Talk:Northwest Airlines/Archive 1

Frequent Passenger Complaints

I was surprised to see nothing in this article about the frequency of passenger complaints about Northwest. They seem to have consistently been one of the worst in such surveys, over several recent ears. While anecdotally, passengers often complain about airlines, the numerical size of these surveys, and the consistency of the results gives them more evidentiary value.

I live a couple of miles from Northwest's MSP hub, and not much further from their corporate headquarters. I was surprised to find no mention at all of their common nickname in the area: Northworst. It's common enough that an encyclopedic article ought to at least mention it. T-bonham (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hubs/Focus Cities

I know Northwest likes to think of AMS as a hub, but they are really beyond delusional about that and their poor classification should be corrected here. Six destinations, with the only possible connection being BOM, is not a hub (and shouldn't even be called a focus city). And yes, I realize that they have their enormous codesharing possibilities with KLM, but codeshare connections do not count as hub connections. AMS is a SkyTeam Hub, a KLM hub, or perhaps a NW-KLM hub, but not an NW hub. Hubs have to have multiple connections on their own metal with orchestrated banks and probably more than SIX FLIGHTS. NW can barely call NRT a hub - it's really pushing it, but since they have multiple flights designed for connections on their own metal...that might be fine.

And also, Milwaukee is down to a shockingly low six destinations. That should be downgraded from focus city status. Someone poopooed me for calling FLL a DL focus city, and look at that compared to NW at MKE! MKE, really?

HNL is tough. Probably not a focus city, but I'm impressed with Japan and the traffic they bring through there, so that may slide for now.

I agree, I think Northwest is really stretching the definitions of hub and focus city with AMS and MKE. Increased service a few years ago at MKE was NW's answer to the growing presence of Midwest Airlines and the sudden increase in service from LAS to random midwest cities was in response to Allegiant Air (you can clearly see that NWA goes for blood when it comes to midwest markets). But really, ultimately the terms "hub" and "focus city" are just marketing terms. Try and apply those terms to Southwest Airlines destinations and it becomes clearer that there's no well-defined rule for determining what they are. Let 'em call AMS and NRT hubs. :) I think HNL is a clear-cut case for a focus city, though. They have service to all the big west coast markets, long-haul service to MSP, NRT, and KIX, as well as 757 service to OGG/KOA. Actually, NRT is pretty hub-ish, considering it consists of morning and evening banks that connect Asia arrivals to US-bound flights and vice versa. 68.126.189.26 08:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be a good idea that we come up with a definition of what constitutes a hub, and then apply it across all airlines. It's a bad idea to use the airline's own interpretation of what they think a hub is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inetpup (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Oldest Fleet?

I'm pretty sure the claim "operates the oldest airline fleet in the world" isn't accurate. I'm pretty sure that Midwest Airlines planes (prior to their 717s they had almost entirely a fleet of 20+ year old planes) has older planes, and if we look at foreign carriers I'm positive there are some old planes flying (having myself flown on DC-3s in the third world...). We should fix this, but some hard numbers would be nice... Kaszeta 13:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Oldest fleet of any major international airline" is probably a better way to put it. Sekicho 00:35, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Northwest Airlines fleet age average is 18 years ONLY because of it's VERY SMART move in keeping it's DC-9s. Otherwise it's fleet is only 9.7, one of the YOUNGEST in the WORLD! People who like to constantly harp about how OLD NWA's fleet is should note that NWA is also the MOST financially stable of the U.S. carriers.

It is 9.9 years. Since you have twice added misinformation to this article, I've tagged it for review. Just so nobody forgets (including me), we need to re-add the drunk flying information which blueflyer removed. Rhobite 07:10, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite,read the article and much to your (If the DC9s are not counted, Northwest's average age would be 9.7 years. The average age of the DC9s was about 33 years.) disapointment the age is 9.7. Furthermore, your drunk flying information is clear vandelism and far from neutral, you have attempted to place NWA in a negative light. Unless you have definitive sources for the statement on the drunk flying I would be very careful about placing erroneous information about a corporation. You have placed MISINFORMATION on this article numerous times.Your biased attempt to place NWA in a negative light will not go un challenged. Use facts, stop the misinformation.

As I have provided a reference for the drunk flying incident, please stop removing it from the article. What you are doing is simply whitewashing information which you don't like. According to NWAC's 2004 annual report, the average age would be 9.9 years, not 9.7 years. Many of your additions (such as putting the takeover year at 1987) have been wrong. Rhobite 07:47, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

And on another note, the "most financially stable" is a ludicrous thing to say considering Southwest's history of profitability. Superlatives like this are not allowed under our neutral point of view policy, anyway. Rhobite 07:49, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Blueflyer, you are the one who is refusing to cite sources. Please cite a source for the 9.7 years, and one for the "43 quarters" statement. Particularly, please tell me how a 20-year period only contains 43 quarters. And please tell me why you are continuing to remove the verified paragraph about the pilots flying while drunk. Rhobite 07:56, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you need to point out the percentage of traffic at MSP and not any other hub. Furthermore, Tokyo is a HUB for Northwest. The article noted in the run states 9.7. It is clear that you choose to point out selective negatives about NWA (sounds personal) I will continue to point out the positive.

I didn't write the MSP thing. I don't see how it's negative to mention. Is it wrong? In general, please do not remove information if it's correct and phrased neutrally. Please read the 2004 annual report - it clearly says 9.9 years. Don't accuse me of anything, I'm just trying to keep you from whitewashing this article. I wouldn't say you're "pointing out the positive", more like deleting the negative. Rhobite 08:26, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

It's not about pointing out the negative or positive or anything else -- it's about presenting an encyclopedic, accurate view of an airline. If Northwest's in financial turmoil, then it should be part of the article (don't be offended -- ALL scheduled airlines are besides Southwest, the only airline in the black last year). If some of its pilots flew drunk (they did), it should be included. If its planes are old (they are -- see this Philly Inquirer story [1]), it should be included. The truth hurts sometimes. Katefan0 21:08, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Rhobite, I noted you erased the DC-9 AP ref; I found a Web ref for it and put it back in. Katefan0 21:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Here is a ref from the Miami Herald that mentions a Northwest pilot fired in 2001 for flying drunk. [2] Katefan0 21:33, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Give me a break! Rhobite, every article you ref. about NWA, you worked OVERTIME focusing on the negative. The truth DOES hurt when NWA is the ONLY major airline stable (esp. if you hate'em) SW is NOT a major..the top 6 that fly the globe are considered majors. I like NWA and think it is in a FAR better position than the others. Too bad a bitter ex- employee or passenger needs to spend time trying to place it in a bad light. I didn't take 2 seconds to realize your intentions. You conviently left out the biggest part of the DC-9 article to focus on the OLD. That trash about the pilots flying drunk has NOTHING to do with it's operational stats. EVERY airline / company has a few dumb employees. Every other airline article on wiki is about the airline NOT it's rare dumb employee. Your passion to post that trash is nothing less than SPAM. Furthermore, you had better familiarize yourself with the 3 deletion rule. Lets see: NWA helped establish Japan airlines, Launched the 747-400, has acceted delivery of over 200 new aircraft since 2000, has the longest running history of profits of ANY airline prior to 1987, presently NWA has $2.4 Billion in cash TWICE what other airlines it's size or bigger have, NWA owns more of it's fleet than any other American airline, the "OLD" DC-9's were originally designed as millitary jets (built like tanks). Enjoy Rhobite...so much for the drunk pilot and the old planes.(sniker)But, I am sure you will feel, that we the public, would be more interested in your stupid dribble.

Man, it went from a discussion between people with differing opinions to just plain mudslinging. How disgusting. With regard to the actual disagreement, it seemed to me that blueflyer's additions/deletions almost read like marketing materials for the company. However, I don't see how the drunk pilot thing is really very encyclopedic. If there's a systematic problem within the company, then that's one thing, but a couple isolated incidents just doesn't seem to be worthy of inclusion. kmccoy (talk) 04:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kmcoy :"it seemed to me that blueflyer's additions/deletions almost read like marketing materials for the company" Kmcoy, I am rolling on the floor laughing! Was I a wee bit fed up...yeah. Sorry. I like the outfit. Great history, well run, global reach.

