Can anyone help me to understand why that topic was locked? I'd especially be interested in having the Mod explain it.

To me, it seemed interesting as a topic and quite civil in the responses generated. I know A vs. B topics are commonplace, and sometimes tiresome, but I just don't understand banning a topic without explanation be given.

Thanks for any comments.

A thread talking about the top 3 Boeing development programs is a great thread. Talking about concepts in development like a stretched 737MAX, new middle of the market airplane and potential weight increases to the 787-10 is perfectly acceptable. We have had a number of threads about these. Eventually there is some A vs B comparison, but not in the initial thread start.

Keesje started a provocative thread about how great life is at Airbus that was going to instigate an A vs B fight. Lots of personal opinion that sounded like trolling and not a whole lot of factual discussion. You might not have seen the less than civil responses that such commentary instigated before the moderators cleaned it up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Some thought it was trolling, but IMO it simply wasn't a thread that would have advanced a discussion.
That same ground has been plowed to exhaustion.

Bricktop wrote:

Some thought it was trolling, but IMO it simply wasn't a thread that would have advanced a discussion.
That same ground has been plowed to exhaustion.

Then people don't reply and it moves to the bottom. That's how a forum works.

BobPatterson wrote:

[...]To me, it seemed interesting as a topic and quite civil in the responses generated.[...]

I totally agree! To me, it was a thread about where the develpment was going overall.

Here are my thoughts, copied and pasted from the editor:

I think an ultimately modular narrow-body family would be an absolute killer. Four, five and six seats abreast bodies. Low wings as well as shoulder wings, jet engines as well as turboprop ones. Covering capacities from under 100 to around 250 seats.

Morphing and swinging wings could cause a wide body revolution if they allowed to operate at equal fuel economics at speeds between around 400 and 1000 km/h (roughly 250-620 mph, 135-540 knots). This would lead to many more thought-afer red-eye intercontinental flights in both directions.

holzmann wrote:

Because Keesje is a troll, probably on Airbus payroll, who removes any sort of impression of impartiality this board wants to project. I personally think he should be perma-banned. It's also because of people like him that this board is a shadow of its former glory.

No this board sucks because of that stupid change they made. It's 100% on the new website owners.

Reposting a deleted topic/post got me a 7 day ban. Probably won't happen to you because all the mods don't have it out for you like they do myself but just a heads up.

as for the changes, its really sad that Flyertalk is quickly becoming a better site than this. The mods clearly have a bias, example your thread was pulled but Keesje post the 1,000th A380NEO thread. Also had someone made just a tiny Obama reference over here (vs non-av) it would have been deleted but its completely okay to make Trump digs all the time now. (FWIW this side needs to politics free)

Its also sad because at least some of the mods use to be good people but now just do as their masters tell them. Every since this place got sold it has slowly been turning to garbage causing may knowledgeable posters to walk away and the new website was the final nail in the coffin.

Oh well. You should post 6 threads basically on the same topic that can be answered with a quick google search or tell people who actually know what they are talking about they are wrong or just be a hardcore troll and you will fit in more with that the mods/owners want this place to be. Think reddit/Flyertalk having a baby with a lot more trolling.....

See y'all after my ban for posting the truth.

"Keesje does, and always has, posted PERSONAL OPINION as FACTS "

i.e. you mean something like:
"I, Keesje af Airbus, mouth piece, herewith state that ..."

Could you please post one single example thread where that is the case?

Differing opinions is a good thing and a sign of a healthy website. Posting inflammatory comments to draw out emotional reactions is inappropriate. In a recent thread about when Air Canada would receive their first 737 MAX, Keesje resurrected the topic after a month with a picture of the A321 in Air Canada's livery and started commenting on the cargo carrying capabilities of the A321. While such commentary can be on topic, Keesje trying to walk a thin line between on topic and trolling.

Keesje liked posting inflammatory comments and pictures just like he did or a lawn chair implying Airbus executives played golf all day at resort houses because Airbus is in such a better position than Boeing. That type of commentary reduces the overall quality of a forum that is supposed to be factual. I don't like personally attacking, but I find it frustrating when inflammatory posts make it hard to have a reasonable discussion.

WIederling wrote:

"Keesje does, and always has, posted PERSONAL OPINION as FACTS "

i.e. you mean something like:
"I, Keesje af Airbus, mouth piece, herewith state that ..."

Could you please post one single example thread where that is the case?

One recent example is his latest A380 thread where he has posted that Airbus will be making an A380NG in 2021 (or words to that effect). He's (rightly) been called out by several members over it along with proof posted that Airbus has said no such thing.

edit: typos

RobK wrote:

One recent example is his latest A380 when he has posted that Airbus will be making an A380NG in 2021 (or words to that effect). He's (rightly) been called out by several members over it along with proof posted that Airbus has said no such thing.

