Talk:Delta Air Lines/Archive 4

NW SLC-NRT
There been "reports" that Northwest is suspending its nonstop service from Salt Lake City. The flight however still appears in timetables as NW9/10 but however I tried to book nonstop SLC-NRT flights on October 1st and found nothing. So, huh (wondering) how can the flight appear in timetables past October 1st but the flight is not bookable on either Delta.com nor NWA.com booking engine. Why is that??? B&#39;ham35242 (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My only guess is that there is an inconsistency. What was the date that the route was effective or as of in the NW timetables?  Ishwasafishclick here!!!  23:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally when a route is suspended, it first disappears from the booking system (and passengers notified), and it takes a few days for the schedule to be updated. Internet sources such as press reports and travelers' forums, I think, should be considered and not blindly ruled "not reliable". HkCaGu (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I could not find any SLC-NRT nonstop from October 1 thru June 2010. I don't know if the schedule is updated yet. B&#39;ham35242 (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think SLC-NRT is now being denotated as "seasonal". I think we'll probably wait until next summer if this route operates again. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I sent Delta an email, the respose was the SLC-NRT route is seasonal June 1 - October 23 for 2010 and will be evaluated in September to determine if it will be permanent. JhanJensen (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines, Inc as a holding company
Delta Air Lines, Inc is not a holding company, it is the full legal name of the airline. Unless one can cite sources for their information, do not change the article! View [Delta Branding Guide] page 6. Cite your sources! GDilemma (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with GD. This page gives the company's name as "Delta Air Lines, Inc.", and that it is incorporated under the by-laws of Delaware. This page gives the corporate name as "Delta Air Lines, Inc.", and addressed in Atlanta, GA. Thus it appears to be one entity. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat] (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delta's boarding passes state "Operated by Delta Air Lines Inc" for Delta-operated flights (as opposed to, say, "Operated by Comair A Delta Connection Carrier"), which indicates to me that "Delta Air Lines, Inc" is the airline itself, and not a holding company. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Delta does not fly to 368 destinations!
I corrected incorrect informations. Delta mainline does not flying to 368 destinations ... Totally incorrect! We need mainline only statistic, which they do NOT includes subsidiaries and Delta Connection flights! MUST make consistent with United, US Airways, Continental, etc. --B767-500 (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we need a consensus as to how to list the total number of destinations. B767-500's "source" is simply counting the number of destinations on the Delta Air Lines destinations article.  Citing 368 destinations is per Delta's press release.  I do agree that simply regurgitating what the company states is not always right in a Wikipedia article, but with the lack of a citable source as evidence for "247 destinations" being served by Delta, using a citable Delta press release has been the acceptable method up until B767-500's recent change to the article. GDilemma (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur that cited references need to be used, and given preference in the absence of other reliable sources.


 * Also, I'm concerned that other airline articles are being used as the standard for this article, when those articles themselves may be the aberations, not the standard. The accepted standard is the WikiProject Airlines/page content guidelines. Using the guidelines will also prevent editors from making changes to several articles, then using those article to justify changes to this and other articles. Let's make sure any changes we make are consistent with the guidelines, and that those other articles are also consistent with the guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Press releases will almost always include affiliate (Delta Connection) destinations, since the airline considers this part of their "network". However, these are essentially code shares; even if operated by a wholly owned subsidiary such as Comair, they are still on their own certificate, a reservation will reflect this (Delta flight 5000 operated by Comair) and should not be listed.  Per the WikiProject guidelines, codeshares should not be listed.  The number of destinations listed should match the number of currently served destinations listed in the destinations section or article (that is, excluding formerly served destinations).  Both of these should only list destinations to which an aircraft operated by Delta Air Lines (including the former Northwest Airlines) is regularly scheduled, as we are interested in showing the extent of the Delta Air Lines operation, not what is branded as Delta.  So we would count John Wayne Airport, which has both Delta and Delta Connection service, but not Long Beach Airport, which has only Delta Connection service. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, we have to keep in mind some hidden agendas by Delta. They seems to prefer to use boasting figure. --B767-500 (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not have a problem with not counting codeshares, however we need a reliable and citable source for the information. Simply citing a Wikipedia article as the source for information in a Wikipedia article is an example of "circular logic" and, in my opinion, not a valid source.  If there is a citable source for 247 as the number of destinations, I'm all for it.  However, if there is no reliable source, the information does not belong in a Wikipedia article. As for Delta boasting about the number of destinations they serve, I do understand the issue and I did mention that simply regurgitating press releases from Delta is not wise.  However, in lieu of citable sources we need to determine the best way to make sure the article is accurate. GDilemma (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Destinations article have reliable source or citation and always kept updated by hard working editors, so we already have good reference. It is easy to do the countings. I can even offer to do countings once per week (just make me offer). Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Destination articles are often far from perfect. In this case, there are only 3 sources, which only reference specific destinations. It requires a lot of cleanup, and, as GDilemma said, it would be circular logic to cite another Wikipedia article. We should leave it at 368 if we can't find any reliable sources that state otherwise.  Ishwasafishclick here!!!  14:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems a bit shaky at first, but basing a figure on another, properly referenced article doesn't seem to be an issue. A sort of Transitive Property of Citation, if you will. I do concur that referencing in the destinations articles has been weak. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Primary/secondary hubs?
It is clear that not all Delta hubs are equal: These should be classified as the primary hubs. Meanwhile, It is evident that CVG, MEM and SLC are much smaller than the bigger hubs while AMS, CDG and NRT serve different purposes when compared with the larger domestic hubs. Therefore they should be listed as secondary hubs. C lieou (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ATL: 1,000 flights each day, about 500 mainline
 * MSP: 500 flights each day, about 200 to 250 mainline
 * DTW: 500 flights each day, about 200 to 250 mainline
 * JFK: less than 200 flights each day, but has non-stop service to multiple secondary European destinations and is evidently a major European gateway, on par with ATL
 * CVG: less than 200 flights a day, less than 40 of which are mainline
 * MEM: less than 200 flights a day, less than 60 of which are mainline
 * SLC: about 300 flights a day, less than 100 of which are mainline
 * AMS: operated in conjunction with KLM under JV agreement; about 17 flights each day on Delta metal with Mumbai as the only onward connection on Delta itself.
 * CDG: operated in conjunction with Air France under JV agreement; 6 flights each day on Delta metal with onward connection opportunities only on Air France equipment
 * NRT: scissor hub with less than 30 flights each day


