For the record, I have voted "no" on this motion

thank you ^

Because if the answer was yes, he would have said so, instead of not answering the question.

And TB itself is nothing but pedantic arguments over the content of an Internet message board. You would think a body that is so concerned about procedure that they make anyone requesting a new forum fill out a 10 question form would at least strive for some consistency in its actions.

I have never demanded such a thing, FWIW. Others in TB seem to think that's important, but I never have.

Hey, I am such a stickler for rules and consistency that I played a large hand in creating the TB Guidelines several years ago.

And here is the guideline from the TB guidelines on the matter: So nsx has flexibility by design. And that flexibility was granted on purpose: TB does not have a parliamentarian and we all have day jobs. We may not LIKE his calls, but they are his calls to make. So it's all good, imho.

The bigger issue to me is that this stuff would have been caught if we had put these motions on the public forum before we made and seconded them in the private forum. I know we are busy with lots of goals as the term ends...all the MORE reason to let the posters get a good look at the proposals before we make them into formal motions.

Now lets to get to the merits of this specific proposal:

As I said in my only comment on this matter in the private TB forum, I wholeheartedly agree that fee-happy airlines need a home on FlyerTalk. But I am deeply conflicted as to whether that should be one forum or four.

I kind of hate that we'd have however-many regional forums for 'traditional' airlines and 4 for fee-happy airlines. That's a lot of forums for not very many airlines. But I see why they should be separated, too, because the issues are so different, as are the comparisons among the airlines of the traditional or fee-happy type. And THEN there is the issue that some airlines are turning into fee-happy airlines (AHEM, Smisek, AHEM!).

This is one where I would have liked to see a lot of poster input on a proposed motion before it was finalized, because I am so conflicted. Maybe some poster could have crystallized an approach that I would love. Maybe not.

So that's where I stand: conflicted and a little frustrated. :)

This proposal gives us room for burgeoning fee-happiness everywhere. :D

Your dilemma exactly matches mine leading up to this proposal. I was on the fence about 1 vs. 2 forums for EasyJet and RyanAir (the largest of these budget airlines worldwide) until others convinced me that geographic categorization made the most sense.

When you divide the budget airlines geographically, the most consistent method is to match the structure of the existing geographically divided forums. That's where SkiAdcock ended up, and I found her argument persuasive.

We have a week left to debate this proposal. Let's see what our members think. IMHO creating a good home for EasyJet and RyanAir is the minimum necessary step. Considering consistency of forum organization I believe that the current proposal is the most comprehensive way to accommodate proliferating fee-happy carriers, but other opinions are welcome on this thread.

Whoa, somebody just left the door open and let me in here for first post (in these parts)!

Take a business approach to it: create a LCC [not another USAir ;) ] forum and test the water to see what kind of reception it gets. Mods may find generic Qs on strategies or posts/Qs on specifics about specific airlines; they may find very little interest or overwhelming response sufficient to break out dialogue further. I agree with others who have reminded us that LCCs may grow up and be bigger players someday (look at Norwegian, LUV, or RYAAY) but that position isn't really relevant: tagged posts can always be moved/transplated at a later time to their own airline programs forum (more entry airlines have failed over last 30 years than have succeeded, btw). I'm not of the impression ignoring the LCC in our business/hobby/interest discussions is wise considering their pivotal roles in industry growth (Southwest Effect aside, their reach to the flying masses flying from non legacy interests is their bread-n-butter) and subsequent impact on the major/legacy/global airlines' responses (think TED, Song, CAL lite, Thai Smile, Germanwings , etc.). The LCC have a large role in this industry under developed in dialog here, perhaps mentioned tangentially in an associated forum (notionally in TG: which is better Thai Smile or Thai Air Asia CNX-BKK?)

LCC are defined by their seat mile/km costs and by nothing else--service, stage length, "fees" all result from the model and CASM/KM; with that the additional question exists: who would be left out of new fora? Spirit, Allegiant, and their international peers are actually termed ultra Low Cost but I think they would still qualify and, further, be welcome additions. As to whether the mileage hunters, status seekers, points players or the like who may form a majority of regular posters would find it valuable, my guess is most here were narrowly aligned with their 'favorites' before venturing into FT: only by frequenting FT did they find all possibilities for investigating travel "what ifs". Build it and they will come.

