Saw this article today and thought it was interesting how Delta saves every minute they can. I'm having a hard time visualizing this pushback method in my head, though, since it seems like it'd still interfere or possibly hit adjacent aircraft without going straight back for a bit first (at least at SAN; it apparently works out okay at some/most of their hubs per the article). Maybe there's a video out there somewhere?

Try this at DCA lmao

Is this article for real ??
I worked for AA Tower/Ramp Control at DFW 25 years ago. The easiest/fastest pushback is straight back. That is, if there's nothing behind the departure gate. If there's something behind the gate (gates from another concourse, storage area, whatever) then you have to angle the pushback somewhat. The less an angle you have to use, the better, but some gates it's a 90+ degree turn, like it or not. The concern on the push angle isn't making sure the tail/wingtips don't hit anything, it's the thrust blowing the area behind once the engines have been started.

This isn't some great "employee idea", it's common sense.
Perhaps the employee idea was to reduce the angle at gates where a large angle was previously used. But IMHO all it takes is one plane a year blasting the gate area behind, blowing a bag cart into another plane, and you've lost the cost advantage of all your 30 second savings.

As for your trying to visualize this, yes, an angled pushback starts out straight but turns once clear of all obstructions. The "angle" refers more about the final position of the plane at the point the tug is disconnected. Is the plane parallel to the lead-in line to the gate versus at an angle (most common at a "square" terminal building being parallel to the concourse, but perpendicular to the lead-in line).

Watch the ABC video in the link. Then you will see
The gate is at a 45 degree angle. The plane pushes straight back.

Obviously this is PR. Yes, the concept would work in the few airlports where the gate space allows for the angled gates.

Hell, how about just pulling in parrellel and thus pushing directly forward? As long as space is not an issue, I would be certain that works best.

I am reasonable certain every major operator could figuire this all out. But not even DL can convice ATL to space their gates less dense (same UA/EWR, AA/DFW). Maybe a few edge case airports it works is all.

This is bizarre. The toast rack design is designed to be efficient in airport terminal space. Taking the 45 angle as a design you'd need to space the gates further apart leading to longer walks for passengers, bigger terminals, more building to heat and cool... etc etc etc. Sure if you've already got a big airport and a little plane you might do it a bit, but by not standardising you introduce new error paths and smacking one wingtip into another is really really expensive (as is the jet blast comment made earlier). In fact why not do away with the terminal gate completely and just have a big open space the aeroplane can taxi through...

Back in the day, AA also did "powerbacks". It's my understanding that it saved a good bit. A do know as a ramp controller, it sure did get the plane out of my way quicker, allowing me to give clearance to other departures sooner.
But times have changed. Fuel is a lot more expensive now. And the 727 no longer rules the skies, old DC-9s are gone and their MD-80/90 variants are dwindling. Mainline aircraft designs have moved away from the fuselage mounted engines back to having wing mounted engines. These engines sit lower to the ground, so are more prone to sucking in any debris on the ramp. For normal ops, it isn't too bad, but think about a powerback. The "reversers" are a series of vanes/buckets at the rear of the engine that deflect thrust out the rear to go forward instead. The forward thrust is actually blasting the ramp, kicking up debris and blowing it towards the front of the engines ... and of course the front of jet engines is a turbine, sucking in massive amounts of air. That's why, on landing rollout, you'll hear the (reverse) power drop to idle while the plane is still rolling at a fair speed ... while going fast, the front of the engines stay ahead of any dust/gravel/debris being kicked up ... as the planes slows, that benefit goes away.

Eastern Airlines was also a big powerback fan (I think they started it, but don't quote me on that).
They even powered back 757s (an airplane that was designed to sit high off the ground due to its modern powerful (read: fatter) engines).
I was at the gate for the AA 757 inaugural. Loaded up, she struggled to start rolling in reverse at lower power setting. By the time I got back to Operations, the bulletin was out ... AA 757s are pushback only.