 * Does Delta consider these hubs to be any different than the others? No they don't and what Delta considers a hub is a hub.. Your numbers seem way off also and I would like a source to even prove those numbers in the first place. 66.247.208.180 (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The numbers are not exact, but should be off by no more than 10%. There are various places where the hub sizes are discussed and compared with each other, for example this one. Alternatively one could look up the Delta timetable and count. Also, the fact that Delta does not list CVG, MEM and SLC as secondary hubs does not mean that they are not operated as secondary hubs, or that they are not considered as secondary. It is well known that, for example, CVG and DTW handle similar flows, and that CVG, MEM and SLC are largely two-bank hubs as opposed to MSP, DTW and ATL which are multi-bank or rolling-bank hubs.C lieou (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WP does not provide analysis; it reports what reliable sources have said. The page you listed above is a forum, and they are not considered reliable sources. While categorizing the hubs by primary and secondary would be useful, we can't do it if Delta or a reilable source doesn't categorize them that way. - BilCat (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * SLC has 566 scheduled daily domestic flights, plus there are two international flights to CDG and NRT. http://slcairport.com/slc-fast-facts.asp  I believe your mainline number flights is also about half of what you stated.  Officially SLC is fourth in size of hubs for Delta.  I will find mainline numbers and a link to that info but Delta does not break them into primary or secondary so I vote not to break them up.  JhanJensen (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The number 566 quoted here includes both arrivals and departures, while the numbers I used include only departures. Some off-the-head calculation shows that 566 domestic flights out of a hub with 20 million passengers each year and a market share of between 70 and 80% simply cannot be right. C lieou (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you been to SLC? (I live in the SLC area) The airport looks like a Delta parking lot.  Terminal 2 is nothing but Sky West painted in Delta livery or Delta main line (C/D/E concourses), Terminal 1 (B concourse is close to 1/2 Delta mainline) and course A has around 10/12 gates and nothing bigger than a 737 and is everyone else like Frontier or American.  I have emailed Delta and SLC is firmly number 4.  They have also claimed there is not primary or secondary hubs, just hubs. JhanJensen (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BilCat, we are not to judge what is a secondary hub or not. Even so, I would say that the ranking for domestic hubs would be ATL, DTW, MSP, JFK, SLC, MEM, CVG, which matches these flight claims. The ranking for international hubs would be NRT, AMS, CDG, also matching these flight claims. However, there aren't any reliable sources that back up the claims to the numbers of flights out of each hub and there isn't a defined threshold between primary and secondary hubs.  Ishwasafishclick here!!! 19:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just thought this would be interesting (for August 2010)

Add the top 10 non-Delta hubs redlegsfan21 (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ellen Simonetti
Page neglects to mention Ellen Simonetti, a former employee who was fired for placing "inappropriate" comments on her blog.-Zyrath (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

London Heathrow hub?
Is LHR becoming a hub for DL since they will start nonstop service from it to MIA and BOS on 3/27/11? I know that the purpose of these routes is due to lack of Skyteam slots there, but would it still be appropriate to call LHR a hub? Thanks for your thoughts.

