Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Do You Think Flag Carriers Helped Kill PA And TW?  
User currently offlineORBITJFK From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 150 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3321 times:

hey,

Do you think that flag carriers helped kill PA and TW? They both had hubs throughout the world.

Thanks,

ORBITJFK

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRiverVisualNYC From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 930 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3266 times:

I think what killed them was regulatory changes, bad financial decisions, an overexposure to international markets, and sadly, planes blowing up. The PA and TW business models were based on the pre-deregulation fare structure and they didn't really adapt very well to the new environment. PA, a predominantly international carrier who at one time was banned by law from flying domestically, spent alot of money buying and trying to integrate National, to give it a domestic route structure. I believe they pretty much lost money throughout the '80s, had to sell off the flagship Pacific routes to raise cash, and Lockerbie bombing was just the final nail in the coffin. Still very sorry to see them go. TWA was just mismanaged for many years and then used as a financial football by investors like Carl Icahn, but was actually on its way to making a comeback when 800 went down in 1996. I seem to recall reading that management at the time was actually in the middle of celebrating making a profit when they learned about the accident. Anyhow, as a result their outlook turned negative, and they were sold to AA out of bankruptcy, which means that TWA stockholders did not get any money from AA in the transaction. If any of this isn't factually right or if anyone can add to this, please go ahead and post!

User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4518 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3230 times:

other than deregulation in the 70's, lets not forget to mention Frank Lorenzo.


PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlinePicarus From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3209 times:

No, I think piss poor management killed them.

Picarus


User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3210 times:

In Pan Am's case, mismanagement led to their downfall. The sad truth is that not one Pan Am CEO post Juan Trippe had the VISION for the company that he did. I could talk about this all day, but I'll leave it at that. Extreme mismanagement and indifference from the U.S government, which is ironic since Pan Am did so much for this country...and the world....over the years.


Steve in New Orleans


User currently offlineAMM744 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2003, 211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3173 times:

Both PA and TWA are sorely missed over this side of the pond too. PA in particular were the standard by which everyone else was judged at one time.

The most enjoyable long haul flights I ever experienced was with PA both as a kid and much later in life.

PA certainly did a great deal for the US abroad, can't say the same for today's top two US carriers. They just do NOT reflect that past glory and style of both PA and TWA.

What a sad topic.

I'll forever miss those graceful blue and white colours and of course TWA's.


User currently offlineLHR001 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3135 times:

What sold-out Pan Am and eventually TWA was the mis-management and the quick sell of the most profitable markets-

PAN AM-

sold Asia/Australia to UAL
sold South America to UAL
sold London/Heathrow to AA/UA
sold Frankfurt to DAL

TWA-

sold Asia to NWA
sold London/Heathrow to AAL/UAL
sold Paris/CDG to UAL

At the time that TWA sold the London Heathrow slots - London Heathrow was one of the airlines top money producers! The service and competition immediately went to the competitors and the clientele they already had, and thusfore gained in the process.

At the time that Pan Am sold the Asia/Australia slots - United Airlines was ripe for taking the routes. In doing so United Airlines also emerged as one of the U.S. larger airlines and offered many connections to feed from its enormous U.S. domestic market!

Part of the reason as well was to blame on MR. REAGAN - MR. DEREGULATION

TWA- also fell prey to the man in charge who in no uncertain terms sold the airlines more profitable routes and services to the highest bidder. The decision was made and was not made for the future interest of TWA!

TWA 800, played a major role in the fleecing of the great U.S. airline. In an article in the TWA In-Flight magazine in January 1996, there was a statement to the fact that TWA was getting back on its feet and looking tworads the future. One of the highlights was that the airline was going nearly all 747 to Europe for the summer season!

PAN AM 103, tore the floor out from beneath Pan Am and the glory that once was. At the time such an even t was unheard of and not only did the public but the government stood by as the airline was eaten away by every airline left to feed on it weaknesses!


User currently offlineAMM744 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2003, 211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3098 times:

LHR001

Agree totally, still it's very sad that we'll never see these two great carriers again.

Instead we now have two very average carriers at the helm, one teetering on the brink !!!