A link to that post please?

Newbiepilot wrote:

Differing opinions is a good thing and a sign of a healthy website. Posting inflammatory comments to draw out emotional reactions is inappropriate. In a recent thread about when Air Canada would receive their first 737 MAX, Keesje resurrected the topic after a month with a picture of the A321 in Air Canada's livery and started commenting on the cargo carrying capabilities of the A321. While such commentary can be on topic, Keesje trying to walk a thin line between on topic and trolling.

Keesje liked posting inflammatory comments and pictures just like he did or a lawn chair implying Airbus executives played golf all day at resort houses because Airbus is in such a better position than Boeing. That type of commentary reduces the overall quality of a forum that is supposed to be factual. I don't like personally attacking, but I find it frustrating when inflammatory posts make it hard to have a reasonable discussion.

Humor, it is a difficult concept for some.

" In a recent thread about when Air Canada would receive their first 737 MAX"

wasn't that thread also about how AC should cancel all their Virgin Airbus commitments?

beam in eye or such, afaics.

I for one think everyone should be allowed to express their thoughts or opinions. Keesje may or not be a troll, or an airbus employee,shareholder or fan of their products.
As a member of this forum he has a right to open new topics as does everyone else who is a member. As a member an aviation fans it is our choice to reply or not to reply.

Well, I would like to thank you all for responding before the thread (possibly) gets locked.

It hadn't dawned on me that I probably missed some posts that were deleted before I arrived and began reading.

I've had a number of posts deleted that I thought were inoffensive, but in almost every case I noticed that the post I quoted and was responding to had also been deleted. I certainly do not feel that the Mods were unfair with me.

But I do think it ought to be more or less a rule that when something is removed by a Moderator, there ought to be a note left behind giving the reason(s) for the deletion. It would stand as a warning to others not to exceed acceptable parameters of debate.

mariner wrote:

However provocative he may be, I was pleased to see him come back.

Regardless of the fact he seems impervious to facts that don't fit his narratives, believe it or not, I agree. And I can just picture him (not literally though, I've never seen a picture of him) smirking when he realizes he's gotten a whole thread dedicated to discussing him and his posting style.

The particular thread being discussed did seem to cross the line over to trolling and thus was not destined to stay open very long.

mariner wrote:

I think he may even have been around in the Great A.Net A v B Wars centred on the A380. They were some rowdy, hectic times - the board is almost tranquil these days in comparison.

I think the 787 flame wars were more brutal, and more regrettable, because they cost us a few good members who were on the inside of the project.

As for old days, for those of you old steeped in Usenet m.t.a lore, Kessje is our JF Mezei....

WIederling wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Differing opinions is a good thing and a sign of a healthy website. Posting inflammatory comments to draw out emotional reactions is inappropriate. In a recent thread about when Air Canada would receive their first 737 MAX, Keesje resurrected the topic after a month with a picture of the A321 in Air Canada's livery and started commenting on the cargo carrying capabilities of the A321. While such commentary can be on topic, Keesje trying to walk a thin line between on topic and trolling.

Keesje liked posting inflammatory comments and pictures just like he did or a lawn chair implying Airbus executives played golf all day at resort houses because Airbus is in such a better position than Boeing. That type of commentary reduces the overall quality of a forum that is supposed to be factual. I don't like personally attacking, but I find it frustrating when inflammatory posts make it hard to have a reasonable discussion.

Humor, it is a difficult concept for some.

" In a recent thread about when Air Canada would receive their first 737 MAX"

wasn't that thread also about how AC should cancel all their Virgin Airbus commitments?

beam in eye or such, afaics.

The AS not taking the Virgin A321s was based on a statement by their CFO saying they were negotiating "an arrangement where we don't take all 10 that are scheduled to be delivered over the next two years." I do not think a thread discussing a public comment by the CFO of an airline is flamebait like a thread saying Airbus executives can play golf all day and relax at their Rivera homes because internal troubles are settled.

Keesje was posting opinionated commentary about how great Airbus in thread starts in a provocative way. You might have seen it as humorous but the result of such inflammatory posts like in his locked thread do not end up in constructive good quality discussions in a forum that is supposed to be about factual topics in the airline industry. We need to be respectful as the rules say.

holzmann wrote:

Because Keesje is a troll, probably on Airbus payroll, who removes any sort of impression of impartiality this board wants to project. I personally think he should be perma-banned. It's also because of people like him that this board is a shadow of its former glory.

Keesje does not work for Airbus, he works at Avio-Diepen which is a privately owned aircraft parts supply company in The Netherlands, i.e. does not work for Airbus, nor on the Airbus payroll.

Seems a reason to call a person a "troll" on this site is to articulate that Airbus does provide competition to the marketplace, by having competitive products. Many airlines will agree with that assertion, as the market is fairly even.

