Kiwi Flyer

I agree with Dovster. How many FTers know that jetstar is not a member of OW despite being owned by Qantas, similarly Silkair is not a member of *A despite being owned by Singapore Airlines, that Royal Jordanian is a OW member, that blue1 is a *A member, etc? While the more knowledgeable FTers know all this, those less informed will find the information harder to get. Isn't FT about disseminating information?

Someone looking for information on airlines to fly to Tahiti for example, in this structure has to check other/other pacific (for Air Tahiti Nui and Air Pacific), *A/Air NZ and ST/Air France. Granted it is the same 3 places they have to look now, but at least currently the forums are all in the same section - in the proposal they would be subforums of 3 different sections.

There are other issues such as new members of an alliance (some people may think it is already a member when it isn't and vice versa) or when airlines switch alliance. When AI formally joins *A does this mean they have to have their own forum as airline of india no longer fits perfectly under other?

lucky9876coins

Thanks for the suggestion, NickB!^

My first reaction was very positive as well, although there are obviously a few issues that have to be worked out. In general I think this is a logical way to organize our forums, given the number of intra-alliance benefits there are. On the other hand, there are a few cons which I can see being (minor) problems, but I think with a bit of discussion they might be figured out.

tcook052

That website isn't the only one to use the alliance grouping as that's the way a Canadian FFP/FFM canflyer was set up. Have a look here.

BiziBB

Seems like this is a done deal. Well done.


I have some reservations, but all I am asking for is that the inconvenience of the change be minimised. I am primarily hoping to salvage Forum Jump (in its present, one-alphabetical-list format).

Can the Forum Jump menu be retained in alphabetical form? I prefer using it and I am not 100% on the one alliance (as there are limitation with them, so there is some overlap).

Example: Q & Q (OW and nonallianced/*alliance crediting)
I am planning a Qatar Airways trip. This airline does not fly to Australia. I might use Qantas (miles or sale fares). Qantas often contains JetStar information too - given its australia focus and ownership and shunting of some flights QF->JQ.

Thus I really use the alphabetical format of Forum Jump - and one list, not four or more. Forum Jump is the one clear list to quickly pick an airline by name and it is still a good tool.
Please.

kokonutz

This is FAR from a done deal, I assure you.

I posted a pros/cons list in the private TB forum and I predict a very healthy and possibly lengthy exploration of the concept.

So please keep all opinions, ideas, concerns and suggestions regarding the matter coming. Any and all input on the notion is most welcome!

kokonutz

In the interest of transparency, here is the pros/cons list I put on the private TB forum. Feel free to add to it or to react to, amplify or rebut any of the points.



Here are the pros and cons as I see them so far:

Pros:

• Alliances appear to be here to stay and of growing importance so it makes sense to group the airlines that way.
• Lounges and award tickets in particular (although lots of other things as well) appear to be going alliance-shared more and more, so tying the airlines more closely to their alliances makes sense.
• Would encourage more eyes on the alliance general topics forums.
• Makes more sense from a 'points and miles' perspective.

Cons:

• Makes finding airlines (particularly less posted-about airlines) less intuitive to find.
• Leaves non-allied airlines 'out in the cold'
• Shifting alliances could cause disruptions and create tech headaches.
• If it ain't broke...

aztimm

Doesn't everyone simply use the, "MyFlyerTalk," feature, and subscribe to any forums that they are interested in?

While I know that my 'airline of choice' is a part of *A, it is pretty rare that I'd need any info on BD, TG, or some others. I currently simply 'subscribe' to those that I wish to monitor (including hotels, car rentals, regional forums), and look at that list.

I can't even remember the last time I looked at the alpha listing of airline forums.....

tcook052

And everyone surfs FT differently; I've never used the forum subsribe feature ever.

And thanks to koko for reviewing the pro's & con's. To argue there is only the former and few of the latter or v.v. is folly IMHO.

NickB

On the + side, I think that one should add the potential to increase the knowledge of FTers and the quality of information by encouraging posters to look at other fora within an alliance not just on the general topics alliance fora but also fora of smaller airlines within the alliances as well through the "Other (alliance X) FFPs".
I would also add the one I mentioned above and which prompted me both last year and this year to raise the issue, namely finding a solution for smaller airlines within alliances which may not necessarily justify a forum of their own.

On the - side, I am not quite sure what you mean by non-aligned airlines being left out in the cold. Non-aligned are given equal treatment with alliance airlines, placed on the same level and with their own independent fora where justified or bundled together geographically (as is the case now) where an independent forum is not justified.

mjm

I like the idea of greater unification of Alliance specific information under the Alliance fora. I also agree that the Alliance fora need to be distinct in there function from the fora for the airlines which make up the alliances.

