I agree with you on connecting times ATL itself should be a minimum connection of at least and hour and 30 minutes because of all the people you have to wade through to get to your gate on time. People run because they know the ramifications of missing a connection it's an all fay affair trying to get to your destination with almost all flights running at capacity. As far as planes running late ATL is where connections are made so the aircraft that is being held 90% od the time is at an out station so I really don't think it's going to inconvenience anyone to wait 10 or 15 minutes it can be made up on the turn around at the destination or in the flying time itself.
Having a 90 minute minimum is neither practical, cost effective, or competitive.
1. Having a 90 minute min cnx would significantly reduce the hours each A/C flew daily. This reduces return on assets. Which reduces airline earnings.
2. Having A/C sit at a gate for an unnecessary amount of time also reduces earnings efficiency as the increased time sitting at the gat reduces the number of flights the A/C makes daily. (see #1)
3. A 90 min cnx time would also force EVERYONE to sit at the gate longer between flights, as the average time on the ground would increase for every passenger.
You like to complain about crowded conditions at ATL- and now you want to increase crowding?? Instead of sitting in the boarding area 30 minutes at the gate between flights- you propose more time sitting there?
DL has VERY detailed statistics, as do both UA and AA, about the number of people who misconnect, and the city pairs they misconnect off of. This data is closely monitored, and schedule changes are made as required. Misconnected passengers are upset customers, very costly to brand imaging. Staff meetings are held in the scheduling department to reduce misconnects, and schedulers who repeatedly build poor A/C routing schedules don't last long in their jobs.
When new 737's or 321's cost upwards of $60m, airlines will do all they can to maximize their assets, while minimizing passenger inconvenience via misconnections. It's a balancing act.
Interestingly, I was in ATL this last Friday, 09 FEB connecting via DL. At 1630h. While it was crowded, it wasn't the miserable mob scene you normally describe ATL to be. There wasn't large numbers of running passengers. I didn't hear anyone ranting at gate agents as I walked a long way down the C concourse. There were 5 cancellations on the boards for DL. 8 for WN. A snow storm was hitting CHI, and to a lesser degree DTW at 1630h.
BTW- they gate agent closed the door early, because EVERYONE connected. On a Friday, at 1630h, with snow storms effecting the upper midwest. Go figure eh?
If ATL is such a horrible operation, why does it's on-time arrival rate rank higher than ORD or EWR for instance? And I have spent many hours mis-connecting at ORD, and it's concourse didn't look much less crowded than ATL's. And the UA employees handling my misconnection were certainly not any more pleasant in that situation than DL's
So why do you have such an ax to grind with DL? They aren't perfect- but neither are are WN, UA, or AA. As far as I can tell, any of your DL complaints are pretty much valid at AA & UA too. They must be doing something right- they are normally at the top of operational performance, earning ratios, and RASM among legacy carriers.