Jump to content

Talk:Delta Air Lines/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Reference 74

Reference 74 is NOT a reliable source. It's the "911 ommission report", filled with conspiracy theories. The fact that it is citing should be researched and the source should be more reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.5.56 (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the reference for the discussion of Delta Flight 1989 on September 11, 2001 to the offical US government 9/11 Commission Report. The previous reference provided conjecture and comments beyond the scope of an academic reference in addition to factual information. The factual information relevant to the Delta Air Lines article is best presented by the 9/11 Commission Report. Note that reference numbers change as the article is edited so reference 74 may or may not be the applicable number at any given time. Civilengtiger (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is LAX really a hub?

On Delta's international expansion video, Delta mentioned LAX as a hub. However, how much traffic does LAX handle compared to Delta's other focus cities. Has LAX surpassed LGA, MCO, and BOS yet? If not, then LAX is not a true hub. Andros 1337 14:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

On Delta's website, under Stats & Facts, the hubs listed are ATL, CVG, JFK, and SLC. LAX is listed as a "major international gateway", but not a hub. DB (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not like they edit the corporate fact sheet very often. They didn't put JFK in as a hub until long after they called it such and it was functioning as a hub in the network. I won't modify the hub sheet to call LAX a hub, but if their network video calls it a hub, and the network at LAX is developing discernable banks, then its nobody's business to NOT call it a hub. A hub DOES NOT have to be some monster like Atlanta, connecting 1000 flights in multiple directions. People call 6 destinations and 15 something flights at AMS an NW hub, and NRT a hub for UA and NW. (gustoj820)

DELTA HUB STRUCTURE AT LAX (by gustoj820)

7:00 to 8:00 regional flights leave LAX for regional destinations (and traffic off Hawaii)
9:00 to 10:00 regional flights return to LAX to feed Mexico RJS and transcons/miscellaneous
11:00 to 2:00 flights depart to Mexico (and 11:00ish transcons)
3:00 to 4:30 flights return to Los Angeles from Mexico
6:00 to 7:00 regional flights leave LAX for regional destinations (feeding of Mexico flights)
8:00 to 9:00 regional flights return to LAX to feed large redeye bank transcons/Latin America
10:00 to Midnight transcon and Latin America mainline departures

Furthermore, if you book flights around the west, journey control is now programmed to recognize and flow people through LAX. Delta's press releases have been calling LAX a hub/gateway (gustoj820).

For more on the topic, read the section below on "LAX as a secondary hub vs. other focus cities".

^ Delta Air Lines Plan Of Reorganization (LAX included in 5 hubs/gateways, pgs 23 and 24) (PDF). Retrieved on 2006-12-20. 75.82.197.123 08:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • All press releases I have seen lately with the new services, namely the ExpressJet service refer to LAX as a hub. Delta is making this into a hub, unlike AA (and UA, perhaps?) which consider it a focus city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.80.45.128 (talk)
    • If someone can provide a source from Delta that gives LAX as a hub, then do so, but as it stands now, the only info I've seen directly from DL is the stats page, which lists 4 hubs, not including LAX. And by the way, LAX has been a UA hub for quite some time now. DB (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

CVG Closing Speculation - Nonsense

  • Someone mentioned that the lack of new two class "Songisized" routes out of Cincinnati was some kind of indication or harbinger that Delta was going to close the CVG hub. This I can confidently say is nonsense. The reason for this quite frankly is that Delta pretty much controls the entire Cincinnati market, and does not feel the need to deploy this service there immediately because it has no competition. In Atlanta, Salt Lake City, and New York, Delta is plagued by serious competition from Jet Blue, Southwest, and AirTran, and thus must put its most competitive product forth in those markets to retain loyalty, revenue premiums, and marketshare. Delta faces no such competition in Cincinnati, and for the most part, not alot of competition in midwest markets that connect through Cincinnati. Don't worry though - CVG will eventually get the premium 1700+ mile "Songisized" service when Delta rolls out more complimentary aircraft. Right now, the other markets in jeopardy need all the "Songisized" planes they can get.
  • By the way, post-bankruptcy and post-rightsizing, Cincinnati has become the most profitable hub.
No it isn't, and the only people saying as much are the armchair CEO's on A.net, which is not a reliable source on anything remotely factual going on at airlines. That term "most profitable" doesn't even mean anything. So they have the highest fares, allegedly, of all Delta's hubs. So what? That doesn't mean people are paying them, and it doesn't mean people aren't using CVG for its original purpose, which is a connection place. The idea that CVG, a hub far less in size than Delta's JFK and ATL mega fortress, is making more money (total? per route? per flight? whats the deciding factor?) is absurd on its face. SiberioS 19:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
While the arm-chair CEO's may be stating this, it is an actual fact that has been stated by Delta multiple times, and painfully obvious when you look at the type of hub and DOT data. It's not just speculation based on high fares and the fact that it's an absolute Delta fortress, although that has a lot to do with it. It's obviously not the hub that produces the most revenues or generates the highest dollar amount profits overall, but it is the most profitable hub on an ASM basis. Gustoj820 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It's also absurd to imply that JFK is a "mega fortress", as JFK is significantly smaller than CVG on a number of flights, passenger, and ASM basis. Also fortresses imply dominance. With Delta controlling 90% of the CVG market vs. roughly less than 20-25% of the JFK market, CVG is the "fortress", not "JFK". Gustoj820 04:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Accidents, deaths, etc.

Strong work, everyone! The accident section was very incomplete with only about 3 crashes listed as recently as a week or so ago. Now it's better. Some kids may be using this to help them write a report. If they get the facts incorrect or incomplete, that's bad.

New image

As you may have noticed, have replaced the old image with a different image. The old image was flawed stating it was a 767-400ER, while it was really a 767-300ER. It also stated that the image was N825MH, while it was really N131DN. Since wikipedia has many 767-300 images, I thought it would be better to have a 767-400. Andros 1337 22:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Newark

Doesn't Delta operate some international flights out of Newark? I think they do, but I could be wrong. 

