Yes, but also, the end of that sentence:

Also, are you proposing the Swiss International board be removed from FT due to a lack of a FFP?

I hadn't either until yesterday. If we truly believe in those standards, why is there a Politics & Religion forum, an OMNI forum... well, I'll answer the question for you! It's because

(a.) The powers that be felt people would use it
(b.) It makes the mods' jobs much easier by giving OT posts their own forum. No one has addressed this particular point:

I'm sure the BA mods would be thrilled with the opening of these forums -- they could probably start taking a vacation with the time they'd save.

This is the reality of how the site is used, regardless of the verbiage on the home page. I think we all know this.

This is why I want to know the real reason some of we Titanium Elite Executive Diamond Enterprise Medallion 1K A-List Club Gold Members are seemingly allergic to giving even a nod towards LCCs. Every reason I've heard so far to exclude them has extremely compelling counter-examples even within FT (13,000 Google hits for easyJet on FT.com? Holy cow, how can we ignore this?).

See my results below... as for the bashing threads, those should not ever live on the BA board. They should simply be moved to the Ryanair/easyJet forums Again, ask the BA mods what they think of this idea.

I think searching for the airline within the title is a good way to measure this for airlines without a forum.

You could reasonably say a large percentage of U2 threads would have easyJet in the title, but most DL threads would not have "Delta" in the title because it would usually be redundant.

These numbers only includes pages where the name of the airline is contained within the thread title.

easyJet: 687
Ryanair: 1460
China Southern (a SkyTeam airline without a forum): 335

Again: over 2100 hits for these two airlines within thread titles. Imagine if they actually had their own forum(s).

If you create the forums and I and others who agree with me are wrong, just close the forum! No harm done, experiments don't have to come with guarantees. It's not like there's some huge outlay of capital to build the easyJet forum's factory. It's a message board.

(Bolding were words I never said)

If you are going to quote my post/s, I would appreciate you don't mis-quote me. I didn't say any of the words you inserted in the above quote. Nor did I mean what you said. Not only did you misunderstand my post, but also you mis-represented my post. The latter part is actually against FT's policy (link to this policy).

You also failed to understand how FT search works.

It seems to me you had difficulty understanding my rebuttal to your logic of reasoning. Let me try again.

1. You had used the passenger number (from Wikipedia) to support your argument for a standalone RyanAir Forum (see your quoted "110,000,000 annual pax" post#28). I then used the same source (Wikipedia) to prove to you there was another larger airline (in this case, China Southern) that carried more passengers than RyanAir and China Southern didn't/doesn't have its own I was/am NOT proposing China Southern to have its own FT forum (as a matter of fact, I don't really care if CZ has its own forum on FT.) So passenger load is not the (absolute) deciding factor of forum creating on FT.

2. Instead of finding other stronger selling points for RyanAir, you then focused on China Southern Airlines and assuming more Englisher speakers flew RyanAir than CZ (see post#34). I didn't know if it's true but I was able to provide evidence to you (in post#35) that spoken language/s was not at issue. I gave you real data that the traffic of China Southern on FT was heavier than RyanAir in my preliminary search using FT Search tool in post#35.

3. Instead of refining your own argument of passenger load and language usage, you made your "selling" point a moving target again to the "popularity" criterion (and misquoting me as a result). This is NOT a popularity contest. The data only show (existing) traffic on FT. If you had investigated further in TB Topics Forum, you would have known that TBers didn't/don't use a singular quantitative matrix to consider forum proposals. Heavy traffic does help though, just see what happened to the recent Accor A-Club Forum.

There are many other factors to support creation of a new forum on FT. That's why you don't see TB consider forum proposals nor approve motions on new fora every other week.

4. Giving the history of both RyanAir and China Southern Airlines, both of them are "old" enough to "prove" their existence on FT by FTers, present and past. But neither of them make the cut to be a single forum (yet). That did/doesn't stop RyanAir and China Airlines being discussed on FT. RyanAir posts are mainly in Budget Travels Forum, just like China Southern in Other Asian, Australian and South Pacific Frequent Flyer Programs Forum. Posts about both airlines are also scattered in other fora on FT at the same time, while posts on China Southern are >>500.

5. I suspect with the "relatively" low count of posts/threads of RyanAir using FT Search, passengers of RyanAir may have found other website/s to fulfill their needs to discuss or search info for RyanAir. Should FT compete with the other website/s for RyanAir? Would a single RyanAir forum win those potential 110,000,000 annual RyanAir customers over? Do regular RyanAir customers think the same (or similar) as average FTers? Would regular RyanAir customers be the target population for IB? Would a RyanAir Forum bring in more traffic for FT and more business for IB?

