"Should Talk Board Members be required to make a statement of how many nights per year they actually are gone from home on travel? Maybe for future elections this could be a requisite?"

No and no.

"Does the 'general member' have anyway of knowing that the TB members really travel?"

No.

"Should there be a minimum requirement? 100 nights per year or so?"

No and no.

Here it's enough for me that the members of FT who've voted have voted for a TB member. If the FT membership base wanted to screen out certain candidates, these very same general members of FT can exercise their judgment and choose not to vote for those who don't meet their criteria.

Wow, I am shocked. Here are a few things to consider:

1. How would someone prove how much they travel, and what if they run for TB and the year they serve their term they travel zero? Would they be kicked out of office?

2. Can't we just let the FT community vote who is the best without trying to make all these requirememnts?

3. What about people that travel 200K+ miles a year but usually on short trips and don't even break 50 nights a year away from home?

4. What does being in hotels 100+ nights a year prove? I am willing to bet that most general members on FT know more about the programs they like than the highest tier elites.

I really don't get this...

I disagree with this idea.

TB members are voted in to their position. People can vote for members for whatever reasons they want.

How many nights someone was away from home in the last year only tells me how many nights someone was away from home in the last year. It doesn't tell me they are reasonable. It doesn't tell me what they believe in. It doesn't tell me how they look at certain issues. It doesn't tell me anything that is important to me with respect to who is representing me on TB.

Nights from home was just an example.

Number of trips.

Number and level of loyalty programs.

75,000 Air Miles

etc etc

The point is that if it is being "refocused" to a strict miles and points IBB, I have strong feelings that the TB out to be traveling more than three times a year to go see grandma. With the focus we should expect to see travelers.

Thinking about this, maybe just asking this as the "debate" questions would suffice. But there should be a minimum. We certainly have no way of verifying, other than honesty. 25% Travel would be fifteen trips and or 50 nights per year. Something along those lines.

I don' think that mandating a minimum level of yearly "travel" would be practical (i.e. who decides what the levels are?).

If yearly travel experience is important to someone, then there is already a mechanism to ask for that information. Do it during the TB Election Q&A period. If someone doesn't answer or doesn't have your personal minimum level of experience, then don't vote for them. If this topic is really important to enough members, then the votes will show it.

My 2cents worth.

I think that the OP as written is a bad idea, simply because it seems to take away FT voting member choices due to an arbitrary standard.

I do think that having this as one of the debate questions is a fantastic idea. It's so obvious I can't believe no one thought to ask it before.

I like the idea of asking it as a question, but I am still confused why it was brought up. Has there been an issue in the past in regards to how much travels and their performance as a Talkboard member?

Me too. Nope -- this Forum has become the new OMNI for April it seems is the simple answer.

I do not for one second believe it was a serious question, and I most certainly can confirm the matter has never been an issue of any kind on my 18 months on TB .. and indeed on the years of threads I have read before my term there.

My guess is that the 9 TB members travel as much as, or more, than the average FT'er, which would be pretty self evident if anyone made the slightest effort to check it out. Several of us are highest level airline elites which one imagines involves a little bit of travel. @:-)

Bottom line - when Randy calls for TB nominations there is no requirement re amount of travel - nor should there be in my view.

Unless the OP wants to tackle Randy privately on that for the next election, this thread seems to be just another post padding effort some may say.

When TalkBoard elections come around, members are usually given an opportunity to pose questions to the candidates. Any member can pose the question, "How much do you travel, and what programs have you achieved status in?" And those members who wish to base their votes on the answers to such a question may do so.

On that note, shouldn't people who are banned from certain forums be forbidden from serving on the TB?

I don't know, i guess so - maybe the current TB would like to vote on that as a baby step towards a stricter policy.

Merely devalued.

This isn't the place to debate that proposal. I do appreciate the one that's under consideration in this thread. If, in fact, the TB believes that the FT community values flying and travel discussion over other kinds of discussions, then TB qualifications with respect to flying and travel are clearly relevant.

As an example, I moderate a subforum on legal issues for videographers over at dvinfo.net. I was invited to do it because I'm (1) a lawyer who, (2) is heavily into video, i.e. I'm qualified. Shouldn't those who serve in an advisory position to a website in which discussion of flying and travel is valued over other kinds of discussion have the appropriate credentials?

I don't think mere membership in FF programs is enough. I have a slew of FF cards from foreign airlines I flew once, but that doesn't mean I have much knowledge or experience of them. I also don't think miles earned is a good criterion, since so many people get them through non-flying activities. Similarly, elite status can be gifted, bought or assigned by an employer.

I think we need to go by BIS miles, and should probably require that they be earned on a minimum number of different carriers -- after all, someone who flies exclusively on WN isn't going to have much to say about UA's program, and vice versa. Also, international travel is a whole different ballgame than domestic and, of course, we have FTers from many different countries. I'd think we'd have to require, at minimum, travel in every continent plus Australia (though excluding Antarctica -- I don't think there's a commercial airport there).

Yes, I like this proposal. I'd suggest a minimum of 75,000 BIS miles, earned on no fewer than three different carriers (with at least 5 segments on each of the three), touching all continents (except Antartica) and Australia at least once within a 12 month period. FF statements and/or boarding passes should suffice. Then, let's add to that 50 hotel nights in at least 5 different hotels (2 of which must be part of different international chains) in every continent (except Antarctica -- no public accommodation there, as far as I know) but, of course, including Australia.

Hey, this is fun!

I certainly think so.

Then there should be nothing to worry about. This measure won't change anything if what you say is true.

I promise I'm not trying to pad my post count by saying:

^