# Delta Airlines - Are They REALLY Better?



## GBNorman

I have seen much comment at rail sites (not everyone is THAT dyed in the wool) that Delta Airlines is the superior carrier amongst the "Big Four" (AA, DL, UA, WN).

I've flown 'em but darned if I remember when. With so little flying I do nowadays (YTD 2 flights; 2 more booked) and that they don't "hub" at ORD, they are simply "out of mind". United goes anywhere I have occasion to go, so why bother with any others, especially since I know my way around their Terminal 1 at ORD - and not too much anywhere else.

But enough here rave about Delta and United has had so many "PR" issues of late - especially involving "God's precious creature - dogs", I have to ask "what's so good about Delta"?

Really, for the past four years I have flown to Munich during August. I've always gone Nonstop on United in Business. So if there some reason for a trip this year, I should "put up with change at Atlanta" to have a better in-flight experience?

Just curious.


----------



## jebr

I'd maybe do it if Delta was cheaper, but I'm not sure Delta is worth paying more for if you have to do a transfer anyways.

Here in MSP they're the major airline, so if you want the largest selection of non-stop destinations you're stuck with Delta. That's not always a bad thing, but I've rarely traveled with them as they charge a fair amount more than other airlines here at MSP due to their dominance in non-stop travel here. That said, I thought the trip I had to YVR on Delta was pretty easy. I'd probably go on them again, but I didn't like it enough to specifically seek them out.


----------



## seat38a

GBNorman said:


> I have seen much comment at rail sites (not everyone is THAT dyed in the wool) that Delta Airlines is the superior carrier amongst the "Big Four" (AA, DL, UA, WN).
> 
> I've flown 'em but darned if I remember when. With so little flying I do nowadays (YTD 2 flights; 2 more booked) and that they don't "hub" at ORD, they are simply "out of mind". United goes anywhere I have occasion to go, so why bother with any others, especially since I know my way around their Terminal 1 at ORD -and not too much anywhere else.
> 
> But enough here rave about Delta and United has had so many "PR" issues of late - especially involving "my so precious animal - dogs", I have to ask "what's so good about Delta"?
> 
> Really, for the past four years I have flown to Munich during August. I've always gone Nonstop on United in Business. So is there some reason for a trip this year, I should "put up with change at Atlanta" to have a better in-flight experience?
> 
> Just curious.


I fly United and have no issues with them. I'm more active at FlyerTalk and let me tell you that there are plenty of Delta haters on there. On each of the board for the big 3, there are plenty of haters for one reason or another. Its only a matter of time before "PR" disaster hits the the other 2 plus Southwest. Personally, I'm not in love with United, just Star Alliance.


----------



## JayPea

This is just my experience with Delta and I'm sure it's not indicative of them as a whole, but I have had rotten customer service with them the times I've flown with them. The worst on any airline.


----------



## the_traveler

In September I flew DL, and in January I flew AA (for the first time since 1988 I think) & UA. Previously, UA was my preferred airline, but now I like them less. My preference is for DL.

Of those 3, I like DL first, UA second and AA in a distant third.


----------



## Seaboard92

For me I live in the south so I have basically two choices. Delta or American. It's really a choice between airports Charlotte or Atlanta that I'm halfway between. Personally I prefer spirit to American.

Now when I go to the northwest then it's delta or Alaska because they are the dominant players.


----------



## blueman271

I flew enough last year to make gold on Delta. Nothing particularly great to write home about but I feel like they are the best bad option. Just like with Amtrak they have employees that go above and beyond and others that do the bare minimum. The only thing that really sets them apart, in my mind, is the fact that they fly mainline planes vice connection or express to more destinations than UA and AA. I’m a big guy and I greatly appreciate the extra leg room, seat width and shoulder room afforded by the bigger planes, meager as it may be.


----------



## ETedManning

JayPea said:


> This is just my experience with Delta and I'm sure it's not indicative of them as a whole, but I have had rotten customer service with them the times I've flown with them. The worst on any airline.


Mine also. Got stuck in Atlanta on the way to Newfoundland -- Delta, once I finally got to customer service wanted to route me to Harrisburg and then terminating in Montreal. When I asked how I was going to get to St. John's from Montreal, the csr replied "aren't they close?"


