The Delta Talk..suggfestions
 

Well, it was, first of all, great.

And I absolutely agree that the forum needed to be moderated. But, from atechnical standpoint here, it took way too long, in my opinion, for questions/replies to post. This wasted a lot of very precious time for us.
In the future, could FT possibly cut down the dead time?

But, thanks, FT, for a really special opportunity.

-H

I agree hnechets. It was a great opportunity but it was really s-l-o-w. Seems like only 6-8 questions were answered over 60 minutes.


------------------
BertBamboo

Yeah. I just can't help wondering if it was technical stuff...moderating and all...or just spin control.

Please excuse me, but the very few hard questions ever got posted. I had a few, but ignore me. Others had some, and they did not get asked, either. \
What, 8-10 questions in an hour? There were several MINUTES between each.

<sigh> thanx for your input.

You two seem to be in a tiny minority if you thought the chat was worthwhile... check out what the folks on the Delta forum are saying.

Thanks GG, I will head on over to the DL forum. I got the impression they were stalling trying to get their answers to be as generic and noncommital as possible.

Thanks, Randy for the chat, whether we learned a lot or not.

Is it possible to look at the technology used for the forum? I could not get through because of a potential firewall issue with the java app.

I don't think we're in a "tiny minority," CG. I don't, repeat, don't think it was worthwhile.

What I DO think is that, the effort should be applauded. Every thing has growing pains, and FT *tried* (I think) to make something worthwhile happen.

However, in NO WAY do I personally believe (just my opinion) that this was a success. It was one of the worrse cases of fluff and spin control that I have lately witnessed. What I would REALLY, REALLY, like, is a transcript not of the chat, but of the QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BUT NEVER USED IN THE CHAT!!!!

I am trying to be objective here, and not succeeding, I know. I am only saying that FT deserves thanks for the forum, not necessarily in how it was conducted.

No, let me ammend that. The way it was conducted SUCKED.

OK?


[This message has been edited by hnechets (edited 01-18-2001).]

hnchets, OK, now I see - I was posting before your 2nd post was up.

I just checked in here and can not believe that folks thought this was a good chat session. Only 10 questions in one hour, even though many, many questions were submitted ahead of time. Most of the questions were worthless and something a novice MIGHT ask. Based on the opinions of most postings on the DL Board, it was a waste.

Shame on Delta.
Shame on Randy.
Shame on us for taking the hour to sign on.


[This message has been edited by NoStressHere (edited 01-19-2001).]

Hold on here, folks...I couldn't participate, but have read the DL board comments.

First off, shame on Delta. I totally agree, assuming the comments read are a true reflection of the Chat.

Shame on Randy...no way! Randy should be applauded for attempting to get some sort of dialogue going for us DL loyalists. Remember, the questions had to be submitted and there was no way to pre-determine how or if DL would even respond. That they took the high road cannot be dropped on Randy.

Shame on us for wasting an hour...maybe. Only you can determine that individually. As someone who has been extremely active in the SaveSkyMiles effort, I guess I'd like to hope that we may get some recognition as a group of people that won't stand for being treated shabbily.

Maybe I'm taking the 'eternal optimist' position, but this whole issue is far from over with just a bad chat session.

Thanks Randy for your efforts on our behalf. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Although the questions posted were softballs and they totally dodged the point of the chat, Randy was really not to blame, he's really been putting a lot of time into this on our behalf.

Oh good! Now I know it wasn't my computer or me!!

There seemed to be some problem the first couple of times I tried to log into the Chat. Finally got in. There must have been some technical problem.

Once I got into the Chat, I wondered why my computer was not getting the messages. Only to find out, that there were SO few!

Et tu, Brutus?

I rise to the defense of our good friend and semi-patron, Randy Petersen. He must have invested a great deal of personal capital to call in some chits and get the Delta people to show up. He got them to bring along 100,000 Delta SkyMiles, won by Tolarian, spiff, tudorcity and (?). I do not know whether he was feeding the questions, or someone on the staff (recall that at one point in the chat, he stated that he was in one part of the office, the staff were in another, and the Delta people were in their own office in ATL I think). However, even if he was, in the interests of getting future participation, I think it made sense to make it something other than a complete flame fest. If that happened, no one is ever going to show up in the future (from Delta or others). And, most importantly, Randy continues to provide this forum for us to exchange ideas and express our views on a daily basis (Yes, I know how things work, and that he gets advertising dollars, etc.) In my mind, Randy is to be highly commended for getting the Delta people here. If people want to complain about Delta, put that at Delta's door, not Randy's. Remember, Randy is a hybrid. Part objective newsperson. Part entrepeneur who gets revenues from the industry. That doesn't mean he has to fight our fights for us. Be thankful he provides a place for us to talk, exchange thoughts, organize ourselves, and suggestions on how to deal with the airlines and others. Think about this, how much organized resistance to the Delta changes would there be if FT did not exist, or if www.saveskymiles.com did not exist?

What I did think was in bad taste was those people who were flaming Randy during the hiatus between the session with Delta and the Randy chat session while Randy was still shown as logged on. I thought that was extremely inconsiderate.

Just my own personal opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own. "Though I may disagree with what you say, I shall defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire.

Djlawman

In a situation like the other night's DL chat, I would have to imagine that no matter what Randy did, people would complain. The board members have to remember that as the moderator in this type of format, he has to stay as neutral as possible. This was the largest live chat that I have seen on FT, and in fact an experiment and learning process for them. Everyone has to remember that we wouldn't have http://www.saveskymiles.com/ if it wasn't for Randy.
The 2 biggest complaints raised were that the format was too slow with only 9 or 10 questions asked in 1 hour. Also only 2 of the questions were on the really important issues, and that they never really forced to address them and be pinned down because of the format.

