• Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian said the massive IT outage earlier this month that stranded thousands of customers will cost it $500 million.
  • The airline canceled more than 4,000 flights in the wake of the outage, which was caused by a botched CrowdStrike software update and took thousands of Microsoft systems around the world offline.
  • Bastian, speaking from Paris, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Wednesday that the carrier would seek damages from the disruptions, adding, “We have no choice.”
  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    As far as the companies go, their lack of resources is an entirely self-inflicted problem, because they’re won’t invest in increasing those resources, like more IT infrastructure and staff.

    Play that out to its logical conclusion.

    • Our example airline suddenly doubles or triples its IT budget.
    • The increased costs don’t actually increase profit it merely increases resiliency
    • Other airlines don’t do this.
    • Our example airline has to increase ticket prices or fees to cover the increased IT spending.
    • Other airlines don’t do this.
    • Customers start predominantly flying the other airlines with their cheaper fares.
    • Our example airline goes out of business, or gets acquired by one of the other airlines

    The end result is all operating airlines are back to the prior stance.

    • brianary@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Two big assumptions here.

      First, multiple business systems are already being supported, and the OS only incidentally. Assuming double or triple IT costs is very unlikely, but feel free to post evidence to the contrary.

      Second, a tight coupling between costs and prices. Anyone that’s been paying attention to gouging and shrinkflation of the past few years of record profits, or the doomsaying virtually anywhere the minimum wage has increased and businesses haven’t been annihilated, would know this is nonsense.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        First, multiple business systems are already being supported, and the OS only incidentally. Assuming double or triple IT costs is very unlikely, but feel free to post evidence to the contrary.

        The suggestion the poster made was that ALL 3rd party services need to have an additional counterpart for redundancy. So we’re not just talking about a second AV vendor. We have to duplicate ALL 3rd party services running on or supporting critical workloads to meet what that poster is suggesting.

        • inventory agents
        • OS patching
        • security vulnerability scanning
        • file and DB level backup
        • monitoring and alerting
        • remote access management
        • PAM management
        • secrets management
        • config managment

        …the list goes on.

        Anyone that’s been paying attention to gouging and shrinkflation of the past few years of record profits, or the doomsaying virtually anywhere the minimum wage has increased and businesses haven’t been annihilated, would know this is nonsense.

        You’re suggesting the companies simply take less profits? Those company’s board of directors will get annihilated by shareholders. The board would be voted out with their IT improvement plans, and replace with those that would return to profitability.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Which of the things you listed have kernel-level access?

            Kernel level access isn’t a requirement the poster @Th4tGuyII@fedia.io placed on their suggestion that all 3rd party services should have at least one duplicate 3rd party service serving each function.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            And yes, taking less profits to distinguish your product as a prestige brand is fairly common.

            In luxury goods, absolutely. In commodity goods, not so much. The airlines that had the nationwide disruptions are most certainly commodity.

        • brianary@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Even load-balancing multiple servers in a homogenous network, where patches are only deployed in phases is better (and a best practice) than what, to outside observers, appears to have been everything going down due to a mass update everywhere, all at once.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Even load-balancing multiple servers in a homogenous network, where patches are only deployed in phases is better (and a best practice) than what, to outside observers, appears to have been everything going down due to a mass update everywhere, all at once.

            This is where reason gets subjective. If you’re solving for resiliency against a bad patch, then absolutely, do a small test deployment before pushing everywhere. This is a balance that whatever is being patched is less of a risk than the patch itself.

            However, look at what is being patched in this case: AV/malware protection. In this case, you’re knowingly leaving large portions of your fleet open to known, documented, and in-the-wild, vulnerabilities. In the past 10 years we’ve seen headlines littered with large organizations being downed by cryptolocker style malware. Only doing a partial deployment of this AV/malware protection means you’re intentionally leaving yourself open to the latest and greatest crytolocker (among other things). This is a balance where the risk of whatever being patched is more of a risk than the patch itself.

            Seeing as we’ve only really had this AV/malware scanner problem hit the headlines in the last 10 or 15 years, and cryptolocker/malware nearly monthly for the last 10 to 15 years, it would appear on the surface that pushing the patches immediately actually the better idea.

    • bomibantai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      customers start predominantly flying the other airlines with cheaper fares

      I was with you till this part, except with the way flying is set up in this country, there’s very little competition between airlines. They’ve essentially set themselves up with airports/hubs so if an airline is down for a day, that’s kinda it unless you want to switch to a different airport.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        In the USA besides very small cities, this isn’t my experience. My flights out of my home airport are spread across 5 or 6 airlines. My city doesn’t even break into the top ten largest in the nation. As far as domestic destinations, There are usually 3 to 5 airlines available as choices.

    • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      There is an argument to be made that they IT team and infrastructure isn’t supposed to be an ongoing expense or revenue generation. It’s insurance against catastrophe. And if you wanna pivot to something profit generating then you can reassign them to improve UX or other client impacting things that can result in revenue gain. For example notification systems for flight delays are absolute garbage IMO. I land, I check in my flights app and it doesn’t show any changes to when my flight is departing, I load google and those changes are right there. Or they could add maps for every airport they operate a flight from to their apps. They could streamline the process for booking a replacement flight when your incoming flight is delayed or you missed a connecting flight (i had to walk up to a desk, wait in a queue with dozens of other people for half an hour just to be stampped with a new boarding pass and moved along). They could add an actual notification system for when boarding starts (my turkish air flight at one airport didnt have an intercom so i didnt know it was boarding and missed the fligbt). All of these are just examples but my point is theres an inherent shortsightedness in assuming an investment in IT, especially for a company that deals primairly with interconnectivity, is wasted. This is the reason everything is so sh*tty for users. Companies prefer minimising costs to maximising value to the user even if the latter can generate long term revenue and increase user retention.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Our example airline has to increase ticket prices or fees to cover the increased IT spending.

      Or they could just cut already excessive executive bonuses…

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        You know they’re not going to do that, so how useful is it to suggest that? If we just want to talk about pie-in-the-sky fixes then sure, but at the end of that we’ll likely have nationalized airlines, which that isn’t happening either.

        So are we talking about fantasy or things that can actually happen?

        • cm0002@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          No, we’re talking about things that should happen and things that should be called out every time.

          Not just throwing up our hands and going “welp, they won’t willingly do it so there’s nothing we can do” like you seem to be doing.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Not just throwing up our hands and going “welp, they won’t willingly do it

            This is what I’m doing.

            so there’s nothing we can do” like you seem to be doing.

            This is NOT what I’m doing. Just because I don’t think the suggested approach is viable doesn’t mean that NO approach is viable.