----------



## GBNorman

ETedManning said:


> When I asked how I was going to get to St. John's from Montreal, the csr replied "aren't they close?"


Mr. Manning, I think all any of 'em know is what appears on their screen - airline notwithstanding.
I had to make a "quickie" reroute last September when on United I learned the Express Jet puddle jumper ORD-HPN was CX'D account "no crew". I figured it would be best to reroute to LGA and rent the auto I was otherwise going to rent at HPN so I could get to Greenwich "more or less" on time for a family gathering. A very nice young girl at United ORD Customer Service booked me on a "real United" A-320 to LGA for no additional fare. Then she said "you're on your own to get to White Plains". I said "Greenwich is where I'm going and it's about the same distance from La Guardia as it is from White Plains".

For all this girl knew, I could have been going to Greenwich UK and not CT/USA.

But she was very nice and competent with the computer. When I saw the line for "General Population" security stretched out, I quickly said "Dear, how much for an upgrade"? "$125", "Girl, you're on". I was through First Class security as fast as I could walk through it.

"Buck and a quarter" well spent.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Is today's DL better than today's AA & UA? Yes, at least in the case of service standards and operational performance. In the case of WN (Southwest) it depends. If you need to fly P2P and/or last minute full fare then WN wins. Otherwise DL wins. Is DL as good as or better than AS (Alaska)? No. That being said, if I was flying to MUC I'd probably choose LH over any US carrier. Most intercontinental flights on US legacies are full of old and cranky freight attendants who wouldn't know friendly service if it bit them in the aft galley.


----------



## seat38a

ETedManning said:


> JayPea said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just my experience with Delta and I'm sure it's not indicative of them as a whole, but I have had rotten customer service with them the times I've flown with them. The worst on any airline.
> 
> 
> 
> Mine also. Got stuck in Atlanta on the way to Newfoundland -- Delta, once I finally got to customer service wanted to route me to Harrisburg and then terminating in Montreal. When I asked how I was going to get to St. John's from Montreal, the csr replied "aren't they close?"
Click to expand...

She was reading your mind and knew that you really really wanted to take the Via Ocean.


----------



## gswager

I usually fly with Delta because of my location. I could go to Boise to get better selection of airlines but not good in the winter- driving 2 hours in bad weather. I think there is nothing special to write about Delta, just an ordinary airline.


----------



## GBNorman

When I was with the MILW, 1970-81, the in-house travel desk had a United ticket printer. But I think more transportation was issued by Northwest, and when I had occasion to fly on the MILW dime, it was on NW - and oh to such exciting places as BIL, GTF, BTM, and SPK (the occasional seminar in places like MCO or SAN, as well as an annual trip I had to LGA, well that of course was UA).

If one wanted a twenty year advance look into the future of air transport, flying that sorry outfit was an accurate way to do so. Their labor strife was often permeated into the cabin with their cadre of disgruntled Attendants - and with the paying passengers on the wrong end of such.

But, judging from the favorable comments here about the Delta travel experience, apparently they were able to bail out that sinking ship - or, of course some will say, the entire industry "sank" to NW's level of ground and inflight service.


----------



## PerRock

Despite the fact that I live near a Delta hub, I prefer to fly AA (out of the big 3, SW is my 1st choice). Most of my flying is to northeast Iowa, and AA serves that area best... so I'm kind of invested in their rewards (actually BA's rewards.....)

As a budget traveler, their usually cheaper & you usually get a wee bit more amenities wise when in economy/basic coach. Additionally when booking the lowest fare, on AA you can still upgrade; whereas on DL you S.O.L. (I don't fly UA enough to know their policy). I've got no problem flying UA, they just don't go where I need to go usually. Spirit isn't to bad, but I'm flying on a buddy pass when flying with them so I get an elevated level of service, the down side is that I'm flying stand-by.

peter


----------



## railiner

When flying standby, you tend to overlook whatever shortcomings your carrier may have....


----------



## Bob Dylan

railiner said:


> When flying standby, you tend to overlook whatever shortcomings your carrier may have....


Similar to taking MATS Flights back in my Military Days!


