Dovster

To be honest, TB has always rejected more ideas than it has accepted. There is nothing wrong with that -- most ideas presented to it really should not be implemented.

Non-members have generally not been aware of this simply because no action was taken and hence no announcement was made. eg: If FTerX went to TB Topics and said he wants Israel's Arkia Airlines to have its own forum, a TB member might ask on the private forum whether there is any interest. When he sees that there isn't, the matter is dropped -- without ever coming to a vote.

The only problem lies in the fact that ordinary FTers can not see that the matter was raised -- or see why no member made a motion. (In the hypothetical case I just raised, someone would be certain to point out that there are not many Arkia flyers on F/T and its frequent flyer club has so few options and offers that it is not worth having a forum for it.)

If FTers could see the discussions, I think that the majority of them, in most cases, would agree with TB. As things stand now, of course, they are simply left frustrated by the lack of information.

For example, even as a former member, with a good idea of how TB works, I am left puzzled by this vote. Obviously one member (WHarvey) felt that it would be a good idea and made a motion to establish the forum. A second member (Spiff), found enough value in it to second the motion.

The normal procedure would be to vote on it and if six members favored it, to recommend that it be approved. Without those six in favor, it would fail.

Instead, TB took an action which I have never seen before -- Gleff moved to table the existing motion, OzStamps seconded it, and these two members, along with five others, voted in favor. Even more unusual, it decided to hold this vote with a one week cut off, instead of the usual two weeks, which I have only seen done in emergency cases.

With 7 of the 9 members voting in favor of this, I would have to presume that there was a very good reason for doing this instead of simply voting against the original motion (which could always be brought up again some time in the future).

Still, I have no idea of what that reason was. It was not only because TB needed more time to see how Spirit was doing. It could have accomplished that, as I said, by voting down the existing motion now and raising it again in the future. There had to be an additional factor of which non-members are not aware.

This is not to suggest that there was some kind of anti-Spirit conspiracy. As I know TB, and its members, I would find that idea rather ridiculous. My gut feeling is that given the all the information I would agree that TB took the right track.

But how can I -- or any member -- know that without knowing all the details?

FreeSpiritFan

Would I be correct to say that if we talk about Spirit a bunch on the AA, NW, and US boards that those members would eventually want to "expunge" the Spirit talk onto another board?

kokonutz

For now your threads would be put into the pegatory of 'other NA programs.'

The decision mystifies me. If FLYERtalk is not about airline frequent flyer programs, ...rig is it about!?!?!?!?!!?

I sure do wish I was privvy to the debate!

wharvey

[QUOTE=kokonutz]I'd like to know from wharvey whether his vote against tabling was because he supported the forum or because he wanted an up or down vote on the forum.

Kokonutz... I am always glad to explain my decisions...


As Spiff announced earlier in this thread, I actually made the motion for the creation of this forum... and it was being voted on.

So, I definitely support this forum and believe it should be given a chance... I seem to remember JetBlue being given a forum BEFORE its frequent flyer program started. The Talkboard voted to wait until it announced its program... I was the only dissenter... and Randy created the forum against the wishes of the majority of the Talkboard. So, I am not a firm believer that a need for a forum needs to exist all the time. (I reserve the right to change that view depending on the forum request... )

Without talking about deliberations, I can also say I was against this tabling for one simple reason: We are an advisory board and as such, should be able to make recommendations that may or MAY NOT be what Randy wants. He can choose whether or not to accept our recommendations... and he has done both in the past.

Finally, if people did not want the forum... they could have simply voted against the motion to create the forum. Members have done that before... and then revoted for the same motion some time later.

Understand, as was posted in this thread, an Up-or-Down vote on this forum was taking place at the time this tabling motion was put on the table. To this day, I believe this vote should have been allowed to proceed, the results posted, and - if passed - our recommendation to Randy.

William

kokonutz

[QUOTE=wharvey]Thanks as always for the explanation, William, it is as enlightening as ever! I do hope that Randy chooses to override the TB's 'non-decision' decision on a recommendation since this IBB's core mission is talking about frequent flyer programs.

It would appear, FreeSpiritFan, that a direct appeal to Randy might yet bear some fruit if you are so inclined: [email protected]

magiciansampras

Hopefully Randy will overrule this one. Bad decision by TB (IMHO of course).

