Talk:Orbitz/Archive 1

Archive 1

October 2004 proposal to delete article

from VfD:

This page is a pure advert. The user who created it made three edits: created the page, linked to the Orbitz website and listed it on Chicago as a company present in the city. I say we delete it. Ppe42 13:36, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

• Spam. Delete.. -- Mike Rosoft 14:23, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Abstain following a rewrite. -- Mike Rosoft 14:56, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for being spam, and for all the Orbitz pop-ups I've ever had to suffer through. Ian Pugh 14:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Rewrite - This is currently spam, but the topic is legit and the company is non-trivial. This can be crafted into an artcile that is about the company, and not for the company. ClockworkTroll 15:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Wrong-o. Redirect to online travel sites, or whatever is out there. Orbitz isn't notable enough of a company. There are dozens of online travel sites, and just being number 2 out of them ain't enough. Next year there will be something even more notable, it's a DOT-COM after all. Terrapin 16:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It may make me unpopular, but I have to disagree with all of you:
    1. Ian Pugh: I share your feelings about the company, but that has nothing to do with a company's notability.
    2. Jallan: I doubt your predictions are accurate: a company has to be significant to be listed, and if it is significant, it is either already listed or will be eventually. I do agree that the article should be started anew, and not just reorganized.
    3. Terrapin:
       1. Being number two in a large field of competition makes a company more notable, not less. Should we disallow a listing of Dick Cheney because he's the #2 guy in American politics?
       2. Just because something is an online business rather than brick and mortar doesn't make it less notable; quite the contrary these days: Orbitz has been around since the beginning of the Dot-com craze, and survived the inevitable implosion. That, too is notable. Besides, Amazon.com has a listing, and it's a dot-com.
       3. We just voted to keep the listing for a company of similarly mid-stature grandeur: Quick Chek. So Orbitz isn't Microsoft, so what?

My vote stands. ClockworkTroll 20:37, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I second your comments. The article should be rewritten. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:00, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Concur with Clockwork troll, weakly. Keep. Rewrite would be nice too. --Improv 16:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Adverts are especially noted in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. We should not keep adverts and we should not be under any pressure to keep articles that are adverts only because they could be fixed up. That would an announcement to the world: send us your spam and it will appear here, and on all the mirrors, until someone gets around to NPOVing it. (Now if someone actually wants to change a particular spam-advert into a good article before it is taken off VfD, that's OK, if the company is notable enough and if the resulting rewriting is good enough. But attempts to begin from an advertisement and just NPOV that information usually don't work. The resulting effort usually still looks half-way to being an advertisement, which is still not acceptable. Better to throw away the advertisement immediately and start fresh, if the company deserves an article at all.) Jallan 18:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Company is notable, current stub is okay (not too adverty). — Gwalla | Talk 21:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable company. I'm surprised that "the encyclopedia that Slashdot built" didn't already have an article on Orbitz. JamesMLane 01:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Peter O.'s despamification looks fine to me. • Benc • 08:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam, its website contains adware. --*drew 08:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable company and the article is npov RustyCale 11:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• keep -- Popsracer 12:36, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for Jallan's reasons. Dsmdgold 22:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, notable company, current article is a stub and not an ad. -Sean Curtin 23:03, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - valid topic. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 00:18, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - I've never heard of them, but if someone paid $1.2 billion for the company (oh, can we add a reference link for that, thanks!) then I think we should dedicate a few paragraphs to them. —Stormie 00:31, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in present form, company is definitely notable enough for an article, present stub is OK. When Orbitz was created there was some concern that the airlines were going to use it as a manipulative tool in some way to wipe out other travel sites, but I believe Orbitz has neither been a notable failure or much of a success. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep; something that sells for a billion dollars is of note. On the other hand, article as it now stands, listing 455 this and 65,000 that, verges on promotion: write differently. — Bill 23:07, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep; I've rewritten and expanded the article to include discussion about its history and anti-trust controversy. Its technology and corporate organization/business model makes it a different beast from Expedia, Qixo, Travelocity, etc. and the impact of its IPO and sale, and of the continued weakness of its original investors, will be of separate interest. Choster 15:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, its a pretty notable company. —siroχo 06:22, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. After the rewrite, its really a completely different article. Maybe I should have put it on the cleanup page first. Ppe42 08:34, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. No matter how bad the initial article is we should never, ever, ever just delete an article on a notable company like this. It should be cleaned up. (esp. considering it being very much in the news, what with the acquisition by Cendant). Nelson Ricardo 10:57, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Notable company. Ropers 22:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable company. Nohat 18:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Historical info makes for good linking. Hooperbloob 19:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Could have been deleted for recreation of an article almost identical to this that was on VfD before. I agree that an NPOV discussion of Orbitz is grand stuff. Last time, the recommendation was to send to clean up. I assume it was sent to clean up. This is either recreation or the result of non-cleaning. Now, of course, VfD has improved it. This is a very bad sign that VfD is clean up. Geogre 02:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Photo

