New booking engine is up

[bcworld]

I think this was to be expected. You can't make such a massive system change and not have teething issues like the one's posted here.

I don't really consider the fact that online booking is essentially down to be a 'teething issue'. Big $'s are expended to PLAN for these types of things...not react to them.

The knock on effect is that people are experiencing unacceptable wait times to get through to the GCC who then, in many cases, don't seem to be able to make bookings either (credit shells, 2 for 1s etc). I think it's a big fail. My customers wouldn't consider a botched 'go live' as a teething issue.

 

[bcworld]

Their Facebook page is already a mess!

Well yes...I love the iPhone screen grab posted on their wall of the 121 minute (and counting) call to 13 6789! But it's still not in the VF league...not yet!

 

[JKjnr]

The advance Row 3 seat selection perk for us as both Golds was a huge plus as this is a great seat. I see now on the Velocity site the wording for seat selection for elites has changed to picking "reserved zones depending on status". Thank goodness I hit Plat in 2 weeks.

 

[ChrisFlyer]

Wow! Well, I guess there's an additional 'perk' for being platinum then.
This gold member is not impressed though.

Looks like Gold is now officially the new Silver... No row 3 (now row 7 when silver was previously 8 and beyond), 23kg bag weight limit for domestic (yes, you can check 2x23kg, but I don't travel domestically with two suitcases, and previously used the extra weight for shopping), and other issues that I've already posted. Disappointed is really an understatement!

In saying that, I am liking the ability to select exit row seats from the time of booking, though I do find it a little odd that one of the rows is free, and the other attracts a charge?

 

[serfty]

Well, poop. Wonder what seats silver can pick then, 12 onwards?

Row 11 .......

 

[elemist]

I don't really consider the fact that online booking is essentially down to be a 'teething issue'. Big $'s are expended to PLAN for these types of things...not react to them.

The knock on effect is that people are experiencing unacceptable wait times to get through to the GCC who then, in many cases, don't seem to be able to make bookings either (credit shells, 2 for 1s etc). I think it's a big fail. My customers wouldn't consider a botched 'go live' as a teething issue.

I think it's a bit much to say the online booking engine is essentially down. There's a few posts earlier in this thread from people who have successfully made bookings, and i'm sure there's a mass of the general public who have been able to make bookings. I personally haven't had that many problems either - i've been able to go all the way through the booking process right up until payment stage with no errors or issues.

One thing i've learnt in the last 10 years of being in the IT industry is no matter how much you plan, how much testing you perform and how much money you throw at something like this there will ALWAYS be teething issues. If you were to stop and think about how many different configurations people have on their computers, how many different browsers. Then add things like iPads and smart phones. Then consider enterprise computer systems with complex security and firewalls. You just can not plan and test on every variant. You do the best you can, then prepare yourself for the onslaught of issues that will arise.

That said, there's a few things which i've found that aren't acceptable and i would say they've dropped the ball on badly. Something so simple as the fare headings linking to an internal server - this should have been picked up in QA process on the live site before it went public. The other thing is the massive fare variances between what the "lowest" fare on the day is (as listed at the top of the page, and what the actual lowest fare available is. There's also been a few mentions of the terms and conditions not matching up correctly - considering they hold people to these i would have expected all the i's dotted and t's crossed.

 

[anat0l]

I've got no active bookings or SCs to worry about, but having done a couple of dummy bookings, here's my very quick appraisal.

• Good points
  • UI presents fairly nicely (amenity).
  • Full, bare-bones fare rules and fare basis is available for perusal on selection of fare. Pretty cool for those trying to compose complex itineraries.
  • Tax breakdown is easily accessible (QF only summarises the total as "taxes"; it doesn't break them down based on line item).
• Bad points
  • Economy and Business fares are separated, rather than being side by side. Somewhat understandable for International fares (especially long haul), but for Domestic fares, many of us would prefer them to be on the same page (even with 5 fare columns). It's fairly easy to switch between the two types, but just saying that it would be handy otherwise.
  • Each click on the fare selection page seems to take at least 3 seconds to process, sometimes longer (e.g. 10 seconds). I know it's only seconds, but that seems like a bit much for a simple selection exercise and setting off a few additive code triggers. And no I'm not on a PC from the 1990s, so no "get a faster computer" retorts please (and no "get a Mac" retorts please!).
  • When using points to book a ticket, would it be too hard to add the unit "points" or even "pts" next to the relevant number? Yes, I know the other figure is qualified with $ sign, so the other total "must" be in points, but come on...
  • Is it too hard to auto-populate the standard baggage inclusion for a fare on the Extras page? For example, if an itinerary is detected as Domestic, and the fare is Flexi, the Fare Inclusion box should be auto-populated with "1 x 23 kg bag".
  • Fares listed with cents. I guess that could be both a good and a bad thing, really.
  • For those of you with Velocity memberships rolleyes: that's everyone on AFF!), change your contact details in your profile so that they are fully international qualified, e.g. change your mobile number from 0412 123 456 to 61 412 123 456. Otherwise, when you auto-populate your details during a booking and click ahead, you may be stopped on the contact details page because your phone number is insufficient.
  • Clicking on the fare details in the summary on the right hand side shows the fare details in that panel in a very unkempt manner.