User currently offlineVectorVictor From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3084 times:

Part of the reason as well was to blame on MR. REAGAN - MR. DEREGULATION

Uh, no. President James Earl Carter signed the Airline Deregulation Act.

Once passengers in Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and elsewhere could overfly the bottlenecks at JFK, MIA, ORD etc. and fly nonstop intercontinentally...the writing was on the wall for both TWA and Pan Am.


User currently offlineB747Skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3010 times:

TWA was an outstanding airline, offering excellence in passenger service.
To name the beginning of the end: Carl Icahn...
Although they were PanAm's competition, we respected them...
xxx
PanAm end was due to nearly 20 years of bad management.
Absence of domestic routes, forcing them to buy National Airlines.
Obligation to serve foreign routes as de facto (unofficial) "flag carrier"...
Many of these routes were not generating any revenues.
United, American and Delta were the 3 vultures hoping for PanAm's end...
xxx
Now foreign passengers (forced to travel on USA air carriers) say...
United? - American? - Delta?... is that all USA has to offer...?
No wonder they prefer JapanAir, Lufthansa, British, Singapore, Qantas or Varig...
xxx
(s) Skipper
PanAm 707-727-747 Captain
1969-1991


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2987 times:

sold London/Heathrow to AA/UA

There was no interchange betwene the four carriers, only bilateral: namely, UA got PA's LHR rights, and AA got TW's.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2987 times:

sold London/Heathrow to AA/UA

There was no interchange between the four carriers, only bilateral: namely, UA got PA's LHR rights, and AA got TW's.


User currently offlineTommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6932 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2980 times:

"Part of the reason as well was to blame on MR. REAGAN - MR. DEREGULATION"

When I did a report on Jimmy Carter last year, it was he who issued the deregulation act in 1978.

"PA, a predominantly international carrier who at one time was banned by law from flying domestically"

Really? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious. For how long and when?








"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2974 times:

Really? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious. For how long and when?

Correct.

PA didnt have a domestic infrastructure until it bought (the first) National in the early '80s. A disasterous crash at MSY and tremendous debt being the associated legacy of that deal.


User currently offline747buff From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 744 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2928 times:

LHR001 wrote:
"PAN AM-

sold Asia/Australia to UAL
sold South America to UAL
sold London/Heathrow to AA/UA
sold Frankfurt to DAL

TWA-

sold Asia to NWA
sold London/Heathrow to AAL/UAL
sold Paris/CDG to UAL"

Some corrections to make here. Pan Am did sell their Pacific routes to UA in 1986, and sold the FRA hub to DL in '91 shortly before they went under. But South America wasn't sold to UA until after they were gone, in an auction of PA's assets. Also, the London route sales were separate, as PA sold theirs to UA, while TW sold their LHR rights to AA shortly after that. TW never had much of an Asian network, so they didn't really have any routes to sell to NW, who started flying to Asia in 1947, long before TW's brief presence in that region. TWA also served CDG for decades right up until they went bye-bye, and UA didn't start their own service there until 1990.



At Eastern, we earn our wings every day!
User currently offlineCs03 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 413 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2911 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

PAN AM Paid a very high price for National Airlines, and as most of the above people have correctly pointed out, PA sold the best parts of the airline to stay afloat, but in the end bad management was the problem!

User currently offlineARCJET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2846 times:

TWA opened ASIA service in August 1969 to Hong Kong, Taipei, Okinawa and Guam. This allowed them to be "TRANS WORLD" for a brief time and circle the globe. In February 1975 TWA closed its Pacific operations and they went to PAN AM while PAN AM closed service to PARIS and several european cities due to the recession that was going on at that time and the agreement with TWA.



User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6532 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

LHR001,

What Asia rights or routes did TWA sell to Northwest. I must have missed that.


User currently offlinePBIflyguy From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 248 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2698 times:

All this talk about losing great carriers made me think of another casualty..... Eastern Airlines. They didn't have the Global Presence that TW or PA had, but I think Eastern deserves a mention when talking about the demise of old favorites.

User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2647 times:

B747skipper and MSYtristar,
Couldn't agree with you guys more. I think every one who followed Pan Am from the late 60's until its demise would agree with you as well.