RobK wrote:

One recent example is his latest A380 thread where he has posted that Airbus will be making an A380NG in 2021 (or words to that effect). He's (rightly) been called out by several members over it along with proof posted that Airbus has said no such thing.

The thread title is a question "Airbus A380 MidLife Upgrade, 2021?", viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1355693

In that thread I posted a link to a 2016 Airbus FAST issue which lists a lot of the upgrades that Airbus has already undertaken, which many on this board would be unaware of. So in effect Airbus has done a lot of upgrades already.

Great...now this thread is going the way of getting locked, too.

Swadian wrote:

Great...now this thread is going the way of getting locked, too.

Deleted in full would be preferable.

I wonder what Toyota vs Honda forums are like.

There are many partisans here who make comparison threads absolutely painful to read. There may be very useful information and good discussion in those threads, but one needs to cope with these bizarrely defensive and offensive snipes and needling at the "other side".

I'm sure a great number of users with great insights avoid those threads just for that reason.

Even here, you are defending/blaming Keesje based on how much you favour or disfavour Airbus. And that, in turn, seems to be a function of latent anti-Americanism or euroscepticism.

As long as it's civil and not deliberately misleading, I guess there's no harm. The same way one knows the partisan alignment of certain media personalities, and can predict what they will say before they even speak, I expect many of us can do the same here.

I think a lot of people are being disingenious here. The title of that thread wasn't merely "top 3 new Boeing programs", it was actually "Top 3 New Boeing Programs That Should Make Airbus Nervous". If that isn't suggestive I don't know what is. It's positioned to be another A vs B fight, it wasn't just a discussion about new programs from Boeing. It was an editorialized title that has no place in a forum like this.

I understand why it was locked and I agree with that decision completely.

The way this site has head, particularly since the revamp (read downgrade), it should just be called Airbus.net.

The latest Keesje topic on his 380, is truly a waste of space, simply inviting people to rehash what has been said over and over again.

Keesje does good home work before starting a thread. They are very informative, and I really enjoy the details. Everyone has their own opinion and it is biased.

Lot of unnecessary discussion on what is a fact. There are no facts, just biased opinions. If you are privy to facts, you shouldn't be posting those on internet.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Keesje does good home work before starting a thread. They are very informative, and I really enjoy the details. Everyone has their own opinion and it is biased.

Lot of unnecessary discussion on what is a fact. There are no facts, just biased opinions. If you are privy to facts, you shouldn't be posting those on internet.

LOL I don't mean to be rude or impolite, but we must not live in the same world. In my world fact are cherished (and always subject to change upon better evidence).

Without facts, and theories based upon them, there would be no airliners or aviation industry for us to talk about.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Keesje does good home work before starting a thread. They are very informative, and I really enjoy the details. Everyone has their own opinion and it is biased.

Lot of unnecessary discussion on what is a fact. There are no facts, just biased opinions. If you are privy to facts, you shouldn't be posting those on internet.

If he had done homework, then we would not have that topic on the 380 (again) that he started. All it is, is the same stuff rehashed with his own version of the facts.

BobPatterson wrote:

LOL I don't mean to be rude or impolite, but we must not live in the same world. In my world fact are cherished (and always subject to change upon better evidence).

Without facts, and theories based upon them, there would be no airliners or aviation industry for us to talk about.

A fact is something which can be verified independently. An audited company annual report is not a fact because auditor is associated with the company. If it cannot be verified by independent source, it is not a fact. Annual reports can be restated after 10 years, so how can it be a hard fact.

If your theory/analysis is based on falsehood, you may be able to power thru for now, but time will prove it wrong.

One airline's press release is gospel, some other airline's press release is hot air.

jupiter2 wrote:

If he had done homework, then we would not have that topic on the 380 (again) that he started. All it is, is the same stuff rehashed with his own version of the facts.

Rule "c" is the most violated rule on a.net, because some members are allowed to mock other members. You can prove a member's opinion is wrong by presenting your own theory. One can debate the topic ad nauseam but there is no need to insult the member with dissenting opinion.

Read my posts from 2012 about Emirates only VLA model. Almost every mocked me here, now they are surprised.

I thought it was provocative and inaccurate, but to me it didn't seem like trolling at all - I just read it as a tongue-in-cheek way to kick off the topic. It was supposed to be funny, that's all.

zeke wrote:

holzmann wrote:

Because Keesje is a troll, probably on Airbus payroll, who removes any sort of impression of impartiality this board wants to project. I personally think he should be perma-banned. It's also because of people like him that this board is a shadow of its former glory.

Keesje does not work for Airbus, he works at Avio-Diepen which is a privately owned aircraft parts supply company in The Netherlands, i.e. does not work for Airbus, nor on the Airbus payroll.

