cblaisd

You're welcome to create whatever definition of "playing politics" you wish, but sometimes what is a good idea at one point and in one context gets trumped by another idea and another context, as nsx has so eloquently pointed out -- it's about respect -- and as I have tried more feebly to point out.

And, psssst, Punki, it's still cblaisd, cblaisd

Cholula

My take on TB is that we are elected to represent the FT membership based on what the members feel about our judgment when they elect us.

I don't think they necessarily want us to poll everybody as to how we should or should not feel or vote on a specific issue.

I've got a pretty clear idea of where I'd like to see FT in the future and I'm voting on that vision.

But I do listen to dissenting viewpoints and have been known to do a 180 on some issues. But this one is a slam dunk IMHO.

Punki

I absolutely respect your position, Cholula

Punki

cblaisd writes:

Respect for whom and for what?

As far as I can see from the public record, this motion was originally made on the final day of the TB election and completed by a lame duck TalkBoard within hours of the new TalkBoard members taking office. Just exactly who was respecting whom?

If the FlyerTalk membership selects new representation based on how well they think those folks will support their needs and desires, then the new representatives have a duty to act upon the wishes of their constituents as quickly as possible. If they fail to do so, they deserve whatever results they receive the next time they stand for office.

cblaisd

unPik,

Fair point.

Will you sponsoring a TB motion that at a certain point before or during an election that the Talk Board can do no more business?

Disagree. I expect them to exercise good and respectful judgment, not thumbing their collective noses at their colleagues and former colleagues. That only undermines community.

Punki

One of the best benefits we enjoy from a free society is the right to respectfully disagree without incurring punitive damage.

And, FWIW, yes I would suggest that, at the end, we leave any unfinished business on the table for the next session.

cblaisd

True, but I'm not sure how that is relevant?

But it was finished before the session was concluded.

Will you be sponsoring "legislation" to define how this might work and what "unfinished" means and how many days before the election there can no longer be votes (or can the TB not discuss during that time either?). I'll be intrigued to see how you word your proposal.

In the meantime, and back on topic, I didn't have strong feelings about this when the previous TalkBoard voted on it. But I do have strong feelings on it now, not because of the forum's creation but because of the process for creating it that seems unseemly and disrespectful and undermining of collegial respect. But we're both repeating ourselves now.

Punki

I can guarantee you that I will not support any motions made during the next election period, except in the exremely unlikely event that we are requested to do so, on an emergency basis, by the administration.

I don't think that I have said that before.

J-M

That's the textbook definition of "playing political games" which you've accused other members of doing. Looking after the best interest of the FT membership as a whole means not playing the political games you continue to engage in, and focusing on the merits of the proposal.

cblaisd

Let me try again: The notion of the "merits of the proposal" is not some context-neutral thing. The merits of any proposal, this one included, are affected and changed by its context. The context here has changed; the merits of this proposal have also changed therefore.

I don't understand the anger or the misplaced accusation, but oh well....

Moderator2

The rhetoric here is getting way too heated, and in some cases is aimed at the wrong parties. This thread (and other similar ones in the past) is intended as a sounding board in order to influence the TalkBoard to vote a certain way. Back and forth debating between two general members may not be the most effective way to get your point across to the elected TalkBoard. Let's keep the thread on topic and cordial.

gkaczmarskyj

As my stats support, I'm clearly a "casual poster" (at best) but a reasonably frequent reader (daily) of my favorite forums (UA, Hyatt, Hertz). I just had my first flight on VX a few weeks ago (courtesy of UA not being accommodating in an emergency situation) and was pleasantly surprised by their product. I joined eleVAte and quickly turned to FT to read up on the program - I couldn't find anything. I went to Virgin and found quickly that "this isn't the place". Using search capability in FT is difficult for the untrained (like me) but by the dumb luck of putting in 4 words I came across this thread. So with that, I'm probably an example of kokunutz's observations about VX interest.

To FT voting board membrs - pls give consideration to those like me who have an interest in the VX reward program and would like a forum to learn, promote and provide feedback on the program.

I don't know the "cost" of setting up a separate forum (I assume "moderation" is one of the big efforts/costs), but I have to ask "what does it hurt?". Worst case, it proves to be less than active and you shut it down or delete it (don't know if that's possible). Would that be so bad? Maybe would make sense to start it up and see how it does? By reference, I find that the Hertz forum is minimally active (1-2 new threads a day - either that or my RSS reader is setup incorrectly) - VX may prove to be similar after the "buzz" period and until the airline gets more critical FT mass, routes, etc. (also consider that UA forum gets a ton of activity b/c of service/complaints/controversy whereas VX is still in honeymoon period and may not see as much activity b/c service not so bad...yet...).

Thanks for the consideration.

Cholula

Very reasonable and well thought-out comments, gkaczmarskyj.

Thanks for the input. Much appreciated!

whlinder

I personally feel the best course of action at this time would have been to take a broader review of the ONSAFFP forum and the lesser-used U.S. carrier forums (Air Tran, Midwest, Frontier and maybe even jetBlue) and determine whether it is more beneficial to have all of them spread out in their own forums or to have them consolidated in ONSAFFP. Or perhaps to create a separate "other U.S. based airlines" forum and consolidate some of those listed carriers' forums into it. IMHO this would have been a better course of action than fast-tracking a new forum that was voted down by the TB once already.

Spiff

Agreed and I am happy to discuss rolling Air Tran, Midwest, Frontier, jetBlue, et. al. into ONSAFFP in a separate thread. @:-)