--98.250.92.159 (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Delta is just taking advantage of slots that had to be given up by AA/BA. redlegsfan21 (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Delta is only expanding service at LHR and DL did not announce opening a hub there. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand now. Thank you. :) --98.250.92.159 (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Miami as a focus city?
Since when did MIA become a DL focus city? I don't see any sources stating that Delta is opening a focus city at Miami. I know they are just expanding operations there (just like DL expanding ops at RDU and LHR) but those cities are not hubs or focus cities. Can anyone find a source that Delta specially calling Miami a "focus city"? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a focus city, it's just a "large" spoke with expanded service (like Boston-Logan Airport for many airlines for example, many US carriers have large spoke operations at Boston with a few point to point routes). Sb617 (Talk) 13:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Delta Hubs
Hello everyone. I have an issue with these "hubs" Delta claim they have at CDG and AMS. A Hub is an airport which an airline uses for connecting LOTS of passengers, all Delta does at AMS and CDG (particularily CDG) is add code-shares to AFKL's flights, just as it does at FCO with AZ. A flight to BOS from CDG and to BOM from AMS do not render these airports Delta Air Lines Hubs. They are respectively an AF and a KL hub, used partially by DL as they state on their website but not a hub for or depending on DL. I have found many instances in which people incorrectly use the word hub, for example in claiming Ryaniar operate a hub system! I hope you will agree with me so I can finalise the depletion of any mention of AMS and CDG as DL hubs. Regards, Speed74 (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC).


 * All that matters is that delta refers to them as hubs, passengers are still being connected, and Delta uses them as hubs, and since DL doesn't use focus cities, they are hubs. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 20:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * this proves it, it was updated December 2010, and DL refers to them as hubs. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 20:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that DL refers to CDG as a hub is because of its joint-venture with Air France. They sell each other's tickets and they connect passengers also. AMS served as a hub for NWA for its European operations....so after DL merged with NW, Delta inherited all of the hubs for both carriers. Just like Paris-CDG, AMS is a joint-venture hub in cooperation with KLM. They sell each other's tickets and passengers are still being connected. As for CVG, no sources saying that CVG is "no longer a Delta hub". Flight capacity were being cut and reduced and those new article still refer to CVG as a DL hub. Also, it has been discussed that DL don't use "secondary" hubs....simple, it is either a hub or it isn't. I hope that other editors can input their thoughts on this matter. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly, but....we do have a reference here that was updated by Delta Airlines, and they state as of December 2010, it is accurate. Changing that would be against our strive to be accurate :-) T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 20:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But then we would have to include FCO which is part of the Joint-Venture. DL cannot call CDG or AMS its own Hubs, and they don't explicitly do that in fact, if you read that news article carefully. The proof that CDG and AMS are not DL hubs lies in the fact that DL does not use them principally for connecting passengers. It might at the most be called a "code-sharing" Hub, but in this case we would have to include all sorts of Hubs such as AZ at CDG and AMS and DL at FCO. I think CDG and AMS should immediately be removed as DL Hubs to avoid confusion. After all, Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy, and just because some DL news website mentions the CDG and AMS hubs do not make these Delta Air Lines hubs. Speed74 (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In a previous round of debate, I could not see how "Delta says" can be more authoritative than the fact that nobody connects from Delta to Delta at CDG. But then now I came up with a point countering myself: Imagine all the US-Europe flights. On the LHR flight, everyone is bound for London, on the FRA flight everyone is bound for Frankfurt, or at least the train station to go wherever else they'd go. Now for the CDG and AMS flights. Do these flights contain a significantly higher percentage of connecting passengers than others? Do they fly to CDG because of the easy AF connections? If the answer is yes, then maybe that's how you can call it a hub. HkCaGu (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, buuttt Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Delta knows which airports are their hubs, we don't know the explicit information, all the inside information. All we know is that Delta refers to them as hubs, and we should not go against that. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 19:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have thought we also knew what a "Hub" means. In this case we are talking of AF and KL hubs, which at the most DL "uses", but they are not DL hubs. Look here:
 * http://delta.innosked.com/(S(pfz5cj55s3j0r445rgl2qjy5))/Default.aspx (Delta website, claims an infinite number of Hubs)
 * http://projects.ajc.com/maps/business/delta/delta-northwest-hubs/ (Information website, shows only three Delta Hubs)
 * I think that by using good judgement one can work out that CDG and AMS are not Delta Hubs. Speed74 (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But
 * http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=18&cat=47
 * ^^Is from DELTAS OWN WEBSITE Where THEY list THIER hubs, why are we arguing about this? T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 20:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I stated below, Delta's information lacks credibility, as they use phraseology as if to win the 'who has the biggest pecker' award. Hubs with no crewbase and no connections are a marketing gimmick.  Delta wants to brag after their merger with Northwest that they are so big, so really big!  The transatlantic merger does not share crews or equipment; it is merely for coordination of schedules, sharing of revenues, operational convenience and avoidance of antitrust lawsuits.  If an airline stretches the truth, we should use common sense to reject their stretches (WP:Duck).  Cheers. --Inetpuppy (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If a reliavle published source has disputed Delta's claims, then we'd have cause to contenst it here. All we're doing is reporting how Delta views it's hub system, nothing else. It's fine if you disagree with how they present it, but that's merely your opinion, which is OR. As has been repeated many times here, there is no single standard of what constitutes a hub, so airlines are free to define it as they want. Live with it, or find a reliable published source that's investigated the matter and contests Delta's view. - BilCat (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well quite honestly I initally thought CDG and AMS as Delta hubs was blatantly wrong or the work of a vandalist, but if they are so important to some people I'll just leave it, it's not as if this is a life-changing situation. My last word is this: those are not Delta Hubs. Over and out. Speed74 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, your initial belief is correct. Delta blatantly vandalized itself by inserting false hubs into their press release. Basically, Delta corrupted the meaning of airline hub, which is something very regrettable for the airline industry and confusing for those who depend on Wikipedia for reliable and unbiased information. --Inetpuppy (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see how it's confusing for those who make up their own meanings, and then complain when others don't abide by those meanings. But "vandalism" is ain't. Time for you to Drop the stick, puppy. - BilCat (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up but there is a strict rule that has always shot down people who say AMS and CDG are not hubs, No Original Research. As previously said, there is no real way to define a hub though the definition is an airport an airline uses to get people to their final destination.  Delta uses AMS and CDG as hubs to get people to their final destination throughout Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.  There are probably more connecting passengers on a Delta flight to CDG than a United, American, US Airways, or Continental flight and the same goes for AMS.  Delta markets AMS and CDG as if they were their own hubs, hence why they are called hubs.  The only reason we consider it a hub is because the only source says they are.  If you find a reliable source that says they are not hubs, then maybe you can take them off as hubs.redlegsfan21 (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But as long as Delta considers them as hubs, we should to. We can't go against Delta's word, they are the only ones that can de-hub one of their hubs. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 22:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Redlegsfan21, I really don't think Delta uses AMS and CDG as "hubs to get people to their final destination throughout Europe, Africa and the Middle East". If Delta has code-shares and "mentions" the CDG + AMS hubs on its website you can say it is using the AFKL hubs just like it uses AZ's FCO. You cannot say that DL operates a seperate or personal hub system from AFKL at CDG or AMS, so, how are CDG and AMS Delta hubs?? I mean, it has been stated two topics above that DL only operates 6.7 flights a day from CDG in full summer schedule - does a list from news.delta.com really swing the reality over like that? Speed74 (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As luck would have it, I found an offical source that shows AMS and CDG not has hubs. http://www.skyteam.com/downloads/news/facts/skyteamFactSheet.pdf redlegsfan21 (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * However, the source from SkyTeam still show CVG as a hub eventhough flight capacity there have been cut dramatically. Snoozlepet (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cincinnati is still a hub, even though the flights have been reduced, Delta still maintains a large presence and still uses CVG as a connection city.