With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2582 times:

Poor TWA... After Howard Hughes, they got Carl Icahn...

Icahn = sounds like I con ! LOL

I can't believe the ticket deal he pulled out of TWA for him to get off the helm!

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineAMM744 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2003, 211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

Eastern were great, quite rightly they deserve a mention.

Nice looking planes too.


User currently offlineAirways6max From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2531 times:

No, Pan Am and TWA did a good job of killing themselves through lousy service, frequent delays, not treating the customer right, ageing fleets and a poor safety record.

User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5309 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2521 times:

I think another point that hurt PA, and to a lesser extent TW was the creation of the various hubs.

Every time a route came up from a new U.S. gateway, PA and/or TW would apply. But it usually went to the airline who operated a hub there.

I know that Pan Am applied to fly DFW-LHR and ATL-LHR, but AA and DL, repectively, were awarded those routes into LGW.

One wonders if PA and/or TW would be flying today if they had European and Asian service from the likes of MSP, CVG, ORD, RDU, DFW, and IAH.

Pan Am should have tried to merge with either UA or AA, thus giving it a full-scale domestic system. National's system was still too regional to feed PA's European hub at JFK and Latin American hub at MIA.

As for TW, Carl Icahn may have been a financial wizard, but he had no clue how to operate a business. I read that no one could convince him that spending millions to buy new planes was cost efficient, i.e. saving money on fuel, maintenance, and reduced crew size. Meanwhile, the fleet got older and more expensive to fly.

The other thing that hurt TW was getting squeezed out of ORD. TW had been, prior to deregulation, the #3 carrier at ORD, but had almost the same number of flight operations as AA. Because Icahn didn't understand the concept of O&D traffic, he got squeezed out of ORD and forced to set up shop at STL. A good airline manager would have tried to beat AA at getting slots at ORD and keep up with UA in terms of daily service.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16365 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2474 times:

I generally agree with all of you. Until deregulation, PA & TW were the de facto US flag carriers. With that, they also had arrogant mgmt and high cost structures which prevented an effective and timely adjustment to regulation.

PA to their credit realized that they needed a domestic feed...however in many ways the National purchase was the wrong one. While NA did help feed the PA MIA hub, it did not feed the larger JFK hub. Also, the PA DC-10 fleet did not mesh well with the PA 747 (and later L15) fleet. NA was also a high cost carrier with militant unions....something else that PA did not need.

I read one article along time ago which stated that the seed of PA's demise actually began in the late 60's with their large launch order for the 741. PA operated over 120 707's in the late 80's.....they ordered 25 (later increased to 33) 741's which were all added just prior to the oil crisis in 1973. The 741 was quickly superceded by the 742 but PA was stuck with a large fleet of 741's that it could not sell nor operate efficiently on all former 707 markets.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
25 RiverVisualNYC : B747skipper - you said it really well, and from your background you should know as well as anyone! As an aside, growing up here in NYC in the '70s I h
26 Jeffrey1970 : I think part of the reason why they both lost money was the corporate culture which there were created in. It seems as if money was of no concern to b
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Do You Think Is The Best And Busiest Airport posted Sun Sep 23 2001 04:51:32 by A340-500
What do you think of NWA and KLM. posted Sat Nov 21 1998 06:12:22 by United777
Fly Baboo, What Do You Think Of The Name? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 00:50:21 by Dambuster
Who Do You Think Will Take AC A330-300s? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 02:36:44 by AirCanada014
Do You Think SQ Will Dump Its 345s? posted Sun Jul 23 2006 17:53:03 by F.pier
What Do You Think Of Varig Situation? posted Mon Jun 26 2006 19:45:38 by Thering
Do You Think AA Will Close Some Admirals Clubs? posted Fri May 19 2006 23:52:36 by ASTROJET707
What Do You Think Of BBI? posted Fri Apr 28 2006 19:43:35 by TommyBP251b
What Do You Think On Munich Airlines? posted Fri Apr 7 2006 18:40:18 by TommyBP251b
Do You Think AC Will Have Star Alliance On New 777 posted Sat Apr 1 2006 04:21:58 by AirCanada014