linux, and Unix.

Likewise for ITA's new system being developed for Air Canada.


The only "new generation" system that won't work for a carrier the size of US is Navataire, which is what Airtran, Jetblue, and Westjet all use.

What's ironic is that Sabre is pasting a Qik style overlay on top of their current green screen product and calling it a next generation system. Don't believe the BS. It's still the same old 40 year old mainframe technology under the covers.

At least Shares isn't pretending to be a perfumed pig....
 
If you go to the real article on Computerworld, readers have left comments. These "readers" are IT people, not FFers, not airline employees. Here's what they said:

I would say blame it on the team who migrated their systems and did not do due diligence in testing the changes. We all have gone through migrations and architecture changes. They knew what type of systems they are dealing with. So don't just hope and pray that everything will work just fine.

That was my question. Didn't they do enough testing? Also, why did they implement it during the winter, plus spring break? Ice storms are common in March.
 

Latest posts