Talk:Delta Connection

Perhaps this should just redirect to Delta Air Lines?

18.24.0.120 02:05, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Code Discussions

These airlines are NOT DELTA and the way airline codes are being used there is a considerable amount of dishonesty as is discussed in detail here :

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3866796/

By the way consumer advocacy is not what I am shooting for ..... I am shooting for honesty, clarity, and transperancy which is lost with all the outsourcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.26.146 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC-8)

Is that not what an encycopedia does? 63.215.26.146 (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding the IATA code of the carriers operating Delta Connection flights adds absolutely no value to the article. If someone needs them, they are available on the individual carrier articles. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are extremely very mistaken Hawaiian for the record. What a shame for you do have good insight on some things. 63.215.26.146 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you cannot agree that many of these flight are nothing but outsourced Delta Flying in many instances as well? Or maybe outsourced is a dirty little secret in the airline industry? 63.215.26.146 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

While it's not the term that usually comes up, "outsourced" is an apt term to describe Delta Connection (and United Express, Northwest Airlink, etc) flying. However, it's use in this context is a weasel word promoting a point of view. But this is not really what I was posting about at all. If you had bothered to read my comment, you would have clearly seen that I was objecting to your addition of the IATA airline code next to the airline's name. (OO) Skywest Airlines doesn't have any additional meaning to the reader than Skywest Airlines, and unnecessarily clogs the article with jargon. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is how it works Hawaiian717:

Airline A is bought out by a holding company. Holding company buys Airline B, Airline C. enticing the employees by pleading for pay and patience concessions with a merger where seniority goes up, peoples vacation gets better, peoples days off people get to fly different airplanes get better etc.

An here is the clincher.... The Airline Operating Certificates are NOT merged as they were in the early history of airline industry mergers which maybe you are not familiar with. Example AMR - AA, MQ, OW.

Then the holding corporation thereatens to sale off various segments of the business such as MQ or OW after people had been enticed to transfer positions as the outsourced company restaffed and took over the existing flights and airport operations.

ALL the while passengers, civic leaders, laymen are thinking they are aboard and flying AMERICAN IATA code AA......when in actuality they are not even flying an AMERICAN based AMR company meaning not MQ or OW - but AX or RW instead.

Many young people and individuals use this site to research potential positions and to gain insight about jobs within the industry. It is best if they do not waste there time with a corporation which is manipulating there futures....and had they been able to see this instead of staying years with AX or RW, they might have learned it was best to go with AA or WN for example or even the AMR corporation direct.

Jargon is tantamout to the airline industry, and your continued mystification of coding does not contribute to demystifing and clarifying a very complicated airline industry issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.26.148 (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You have told me nothing I don't already know, though I do think you're attributing more malice to the company executives than they deserve. I have no problem with your efforts to indicate that several companies -- in your example, AA, MQ, and OW, are all separately certificated divisions of the same parent company. The problem is that the IATA codes add nothing, it is enough to say in the article text American Airlines, American Eagle, and Executive Airlines. Adding the IATA code adds nothing.

And here's my proof: US Airways Group. The company currently holds three certificates (US Airways, PSA Airlines, Piedmont Airlines), operating with two different IATA codes (US, HP) and four different ICAO codes (USA, AWE, PDT, and JIA). PSA (JIA) and Piedmont (PDT) don't have their own IATA codes, though they do have two letter codes used internally within the company. US/USA and HP/AWE are both being used for US Airways now that both US Airways and America West are operating under a single (US Airways) certificate, though they continue to use separate codes, presumably until their pilot integration issues get sorted out. Now tell me how adding IATA codes helps clarify things over using just the company names? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

---

As mentioned before ICAO codes have nothing to do with the concept of IATA codeshares so ICAO and call signs are completely irrelevant.

The reason US and HP presumably are being used and operated seperately at this point is so US Air Group can spinoff one portion of the operation, at the detriment of it's employees. Union busting in other words.

In case you are not aware it is a long process for a new airline to gain certification and an operating certificate so when one airline is sold to another the IATA code share for codesharing, and call signs go with it until the integration. Which has been the course of airline merger history until recently. Think of Independence and Compass Airlines certificate at Northwest Airline Corporation.

US Airways Group is manipulating operatons right now and the employess of it are aware of it and fighting for a complete intergraton so they do not get messed over. I do not work for US Airways or any of it's subsidiaries but I do value truth.

It is impossible to talk realistically and truthfully about these outsourcing of employees labor at the main airlines and how the creative branding and none intergraton of airline operating certificates by big business is underming the structure and safety of an entire industry ... which is something my friend Hawaiian 717 you are partaking in in your own small way by attempting to distort truth.

Aviation is about efficient communication in the interest of saftey and you are not contributing to the overall goal of that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.26.148 (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

All I was objecting to was including IATA codes with the names of the airlines that operate Delta Connection services. I don't know how this got turned into a discussion of subsidiary companies, operating agreements, and union busting. Your accusation of which at US Airways Group is unfounded, untrue, and potentially libel, by the way. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Hawaiian717 codes are not required. The article lists airlines that operate under the Delta Connection name - no need for information other than their name. Readers can follow the related link to find out detailed information on these carriers. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Do read more aviation articles regarding the industry, US Airways Group, and business, as there is nothing here published here that has not been discussed in journals or the "libelous" or slanted, or biased news media, which people like myself and yourself are trying to keep at least somewhat, transparent by having accurate information in Wikipedia.