garykung

This is my first proposal. So bear with me.

I would like to first thank travelkid for his idea and hard work on previous proposal on creating a forum for airlines of China.

I would like to also thank all TB members by considering my urge in voting No on this previous proposal.

As I have said before, 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, there were some concerns with previous proposal, which was not as well-constructed as it should be.

My proposal is simple. With TB's approval, FT will create a Main Forum with 2 sub-forums as follow:

Greater China Based Airlines (Main Forum) - Other airlines that not yet joined an alliance
- Star Alliance (Sub-forum) - CA/BR (Future)
- SkyTeam (Sub-forum) - CI/CZ/MU

(In defining Greater China, Greater China consists of Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan geographically to maintain FT's political neutral on Two Chinas issue.)

CX Asia Miles forum will remain standalone as is (due to traffic and limited representation of oneworld in the region).

Pursuant to TB's guideline:

1. Will the forum be (or is it now) beneficial to FlyerTalk?

Quoted from travelkid, China Destination Forum was created in 2004. Now it is the second largest forum with Asia Destination Fourm beside Japan (created in 2001). Without doubt, it proves 2 things:

- The forum is a success
- There is a demand for Chinese related forum
- Last year alone, 450 threads have posts
- Yearly average thread created: Japan - 290; China (alone) -277

Why FT needs a Greater China Airlines forum?

Under the current "Other Asian, Australian and South Pacific Frequent Flyer Programs" forum, threads related to Greater China airlines have been made up 20% since its inception.

Beginning this century, aviation have been developed rapidly in the area - improved safety, introduction of FFPs, partnerships and alliances, even production line for Airbus A320 series (the only Airbus production line outside Europe) - there is absolute no way to deny the rising positions of Greater China for worldwide aviation.

By creating a forum for Greater China airlines, it will not only attract more participants from the area (FT has began to be a known name in the area, thanks to mass media), but also allow our existing members to understand more about Greater China.

2. Will the new forum benefit a relationship with FlyerTalk? E.g., does the forum provide value for FT members, such as a friendly ear highly placed in the company

As above.

3. Is FT the best place to discuss this subject?

Yes.

4. Is there a passionate following? This is essential in order to provide dedicated expert helpers to get questions answered.

As travelkid mentioned in previous proposal, the success of China forum indicates the potential success of this proposal.

5. Is a critical mass of posts and readers anticipated or existing? We need adequate traffic to keep everyone visiting frequently. One living forum is more valuable than two mostly dead ones.

See #1.

6. Is this the best place on FlyerTalk for this subject? This is the classification issue. The answer depends primarily on achieving and maintaining critical mass. It also depends on whether or where the discussion might (or does) occur in the absence of the forum.

Given TB approved a lot of airlines belong to "Other Asian, Australian and South Pacific Frequent Flyer Programs" to form its own forums, it will be only a matter of time that this forum will be obsolete. With the current existing structure, there is absolutely no way for airlines in the Greater China area to have any meaningful discussions.

Dear All - Given this is a second proposal of similar idea, I would like to solicit ideas to improve my current idea revised from travelkid. And please constructive only.

Dear TB members and Mods - Given the previous proposal, I would like to request for some time so that other FTers can provide their insight in improving the proposal.

Thanks for all your consideration.

goalie

I like the premise of a main forum and two sub forums ^ but (and forgive my lack of "politicalabilty" ) why not something simple like

Airlines of China (main forum)
Airlines of Mainland China (sub forum)
Airlines of <whatever the other China is referred to*> (sub forum)

Like I said, forgive my lack of "politicalabilty"

lin821

Since you were rehashing the idea of yours from the earlier thread, I would like to restate my concerns (in bolding) that I don't think have been addressed in your proposal:

Somehow I got a feeling that TB is looking for something broader than the "China" part that both your and travelkid's proposals were wrapped around:

If I decipher it correctly and TB is aiming at restructuring our current Other Asian, Australian and South Pacific Frequent Flyer Programs Forum, where houses all the "Greater China based airlines", I think TB would like to come up with their own motion that can be "compellingly superior to the status quo."

Only if TB allows the general membership to provide input for the direction they are heading for before a formal motion is made, or history will repeat itself in the form of a complete failure that nobody said yes.

lin821

With due respect, there's nothing simple about your "lack of politicalabilty" because:

1). That doesn't comply with Organization of Airline Programs on FT (aka, "X-based airlines forum");

2). If your "Airlines of <whatever the other China is referred to*> (sub forum)" is "Airlines of Taiwan", two issues arise:
2a). logistical problem (which can and may go political):
2b). It would be nice to have a place for "airlines of Taiwan." I am not certain there's enough FT traffic, let it be subforum or not.

3). Do you really see that much traffic to justify a subforum for "Airlines of Mainland China?"

IMHO, the bottom line for (re)structuring so called "greater China airlines" is to not provoke any political debate or implication, similar to what FT has accomplished with destination fora:

goalie

And with all due respect , it appears that you threw politics into the fray.....

While that may be true, all I'm saying is that right, wrong or indifferent there are two "Chinas". Is there enough traffic to warrant the second sub-forum? I don't know but imho, it should be looked at that way and that is why I voted against to pervious proposal.

lin821

My actual point is that FT shouldn't set up any new forum that invites nor leaves the door open for political debates and I hope I managed to deliver it in my past and recent attempt.