KMccoy -- I can see a case being made for not including the drunk flying info, though I tend to err on the "include" side. However, the rest of the unflattering info is perfectly valid for inclusion. Blueflyer has an obvious and admitted bias toward Northwest and I agree with you that his contributions/deletions seem more in line with a marketing campaign than an effort at presenting an unbiased (and unvarnished) view of the company. Also, Blueflyer, can you please sign your comments? It's easy, just type four tildes in a row. Your personal info will get filled in. Katefan0 16:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Flattering or Un-flattering that is in the eyes of the beholder. Rhobite preferred to include ONLY negative parts of an article and I preferred to do the opposite. Operational FACTS are hardly BIASED. Clearly, as much as I like NWA...it apears that Rhobite did not. Take ya pick. The information that I attempted to place in the article is the SAME info that is in EVERY OTHER airline article on here. Frankly, there is not that much differenc in 12.5 years and 18.3 when it comes to aircraft.. Most people might "get it". When someone focuses on "drunk pilots" "old planes" it can't be because this is an un biased view could it? As noted later, NWA is not the ONLY carrier this has happened to. Yet when one places the SAME info about NWA such as it's reputation for profits as a well run company...it's biased. Gotcha ya!--Blueflyer 17:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Instead of throwing around these sorts of accusations and virtually pouting and stomping your feet, why don't you say what exactly you think should also be included in the article? What, exactly, is not being highlighted that should be, and can you provide a source for the information? Katefan0 18:41, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Watch it! "Instead of throwing around these sorts of accusations and virtually pouting and stomping your feet". You wanna get personal" You wanna get personal you might get your feelings hurt. Who made you busy body queen to deciede what is biased and what is not. The article is fine now...as it is. It was NOT...the way it was. The information that I placed in the article was directly from the article that referenced the "old" planes. As well as NWA.com(history), Japan Airlines.com (history), NWA '04/ 10k. The article should be balanced in the SAME manner as all other airline articles...NONE of which rant about isolated employee behavior or how OLD a portion of it's fleet is.--Blueflyer 21:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • You know, I was encouraging you, Blueflyer, to make an argument for what you felt needed to be changed/added. I was prepared to advocate making those changes if I agreed with them. What was your response? More ad hominem (and this time, disgustingly sexist) attacks. Wikipedia articles are made by consensus. That gives me just as much right to weigh in as anyone else, including -- surprise -- you. And by the way, it takes more than this to hurt my feelings or make me angry. Not so, apparently, for you. Katefan0 21:43, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

"More ad hominem (and this time, disgustingly sexist) attacks" From a female named Blueflyer..back at ya sister. Keep your little "pouting and stomping your feet" comments out of a decent reply and perhaps you can be taken seriously. I don't care if it is NWA or SW or Continental, who cares about the behavior of a few employees? Should we make this a standard for ALL airlines? I fly many many airlines in this country and NWA by FAR is one of the best. If people don't like my view (backed up by the FACTS of the company's 10k) too bad. The SEC seems to approve of it.--Blueflyer 21:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • I'll simply point out that sexism isn't the exclusive domain of men (witness Ann Coulter). Other than that I don't have much else to say, except that I still don't understand what you think is inadequate in the article. Katefan0 22:01, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Blueflyer, please cite your source for the 43 quarters of profit statement. You've repeatedly added it and it is not in the 10K. In case I missed it, please cite a page number. On another note, people really need to calm down. This is getting personal. Rhobite 22:14, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering whom you referenced "Ann Coulter" explains your comment of ""pouting and stomping your feet". That mentality goes hand in hand. I'd use her book to line my trash can. I will post the reference for NWA history of profitability.--Blueflyer 22:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear: my above statement was intended to be critical of Ann Coulter, who says some horrible things about women. Anyway, I never intended this to get quite to this point so if anything I said personally offended anybody, I extend my apology. I meant the stomping feet comment to describe petulance, but in retrospect that phraseology was maybe a bit too colorful. I stand behind the basic sentiment though. Katefan0 22:28, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Ditto.--Blueflyer 22:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• SWA not a major???!!! The DOT defines SWA as a major (more than $1BB in revenue), and SWA ranks number one in domestic passengers carried. Yes, including regional carriers with the legacies makes some of them larger (Delta becomes No. 1), or including international pax (AA becomes No. 1), but make no mistake, Southwest is a big boy with a very big stick.

STOP THIS CHILDISH E-BICKERING!!! This is a comment page, not an argument center! People, say what you think about the facts on the fleet section on the NWA article, not insults and counter-insults. Geez louise! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.65.188 (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Fourth largest

It seems to me like the history Blueflyer is adding is valid for inclusion. It just needs to be paraphrased so it's not a cut and paste job. Katefan0 23:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Done. Also, I think since we are equally split between people who think the drunk flying info should be included and people who do not, maybe it should be removed until a consensus is formed. Katefan0 17:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it should stay. It's a tiny 3-sentence paragraph which is verifiable and neutral. Please keep it. Rhobite 19:10, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your opinion (especially since I agree with it), but we have two others on this talk page who've disagreed. What else would you propose? Katefan0 19:32, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • As an outsider, I'd say remove the drunk flying stuff from this article. I see nothing wrong with it in an article on airline safety, but unless anyone has evidence that it was any more likely to happen to this airline than any other, I don't see it has a place here. Just because it's true doesn't mean it should be on this page; it's true that I flew on Northwestern in the 90's and I can prove it, but that fact shouldn't go on this page either. AdamW 19:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I guess that's an option. If it's not in here, it should be discussed somewhere. Between British Airways, America West, and Northwest there is enough of a history of news coverage to merit an article about drunk flying incidents. Or it could be worked into air safety but it seems relatively minor when compared to the disasters in that article. We should also have an article about Lyle Prouse, the pilot in the 1990 Northwest incident. Prouse is notable because he quit drinking and returned to flying for Northwest after he got out of jail. Also, President Clinton pardoned him before leaving office. Rhobite 20:06, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
          • I think that's an excellent option, if someone's willing to take it on. I'm not sure it really rises to the level of having its own article (it's not exactly epidemic), so I would support it as an addition to air safety. Katefan0 16:27, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
            • I moved it to air safety. kmccoy (talk) 06:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Exploding whales are also not epidemic, but that's not a criteria for being encyclopedic. Unfortunately I have no time to write a drunk-flying article but I do support its existence. Rhobite 20:25, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think scope is certainly a factor in whether something is encyclopedic enough to warrant its own article. Katefan0 04:40, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong Airport

Re: Huaiwei: Format of Chinese airports shld be standardised

Hong Kong maintains its own economic policies, and reserves its capacity to come up with civil aviation agreements with other countries at its own. It is an independent member at aviation organisations.

Hong Kong is independent member at civil aviation organisations and airport council, and maintains its own economic policies. It comes up with bilateral aviation agreements at its own. Hong Kong-mainland China and Macau-mainland China flights are considered non-domestic (i.e. international) and reaches international but not domestic airports, such as Pudong but not Hongqiao at Shanghai. Hong Kong, Macau and mainland China should each have separate listings.

As I have mentioned in the Cathay talk page, the destination listing is a listing of countries, not of aviation councils.

"The solution, then, is to add the drunk flying information to the other articles. Not to remove it from here. Sounds like you have your work cut out for you, once you register for an account. · Katefan0(scribble" Whey is that a solution? When someone singles out entity (airline) to focus on someting NEGATIVE. I also notice that NO OTHER airline has mentioned the AGE of aircraft or "Aviation Incidents". Sure SOUNDS like a HUGE BIAS to me. I think this whole thing should be sent to the board, esp. how it has been handled, seems like pretty poor taste. This gives Wiki a bad name PERIOD!

Request for comment

I saw a request for comment in relation to an incident here. What's up with that? Also, why is the factual and neutrality of the article being disputed? --Spinboy 19:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There was a user editing this article who was adding misinformation and removing negative information about NWA. For instance saying that Northwest has been profitable for 43 straight quarters (or years), claiming that the average fleet age is 8.5 years excluding the DC-9's (it's actually 9.9), praising Northwest for "wise" decisions, etc. See the entries above on this talk page. I think we can probably remove the tag if Blueflyer agrees to stop adding information without citing a source. Rhobite 20:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

If they can't cite it, then yeah, remove the tag. --Spinboy 21:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The drunken incident needs to be put on the article. I remember that even The Arizona Republic made fun of it by placing a comic with two NWA pilots drinking wine as they asked for permission to take off so it was a big thing. I think that if we can combine the positive and negative facts, as long as they are facts, then the article is neutral. But we have to teach rookie editors to try to be neutral. After all, I was like that once too!