I'm only a 200 poster, recently AA EXP, but an industry insider by profession and follower by education and research interests. Heck if Mods were curious but couldn't 'afford' manpower, I'd volunteer to help in some capacity if allowed. Rest assured I like talking LCC more than non-LCC :)

PS: As for fee-happy airlines dedicated pages, that's kinda a funny (interesting not ha-ha): 7 of the top 12 airlines globally by ancillary revenue are not ULCC/LCC (however 10/10 as % of revenue are LCC; http://www.ideaworkscompany.com/wp-c...e-Yearbook.pdf). The top fee milkmen of the airline industry already have their own forums here. Granted, fees as a percentage of ticket price are most apparent on lower priced tickets and for those travelers who may not be associated with a particular airline simply need/want advice on LCC ins-out, they would likely shy away from our site rather than search ad naseum in disaggregated forums. Somebody mentioned this is a library: Dewey would find it curious we're missing such a major element in our offerings.

I disagree. From a customer's perspective these fee-happy airlines are defined by the lengths to which they will go to fleece uninformed customers.

I flew RyanAir this summer. They are the epitome of fee-happiness. I researched their procedures and traps here on FlyerTalk. As a result, I had a great trip with no unpleasant surprises. I want all FT'ers to have that opportunity and experience. No other website can fill this need as well as we can.

+1

I've voted yes on this for the reasons outlined earlier in the thread.

Cheers.

Okay, a rephrase and rejoinder:

LCCs are 'officially' defined by their CASM. The biggest fee grabbers on absolute scales are the US legacy carriers. LCCs may be more opaque about fees but they are also smaller players on the global scale in terms of reach, appeal to business travel, and status seekers, and probably don't get the attention they deserve/warrant by frequent flyers or once-a-year vacationers doing research. Don't miss my message: I think there is an unmet/emerging need for the LCC forums. Point of agreement: If it wasn't for the LCCs pushing fees beyond the 'days-of-old' charges the legacies took just 3 years ago and making them so opaque, some of the legislated webpage requirements here in the States would probably still be elusive making posts like 'nsx''s research thread more common. Even RYAAY has gone nuts about fees for this-and-that over last 3-5 years; the growth of fees globally makes the airlines' beans guys smile. LCCs are more than fees though [fees may just be more apparent due to 'base' fares]. Trip routing/ease of use/city feasibility/seating/"tricks"/route rumors compared to Flag or other LCC carriers are all valid discussions reasons to add them into the mix at their own individual portals beyond the fee issue.

In retrospect, I think the LCCs don't need an LCC area but rather should simply be under the Airline Programs umbrella [the vote is for four forums so that's kinda cut and dry, but not ideal for organizational purposes, especially with the nonregional growth of LCCs recently like Norweigian transcending historical geographic bounds--that is a reality now that is only going to increase LCC competition across geographic lines]. I'm sure when FT was [and is currently] organized, the Airline Programs pages were aimed at talking about the FF programs as their mainstay: each has ventured so far from that and towards a general area for a particular airline (fleets, seats, tickets, marketing, customer service) that 'Programs' is now a misnomer especially for somebody looking for 'non-program' information. The LCCs should simply and individually have their own pages under a relabeled "Airlines" section; maybe a delimiter for making the separate page inclusion could be pax/year or $ turnover so as to avoid having pages for every start up. Although I envision why LCCs should be grouped for comparative purposes (FT1 want's to go from London to Rome and may be better served by focusing only on regional players), I think that misses their growing role transregionally. This section, natch, is one dedicated to administration rather than operational feasibility...something to consider in future revisions if vote passes.

Not sure if I can vote but would [if I could only find the darned 'vote' button--new guy issue, or maybe not]--looked on iPad but now gonna search via laptop.

You can't vote. Only Talkboard members. But your highly educated opinion is valued and can educate TB members and influence their votes.

That's why I put the 'maybe not' -- figured I'm too freshman ;)

As one of the nine TalkBoard members who can vote on this proposal, I wanted to thank you for your contributions. They are helpful as I consider which way to go on this and possible future revised proposals.

saw an article in yesterdays Bangkok Post that Thai AirAsia now has 47% of the flights into/out of Thailand so I guess there are a great # of buyers on this LCC...........

they're adding 5 more A320s this year and another 5 more next year to add to their max 3-hr destinations as well as adding wide bodies (likely 767s as they did in KL) to their fleet to take on destinations over 3-hrs (like Japan, Korea and perhaps AU)......