Randy, these are some suggestions for the future when you have guests appearing:

1)You must have a 2 hour session. All that we did was hit the tip of the iceberg. There are many frustrated people out there.

2)Change the format so that for the 1st hour, you ask all of the questions whether they are pre-submitted or your own. The second hour should then be opened up to everyone in a moderated form, so that it doesn't get out of control. You must warn your guests that you will be like a Mike Wallace and will be asking hard hitting questions. No softballs allowed!

3)You have to figure out a way to permit follow-up questions for the entire chat. Frankly they avoided all of the real issues last night because we couldn't pin them down on the facts after they replied with their rehearsed script.

Randy, perhaps you can reach out to DL and invite them back for a timely follow-up chat during the next month, as nothing has really been resolved and explain to them that many of us are ready to leave DL unless this happens. Perhaps the proper location for this chat would be the Save SkyMiles chat room on FT Live. Invite everyone that registered with their email address on http://www.saveskymiles.com/ .

Once again I wish to thank you for your efforts, and I know that most of us do appreciate what you have done and are still trying to accomplish.

[This message has been edited by Rssrsvp (edited 01-20-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Rssrsvp (edited 01-20-2001).]

That is absolutely true, djlawman. It was just down right rude.

I would hope Randy knows he’ll never make everyone happy no matter what. Randy, be a Duck and let it roll off, the majority of us appreciate what you are doing. My thanks to Randy.

RE: people flamming Randy while he was still logged on.

Maybe they were trying to get his attention. After so many of us took time to submit questions ahead of time, and then they SLOWLY used insane questions like "When do my miles expire?" and "Why cann't I combine miles from another airline?" to get through. Then they fill up the text with notices of the transcript being posted later if you were unable to attend (duh, we were online), and telling us to limit our questions and spending almost as much time on trivia questions.

By the way, even after telling us over and over they would post the transcript, the one posted is missing part of the first session, and the second session is not posted at all.

NoStress, I was there. In fact I stayed up until 2.20 am local time to be there throughout. I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the speed of the chat, the numer of questions answered, the lameness of several of the questions and the facile, insuting nature of Delta's answers. Of those problems, probably three of four were due to the Delta personnel. I would also say that FlyerTalk did not put many of the questions most of the audience present wanted to see answered and Delta dodged the two that were asked.

However, being rude to our host (and the organiser of the chat) is not the same as 'trying to get his attention' and is not the answer. There was no excuse for some of the flames that were flying around. I don't see any reason why unhappy people can't be rational or constructive. Why on Earth would Randy respond postively to crude insults being hurled at him? I know I wouldn't, and I bet you wouldn't.


[This message has been edited by james (edited 01-20-2001).]

Thanks for the feedback. I gave up a few minutes after the first hour. Did not see the flames, but did notice some posts asking Randy to help and to do something. Maybe it got hotter as time went on.

I must say I tend to let things slide and it is rare that I get upset. In fact, I get upset at myself for getting upset. <grin>

But, the evening was a waste, at least the hour or so I was on. It was one of those "I cann't believe what just happened" experiences.

I do feel for Randy. I think he did try to do something. It just did not work out. At the same time, if Randy and his staff does think it worked, then I am at a loss for words.

Sure would be interesting to know how THEY think it went.

There's a button that says, "OH NO! Not Another Learning Experience!" I know I've worn one often enough - maybe Randy could use one of those right now.

Am I right in thinking that a good deal of the anger vented about the chat was a result of unrealistically high expectations? That's flattering in its own way, which Randy undoubtedly doesn't need telling, but it can't hurt to mention it.

I had no idea what to expect from a technical point of view, but found the pace excruciating. That only emphasized the puerility of most of the questions.

Certainly I'd hoped for, but had very small expectation of, real answers from the Delta reps, but at least the questions could have been more pertinent. Perhaps Randy or his staff were trying to cover too many bases? Perhaps Ms. Pierce and Mr. Pinto insisted on selecting the questions they would answer?

I posted on hnechets' and BizJet's topics during the chat. If that was rude, I do apologize, but it was driving me nuts. I don't think my posts "flamed Randy" - I don't in fact understand what precisely djlawman et al are referring to. Sorry if I sound ignorant - I'm still pretty new here.

It was a fine idea. The execution left a lot to be desired. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the idea and the effort that went into it - I do! The real trick is building on the learning experience.

I have paid for Randy's magazine in the past and in the beginning I thought he served a very useful purpose. But now that he's made his millions, I think he is too entrenched with the establishment.

So, at the risk of being "rude" to Randy, I still think the chat was a total failure and that he collaborated with the guests from Delta in advance and structured the whole thing to provide a worthless namby-pamby interaction. In other words, I think he is in bed with them.

He certainly could have had control over the questions answered and he certainly could have asked follow-up questions that pressed the few pertinent issues that were so rarely on the table. Please don't try to convince me that this guy is so innocent and hands-off with regard to this chat.

When this whole Delta mess started, Randy made a remark (maybe in a chat) that Delta flyers were much more passive than the United, American, Continental, etc. groups.

Ever since then, the Delta group has gone militant, and in some cases, acted rudely toward Randy -- behavior that was unjustified and pointless, IMHO.

But I do wonder if Randy's opinion of the Delta group has changed any? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

GG - my comments about flaming etc. don't refer to the board. They refer to the period after the DL execs left when the chat went live (unmoderated) again and Randy was still logged in.

Nostress - yes it got hotter.

There was no need to flame Randy personally. At least in my opinion. I think, though, that people (including myself) probably had too high expectations. I also think DL's is bigger trouble now than they were before--that may be silver lining here.