I mean, I love Delta, for example, and , that does not mean that I will remove info about their 1985 crash in Dallas! That was a fact, its part of the company's history. -- "Antonio Wonder Woman Martin" Where do you see that they posted 8.5? Are the issues with drunk pilots at OTHER airlines included in the sections? Rohobert you seem to be hung up on a "I hate NWA" trip. NO OTHER AIRLINE i.e. BA, AWA, UAL has mentioned the episodes of drunken pilots. Sounds personal to me. REMOVE IT!"But we have to teach rookie editors to try to be neutral" Take some of your amaturish advice and place the same info for ALL airlines and perhaps you would grasp the term NEUTRAL.

• The solution, then, is to add the drunk flying information to the other articles. Not to remove it from here. Sounds like you have your work cut out for you, once you register for an account. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:46, May 22, 2005 (UTC)I see...sounds like "neutral" input. This stuff has NO baring on one company or the other. Unless the "pros" are willing to place it in British Airways, Delta, America West, Air France, and the list goes on. This is trivial garbage. The solution is to remove it from the post. For the record NORTHEST was NOT the FIRST airline to report it. Other than that it is great information that is interesting to read.

Rhobite, I have read many other articles on many other airlines on Wiki...THIS ONE by far smacks of an unbiased slant to negative. I think you ought to leave your personal issues out of the profile. I say Robite is a disgruntled passenger or crybaby ex employee. I AGREE with BLUEFLYER! It DOESN'T belong on here!!!!! There NEEDS to be a standard as to what catagories is included for ALL airlines, or industries. Peoples pesonal bias should not be used. Most of us could care less about the BS that Robite has put in here. It is not like Northwest is the ONLY airline that this has happened to. Northwest is not the ONLY airline that flies old airplanes. Wiki is losing it's appeal if this stuff starts to creep in.

I realize I'm responding to a very old, unsigned comment... but come on. I have nothing against NWA. I think I've flown Northwest one time and my only complaint would be about the food at DTW. I just think accurate, verified information should be included in all articles. If an airline has been involved in notable drunk-flying incidents, we should mention it. Likewise, mentioning the age of their fleet is not POV. It is a fact that they operate an old fleet. They discuss it in their SEC filings. Rhobite 04:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, the article hasn't even begun to get negative. There's the whole matter of labor disputes left to go [3] —Mulad (talk) July 3, 2005 15:35 (UTC)

• Obviously, the whole issue of NWA's financial status was verified by their bankruptcy filing last year, so Rhobite was right on with that. NWA's fleet is old; that's an undisputible fact. Whether it's a good or bad thing is a matter of conjecture. NWA's public image, and hence their bottom line, was tarnished by their drunk pilot episode, so I find the inclusion of the incident relavent. No other airline is as associated with the issue as is NWA.--Bravenav 05:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bravenav, that is your personal opinion http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/956622.stm, furthermore, America West has had two incidents that I can think of. Yet this is not mentioned in either airlines profiles. I wonder why a few on here have selected to point NW out when it has neither the most or worst incidents regarding this issue? Unless this is standard for all airlines, it sounds like disgruntled passengers wanting to insert something to make NW sound like it is the airline with the most incidents of intoxicated pilots.

When did they drop the "Orient" from their name?

When did Northwest drop the "Orient" from their name and revert back just to Northwest? I'd guess it was sometime in the late 1980s. If anyone knows, it would be useful information to have in this article. Moncrief 02:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

It followed the merger with Republic Airlines. It's already mentioned in the article: In 1985, Northwest purchased Republic Airlines and adopted its three-hub network centered around Minneapolis, Detroit, and Memphis. Northwest returned to its original name with the merger. --Alexwcovington (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify the date, it was 1 October 1986. The article now has the correct info, and I think it would answer the questions about when Orient started and ended as part of the trade name -- never was more than that. Reward 08:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Worldperks

Template:Worldperks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Worldperks. Thank you.

WorldClubs and WorldPerks articles

These should be merged into the Northwest Airlines article. They aren't noteworthy enough to merit their own articles. Every major carrier has airport lounges and FF programs, but they don't have their own articles. The only reason the Admirals Club (AA) and AAdvantage have separate articles is because they were the first lounge and FFP, respectively. Likewise, Asia Miles and Aeroplan have articles because they evolved into more than simple frequent flyer programs. Dbinder 14:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely no question. Those articles should have never existed!!!--63.133.128.130 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I work for NW and just wanted to make it known that I just updated an outdated link (WP Car Partners, reference 41) in the WorldPerks section. Thanks! Travelak (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:OTA

Template:OTA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:OTA the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Las Vegas Focus City?

Can we consider Las Vegas to be a Northwest focus city? I know they fly non-stop flights there from a number of non-hub cities, such as Des Moines, Madison, Fargo, Flint, Grand Rapids, Los Angeles, and Madison.

Detroit-Beijing & Shanghai-Pudong nonstop

Why does Northwest no longer have nonstop flights between Detroit and Beijing/Shanghai? Bucs2004 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because of two reasons: Their 747's can't fly farther or high jet fuel prices

Northwest in pre- 9-11 times flew the route, but dropped it, favoring the route through Tokyo. They just applied and were denied the non-stop route in addition to the one through Tokyo.

NW Applies: [4] UA Wins: [5]

Compass Airlines Service??

Can someone edit this page to include information on the two regional jet orders nwa has placed. They've already received at least one plane that I know of. All the information in wikipedia on their regional jet fleets seems to be out of date - unless they only have one rj-200 at the moment.

Does anyone know when will NW's new subsdiary Compass Airlines will begin service? It keeps saying that it will begin service between Minneapolis/St. Paul and Washington-Dulles in June 2006 but I don't see anything in those airport articles. Bucs2004 18:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank goodness for replacing the DC-10!

I'm glad they're replacing the DC-10, but then again, they need to replace those planes earlier. One of the plastic panelings inside the cabin of the DC-10 fell to the floor while taking off to increase altitude on the Flight 98 from Honolulu to MSP on July 2, 2006. There's alot of ducktape inside of the paneling and foam. It shows a sign of really old age. Spongefan 03:07, July 8 2006 (UTC)

Embraer 190?

Nothing is certain that the Embraers will replace the DC-9s - this simply is note know yet. It should be removed from the fleet chart.

I agree. Furthermore, where are the Avro jets and the Saab turboprops in the fleet list?Mattaudio 16:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

4th/5th largest airline in terms of what?

"It is the fourth largest US airline by domestic and international plus domestic kilometers flown." is cited, but the latter part of "Northwest is the world's fifth largest airline[1] in terms of RPK (revenue-passenger-kilometers)." remains uncited, due to the discrepancy. "Northwest Airlines is the world's fifth largest airline." "Northwest Airlines is the world's fourth largest airline" Without saying by what measure they're the xth largest airline. TransUtopian 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Northwest Airlines SVG Logo

I replaced the SVG version of the logo with the previous PNG version. The SVG logo contains inaccuracies, and frankly looks too much different than the official logo. Notice the spacing of the "nwa", the different font in both lines of the text (you can see this clearly with the "a"), the thinner lines in the text of the SVG logo (clearly in the "w"), and the position of the "w" in relation to the circle. I don't know if SVG logos are supposed to exactly emulate the official logo, and I don't know if this version qualifies for fair use if it is an imitation of the official. But the two versions have major differences. Tinlinkin 20:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have updated it to the latest offical logo, which no longer includes the lower text. It is straight from the NWA website. --Keeleysam 07:04, 11 August 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.69 (talk • contribs)

It's an interesting idea, but we'll will have to wait for a press release to mention anything in the article. --AlexWCovington (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't ever let such a merger happen! Different fleets and different corporate structure would create one disaster of an airline! Andros 1337 18:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Once more; this is just rumour -- no need to put it in the article at this point. --AlexWCovington (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Norman Mineta started this talk, and while he was DOT sec., he's hardly an airline insider. Both DAL and NWA have flatly denied this rumor and most all airline consultants reject the notion as fanciful. The two fleets are incompatible, and NWA's stubborn unions would be a poor match for union-free Delta (exc. their pilots).--Bravenav 05:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Recently, Delta and Northwest made news that they could possibly merge with each other. If it happens (according to new reports), the combined airline will be called "Delta Air Lines" and it will retain its Atlanta hub. We'll just see if it happens. Bucs2004 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fleet age

<< Northwest Airlines fleet age average is 18.50 years. Deleted information about dc-9 planes, due to it being flase

747-8?