----------



## railiner

Bob Dylan said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> When flying standby, you tend to overlook whatever shortcomings your carrier may have....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similar to taking MATS Flights back in my Military Days!
Click to expand...

There you go...


----------



## ETedManning

seat38a said:


> ETedManning said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JayPea said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just my experience with Delta and I'm sure it's not indicative of them as a whole, but I have had rotten customer service with them the times I've flown with them. The worst on any airline.
> 
> 
> 
> Mine also. Got stuck in Atlanta on the way to Newfoundland -- Delta, once I finally got to customer service wanted to route me to Harrisburg and then terminating in Montreal. When I asked how I was going to get to St. John's from Montreal, the csr replied "aren't they close?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was reading your mind and knew that you really really wanted to take the Via Ocean.
Click to expand...

While I really want to take the Ocean ( almost managed it last year), as we all know Halifax still isn't all that close to St. John ( although it is closer than Montreal!). I've had more glitches on Delta since then, but do agree that disruptions can happen on any of the big carriers. It's a crap shoot each time you gird up for the TSA shuffle.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

I exclusively fly AA due to my location (RNO/PHX/ILM) and preference for the A321. Plus, they have Premium Economy on international flights and a good Business Class from what I've heard.

WN is no use because they don't fly international (and have no international rewards).

UA doesn't have Premium Economy and their international Polaris campaign has been a debacle; new 787-9s still have the old seats. They're also not useful geographically at all.

DL not really useful geographically and their rewards program is probably even worse. Also, the planes that they'll have with Premium Economy won't have Economy+ (or whatever they call it) and wouldn't let mid-tier elites choose complimentary because Premium Economy is a separate class.

So overall I'm going to stick with AA and their A321s.


----------



## ETedManning

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I exclusively fly AA due to my location (RNO/PHX/ILM) and preference for the A321. Plus, they have Premium Economy on international flights and a good Business Class from what I've heard.
> 
> WN is no use because they don't fly international (and have no international rewards).
> 
> UA doesn't have Premium Economy and their international Polaris campaign has been a debacle; new 787-9s still have the old seats. They're also not useful geographically at all.
> 
> DL not really useful geographically and their rewards program is probably even worse. Also, the planes that they'll have with Premium Economy won't have Economy+ (or whatever they call it) and wouldn't let mid-tier elites choose complimentary because Premium Economy is a separate class.
> 
> So overall I'm going to stick with AA and their A321s.


Me too. Being in Phoenix, AA is the best choice for me for all the above reasons. I will fly others but prefer AA. Domestically, Southwest is an option but I'm not a huge fan ( unless I need to take more than 1 suitcase). And to get "back on track", I'd take Amtrak if they'd ever come back to the Valley ( and no, Maricopa is not part of Metro Phoenix).


----------



## The Journalist

Delta seems the most "put together" of the major airlines-they apparently have the lowest delay rate (in spite of having the oldest fleet-go figure), their app is better than anyone else's, and their overbook strategy is nice-they have you "bid" on being bumped at checkin if they think there's a chance of the flight being overbooked rather than waiting for the gate. In practice, most of my air travel is on Southwest as something like half of the flights out of my airport are by them. JetBlue is probably the best domestic airline I've flown on-more legroom!-but they don't go many places on west coast. They amusingly fly out of my airport's gate B6, which the airport confirmed on Twitter was intentional.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

PerRock said:


> Spirit isn't to bad...


In what way? The cramped seat pitch, the nickel and dime pricing schemes, or the lousy service standards? Spirit is a joke of an airline and I'm glad they were sent packing from my home airport. Normally I'm a fan of competition but in the case of Spirit all I can say is good riddance.



Swadian Hardcore said:


> WN is no use because they don't fly international (and have no international rewards).


 Southwest has been flying internationally for a few years now. I flew them nonstop to Mexico last year without incident. Shaved at least three hours off the next fastest airline. They're mainly focused on Caribbean travel but Europe may be in the cards at some point. Alternatively they may simply resume international connections and/or code sharing with another foreign carrier some day.