Just for fun, for January 2011

Add the top 10 non-Delta hubs redlegsfan21 (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * CVG was removed as a hub along with AMS/CDG from the hub infobox in the first place. All DL mentioned is that flight capacity was cut drastically but never "de-hubbed" CVG. Snoozlepet (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

# of Destinations
I know we've had this discussion before but right now the info box says Delta flies to 247 destinations using another wikipedia article as a source. I think we should bring that number back to 358 which is the number Delta states in it's Facts and States. I counted up the current number of cities to be served by Delta mainline in December (not scheduled service specific, could include charter only cities) at 221. I seek your opinions whether we should go with 358 including Delta Connection with a note so, 247 which is what the infobox currently states, or 221 which is the more accurate but ever changing number.redlegsfan21 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't give in to Delta's marketing rubbish. I have mentored my roommate (who is currently on Wikibreak) about this topic.  He protested that Delta omits mainline destinations and intentionally lists mainline + Delta Connection + codeshare instead.  Having been his mentor, I agree.  Basically, I think that companies that try to win the 'who has the biggest pecker' contest as lacking credibility. --Inetpuppy (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your input but your argument is weak. Every carrier in the world will market their regional flights as their own.  In 358 destinations across the world, there is a plane with the word DELTA on it.  Delta only lists flights on Delta and Delta Connection, no codeshare flights.  As Delta Connection carriers do not have their own ticket stock, they will use Delta's 006 ticket stock.  Apparently, you haven't seen Delta's recent ad campaigns where they try to go away from being the biggest to being the best.redlegsfan21 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone fooled me: Delta moves its headquarters to Chattanooga
I added this, but quickly it was reverted by User:BilCat for good reason as the news source was pulling my leg ... Cheers to BilCat for this good catch :-) --Inetpuppy (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See


 * No worries! I have personal ties to Chattanooga, and it's unlikely I'd have not heard about this one for 8 months. Given that, I had good reason to doubt the story. See Atlanta's second airport for somewhat similar, though probaably no more likely,  proposal. - BilCat (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's an April Fools joke :)

delta flight 2284
Should we start an article ? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding Codeshare Partners who are SkyTeam
I was wondering if we should add Codeshare partners who also happen to be SkyTeam carriers. Not all SkyTeam members codeshare with Delta, off the top of my head Aeroflot, Air Europa, Kenya Airways, and TAROM plus I believe Vietnam only codeshares onto Delta, not in reverse. I noticed that the All Nippon Airways page has a * denoting a member within Star Alliance. redlegsfan21 (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * China Eastern, which was removed earlier, should remain in the list since DL started codeshare with MU on June 1st. China Eastern has not joined SkyTeam yet. When China Eastern offically joins SkyTeam on June 21st, we can then remove it. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination?
[http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=226480 WASHINGTON – A US Senator has called for an investigation into whether Delta Airlines is discriminating against Jewish passengers under an agreement it recently entered into with Saudi Arabian Airlines. Illinois Republican Sen. Mark Kirk wrote Federal Aviation Administration Administrator J. Randolph Babbit Friday and urged him to “determine whether Delta Airlines violated US law or regulation and to ensure no US citizen is denied their right to fly solely on the basis of their religion.”]

