garykung

As a partner, yes. As an alliance, no.

CA is *A and MU is ST.

Also - the existing CX forum can take care of that issue for partners.

travelkid

As pointed out above and on another thread I have replied to this IMO inappropriate question. One shouldnt question posters motives for working on a proposal. Look at the arguments. This will make it even less likely that posters will do the legwork for proposal if they also have to defend any black helicopter theories.

Also I suggested AB and Russian carriers forum, as well as bumped the EY proposal after years. Im really satisfied with how those forums are doing. I was, and neither is an active participant in either of those, but certainly an active lurker in all. Same for chinese carriers.

I hope active participation in said forums is not an requirement to do legwork and suggest improvements? Someone made a tally on one of these threads clearly indicating Im not the sole advocate. Thats just incorrect.

A large portion of FT ers are not English native speakers, incl most of the EU members. Including myself, but I still go to FT as my main source of info, even on local EU carriers. Is that dumb logic? Target is anyone interested in FFPs and in this case up to date on Chinese carriers, in English especially. I post very little in any destinations forum, as Im focused on the programs. And as should be clear by now, agenda is clearly specified (as trying to make FT a worse place, not helpful to newbies,-- and did I mention as part of the master plan for Chinese takeover of the world)

Creative proposal. I would support any form of a new forum. IMO anything dedicated with be a step in the right direction. With the pushback we now see, this suggestion is not likely to meet any better destiny I fear.

travelkid

Thx ^, you always do a good job with links

There are lots of great work on the China forum, also related to this proposal. The suggestion is merely to streamline FT so we use some system of forums for FFPs and for destinations. FFPs being the most important. Thats what makes FT unique. Thats why such info should be intuitive to find.

lin821

You have a new game plan. However, if you read carefully post#1 in this thread, you'd know that's not the motion TBers are voting on.

According to the established Talkboard Guidelines, any new suggestions to a different kind of forum for so-called Chinese airlines will have to wait till this motion for an "Airlines of Mainland China" Forum concludes on Jan 23, 13 at 11:24 pm. Depending on the fate of this current TB motion, your new suggestion may have a chance to be further explored or discussed.

I haven't visited every airline forum on FT but I must point out among those fora I had visited, I have yet to see an airline forum structured in the way you have envisioned, naming point#1 & #2. I also don't know how much research you have done to "project" enough FT traffic to support 2 subforums (SkyTeam & Star Alliance) under a main "all Chinese airlines forum." Not only does that break the current airline organization on FT, but you also must be certain of a huge influx of FT traffic that fancies about "all Chinese airlines." May I ask what data do you use to base your prediction and suggestion on?

FWIW, let me ask all FTers, TBers included, is there really unmet need for FTers to discuss PRC carriers on FT?

garykung

1. PRC-Taiwan issue is sensitive. My way of suggestion is trying to eliminate any possible political arguments in the future by grouping all airlines in the Greater China (CX/KA excluded) based on their alliance, not their respectively place.

2. Currently there are 2 active forum have sub-forums - DL SM and UA M+. Even after the consolidation due to airlines merger, those main and sub-forums are still able to operate as usual.

I am not trying to change everything here. But given in this commenting phase, people are seeking blood for the "Mainland" and Taiwan issue. Can you really believe that this will not turn to another OMNI forum?

lin821

Tell me about it.

(bolding mine)

That's exactly NOT how FT organizes airlines fora. Unless TB is working on a ground-breaking new way to airlines organization on FT.

FWIW, PRC-Taiwan issue isn't going to be settled or resolved by how FT sets up airlines or destination fora, or FT would have earned more than one Nobel Prize by now.

Not to mention this motion was not about PRC-Taiwan issue. This motion is about PRC-based airlines and FFPs and nothing else.

I am glad you mention it. I happen to be familiar with DL and UA and their subforums.

Their subforums are due to the airline merger and both keep their pre-merge names. None of the subforums in DL and UA fora is set up by alliances. As far as I know, none of the subforums on FT is set up by alliances because we do have a main forum for Global Airline Alliances.

I won't call it blood seeking w/r/t a clear and well-defined scoop for a "Chinese carriers" forum. Just like working on a good dissertation proposal, one needs to define the research question/s by providing relevant context. Although there may be very few posters gone off-track with their political arguments, that doesn't mean this proposed forum is all about cross-strait politics. Not to mention nothing Taiwan is included in this motion.

Seeing the wording of this motion ("Airlines of Mainland China"), it's quite clear our TalkBoard is focusing the possibility of a PRC-based airlines forum at this time. Everything else is for another day, another new thread.

As far as another OMNI forum is concerned, I believe ONE OMNI/PR is plenty enough for FT. MODs in general are quite good moving political threads in non-OMNI fora over OMNI-PR, let it be a forum for PRC-based carriers on FT or not.

benzemalyonnais

If Taiwan is an issue then why is CX not an issue. Given that stance CX should be in with all rhe other Chinese airlines.