Did Northwest really order the 747-8? The 747-8 page doesn't seem to reflect this. Starcity ai 02:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No but it's a rumor they might purchase it.

EclawEclaw 23:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

DC-9's replacement?

They should purchase Airbus 318 as their 100 seat requirement to replace worn out DC-9.

Eclaw 02:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Eugene Law NO, the Dc-9s will never die! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.66.203 (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

JFK-NRT

Is it true that NWA will resume its JFK-NRT route? I couldn't any press releases from Northwest confirming this. Bucs2004 03:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw a press release last year after they suspended their JFK-NRT route, on the NWA website. That the start route of their 787s would be the JFK-NRT-JFK route sometime in August 2008. But I'm not sure if this is still their plan. -chris^_^ 11:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the sentence from the article since it is a rumor. I did not find it on the NWA website. Bucs2004 05:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It could be true that they could restore it since the price of jet fuel has gone down than the year the service was suspended.Eclaw 13:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Eclaw

747-200

this aircraft is not retired as of december 2006. e.g. Flight NWA73 and NWA74 between Guam and Tokyo operate with 747-200. Mrparts 08:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is true, and someone keeps repeatedly removing this information for no reason. From the timetable itself, on page 138[6]:

NRT-GUM 945a 215p 74 742 1558

NRT-SPN 1035a 300p 76 742 1459

NRT-SPN 855p 120a 18 742 56 1459

There are many more references to this aircraft[7] [8] [9] [10] on NWA's site.

68.126.176.61 06:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That is true. According to the most updated timetable, Northwest Airlines still operates the Boeing 747-200.--Golich17 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, according to this press release, Northwest Airlines no longer operates the Boeing 747-200.[11] All flights now from Narita are operated by the A330.--68.41.96.184 18:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The link provided only says the NRT route is receiving A330s. It never addresses the 747-200. Neo16287 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the link, the Guam and Saipan from Narita routes will start flying the A330s starting September 2nd for Saipan and September 28th for Guam towards the bottom of the link shown here from an official press release from Northwest Airlines[12]. Spongefan 22:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The 747-200s are still in operation[13]:

NRT-HNL 855p 845a 22 742 3818

NRT-SPN 1035a 300p 76 742 1459

Since these aircraft are still in use, they're officially part of NWA's fleet. 209.137.158.50 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They are still used for charter flights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.29.83 (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Source check

There's a part on the article that says: ABC news reported that Northwest was in talks with American Airlines. Where are the sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Einsteinboricua (talk • contribs) 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

If I believe so, I added a cite for such information a few days ago.--Golich17 01:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen reports that they've been in talks with Delta, but no reports at all concerning American.--chris.lawson 07:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That was rumored by ABC News, as ABC Channel 7 Action News Detroit reported it on their newscast. They said that ABC News broke this news. USA Today also added it as a possible candidate.--Golich17 02:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And yet neither of those organisations has any indication whatsoever on their Web sites that this was the case. Without something to cite, we can't include this in the article, and if ABC or USA Today had more than speculation on their part, I'd think they'd put something in a news story.--chris.lawson 03:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WorldPerks Tiers

I cannot find where that page was submitted. It must be hidden? Someone please remove it, because it gives information that should be in the paragraph of the WorldPerks description.--Golich17 14:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

NWA Branding

This discussion item is being placed here per a request from Mlaroche. I propose adding something to this effect:

In 2003, Northwest branded itself as NWA, which created a public relations problem due to the moniker being identical to that of the gangsta rap group Niggas With Attitude, also known as N.W.A.--Inetpup 05:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a news source, or any source, that discusses this coincidence. I don't think it's notable. --Matt 11:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this came from, but I worked alongside Northwest employees, and they never mentioned any such issue. There was also no mentions of this on Northwest's pages, or any aviation-related news sites (ie. Today in the Sky). I say remove it, it does not seem like a notable addition. Neo16287 13:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

adding a non-fatal incident

Im a wiki newbie, sorry if my post is against the rules or anything. Im only 11 =(

Back on october 10th 2004, I was riding an a330 taking off from narito heading for san fransisco. One of the engines malfunctioned and we were forced to land back at narita.

When we landed, somewhere below the aircraft, the plane caught on fire. Firefighters were at the scence and later, I saw them spray pink water at the wheels. We were on the runway for more than 2 hours from what I recall. Noone was injured in the flight, although I do remember that a man sitting a few seats next to us started screaming at a flight attendant.

I posted this a week ago and you deleted my comment =(

please add this comment. i have no sources except my memory. I might have the flight ticket somewhere as well as a "we appologize for the inconvenience slip. I might be able to use a scanner to send it to you.

Please post this incident. I would greatly appreciate it. thanks =) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.11.143 (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Another incident that is not recorded NW74 nose landing in Guam. (http://www.rlenelive.com/Whats_happening/2005/08%20Aug/Northwest_Airlines_Nose_Landing_081905.htm)Hwansung.kang (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably because it is not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

False Imprisonment of Passengers

Due to the recent stranding of passengers by Jet Blue, it's appropriate to include a mention of Northwest's stranding of passengers in 1999. At that time, the stranding prompted a heated debate about passenger rights and even prompted the introduction of legislation in congress to that effect. Ultimately the carrier was sued under a legal theory of false imprisonment and ended up paying over $1 million to its passengers. Mention of the incident is both topical and contemporary.Jpetersen46321 17:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cool - thanks for the citation on that. --Matt 17:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, neither of those articles say "false imprisonment" and since Northwest legally admitted to doing no wrong (though I'd be pissed if I were on that plane) we might have to tone it down a bit? Thoughts? --Matt 18:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about botching the quote - I thought it was editorializing but it was actually a quote. --Matt 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I comprehensively edit this page, and actually, I check this page more than any other for errors and not needed information. I don't think this should be added to the page because that was the past and Northwest Airlines IS NOT JetBlue. JetBlue made a mistake and its not their fault. If passengers would understand laws we have, then they would realize they are wrong asking for more than free roundtrip tickets and refunds. The FAA has no policy or law in place saying that their is a time limit on how long a plane can sit on a taxiway or runway. It takes up room on the page that does not need to be taken up.--Golich17 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Golich17, I disagree with your edit. First, this is a contemporary issue. Second, Northwest became infamous for its conduct and post-event treatment of the passengers. Finally, FAA rules are irrelevant to the topicality of the event. This is an issue of current popular interest and should be included. Finally, I am aware that employees or Northwest are HIGHLY motivated to remove this type of information from the article. Nevertheless, it is factually accurate and relevant and should be included. Jpetersen46321 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Golich17, I also note that rather than move the information into another area (ie. Non-fatal accidents and incidents) you have deleted mention of the incident entirely. Please remember that Wikipedia does not solely exist for the benefit of corporate public relations. This rather embarrassing incident catapulted both Northwest and the issue of passenger rights into the news and should be prominently mentioned for the time being so that interested readers can understand the history behind these types of incidents. Jpetersen46321 22:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jpetersen46321, I do not work for Northwest Airlines, rest assure. I don't believe that such information should be included into encyclopedic material. This add to the article was a result of a current event. This would have not been added if it wasn't for the JetBlue error. The name of the article does not seem true as I doubt it would be "False Imprisonment". It would be nice if I see a relevant source of your information other than the DOT cite. Using False Imprisonment as a title would be also biased, which Wikipedia is not.--Golich17 00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Jpetersen46321, Also, even if that was the name of the lawsuit, you do not need to add it in the title of the sub-topic.--Golich17 00:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Golich- Agree, while the lawsuit was false imprisonment, it is not needed for a title. Also, the transcript of events of that incident are available here, which may be a better cite to use. I'm going to add it in, and if people feel it is a better cite, we can remove the DOT cite. http://www.aasfe.org/susan-carey-2.html Neo16287 00:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

PS - I don't work for Northwest either. I work for Lufthansa. Neo16287 00:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism should be condemned

Someone, the user whose name starts with a G, took down info saying there's no citation. However, one could be writing and then editing later (adding the citation). Or she could add a "citation needed", not removed it.