Looks like a very notable issue. How might it be merged into the article? I cannot seem to find a suitable area. One could say the article reads similar to a promotion or advertisement. Wikifan Be nice 11:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesnt appear particularly notable the reference uses the terms alleged, no point allowing any passenger onto a flight to Saudi Arabia who would could not then enter the country it is the job of the airline to make sure that the correct passports or visas are in place. So it is more to do with who the Saudias give entry visas to, I suspect they would not give visas to certain criminals so are we to have a section that Delta disciminates against criminals, in the real world the airline (and that is nearly every airline in the world) discriminates against anybody that doesnt have a passport with an entry visa. MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that. Delta Airline made an official pact with Saudi Arabia that would ban Jews - regardless of nationality - from their flights to Saudi Arabia:

Wikifan Be nice
 * Delta Air Lines is just a member of SkyTeam who voted in Saudi Arabian Airlines. Right now, Delta doesn't have any flights or codeshare flights to Saudi Arabia.  Right now, Saudi Arabia has no foreign relations with Israel.  In international terms, that means that Saudi Arabia doesn't recognized Israel as a country and does not have to accept their passports.  A similar situation is U.S.-Cuba relations.  I bet you didn't know this but every American airline discriminates against Cuban nationals or people with Cuban passports.  You know why, because the United States says they cannot enter the country.  Exact same thing applies with Israel and the United States.  Now, visas are required to enter Saudi Arabia but doesn't offer Tourist visas. Also, until someone provides proof that Delta and Saudi Arabian Airlines agreed to this, then it's all just a bad rumor and poor reporting.  I'd also like to add that Air France has codeshared with Saudi for some time and there has not been one report out of France that a Jew was discriminated against.  Also, 60 airlines serve King Abdulaziz International Airport, including British Airways, Lufthansa, and bmi, some European airlines who have not made one bit of news ever for denying someone to Saudi Arabia based on religion.  Saudi Arabian Airlines has served John F. Kennedy International Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport, never once has the media reported that a Jew or Christian was denied boarding for religious reasons.