I found the photo to the right on Flickr; I presume it shows Steve Hoffman and Leon Chism of Orbitz.com. It's under CC-BY and would make a nice addition to the article, I think, but perhaps someone else can confirm that these are indeed the two people shown.--Eloquence* 23:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I can confirm that is Leon on the left and Steve on the right because I'm the Steve in that photo. This was a talk Leon and I gave at JavaOne 2004. I'm not sure why this photo is of particular interest as far as "Orbitz" the company is concerned. I think some of the more current events are even reflected in the article (like Jeff Katz no longer being there) warrent some updating. --Xneog37 20:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Bad Experiences

I am involved in a wicked dispute with orbitz right now. I would like to find others who have been told that leaving a hotel before the end of your reservation is a "cancellation." This is not customary in the hotel industry, and every hotel I have ever been to has refunded/not charged for an unused portion of a reservation. The stay in question, the hotel did indeed only charge orbitz for the amount of my actual stay, so orbitz ended up grossing the difference, to the tune of more than $250. I have filed a complaint against the BBB.

Has anyone out there experienced this similar situation? 199.64.0.252 16:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This page is for improving the Orbitz Wikipedia article. Please don't misuse it for personal matters. -- Jibal 23:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Bias?

Does anyone think there is an obvious pro-Orbitz slant to this? Where are the sources for the final paragraph? "Many Maddox readers scratched their head, and posted comments wondering why he wouldn't have seen two different airports on his screen and choose that solution anyway, and if he did, why wouldn't he just check in online instead of using that as an excuse to get out of the purchase. Seemed to be a clear case of buyers remorse." and "Orbitz lost a customer, but Maddox lost a significant number of readers."

Also, the first paragraph sounds like Orbitz PR. For example, it calls his article "an incomplete story", and the service of Orbitz "a less than satisfactory experience". Apparently, Orbitz's hands are entirely clean, because Maddox "did not bother to read before purchasing." Also, as a side note, the grammar seems pretty terrible here. But this section IMO needs major revision anyway.--Dew_N_O 20:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I cut out all the POV but in the process I may have cut out a few facts. It's doubtful though, Maddox said that it never provided travel details to San Jóse. It implied that he was to travel by plane and had to ring Orbitz to get the details. Admins should watch this page, Orbitz PR officials are on the prowl. --Onias 22:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

63.87.162.2 seems to be very biased in favour of Orbitz, I'd very much like to hear his/her input regarding this matter. --Onias 18:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maddox incident

In March, 2005, Orbitz.com received email complaints numbering in the thousands from readers of a website called The Best Page in the Universe. The author, George Ouzounian, who writes under the name Maddox, recounted a less than satisfactory experience with Orbitz in which he was given an difficult itinerary which he did not bother to read before purchasing and was not given a refund. This incomplete story was read by over a hundred thousand people within less than a week, and instigated a boycott against the company by many of these readers until the true facts were revealed. Maddox was given full information at time of booking about a multiple airport solution, but in an effort to save $5 decided to book a very inconvenient itinerary that the average person would never even contemplate.

Orbitz responded to the many thousands of emails that Maddox readers sent to them. The readers forwarded those emails to Maddox, who posted it on his site:

[This happened] in May of 2002 [and all sales] meet airline requirements for appropriate "minimum connection times"...there are significant inaccuracies in the information he provides...His flight was actually scheduled to depart at 12:45 pm so he had a total of 3 hours and 6 minutes to connect to the other airport, as opposed to the 2 hours and 21 minutes he claimed.

Ouzonian's response to Orbitz's reply: "Hey, good point Orbitz, except that having 3 hours and 6 minutes to "connect to the other airport" is misleading because I don't need to simply "connect," I need to check in at least 2 hours before my flight...not to mention the time it would take to locate and walk to my terminal, check in my luggage, and stand in line. This is assuming there are no further airline or traffic delays."

Many Maddox readers scratched their head, and posted comments wondering why he wouldn't have seen two different airports on his screen and choose that solution anyway, and if he did, why wouldn't he just check in online instead of using that as an excuse to get out of the purchase. Seemed to be a clear case of buyers remorse. Additionally, Maddox was upset after Orbitz shared the details of the complaint with Maddox letter writers, even though Maddox had requested their support. Orbitz lost a customer, but Maddox lost a significant number of readers.

