Taiwaned

You are glossing over an important issue.

Most of the Chinese FFP members are Chinese.

When you visit China, do you collect Chinese carrier's FF points? Probably not. most of the ENGLISH language readers that FT attracts more than likely do not collect Chinese carrier's FF points.

I live in China, I collect Aeroplan points wit Air China. Delta points with China Eastern, Southern and Xiamen Airlines.

You will end up with the relative few foreigners who do collect FFP on Chinese carriers complaining about redemption issues.

It won't be a busy enough forum to be worth anybodies time.

moondog

+1. If this forum does get created (whether or not it's limited solely to PRC airlines or adopts a "Greater China" approach), I'm willing to bet that it will follow in the footsteps of the Korea forum.

in2it54

A few things I can add to this conversation.

As much as some people don't like to admit, China is not going to go away. They have a few Trillion dollars of the worlds wealth, they, the chinnese people want what we have and they are on their way. There is no reason to doubt that they will like exactly what we like - aeroplanes, FFP's and MR's. For FT not to "set up" and cater for this sleeping giant, is dumb.

I just did my own survey, right now. Underneath the Stickys on the "Other Asian....", there are 25 Threads, 9 are China content, = 36% China content.

Now looking at "Other Asian....." from my part of the world.
The talk that I've read from the previous 5 pages of this thread all centers around creating a China Air... forum, good or bad, from a Chinese user and a China FFP view point.
My interest is not with Chinese airlines at the moment (which could change), but the other, nearer to home, Asian airlines (MH PR UL D7 etc). Why should the Chinese content drown out and compete with the airlines from the bottom half of Asia. With a couple of these Carriers now going OW I don't want to start missing thread items that could make a difference to my travel plans.

lin821

The numbers you provided ARE part of historical data, which is still "not sufficient enough to justify a standalone forum", a point of view shared by some very knowledgeable FTers in PRC-based carriers and heavy contributors in China Forum:

I understand perfectly how TBers work on the proposals and motions and have even provided pointers and/or directions to those who didn't have a clue.

I believe you didn't get my posts and have a tendency to misunderstand my points and/or discredit those who have different opinions from you on this matter. Of course you don't have to modify your OP. I was/am just making a point there are flaws in your OP. I don't know how to make it any more clear and I don't see any added value in straightening things out any further either.

Obviously we don't go to the same schools to learn English and I didn't know "shooting a moving target" can be taken as literally as you did. Playing this English word game isn't and won't be helping discussion at hand.

I did see the same liberal trend in TB's decisions as you did. However, is TB being more liberal in new fora creation a good thing? That is the question.

Are new fora approved just because TB can? Or just because some vocal FTers want? Does FT really need it and there's unmet need for such forum/s? Is there really enough FT traffic to justify such "demand?" Will there be enough passionate FTers who actually participate in discussion?

As for the suggestion at hand, quite a few China "experts" have raised practical concern about sustainable traffic for a standalone PRC-based airlines forum. I may be biased but I tend to give more weights on input from those who take part in proposed forums. So, here's my new year FT resolution for the new TB:

mnredfox

So a lot of great dialogue going back and forth. In general I support travelkid's efforts to create a forum on it's own, as I believe his intent is really to help with those traveling to China. I can vouch for travelkid and don't think there is any "ram down our throats" his own agenda here, the motive is good.

However, reading some other posts (esp from my co-China Ambassadors) I do think a lot of good points are brought up. If all of our intentions are to make it simpler for the average FT-er to find info on China, would it make it worse to split into two forums, one on airlines one on China in general?

travelkid, a poster above talked about FT being about FFP. What is your thought about what the scope of a China airlines thread would be? I'm guessing it's not about the FFP's, but more about logistics, how to book, nuances vs western (EU/US airlines) etc. Is that correct? In some sense, then I do see how much of that is something I know my fellow China-ambassadors worked on, and again I don't think anyone wants a FT-er searching for info on China to get lost.

Do you have any thoughts on how to address this issue?

travelkid

I beg to differ. Personally I was skeptical to a new Korea forum, but I think I held back from airing any negativity, just to shoot down any creativity and participation. As it has developed, I believe Korea forum has been a success, and I have not seen any one claim anything else (except as obiter dictum in threads like this).