 * http://www.saudiembassy.net/latest_news/news06241102.aspx
 * redlegsfan21 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not relevant. The reality is reliable sources exist painting Delta Airlines as racist and violating US law according to American politicians. This is notable. Naturally we include all points of view but our goal is to edit based on verifiablility, not truth. See WP:V. Now I would like to see this content merged somehow but I don't want to create a "controversies" section because those tend to get out of hand. Any suggestions? Wikifan Be nice  23:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, in that case, I think a social media section might work. Considering Delta is heavily active in social media (YouTube, Facebook, 3 Twitter accounts).  And within that section, you could list the soldier fiasco and the supposed "no Jews policy."  That could work though I don't know of any other article that includes a "Social Media" section or just possibly "Media Relations."  redlegsfan21 (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The article is crafted in an odd shape. Since this is a minority issue it should be maybe below this? I don't want to give undue weight here. Wikifan Be nice  04:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * An IP User just blanked the section about discrimination towards Jewish passengers. I'm not sure whether I should revert this edit because I'm guessing he may have thought "Big Deal, Who cares?" and immediately removed it.  Any thoughts on this?  Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The reposting of the section is ridiculous. The article that sparked this controversy has since been subject of retractions.  This is seen to good effect on the Huffington Post release of the article []  Delta has even indicated that they have no plans to extend code-sharing or Frequent flier benefits for Saudi Arabian Airlines flights. []70.171.100.131 (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Overtagging
It seems that a user has placed so many tags on practically every statement in the article. Isn't this a violation of WP:OVERTAGGING and WP:POINT? Many of these tagged statements are common knowledge. ANDROS1337 TALK 21:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur, as "discussed" with the IP in the revert edit summaries. At this point, at least 3 users have reverted its tags, and I'd say that's a clear consensus against the over tagging. None of the IPs other edits have anything to do with Delta, airlines, or even aviation in general. My gut tells me there's a reason behind the spate of tags not related to citing, but perhaps something with Delta itself. - BilCat (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your "gut" is incorrect. There is no agenda - beyond following Wikipedia policy, which is very clear: ALL material must be sourced. What is equally incorrect, is any suggestion that "common knowledge" is a rationale or defense for a lack of sourcing. It is not. Suggest you read WP:V, which is policy - not a suggestion. I also suggest that rather than complaining about Wiki policy, which is the result of "clear consensus", that you simply provide sources for the many unsubstantiated inclusions in the article, or they may be challenged and/or removed. As regards any overtagging concerns, the article is rife with unsourced material, far more than the tags point to. They simply act as markers for you to find appropriate sources. Finally: 1) The article still reads like a brochure, but in WP:AGF to your WP:OVERTAGGING concerns, I did not restore it; 2) But I also noticed that one editor lists Delta on their talk page as their "favorite airline". Perhaps that editor should consider WP:NPOV, WP:TE as well as WP:OWN; 3) And as an editor noted, I don't edit just Delta or airlines or aviation, so I have no axe to grind against Delta. I just edit articles. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And you should consider WP:GAME.  ANDROS1337  TALK 14:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly you should also immediately consider WP:AGF. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And you should clearly read WP:AAGF.  ANDROS1337  TALK 02:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are well over 100 cites in this article, so there isn't a lack of available sources, and many of those sources probably do cover the contested info, and are sufficient as-is. At this point, you are edit warring, and need to be careful about further such edits. - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The number of cites in the article is probably the most irrelevant response you could make. Per WP:V, there is no arbitrary "number count" regarding cites. To the contrary, the threshold is simply verifiability. Period. That is not my opinion, that is policy, people. Since you both seem either uninterested and/or unwilling to read it, I'll quote the applicable section(s): "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth— whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true... This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception... Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed." So how, in your best/worst possible attempt at spin, you could remotely call my concerns gamesmanship is so transparent and ridiculously false on its face that it just becomes laughable beyond that. Your beef is clearly with those rules, not with me. As for any claims of edit warring, remember, that always takes two (or more). But I genuinely have no interest in edit warring - certainly not with editors who demonstrate a level of contempt for editing according to the policies/rules of the project. So if you persist in removing legitimate tags, and thumbing your noses at my repeated requests that you work within the requirements for inclusion to improve the article, I'll simply pass the article and it's edit history along to the appropriate forum for action there. That way everyone, yourselves included, will have no choice but to live by whatever rules and policies become enforced. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead. I welcome other opinions on the issue. - BilCat (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The citation needed tags he added were removed precisely becasue no discernment in tagging was shown by the user. As I always intended to do, I've checked out a few of the items contested by the user. Most of the info can indeed be found in sources already cited in the article, and in most cases in the same paragraph. This includes several items tagged in the Lead. In most cases, more than one citation to the same source is not needed in the smae paragraph, but I've added them anyway, as requested. - BilCat (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You, User:Andros 1337 and other editors, may feel free to make your case(s) at the WP:NOR/NOR Noticeboard. But I will say that if you were genuinely concerned about "discernment" regarding the "citation needed" tags, you would have exercised some "discernment" in removing those tags - rather than the wholesale revert that resulted instead. Finally if, as you claim, sources are applicable to multiple sections within the article, then you would do well to familiarize yourself with the editing protocols for using a single source in multiple sections and annotate them accordingly. But leaving the appearance of no source at all is just not an option. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, you tagged sentences as needing sources in paragraphs that had paragraphs that were already cited, and the information in those tagged sentences was found in the sources already given in those paragraphs. Did you even bother to read any of the cited paragraphs to see if the information was there before adding the tags? Apparently not, and that is the lack of discernment to which I am referring to here. We do not generally cite every sentence in an article from the same source. That is redundant, and the extra citations would simply be removed by other editors as being redundant. So yes, you did add tags to paragrpahs that were already properly sourced, and that is overtagging, and why you were summarily reverted several times by several editors. - BilCat (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, your explanations couldn't be more wrong. Both logically and as a matter of procedure. If for example, a paragraph of 5 sentences has a source listed at Sentence 3, but draws a conclusion or makes additional statements in Sentences 4 and 5, that are not themselves sourced - then they are not sourced. It's that simple. Now if, as you appear to believe, the source used in Sentence 3 also applies to both Sentences 4 and 5 - then that source should appear AFTER the entire paragraph it references at Sentence 5 - not somewhere in the middle like Sentence 3. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp? It is standard MLA and APA editing policy, standard Wikipedia policy, as well as standard common sense. But let's be honest here, the real reason I was reverted was because you and your fellow editors mistakenly believe you can claim ownership of this article. You cannot. But so that you can write whatever you like, however you like, I seriously suggest you start a blog. However this forum ain't it. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So you didn't even bother to read any of the online sources cited in those paragraphs to see if perhaps the citations were in the wrong place and should be moved to the end of the paragraph? Funny. - BilCat (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And still you totally miss the boat. It's not my job to correct your editing errors - only to point them out. It's your job to properly format your own edits. Wow. Now that is funny. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, not really. - BilCat (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be under the impression that I wrote the article, of the bulk of it. I didn't. I have made contributions, the main one being the splitting out of the history section to its own article. While I didn't write the article, I do try to correct errors where I see them, as does any good editor on WP. That's a key part of WP being a collaborative project. It's not a term paper that get graded, and the original writer has to come back and make corrections. We all help improve the article. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sentence mentioning airports having large Delta operations
I would suggest that the phrase "Although not Delta hubs, such and such airports have large Delta operations." just below the current hubs section needs be removed since that statement has tagged with a citation needed since July. Since no source can be found to verify this statement and we don't know if any of those airports have large operations (they only fly to their hubs and at least 2 or 3 non hub destinations. Snoozlepet (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

But shouldn't an airport that has more than 50 daily departures be considered a major operation. At what point does it become major? Just because they fly to the hubs and some other spokes, it obviously isn't a hub, but purely isn't a spoke. (139.72.158.28 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC))

hmm
Since Delta and Northwest merged, should we have both accidents and incidents?

