thank you bryan at webflier - I appreciate very much your open reply to our questions - and also for not being afraid and not playing down webflier's "conflict of interest".

and ... please have soon some time for giving us your/webflier's opinion on the UA-"case". Thank You.

AAH, what the heck, I'll keep sputing on.

NJDavid: you wrote:

I'd love to see a public statement from Inside Flyer, perhaps even included on the masthead of the magazine, that indicates that the honest and truthful reporting of the industry is a standard that will not be compromised by any "relationship" with any companies, and that FT will remain an un-edited forum where non-obscene posts will have that same protection, regardless if the contributor agrees or disagrees with a majority view, or even if it offends an airline or hotel. After all, they do have the same opportunity as we do to officially join the discussion, rebut the post, and truly engage in a meaningful dialog.

Let's take part one of that first: the "truth in reporting" section. Let's say we pledged in fact to do just what you ask. Would that convince you that we in fact were unbiased? It shouldn't. We DO NOT CONSCIOUSLY alter our editorial material based on advertising concerns. But to say that no conflict of interest exists, therefore, would be shortsighted, in my opinion. I don't think individuals are competent to say JUST WHAT effect one thing or another has on them, or that there is NO conflict of interest in a situation where, prima facie, there apprears to be pone. Thinking that one can do so is one of the ridiculous, hubristic legacies of enlightenment rationalism bequeathed to us by discredited philosophies.

As for the second part, David, there are no explicit policies in place about censorship of non-obscene materials. So why was the United survey link deleted? It was done by a member of our staff who was not ordered to do so, but who did so, I think, out of a desire to please United (they called and complained to us). I simply think he didn't see the issue as a "censorship" issue. I wish it hadn't been done. It very easily could NOT have been done. No one made him, and other things critical to the programs posted here certainly have not been deleted.

As for the future, I hope we become more liberal in what we allow to remain on board (that is, ANYTHING, basically). I think many people here share that sentiment. If I become aware of any policy that stipulates what are the limits of non-obscene posting on this board, I will pass them along. I suspect that the only "official" concern we have is for libel, but i don't know exactly what our responsibility is for posts on this board. If any.

Nick -- your answer.

res ipsa loquitor

bryan at webflyer: thank you very much once more. I feel much better and, at last, also comfortable again on flyertalk.

Bryan,

Many thanks. I think it is great you have clarified the position. I am delighted to know where your stand and what we can and can't expect from you.

That is genuinely all I wanted to know.

Nick

Yes, its good to know from a definitive source, but certainly no news to me.

I appreciate both Randy's interest in being a conduit for consumer criticism to the industry, and Bryan's admission that, because of Inside Flyer's ties to industry, its views may sometimes be somewhat less than completely critical of industry participants.
To use an analogy, I would hope that Inside Flyer can be more like the Conde Nast Traveler of FF programs, than the AE-owned Travel and Leisure. Sure, Conde Nast Traveler accepts a lot of industry advertising, but it still does some pretty in-depth and critical pieces on the travel industry. Travel and Leisure, on the other hand, rarely has anything bad to say about anyone, and is more of a shill for the entire travel industry (since it is owned by one of the biggest companies in the travel industry).
That, anyway, would be my hope for how Inside Flyer will act.
Following a few earlier threads, though, I would sure like to see some kind of commitment that the folks at inside Flyuer/Web Flyer/FlyerTalk wouldn't delete threads critical of particular companies.

Djlawman

Thank you Bryan, for directly and honestly adressing our concerns and my comments in general.

Has the United thread situation been clatified to you and the staff at WebFlyer? What I mean here, with no offense intended at all, is if the same set of circumstances were to happen today, do you and the other folks running the board now have a clear guideline of what should be done, or is it still possibly open to an individual's "desire to please" an airline.?

No one (IMHO) has ever had a justifiable complaint about Webflyer maintaining control of the posts of this, your forum. Complaints came from the instances where these controls were moving targets, seemingly changing from instance to instance. For example, your report today of the United thread being deleted by an individual contradicts other statements made elsewhere today that this had never been done, and only obscenities were deleted.

We have something potentially wonderful here, and I guess we all just want to see it flourish as an open, lively forum of exchange, without the fear that someone yeilds questionable discretionary power to delete, lock or censor a post that may be in kind with the stated rules, but upsetting to it's subject company.

This kind of clarification and "pledge" would be a nice foundation to build on.

Personally, I think the analogy/comparison to Conde Nast Traveler as a role model is a good one.

Constructive criticism is useful and frequently productive. One has to be listened to in order to be effective, however, which is why one must not be perceived as biased one way or another if one is to maintain credibility (and usefulness). Thus, one must neither be a "untied.com" nor a "united.com" (if you get my drift). And unless one is independently wealthy (or independently funded) one has to have income to eat (and pay the help).