Other observations, based on a dummy BNE/SYD booking.

• Business Saver appears to be about the same level as a Fully Flexible fare from Qantas (i.e. lower than any Business fare we've ever seen before, except for Business class happy hour sales). Full Business is the same as Business before.
• Saver Lite includes no checked baggage at all (if you are a Red or non-member) - you can't purchase it when you book the fare, you can't pre-purchase before you get to the airport. If you need checked baggage with the fare, you must either purchase it at the airport at the higher at-airport prices, or upgrade to a Saver fare. I imagine that the upgrade from Saver Lite to Saver (i.e. after you've purchased the Saver Lite fare) would be the only (or on
  e of the few) exception to the rule that an upgraded fare inherits the same restrictions as the fare it was upgraded from.
• Saver appears to be about $10 - $20 more expensive than Saver Lite. Most likely this will vary based on how fast different fare buckets sell out.
• My hypothesis is that during sales, Saver Lite will be much lower than a QF Red e-Deal, whilst a Saver will be line ball to a QF Red e-Deal, perhaps a bit cheaper.

It is early days, and it is a significant roll out of a new system. Yes, it could have been better managed, but it's certainly not a disaster compared to some other airlines in the world who have gone through a similar exercise. I'm prepared to cut them a break for now.

Suffice to say, some of the issues above could've been considered before the roll out, i.e. they are not necessarily a consequence of the system roll out and the bumps that such an exercise entails.

As for paring back the seat selection for Gold... ah well, they had to make Gold and Platinum rather different in time. There was a nice honeymoon period between being a Gold and a Platinum for a while after the new VFF was rolled out; can't have a honeymoon forever.

 

[KCMil]

Looks like Gold is now officially the new Silver... No row 3 (now row 7 when silver was previously 8 and beyond), 23kg bag weight limit for domestic (yes, you can check 2x23kg, but I don't travel domestically with two suitcases, and previously used the extra weight for shopping), and other issues that I've already posted. Disappointed is really an understatement!

In saying that, I am liking the ability to select exit row seats from the time of booking, though I do find it a little odd that one of the rows is free, and the other attracts a charge?

There are two exit rows on 737-800's, the forward one has no seat recline and the second row does have seat recline. Seems that they consider the lack of seat recline doesn't make it blue zone worthy.

 

[serfty]

No status PAX get seat selection from row 13 back (first exit on 73H). Can be done from T-14 days.

I note as a Gold I can make bookings and select seats for flights in February.

 

[clarkkent]

For those VA Gold members who were having difficulties selecting seats forward of row 7 (on a 737), I have just spoken with the Velocity team and they have advised me that only Platinum members are able to select from rows 3-6 and Gold from 7 back. What's left of the 'Platinum Block' of seats will become available to Gold members 24hrs before departure and can be selected (if available) online.

Disappointing...

Yep disappointing for me too. I quite liked that 14-day-in-advance seat selection meant I didn't really need to do online check in anywhere near T-24 h, oh well back to sniping what's left as soon as it opens...

 

[bcworld]

One thing i've learnt in the last 10 years of being in the IT industry is no matter how much you plan, how much testing you perform and how much money you throw at something like this there will ALWAYS be teething issues.

I don't disagree...but as I said before, the performance of the booking engine today is not the same as a teething issue to be ironed out over the coming days. As fellow 10 year plus IT veteran I think it would be like me rolling out a new system and many of the users couldn't even log in.

 

[tuapekastar]

Not really liking the 12-hour clock (e.g. 5:30 PM versus 17:30) when displaying flight times (it was a 24-hour clock previously IIRC?). Gonna have to be careful not to book a PM flight when I am after an AM flight!

 

[smit0847]

Agreed I would like to see Y and J displayed next to each other - it doesnt encourage you to choose J if you have to go back and search for it specifically.