-amateur contributer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel12 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Pre-merger NWA stuff does not show up in this article. Accidents or anything else. HkCaGu (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Those happened under PMNW which was also under the NW Single Operating Certificate, so they can't be under DL. (Jfern022 (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC))

Hubs - CDG a hub for Delta?
Since there are no objective (govenment, industry or international) standards for hubs, we include what the airlines state themselves. Deciding on one's own what is or is not a hub is Origianl research. - BilCat (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned last time, if the CDG flights are filled with non-terminating passengers (compared to FRA, LHR, etc.) because of AF's role in the DL network, and if DL wants to call it a hub because of this, let it be! HkCaGu (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * DL can call it whaever it wants, but this is an encyclopedia where content is not decided by grandiose claims of the article topic. See WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:CONFLICT.  We decide content by third party independent reliable sources, not press releases.  I would have not problem if the article reads "Delta also claims that Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport" but stating a claim by the article topic as fact is in no manner proper editing of an encyclopedia. --Oakshade (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus. These repeated reverts to restore a gimmicky claim are not supported by periodical and academic literature about commercial aviation. Authoritative sources never mention Delta's CDG "hub". If Delta is claiming this then the article does not convey that. It seems to say that ATL and CDG are similar for Delta when they are not.

Explaining Delta's CDG presence and operation in the text of the article is fine. There it could be made clear that Delta advertises or promotes CDG as a hub, whereas the majority of reliable sources in aviation readily identify a narrower set of Delta hubs. Putting it in the infobox is a disservice to readers who are not familiar with the airline industry but interested in unbiased information.206.255.176.167 (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If there are some reliable sources that clearly state that CDG is not a Delta hub, and why, with some objective standard, then please present them here, and perhaps you'll gain a consensus to remove CDG from the list. Until the consesnus changes, continually removing CDG is edit warring. - BilCat (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree that CDG is not a hub for Delta. The only "source" that "supports" the claim is Delta itself. An obvious violation of WP:CONFLICT and WP:RELIABLESOURCES. --Oakshade (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Go to SkyTeam's website. Look at the airline intro. CDG is on the hub list. HkCaGu (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the point. Delta/SkyTeam websites are not reliable independent sources to decide content with.--Oakshade (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It is truly the AF hub. However due to the JV that AF and DL have, DL is allowed by AF to call it their hub, just as KL does for Schipol. (Jfern022 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC))