 Delta Air Lines Flight DL8579 on an Airbus A340 (jet) in coach class
       (operated by Air France as Flight AF19)
The above is an example of a Delta flight that is operated by Air France. The industry calls this a "code share". That's the only kind of delta international flights I can find out of EWR, but I only looked at LON and PAR.
To clarify my statement, "operated by Air France" means that you'll buy a Delta ticket, go to a Delta terminal and then get on an Air France plane. -Harmil 28 June 2005 18:31 (UTC)
Not necessarily ... usually you go to the terminal of the operating airline. At Newark, DL and AF are both in Terminal B, so it's one and the same. Josh59x 20:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delta operates no international flights out of Newark, however since Continental is a Skyteam partner, many of its flights are dual coded as Delta flights. Delta's international hubs (beyond Canada, Mexico, & the Caribbean) are ATL, JFK, &CVG. --Bravenav 04:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I actually work for Delta at Newark so I can answer your questions best. Delta is currently contracted to operate the flights for both Air France and Alitalia both of which are codeshared. Check-in, baggage, boarding, flight ops is all done by Delta. The only thing we don't do is maintenance. Another interesting tidbit is that NW and KLM have the same set-up, even going as far as having each others plane hold the flight slot while the other takes a seasonal break. Maranomerau 08:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Size of focus cities

Delta's hubs are listed in order of size, starting with the largest hub. Could we arrange the focus cities in order of size as well? I do not know in what order they go.

  • Good idea. I am not absolutely certain, but I believe they go: BOS, LAX, MCO, LGA. LAX used to be number 1 but with the scaling back of Asia ops, I think BOS has taken over -- especially with the addition of a huge new terminal there, and the focus on connection carriers to Canada and other northeast cities. Trevormartin227 19:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Following up here. I have found the following links to specific airline passenger counts at Delta's focus cities (with the exception of BOS). Since Delta is beginning to consider BOS a hub, I will put it first in the order unless someone has information that I don't. MCO has 5,211,177 DL pax yearly[1]; LGA has 4,738,034 DL pax yearly [2]; and LAX has 4,618,818 DL pax yearly [3]. These are 2005 numbers. Guess I was off on my guess in my comment above...the actual order would be BOS, MCO, LGA, LAX. I will make these changes to the infobox.Trevormartin227 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there anywhere that Delta specifically spells out which cities are focus cities, or have we just reached a consensus that BOS, MCO, LAX, and LGA are the only focus cities? What statistic specifically cuts off FLL and DCA, because these are very large DL cities that serve many point to point routes outside of the hubs and top four focus cities (which I thought was the definition of "focus city")? How do you find it appropriate to say that FLL is a "non-focus city"?

Hubs

According to its own in-flight magazine (SKY), which contains a route map, Boston is considered a Delta hub. Delta operates many domestic-to-international connections through Boston, and is ramping up these operations even more as DL shifts to focus more on international routes. Trevormartin227 22:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fleet infobox changes

I think that the new "routes" addition still looks messy. Instead of listing cities that these aircraft fly to, I think it would be more appropriate just to describe the routes (as in, "long-haul" "high-density" etc, rather than the routings themselves). These planes get changed around a lot, and, for example, I flew a 767-400ER to LAS from ATL and don't see that on there, I'm sure there are a hundred other examples. Better just to have general description. Trevormartin227 13:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The AA article has a similar feature, and thought that it would be appropriate. Andros 1337 15:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed simplified (and updated) Fleet Chart

This is the Delta Airlines Fleet (as of September 30, 2005) via the Delta website [4]

Type Number Orders/Options Notes
Boeing 737-200 32
Boeing 737-300 21
Boeing 737-800 71 50 on order, 60 options, 168 rolling options
Boeing 757-200 121
Boeing 767-200 11
Boeing 767-300 28
Boeing 767-300ER 59 10 options
Boeing 767-400ER 21 20 options
Boeing 777-200 8 5 on order, 20 options, 5 rolling options
McDonnell Douglas MD88 120 Used by Delta Shuttle
McDonnell Douglas MD90 16
Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet 100/200 147 55 options
Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet 700 27 49 options

Any comments?

Oppose. The AA article mentions the routes that the aircraft serve. I would prefer to remove the orders/options section instead. BTW, as a convention, we do NOT include regional jets. Andros 1337 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I was under the impression that we wanted to standardize the fleet information for all airlines. This would include (at least) orders, but not include information like engines, whether they have AV, ETOPS, etc. In addition, the chart is so wide, that the orders in the fleet column is wrapped to a new line and looks awkward.

Would you be open to removing the engine, cargo, etops and av columns? Maybe we can standardize on the follow columns:

Type Number Seats Notes
Boeing 737-200 32 (10 on order) 100 Low-capacity short-haul domestic flights

Done. Hope you like it. Andros 1337 17:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the CRJ, Delta has two pages, one that lists CRJ as thier own aircraft [5] and another [6] that lists them as part of Delta Connection. I guess you could assume that Delta does not operate CRJ themselves.

---mnw2000

  • To clarify the CRJ ownership, the numbers appear to refer to the Comair owned CRJs, but should not be considered as part of the Delta mainline fleet.--Bravenav 04:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


Fleet Updates

Please include the source of the recent fleet updates in a line before the fleet chart.

--mnw2000

Service to Africa

North American Airlines, in fact, does offer scheduled service to Africa. The claim made here that Delta will be the only US airline to offer scheduled service to Africa is false.

North American Airlines is an all-charter airline. Delta is the only US airline to offer regularly-scheduled service to Africa. The claim remains true and should remain in the article. Trevormartin227 12:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Upon further research, I stand corrected. Trevormartin227 12:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Delta/Northwest?

I'm hearing a couple of rumors from insiders that Delta Air Lines could soon merge with Northwest Airlines. If the merger happens, it will work since Delta doesn't really have an Asia network, Boeing 747s, or a hub outside of the US while NWA will have a New York hub, routes to Africa, and routes to South America. Both are in bankruptcy and combined forces would lead to a very powerful US airline.

and create a super-bankrupt airline. The fleets are a mismatch, and Delta's CEO has stated that they plan to exit bankruptcy as a standalone airline. Andros 1337 00:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The Delta/NWA merger idea was voiced by Norman Mineta in response to the USAir buyout by America West. While Mineta was DOT secretary, he is hardly an airline insider. Both Delta and Northwest have denounced any such rumors, and most airlines consultants reject the notion as a terrible idea. In addition to the fleet mismatch, Northwest is very unionized, while Delta is union-free (except the pilots).--Bravenav 04:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Delta Air Lines Routes

You folks might be interested in this thing's AFD. It seems to duplicate the function of Delta Air Lines destinations. Kappa 00:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hub History

Hello, I am wondering, as it states on the top of the article, it says that JFK-New York and other cities and airports, should we add them to the "Hub History" part of the article? Jelleh 30 00:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger with US Airways

Do you think a section should be incorporated about the proposed merger (essentially a US Airways Buyout) with Delta? There is a great amount of information avaliable from usairways.com

link: US Airways Merger Proposal

thoughts?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.193.203.12 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

Someone added it; I've marked the article as a current event. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 21:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delta Focus City in Columbus?

Can Port Columbus International Airport be added to the "Focus Cities" list?