It seems all of the above could be quite easily handled by adding pointers (akin to an alias on the Mac or a Shortcut on Windows) to the Alliance for each of the member airlines.

This would serve to slowly educate people about the alliances themselves, would allow current varied surfing/searching styles to continue uninterrupted and address the very, very good point raised by the OP of making the all relevant alliance info available in the few main alliance fora.

No need to recreate the wheel, but putting a better tire on it sounds a solid idea. Well done NickB!

Mike

BiziBB

Thanks a million, kokonutz.

My concern was with the negative points you list - namely the exclusive focus on allianced airlines could dry up what little (but useful) news and info on my favourite non-allianced airlines.

I figured the excitement could be like a FT EU... great for those included, not so useful for those excluded.

As long as all concerns can be raised before a vote, I'll be happier with what appears to be a well-supported proposal to completely chjange the face of FT in how it focuses on alliances rather than airlines.

Relevant for the times, yes, but hopefully not exclusionary.

Another issue: Airlines partly participating in alliances (e.g. QR miles crediting to *A airlines): how do these non-allianced but useful to alliance members' airlines get treated? Just a hotlink to their 'outsider' forum?

Kiwi Flyer

No different to today. A number of airlines within alliances are FFP partners of airlines in different alliances. Lots of airlines outside the 3 main alliances are FFP partners of multiple airlines across the various alliances.

NickB

This would be my view too. I cannot think of any sensible alternative to this.

I must say that you have a point here (and perhaps this is what Koko meant by being left out in the cold?), not so much for non-aligned airlines which have their forum (these ones would hold their own) but non-aligned smaller airlines in the Other (regional) fora. Other European FFPs programs would be particularly affected: once you take out OK, IB, MA, TP and SU, Other European FFPs virtually becomes an EI forum, with the odd posting every now and then on some other airline (hence my suggestion if the proposal goes ahead to regoup Europe and Middle East/Africa in a single EMEA region). ONSAFFP would also be affected, albeit to a somewhat smaller extent, when you take out LAN and TAM (once they join *A). You would be likely to lose serendipitous postings. The Other Asian and Other Middle East would be less affected as there are quite a few relatively important airlines in these fora to keep them active.

That said, the question is whether a development which is likely to benefit users of 'aligned' smaller airlines (which are the most active posters in regional fora, at least in the European one) should be bridled for the benefit of a smaller pool of posters. Put differently, if there was enough traffic for each of these smaller airlines to have their own forum, would you oppose the creation of such fora on the ground that not enough is left in the residual category? If your answer to that is 'yes', then it would be consistent to opose the alliance-oriented move. If not, then the opposite conclusion would, if not necessarily follow, at least be more consistent.

Clearly, an alphabetically organised 'jump to' list (where is that feature, BTW? I've seen it mentioned many times but never been able to find that the jump-off point for the jump-to feature) together with an alliance-based organisation with names of participating airlines (and hyperlinks) as currently practised for Special Interest Travel would tend to cater for both approaches and would, imo, be a reasonable compromise.

Either that or a configurable version of FT, that lets you choose between alliance-based and alphabetical. Would that be feasible without too much technical headaches?

beckoa

I am not sure of the technical ramifications of this... but I like the idea ^

Having a switch between the two configurations would be nice (similar to a 'sort by' item at the top... (ie- sort by alliance vs. alphabetical... could even throw in a third option of geographical (KISS though ))

My primary concern lies with my alliance... call it the Alaska Airlines Alliance With members from both Oneworld & Sky Team... plus a few others... its nice to not have to jump through other forums to find out info on them. Usually I am on AS metal (and its forum) but I tried to monitor NW and I have an upcoming trip involving AA... it can get fun. And then there are a few partners with AS who are not in a 'global alliance' such as recent newcomer MW...

Otherwise its a neat approach. If I was stuck to one global alliance I could see how this could work out quite well... But if there was a way to create more then one menu appear at a click of a button (or drop-down menu) that would be awesome

NickB

Surely there has to be a price for being member of the FFP on an alliance tart, who flirts with everybody but commits to no-one .

Seriously, though, the list of fora would not be any longer, just organised differently. Like any change, it would take some time to get used to but should not be that much longer, even if one assumes, as is implicit in your post, that you don't use MyFlyertalk to subscribe to fora frequently used.

I am also assuming that, by default, the headings for each of the four groupings would not be collapsed, so that you would not need any additional click from your usual point of entry for airline FFPs to get to the forum of any particular airline.