 * Just under a year ago I proposed that almost all the Delta "hubs" listed here aren't really hubs at all, but I was met with a brick wall of editors saying it was sourced... from Delta's own newspage - it is clear that the airline is abusing the meaning of the term hub, and if this were a proper encyclopeida it would exclude all the phoney hubs. Speed74 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Focus Cities
The focus city airports needs to be sourced anyways. Most of the airports listed only have point-to-point destinations. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Focus cities aren't focus cities unless listed so by the airline. It's not up to us to define what a focus city is, it's up to the airline. We've had this debate before. Not again. Please. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * DL does maintain focus cities, however the information isn't available publicly on the webpage, but is internally. Not all of their Focus Cities are P2P travel. MIA uses funnel travel from MCO, TPA and JAX to go to the hubs and LHR. Same with RDU, LAX, SEA or PDX. (139.72.158.28 (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC))
 * PDX only go to hubs. Snoozlepet (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * All information has to be verifiable, ie, publically accessible in some way, per WP:V. Since the information is only internal, we can't use it here. - BilCat (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it is up to Delta to determine whether or not an airport is a focus city. You need to provide a source that is publically viewed in some way saying that Delta has focus cities. If no source is shown, then don't list it per WP:V. JetBlue and US Airways have focus cities because they are sourced taken from the airline's website/press releases. Snoozlepet (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Greenwashing
The section on Delta's environmental initiatives is completely one-sided. The section paraphrases information directly from Delta's website. Not mentioned are the fact that Delta has the oldest (ie least fuel-efficent), and second-largest fleet of aircrafts of all major carriers, making it one of (if not the) largest polluters in the industry. Not mentioned is Delta's purchase of an Oil Refinery.--Vvibbert (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Placement of Scandals Section
The placement of the scandals section, while incomplete, should probably be placed more prominently. Perhaps incorporated into the Employee Relations section as it directly contradicts claims made there. --Vvibbert (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the section has a very strong liberal bias. It should be deleted entirely.  ANDROS1337  TALK 17:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it not factual? Explain why it is biased. It's cited.--74.72.216.99 (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because it is cited doesn't make it neutral. The source had a strong liberal bias.  Please read WP:RS.   ANDROS1337  TALK 22:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Blatant Advertising?
I see there is now a banner at the top of the page saying there is "blatant advertising". I have to disagree with that. AaronzAccount (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This banner needs to be reinstated. This article reads like a PR campaign for Delta. I would wager that the majority of the edits of this article are being done by Delta's Media Relations Department. The section on Employee Relations uses verbiage identical to Delta's anti-union propaganda campaigns which they use to discourage their employees from unionizing. The claims of this section contradict the fact that many departments receive less than Industry Standard Pay. Any google search with the words "Delta Airlines Union" returns a ridiculous amount of articles that contradict the claims of this section. If not blatant advertising, there is at least no question that the neutrality of this article is in dispute.--Vvibbert (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is more about bonusmiles programmes, inflight entertainment, but no mentioning that they also fly aeroplanes with the engines at the rear end. No one needs any alcohol if being placed next to a jet turbine for almost three hours in stretch. --85.164.223.208 (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"commonly misspelled as Delta Airlines"
I was tempted to just delete these words, but I thought it might be better to open it for discussion. This comment, while factually accurate, seems unnecessary, and in my opinion, unprofessional/unencyclopedic in its tone. It is certainly important that the article have the correct title, but this purpose would be sufficiently fulfilled by a redirect. 205.178.24.96 (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with you about the tone of those words. They don't seem appropriate, although it is an interesting factoid. Maybe not noteworthy for wikipedia. Sbliman (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Massive removals of information by User:Kairportflier
User:Kairportflier has removed a massive amount of information from the article which I think was perfectly relevant to the article. As far as I know, there was no consensus to remove all of this relevant information. ANDROS1337 TALK 16:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with his removal of the information. An encyclopedia should not have a bunch of crap about inflight entertainment and cabin classes.  The article should have more information about the airline's history, not about cabin classes or inflight entertainment.  Though the history is in a separate article, there needs to be a more complete summary in this article that is longer than a few sentences.  Wikipedia is not a travel guide, so it should not have every last detail about travel amenities.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 19:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Bankruptcy
I have to agree with the above poster -- this article feels entirely one-sided. How is it that the only mentions of Delta's 19 months of bankruptcy relate to their exiting it, rather than the circumstances causing it and the events that transpired? I'm still new to the editing game, so I don't think it's appropriate for me to make the changes, but it does seem insufficient. Medusalith Boltagon (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Predecessors
Should Chicago and Southern be listed in the Predecessors section? Delta even named itself Delta C and S for a while. It was a pretty big step for Delta, Mid-west and Caribbean Access. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.14.224.202 (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Environmental initiatives section
Could I get consensus to reduce or eliminate entirely the Environmental initiatives section? It's mostly PR crap. Of the three sources it uses, one is a Delta press release and the other two are Delta blogs. The place I work has a very excellent recycling program, but it would be difficult to argue that it would be worth exploring it in several paragraphs on its article. If one were to read this article without context one would conclude that flying Delta would have a positive net environmental benefit. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 04:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The same applies to the Employee relations section. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 04:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In the absence of a reply I'm going ahead. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This elimination was an improvement to the article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 January 2013
Nowadays airline travelers increasingly interact with airlines using mobile devices. In fact, according to research studies, a third of mobile users plan their flights using tablets and smartphones while "on the go."

Delta of course offers Android, iPhone and iPad applications, as well as formatting for mobile browsers as you can read here. Mobile applications are so important for connecting with Delta that a municipal government even brought a lawsuit against Delta to affect changes to these applications (see: this article).

This is an area that seems noticeably absent from our Wikipedia article.

I created a section of the article and began to add information to it, with a hope that others would join me in contributing. However, the very fist addition was unfortunately reverted before sources could be added and the section appropriately developed.

Is there support for adding information about accessing Delta via mobile devices?--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

": Not done:: I'm setting the answer request flag to 'Yes' since there has been no response, and will continue working on the section. If you have any suggestions please use the talk page.--Encyclotadd (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Fleet table
I have removed the fleet table from the article. First, it is unnecessary to maintain two fleet tables on two different articles, and adds unnecessary clutter to this article. Unfortunately, User:Encyclotadd gives the following reason to keep it: Please do not Delete fleet table to this section. I It Is A Pain To Go To Another Section For New Fleet When You Are On A Timed Computer (Eg. 1H)

This is a totally invalid reason to keep the fleet table. This seems to be putting Encyclotadd's personal interests over consensus. ANDROS1337 TALK 23:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 March 2013
182.52.7.200 (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Memphis hub closing
It's official! Delta is dehubbing Memphis International Airport on September 3, 2013. Here is the source: http://www.wmctv.com/story/22499278/source-delta-airlines-to-de-hub-mem-cut-jobs-slash-flights. Also please do not remove CVG as a hub unless there are news reports or announcements saying that CVG will also be dehubbed. Right now, Memphis is only airport to be remove as a hub. Thanks! 68.119.73.36 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

BOS and RDU as focus cities
Can we call BOS and RDU focus cities? Delta has flights from these airport to cities that aren't other hubs, so it seems to me to qualify.
 * Does Delta say they are focus cities? You need to provide a source saying they are. A couple of point-to-point flights does not make a focus city. Snoozlepet (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)