(Bolding were words I never said)

If you are going to quote my post/s, I would appreciate you don't mis-quote me. I didn't say any of the words you inserted in the above quote. Nor did I mean what you said. Not only did you misunderstand my post, but also you mis-represented my post. The latter part is actually against FT's policy (link to this policy).

You also failed to understand how FT search works.

It seems to me you had difficulty understanding my rebuttal to your logic of reasoning. Let me try again.

1. You had used the passenger number (from Wikipedia) to support your argument for a standalone RyanAir Forum (see your quoted "110,000,000 annual pax" post#28). I then used the same source (Wikipedia) to prove to you there was another larger airline (in this case, China Southern) that carried more passengers than RyanAir and China Southern didn't/doesn't have its own I was/am NOT proposing China Southern to have its own FT forum (as a matter of fact, I don't really care if CZ has its own forum on FT.) So passenger load is not the (absolute) deciding factor of forum creating on FT.

2. Instead of finding other stronger selling points for RyanAir, you then focused on China Southern Airlines and assuming more Englisher speakers flew RyanAir than CZ (see post#34). I didn't know if it's true but I was able to provide evidence to you (in post#35) that spoken language/s was not at issue. I gave you real data that the traffic of China Southern on FT was heavier than RyanAir in my preliminary search using FT Search tool in post#35.

3. Instead of refining your own argument of passenger load and language usage, you made your "selling" point a moving target again to the "popularity" criterion (and misquoting me as a result). This is NOT a popularity contest. The data only show (existing) traffic on FT. If you had investigated further in TB Topics Forum, you would have known that TBers didn't/don't use a singular quantitative matrix to consider forum proposals. Heavy traffic does help though, just see what happened to the recent Accor A-Club Forum.

There are many other factors to support creation of a new forum on FT. That's why you don't see TB consider forum proposals nor approve motions on new fora every other week.

4. Giving the history of both RyanAir and China Southern Airlines, both of them are "old" enough to "prove" their existence on FT by FTers, present and past. But neither of them make the cut to be a single forum (yet). That did/doesn't stop RyanAir and China Airlines being discussed on FT. RyanAir posts are mainly in Budget Travels Forum, just like China Southern in Other Asian, Australian and South Pacific Frequent Flyer Programs Forum. Posts about both airlines are also scattered in other fora on FT at the same time, while posts on China Southern are >>500.

5. I suspect with the "relatively" low count of posts/threads of RyanAir using FT Search, passengers of RyanAir may have found other website/s to fulfill their needs to discuss or search info for RyanAir. Should FT compete with the other website/s for RyanAir? Would a single RyanAir forum win those potential 110,000,000 annual RyanAir customers over? Do regular RyanAir customers think the same (or similar) as average FTers? Would regular RyanAir customers be the target population for IB? Would a RyanAir Forum bring in more traffic for FT and more business for IB?

Well, I don't have a crystal ball nor am I a psyche. I don't have the answers and don't know what are the other websites for RyanAir either. I also don't have a clear picture whether RyanAir customers are interested in the same miles/points/travel pursuits as FTers. I would think for those who are in favor of a RyanAir forum should do more thorough research then come up with a more convincing proposal that can address all these "more important" issues.

BTW, the the preliminary data I presented in my search was based on the existing posts/threads in ALL FORA on FT. That applied to both search terms "RyanAir" and "China Southern."