Seems a reason to call a person a "troll" on this site is to articulate that Airbus does provide competition to the marketplace, by having competitive products. Many airlines will agree with that assertion, as the market is fairly even.

RobK wrote:

One recent example is his latest A380 thread where he has posted that Airbus will be making an A380NG in 2021 (or words to that effect). He's (rightly) been called out by several members over it along with proof posted that Airbus has said no such thing.

The thread title is a question "Airbus A380 MidLife Upgrade, 2021?", viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1355693

In that thread I posted a link to a 2016 Airbus FAST issue which lists a lot of the upgrades that Airbus has already undertaken, which many on this board would be unaware of. So in effect Airbus has done a lot of upgrades already.

Nevertheless, Keesje is an extremely opinionated user on these boards. I take everything he says with a pinch of salt, instead seeing users like KarelXWB as more credible.

For some who have suggested that we'll lock this thread for voicing their dissent, I assure you that you are permitted to do so in the correct setting (i.e. here in Site Related). Some of you think we're biased or peddling some agenda, and while I can only speak for myself, I have no agenda to push. I'm a user just like you guys, I just to keep things civil even though sometimes I have to be the bad guy. We don't get any kind of directives from the company who owns the site...they leave us alone for us to do what we think is in the best interest of everyone, even if it results in public rebukes from some. I'm just trying to do right by the site, and I know the other moderators are the same.

That said, I ask you all to please stop the personal attacks in this thread. Some users develop reputations here, for better and for worse. It isn't acceptable to publicly bash them simply because you disagree. I implore you all to debate them based on fact and merit, while being respectful. I am sure you would expect the same from others. Without respect towards each other, this site would lose its identity.

✈️ atcsundevil

I'd like to point out that Keesje is Dutch and therefore bloody marvelous...

wolbo wrote:

I'd like to point out that Keesje is Dutch and therefore bloody marvelous...

Lachen!

So Keesje is back and calling me a notorious Boeing fanboy. I guess it is what I deserve for saying that I thought his opinionated thread with little factual information sounded like trolling. Am I next to get banned?

I never understood that about this forum. Everything ends up becoming A vs B.

WHO CARES!

I like aviation. I like airplanes. I like airports,(Minus the TSA) I like travelling. I've worked at places that fly planes from Europe, planes from the USA, planes from Canada etc. Do I have a reason to favour one over another? Heck no.

Great threads end up in a petulant name calling game. It's pathetic. We're adults here (well, most of us, though it seems the age group is trending younger now that it's a free site) act like it.

I have no problems with say, a 320 pilot saying they like the sidestick, or a 737 pilot saying they prefer a yoke. But in practice? 99% of pilots I've met could care less if they're flying an A320, 767, 787, or A380. They care more about scheduling, work rules, and pay.

It's the "aviation enthusiasts" who tend to make up the majority of the "fanboys" and a good portion of them have no links to aviation, they just like airplanes. And that's fine! But if people claim to be aviation enthusiasts, should they not be hoping for some variety in the skies? As far as I'm concerned the more aircraft types the better. I like variety. Life would be no fun if airports were just a constant stream of 737s and 777s, likewise it'd be no fun if it was all A320's and 330's.

Differences are what make people and things unique. Embrace it.

/rant

diverted wrote:

I never understood that about this forum. Everything ends up becoming A vs B.

WHO CARES!

I like aviation. I like airplanes. I like airports,(Minus the TSA) I like travelling. I've worked at places that fly planes from Europe, planes from the USA, planes from Canada etc. Do I have a reason to favour one over another? Heck no.

Great threads end up in a petulant name calling game. It's pathetic. We're adults here (well, most of us, though it seems the age group is trending younger now that it's a free site) act like it.

I have no problems with say, a 320 pilot saying they like the sidestick, or a 737 pilot saying they prefer a yoke. But in practice? 99% of pilots I've met could care less if they're flying an A320, 767, 787, or A380. They care more about scheduling, work rules, and pay.

It's the "aviation enthusiasts" who tend to make up the majority of the "fanboys" and a good portion of them have no links to aviation, they just like airplanes. And that's fine! But if people claim to be aviation enthusiasts, should they not be hoping for some variety in the skies? As far as I'm concerned the more aircraft types the better. I like variety. Life would be no fun if airports were just a constant stream of 737s and 777s, likewise it'd be no fun if it was all A320's and 330's.

Differences are what make people and things unique. Embrace it.

/rant

One of the best posts ever on this site. I remember many older aircraft and, as they say, variety is the spice of life. When I say older I mean the likes of... Bristol Freighters, Viscounts, VC10's etc.

diverted wrote:

I never understood that about this forum. Everything ends up becoming A vs B.

WHO CARES!