Rationale for creating WestJet forum
 

I noticed this morning for the first time that the WestJet ghetto on the Air Canada/Aeroplan forum has now been moved from being a subset of that forum to its own dedicated forum.

I find this odd and disturbing on two counts:

1. The traditon in the AC/AE forum to be able to discuss all issues related to Canadian travel and other issues. OTs have been broad ranging -- and I have up until now supported this openness -- because the majority of us posting in this forum reside in Canada or are expats. We have looked upon the AC/AE forum on FT as a "Kanadian Korner" and this has been tolerated by those managing FT.

Until recently when activity around Canada's second major airline, WEST JET, picked up. And a few pro-WS posters came in to "defend" their preferred airline. This led to lively discussion of aviation issues -- in pretty much a two carrier country -- that had an impact on AC/AE as well as the "other" carrier.

However, a while ago, a few regulars decided they'd had enough of the pro-WS posters and protested the presence of anything WS on the AC/AE forum. As a result, WS threads were seggregated into a sub-forum, but within the AC/AE "Kanadian Korner".

Now these threads have been moved completely to a new, dedicated WS forum. Which is absurd because...

2. WEST JET does not have a FF program, and the whole point of FT is that it is set up around FF programs. The two largest airlines in the world now have a single forum after years of having their own: AF and KLM. Same goes for matters relating to LH and OS, and I expect soon SWISS.

On some falacious misreporting, it has been assumed WS may get a FF program -- in two years time when it completes its new res system and enters into some interlining with CX and maybe another airline or two. On these specious grounds, a whole new forum has been created. A first for FT: a forum for an airline with no FF program.

True, WS participates in the Canadian version of AIR MILES. And this is a very significant program in Canada, a major competitor to AEROPLAN. However, AIR MILES members may redeem their AMs on WS, but also AC and NW and AA and LH and several other carriers. As well as convert them into PRIORITY CLUB or SPG points.

So why has WS now been totally removed from the "Kanadian Korner", making it most inconvenient for those of us who constructively contributed to a wider ranging discussion of Canadian airline issues and who also actively participate in AIR MILES? And why was this forum set up as an AIR MILES forum rather than a WEST JET one? Why did you, Randy, or the Board, buckle to a small group of FTers who have already established their own BB that is full of attacks on FT, its Canadian members and its founder and owner? And who for the most part post little but snide hijack items that attack or berate fellow FTers?

If there are to be no further WESTJET or AIRMILES threads permitted on the AC/AE forum, then I suggest the practice of OT threads also be ended. No more hockey or other such trivia. Only posts relating to AEROPLAN should be permitted.

I wish I could get this worked up about forum changes.

I agree and have written Randy in the past suggesting that OT Canadiana be in a subset forum called "Canuck Omni".

The Wetjet fury will die down soon and there will be few posting about it.

FWIW, a rather interesting parallel has occurred with Virgin Blue in Australia. A rather similar airline model to Jet Blue in the USA in very broad terms.

It has for some years now carved out a very sizeable chunk of the domestic
market - indeed it flies regularly as Pacific Blue to the South Pacific market from Australia. New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga, Cook Is, etc.

It has always been mentioned in the Qantas Forum, and not the Virgin Atlantic forum, and is less than affectionately refereed to as Vermin Blue by many.

A couple of months back Virgin Blue commenced a frequent flyer program. Until that time it had none.

Ummm, is that fallacious or fellatious? One's bad & the other is good.

Since then posts about Virgin Blue and Velocity are in both the QF forum and also in the Other asian and pacific airlines forum.

S/H, i never thought of this the way your presented it. You make some great points. ^

Cheers

Perhaps you should post this on AC as this could relate to what happens on that forum.

The BA board serves as a similar "everything to do with the UK" forum - indeed, there are more general posts there than on the London forum.

However, there are still separate forums for BMI and Virgin Atlantic that have a loyal, if far smaller, following, and we would never think of merging them into the BA board.

And that's the way the AC board has become.

Speaking of "falacious misreporting"...

Randy has already expressed his rationale for segregating WestJet. If the AC board had remained primarily about AC/AE, with WS stuff in OT threads (rather than most threads on new AC route launches being hijacked with the endless posting of WS' CASM #s), perhaps so many people would not have complained.

It would also be very interesting for you to do post counts on non-suspended FT members on the other site and compare them to FT. Might expose what is "falacious".

But in the meantime, keep on complaining about Randy's move to all and sundry, and also continue with the "snide" PMs to various parties that berate fellow Canadians and FTs. :rolleyes:

The announcement of various changes to FT indicated that these decisions were either made by the FT Board or admistratively. Can we know if the move of the WS forum was presented to and voted on by the FT Board?

Any PMs responded to by me were initiated by your friends. And there have been no more than three, so you are certainly blowing this "snide" thing out of all proportion to your own nefarious ends. (I suppose you too think Adam Sandler is funny?)

In the meantime, if it's "snide" you want to others to read, I refer all who are not aware of yours (and others') posts, to the negative ones made on www.canflyer.com about still other FTers, including Randy Peterson himself, which are more offensive than anything I have responded to in one of your gang's PMs to me.

Specifically check out their AC/AE forum - "Boy Did I get rapped", "I can't believe they did that" and "Slightly OT from the other FT AC forum"; from their Other Programs forum - "WJ Forum moved on FT", and from Canadiana - "Princess...".

The last time a site that slandered and maligned FTers existed, TIREFLOCK, those responsible were asked to shut it down if they wished to remain active on FT. I ask now that this same measure be taken with respect to CANFLYER whose only purpose appears to be to mock and harrass FTers who its participants do not agree. (Or to serve as a forum to "timed out" FTers when they've gone off the rails.)

SH, Back to your socialist ways I see. And you are OT here.
The subject you raised was about WS being made separate from the AC board and most people seem to agree with Randy's move......so you turn up the nasty stuff when it suits you and you've lost the battle.

FWIW (not much), I think Adam Sandler is not the least bit funny.

Calling someone a "constipated acolyte" must not be snide.

The other site to which you refer exists for myriad reasons. Randy has seen fit to edit or delete various postings on FT, which is well within his rights, but this does not force people to limit discussions on said postings in other corners of the net.

You complained when people complained.

You complained when Randy created the WS forum (numerous times).

You complained when Randy moved the WS forum.

You complained about other FT posters postings, here and elsewhere.

It would seem, however, that you never once complained about the wildly OT postings in the middle of unrelated threads reminding us ad nauseum about MP or about WS' CASM figures.

As Randy has said in the past, there is an "ignore" function on FT, and there is also an "ignore website" feature available by not entering it in the address bar of your browser.

Feel free to use them.

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the recent changes, moving WS to it's own forum, although why it gets one without a true FFP is a bit of a mystery for this lowly TA. And while I supported some of what you were saying, SH, the settling of old scores on ORP does seem more than a bit OT.