I switched to it and have used it for about a month now. The signature is a pain and the NOTAMs are an absolute mess, but otherwise, it’s fine.

Could it be better? Sure. Is it worth throwing tantrums and refusing to adapt? Not at all.

I'll give it a C+, maybe a B-.

PROs

FMS Initialization tile. How about that? They actually have a near-replica of the FMS init screens, with the most important numbers even highlighted in blue for cross-reference.

Enroute Information tile: Especially for the international flying, I do appreciate the FIR boundary breakdowns--much appreciated having the FIR four-letter identifier, actual name and lat/longs for the FIR boundary, once again all in a dedicated, organized space.I also like the "Key Info/Activities during flight" list.

The ETOPS tile. I recently checked out on the 330, and the ETOPS block is actually very nice. Lots of great info, in a larger font than the HTML flight plan, and presented in a very useful format, with all the ETOPS info you need in one tile.

Redispatch tile. Much of the same positive feedback as the ETOPS one. All the redispatch info you need, all in one dedicated space. No hunting around the flight plan or dispatcher remarks necessary.



CONs (most of these are well-known and grumbled about; I'll try not to editorialize too much).

Permanent dark mode. What the hell? This may be the only text-based app I've ever seen that comes with a by-default permanent dark look. Yes, I know, you can go into the "accessibility" settings on the iPad and enable triple-click inverse colors, giving you a day mode via a backdoor method. But I won't do that. Did we have to do that with the HTML flight plan, Aerodocs or FD Pro? So why must we jump through ridiculous hoops to get the functionality that should have been there from day one.

No highlighting ability.

Ridiculous signature requirement (or will be when it is mandatory).

"Nav log" tile that literally allows you to see no more than two waypoints at a time. Who thought of that one, and better yet who concluded "yeah, that's a great presentation and layout"?

No NOTAM filtering by runway.

While there are some good features to M+, my initial feeling was "after all this time, and even months-long delays in order to 'get it right', this is the product you released to the pilot group?" It more reminds me of a "rapid prototype" experiment. How can you release a text-based app with no highlighting, permanent dark look and no simple tap to switch between day and night mode? (without resorting to messing with iPad settings).

I know that improvements and fixes are on the way, but some never should have had to fixed in the first place. Contrast this rollout with that of Widget Weather, when it rolled out several years ago. Even though we all knew that Widget Wx was destined to become even better, from day 1, we could all see that Widget Wx was an exceptional piece of software, and it was well-received and highly praised almost from the beginning. Can anyone say anything close to that about M+? I doubt it.

I hope that over time M+ will get better and better, and perhaps in a couple or three years we will all be saying "remember when M+ had such a mediocre unveiling and there were lots of bad reviews of it? Look how far we've come for the better." Let's hope so.

I find that not using Mission + has reduced my desire to say a swear in the cockpit by about 80%.

(The remaining 20% is for reroutes, and currently seems unfixable, %@#*%!!!)

Same here. And I've lost hope that they can improve it much in the next few years. Supposedly the code won't allow them to make the big UI changes we are asking for. The app was poorly designed from the start and we're pretty much stuck with it. Oh well, maybe we can switch to the Surface and all will be better!

It's code for software. It can literally be rewritten to do anything the hardware is capable of. Maybe it doesn't allow for slight iterative updates that would be cheaper, but the code definitely allows them to redo it to whatever pie in sky pilot fantasy of hyperlinked pdfs pilots can dream up. Maybe we are going about it the wrong way. Maybe we should tell them we want ChatGPT ai incorporated into M+ and to filter all relevant flight plan data into the first page and to load FD Pro with taxiway closures already marked through. Look at Flight Pulse that is actually good. It has a whole new feature set. They can't change where stuff is on a tile or implement filtering techniques that are already kind of in the app and obviously already exist in the pdf version? Did they somehow manage to use an obsolete code base where everyone that knows it well is dead already? Is it code based on the Windows phone or Zune? If they don't change it it's because they just don't feel like it, or it will be nebulously "expensive." Of course they will blame the code. It's not like it has to be incorporated into the flight systems of the airplanes.

I recently had an opportunity to speak one-on-one with the MD in Flt Ops responsible for M+. FWIW, he was very receptive to the feedback I gave him. A couple things he told me were somewhat encouraging.
- The 'Signature' solution approved by the FAA will not require airdropping or physically handing the FO a common table. While a small win, I still don't understand why other airlines can use ACARS, but we can't. Why it's not standardized across carriers is dumb.
- The next update will have runway filtering for NOTAMS. among a few smaller fixes. I believe it is being released this week.
- We are not the only customer for M+, by far. So while Navblue is receptive to making changes, we can't just dictate everything. (which I thought was one of the big selling points, that we could 'customize' M+ vs. Jepp, which would not...?)
- Late in the CY, or early next year will be a very major update which should address most of the remaining complaints they've been getting. Supposedly. They know the Nav Log is super clunky, and this is when that will be fixed if I remember right.
- I told him to take any input John Bell has, and implement it immediately. He knew exactly who I was talking about...

Having said all that, I've been forcing myself to use M+. Like when the iPhone got rid of the home button a few years ago, it felt weird at first, but now I'm used to it. I'm getting much more used to M+, though I'm still not happy with it. I just hope the changes they are promising all come to fruition.

Good to hear. Though, if we aren't the only M+ customer, it makes even less sense for them NOT to prioritize customizability. Maybe not by the airline as a whole, but by the end user. DL may not be able to dictate what they want the app to look like, but a customizable platform at least gives Flight Ops the chance to push out guidance for an SOP layout, or just go hands off and let pilots set up the info to what they consider most relevant.

I think there's a pretty large area between customizable and rebuild everything from scratch. From what I understand, Jepp was "this is what we have, like it or not." At least with Mission+, they were willing to work with us in customizing an app, within reason and expense, to fit our needs. I'm guessing part of that also was related to the dinosaur of a program we've been using to produce flight plans for the last 40 years as well. I believe that is changing as well after we go live with the pilot end.

That's a good point i didn't consider. They may be more willing to work with us if we had a more modern system. I'm sure they're not thrilled that we're essentially asking to install a touchscreen infotainment system on a Model T.

And when they shut down the html version?