SkiAdcock

and I would do the opposite. I' d rather vote against something that isn't going to work well and needs to be fixed down the road. come up w/ a proposal (that' s generic btw and not aimed @ goalie) that addresses the overall picture.

I posted before that I wasn't supportive of this. I''ve not voted yet and will wait a while but still leaning against.

cheers

Santander

Yes to EI, yes to Airlines of Mainland China or Airlines of China.

Huge no to the forum being called Airlines of the People's Republic of China... Chinese people do not deserve such an indignity.

kaka

reading the first 2-3 pages of the asian FFP page, i dont think there's sufficient demand for a new seperate forum for airlines of maindland china.

lin821

My apology for another long post...

First things first, doesn't it also tell you something when there's no more new talk points on the proposal itself w/r/t PRC-based airlines & FFPs?

I understand it's too late to modify the motion. With due respect, I do think the issues I raise w/r/t name a new forum haven't been really thought through when a formal motion was put in place in TalkBoard Topics Forum.

I am certain TBers already leaned about the concerns among FTers creating a forum for carriers of "China" from the earlier discussed thread. Before this formal motion was posted on January 11th, we general membership had no idea if TB was going for a "Greater China" approach or PRC only take. At least I didn't know what TBers were thinking from reading and participating in the other discussion thread. Not until I saw the name of this proposed forum did I know TB is leaning toward a PRC-based airlines forum, with "Mainland" in the title.

When someone suggested an Aeroflot +++ forum about a year ago, TalkBoard ended up taking a more balanced approach then approved an "Airlines of Russia and the CIS forum" later on. Before SkiAdcock coming up with a formal motion, she took time soliciting feedback in the public forum about the name and scoop for such forum, so FTers knew what TBers were looking for and about to have a motion & vote on it. I recall that's how "CIS" came into picture. Great job, SkiAdcock! ^ The whole process was good work from TB.

Question #1: Why didn't TB follow the same steps with the current "an Airlines of Mainland China Forum" before a formal motion was made?

I see lots of similarities b/w the Russia/CIS airlines forum and "Chinese carriers" forum. However, the general membership wasn't given a chance to provide feedback about what TB wanted to accomplish and/or the name of the proposed forum. If TB had gone through the same process as Russia/CIS-based airlines, we probably wouldn't have to read my trilogy of a forum name in a motion that cannot be modified now.

Back to Aeroflot +++ forum, our Community Director chose to finalize the name for the current Russia/CIS-based Airlines Forum, even though TB approved an "Airlines of Russia and the CIS forum." That's the format and standardization of naming airlines fora on FT.

Question #2: What forum name should PRC-based airlines be?

Without knowing what's been discussed in the private TB forum, this motion can conclude in either way. If it fails, TBers may come back with a more improved motion when the right time comes. If approved as an "Airlines of Mainland China Forum", our Community Director can still do within her power to standardize the name for such forum.

I rather think my 2 cents about the forum name is not noise but how to have a better FT experience. I promise, I won't say anything more about the forum name in this thread.



I don't get it. People's Republic of China is the official name for China (中华人民共和国 or 中華人民共和國). How and why an official country name be insulting to its people? But in this case, I do believe a "China-based Airlines Forum" will do. Everything else can be taken care of by forum description.

jimbo99

Then I'd expect China Airlines and EVA posts to go there.

Anyway the proposal is "Airlines of Mainland China Forum". If there is to be a new forum (I don't think there should be), then that's the name I'd want.

SkiAdcock

In accordance with the guidelines that means we'll announce if a motion has passed or failed once enough yes or no votes have been recorded by TB members, this is the public notice that this motion will fail as it will not secure 6 yes votes.

Please note that not all TB members have voted yet, and so a final announcement with who voted yes/no will not be posted until all 9 have voted or the voting period ends.

nsx

I'm with goalie here.

Rationalizing organization of information about Southeast Asian airlines is difficult. We need to find a proposal that is compellingly superior to the status quo. This is not that proposal. I voted no.

lin821

(bolding mine)



FWIW, unless TB is discussing creating some airlines forum for another region in the private forum, Southeast Asia is a complete different region from China, Taiwan, Hong Kong & Macau.