---

I eliminated the last few paragraphs from the Maddox Incident section (referencing specific reader comments about the Maddox itinerary) because it unnecessarily lengthens the article. Individuals can click through to view some of the letters on the site if they so desire. Also, this section needs more explanation to make any sense.

Good work, it was a bit long. --Onias 15:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and you guys have left out the most important update in the Maddox incident: Eventually Orbitz sent a form letter to all Maddox's readers, telling htem all of his travel information, and explaining that he should have known better than to choose it, which, on the surface seems like a good idea, but is a serious breach of their privacy policy, leading thousands to feel unsafe giving their information to Orbitz. That last paragraph that got deleted has to have been written by an Orbitz employee, it's the most one sidedly incorrect thing I've ever seen. I'm adding the breach of privacy policy. --RyanHearon 01:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am currently in a dispute with orbitz. I purchased an airline ticket and then canceled it within the 24 hour period that the site requires. I then purchased another ticket on the site. I was billed for both tickets and orbitz refuses to acknowlege there own policy. They have continued to call and threaten to send the unpaid (canceled ticket!!) charge to collections. Beware of this site!!! For 6 months they have continued to charge my credit card and have me resolve the issue through the credit card disputes department. I would not reconmend using Orbitz to puchase anything! You could end up in my situation.

I also found it definitely pro-orbitz. I added a few lines to try and even out the bias.--Melissia 18:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Adware

Can someone include a section about adware? I've got a reference here

Technology section?

I'd be nice to have a technology section as over the years a decent collection of information about their flight search technology (using software developed by ITA Software) and early use of a distributed Jini platform has been published. I know there've been at least a few Slashdot referenced articles and probably others to use as reference. Maybe some transcripts of talks are available to (like the talk Chism and Hoffman gave in the proposed picture above). I think this would contribute to the notability of the article. Sound good?

Mleinart 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am currently in a dispute with orbitz. I purchased an airline ticket and then canceled it within the 24 hour period that the site requires. I then purchased another ticket on the site. I was billed for both tickets and orbitz refuses to acknowlege there own policy. They have continued to call and threaten to send the unpaid (canceled ticket!!) charge to collections. Beware of this site!!! For 6 months they have continued to charge my credit card and have resolve the issue through the credit card disputes department. I would not reconmend using Orbitz to puchase anything! You could end up in my situation.

Maddox Breach of Privacy Policy

I think this section isn't even worthy of being in the article and have thus removed it.

I removed the following

a blatant breach of their Privacy Policy. As a result, many of Maddox's readers and others now feel unsafe using Orbitz.

this is an unsupported claim. Depending on how the letter was written (I didn't see a link or a citation) Orbitz could have just been responding to Maddox's article, not his itinerary, which wouldn't be a breach of privacy, since Maddox put it out in the public's eyes. If there is a source for this claim, cite it with the text. —Cliffb 00:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is important part of the letter, as referenced in an email Maddox posted, which was forwarded from someone who recieved it from Orbitz.

In his message, Maddox takes great pains to detail his itinerary, but there are significant inaccuracies in the information he provides. He made the point that he was scheduled to arrive in San Jose at 9:39 am and depart from San Francisco at 12:00 noon. His flight was actually scheduled to depart at 12:45 pm so he had a total of 3 hours and 6 minutes to connect to the other airport, as opposed to the 2 hours and 21 minutes he claimed. Regardless of the fact that Maddox's flight connection was valid, Orbitz offered him a $50 travel voucher as a gesture of goodwill when we were notified of his concerns.

Now, wether or not this violates Orbitz' privacy policy I don't know. Someone should probably do that, but I hate legal text so I'm not going to try. --Melissia 20:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone just re-raised this issue with me on my talk page. At the time, Maddox's site was a bit of an Internet phenomenon, and I think a brief mention of it was appropriate. I edited it (quite a while back) to clarify what his own site said about Orbitz's position (which was not flattering to Maddox). Now, after years of major industry changes and two changes of ownership, I think Orbitz has made its own news, and the account of a single user who felt slighted by connect time confusion seems... rather unencyclopedic. I won't edit the article further, for my own reasons, but I invite others to look over the article and consider how relevant to the history of Orbitz this story is. -Harmil 02:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the entire Maddox privacy breach section has been removed. A check on the ip of the remover yields the talk page of a user who consistently vandalizes articles and ostensibly has a pro-Orbitz bias. I'd request that this be examined by other Wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.19.82 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested Edits: Orbitz Worldwide Ownership Update

My name is Brian Hoyt, Sr. Director of Corporate Communications for Orbitz Worldwide. In keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, you should know I am an official representative of the company.