Swadian Hardcore said:


> DL not really useful geographically and their rewards program is probably even worse. Also, the planes that they'll have with Premium Economy won't have Economy+ (or whatever they call it) and wouldn't let mid-tier elites choose complimentary because Premium Economy is a separate class. So overall I'm going to stick with AA and their A321s.


 What points chasers hate about Delta is part of what I enjoy about them. Namely, that they appreciate my cold hard cash a lot more than a bunch of silly monkey points. Good for revenue travelers but bad for bargain hunting loyalists.


----------



## keelhauled

I pity the people who live in places JetBlue doesn't go.


----------



## PerRock

Devil's Advocate said:


> PerRock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spirit isn't to bad...
> 
> 
> 
> In what way? The cramped seat pitch, the nickel and dime pricing schemes, or the lousy service standards? Spirit is a joke of an airline and I'm glad they were sent packing from my home airport. Normally I'm a fan of competition but in the case of Spirit all I can say is good riddance.
Click to expand...

In the fact that I have to pay hardly anything ($25) on a buddy pass (aka I have a friend who works for them & get me cheap cheap flights) and being on said pass you get better service than on any mainline airline coach, no nickel & dimeing (still have to pay for alcohol, but that's it; even free checked bags). The 2 big down sides I see have is that fact that you are flying standby & they don't really fly anywhere I regularly fly to.

peter


----------



## Seaboard92

I too don't mind Spirit. You get what you pay for. As long as you keep that in mind you'll not have a problem. I've flown ATL-LAX-PDX with them all on one plane. Wasn't bad.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Devil's Advocate said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WN is no use because they don't fly international (and have no international rewards).
> 
> 
> 
> Southwest has been flying internationally for a few years now. I flew them nonstop to Mexico last year without incident. Shaved at least three hours off the next fastest airline. They're mainly focused on Caribbean travel but Europe may be in the cards at some point. Alternatively they may simply resume international connections and/or code sharing with another foreign carrier some day.
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> DL not really useful geographically and their rewards program is probably even worse. Also, the planes that they'll have with Premium Economy won't have Economy+ (or whatever they call it) and wouldn't let mid-tier elites choose complimentary because Premium Economy is a separate class. So overall I'm going to stick with AA and their A321s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What points chasers hate about Delta is part of what I enjoy about them. Namely, that they appreciate my cold hard cash a lot more than a bunch of silly monkey points. Good for revenue travelers but bad for bargain hunting loyalists.
Click to expand...

My bad, by international I mean Asia. But I'm notorious for evading 737s as well.

I'm not necessarily a points chaser but there's geographic reasons I fly AA as well. However, I still prefer motorcoach travel over air.


----------



## Anderson

I generally stick with DL, but it has more to do with a flexible SDC policy and what has generally been the most affordable domestic F a week or two out from travel than anything. Their partnership with Virgin Atlantic is also a big plus, and there are a number of reasonably affordable TCON lie-flat flights.

My limited experience with UA and AA actually gives the edge to UA on the balance of price and hard product (pulling a 787 LAX-IAH doesn't hurt, and neither does their partnership with Amtrak), though in some cases their hubs leave something to be desired (IAD in particular never thrills me). AA is just about the definition of "meh", with their only edges being that they're in-alliance with BA and they actually serve PHF (which is nice once in a while).


----------



## PVD

What you get in any discussion like this is a view from our seats. That's what matters to, or has been experienced by, each of us. But that is very variable by the cities we live in, travel to/from, and fare class we choose. Looking at hard numbers like % of flights delayed or cancelled, % of bags mishandled, and fed complaint ratios. Financial results matter, since ultimately, the airline works for its investors, not us.


----------



## Twin Star Rocket

I think in the 70s, 80s, and 90s that Delta was a superior carrier but not in the last decade.


----------



## railiner

I believe that prior to deregulation, AA was one of, if not the top domestic carriers, with innovations like 'Astrovision', standup bars in both coach and first class Jumbo's, the first computerized reservation system (Sabre), etc. UAL, and TWA were up there, as well. Internationally, I believe PAA set the standard....


----------



## Seaboard92

Pan American World Airways did set the standard that the world followed. Supposedly their logo was the second most recognized American logo right after the coke company


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Seaboard92 said:


> You get what you pay for.


