This is page 2 of:

Report: Too Many Airline E-Commerce Sites Stuck on the Tarmac

April 29th, 2009

With the airline sites at the bottom of the list, “frequent short outages were common,” the report said. The worst sites were those run by EasyJet, Lufthansa SAS and JetBlue, which had an uptime percentage of 97.37.

“Overall, the websites of U.S. and Japanese airlines were more reliable than those of other countries,” the report said. “Other contenders around 99.90 percent were Japan Airlines, Frontier, Virgin Blue, Open Skies, Skynet Asia, British Airways, ANA Sky, Air France, NWA, Eva Air, Southwest and American Airlines. KLM and United had the least downtime of the 42 monitored airline websites, less than half an hour during the monitored four-month period, while JetBlue had well more than three full days of downtime.”

Pingdom Web Analyst Peter Alguacil said the airline site uptime figures were disappointing. “These are big companies that deliver crucial transactions over the Web to customers spread across time-zones: find your flight, book it, buy it, check in and get delay info in time. Yet many of them have hundreds, sometimes thousands of quarterly outages. It is inconceivable that these problems would not cause frustration and customer loss for companies like for example SAS or JetBlue.”

Alguacil said Pingdom monitors 35,000 Web sites and servers worldwide and knows a 99.8 percent uptime “is achievable by companies with far less resources than airlines, yet 62 percent of the airlines currently fail to reach it.”

The average uptime for the 42 sites was 99.49 percent, said Pingdom, adding that this equates to more than 44 hours of downtime during a year. The average for all Web sites is between 99.6 percent and 99.7 percent, said the company.

The Pingdom monitoring was done by loading the homepage for each site. A site was listed as down if it was unreachable, if the HTML part of the page did not load in 30 seconds or if the page responded with an HTTP error such as HTTP error 404 (page not found) or 500 (internal server error). Downtime had to be confirmed from two different locations for it to count, the Pingdom report said.


One Comment | Read Report: Too Many Airline E-Commerce Sites Stuck on the Tarmac

  1. NPS Says:

    Hmmm, so it didn’t count CRS problems with actually making a booking, just HTTP error 404 or similar. So those of us who fly United and AA and had MAJOR booking issues this last year don’t get into the mix.

    The worst that was counted; Lufthansa and JetBlue, I’ve yet to out of 10 bookings on each find a flaw or problem using their sites. In fact, the Lufthansa site I find to be one of the easiest to deal with for a non-US airline.

    I find some of the Asian sites the worst as their e-commerce sites are nothing more than a “part online” “part offline” approach. They take all the info, check availability and check your payment – BUT don’t issue a ticket. That is done my someone manually, and upto 12 hours later. So much for true e-commerce


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.