Its not one of there major focus cities so I dont think it should be added.Brandon W 15:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Spurious transactions

This article was 48k, which is a bit on the long side. I removed the text below from the "Fleet transformation" after reading it, and thinking, "oh why do we care???" The details of a company's buying and selling equipment is appropriate to the business news, but not an encyclopedia article. The remaining text in the section could probably be condensed. If there are any trends that can be extracted from the removed text that are truly notable for the company or for the industry in general, those can hopefully be summarized much more briefly. -- Beland 09:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Longer article is better as long as the information written is good. Some kid may be trying to write a paper for school.

Continuing Delta's fleet transformation efforts, the airline plans to retire four more aircraft types, and in the past two years, the airline has retired its fleet of Boeing 737-200, -300, and 767-200 aircraft. There are reports[1] that Delta plans to eliminate its MD-88 or MD-90 fleet.

Replacement aircraft are currently unknown, although it is expected that the MD-88 or MD-90 will be replaced by a Boeing 737 family aircraft, probably the 737-800. However, in August 2005, Delta announced[2] the 737-300s operating their Delta Shuttle services would be replaced by nine MD-88s from their discontinued Dallas hub and from Salt Lake City, with a consequent rise in capacity (14 seats per aircraft) and provision of premium services on those routes.

On September 7, 2005, Delta announced that it had struck a deal whereby Ohio-based ABX Air Inc. will purchase 11 Boeing 767-200 aircraft from Delta, adding to the one previously purchased through a similar arrangement made in July 2005. The new agreement calls for ABX Air to take delivery of six of the eleven aircraft in calendar year 2006, two in 2007 and three in 2008, with payment due upon the delivery of each aircraft. The total deal is worth $190 million. Delta donated the company's first 767-200, The Spirit of Delta to the Delta Heritage Museum. The Spirit of Delta was retired on March 3, 2006 after a farewell tour around the United States. After 2008, when through these arrangements all other 767-200 aircraft will have been sold, the two remaining 767-200s will be sent to the same desert storage location where the majority of the company's L-1011's were located prior to sale.

On July 13, 2006, Delta signed an agreement with International Lease Finance Corporation to lease ten Boeing 757s currently operated by American Airlines and formerly by Trans World Airlines, which American Airlines intends to drop once the leases expire due to the fact that they use Pratt & Whitney PW2000 engines instead of Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. Unlike most of Delta's 757s, the ex-TWA 757s are ETOPS-rated, which means that they can be used on routes such as from the West Coast to Hawaii, or on low-yielding transatlantic routes from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City. In addition to the ten ex-TWA 757s leased from ILFC, Delta has also signed on October 25, 2006 an agreement with Pegasus Aviation Finance Company to lease three additional ex-TWA ETOPS 757s. [3]

In addition to acquiring ex-TWA 757s, Delta has also announced on October 17, 2006 that they intend to have their 24 domestic non-ER Boeing 767-300s ETOPS-rated by 2007 [4], opening them up to destinations such as Hawaii and northwestern Europe, thus freeing Boeing 767-400ER aircraft for longer-range international destinations.

Delta Air Lines has become the US launch customer for Boeing’s 777-200LR and will take delivery of two General Electric GE90-powered ultra long range widebodies in early 2008. The two -200LRs are converted from a 777-200ER order previously placed with Boeing, bring the total to 10 777-200LR aircraft.

Could the details remaining in "Fleet transformation" be merged with "Retired fleet" and just a summary of the trijet-to-twinjet shift be left in the History section? -- Beland 09:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Press release syndrome

I have marked the "2000 and beyond" section for cleanup because it reads as if it were a summary of all the major (and some minor) press releases Delta has put out in the past few years. It needs to be sifted through to remove or reduce coverage of unimportant marketing initiatives. Most of it is also unreferenced; if the actual press releases are cited, readers can go there for more information if they actually care. The general style also needs to be more varied, so that every paragraph doesn't start with the date, and perhaps to group items thematically rather than strictly chronologically. -- Beland 09:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Destinations

This section is no more of an advertisement than any other airline including United Airlines. I think it is formatted the same way. I think it should have just the cleanup tag on it's own as the airline pages are being cleaned up. I'll remove the "advertising" flag, leaving only the cleanup.

airboyd 07:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounded rather self-promotional to me; Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms may also be applicable to phrases like "more places than any other carrier in the world." It would perhaps read not quite so much like an advertisement for all the new and exciting places Delta can take you if the new destinations were simply integrated into the complete list, rather than being called out separately. The United Airlines article certainly suffers some of the same problems. -- Beland 18:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently improving on the destinations section putting each section by date. I think in my mind activily announcing new updates on the destinations of the airline would help improve the article by bring it up to date and in speed on what's going on within the airline. Sure sometimes people can pin point it as advertising, but at least it is informative to the person reading it. Spongefan 23:37, December 4 2006 (UTC)]
I think we should high-light the bredth of Delta's network under destinations; perhaps identify unique or important destinations. After discussing figures (number of cities, number of countries, et cetera), a seperate heading called "Future Destinations" should be written. That is where one can discuss, list, and highlight Delta's rapid growth. The current section is icky.

Date for Dakar Route

"On December 4th, Delta began flights to Dakar, Senegal with continuing service to Johannesburg, South Africa from Atlanta, making Delta the only major U.S. airline to serve Africa"

Don't you think there should be a YEA to go with December 4th?? Dc197 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

LAX revisited

I don't think LAX is a true hub as of yet. Delta still ranks behind United, American, and Southwest at LAX, and only United offically calls LAX a hub. Andros 1337 20:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Delta's corporate info page still lists LAX as an "international gateway", but only SLC, CVG, JFK, and ATL as hubs. DB (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

^ Delta Air Lines Plan Of Reorganization (LAX included in 5 hubs/gateways, pgs 23 and 24) (PDF). Retrieved on 2006-12-20. 75.82.197.123 08:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

E.I.S.

Let's see here. For the past couple of weeks, I have been criticized because I capitalize things such as an abbreviation E.I.S. (Entry Into Service). Last time I checked, it is proper American grammar to capitalize abbreviations such as E.I.S. why do you think there are periods in between the letters?--Golich17 03:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the fleet page, the Manual of Style page, and your talk page - consensus and proper English have dictated that there's no need to capitalize "entry into service" when spelled out. --Matt 04:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Cabin

Shouldn't the picture in the cabin section be of the cabin, and not the exterior?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nmicon (talk • contribs) 23:43, January 7, 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point there!--Golich17 01:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

New Cabin Classes/ Other Divisions

I'm too busy at the moment, but Delta has put up more detailed progress/plans for its cabin upgrades on its website, in a press release.