On any given aircraft there are dozens if not hundreds of potential prices for each ticket in a given cabin. Does the passenger that paid four times as much receive four times the service? Not in my experience they don't. People often assume that the reason some passengers pay much more is because they booked shortly before departure and/or when the plane was already nearly full, but some of my cheapest flights were last minute trips on packed aircraft. Some of my most expensive flights were booked several months in advance on mostly empty aircraft. Some of my flights have been even cheaper than bus and shuttle van service. I'm sure there's a reason for all of these counterintuitive situations but if there is a lazy rule of thumb I would never apply to airfare "get what you pay for" would probably be it.



railiner said:


> Internationally, I believe PAA set the standard....


&


Seaboard92 said:


> Pan American World Airways did set the standard that the world followed.


Maybe it's apples and oranges but when it comes to lasting worldwide standards in aviation I'd put the FAA far above PAA.


----------



## Seaboard92

The FAA sets safety standards, and others. Pan American set trends as far as female stewardesses, the jet age style, and don't forget their biggest legacy the 747. Juan Tripe wanted it and Boeing made it happen. So the legacy of pan American is still out there.


----------



## cpotisch

I have always found Delta to be pretty subpar. It doesn't even hold a candle to jetBlue, and I feel like even American has often been nicer.


----------



## JRR

I had to fly from Cincinnati back home Sunday and noted that the choices for meals included a breakfast sandwich.

Apparently Delta can still provide a hot item!


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> Pan American set trends as far as female stewardesses, the jet age style, and don't forget their biggest legacy the 747. Juan Tripe wanted it and Boeing made it happen. So the legacy of pan American is still out there.


The world's first stewardess, was United Air Lines's Ellen Church, an RN., in 1930. Prior to that trend setting appointment, all stewards or purser's were male.


----------



## Seaboard92

It's funny CPotish the airline I dislike flying the most is American. I often find their staff surly.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Seaboard92 said:


> It's funny CPotish the airline I dislike flying the most is American. I often find their staff surly.


One time I took a photo of the airshow map when a suddenly enraged American Airlines flight attendant started shouting at me. She said I was not allowed to take any photos of the staff and that I had to delete the photo immediately. I calmly listened to her and then politely explained that my camera was pointed directly at the AVOD screen, that it wasn't aimed anywhere near the staff, and that the field of view couldn't see around the seat in front of me. I then showed her the photo of the map so she could see what I was talking about with her own two eyes. I honestly just assumed she'd quickly realize I hadn't run afoul of her rules and simply let it go. Instead she changed her story to claim that all photos were banned on all American Airlines flights no matter the situation. I knew this was not AA policy (at the time anyway), and it was clear that the flight attendant didn't have her facts straight, but it was equally clear she was itching for a fight. She said that if I didn't delete the photo and put my camera away for the rest of the flight she'd have me arrested and all possessions confiscated on arrival. That sounded completely ridiculous to me but it turns out that under US and international law there is very little in the way of practical legal recourse for passengers who are threatened with arrest by overbearing airline staff. They can ruin your trip simply by claiming they felt you were being unsafe or uncooperative and go about their business while you sit in a little windowless room begging for your freedom. That being said, I've witnessed similar experiences on all of the US legacies, so it's not just American Airlines that has surly staff looking for trouble.


----------



## cpotisch

Seaboard92 said:


> It's funny CPotish the airline I dislike flying the most is American. I often find their staff surly.


I don't like American either, but I've had consistently unpleasant experiences with Delta. YMMV.


