UA justified the decision to implement SHARES company-wide by saying they owned SHARES and that would give UA the flexibility to enhance and modify the system to serve UA's unique needs. Often in IT projects there are major tradeoffs in make vs. buy of critical software. The problem of having a unique system is that the full costs of all enhancements and updates to the system have to be borne by a single customer forever. In most cases buying software products whose development costs can be spread over many customers is more economical. In the airline industry, where there are hundreds if not thousands of international airlines, it would seem more economical for 3 or 4 independent companies to create the major components of passenger service and loyalty system software, and for individual airlines to focus on implementation of the systems and perhaps limited customization. It is interesting to note that over at AA, Maya Leibman, who is highly regarded, has reversed a major buy vs. make decision made by her predecessor in favor of buying software components when possible. The Computerworld article is here http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti..._course_midflight_?taxonomyId=18&pageNumber=1 I wonder if UA will be revisiting its make vs. buy decision at some point in the future.