Also, should another section be made for the numerous odd-ball divisions that Delta has (including DAL Global, Delta Technology, Delta Airelite, and the Delta Flight Academy). They are kind of on side-line (especially DAL Global which does things as varied as security officers, temp staffing, etc). 129.252.70.10 17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Lack of 777s or Too Many 767s

What is the reasoning behind Delta's lack of 777 aircraft? They have only 8.

From my perspective as a current employee of Delta, one of the reasons for this is the overabundance of 767s. Delta's restructuring called for more international expansion and reduction in mainline domestic widebody service (e.g. ATL-MCO on a 764). We have the most 767s of any U.S. airline, which has allowed DL to easily expand to these new international routes. We don't have 777s because we can't afford too many, nor do we need them at the present. We just ordered 5 777 Worldliners. The only routes they use them for is Mumbai, Tokyo, Tel Aviv and most likely Dubai and Seoul. Believe it or not Johannesburg and Dakar are done with a 767-400. 8 (soon to be 13) 777s is plenty for now.

Maranomerau 08:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

JNB and DKR are done with a 767-300ER not a 767-400ER.

If Delta only has 8 777's, how are they showing on their schedule, 10 in the air as of this summer? All originate in ATL, to Tel Aviv, Dubai, Mumbai, Seoul, Tokyo, with a corresponding returning plane equals 10. I can find nothing on Delta or any other resource to explain this, a lease, or whatever?

S. Stone, Atlanta, 16:24, 15 April, 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous Trivia

Most of the added trivia iIS trivial, and mostly uncited. I'm weeding through it. SiberioS 07:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice cleanup some of those were idiotic at best.. Now we just need to cite whats left.. EnsRedShirt 08:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I took out the bit about Delta serving regional airports up until the late 1990's, mostly because its untrue. Delta mainline STILL serves a number of regional airports with mainline aircraft (notably the MD-88's), including my own hometown airport of Columbia Metropolitan. The ref to Delta selling its flight route to NW was deleted because its simply not important. Lots of route transactions have occured in the history of airlines, and not every single one can be, nor should be, tracked on a encyclopedia entry, unless it has some significant/historical value (which a route to London doesn't exactly cut it). SiberioS 03:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The 2000's

Most of the stuff in the 2000's of the historical section are uncited, vague, and now out of date. Also some of the points contained in, including an odd-ball reference to Delta's ontime performance (something that is not mentioned in most other airlines pages since it is un-encyclopedic, and also highly variable due to weather and system delays). I'll go through most of it and slim it down. SiberioS 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The DOT's performance records for one month are unencyclopedic, and irrelevant. On-time performance, ESPECIALLY in the winter months, is highly dependent on weather factors, compounded by hub slowdowns. Cherry picking one month out of a year, and using that to illustrate system wide, year round on time performance is simply WRONG. If someone wants to cite consecutive years of annual statistics in order to illustrate a broader point, thats fine, but one month doesn't cut it. SiberioS 17:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's amusing to note that from January 2006 to November 2006, Delta's ontime performance has been 75%, and most of the delays, some 10% were due to slowdowns in the national air traffic network. SO no, Delta Airlines does not have a poor performance record vis a vis other airlines. And comparing a hub and spoke model airline to one like Southwest, which flies point to point, is also unfair, since they are not affected by system wide slow downs in the same way SiberioS 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Frequent Flyer Paragraph

I deleted the one paragraph from the article because it was only tenously connected to Delta's specific frequent flyer program (including a rather unverified statement that frequent flyer programs were "best" in the late 80's). It might be more appropiate for the general frequent flyer program article, talking about the changing rules and rewards of frequent flyer programs. SiberioS 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Accidents

It is not appropiate to bring talk discussions, such as inflammatory accusations against other wikipedia editors, on the article page itself. I deleted the inflammatory paragraph, and if you want to discuss certain editing practices you do it ON HERE, the tal page, where it belongs.

Personally I think the accident/hijackings bit has gotten out of control. I DO NOT think that non-mainline flights should be included, for the same reason why you don't call an accomplice to a murder the murderer; Delta was not involved in the pilot training and or maintenance of these airplanes, with the exception of Comair and ASA (when they were owned by Delta). Otherwise, the crashes should be put under the company that actually flew the plane. Otherwise, it presents a skewed view of Delta's record, and keeps the real record of some of these affiliate carriers hidden (unless susbequent editing on their respective pages is also done). SiberioS 18:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A clarification, as the three incidents on the page now fall under fully owned subsidararies, its still good I think, but no other accidnets from uninvolved companies should be mentioned.SiberioS 18:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Connection flights shouldn't be listed at all. While Comair is owned by Delta, it has its own operating certificate and employees. A crash on Comair is not marked on Delta's accident record with the NTSB. DB (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
They should just be moved then to their respective airline pages (which may in fact have already been done, I haven't checked the Comair and ASA articles). 129.252.106.57 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Full disclosure is better than covering up, like they did in Watergate. We should list all accidents of Delta and Delta Connection. Passengers book tickets with Delta and routinely get shoved to Delta Connection flights. If we continue to be deceptive and hide this information, we should at least tell the public that we are censoring information. Before, when we listed Delta Connection accidents, there was a CLEAR disclaimer that the accidents were Delta Connection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.33.202.2 (talk • contribs).

This isn't about covering anything up - it's a content dispute. Frankly, I agree with you about listing Connection flights in the incidents table - for example, it looks like US Airways' article lists Express flights, but let's calm with the reverting and discuss things here. --Matt 01:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, looks like US Airways doesn't list express. Don't mind me! Nor does United. --Matt 19:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Accidents involving Delta Connection are relevant. The reason it is called Delta Connection is simply they are contracted to transport Delta's passengers. The passengers on this flight bought Delta tickets, flew on a plane with a Delta paintjob and most likely were connecting to or from the mainline. So when a DCI carrier experiences and incident or accident, just like a child, the parent company will suffer as well. Maranomerau 07:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Then provide a link to the section of the Delta Connection article that lists DL Conn. incidents. Actually, I'll do it. This is an article about Delta, not the Connection carriers. While in a passenger's mind, an accident on a Connection carrier might reflect on the company, factually it doesn't. The FAA and the NTSB will not cite Delta for any accidents or other violations committed by their regional partners. They have their own operating certificates, and legally, are separate entities. By the logic employed by some here, if a carrier has an accident, then the crash should be listed all other airlines codesharing on that flight. DB (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that it has gotten out of hand. Hijackings are not imporant. Hijackings seem to take up to much space for something so little in importance.

US Airways takeover a current event?