----------



## cpotisch

Devil's Advocate said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny CPotish the airline I dislike flying the most is American. I often find their staff surly.
> 
> 
> 
> One time I took a photo of the airshow map when a suddenly enraged American Airlines flight attendant started shouting at me. She said I was not allowed to take any photos of the staff and that I had to delete the photo immediately. I calmly listened to her and then politely explained that my camera was pointed directly at the AVOD screen, that it wasn't aimed anywhere near the staff, and that the field of view couldn't see around the seat in front of me. I then showed her the photo of the map so she could see what I was talking about with her own two eyes. I honestly just assumed she'd quickly realize I hadn't run afoul of her rules and simply let it go. Instead she changed her story to claim that all photos were banned on all American Airlines flights no matter the situation. I knew this was not AA policy (at the time anyway), and it was clear that the flight attendant didn't have her facts straight, but it was equally clear she was itching for a fight. She said that if I didn't delete the photo and put my camera away for the rest of the flight she'd have me arrested and all possessions confiscated on arrival. That sounded completely ridiculous to me but it turns out that under US and international law there is very little in the way of practical legal recourse for passengers who are threatened with arrest by overbearing airline staff. They can ruin your trip simply by claiming they felt you were being unsafe or uncooperative and go about their business while you sit in a little windowless room begging for your freedom. That being said, I've witnessed similar experiences on all of the US legacies, so it's not just American Airlines that has surly staff looking for trouble.
Click to expand...

Yikes. That is patently absurd and pretty infuriating.


----------



## PVD

That was sort of the point I made a while ago. Each of us tends to look at an airline colored by our own experiences. Delta has a bunch of old planes, including lots of legacy NW domestic aircraft that were pretty spartan, and used 717 and MD-90 they have acquired (actually, a 717 is a big step up from an RJ). On the other hand, their very new A-321 (about 45 in service) are set up pretty nicely with 4 lavs (FC, mid cabin, 2 rear) decnt IFE and both 31 and 34" coach pitch offerings) The old Pan-Am Terminal (T-3) was a dump, but they spent a ton extending T-4 and are renovating T-2 and have billion dollar project underway at LaGuardia and close to a 2 billion dollar project at LAX. But like the other majors, many of the flights under their brand (especially to smaller cities or non focus markets) are actually flown by regional affiliates or contract carriers.


----------



## railiner

When I mentioned AA, I was talking about it, back before deregulation, a whole different company, from what you have today....but then so were all the other's....


----------



## Trogdor

railiner said:


> When I mentioned AA, I was talking about it, back before deregulation, a whole different company, from what you have today....but then so were all the other's....


Ah, the sweet era of deregulation, when airlines had to get permission to fly nonstop interstate routers, there were far fewer routes and flights, actually much less competition (despite the number of carriers being higher), and fares were many times as expensive as they are today. But at least folks got a free microwave TV dinner, amirite?


----------



## railiner

Trogdor said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I mentioned AA, I was talking about it, back before deregulation, a whole different company, from what you have today....but then so were all the other's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the sweet era of deregulation, when airlines had to get permission to fly nonstop interstate routers, there were far fewer routes and flights, actually much less competition (despite the number of carriers being higher), and fares were many times as expensive as they are today. But at least folks got a free microwave TV dinner, amirite?
Click to expand...

I guess you meant to say in the era of regulation...I agree with a lot of what you pointed out, but having enjoyed flying back in that era, all I can say is ....it worked for me.


----------



## Trogdor

Indeed, meant regulation, not deregulation.


----------



## jis

Trogdor said:


> Indeed, meant regulation, not deregulation.


Or pre-deregulation as the case may be, since even now there are regulations, but much much less onerous than they used to be pre-deregulation.


----------



## GBNorman

I'm sure my former neighbor "bids away" from any flight I'd be on - even though all she can presently hold is Coach, and I fly Business.

But somehow I think she "tips them off" when I go, for I have always had exemplary service flying to Munich on United - the elderly gentleman in 6A is addressed by name.

Lest we forget, all airlines, like railroads, work on a seniority system; so not very likely "the girl next door" who hired on yesterday will be on an International flight (oh, maybe if she is on Reserve and gets lucky). Lufthansa has been around as long as has United, so likely their Attendants' age demographic will be similar.

Now possibly the "younger airlines" have a different demographic. My Sister, who has been to Australia twice in as many years (my Niece, her Daughter, lives down there), once on Qantas, and once on American/Virgin Australia. She noted to me the Attendants on Virgin appeared much younger than those on Qantas. She is off again next January - on who I don't know. Maybe she will decide it's time to "fly US" and go on either Delta or United.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Having flown since the 50s when "Stews" ( right out of "Madmen")were Stepford Wifed,I much prefer to be served by Expierenced,Mature Vets instead of the "Gold Digger/Party Girls" of the 60s and 70s looking for a Rich Sugar Daddy or Husband!(Sexist that I am!)