My only real grumble apart from the immediate fare price hike (fares seem to have gone up 15% overnight?!?) is the no Row 3 for SG issue but Ill see how that plays out. That was easily one of my favourite benefits of SG but I can understand them wanting to give more to WPs as SGs already get a lot. If I can get Row 3 at T-24H on non-peak flights Ill be happy, otherwise Ill go an exit row. When I've gone to allocate seats 14 days before previously its auto allocated me Row 3 - Ill be interested to see if it does that if I go back at T-24.

 

[anat0l]

I don't disagree...but as I said before, the performance of the booking engine today is not the same as a teething issue to be ironed out over the coming days. As fellow 10 year plus IT veteran I think it would be like me rolling out a new system and many of the users couldn't even log in.

Could be a lot worse, e.g. QLD IT rolling out SAP to QLD Health, resulting in many people being overpaid and underpaid - what a blithe mess.

Not like people are booking fares and getting charged $1,109 instead of $110.90 or the like.

If we see bookings start to get lost and unworkable, then we'll have a real problem. But that hasn't happened just yet.

That said, however, we're all giving VA a much more level-headed assessment compared to any small or large venture that QF has ever undertaken.

 

[oz_mark]

That said, there's a few things which i've found that aren't acceptable and i would say they've dropped the ball on badly. Something so simple as the fare headings linking to an internal server - this should have been picked up in QA process on the live site before it went public.

Having been through my share of deployments, and spent the first couple of days running around with a fire extinguisher, a couple of comments

Pointing to an internal site:
If the 'live' site is 'the public' site, then it's easily done. Just a misconfiguration that can easily be overlooked. I've seen some other sites that have pointers into test, or uat servers, but get away with it as those servers are also internet facing. PVT will generally pick these issues up, but in the internet world it can mean that the public have seen it too.

The other thing that you people should consider is that when you have a date to work to, you often (nearly always) go live with a bunch of known issues. You then fix them with some releases. Most websites that we look at today, that we think are well designed etc have one thing in common - they didn't start that way. They are largely the result of incremental improvements over time.

 

[bcworld]

Not like people are booking fares

Correct...because so far I haven't gotten that far! Nor been able to pull up an existing booking.

 

[elemist]

I don't disagree...but as I said before, the performance of the booking engine today is not the same as a teething issue to be ironed out over the coming days. As fellow 10 year plus IT veteran I think it would be like me rolling out a new system and many of the users couldn't even log in.

Guess it's a matter of opinion really - i would liken it more to migrating say 500 000 user accounts. Most can login fine, most of there system is working perfectly and then there's a hand full who either can't login, or can't open specific programs.

To me thats a teething issue. If no one could login at all, that's a failure!

 

[ChrisFlyer]

There are two exit rows on 737-800's, the forward one has no seat recline and the second row does have seat recline. Seems that they consider the lack of seat recline doesn't make it blue zone worthy.

Ahh that's right - I'd forgotten about that! It's been so long since I've walked past row 5 haha!

And Serfty - what do you mean status pax can't select beyond row 13 until 14 days out? I can select all seats from row 7 to the very back... or did you mean the reclinable exit from 14 days with no charge?

 

[Ewing]

Goodbye my precious row 3.

 

[anat0l]

Having been through my share of deployments, and spent the first couple of days running around with a fire extinguisher, a couple of comments

Pointing to an internal site:
If the 'live' site is 'the public' site, then it's easily done. Just a misconfiguration that can easily be overlooked. I've seen some other sites that have pointers into test, or uat servers, but get away with it as those servers are also internet facing. PVT will generally pick these issues up, but in the internet world it can mean that the public have seen it too.

The other thing that you people should consider is that when you have a date to work to, you often (nearly always) go live with a bunch of known issues. You then fix them with some releases. Most websites that we look at today, that we think are well designed etc have one thing in common - they didn't start that way. They are largely the result of incremental improvements over time.

This is going to degenerate a bit into a discussion about IT, so off-topic, but a few key bullets:

• Just because go-live with a fully fledged site is almost impossible doesn't make it a poor target to strive for
• There's a difference between fixing bugs and incremental improvements
• Management hasn't quite worked their head around the fact that IT systems - particularly keystone or complex ones - don't just "appear". "Code monkeys" just don't take a few hours and taps on the keyboard to make the magic happen. Just because you can't see a bridge being built doesn't mean that it takes a trivial time to build. I would've thought that VA is different management and is more understanding in this regard, and as a result would invest much more time and resources into ensuring the success of the rollout. It seems they have been at least mildly successful, considering that the statistic of rollout failures (i.e. non-functional system on go-live) is largely high.

The last bullet the IT staff can't do much about - they're doing the best with what they have, but they are also taking most of the full brunt of the flak being leveled by the end users (viz. customers).