I saw some nice info, like significant previous routes and a frequent flyer fact all deleted because of G's vandalism done in the name of editing. If this is allowed, then half the the article should be axed citing lack of references as a reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.212.111.238 (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

It was Golich17

So let's get this straight, you don't like what someone does to you and so you do it to the article? The right way to deal with existing content is to put {{cn}} on the relevant material, while new edits could have that added or could be deleted depending on how legit the edits seem. I know I'm somewhat concerned about new content added by an editor that's not logged in. This edit didn't seem very strong on its point - I mean, even if it's true, it doesn't seem all that noteworthy. --Matt 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Even though it has been a while since this comment, I edit this article frequently (probably the most out of the rest) and you can believe me that I do not remove information just because it doesn't have a citation. There must have been a good reason as to why I removed the info. Plus, since you just have an IP address as your user name, that probably signaled me that it may have been vandalism or information that was too much for the article.--Golich17 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

why is ams concidered an NW hub?

NW only serves eight soon to be seven destinations to/from ams. i dont get how his can be a hub. i mean do they concider it a hub because of KLM? is it that close a partership. i can understand narita because for an int'l hub, 15 or so destinations to/from is acceptable but seven? (67.83.28.41 01:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

Amsterdam is considered a NWA hub because of its partnership with KLM and Northwest codeshares with KLM on most routes. That is what I am guessing but according to nwa.com, Amsterdam is listed as a hub for them. Bucs2004 20:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

NWA has 5 hubs, AMS, NRT, MSP, DTW, and MEM, it is the company's discretion what they call a hub and that is their distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.29.83 (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bankruptcy Proceeding

I think perhaps the NW bankruptcy litigation is complex and notable enough to deserve an article of its own. Anybody agree? --Christofurio 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Complaints links

There's a discussion at Talk:Delta Air Lines#Complaint Links about the removal of the links to the complaints bulletin boards (such as www.nwacomplaints.com, these complaints bulletin boards are all from one company and have minimal information) from airline articles. I invite you to discuss this change there. --Matt 01:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I stated over on Delta's talk page, I feel fairly strongly that 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, as well). Pitamakan 02:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NW 1920s logo.gif

Image:NW 1920s logo.gif 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 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 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Codes in Fleet Table

Why are we listing codes in the fleet table. A normal reader would not understand what those codes mean. This is not the official website, so just list the airplane model, rather than the exact plane.--Golich17 17:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The aircraft type is of encyclopedic interest; it is not a obscure code which few understand. It is in fact the actual aircraft model.

Adding this information does not take up any more space or require any more effort to analyze. For instance, if you don't care that the NW B747-451 was built for NW, you can just ignore the -451 and consider it a generic -400. This information is useful when seeing which aircraft have migrated to other airlines at later points in their history.

Remember that Wikipedia is not limited to information which is of interest only to a "normal reader." Wikipedia also includes information of use to those who have greater knowledge of the subject. If you are in doubt of concept, refer to articles in the area of science, technology and medicine. Plenty of this information is written to higher standard than a "normal" reader would require. Reward 18:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I still believe it is completely useless to include that information. Almost every airline page currently has the generic code. I have been editing this page for a while now and this is the first time this problem has arised. It does need to be settled. You may call the code generic but guess what, it gets the point forward of which aircraft they are going to operate. The codes should not be included until we reach a consensus.--Golich17 23:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a template to the fleet section of the article to solicit comments and reach consensus. I had not anticipated that there would be opposition to what I saw as making the fleet information more complete and detailed. Please detail any rationale for excluding the exact model number of aircraft operated by an airline (for example, a PA B747-121 vs. a PA B747-100). My ideas on including this information are stated above. Thanks. Reward 00:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Northwest Airlines even lists their aircraft on their Investor Relations website using the so called "generic codes".[14] I would hope that would be enough evidence showing that we really do not need to include any more information that might confuse certain readers. More so, Boeing and Airbus both include information regarding their aircraft using the generic codes... readers who research more about aircraft usually turn to one of the manufaturer's website.--Golich17 03:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that a main reason for excluding these codes is the fact that NWA may have received some of their aircraft secondhand. If this is the case, then those aircraft would not carry the 51 code. According to Boeing's wikipedia article, this code "is attributed according to the company the aircraft was first delivered to." So, for the sake of argument, if NWA received one of its 757s from American Airlines, then that plane would be a 757-223 (as opposed to a 757-251), making the codes as proposed to be used in the article inaccurate (this is probably why NWA lists their aircraft using the generic codes on their website). For this reason, as well as for the sake of consistency among other airline articles, the generic codes ought to be used in the Fleet section. MRasco 04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the need to keep the fleet table from being confusing. However, when there is no variance in the subtype, why can't it be used? For example, all NW B747-400s are 747-451s. And all NW A330-300s are A330-323. The A320-211 or -212 designation is correct, while taking up only a bit more space.

Few aircraft operated by NW would fall into this category of being acquired from different airlines. I edited the DC9 fleet to the change the generic -30, -40, -50 subtypes to -31, -32, -41, -51, etc. And the NW Cargo aircraft have a varied history (see below). Other than this, today the fleet today is mainly built for NW and very consistent in terms of subtype.

This is a bit of historical background on why this information is useful in tracking where aircraft built for one airline ended up. Different aircraft models are used for different types of service, due to overwater provisions, auxiliary fuel tanks and engine types. These are not esoteric considerations in terms of the operation, yet this information can be difficult to find. This is where Wikipedia can provide a valuable encyclopedic service.

In the B757-251 example cited above, if NW flew some other subtype, for example, the B757-2S7 models built for and flown by Republic airlines, it would be noteworthy, since these aircraft had Rolls Royce engines. Upon merging with RC, Northwest, a loyal Pratt and Whitney customer, sold these aircraft to America West, rather than deal with having non P&W engines on one subtype. Today these aircraft are still flying for HP/US, though perhaps now painted in US livery.

The DC-10 aircraft formerly in the NW fleet could be divided between the DC10-40 aircraft (a rare long-range model built to NW specs) and the DC10-30 aircraft built for other carriers and acquired by NW. The B727-251 made up the bulk of the fleet, but due to the merger with RC and the need to expand the fleet, NW had some B727-2M7 (RW) B727-2S7 (NC), and B727-225 (EA).

Today NW operates only three B747-251B aircraft in passenger service. But through the 80s and 90s, there were B747-227B (built for Braniff in '79-'80 but never delivered due to Braniff's financial problems prior to ceasing operations. In the 90s, NW flew B747-212B aircraft built in 1980 for SQ.

Today's B747-200F fleet is made up of six B747-251F models (built 75-'87), two converted B747-251B NW passenger aircraft built in '84, a B747-249F built in 1980 for Flying Tigers, two B747-222B former converted passenger aircraft built for UA in 1987, one B747-212F from SQ (built '88) and one B747-2J9F ordered and built for the Imperial Iranian Air Force in 1981, but never delivered due to the overthrow the the Shah of Iran in 1979.

Is it simpler to say, Cargo fleet: 13 B747-200F? Of course, the answer is yes. And for a table, it is more suitable to keep it simple and clear. Perhaps the breakdown and history of something as varied as the NW Cargo fleet could be handled outside of the table.

The essential question is about withholding hard-to-come-by information versus presenting it. All readers are well-equipped to deal with information which is too detailed; they simply skip to the next relevant area. Those with the interest will find useful information. We cannot know the level of knowledge or interest of the readership, but we aim high, don't we? Always err on the side of assuming an intelligent, informed, inquisitive reader. If we decide to withhold facts simply because we think the reader would never be interested, we've just "dumbed down" Wikipedia.

Here are the two questions which I believe will be useful in the quest for consensus. Please add your input.