Good Customer Service is the name of the Game. YMMV


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> Having flown since the 50s when "Stews" ( right out of "Madmen")were Stepford Wifed,I much prefer to be served by Expierenced,Mature Vets instead of the "Gold Digger/Party Girls" of the 60s and 70s looking for a Rich Sugar Daddy or Husband!(Sexist that I am![emoji16])
> 
> Good Customer Service is the name of the Game. YMMV


I don’t worry about the age. The tendency towards not so good customer service on the US carriers even when compared to the likes of LH bugs me. Of late I notice some are trying to fix that, but culture once screwed up, takes time to fix.


----------



## railiner

Bob Dylan said:


> Having flown since the 50s when "Stews" ( right out of "Madmen")were Stepford Wifed,I much prefer to be served by Expierenced,Mature Vets instead of the "Gold Digger/Party Girls" of the 60s and 70s looking for a Rich Sugar Daddy or Husband!(Sexist that I am!)
> 
> Good Customer Service is the name of the Game. YMMV


Ahhh....I pine for the "Coffee, Tea, or Me" days....used to have a "crush" on AA poster girl, Patty Poulsen....

Sorry if my "neanderthal" attitude is politically incorrect, and I don't mean to offend anyone...

That said, they were 'eye-candy', and yet provided superb customer service at the same time, serving full meals to all in coach on a two hour flight...


----------



## GBNorman

Devil's Advocate said:


> For most people the position of flight attendant is a side trip or stepping stone on the way to something else.


I doubt if that is quite as true as it once was. Sure, back in the days of "coffee, tea, or me?", airline ad copy to the effect of "I'm Suzy, want to fly me?", and when one sported an engagement ring or didn't "make weight", it was "gone girl".
But the position of Flight Attendant has "evolved" over the years from a "post college, pre-life 'gig'" to a career. Now that "the survivor Big Three" all have intercontinental routes, that means that one can work two full days a week and get their flying hours done. Somehow, that is a "pot of Gold at the end of the rainbow", with a Union to protect you, working with other congenial people (I'd last ten minutes at the job), and knowing that seniority "will get you there", FA is hardly a dead end job.


----------



## cpotisch

GBNorman said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> For most people the position of flight attendant is a side trip or stepping stone on the way to something else.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if that is quite as true as it once was. Sure, back in the days of "coffee, tea, or me?", airline ad copy to the effect of "I'm Suzy, want to fly me?", and when one sported an engagement ring or didn't "make weight", it was "gone girl".
> But the position of Flight Attendant has "evolved" over the years from a "post college, pre-life 'gig'" to a career. Now that "the survivor Big Three" all have intercontinental routes, that means that one can work two full days a week and get their flying hours done. Somehow, that is a "pot of Gold at the end of the rainbow", with a Union to protect you, working with other congenial people (I'd last ten minutes at the job), and knowing that seniority "will get you there", FA is hardly a dead end job.
Click to expand...

I think that what he said is actually more true than it ever was. 60 years ago, air travel was glamorous and comfortable, and the onboard staff were crucial to that. Now I would say that most flight attendants are really there to just bring people snacks and deal with unruly passengers.


----------



## railiner

Actually then, and now....the primary job of a flight attendant is passenger safety. They spend a lot more time in their flight academy, training on emergency procedure's, than anything else...

They have to be FAA certified to attain and hold their position, and unlike railroad train attendant's, they are governed by "hours of service" regulation's.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

cpotisch said:


> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> For most people the position of flight attendant is a side trip or stepping stone on the way to something else.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if that is quite as true as it once was. Sure, back in the days of "coffee, tea, or me?", airline ad copy to the effect of "I'm Suzy, want to fly me?", and when one sported an engagement ring or didn't "make weight", it was "gone girl". But the position of Flight Attendant has "evolved" over the years from a "post college, pre-life 'gig'" to a career. Now that "the survivor Big Three" all have intercontinental routes, that means that one can work two full days a week and get their flying hours done. Somehow, that is a "pot of Gold at the end of the rainbow", with a Union to protect you, working with other congenial people (I'd last ten minutes at the job), and knowing that seniority "will get you there", FA is hardly a dead end job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that what he said is actually more true than it ever was. 60 years ago, air travel was glamorous and comfortable, and the onboard staff were crucial to that. Now I would say that most flight attendants are really there to just bring people snacks and deal with unruly passengers.
Click to expand...

