skchin

Russian Airlines Forum should be seperated from other central Asian (former USSR) nations. It's confusing where one should ask about Air Astana or Air Azerbijan for example.

travelkid

I dont see any confusion, if you specifically include former USSR (=incl the asian republics). If they despite clear wording are posted in wrong forum, I assume the mods will kindly move.

Also these countries are still rather close to Russia in all aspects- to Asia not so much. I would say this a very natural grouping.

Also I believe it will benefitial for all the minor airlines in this group to be included, as SU posters would be able to help on many subjects.

SkiAdcock

If you're suggesting a sub-forum for every airline that might fall under the parent forum, I think we risk segmenting so much that none of the individual ones will get much traffic/questions/input. We generally consider new individual airline forums when they are a very large % of a main forum and/or are entering into one of the main alliances & traffic/questions/input.

Cheers

lewinr

"Aeroflot and other CIS Airlines" Forum. давай.

tiltslope

You have the same problem as a lot of airlines. How to get the volume in a segmented environment?

The major issue for several countries is that this common past should never occur again. However to use FSU for current daily business may be interpreted that we are still part of Russia or you don't mind if we become again one day. Which is not your idea. To put it in a funny way: I wouldn't propose a hockey forum "Canada and other North American countries".

Maybe this could work best to provide a wider basement, although I think Ukraine is not an official CIS member.

travelkid

This is not a political forum. Its a travel forum. We need to group airlines depending on where questions are most likely to be answered, and based on traffic. This is purely pragmatic. On a sports forum it would be perfectly ok to group Canadian and US hockey teams together, if the traffic suggested so.

All the airlines in question share huge customer bases of Russian speaking customers able to help out.

Put Egypt in Africa or Middle East, and Turkey in Europe or Asia based on FT travel related reasons.

Typically the very few that care about nationalistic reasons are the mosts vocal. I dont see this as a problem.

ladyfirst

AGREE!

lewinr

You vill become members of our Union of Forums.
And you vill be happy.

tiltslope

travelkid

Main idea was:

Main background:

Im a bit surprised that this proposal hasnt gotten more attention, especially looking at the mentioned posting volume/need- and in particular seeing previous support on a different thread. May I assume that the lack of such playground have contributed in driving those posters even away from FT?

Anyhow, its been a bit problematic as I offered 3 options, and wording is clearly debatable.

I will suggest going for my initial option 1 with clarified wording. In real words that means airlines based on the territory of any country which was part of fomer Soviet union. Then some comments on others objections etc;

My initial "former CIS" is scrapped, as its of course existing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonw...pendent_States
As some of the former Soviet Union (FSU) countries never bacame part of CIS, and others have left and/or had unclear relations the "Russia and CIS" is not good enough.

"Russia and former Soviet Union" is good. Only "Russia" is the compromise if no extensions can be agreed upon. Even then many are likely to post there on FSU carriers.

See also;

Excactly. Sounds good but some are opposed to be labelled under "Russia". The correct former Soviet Union however, does have some horror of the past built in.

Thats the way, if we wont to use Russia or FSU only in forum title.


USSR might be better than former Soviet Union, but then it might have smell of the past in the word. However its probably easier to recognize Soviet Union intuitively?

To conclude this, and get it up for voting all inputs considered I suggest the following:
"Airlines of Russia and ex-USSR"
Wont really need anything in description.

Lets get going- eh flying^

SkiAdcock

Assume all you want, although my guess is your assumption is wrong given that the thread kokonutz started in the Other European Airlines forum has 237 views. My further guess is that drew a few people to this thread & a few suggestions on verbiage.

I've bumped that thread up & specifically asked for input re: naming the forum. Hopefully we'll see a few more weigh in on your latest suggestion re: name in the next few days.

BTW - I think someone in '10 did a better job than you (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/14279057-post48.html) in doing the profile/questions, but between his & yours, it adds up.

Cheers.

AlohaDaveKennedy

I'll clap for any postUSSR airline forum that is created here, but of course only after it has safely landed.

travelkid

There can be multiple reasons why people leave FT. Unfriendly mods, or even unfriendly TBers- or as I presented as a part-reason, not having the forums one would like to contribute on. Could be as simple as new job, family and lots of things. I just observe that a list of close to (IIRC) 10 posters from the couple of years old thread, does not seem to be active anymore. SO if you guess my assumption is wrong you have probably either seen those posters, or have better knowledge on why they choose not to contribute. Reasons can be important to improve something, but Im merely posting the facts.
1. The most skilled posters as referenced previously in this area are lacking.
2. The statistics, increased volume, I have provided clearly justifies the need for the forum.


So much for doing what should be TBs job Or if TB is too lazy, at least the communitys job.

Your comment is NOT appreciated Pretty lame actually. Also let me repeat if you missed it, this is a totally different proposal. See post#1 on both threads.

jackal

You just called out probably the hardest-working, least-lazy, most-engaged TalkBoard member that the TalkBoard has seen in the last four years.

travelkid

Had an idea of such, and ^ to that. Still doesnt justify her patronizing totally unneeded comment