It's been a good week since Delta creditors rejected US Airways buyout of Delta Air Lines. Is the failed hostile takover attempt section of the Delta Air Lines article still considered to be a current event? Spongefan 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Andros 1337 02:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

LAX as Secondary Hub vs. Other Focus Cities

LAX is probably not a hub...yet, but it strongly deserves a different classification than the other focus cities. LAX is being designed with banks for connectivity to/from Mexico and Latin America, as well as regional connections to transcon/redeye flights. The other focus cities are NOT designed with this degree of connectivity in mind, nor are they ever referenced as a hub/gateway like Delta and various other sources have recognized LAX to be.

Therefore, it seems appropriate that LAX be classified differently as a secondary hub, but not a hub. I've updated this as such on the article. Gustoj820 05:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

LAX as a Secondary Hub I don't know what you fancy a secondary hub to be, but Delta's LAX operation certainly satisfies the common definition. There is an 10am-11am bank, 4:30pm-6:00pm bank, and a 9:20pm to 11:30pm bank (where the incoming regional flights connect to the Latin America and numerous transcon flights) - that's essentially two banks. There are also connections off early morning Hawaii to those regional flights, as well as the night arriving HNL flight to the transcon flights, and the PSP flight is almost all connecting. Perhaps you'd like to talk to the 29 people on the OAK-LAX 9:20pm arrival flight who were all connecting on the redeye flights, including 7 to TPA. From SFO-MSY, BOS-PSP, HNL-BDL, LAS-GDL, SEA-LMM, RNO-MZT, and I could go on and on with city pairs. Why do you think the outbound transcons are being retimed at 11am-ish and 10pm-ish? So they can connect to the regional flights.

The focus cities like MCO, BOS, and LGA have a large amount of flights with arbitary departure times - that's why they are focus cities. It doesn't matter if LAX is smaller. It's being redesigned with a high degree of connectivity in mind, and hence is called "a secondary hub" because it doesn't have the amount of banks and full fledged connectivity as a regular "hub". 65-70 average flights per day is nothing to deride either.

^ Delta Air Lines Plan Of Reorganization (LAX included in 5 hubs/gateways, pgs 23 and 24) (PDF). Retrieved on 2006-12-20. 75.82.197.123 08:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The new infobox looks really bad. Either make LAX a regular focus city, or bring back the secondary hub box. The new "gateway" formatting looks awful. Andrewb729 02:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia encyclopedia or unintentional Delta Mouthpiece/Stooge?

I believe that the Delta article should be neutral (in line with Wikipedia policy) and also point out critical aspects/questions that a reader should consider. This is not to say that the article should savage Delta.

No it shouldn't. This isn't an airline review site. We do infact include a link to reviews of Delta's quality from customers in the external link section. SiberioS 02:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the article should not be so positively slanted toward Delta as to violate the Wikipedia policy. Delta is a reasonable entity that can stand on its own merits.

One example, with due respect for the effort and presumed good intent of the editor, is the Delta Crown Room section. It sounds to me like an advertisement. The person who is studying Delta would probably be more interested in knowing how the Crown Room is different from other airline clubs from a historical standpoint.

It, like alot of other things on various corporation pages, does suffer from press-release speak, but its not especially bad to say its not NPOV.

A similar issue was how we treated Delta Connection flights. Delta appears to claim those flights as its own until there's a crash, then it says it wasn't their flight. The honest way would be to carefully note how new routes are actually Delta Connection routes or to claim those routes for Delta AND claim the Comair accidents as Delta accidents.

We've already had this argument, see above. The accidents aren't included because, quite simply the NTSB nor the FAA includes them as such. There are reasons why they make that distinction, and thats because they fly under different operating certificates.

Yet another way where we may (or may not) be straying from Wikipedia policy is to tell the reader about the different classes of services. Sounds like an ad to me. Shouldn't we say that there is business class, that DL followed other airlines into this market, and that their business class seat is inferior to others (but that there are plans to change this). This would help the kid writing a paper much more than having the kid write a Delta ad. TL500 22:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC) TL500 Feb 17 2006

Again, we are not an airline review site, and the service thing is really an issue of opinion, and most of all, price. While its nice to think we could all fly SQ first class, its not really fair to compare airlines with significantly different route/destination maps, price levels, and markets to other ones. It's also not especially fair to do so in an encyclopedia article.. SiberioS 02:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Then howabout we move the new service by Delta Connection to the Delta Connection article? And, by the way, Jon Stewart would be proud of your use of the question mark in the title. --Matt 23:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think DL Connection info should be in the Delta article, except a short paragraph about it and then a {{further}} Delta Connection. DB (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research

The paragraph added by TL500 should be removed as it is original research, both uncited and attempting to inject analysis above and beyond citable sources. If one wants to cite press-releases, financial analysis from reputable sources, or even Delta's own re-organization plan, than I think that would be acceptable. But one's opinion (which as it stands now, with no citations) to me is not useful to anyone. If people want that sort of unsourced speculation they can post on A.net SiberioS 04:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I figured I would just remove the paragraph, since its uncited, is not especially relevant to a page about Delta, and is mostly speculation. I'll write up a paragraph under the reorganization header about what Delta PLANS to do in order to stay survivable, citing from its own reorganization plan. SiberioS 18:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

People need to be really careful about uncited analysis. I just removed a line from the fleet section that suggested Delta's 777 fleet was being stretched "thin" by international expansion. What the hell does that mean? Most people would call that heavy utilization, something generally considered positive (and noted as a hallmark in other airline pages, notably Southwest and Emirates). As I mentioned before, this isn't A.net, where unsourced, "I heard from my friend in TechOps", armcahir CEO speculation runs free and wild, contributing to "Truth" by saying it enough times. SiberioS 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Western Airlines

I got a message, excerpt: Western was never a brand under Delta. The merger was announced in September of 1986, but Western was still a public company(there for not part of Delta) on the NYSE until April 1, 1987 (date the merger was completed). The moment at which the merger was completed(April 1 at 8:30 A.M.), all Western Airlines flights were changed over to Delta flights and Western Airlines was dissolved. Western couldn't have become a part of Delta on the day the merger was announced because every shareholder must be sent a proxy statement to vote on whether a merger should occur. Also Delta had to wait until the early morning of April 1 (around 2:00 A.M.) to complete the merger because Supreme Court had to rule on an order from a lower court blocking the merger. I checked in a book I have that was publishedby Delta on its history saying that the merger didnt close until April 1, 1987. Historically, it is very rare for an airline to have two mainline brands, although one exemption is U.S. Airways. Please don't take this as a personal attack, I'm just trying to get the right information out for the Delta page.