Well, I don't have a crystal ball nor am I a psyche. I don't have the answers and don't know what are the other websites for RyanAir either. I also don't have a clear picture whether RyanAir customers are interested in the same miles/points/travel pursuits as FTers. I would think for those who are in favor of a RyanAir forum should do more thorough research then come up with a more convincing proposal that can address all these "more important" issues.

BTW, the the preliminary data I presented in my search was based on the existing posts/threads in ALL FORA on FT. That applied to both search terms "RyanAir" and "China Southern."

I was referring to posts within threads that do not have EasyJet or Ryanair as their main topic.

Over what period of time ? Even if it was only within a year, fewer than two threads per day would not seem to justify a specific forum for Easyjet, as was discussed for other proposed forums in the past.

This argument has been made for other proposed forums as well in the past. I don't really see a reason for changing the rationale just because it is about EasyJet or Ryanair.

Wow, that was ridiculous. I will unsubscribe from the thread and exit on that note.

Even though I disagree with you and feel it would be good to try the EZY/Ryanair, your position is very reasonable and logical. Thanks for being civil in disagreement.

First things first. I use Google more often than FT search. I also know, without refining the search parameter, results can be recounted in Google key-word per search.

Did you try use "CZ" for China Southern in Google search as well? Quite a few FTers refer China Southern as CZ.

(1). CZ on FT/forum using Google/ncr: 1020

(2). "China Southern" on FT/forum using Google/ncr: 557

(3). RyanAir on FT/forum using Google/ncr: 3160

(4). easyJet on FT/forum using Google/ncr: 1800 (quite different from Ex Amex Card's. Did you happen to make a typo on 131,00 or something? )

ps. Don't add up (1) & (2) since they can be overlapping of the same airline.
pps. the 3160 results in (3) are not necessarily mutually exclusive (meaning some, or even many, of them can be the same posts/threads). Same applies to (1), (2), & (4).

I don't know how many of the Google results are mutually exclusive but I do know FT search, even though not perfect, gives you exclusive results per FT Search:

"CZ" search as threads on all FT fora using FT Search: 499 threads
"CZ"search as posts on FT using FT Search: 497 posts
"China Southern" search as threads on all FT fora using FT Search: 497 threads
"China Southern" search as posts on all FT fora using FT Search: >>500 posts

RyanAir search as threads on all FT fora using FT Search: 498 threads
RyanAir search as posts on all FT fora using FT Search: 497 posts

Per thread title search:
RyanAir as keyword in thread titles on all FT fora: 490 threads
"China Southern" as keyword in thread titles on all FT fora: 191 threads
CZ as keyword in thread titles on all FT fora: 103 threads

Whether RyanAir's numbers are good enough indicators for its own forum is up to TBers.

ETA:
ps. I didn't specify the date ranges for my preliminary FT searches. I just double checked and it seems my search results from performing FT Search are only backdated to mid-2007. I suspect FT search automatically stops feeding older posts/threads when the results are hitting close to the 500 cap.

A further examination and analysis of FT post/threads on RyanAir/easyJet over the years (and possibly cross different duration should be conducted by those who are interested, so TBers can learn more about the true data.

Is this the same Swiss who is part of the Star Alliance and participates in the Miles & More FFP. That Swiss? Sorry unlike the LCC's Swiss is not lacking a FFP even though it may not be their own exclusive version.

And as JOUY31 notes Swiss doesn't even have its own forum but rather is a subforum because of its LH ownership:

Yap, good sport, after you mis-representing other's post. When I called you out, I became ridiculous?

Nobody's perfect and we tend to misunderstand each other from time to time. But citing other's posts then replacing the whole content with your own words, that's mis-quoting and mis-representation. I do mind being mis-represented by others. That's a principle thingy. If you had elaborated your (mis)understanding of my post in your own reply, I would have been able to re-explain myself to you without referencing FT's policy.

This is a discussion thread for open debate. FTers are able to engage in civil discussion on the pros and cons of topics at hand without any personal attack. There's no need to get emotional when others disagree or find flaws in your logic. You also have to understand what others are really saying in order to refine or further your pro position for a RyanAir forum.

I gave my arguments with hard data in this thread. Quite a few savvy & established FTers already stated very clearly why they didn't/don't think RyanAir is ready for a forum on FT. I think I read enough TB Topics Forum to understand why and how certain forum proposals make into motions then succeed.

IMHO, RyanAir isn't there yet. I see no problem having Budget Travel Forum as home base for LCCs on FT.

This well-established member has seen this website develop and change and this forum is proof that still happens. And I would disagree with the contention that well-established members resists change as I only resist change for change sake. Give me what I feel are good enough reasons and you'll have my support for a new forum but IMHO I'm not there yet with the suggestion as made. Were it to come down to creating a sub-forum of the existing Budget Travel forum strictly for LCC's without FFP's then that would be something I could support.

