Originally Posted by
tcook052
The lack of FFP is the only legitimate reason this poster requires to say no to the creation of individual Ryan Air and Easyjet FT forums. FT's core purpose is stated well right on the home web page:
FlyerTalk is an interactive community that provides up-to-date information on travel-related loyalty reward programs.
Yes, but also, the end of that sentence:
You'll even get some good general travel information!
Also, are you proposing the Swiss International board be removed from FT due to a lack of a FFP?
Originally Posted by
tuff
I don’t think I’ve looked at the home page to understand the original purpose of the site since I joined.
I hadn't either until yesterday. If we truly believe in those standards, why is there a Politics & Religion forum, an OMNI forum... well, I'll answer the question for you! It's because
(a.) The powers that be felt people would use it
(b.) It makes the mods' jobs much easier by giving OT posts their own forum. No one has addressed this particular point:
I'm sure the BA mods would be
thrilled with the opening of these forums -- they could probably start taking a vacation with the time they'd save.
The clue is in the title: it is “flyertalk” not “frequent flyer programme talk” . . . Websites develop and change. Their members should too.
This is the reality of how the site is used, regardless of the verbiage on the home page. I think we all know this.
Originally Posted by
Roger
The objection some have is that FR and EZ do not have a FFP along the same lines as legacy carriers and we don't need an information forum. That logic doesn't apply to these current forums:
- AF Frequence Plus - which doesn't exist
- KLM Flying Dutchman - which doesn't exist
- Swiss International Airlines - which is not a FFP
Given the interest referenced previously, it is difficult to see FR and EZ excluded in favour of these redundant ex-programs.
This is why I want to know the
real reason some of we Titanium Elite Executive Diamond Enterprise Medallion 1K A-List Club Gold Members are seemingly allergic to giving even a nod towards LCCs. Every reason I've heard so far to exclude them has extremely compelling counter-examples even within FT (13,000 Google hits for easyJet on FT.com? Holy cow, how can we ignore this?).
Originally Posted by
JOUY31
Well, as for the discussion of opening other forums in the past, it would be interesting to see how many threads and posts focused on RyanAir and EasyJet there has been over the last year. And I am not counting the threads where the mention of any of these two carriers has been incidental, such as the traditional bashing posts in the BA forum
.
See my results below... as for the bashing threads, those should not ever live on the BA board. They should simply be moved to the Ryanair/easyJet forums
Again, ask the BA mods what they think of this idea.
- having a clearer view of the number of threads / day that are really focused on these carriers
- see whether or when they represent a significant portion of the threads in that forum, which would warrant the creation of new forums, just as the Accor forum was created when the Accor focused threads represented more than 50% of the threads in the Other hotels forum.
I think searching for the airline within the title is a good way to measure this for airlines without a forum.
You could reasonably say a large percentage of U2 threads would have easyJet in the title, but most DL threads would not have "Delta" in the title because it would usually be redundant.
These numbers only includes pages where the name of the airline is contained within the thread title.
easyJet: 687
Ryanair: 1460
China Southern (a SkyTeam airline without a forum): 335
Again: over 2100 hits for these two airlines within thread titles. Imagine if they actually had their own forum(s).
If you create the forums and I and others who agree with me are wrong, just close the forum! No harm done, experiments don't have to come with guarantees. It's not like there's some huge outlay of capital to build the easyJet forum's factory. It's a message board.