FWAAA

to today's lobbying efforts. Spamming the AA forum (and other airline fora) isn't the proper way to drum up support, IMO.

FreeSpiritFan

OK, so I am learning the rules here....people don't like to know about $9 fares in "their" chatroom. I guess they only want to gripe and mope about the situation they got themselves stuck into w/ their dying legacy carrier (insert DL, US, UA, NW - maybe even AA here).

but

I also posted on the "Other North & South America Frequent Flyer Programs" board - and got blasted there, then had the post removed.

A. So much for telling people about an amazing sale anymore

B. What's the deal? Looks like talk about Spirit isn't welcome anywhere on FT. I see their ads on this site everyday...maybe they should be told they are advertising on a site that doesn't want them? Anyone have BBB's # handy?

Spiff

Try reading the rules first rather than discovering them as you break them. @:-) The FlyerTalk TOS is quite clear about multiple posts/cross posting.

Your post would have been welcome in the "Other North & South America Frequent Flyer Programs" had it been the only place you posted it. Mileage Run, if these fares earned miles, might have been another possibility.

ScottC

Thanks for the input.

The decision to NOT create the forum just yet was made in coordination with Randy, so I don't expect any "overturning" of our decision.

magiciansampras

We'll see.

Does TB often operate in coordination with Randy? If not, why in this particular case? If so, why?

HRDiva

[QUOTE=wharvey]Why does that not surprise me?

By the way there are 100,000 Free Spirit members as of this week according to BBB.

ozstamps

Yes members may not have realised this, reading the rest of the comments, that Randy's thoughts and input were part of the process here.


Randy has no formal vote on TB motions at all, nor even appoints a representative these days, but sometimes adds his general thoughts, and TB members can and often do vote counter to them if they feel so minded. I recall a member mentioning above a Spirit forum had started and then been removed, and TB President said he'd ask and check with Randy if there was any truth to that. There was not as I recall the response.

Some TB members admitted they knew little about Spirit before their initial vote. So we concurrently voted to shelve the idea of a new Forum for the time being - that is all that has occurred here.

We can re-activate the idea at any time IF members show there is a real need for a Spirit forum. So far there is no evidence of that.

I certainly pointed out on the private board that perhaps a little more time might perhaps elapse before we rushed into starting a new forum for each low cost carrier.

Members who claim above there is such a need for a Forum should ideally demonstrate this via threads and posts on the now current correct forum that Spirit should be discussed in - "Other North & South America Frequent Flyer Programs" Forum, they may well find that they by their actions demonstrate a real need.

So far that is not the case.

Kvetching about a 'bad decision" when there is almost no evidence at all such a forum is needed or warranted is pretty counter-productive.

As I posted in the private board, we do NOT even have forums for major international carriers such as Malaysian Airlines.

gleff

To clarify ScottC's comment above, a member here reported seeing a Spirit Air forum appear and disappear in short oder.

As far as I can tell, the report was erroneous. However, it led me to query Randy in case there was something to it.

Dovster

Okay, by reading some of the more recent posts in this thread, I can now understand why TB acted as it did. Apparently it was headed in one direction (towards approval) and after Randy made his views clear changed its mind.

That explains the sudden tabling motion. TB regulations prohibit changing your vote and it is very possible that the original motion had already received the six needed to pass.

I'm not certain that I agree with TB on this one. On one hand, Randy has the final say and if he strongly disagrees with a TB recommendation he will simply not implement it. Therefore, TB members may have felt that a recommendation to establish a Spirit Forum several months from now would have a better chance of being accepted by Randy.

On the other hand, Randy has been known to accept TB recommendations even when he disagrees with them (the Religious Travel Forum, as Randy has stated publicly, was one such example).

My gut feeling is that TB does not exist to confirm Randy's opinions. Randy is an intelligent guy and know what he believes. It serves neither FT nor Randy any good to tell him that you agree with him when you don't.

TB exists to give Randy additional input -- presumably from the point of view of the members. Randy is then free to accept or reject this advice but as he has demonstrated his willingness to be open minded enough to go along with TB recommendations, he should at least be presented with them.