This is like old days, both Randy and Mikel posting. I like it. Mikel, it's wonderful to see you here.

The only thing I would add to what Kokonutz noted above is that, for the discerning, there's a lot to notice about exactly what was said and, especially, not said above. But enough of that.

My own view of Boarding Area is there is there is both good and bad, and I simply don't read or otherwise spend any time whatsoever on the latter. I mean, really, what's the point of that? Life is short.

Same for Flyertalk, too, by the way.

I don't generally care about the history of a business or why it was started... just what it has to offer today and going forward. How well liked its founder is, doesn't have relevance to me either. With BA there is some very good quality content, some poor quality content, and in-between. I'll keep reading the good stuff so long as it's there - just like any other information content provider. And also as with other commercial enterprise, BA is open to compliments, criticism and discussion about its services and products.

Am I the only person thinking that Randy's first post replying to me seems like it was written by a totally different person than the author of the next two posts penned by Randy Petersen?

I felt a little humbled by his original response, but reading the next two washed all of that away.

Yes! I mean No, you are NOT the only one!

I'm assuming there are no standards on BA for disclosures of blatant advertisements.
This post today, http://www.travelcodex.com/2016/04/h...rol-on-the-go/, is outrageous in how miniscule its disclosure is at the bottom.
When I commented that it should have appropriate disclosure, I first got a reply saying that Scott does all "necessary disclosures" even those that are "not required." I tried to respond by linking to the FTC guidance which requires conspicuous, upfront disclosures, but the entire comment had been deleted. (Putting aside how something can be "necessary" but "not required.")

You may not actually believe this, but each blogger on BA is in control of their own blog.

They may have editorial control, but Boarding Area could set standards on things like advertising, since Boarding Area would likely be legally responsible should the FTC take action.

Road Warriorette had the same sponsored content and disclosed it only at the very end in small print. I agree that it is bad form and probably violates FTC guidelines but I seem to have lost that battle. :(

However other BA blogs have lifted copyrighted material that wasn't advertisement - Points Miles & Martinis is one that has come up before on this forum with a whole copy-and-pasted news article and such. There was another awhile ago but I can't recall which blog offhand.

i sstill see massive copy and pasted articles from NYT, Mashable etc. maybe I should give my editor friend at Mashable a call ;)

the next batch of articles from BA gonna be [SPONSORED] Get your Gold Star form Starbucks

Alaska - Virgin buyout
 

Does anyone remember who was pontificating that Virgin America was on the verge of bankruptcy, wouldn't last another year or two, etc?

I remember thinking that the analysis seemed rather thin and self-serving.

As one of those tiny bloggers on BA, I want to thank Randy for allowing me to be on there for the 4+ years. If he was all about profit, he wouldn't waste the electrons on my very niche blog. Like most of the bloggers on BA, I have no dreams nor intention of making my living off of blogging or associated revenue streams. I am happy that a few hundred readers a month apparently get value from what I write.

As with TV, if you don't like what is said, you can always change the channel.

Glenn

While I appreciate your position on your blog, this isn't a meaningful retort. Criticism is valid, and anyone who writes publicly should be willing to accept it.
Moreover, many of us have expressed concerns about potential harm being done by BA blogs, which would not be eliminated by simply not reading the blog. Some would argue that simply changing the channel when destructive, harmful content is on is socially irresponsible.