Response: The US Supreme Court noted that WA was already a subsidiary of Delta. They were traded on the NYSE but DL already owned essentially all of the shares before then. The Supreme Court cases (footnote in article) was about the Teamsters Union trying to block integration of the workforce, which was unsuccesful when the Court ruled against them on 4/2/87. Although DL never intended to run 2 separate brands (WA and DL) they did so for 4 months with a planned integration date of 4/1/87. This is reasonable because airlines are so complex that you can't buy the company AND change all of the operations in one day.
As a compromise, I have included this info AND footnotes as well as not putting a bullet next to the Western entry (unlike the bullets next to Song and Delta Express). This should help satisfy those that like accuracy and details as well as those who like to list only the airline brands that DL operated for a long time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TL500 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
There appears to be some confusion and dispute over Western Airlines. I have posted references, including the US Supreme Court noting that WA became a DL subsidiary in 1986. WA was operated as a separate brand. When some say the "merger" did not occur until 4/1/87, what really happened on that date was that the WA name ceased to exist on that date. However, in the 4 month period before that, WA was a seperate airline. Internal studies considered a permanently operated WA (rejected), adopting the bare metal new WA livery and modifying the DL livery to also be bare metal (rejected).
It is not vandalism to assert the above. Rather, suppression of this information is puzzling to this editor because the above is factual and a historical oddity. TL500 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for re-write

There's a tag for possible "clean up" in the section about the 2000's. Is there any objection if I did a rewrite to move away from a chronological list of that reads like a timeline organized by decades?

The proposed rewrite would NOT delete any of your hard work (contributions) but organize it by some common theme. For example, a historical perspective of the growth of Delta routes, a historical summary about how Delta changed as the industry changed (such as with frequent flyer programs, financial pressures leading to bankruptcy, noise regulations accelerating fleet modernization, etc.). Again, NO info would be deleted.