• Should the fleet table include subtype when it is simple (there are only one or two subtypes)? For example, Say PA B747-121 instead of PA B747-100?
• Should an aircraft type with variety of subtypes and an interesting history (see NW Cargo fleet above) be listed as B747-200F and -200B, to show that not all were built as freighters. In any case, a footnote should note the different aircraft subtypes (such as -2J9F, -212F, -251B, -222B, -249F) below the table to keep the table clean. Agree or disagree? Thanks. Reward 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is interested to see the subtypes. But keep the table generally clean looking. -anon

I disagree. It is complicating information that really is of no importance. Going without subtypes is a straight-forward format that everybody can understand. I would rather have everyone understand the page than some.--Golich17 20:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Rome Service

Is NWA still serving Rome? Many anon users keep removing it from the airline's destinations articles. Did they suspend the service or is it still seasonal? Bucs2004 04:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is suspended seasonal service. They still technically serve it, but due to aircraft shortages, they haven't in 2006 or 2007. It should remain on the destinations list as a seasonal flight because that is how Northwest Airlines recognizes it. NW036 12:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed Rome as a destination for Northwest Airlines since it is no longer bookable on nwa's website and their route map no longer lists FCO as a destination. Bucs2004 03:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

World Business Class Equivalent

There has been some discussion regarding the equivalent of World Business Class. It, in fact is, international business class, or ("J-class"), not international first class ("F-class"). Northwest does not operate First class on international routes; only two cabin flights. The only airlines based in the US that operate three-cabin aircraft are American Airlines and United Airlines; and thus NW's WBC product, which sometimes has over 60 seats, is a business class product; not first class. The qualification for being equivalent to First Class on an international route is for the airline to operate three cabins of service. Jendeyoung 02:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WBC on NW and KL are certainly not up to snuff to the modern International F products out there. That being said, just changing "first" to "business" isn't helpful. It basically says that world business class is business class. That's a bit redundant. I think we need to point out that WBC is the best product NW offers. We need to capture the fact that some domestic routes get WBC seats, but not the service (A330 MSP-HNL). I also think there should be a specific call out that WBC is much better than Domestic F. -anon

Wold-Chamberlain

In connection with the first flight to Japan, the article says: "The flight originated at Wold-Chamberlain Field, St. Paul, Minnesota." Wrong. Wold-Chamberlain Field, now Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, is not in St. Paul, it's south of Minneapolis and east of Richfield on the west side of the Mississippi River. The airport in St. Paul long was called Holman Field, but now is known as St. Paul Downtown Airport. Sca 16:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This is now corrected to indicate that Wold-Chamberlain was the predecessor of MSP. If you want to see something interesting about the location of the airport, search Google Maps for 55111. The zip code for the airport is identified as St. Paul, Minnesota. If you type the name MSP the same engine, you will see Bloomington, Minnesota. Reward 22:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Limiting the Picture Sizes

I believe it is right to limit the size of the pictures, rather than allowing the users to select the sizes of the photos. I have been editing this article for some time now, and as time went on i've found, as well as others that the current sizes fit the article in a reasonable manner. I have never had such an issue come up regarding the sizes of the pictures. I definately dispute such actions and I do not believe they should be implemented into this specific article.--Golich17 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, the sizes of the pictures fit more in the article. For example, the logos for worldperks and worldclubs have been tailored so they looked similar in size and fit in a non-intrusive manner.--Golich17 00:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the picture sizes a few days ago because to do so is WP policy, I use this message to explain in the Edit Summary - "Thumbnail size removed to comply with WP:MOS#Images - allows users to set their own image size via user preferences". If no size is set in prefs then the size defaults to 180px which is surely not overwhelming? Because I have a widescreen monitor at 1660 by 1050 pixels I need larger pics so have set 300px as my preferences which produces the pic size I need. If you set the logos how you like them then they are too small for me! The word "tailored" makes little sense since you have no idea what size monitors we all have. However although I regularly remove pic sizes to conform with policy I won't revert here. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 11:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I also have a widescreen monitor... and I find them to be fitting. Certain pictures, such as logos should be smaller, where certain pictures such as planes and club images should be bigger. Wikipedia policy does not say anywhere that you should remove ALL picture sizings, there are exceptions. I would most definately say this is one of them.--Golich17 19:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 747-400

Is it just me or does anyone else believe Northwest should retire the 747-400 for the Dreamliners. Maybe they should buy some 787-9's or Airbus A350-900's. To me that would be a smart and cost saving idea for them... especially since now they will not be serving the Shanghai route with it!--Golich17 23:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I imagine they still want the 744's passenger and freight capacity for their Asia routes, no? - Sekicho 05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe they can utilize them for NWA Cargo... I still believe they should have bought the Airbus A380's and replace the 747's. Who knows? Maybe in the future.--Golich17 18:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Limiting Picture Sizes 2

Once again, I do not think it is right to remove the picture sizes. If we were to remove the picture sizes however, I believe logos and other types of pictures should be limited by size. Maybe we can come to a compromise.--Golich17 02:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Accidents and Incidents

I think it would be sensible with the increasing amount of information if the sections of accidents and incidents is either condensed to show the most important/recent or to create a new article of 'Northweat Airlines - Accidents and Incidents'. Anyone agree or disagree? - Bthebest 20:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A new article sounds reasonable, however that new article has to comply with WP:SS should more detailed information about a particular accident/incident be available in another article. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 20:54, 24 November 2007 (GMT)

I strongly disagree to making a seperate article. Reaching consensus is NOT having one person say they like the idea. I will be reverting your edits and merging the page back into the article until a consensus has been reached. Also, see CSA Czech Airlines and Continental Airlines Incidents and Accidents tables, those are very organized. The non-fatal and less notable accidents really do not have to be inputted into the article unless if it made national news.--Golich17 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree completely with Golich17 here. You never do anything that has been debated by another user unless consensus has been reached to do it. It was still no consensus even though I gave in my input on this matter. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 23:44, 25 November 2007 (GMT)

Minneapolis-Ottawa Flights

Are there currently any nonstop or direct flights from Minneapolis/St. Paul to Ottawa? Me and an anon user are having issues on the Ottawa Airport page on whether or not NWA or NWA Airlink flies this route. If so, please readd or remove on the respective pages. Thanks! I could not found any flights on nwa.com. 05:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Passenger fleet table

I made an edit to this table that was subsequently reverted, citing that there was nothing wrong with the status quo. However, apparently nwa uses the 744 on routes such as Tokyo-Shanghai, Tokyo-Hong Kong, Tokyo-Honolulu, and of course the transpacific routes of Detroit-Tokyo and Minneapolis/St. Paul. As for the removal of spacing, they add unnecessary bytes to the article, which is something that could be reserved for future additions of prose. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 21:00, 30 November 2007 (GMT)

I think this page can "afford" unnecessary bytes to make the editors lives a little bit easier. And as for the other edits, i'm sorry for reverting them. I just reverted your edit due to removing the spacing. Go ahead and make your edits again, but please do not remove the spacing. It makes the editing tons easier and it's easier for rookie editors to edit as well.--Golich17 18:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm seriously unsure about the spacing. In fact, we should be encouraging good web standards as well as good content, and spacing between tags has been rejected by the web community, including the W3C. Performing a validation on a regular HTML page will show that the code will be invalid. Attic Cat (alternate account of User:O) 20:48, 03 December 2007 (GMT)

Australia

Took out outdated info about NWA starting an Australian route in 1991. NWA doesn't have flights there currently so it shouldn't be in the destination section. Perhaps in a history section.