FWIW as a relatively new member you may be unaware that there have been many suggestions for FT to broaden out to become a wider community with proposed forums for dating, photography, private clubs, international sporting/Olympics, spas, health & fitness and many more if you care to browse TB Topics thread titles. FT trying to be all things to almost every member is IMHO a recipe for losing focus on what brought us all here in the first place: travelling and FFP.

And yes, there already is a fairly wide choice of non-FFP/FFM forums so that is more evidence that change has happened here at FT but I see nothing wrong with trying to manage that process for the long-term benefit of the site. As the FT saying goes YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary) but those are my well-established member thoughts on the proposal as made and I would encourage other relatively new members to offer their input on these discussions on this forum as they do help shape the future FT direction.

I'm not going to join in the name-calling but would just observe that putting text in square brackets - [ ..... ] - is often used for explanatory info, for example by moderators in thread titles. Square brackets are not quotations.

Also, using CZ as well as China Southern in totals is muddying the waters and IMO could produce a dubious result. Are you going to include typos as well? Would you include FR, EZY, EZ, U2, Ryannair, Ryan Air in your numbers? All of these and more have been used in FT posts.

If a further analysis on RyanAir's presence on FT would help TBers, I would say go for it. The burden should be upon the shoulders of the pro camp to justify the creation of RyanAir Forum on FT. Number is not everything but numbers speak. Since statistics can be manipulated and misleading at times, sound research is must when playing number games. All I am saying is choose your weapon wisely when it comes to numbers.

When LCCs and RyanAir have no FFPs to attract miles/points enthusiasts, this proposal needs to build a strong case for RyanAir with other better fitting criteria to gain support from fellow FTers and TBers.

A couple of days ago, I felt passionate about this, it struck me, and you can tell by my posts, as being totally relevant to provide forums for these two airlines, because of their significance in the European market. Now I have totally lost the will to live, I have a life to get on with and boy is this a place that encourages Banging One's Head Against the Wall!!!!



No doubt I'll get flamed for saying this, but I don't know how this is decided, (I don't have time to look up all the rules), but could someone in power decide, or put the wheels in motion - to decide, Yes you can have the forums, or No you can't and close the thread, and I can move on to more important things like - Do I need to get more milk or can I manage with what I've got before my flight to Dallas on Saturday!!!!!!!!!

You don't have to look it up. The sticky thread on top of TalkBoard Topics Forum explains very well how things work in two posts. Two very long posts, may I add.

What is the TalkBoard and How are New Forums and Other Suggestions Considered?

There is democracy on FT, represented by 9 elected TBers on board. TBers vote on motions. A motion passes if two-thirds of TBers vote in favor. TBers don't vote on proposals. A proposal becomes a (votable) motion when one TBer makes a motion and another TBer seconds it in the private TB Forum. Meaning a proposal needs support from at least two TBers to get started.

This is a discussion thread for a forum proposal. If FTers don't discuss the pros and cons in say proposals, how can our elected TBers get input from fellow FTers? I don't think our TBers would make up their minds in the dark nor vote in blindfold. Why close a thread when the discussion isn't over?

This is the process in TB Forum on FT. As a FTer, you can decide if you want to participate (or not) and the degree of participation in discussion. You can choose to understand the TB rules (or not). You may even contact individual TBers privately to win them over, if you so choose.

Speaking for myself, I didn't know nor understand how TB worked nor FT operated until about 4-5 years ago. An issue regarding a forum that I frequented was served on TB's table. It didn't take long before I "educated" myself about TB and FT. That has helped me tremendously in taking part of discussion in TB Topics Forum.

FT is very special. There are quite a few devoted FTers on board. If you think moving on to other part of your life is more bearable and important than sitting through a TB proposal, please do what your heart desires.

Be aware that CZ is also the ISO two letter country code for the Czech Republic...

Quite possible, it was a quick and dirty search. When I click on the link I posted, the numbers match your ones so I don't know what happened there. I must have made a mistake or Google is up to some mischief.

As I said, it was pretty unscientific study.

OK, so from the sounds of the opinions of the TB board members this proposal isn't going to get off the ground (so to speak), let alone be voted in.

Really, the airline forums are an elitist group for high status frequent fliers or those who aspire to the status. I'm sure most of them do fly with LCCs from time to time but many of them don't want to admit it, let alone discuss it in the same forum for fear of losing face.

The low cost carriers don't fit in with the demographic here. I'll stick with FT because I get some really useful information (though I don't post that often anymore) but look elsewhere for a forum for frequent fliers of the LCCs.

It was a pretty off the wall post in the first place but unless we have a strong consensus then we should just move on - the discussion has run it's course.

Thanks to all who participated, especially to those who kept their cool and made their points so eloquently. ^

lin821 thanks for the info on how the TB system works, I found that helpful. Thanks for taking the time to post all that information.

I still get the feeling is that the answer to the OP's topic is.

"The computer says NO."

Cheers Larry.