Where's the original post he partially quoted? It wasn't partisan or political. It didn't break any definable rules. The way this forum has quietly devolved into opaque shadow moderating to enforce arbitrary restrictions and revisionist history is really disconcerting.


----------



## PRR 60

Devil's Advocate said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> For most people the position of flight attendant is a side trip or stepping stone on the way to something else.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if that is quite as true as it once was. Sure, back in the days of "coffee, tea, or me?", airline ad copy to the effect of "I'm Suzy, want to fly me?", and when one sported an engagement ring or didn't "make weight", it was "gone girl". But the position of Flight Attendant has "evolved" over the years from a "post college, pre-life 'gig'" to a career. Now that "the survivor Big Three" all have intercontinental routes, that means that one can work two full days a week and get their flying hours done. Somehow, that is a "pot of Gold at the end of the rainbow", with a Union to protect you, working with other congenial people (I'd last ten minutes at the job), and knowing that seniority "will get you there", FA is hardly a dead end job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that what he said is actually more true than it ever was. 60 years ago, air travel was glamorous and comfortable, and the onboard staff were crucial to that. Now I would say that most flight attendants are really there to just bring people snacks and deal with unruly passengers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the original post he partially quoted? It wasn't partisan or political. It didn't break any definable rules. The way this forum has quietly devolved into opaque shadow moderating to enforce arbitrary restrictions and revisionist history is really disconcerting.
Click to expand...

The original post removed due to being sexist and in violation of the site rules requiring posting, "in a friendly, respectful, welcoming manner."


----------



## jebr

Posts have been hidden discussing moderation policy. While the concerns have been noted, our rules do state that moderation issues/suggestions should be brought to us via PM. Since it's also off-topic, the posts have been hidden.


----------



## adamj023

I disagree. Delta has the oldest average fleet age I believe. Delta was doing better in the past and made some improvements when Richard Anderson was CEO so it had high performance on some key metrics. They have fallen since then as Ed Bastien took over. United Airlines has made the most improvement out of all the airlines although American Airlines has made some improvements as well. Southwest uses some lower tier airports and has single class non reserved seating and doesn’t compare to Delta, AA or United in terms of how many places it flies. It also doesn’t have an airline alliance. It can be cheaper as more things can be included in fare. I personally would prefer not to fly on Southwest when other competitors exist. 

I take a route like LGA to ORD where Delta, AA and United compete directly on along with Spirit which I would never use. There are so many factors why one would choose one airline over another. With Delta, AA and United, one can choose fare, seat comfort, lounges, flight schedule, flight time, availability, equipment type, importance of making connections, and a whole host of other variables which are available. Some people have no choice such as business travelers where the company chooses the airline. If I flew on United, Delta and AA on this route wt different times, I don’t believe I could pick a winner as each one will be better in different circumstances. Different customer service reps will vary at each airline and with different people at same airline and is also status dependent. 






GBNorman said:


> I have seen much comment at rail sites (not everyone is THAT dyed in the wool) that Delta Airlines is the superior carrier amongst the "Big Four" (AA, DL, UA, WN).
> 
> I've flown 'em but darned if I remember when. With so little flying I do nowadays (YTD 2 flights; 2 more booked) and that they don't "hub" at ORD, they are simply "out of mind". United goes anywhere I have occasion to go, so why bother with any others, especially since I know my way around their Terminal 1 at ORD - and not too much anywhere else.
> 
> But enough here rave about Delta and United has had so many "PR" issues of late - especially involving "God's precious creature - dogs", I have to ask "what's so good about Delta"?
> 
> Really, for the past four years I have flown to Munich during August. I've always gone Nonstop on United in Business. So if there some reason for a trip this year, I should "put up with change at Atlanta" to have a better in-flight experience?
> 
> Just curious.


----------