Fair use rationale for Image:NWmap4707.jpg

Image:NWmap4707.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 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NWmap7402.jpg

Image:NWmap7402.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 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NWmap8606.jpg

Image:NWmap8606.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 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

NWA 787 Dreamliner Passenger Seating

According to a official NWA video I watched, Doug stated that there would be 48 WBC seats and 150 economy seats, which means 200 seats all together. On the table was listed 236, however it was not cited and considering me beleiving a statement more than an opinion, I changed it to the 200 amount in seating.--Golich17 (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

Just to support User:Russavias removal of non-notable accidents and incidents, note he was not using his own opinion he was following Airline project guides. On the matter of they have been here for a while please note that the accidents and incidents guidance was only agreed in the last few weeks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger

I'm just wondering how much, if any, of NWA will get merged into Delta in a few weeks... Lesserm (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing... NW/DL must receive both shareholder and government regulatory approval which is expected to take around 6-8 months. Expect seeing a change in signage and a repaint of the NW livery beginning at the end of this year should the merger go through which it is expected to anyways.--Golich17 (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional Link

Seeing as it's a fairly important website for info now, I'm adding http://www.newglobalairline.com/ to the External links section. --Resplendent (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I actually used this website as a reference as well pertaining to the merger.--Golich17 (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fleet Updates

I have been watching a very resourceful website on the web which is excellent for details as to airlines' fleets, AirlinePilotCental.com. It notes that there will be a reduction of 24 DC-9's and 3 B747-200's. At the end of the year, there will be 68 DC-9's in service which has been already reflected on the table by another editor... 34 DC-9-50's, 12 DC-9-40's, and 22 DC-9-30's. Finally, the first 787 delivery is anticipated at the end of 2009 (of course we cannot be sure about that).--Golich17 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-fatal Accident

For discussion. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376942,00.html http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/07/06/nose.cone/"Northwest Airlines Resembles Bar Fight Victim When Nose Cone Collapses During Flight"."Crew Of Dented Jet Heard 'Bang' At 18,000 Feet, FAA Says". --Inetpup (talk), 9 July 2008

• As I've said before, I wish you would stop making edits without consulting other editors first because it's becoming a real chore to go back and undo all the changes you've made against consensus and common sense. Two editors have now told you that this information doesn't belong in the article but you continue to restore it. Stop doing that. It doesn't belong in this article, it's unencyclopedic and amounts to trivia. And please stop putting a reference section on the talk page, it doesn't belong here and makes this page really hard to read. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cumulus Clouds about not including this incident, and I think the one about the plane landing at the wrong airport should also be removed. These are pretty inconsequential incidents. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Aviation accidents. The following is most relevant: Accidents are generally not notable unless unusual circumstances are involved, notable people are involved, or the incident/accident otherwise results in downstream changes to the industry or procedures. Note: momentary news coverage, which would not last beyond the immediate timeframe of the accident, does not confer notability. This incident isn't really unusual (I've seen comments on other sites saying this isn't all that infrequent), it doesn't involve notable people, and it hasn't changed industry procedures. --Matt (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

HNL

Is HNL still a NWA focus city? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• NWA.com sure doesn't call it one and newglobalairline.com(The official Delta/Northwest merger site) on the following page: newglobalairline.com page doesn't list it either while it does list IND and SEA. I think you may be confusing HNL having an LA route and being a Tokyo hub spoke as being a focus city when in fact it isn't. QualityControl3533 (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If the Northwest website and the merger website don't list it as one, then it isn't. The Northwest website was just redesigned so I'm sure they would've caught that if they forgot to list it. While NW operates a handful of routes from there, I wouldn't call it a focus city. Their Tokyo Narita hub and Seattle-Tacoma focus city are right between that area, making a HNL focus city pointless.--Golich17 (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

When Defunct?

When would NWA be considered Defunct?

• Operating Certificate merged with Delta's or
• NWA Inc. dissolved

--Resplendent (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

When the operating certficate is merged with Delta because until then, the two airlines have to operate as two diffrent airlines. After they are under one certificate they will start combinding services and start to act as one airline. Spikydan1 (talk)

Merger Complete

Please do not blank, remove, or edit any parts of the pages that you think should be placed in the Delta Air Lines page. The merger of the two pages is going to take thought-out planning and will take a long time. We will merge things gradually into the Delta page as things get finalized, which in some cases can take as long as two years. Please be patient during this process and discuss anything you have on your mind about the merger of the pages on one of the airlines' discussion pages.--Golich17 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, please do not change the article to past tense. Northwest is still a seperate airline (Delta just owns NWA). The airlines have not combined services and will not combine for another 2 years or just until the intergration process is complete. Cashier freak (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And also remember that this article will remain as a history of Northwest Airlines so please dont delete content without bringing it to this page, no reason why the fleet list for example cant be frozen at merge time. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

meteo dept

Northwest is well known in the industry for its professional meteorological service. Follow the redtails is a known phrase.

Anyone want to put this in the article. Finding a spot would take some thought but it's a nice fact. I'm not sure where to put it. Chergles (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to be notable enough for an encyclopedia do you have a reference that the industry finds it notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

747's in Delta livey?

Page indicates that there are TWO 747-400's now in the Delta colors? Is this true?

I have only seen confirmed that ship 6305 (N665US) is painted....which other 747-400 has been painted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.197.172 (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC) The other is N661US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.99.54 (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Detailed fleet info

Anyone know where to get detailed fleet information (i.e. breakdown by specific model and not just series)? Currently the table shows a total of 74 DC-9s in the fleet, although the fleet info page from Delta says there are 66. Unfortunately, the page doesn't say how many of each (30/40/50). DB (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Delta operated by Northwest"

Should now be the time to put "Delta operate by Northwest" in airport articles? Cause Grand Forks International Airport have it listed as "Delta operated by Northwest" designation. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering it's been "Delta operated by Northwest" since the beginning of April, I would say yes. --Resplendent (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No, technically Northwest and Delta are still two seperate airlines, despite what the GFK article says. Also, if you look for a flight on Northwest's website it is marketed as Northwest Airlines, with Northwest flight number. On Delta's website, there are flights that are "Delta operated by Northwest" with Delta flight numbers, but that is in preparation for when they merge. Also, Northwest and Delta have a codeshare through SkyTeam, so this would be normal anyways.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

19:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

They are separate airlines, just like Comair and Delta are separate, but it's still "Delta Connection operated by Comair". The principle is the same. From a passenger's POV at an airport, they check in at a Delta booth, get on a plane that's been repainted in Delta livery, and the flight has employees in Delta uniforms. The frontend is all now Delta, with the small exceptions of the website and possibly (depending on how it goes) boarding passes, which will be changing in the coming months as well. --Resplendent (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but many passengers still get on a Northwest plane, and Delta is still in the process of rebranding at airports other than DTW, MSP, and MEM. Also, in ¶4 of Northwest's article it says:
However, Northwest will continue to operate as an independent carrier (as a Delta Air Lines subsidiary) for several months until the operating certificates and other factors are combined.
Until operating certificates are combined in the coming months, it should still be listed as Northwest Airlines.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

20:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest we list it as Delta Air Lines operated by Northwest Airlines at airports that have made the change, keeping it separate for ones that have not. Both Delta and Northwest websites specifically give this information, so it's very easy to source. --Resplendent (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. What if a route's two airports aren't the same in terms of integration? The plane and the crew are the same in both directions but the airport listings are different? I think for now the best way to deal with the integration is to take NW out of alphabetical order and list it under DL for those airports that have ground services merged. HkCaGu (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I found this off of Merger FAQ:
Are Delta and Northwest one airline or two?
Delta has acquired 100 percent ownership of Northwest and is in the process of fully integrating Northwest into the Delta family. The Northwest brand is gradually being phased out and being replaced by Delta's name and brand. During the integration period, Delta and Northwest will continue to operate their own branded aircraft until the integration process is complete.
The answer didn't really say whether it was one or two airlines, but it is something to chew on. Also:
How can I verify which airline is operating my flight?
Customers seeking information on which carrier is operating a flight purchased from Delta or Northwest can check their flight itineraries at delta.com or nwa.com. You can also find this information on your boarding pass. The term "Operated by" indicates the airline that is actually operating or flying the flight. For example, if your boarding pass states "Operated by Delta Air Lines" you should check in with Delta at the airport and/or proceed to the Delta departure gate.
I can see why you could list it as DL operated by NW, but still don't think it should be listed that way.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

23:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

While on the subject, should the NW Airlink flights be listed as Delta Connection flights or should it remain as Northwest Airlink. Since, the NW Airlink page redirects to the DL Connection. I was wondering if we should list it that way. Also another thing, if we should do it like US-HP merger, US and HP should have been listed as seperate carriers also. I think that listing it as "Delta Air Lines operated by Northwest Airlines" makes it look like a codeshare flight. Charmedaddict (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The are still separate airlines, given that they remain separate entities (even if one owns the other) and, most importantly, they continue to operate under their own certificates. What airport display boards say or what the flight is marketed as is immaterial. Once they have obtained a single certificate (a stated goal for late 2009/early 2010 I think), is when they can be considered to be one airline.

