Ask F U K U C H A N...

Well, I'll ask you onefreeman and the other posters who have posted your concerns here:
Do any of you think that if you post an article critical (valid criticism, not frivolous) of either any travel company or of Inside Flyer, your article would be censored.

Thank you for the question.

Perhaps the point is we don't know. We don't know how chummy Inside Flyer is (or isn't) with the airlines.

Therefore the question of does Randy consider his company a 'consumer representative' group or not is valid. I am not saying it should be, but I would like to know if Randy considers this to be a valid area of activity for his company.

If there is a commercial conflict or Randy just considers he doesn't want to venture into muddy waters, fine. We know the limits and we are able to respect them.


Nick

Perhaps you did not see the thread where some FTers, including myself, doubted the validity of an United Airlines survey and did some research.

The thread was locked and deleted in a matter of hours.

Pgupta011, I guess, your question is our question.

What is the guideline, the bar by which we can measure ourselves on Flyertalk.

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, and lord knows we don't all agree on anything, but knowing the standard is important.

For example, I (and I know some others) were quite offended by one of our contributors posting an offensive comment in response to a bad situation. We understand that that would have had to be removed (though some mention / warning of it would have been nice) and accept it.

However, I've come to believe that some posts were removed for fear of offending an airline. That's a totally different story, and honestly has had a chilling effect. I had never before considered if a topic or response I was considering would be "offensive" to an airline or other company. I now wind up saving some of my best tips for private e-mails, and this board never sees them. I would never even have thought of this before. I know I'm not the only one.

I guess that some of the "tennants" of this board just want a "lease" from the "landlord". And a "mission statement" would not hurt either.

Back to Randy's message, here are some questions I would like to hear about:

- Why aren't FFPs committed to providing accurate, comprehensive and timely information on their web sites? What efforts are FFPs doing to update their web sites as the program rules change? What efforts are FFPs doing to provide new program information, bonus promotions etc. on their web site. The United web site is clearly broken.
- Account information. The BA site is clearly broken. Other web sites like Hertz provide the total points, but no breakdown of the points or information about points for recent rentals.
- issues about site downtime, long delays to load pages (AA site's "improvement" has made it worse).
- why can't in this digital age, FFPs provide faster and accurate postings of partner miles? It takes upto 90 days, and according to Inside Flyer "23% of frequent flyer miles and points are miscredited or not credited at all". My own personal experience supports this statistic.

pgupta: I hate to say it but you are going down exactly the route I didn't want this thread to take.

You have ignored our comments and questions and gone on a tangent.

Why are you going back to Randy's comments, that is clearly not what this thread is about. We are clearly hoping that Randy will give us some guidance and guidelines, about what he considers the role of his company to be and what role he feels comfortable in.

Does he want to be a consumer champion an oracle or the issuer of gongs?

Nick

ok, I'll pipe down. Lets hear about it.

I think we may be asking Randy to put himself between a rock and a hard place, and he didn't start this business to be there. There are few publications that can afford to antagonize advertisers or potential advertisers. Subscription fees NEVER pay for the publication and distribution. The most obvious example of one that doesn't have a commercial constituency is Consumers Union (publishers of Consumer Reports). They don't accept advertising, and they won't even let a product manufacturer buy a lunch for an employee. They can afford to say a product stinks. But they still make a powerful effort to solicit contributions above and beyond their subscriptions. If they didn't do that, they'd be charging 3 or four hundred a year for their little magazine, and they'd be out of business pretty quickly. Fortunately, they get enough contributions to stay in operation. If Randy started bad-mouthing potential advertisers (even to the extent of publishing the results of a lot of critical "surveys of frequent flyers"), he'd be taking a chance of losing their revenue. His alternative? Raise subscription fees, which reduces readership and, therefore, clout, or go non-profit, ala Consumers Union. While I've seen a whole bunch of non-profits up close, I've never seen one where the EMPLOYEES are non-profit; so Randy might consider that alternative, but I doubt it, and I wouldn't want it. How many of you would contribute to the Inside Flyer Foundation if it were truly impartial? And how much?

Owhay attersmay oremay, usay oray ethay airlinesay?

Phil: I hear what you are saying, but I am certainly not asking Inside Flyer to go in any direction.

I am asking what do you consider your role to be? What do you feel comfortable doing?

I am confused though. Does Inside Flyer consider itself to be a 'consumer champion'? If so how does this manifest itself?

If not, fine. That is a role someone or some other group may wish to adopt.

This forum is brilliant as a way of sharing FF news and promotions. Inside Flyer compliments that very well. But is there any lobbying going on and if so why is it not visable?

Nick

Phil: I hear what you are saying, but I am certainly not asking Inside Flyer to go in any direction.

I am asking what do you consider your role to be? What do you feel comfortable doing?

I am confused though. Does Inside Flyer consider itself to be a 'consumer champion'? If so how does this manifest itself?

If not, fine. That is a role someone or some other group may wish to adopt.

This forum is brilliant as a way of sharing FF news and promotions. Inside Flyer compliments that very well. But is there any lobbying going on and if so why is it not visable?

Nick

usay

I understand you, Merry, and I agree with asking the question. I just don't think it's really going to be answered. One way, Randy alienates us, his readers. The other way, he alienates the advertisers, his source of dinner. I hope we'll see.

I can't hold out any longer here. The issue is too good. Nick, I wrote the story on Online Service problems. HAving reread it, I suppose it could be said that BA recieved a disprportionate amount of bad ink in comparison to United, when the truth is they both have real problems. As for your claim that we basically pat programs on the back, I don't think that's true. The question of whether we at insideFlyer should be consumer advocates first and foremost is a big, big item of debate around here. There are some differences of opinion. But neither are we merely voiceboxes for the programs. I know that TWA, for instance, credits/blames us for their decision to extend the window for the redemption of equity miles unitl the end of this year. Randy was at the front of the movement to bring changes in the Aviators program. I personally spoke with many readers who thanked me for my/our efforts in doing so. This is only one of the recent (and more public) instances of advocacy.

Havong said that, we do not do nearly enough in the area of consumer advocacy, in my opinion. But my opinion is not nearly the only one that matters here, and I can respect that. So to answer the question (from my vantage): no, Nick, David, Matt and the others who've asked, we are not PRIMARILY a consumer advocate. It is one of the roles we try to fulfill, however. There's no doubt we've positioned ourselves in a way that can bring charges of conflict of interest. I don't think those charges are necessarily unfair or inaccurate, either. What I'm saying is: it's not black and white. We're not straightforwardly consumer advocates, but neither are we simply program shills.

I want to comment on the United survey thing, too, but I'll leave it for now and pick it up when i have another few moments.