Oh wait, this is an aviation forum......

Most of the good information is in Chinese language forums, and any question here will be found by someone from the China forum. No need to change it.

planecrashlaw

I booked a complex inter-China trip last summer and the lack of well placed and well informed guidance made the planning trip all the more difficult.

johnathome

As someone who flies to China annually, I think it would be a great idea if there are folks who can support the forum.

However, since there are many other options to fly into China, I have never flown Hainan, China Eastern or Air China in or outbound of China so I'd personally be interested only on domestic flight information. Just not sure there is enough demand though.

My 2 cents.

travelkid

With two votes going on at the same time (PRC carriers and EI) it will be interesting to see if TBers are consequent.

The question of agenda has been raised, and as the main argument against this forum has been lack of demand, its interesting to see that few or none of those advocates has raised that argument on the far smaller EI forum proposal.

What other/alternative arguments decide? (Is there some Taiwan-China, or just anti-China issue after all) Im not raising it for debate as such, but I think its worth seeing things in perspective and comparison.

This proposal has popped up with 1 or 2 years pauses for many years. Each time with a significant raise in traffic and other relevant factors like carriers in alliances and with FFPs. The advocates have each time been asked to come back later. Whats the point if its never enough?

Did AB or EY have many dedicated passionate followers before they got the forum? I dont think so. It was more the total picture, volume etc. And I would call those forums benefitial for FT (A3, EY, AB, Russian, LM).

jimbo99

I don't like regional groupings beyond what we have already. Just makes navigation more confusing. As individual airlines get more traffic, then give them their own dedicated forum. I'd set the threshold quite low for this and by now probably would have given AC, BR etc their own forums.

Well this is the nub of the Taiwan/PRC issue. People are quick to say that this isn't the place for politics and then finish on a remark that is contentious (whether intentional or not).

For me, "China-based Airlines Forum" includes Taiwan. For others it wouldn't. Some would argue (pedanticly) "Airlines of People's Republic of China Forum" also includes Taiwan.

So for me, it has to be as per the topic title. "Airlines of Mainland China". I have heard this term used widely in by western expats, Taiwanese and people from the mainland when speaking in English. I believe it doesn't make a political statement either way. But those that disagree with my politics might think it does!!

But as I say - I'm not in favour of this proposal anyway.

garykung

Read this discussion again - word by word.

It may not be the way how FT organizes. But the reality is.

Then tell me why the Mods do not lock those pre-merger forum to Read-Only?

Let's see.

lin821

First things first, FT didn't name China Forum as "Mainland China Forum."

Destination China is called China Forum, not "Mainland China Forum", while everything Taiwan is discussed in Asia Forum. Hong Kong & Macau are covered in their own forum, instead of China Forum. FTers have no problem to locate the proper forums to discuss China, Hong Kong or Taiwan as destinations. MODs will reassign any discussion thread to the right forum if misplaced.

Where's the like button?

Everything ("China") considered, I think this is the most sensible approach to airlines fora. Unfortunately, that's not the motion up for voting this time.

FWIW, People's Republic of China (aka PRC or China) is different from Republic of China (aka ROC or Taiwan).

Like I had said up thread (in post#22), "Mainland China" is not a wrong name, it's all about the context. For those who are in the know of PRC-Taiwan history (including western expats), "Mainland China" is definitely not a foreign term, especially when they want to identify PRC properly to either side of Taiwan strait.

I say in general consensus in the world of travel, when people say I need to get a "China" visa, they don't mean to get a Taiwanese visa. People, especially westerns, don't make a conscious effort to say "I am going to visit Mainland China for a month." They'll just say "China", and everybody gets it they are visiting PRC. Nowadays I doubt people would mistaken China ("中國" or "中華人民共和國") as Taiwan (aka ROC: 中華民國) whenever the word "China" is popping up during conversation or in print. As a general practice without any political intent, "China" is a more global layman term for PRC that doesn't include Taiwan at present day.

Therefore, "China-based Airlines Forum" would have been a more standard format for airlines forum on FT. That's when I saw this TB motion that only included PRC-based airlines, I raised 2 issues:

1) consistency in organization of airlines programs;
2) context for "Airlines of Mainland China."

IMHO, "China-based Airlines Forum" will be a much better name for PRC-based airlines, no matter how this motion conludes.

I did and I have. Tell me about it.

jackal

It's too late to modify the name of the forum in this proposal.

Would it be too much to ask people to perhaps comment on the proposal itself (to avoid continuing to water down the discussion of the merits of creating the forum) and create a new, separate discussion to consider renaming the forum once the forum gets approved?

goalie

I know I have been somewhat absent in this discussion but my two hockey pucks are:

As the proposal stands now, I'm against it simply because it does not include all airlines of China (red, pink, blue green or otherwise. I would like to see an "Airlines of China" forum with two sub-forms but that is not how the proposal was written. However, and with that being said, I may still vote in favor of this with the hopes that what I said above could be implemented down the road