For now, let's leave Delta and Northwest separate, with their own entries, and no "operated by"s.

Jasepl (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

13:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand this logic. To address Jaspl's point, Northwest Airlink is not an airline and never had an operating certificate. It is simply a marketing brand name created by Northwest to include all of its regional partner flights. As of July 2009, that brand no longer exists and all regional flying is now done under the Delta Connection banner. Each airline continues to fly using its own operating certificate just as it always has. Airport_master (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that all of the NW Airlink flights should be changed to "Delta Connection" flights since the majority of the flights are announced as Delta Connection (the NWA Airlink brand no longer exists) but leave the mainline NW flights listed as "Northwest Airlines" with no "Delta operated by" since none of the NW flights do not have the "DL" flight designator. The only NW flights with only DL flight numbers are present are flights between the USA and Europe/Asia (e.g. ATL-NRT, ATL-FCO, ATL-AMS, ATL-LGW, JFK-FCO, etc.) Also, there are "Northwest operated by Delta" flights (e.g. JFK-NRT, DTW-PVG [from October 2009], DTW-LHR, MSP-LHR [from September 1], MSP-CDG, GUM-NRT, EWR-AMS-BOM, PDX-NRT, PDX-AMS) with only NW flight numbers but those flights are just in preparation for when they merge. But all of those flights are listed under the operating airline. Also, at airports most of the NW flights are still announced as "Northwest Airlines Flight XXX to XXX". Check-in, both airline's frequent flyer programs/websites are still operating seperately. Charmedaddict (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just been to GUM, where it's supposed to have rebranded as DL as of June 2. There is no sign of DL anywhere in the check-in counter. It's only NWA logos on the wall. The only sign of DL logos are when the whole SkyTeam roster appear on the wall. I'll report what I see at HKG in a couple weeks. HkCaGu (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And also, I just went to MEM a month ago and the ticket counters, jetways, walls, and monitors bear the Delta logo but the luggage cars out on the tarmac still bear the NW logo. Also, I flew from MEM-AMS on their A330-200, the plane still has NW colors still painted....but inside everything bears the DL logo (seats, the little tvs, flight attendant uniforms, etc) However, the food trays, silverware, and the headsets still bear the NWA logo eventhough they were suppose to combine in-flight services on all flights. Also, the flight map for international flights still has the NWA logo. Charmedaddict (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears based upon this discussion and all of the valid observations the group has reported that the time has come to merge Northwest and Delta. The only poster who seems to be reluctant to make this change is Ishwasafish. As has been pointed-out, they are one airline on the front end in nearly every market. Yes, they remain two separate carriers in a technical sense due to two operating certificates, but that is true of many co-branded carriers (such as Continental and Continental Micronesia). Airport_master (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, true but flight-wise, many of the NW flights are still announced as "Northwest Airlines Flight XXX to XXX" as far as I know none of the NW flights are announced as Northwest Airlines Flight XXX dba as Delta Air Lines to XXX" however I wasn't able to get on any flights with that designation. Charmedaddict (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to book a trip from PIT to LAX on delta.com and nwa.com a few weeks ago. Both listed the same flights and all the mainline PIT-MSP/DTW had the Delta symbol on nwa.com and was listed as Delta Flight XXXX dba Norhtwest Airlines on both websites. Also, MSP/DTW-LAX was listed the same way.--Golfj21 (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I just searched for flights from PIT-LAX and the flights still have the NWA logo on it. It was probably DL/NW codeshare flights. Charmedaddict (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As Charmedaddict said below, I agree and believe that the change should be made when DL dissolves and redirects nwa.com to delta.com. Also, I might add that CO Mike doesn't have its own website, it shares CO's.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

02:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean when NW dissolves. For CO Mike not having their own website, that's why it is written as "Continental Airlines operated by Continental Micronesia". CO Mike uses the "CO" code on their flights and not "CS" (they use the same website, fleet, etc). That's not like DL and NW..as they are owned by the same company, they are still independent carriers (as they have different codes, aircraft, flight crews, etc.) and also their website are still seperated and you still check-in with either "Delta" or "Northwest". Charmedaddict (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant that when the NW website is dissolved and redirected. Sorry, looking back on it that could have been taken a different way. I am aware that it will be NW that will be dissolved.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

21:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the DL/NW is the same as Dragonair/Cathay Pacific, Air India/Indian Airlines. They are owned by the same parent company but they use different ICAO codes, operating certificates, etc. However, they are listed as seperated carriers with no "operated by". Charmedaddict (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This article makes it sound like that we can write it as DL operated by NW in a few months, and write it simply as DL by Feb'10.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

02:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

When is "in a few months"? October, November, this month, September??? B'ham35242 (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, DL says operating certificates will be combined before the end of this year, so at most 4 months.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

13:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

SEA

I was wondering if Northwest still calls Seattle-Tacoma International Airport a focus city. By looking at the destinations, it only has 2 non-hub destinations (PEK and HNL) and the rest are to its hubs. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering Northwest serves LAX from HNL, LAS, MKE, IND, and TPA in addition to the hubs, and isn't a focus city, I think it's safe to say that SEA really isn't much of a focus city anymore.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

23:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It says nowhere on NWA's site that SEA is a focus city, plus is 5th largest airline there.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

01:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Delta Connection/Northwest Airlink

I have started a discussion here at the Delta talk page regarding of listing the flights. Please add your thoughts to that page. Charmedaddict (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent passenger stranding incident involving Northwest subsidiary

It appears (once again) that Northwest employees are actively involved in reverting uncomplimentary edits regarding the airline. A recent incident involving the stranding of another passenger airline attributable to Mesaba Airlines, a Northwest subsidiary is being improperly removed. Although this most recent incident involved a Continental Flight, the US Department of Transportation squarely pinned the blame for the 6 hour passenger stranding on Mesaba Airlines personnel. This article is both timely, topical, and sourced. Northwest employees should NOT be reverting these edits.99.141.76.6 (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Further, I have observed that Northwest personnel are also attempting to subert Wiki policy by flagging well cited and sourced, but uncomplimentary sections within the article for deletion as "unsourced material." Frankly, this type of subversive editing is inappropriate and should be condemned.99.141.76.6 (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I might add that this tagging is fairly common on Wikipedia, it is found in most articles. I can guarantee that I am not an NW employee, I can't speak for any other editors. Additionally, this is already found here. The incident was with XJ, not NW. Despite the fact that XJ is an NW subsidiary, it is completely irrelevant to the NW article. Also, the citation needed tag does not indicate it will be deleted, but that some editors want a ref for that.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

12:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The passenger stranding section doesnt really belong in the history section I would suggest it is reduced down to a paragaph summary and moved down to Non-fatal accidents and incidents. In the 80 year history of the airline it isnt that notable and being a big section of the history really gives it undue weight. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:Semi would solve some problems. --Golfj21 (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Include of talk page?

Seems strange to me to include a talk page, as done in the nw/da merger paragraph. Why not make a proper template of the talk page content? That's what templates are for. LarRan (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Delta History on the Northwest page

Why is this here? That information does not belong on this page. This page is for information about Northwest Airlines. All the Delta history stuff is duplicated from the Delta article which is where it belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.161.102 (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. I've fixed it. - BilCat (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Why (Minneapolis / USA)?

Why in the first paragraph, (Minneapolis / USA) is used instead of "Minneapolis, USA"? Any special reason? I'd wikify Minneapolis also. --Mistakefinder (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. HkCaGu (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ceased Operation Date

I disagree with the Ceased Operation date listed in the Infobox. As the article and its citation stated that as of January 1, 2010, the two airlines will be operating under one single certificate, then the last date of operation (Ceased Operation) should be December 31, 2009. Do you agree? Aviator006 (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree on December 31, 2009 or January 1, 2010. Both I think have valid arguments. Though some might say that January 1 was when it actually ceased to exist, even though the last operation was December 31.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

14:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

nwa.com References

I'm guessing a lot of the references are now gone due to the website changeover. Just clicking on a few of them I can see that's the case. --Resplendent (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)