Still, I would suggest that allowing this bulletin board to be a sort of "Hyde Park" where content is not censored unless unlawful or obscene would not (should not?) be inconsistent with maintaining a stance somewhere between sycophancy and sharp sticks in the eye.

This thread has certainly raised a lot of discussion here at InsideFlyer. I can tell you it has been very educational for us and one thing we've learned is that we need some clearer guidelines on how this board is administered. As the managing editor of our print publications, I'd like to address a few points. While we may have the appearance of being in the pockets of the travel industry, I can assure you that we try our best to objectively report on and analyze frequent travel programs. Randy has a lot of influence with the programs we deal with, but he's not afraid to criticize them when need be. In fact, he'd likely have a lot less clout if he wasn't openly critical of programs when the situation merits it.

The May 1999 edition of InsideFlyer is a good example of this. In our letters section, a reader criticized Starwood Preferred Guest for penalizing travlers who spend longer stays with them instead of basing elite levels on a "per night" option. The editor's note, which was written by Randy, agreed with the reader. Flip a few pages and you'll find a double-page ad by Starwood. There was absolutely no discussion before or after the note was written about offending Starwood and potentially losing this advertising.

Another example is our program reviews. If we were to base our reviews on advertising dollars spent, those programs that advertise would in theory get perfect scores when reviewed. If you look at the March 1999 issue, you'll see Hyatt Gold Passport received an 8.1 rating, which is far from a perfect 10. On p. 46, you'll find a full-page ad from Hyatt. I can tell you that I personally wrote the Hyatt review and at the time, I didn't even realize Hyatt had an ad going in the magazine.

I'm not saying we're perfect, but I want to make the point that we in the editorial (or publishing) department try our best to be as objective as we can. You on this board should be congratulated for keeping us on our toes, however. As I said before, you've opened up a much-needed discussion about how we handle (or don't handle) information. Hopefully, your comments will help us improve this product and our others.

Pam, many thanks.

However your remarks do beg a question. What do you mean by your comment:

"the programs we deal with"

This very sentence implies a cosy relationship doesn't it?

Come on Pam, don't back track now. Bryan made a clear and sensible statement. You are not and cannot be a consumer advocate. Although I accept you do make the odd critical editorial comment.

You have all gained a great deal of respect for facing up to that.

Nick




[This message has been edited by Merry (edited 05-12-99).]

Hopefully we can pick up where this left off...Nick, let me assure you that we are not burdened by many illusions here at InsideFlyer. We know what we are as well as anyone else does. Our first goal is finding information. Reporting. Advocacy has a different agenda, and as I said, I'd like to see us do more of it.

As reporters, of course we "deal with" the programs. We have contacts, they give us information. This makes us prone to all of the same conflicts of interest that are present in the "mainstream" press, from White House reporters on down. We have to honor the wishes of our contacts at times that we'd rather not, or risk losing their trust. It would benefit consumers to have that info earlier. So we're not advocates in that sense. But, of course, if we are able to get that info out SOME TIME before it would ordinarily be posted, and not lose the source by doig so, then we are doing something that's beneficial for consumers. As an example, Diners told me in February that they they WILL be doing their BA deal again this summer. There still hasn't been any official announcement, but I've passed the info along.

I hope it happens.

I went to Cotinental's website 2 days ago. While you can access your account, they only let you see your last statement. Since I'm not an elite, my last statement was March 9, 9 weeks ago-I get my next one in a month. Thus the info I can access is month's old and the website is only useful if I don't feel like opening my file to get the last paper statement which has the same info.
United on the other hand posts information currently, albeit a week or two behind.

Ok Bryan and Pam,

I for one respect what you both had to say. But here it is in a nutshell.

Check out the thread under American Express. Apparently, without actively notifying anyone, they intend to begin imposing fees on transferring miles to airlines. That means If I buy something today, with the intent to use the miles after July 1, I will have incurred fees I knew nothing about at time of purchase. This is fraud.

Your office (and Randy) can take-on this issue as our advocate. This forum may be used to actively persuade American Express card members to cancel their accounts and switch to Diners or someone else. Angry calls to action may be posted. It will get ugly - not profane - just ugly.

What will happen here:

Will Inside Flyer join the protesting, advocating for consumers, taking drastic action such as holding an "impeachment" vote for the Freddie that the Canadian Amex won?

Will the debate be restricted in any way (beyond tasteful words) even if the FT website becomes a platform advocating the boycot of one of your potential advertizers?

I think you see the issues here, and I know I and many others want to know what to expect for this and similar, future issues.

David, before you posted I had put a call into Amex to see about this new policy. I definitely caught my contact off guard; she said she knew nothing about it. And she has not returned the call as of yet. David, I can ASSURE you if Amex turns out to have done something fraudulent, they will hear about it from us. They should hear about it from you, too, by the way. Write letters. Write them to us if you like. We run nasty (but on the mark) letters all the time. Burn your cards.
Incite like activity.

But I want confirmation first. They will hear about it if they've done what they've been accused of.