Its interesting that those who claim "ghost towns" and "wont succeed" dont see that relatively. Compare Korea to plenty of other destinations forum, and you will find Korea busier than many. At level with Texas, busier than Alaska etc.

If one only uses a subjective standard its easy to say Airlines of China forum wont succeed, as it wont meet that persons standards for quality anf quantity.

travelkid

Yes, clearly an intended side effect IMO from the proposal is to clean up the "Other Asian.." as Chinese carriers dominate it today (maybe not majority, but not far from, anyway certainly the biggest group)

travelkid

Thanks. And you are right.

An interesting thought as well. Although my research has revealed that China wont really be split up, as there is a small minority of traffic on that forum that would be split out. The interesting thought would be to include Chinese FFPs in China forum. I think that would be a better idea than todays location of Chinese FFPs. However this would crash with FTs current setup, and I think we wont get many supporters for merging in such a way?

travelkid

This is a valid objection. Historically the numerous proposals on Chinese carriers forums have been delayed as they didnt have FFPs and didnt belong to alliances. Now there is finally plenty of both.

Of todays posters I also believe the majority flying Chinese carriers collect miles in other FFPs. In general info on Chinese FFPs is either lacking or wrong. I have been told about several aspects of a few of the Chinese FFPs that would seriously interest the FT community. Earn/burn rates, promos etc.

Without verifying its my guess this objection may be the same for India/Russia-based airlines as well. I dont see the problem there. A dedicated forum will attract new FT users, and it will educate current users.

Most people here probably know all the ins and outs of FT setup, technically. But maybe some havent considered this; Some have been worried about yet another forum to watch (=waste time?). Its as easy to subsribe to forums as to threads. Almost easier actually, and when you check "my flyertalk", you will see the last (only that) thread of the forum you subscribe to. I guess that should be an easy way for China/Taiwan travellers to keep seeing whats on, and have an easy way to visit.

A new forum will open the chance for more dedicated FTers to volunteer, with stickies, wikis, mod position, ambassadors etc. And Im sure several of the regular from China forum would be keen to help out also in a new forum.

Back to your final question, Im not afraid posters will get more lost than today with a new forum. Clearly regarding CHinese carriers and FFP it will be easier with a clear forum name. And with FTers knowing the distinction between FFP forum and destination, as the norm all over FT, I dont see how they can get more lost on Chinese issues than on other forums.

Cant hurt to try IMO.

travelkid

You also said it wont work, so I should just accept it.

Its clear we have different levels of sufficient, and even far different than whats elsewhere on FT. What level do you feel is sufficient, and how is that compared to current FT forums, especially new forum over the last few years.


Thanks^ Im glad it wasnt me who misunderstood then. You wrote (my bolding)

I love having flaws pointed out. Thats how we develop. Teamwork to improve. But you didnt just do that. You flat out said it wont work, and that I should just accept that, seemingly in any way the proposal was developed. Doesnt make me feel welcome. FT is struggling to have more members participate, especially on this forum. Do you beleive your red carpet makes it easier for others to stick their head out potentially after spending hours on development and metrics justs to be slaughtered. I dont think so.

At least we agree here. On a side note obvisouly the school and teachers were also different for logic and manners.
Hopefully all Chinese FFers wont have to pass you fluency test before being able to post on the new forum. There was an anti-snark thread during this years election. I hope for any new forum developing from my proposal to be friendly and snark free, hopefully with the help of ambassadors^

If you have a problem with current and recent level, I suggest you raise that in a separate thread, instead of rehashing it on all new forum proposals.

And TB can do nothing but recommend. It sounds like belittling TB to even insinuate that they approve forums just because they can. CD needs to approve, and Im sure she will use her common sense and power is needed. And as repeatedly stated, forums can close, and they do just like Toronto recently did.

Great. Lets all discuss all objections and concerns with open mind.

Btw its hard to put more weight into those who participate in the proposed forum. Its not created yet. The problem is that we reach extremely few of the future users of such forum here on TB forum. 90% of the future users have probably never heard of TB forum. Thats also why we have TB to think for those silent voices, and be strategic.

travelkid

For comparison. I bet max 5% of the posters in Air Berlin forum use ABs FFP.