If you want to give it a try, just let me know here. One possibility is for me around the beginning of April 2007 and leave it for 3-5 days and let others improve on my revision.TL500 22:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only user who feels including a link to complaints about Delta undermines the neutrality of the page? Again, this is my opinion, and if I am the only user who feels that way, no hard feelings, to each his own. But I feel it is slight bias in a neutral area. Neo16287 04:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I actually feel that the entire "Customer Reviews" section could be done away with. It's all the opinion of people on those sites anyways and really doesn't add anything here. NW036 04:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ask and you shall recieve I was bold and removed it for those reasons. EnsRedShirt 08:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be deleted as well. This site adds no meaningful content. Check out WP:EL#What should be linked #4: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." The site is full of complaining, they're adding no meaningful content. --Matt 23:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Including reviews or complaints in the body of the article would indeed be biased, unless it is something out of the ordinary and worth mentioning. However, including links to review and complaints sites in the bottom of the article provides a useful and relevant resource for readers. If review sites, which are generally favorable, are allowed, then complaints sites, which are generally unfavorable, should also be allowed to maintain a neutral balance and POV. 203.214.143.125 08:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If you actually read the links that were posted, you would see that the reviews are very mixed. A review site is one thing, posting a one-sided complaint or compliment site is biased. Though I work for Delta, it really does not bother me to see complaints. Even if it was a "Delta is the airline God" site, I would have removed it. It doesn't belong at Wikipedia. Maranomerau 15:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Very mixed? Have you actually read through the External Link "Delta Air Lines Passenger Opinions"? The vast majority of opinions are positive. This article is biased in favor of Delta with Delta employees editing this page to keep it in a positive light. That's a strong accusation, I know, but the evidence supports me. Have a look at the incidents section. According to this article, the last Delta incident happened 11 years ago. That's misleading and is due to 2 convenient reasons 1) Only incidents involving fatalities are included, and 2) Incidents from Delta Connection flights are not included and are instead added in an entirely different article. First of all, the section isn't "Incidents and accidents involving fatalities", so just including those makes the section biased. Compared to the American Airlines Wikipedia entry, which includes both non-fatal incidents and incidents involving its American Eagle (analogous to Delta Connection), this Delta article is clearly biased. Furthermore, so biased is this article, that the Delta editors remove an entire section just to avoid a new complaints link. Is it not a little too convenient that a section that was generally favorable for Delta and has been there a while is suddenly considered "irrelevant" and removed entirely after a complaints link is added to it, while an obviously favorable external "passenger opinions" link is left in the External Links section? I do. After all, it seems more "neutral" to disregard an entire section than just one link. So I too was bold and re-added the Complaints link below the mostly-favorable "passenger reviews" link in the External Links section as I view it as a useful resource for readers (some of whom may very well be looking at this article to make a complaint). If you don't like that particular link, then put another Complaints link because it would be biased (by definition) not to accept an external link that's useful and relevant to readers but unfavorable to the subject, especially in the external links section. I also strongly suggest expanding the "incidents and accidents" section to include such incidents that did not involve fatalities but were significant enough to make the news. Wikipedia articles are meant to be thorough, not a compilation of cherry-picked information. I apologize if this seems like a rant, but I am tired of seeing Wikipedia articles that are clearly biased, especially those whose editors include people with a vested interest in the subject matter (e.g. Delta employees editing a Delta article). Seems like a conflict of interest to me. Scottyslist 06:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
        • If you took the time to analyze my edits on this particular page you will notice that I added all of the pre-jet era accidents as well as the most recent fatal incident in Pensacola. I initially added the Delta Connection incidents here, but other users removed it. So your entire statement is prejudiced and unresearched. Leave the complaints there, I don't care. Its not about me working for Delta, it is about keeping Wikipedia unopinionated. ALL of the review links should be deleted. If you want reviews go to Consumer Reports. Maranomerau 07:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • First off, stop the hysterics about the accident section. As you will see above, this issue has already been dealt with, and the most sensible route (following the NTSB' own record keeping) has been followed. And including anything beyond accidents fatalities borders on ridiculous, including every possible time a mechanical error has occured on board a flight, something which would make this article balloon to ridiculous and almost trivial proportions. And the complaints thing is absurd; this is an encyclopedia article, not a waylay station for irate pax. If you want to complain about service, theres a number of other sites that can be found by using google or writing Delta a letter about it. You want to know what I'm tired of? People not reading the damn subtitle on this website, which states "the free encyclopedia". WIkipedia is not here to cover and reference every trivial piece of information or opinion on god's green earth on a subject's article. SiberioS 00:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Scottyslist, it doesn't seem that you have consensus that the link should remain. NW036, Neo16287, EnsRedShirt, Maranomerau, SiberioS, and I think it shouldn't be there, while you and 203.214.143.125 think it should. (Sorry if I misrepresented anyone) So it seems to me that consensus goes for removal. --Matt 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Judging from edits ([7], [8] ) 208.8.57.2, Pitamakan both believe that this type of link should be removed while 59.167.6.230 ([9]) would agree with you that the complaints links should stay. These sites are new and not notable yet. They don't meet WP:EL as I've argued. And it looks like the community doesn't want them. --Matt 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Plus, the edit history of Sottyslist is very similar to that of 203.214.143.125. I'm not sure we can even count those as two distinct votes. --Matt 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll confirm Matt's assumption above that I feel these links should be deleted. The sites are far too new and thinly-populated to be of any real use as yet; they simply don't have the "legs" to even begin to qualify as an encyclopedia reference. And even if they did, I'd have serious issues about including them, in part because they'll always violate the admonition in WP:EL against links with unverifiable research (and likely, factually inaccurate material).Pitamakan 02:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • After seeing this argument rise up again. I'll reiterate my support for the removal of the complaint links from all of the airline articles. NW036 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If the "consensus" is to remove them, then so be it. However, let it be noted that a significant proportion of the people against this inclusion of these links work for these airlines and are therefore biased. I already discussed this above regarding the Delta Air Lines article (especially how the "consensus" seems to favor allowing sites with positive reviews of the company but not complaints, which is biased by definition), but if you also notice the most recent removal of the Southwest Airlines complaints link, it was also done by a Southwest Airlines employee (208.8.57.2). I re-emphasize the bias found in the airline Wikipedia articles, but will respect the "consensus" as long as they are aware of the obvious bias. As a closing, I will copy what I wrote in the Southwest Airlines talk page: I understand airlines want to protect their Wikipedia articles, but this is an open encyclopedia and purposefully omitting resources that are relevant to the topic and useful for readers goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. I looked at this Southwest Complaints site and it does indeed seem to be run by the same company/person as the other airline complaint sites (see links at the bottom of the site). However, since the sites are free and have no ads that I could find (e.g. it is purely informative and non-commercial), I do not see the relevance of it being maintained by the same people as long as it is a free and useful resource for readers. I do not see what the owners of these sites have to gain from being linked to by Wikipedia since they are not monetizing these sites. The site includes information on how to directly complain to Southwest (address, phone, e-mail link), articles on how to argue with airlines, and experiences from other passengers. This fits the Wikipedia linking guidelines, specifically "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews", so I think this link should also be added. Were these sites to become commercial and begin monetizing, then I believe we would have to review them again and consider removing them, but as they stand now, I can only see them benefiting readers. Furthermore, with the recent news regarding increasing airline hassles, it is hard to argue against the relevance of these complaint sites.--Scottyslist 03:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm not an airline employee. NW036 isn't an airline employee. Neo16287 isn't an airline employee. EnsRedShirt isn't an airline employee. Pitamakan isn't an airline employee. I haven't seen any indication either way on SiberioS. Maranomerau is an airline employee, but has done edits against his airline, and has said all review sites should be removed. Even if we discount airline employees, the consensus is still to remove these links. --Matt 03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I don't find any of these sites meaningful. If you look at WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #10 ("Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.") - {delta,aa,united,southwest,aircanada}complaints.com might be review sites, but they are also discussion forums. When I think of reviews, I think of cnet reviews, Ebert & Roper, etc - reviews done by professionals that give us educated opinions. When I read these complaint sites, I see people who are annoyed by the weather and have unreasonable demands of the airlines in these cases. People who want to vent. I don't think venting sites are at all legitimate sources. They are incredibly biased by self selection of participators.
We can continue this argument ad infinitum if you want, but I think it's time to cite the snowball clause and call it a day. --Matt 04:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Matt, based on the exact same reasoning given above for the removal of the complaint links, can you please reflect your lack of bias by also removing every single REVIEW link on every airline article please. The reviews on these sites are not written by professionals either.--Scottyslist 16:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to consider how you interact with other editors on Wikipedia. You should not toss around implications of bias cheaply. I suggest you spend some time reading Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks. Some of the other review sites should be removed, as others have said. This was step 1. These sites were devoid of meaningful content, and I could get rid of them in one sweep. --16:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
For my future knowledge, can you please describe how I personally attacked you? I said nothing negative about you, so I am confused. But I don't want this to deter from the fact that if my allegations regarding the bias of the airline articles are not true, then the review links that have been on here for a long time and never removed, should also be removed. I invite you to refer to my first message above regarding these and to discuss.--Scottyslist 17:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
To quote WP:NPA "Comment on content, not on the contributor." You're wildly tossing around "bias" towards experienced editors because they disagree with you. --Matt 21:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not accuse you of being biased, only the article. With regards to you, I said "reflect your lack of bias", which acknowledges your lack of bias and requests that you reflect it again, so once more, I believe you misunderstood me. Also, just because an editor is more experienced does not necessarily mean they are unbiased. And here's another relevant point from WP:NPA: "Equally, accusing someone of making a personal attack is not something that should be done lightly, especially if you are involved in a dispute. Back to the issue at hand, I will remove the airline review sites for the same reasons cited above for the removal of the complaint sites, unless anyone has any objections. "--Scottyslist 01:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of interfering with the perfectly good beating of a dead horse here, I'll just make two points, which should be fairly obvious to most: 1) The site that was deleted was brand-new and still quite limited in content, making its inclusion here inappropriate regardless of topic; and 2) a "complaint" site is very different from a "review" site, and the drift in semantics over the course of this thread is a bit troubling. Seat Guru, for example, is one of the links described as a "review" site -- it's well-established, heavily used, and as unbiased as a review site can be. It's not appropriate to compare that with the deleted complaint site at all. Pitamakan 03:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is beating a dead horse at all, I think it's an important discussion. Would you be happy with a link to a more established complaints site? Also, the Delta Air Lines Passenger Opinions doesn't seem very established or unbiased, so are you OK with removing it?--Scottyslist 03:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought there was a discussion about this in the past and the decision was to remove all review/complaint/praise sites, since they do not belong in an encyclopedia. One user used the common argument that these links are "useful" to readers. This is an encyclopedia. It is supposed to contain factual information about the subject of each article. Any external links should be to fact-based sites. If the airline won an award, and Skytrax is needed as a reference, fine, but there's no place in an encyclopedia article for a bunch of reviews from customers. DB (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
DB, that was exactly my point from the very beginning. If the complaint links must go, then so should all the review links. However, if the review links stay, then so should the complaint links in order to show both sides of the story and remain neutral. I'm in favor of either of those options.--Scottyslist 10:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
So are there any objections to me removing the review sites? --Scottyslist 09:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Theoretically, at least, I think someone could create a "complaint" site that would be worth linking to, but I definitely don't see that as being anywhere near likely, and I personally don't know of one that I'd even consider. I have much less of a problem with "review" sites, since they have at least the potential to be less biased, and the Skytrax site is probably as good a one as you're going to find -- it's a well-established firm and well-moderated site. Color me ambivalent about that one. Pitamakan 13:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Morocco route

On Delta's route map, I saw a route from New York to Casablanca, Morocco. Is this a real route,and is it even in service?