From Wikipedia:

nsx

Sorry for the terminology error. I'm not an expert on geography. I was just looking at a map of Asia and considering that China is in its east to southeast. I wanted to include all the other southeast countries in my statement.

garykung

Dear All TB members,

Thanks for all your service to FT community and travelkid's hardwork for this proposal.

Most of you are well aware that the word "China" is a sensitive topic. Based on all the discussions here, I don't think I need to repeat the issue.

The idea of creating a forum for the airlines in the Greater China area is crucial to the future success of FT giving the increasing influence of Chinese airlines to the world. However, a lot of us have provided (including some of you) some concerns with this proposal. This makes us believe that the proposal is not as well-constructed as it should be.

In order to get this Motion pass (or fail), it requires 5 TB members to vote for (or against) the Motion.

goalie, SkiAdcock, and nsx have express their view against the Motion.

kokonutz and jackal has expressed its concern about the proposal.

Given that - I urge all of you can vote against the Motion so that this idea can be back to planning phase. So that we all can help to construct a better proposal for TB to vote for.

Thanks for reading and consideration.

Gary

jiejie

Tall words. Back it up. Otherwise, I call BS on this over-the-top statement.

Santander

I mean this in the same way that we still call "Myanmar" as Burma, because the government does not represent the aspirations of the people and thus lacks legitimacy and the right to name the country. The Chinese government is indifferent to many, brutal to some and benevolent to few. I am not trying to make a political statement, I am merely pointing out that the Chinese government does not represent the people. In addition, with China adopting increasingly cynical interpretations of Communism which are far from Communist or even socialist, they've lost the right to use the "People's" name.

North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but even North Koreans know that their country is as far from democratic as you can get. I cringe when anyone outside the foreign service uses "DPRK" to describe North Korea because the name is not ironic or inaccurate, it is plain insulting to the North Korean people.

I actually laughed when I read this.

But to go back on topic... upon more careful consideration I withdraw my previous support for an Airlines of China forum, regardless of the name. As a regular reader of the Other Asian FFP board, while I agree that Chinese airlines make up the bulk of the forum's content, I think it is still a very quiet forum and does not currently need splitting. If/when any of the Chinese airlines actually becomes a major player (on FT as well as the airline industry) I think TB should give them their own forum then.

garykung

As you are not my target audiences, logically I am not obligated to respond to you. However, since you bring this up. I will explain my perspective. BS or not, this will be my last response on this:

1. The recent approval of Taiwan for joining the U.S. VWP program will significantly increase Taiwan-U.S. traffic. This will potentially increase FT's traffic regarding CI or BR issue.

2. FT begin to be a world-known forum. Couple days ago, a major (and the only English) Hong Kong newspaper quoted comments from FT in an article about CX/KA's dining downgrade for certain routes.

3. Years ago - only CA and MU have alliance relationship. Now - all major airlines in the area are either join with an alliance or in process joining.

4. DL's implementation of MQD may spark some U.S. based China-bound travelers to divest from DL to other ST members.

5. FT is not subject to the censorship by the Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China.

You can't really deny that the airlines industry in the Greater China area has been developed rapidly in the last few years.

BTW - CA has been a major player in the area, but still does not have its own home yet...

moondog

That's all well and good, but you can't deny the fact that people here don't care enough YET. Besides, I really like our "other" forum. It's a bit of a melting pot for us expats in Asia, and the post volume is low enough such that clutter is never an issue.

travelkid

I hope small matters about naming wont get in the way of strategic thinking.

If TBers feel there are merits for creating more community and content around Chinese airlines, I hope that those being positive, can work together on TB private forum to find a solution.

IMO its totally ridiculous if this will all be semantics and politics, and not pragmatic and solution oriented for the benefit of all.

China destination forum has been great for both content and community. There is absolutely no single indicator that this will not be the case as well with something along the lines of this proposal.