Still the forum is a resource for FFP related issues. And despite being one of the least busiest forums, I wont call it a failure by far.

lin821

(underline mine)

Do you think those Chinese carriers threads would come out of thin air, if your proposed forum really became a reality? Of course not. The existing threads would be moved from fora they currently reside in. When I said "give more weights on input from those who take part in proposed forums", I was referring to FTers who have been participating or contributing in the relevant threads/posts in those existing fora. For instance, before Korea Forum was a reality on FT, Korea discussion threads were in Asia Forum. So for those frequent Asia Forum would have a better idea how many or often Korea-related threads popped up. As for your proposed Chinese carriers forum, those who have been consistently participating in both China Forum and Other Asian, Australian and South Pacific Frequent Flyer Programs Forum will know better about how Chinese carriers had been discussed on FT. If I were on TB, I would certainly put more weight on their input about whether or not such a new forum is deemed worthy on FT. YMMV.

Maybe my English is not that good so you fail to see the concept or ideas behind my posts. However, I am not going to go over the same points nor re-explain my points to you by quoting your long post above. I honestly believe I did my best explaining myself in every post I made. When you fail to see my "wouldn't work" inference in post#21 was not just a single sentence but rather a summative statement from all prior discussion and treated it like a 2-word verdict, I don't know what else to say. Nevertheless, I really don't think it's constructive to play this line of word game. If you still can't see forest for the trees from my posts at this point, I don't think I can try any harder.

As for evaluation of new or existing fora, IIRC, per the guidelines, TB is supposed to conduct periodical review of forum performance, which isn't relevant to this current thread. Probably it's good for another thread, some other day.

Hopefully our new TBers can sift through all the pros and cons from the discussion in thread then come to their better judgment.

travelkid

Serious question or just another snarky remark? Obviously nothing comes out of thin air, however I do believe that quite some part of any new forum wil kind of come out of thin air, as it otherwise wouldnt be posted due to lack of forums or ease of finding them- and of course the spin off from such posts with open discussion and contribution.

You have commented on both mine and your English skills. It seems from your post that you didnt get my summary of where threads would come from to be merged into a new forum. I have pinpointed quite some, and hinted on many more from forums outside those two you mention. Its a pretty hard job to ask TB to listen to what all these specifically say and contribute.

I kind of get the feeling Chinese carriers (to at least some vocal) is the stepchild. Not the same treatment as others. Not FFPs, and no alliances, then not enough posts, or at least not enough quality posts etc.

Like my buddy who was refused entry to the club 5-10 times with always a new reason. No ID, not old enough, too drunk, no jeans, no sneakers.

I guess we may all agree that Chinese carriers, with or without Taiwanese, and either country based or separately one day will get one or more forums?
So whats the magic criteria? The biggest flaw I have seen in this thread is applying different metrics and standards on this proposal than on others

Im not sure of the value added in pushing such remarks, and if you even understand that this can be said from both viewpoints.

Taiwaned

@ OP

Now that the Talkboard elections are over, can we assume that the next round of elections, you will bring this topic up again as a possible election platform?

I still for the life of me cannot understand why who rarely gives any input in the China forum would be interested in creating a Chinese Airlines forum unless it is to leave his mark as a member of "board".

New forums are not like "build it and he will come" mentality. Yes China has a huge population, lots of airlines and the ridership are mostly Chinese. Therefore unless FT is willing to have a Chinese version, people who have vested interest in the China Airlines forum will be a relative few who use Chinese airlines regularly, member of their FFP, read ENGLISH and happen to enjoy our company on FT. - a select few indeed.

This is a classic case of politicians creating a "need" when there isn't one.

travelkid

Well candidates were forbidden to campaign by stating their opinions on TB forum during election time. I have no idea if this will be enhanced next year.

In any case I hope this will become a reality far before that. Seems this topic pops up every second year though, but defeated by constantly new arguments.

Most of my life I have offered my opinions and advice for improvements for anyone else. That said, personally I have more interest in a forum for Chinese FFPs than for a Chinese destination forum. The former is unique for FT, the latter- although good- is a copy of far better resources on other boards. I do however read quite some also on China forum as I travel there regularly, but time restraints have prevented me from being active there.

We are back to a definition of need. We dont need anything really, but some forums can be practical for others, and the proposal is within the main core of FT. With the current standards (good ones IMO) of (new) forums, Im 100% confident that this will be a success.

I fully believe this is very benefitial for FT, and thats why I have taken my time to argue it^