Originally Posted by flyingnosh (Post 21520755)

At first glance, this discussion smells like "I don't want people posting questions about (name your LCC) in my (name your airline) forum. Let's give them their own forum so we can keep our own (name your airline) forum nice and tidy."

But that's not very helpful.

People want answers. They want to go where the experts are. Experts can be found on the forums for the big airlines. Those airlines have complex programs. Even the experts don't know all the ways they can exploit them, which is why they spend so much time there, asking questions themselves.

Before we create another forum, we should understand whether there are experts in that particular topic, and if so, why they would want to spend time to monitor that forum and answer questions. Without that kind of discussion, it very much feels like we're just trying to get rid of the people who we believe shouldn't be playing in our playground.

Originally Posted by GregWTravels (Post 21523166)

I will admit to having not even realised there were "Other" airline forums until reading this thread.

Other Asian, Australian and South Pacific Frequent Flyer Programs
Other European Frequent Flyer Programs
Other Middle East and Africa Frequent Flyer Programs
Other North & South America Frequent Flyer Programs

As an occasional user of LCC without FF programs, most of my questions would be about routing, destinations, booking or refunds. I would be more inclined to post this in the regional forums under destinations than in these forums, or in the Budget Travel Forum in Travel & Dining.

Do we need both "Other FF" and "Budget" forums, or can we just rename the Other FF forums to be something like "Other European Airlines (with or without Frequent Flyer Programs)"?

Originally Posted by Eastbay1K (Post 21517707)

If an airline does not have a FFP, it should not be mart of any "miles and points" forum, by definition.

Originally Posted by NickB (Post 21520118)

So what looks like the obvious truth to librarian cblaisd (and fellow librarian tcook052) is not at all obvious to 89% of FTers. Now, it may well be that 89% of FTers are simply not very bright and need to be educated in the "correct" way to search the library and that, in the meantime, the army of assistant librarians should spend their time relocating the 89% of books which are routinely misplaced.

Originally Posted by Counsellor (Post 21524309)

For instance, a sticky first post on "How to Use this Forum" that explains the organization (all budget airlines included) and suggestions on how to best find stuff (for information on particular airlines, try the "search this forum" tool, entering the name of the airline you're interested in) would reduce the number of "mispaced books" and along with it moderators' need for reshelving.

Originally Posted by NickB (Post 21520118)

I thought that I had made it more than amply clear in the other thread (in particular in this post and that post) that this is not at all what my argument is about but rather that a modicum of intellectual humility might be in order when what one views as an obvious truth encounters difficulties when faced with the real world. We can illustrate that using your librarian example:
OK. Now, let us assume that our great librarian considers that books on Easyjet/Ryanair should go on the "other European FFPs" shelves. Our librarian is absolutely certain that this is the right shelf. But what if a majority of users of the library do not share that view and therefore go elsewhere? Should the library be organised in a manner that corresponds to how users search or according to the librarian's personal view of what the "correct", "simplest" manner to organise books should be? Should the librarian theoretical view of correctness prevail over the actual use of the library by users?

I went through the numbers for Ryanair and Easyjet and the Budget Travel forum in that post in the other thread. Now, you might wish to say, in a triumphant manner:"ah, ah! that proves my point! Budget Travel is clearly not the right forum for these airlines. OEFFP is". The problem with that, though, is that the numbers are even more dismal for OEFFP. Out of 419 threads with Easyjet in the title on FT, only 45 (viz. < 11%) are in OEFFP.

So what looks like the obvious truth to librarian cblaisd (and fellow librarian tcook052) is not at all obvious to 89% of FTers. Now, it may well be that 89% of FTers are simply not very bright and need to be educated in the "correct" way to search the library and that, in the meantime, the army of assistant librarians should spend their time relocating the 89% of books which are routinely misplaced.

... or perhaps librarian cblaisd and tcook052 might perhaps consider whether their world view of what the "correct" classification is is nowhere near as intuitive and simple as they think it is?

I will happily grant you that I do not know whether creating LCC forums will necessarily work better or not. It may or it may not. Nor am I sure that it will necessarily work better for all parts of the world. There may be more of a case for an LCC forum in some parts of the world and not in others. But when the system is patently broke it seems to me that it is worth trying something else to see if it works better.

When 89% of posts end up in something that you would regard as the wrong place, pretending that all is fine and nothing need be done is, imo, stretching credibility.
I ask you something: if only 11% of posts concerning AA were posted in the AA forum and 89% ended up elsewhere,would you not consider that you have a problem with your classification?

So why pretend that all is fine and that OEFFP is the right forum for airlines like Easyjet and Ryanair when experience tells you that this simply does not work?

Originally Posted by GregWTravels (Post 21523166)

Do we need both "Other FF" and "Budget" forums, or can we just rename the Other FF forums to be something like "Other European Airlines (with or without Frequent Flyer Programs)"?

Originally Posted by kokonutz (Post 21524643)

...I also want to point out that I am very, very much in favor of changing the names of the forums from being 'program' oriented to being 'airline' oriented.

Originally Posted by sfo (Post 21521207)

Definition of your word "budget?"

Originally Posted by JohnnyColombia (Post 21525161)

^

I agree, there are still some airlines which are part of the big three alliances which do not have their own forum. Eva Air is an example, Malaysia, TAM etc. Once all airlines that are members of major alliances get their own forum as they arguably ought to, then the remaining "other" forums would be a handy catchall.

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 21527219)

Forum names need to be changed?

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 21527219)

Changing or keeping the description of the forums (to include discussion of the airline with the FFP) doesn't work?

Originally Posted by 84fiero (Post 21527834)

Also, is there a reason that the name of the proposed European forum has the phrase "Frequent Flyer" in it while the others do not?