If an airline and its FFP does gain enough interest and FT traffic, data will speak for itself and there won't be objection to create its own forum.

travelkid

Both this and OPs suggestions are acceptable for me. For me its more important to get the content, the user friendliness, and the community that will inevitably follow- than what excact term is used. Goalies proposal should treat Taiwan and PRC equally. As FT either has single carriers forums or region based forums, I think this will fit slightly better than OPs, and not provoke those (few) claiming its impossible to discuss Taiwanese and Chinese carriers in the same forum (despite accepting it as fine that that is actually status quo).

It seems well established that this is currently not a/the important factor (EI), and if it is- its equally established that the current traffic is far more than lots of (the majority?) current forums.

^ to OP for helping the further process by trying out new angles. As I concluded the other thread, its pretty clear many feel the need of this in some form. Lets work together to find the best way, and not just be negative. Hopefully the internal TB process to find some consensus is kickstarted as well.

garykung

This time, I did my homework.

Although there is no official guideline (AFAIK) that how many threads an airline needs to be qualified as a standalone forum, my research done with Other Asian, Australian and South Pacific Frequent Flyer Programs Forum shows:

BR - 490 threads
CA - 360 threads
CI - About 300 threads
MU/CZ - About 100 threads each

For BR/CA/CI alone, it can be a forum but itself. However, since I have a concern with the projected traffic, so that's why I don't think it is a good time to ask for BR to be a standalone forum.

Think outside the box - based on last proposal, some TBers have hinted that they are willing to accept even those the organization may not fit the existing organization.

I agree.

That's why my proposal asks for alliance-based so it makes more sense.

I agree - it will be only a matter of time that forum will be out of business.

garykung

Question: Without the political issues but geographically speaking - for those airlines that are HKG and MFM based (even NX is a CA affiliate), where will they belong to?

Based on lin821's comment on goalie's suggestion, my main focus is to avoid censorship from the PRC's Ministry of Public Security and at the same time to increase FT traffic.

For those who have been Mainland China before, you know that there is no Facebook, YouTube, and even Google, as they have been censored. I am not in a position that to censorship is good or bad, but it is simply a reality.

FT is a place of FFPs. Except for certain forums (like those OMNI), FT has been political-free. Last time I checked, FT is not censored by the PRC.

With this constraint, I have carefully considered Taiwan's position in this forum. By that, even we use geography as the basis of forming the forums, there may be an illusion that people think FT sort of make both sides equal, which is not the way that I want to be interpreted. That's why I proposed to form the forums based on airlines' choice (FWIW - I did not influence on any airlines choosing their own sides )

lin821

I think that's a right track to be FFP/airline-minded for FT's future development. I am not against thinking outside the box. I actually admire your creativity in your alliance subforum approach. However, we still have to factor in the current infrastructure of airline fora on FT, and whether there's enough demands and/or traffic for such subforums. What's the point to have subforums with no traffic to justify it, agree?

Let FFPs lead, not politics. In no position can FT settle the one or two Chinas debates. CX doesn't have to be "equal" to anyone to earn its own airline forum. Airline proposals centered around such line of thinking only lead to impasse.

If I am not mistaken, our current Other Asian, Australian and South Pacific Frequent Flyer Programs Forum is organized by continents/oceania. I don't know who can righteously dispute Taiwanese carriers are not based in Asia. Same logic applies to Chinese carriers. That's why the status quo isn't attracting ("Chinese") dispute nor debate.

Like nsx had pointed out, a new way to reorganize the current Other Asian, Australian and South Pacific Frequent Flyer Programs Forum has to be "compellingly superior to the status quo" to earn enough support among TBers themselves. That I totally agree.

travelkid

I believe you are not mistaken Which shows that its perfectly ok to let such carriers exist peacefully side by side in the same forum- as long as we get the forum name right^

Im not sure if "compellingly superior" is the new TB threshold, but obviously any changes should be made because they are believed to be an improvement, ie superior. And making info on Chinese FFPs easier available in any way would IMO fit that description. And we should not sacrifice improvements on the altar of perfection.

garykung

Thanks for the compliment

I think FT actually supports this new way of organization. If I am not mistaken, only newbies are those who always cross-post or start a thread in the wrong place(s).

Based on my research, the sub-forums will be fine - given that FTers will start posting threads for those (such as how well the lounge of BR/CA/CI/CZ/MU is...). But the Main forum (those who have not yet joined alliance) will be the issues. Not difficult to imagine - these are the small players within the Region. Their customer bases and routes can't be compared to those big 5. In that case, sub-forums will be the one supporting the Main forum.

FWIW - CX, in its history, has been troubled because of the mess. (In the past, CX did not fly to the Mainland at all.)

My proposal is intended to take all the politics away.

Also, FWIW:

I explicitly asked all of them to vote against. I don't know how many TBers listened to me. But history repeats itself - I asked them to vote no again ?

MSPeconomist

If the concern is that the Other forum has become too big, the obvious way to split it based on geography would be to have one forum for Other Asian carriers and a separate forum for Other Australia, New Zealand, and South Pacific based airlines.

SkiAdcock

I'm still of the this is a solution in search of a problem & that, as suggested in the other thread re: the motion that did not pass, that a sticky might be a first step in determining whether it makes sense to create a new forum, much less a new forum with two subforums.

Cheers.

travelkid

Depends how you define problem- vs improvement. Was EI more of a problem?

What made EI have critical mass vs the different ideas on Chinese carriers? Or where there mainly other arguments, open or hidden for such different outcome?