I am adding my voice to this Discussion page because there is currently outdated information within the Orbitz entry related to the ownership structure of the company. We were originally public, then private (as the entry currently describes), but since July of 2007 we are public again -- and operate under the name Orbitz Worldwide.

Consumers may not necessarily think about our ownership as top of mind — but I believe investors and people researching our company for whatever reason will appreciate the updates.

I offer the following edits for your consideration that will clarify our ownership structure and bring the entry up to date. Once edited and approved by the Wikipedia community, we have someone on staff who will ensure proper formatting:

Proposed Edits to Overview, the Infobox, and Section 3: IPO, Sale and Future Prospects

Proposed edits to Overview: [Replace the current Overview with the following]

Orbitz

Orbitz Worldwide is an Internet travel company headquartered in Chicago.

Through its primary web site Orbitz.com, Orbitz Worldwide enables travelers to research, plan and book a broad range of travel products.

Orbitz Worldwide is a publicly-traded company, listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: OWW), following its initial public offering (IPO) in July of 2007. Orbitz Worldwide’s largest investor is Travelport <link to exisiting Wiki page> one of the world’s largest networks of travel brands, content and service offerings.

Originally established through a partnership of major airlines, and subsequently owned by various entities, Orbitz.com – the flagship brand of Orbitz Worldwide – has been in operation since 2001.

Other Orbitz Worldwide online travel companies include: CheapTickets® (www.cheaptickets.com) and the Away Network (www.away.com) in the Americas; ebookers® (www.ebookers.com) in Europe; and HotelClub (www.hotelclub.com) and RatestoGo (www.ratestogo.com), based in Asia Pacific with operations globally. Orbitz Worldwide also owns and operates a corporate travel company, Orbitz for Business.

…………………

Proposed edits to Infobox:

(new Infobox)

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. [new logo: ]

Type Public (NYSE: OWW)

Founded 2007

Headquarters Chicago, Illinois

Key People Steve Barnhart <link to existing Wiki page>, CEO and President Jeff Clarke <link to existing Wiki page>, Chairman of the Board

Industry Travel services

Website www.orbitz.com

…………………

Proposed edits to Section 3: IPO, Sale and Future Prospects: (addition of the following paragraph at the end of this section)

Travelport announced in May 2007 that it had filed a registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to sell a portion of Orbitz Worldwide in an initial public offering (IPO). Travelport said it planned to use a portion of the proceeds to pay down its debt. Trading began on July 20, 2007, and the IPO transaction closed on July 25, 2007. Travelport continues to own approximately 60 percent of Orbitz Worldwide following the IPO. As a result, Orbitz Worldwide remains an affiliate of Travelport. Orbitz Worldwide is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker symbol OWW.

OrbitzWWCorpComm 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

advertising section

Does an encyclopedia article about Orbitz really need to describe their television commercials? This is certainly information that is subject to rapid changes. Come to think of it, I don't think I've seen a "Take On Orbitz" commercial for a while. Should this section be removed? Capedia (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, no response. I'm yanking it. It is unimportant information that is subject to rapid change and is unlikely to be correctly maintained. Capedia (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Maddox - let it go

The maddox complaint is not worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Qc (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't think that this incident is worth mentioning? A quick Google search indicates that this incident is notable. In fact, I had never heard of Orbitz until I read about the Maddox incident. The incident is mentioned by many websites including Salon.com. Since this is an encyclopedia entry about Orbitz, would it not be proper to include a notable example referencing the company's business practices? Bulshoy (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention nor Maddox? Outside of the US if anyone's heard of Orbitz is from Maddox. This article seems to have been sabotaged by Orbitz to avoid comments about the Maddox incident

Why is the Maddox thing not mentioned? It's the only reason anyone knows of Orbitz.24.179.133.201 (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This just goes to show that Wikipedia is going to favor large corporations and white-wash the truth from the average person. Wikipedia has a bunch of administrators that will ban you if you even think about uncovering some dirt about a company or government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.38.63.112 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ineternet Meme?

Did I miss something? I've never heard of it, and it's not in the article. 12.175.211.45 (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Insurance Scam?

The "insurance scam" section needs some reliable sources or it has to go. David Delony (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Just added this Chicago-Tribune link Jfriedl (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)