It's a codeshare. DB (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Operated by Royal Air Maroc. --Matt 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Somebody please create or find a better version of the new logo. While the logo is now in PNG format, it contains some compression artifacts. ANDROS1337 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's the best we'll be able to do at the moment. The originals on Delta's website, both with and without the SkyTeam logo, contain the compression artifacts in the widget--they're being provided in JPEG format. The only other alternative I see is to grab the GIF that they're using in the upper-left corner of pages that have the new logo (not all their pages do currently). That one looks clean, but it's smaller. -- Hawaiian717 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I wonder, who would be willing to create an SVG version of the logo? Many other airline articles have SVG logos. ANDROS1337 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone tell User:DB to stop reverting the logo as it is legit. Maranomerau 21:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You could tell me yourself. JPEGs are not a desirable format; PNGs are preferred. Actually an SVG would be even better. I can try to get one. Furthermore, the Delta logo combined with the SkyTeam logo is not appropriate here as it is an article solely about Delta. DB (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
No hard feelings DB. Didn't mean to be rough.

Maranomerau 04:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the new Delta logo look eerily like the Citgo logo? File:Citgo.png vs

Fair use rationale for Image:DALNewPaint.jpg

Image:DALNewPaint.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Delta timetable.JPG

Image:Delta timetable.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta-Shanghai

Did US Airways really win the bid for the new China service? Many users keep on deleting Shanghai from the destinations list....is there any sources? Thanks!!! Bucs2004 01:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they haven't been awarded the route yet; they've only applied for it with the DOT. A decision will be made in the late summer, I believe. Until then, the Shanghai destination should be listed as "Pending gov't approval" MRasco 02:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Anon users continue to keep removing it still. Bucs2004 19:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait. Do you mean Delta or US Airways (since this is the Delta talk page, but your original post says "US Airways", I must've missed it the first time around)? If you mean Delta, they certainly have filed an application for ATL-PVG service, and have even launched a website in order to solicit public support for it. I don't know why it keeps getting deleted; it should be listed with "Pending gov't approval" as I mentioned earlier. The DOT will rule on the application this August.
On the other hand, if you meant US Airways, that is a discussion for the US Airways talk page. MRasco 20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I meant Delta. One user made an edit on the Atlanta Airport article stating that "Delta will not be starting this route but instead US Airways will start the route instead." I was wondering that the US DOT has given the route to US Airways and not Delta. I have reverted their edits back. Bucs2004 21:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I have started the discussion about the route to Shanghai on the US Airways talk page. Bucs2004 01:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The old alliance with Swissair/Sabena/Austrian

I remember that before Delta had their alliance with Air France that they use to have an alliance with Swissair and other smaller European carriers. I was hoping to read some information on this alliance but didn't see it here. I think it was an important part of Delta history, and I am disappointed I didn't read about in this article. - Itsdannyg 08:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Delta Connection destinations

User:201.247.208.18 has been adding destinations in Canada (Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton) served only by Delta Connection to the mainline destinations article (by looking that the recent history of the edits). Should those remain or be removed? Are those destinations served by mainline and DL Connection or DL Connection only? I just wanted to be clear so that I don't want to cause an edit war. Thanks! Bucs2004 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

They still use 767-200s?

I looked on their schedule and two flights from Atlanta I know of still use the 762. One is to Frankfurt, the other to Brussels. If you look on the flight status page it shows aircraft as 762. When searching flights, it says 763 but it is a different config. So why do they not mention the 762 on their fleet page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.141.155 (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is one of the ex-Gulf Air 767-300ERs. For some strange reason, Delta uses the code "762" for them. Their exit layout is different from most of the 767-300ERs. ANDROS1337 16:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

YWG

Does any one know if Delta or Delta Connection operates flights to Winnipeg? User:Bzuk keeps implying that Delta does in fact operate Delta flights out of there. I could not any YWG-SLC flights operated by Delta or Delta Connection in their schedules; the Winnipeg Airport's webbsite does not even list Delta as a carrier operating out of that airport. If someone can find a flight for me, then please readd on the Winnipeg Airport article. Thanks! Bucs2004 02:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, only thing I could find was to MSP, and that was via a codeshare, either Northwest or Pinnacle. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 03:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay thanks! I have removed Delta from the list on the Winnipeg Airport article. Bucs2004 04:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

New York to Bogota

Is Delta still planning on flying from JFK-BOG on December 1? I couldn't find any flights in their schedules on or after that date. The only nonstop flights from JFK to Bogota on DL is operated by Avianca. Delta applied to fly that route but it was denied. Is that true? If someone could find me a flight then please readd on the respective pages. Thanks!Bucs2004 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Defunct airlines operated by Delta" (Section Title)

Would "Defunct airlines once operated by Delta" be a good alternative? The original title sounds like an oxymoron IMO. But does the new one sound redundant? Maybe I'm trying to fix something that isn't broken. Let me know if this is worth considering, or perhaps it is fine as it is. Thanks. 67.161.208.225 19:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Delta Crown Room Club logo.png

Image:Delta Crown Room Club logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delta Fleet Table

When "new config" and "old config" is listed in the fleet table (passengers column), does that mean the old configuration will be phased out? Just wondering...--Golich17 22:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the old configuration will be phased out. ANDROS1337 03:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

City limits

I removed the second sentence of the lead that claimed that Delta HQ was at Hartsfield, outside of city limits. Actually, while contiguous to the entire airport property, the bulk of which is in Clayton County, Delta HQ sits on City of Atlanta property in Fulton County which is shown on City of Atlanta zoning maps (zoned C1 if you care), which seems to indicate it is within city limits (even if not contiguous to the rest of the city (separated by Hapeville). If you have arguments controverting that, please provide sources. AUTiger » talk 01:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Delta Air Lines/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There are a lot of good citations already, but there need to be more because of the extensive size of this article. Some needed citations are already given. I think with more citations, this could be a very, very good article.Gittinsj 05:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)gittinsj

Last edited at 05:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "iWon Money & Investing". Retrieved 2006-09-17.
  2. ^ "Delta Newsroom". Retrieved 2006-09-17.
  3. ^ "Airliners.net Civil Aviation: Three More 757s For Delta". Retrieved 2006-10-30.
  4. ^ "Delta To Acquire Former AA 757s, Modify 767s For Intl. Service". Retrieved 2006-10-17.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Delta_Air_Lines/Archive_1&oldid=1140152372"