Wdleiser From United States, joined Apr 2004, 881 posts, RR: 2 Posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 763 times:
Hey all, I am doing a research report for high school about Pan Am flight 103 being the beginning of the end or nail in the coffin for Pan Am's operations back in the 80's. Can some people please give me insight and information about Pan Am flight 103 and about the downfall of Pan American Airlines. I need to prove that flight 103 was a major factor in the cease of operation of Pan Am.
thanks in advance.... Any help and information would be greatly appreciated.
Clipper002 From United States, joined Aug 2004, 651 posts, RR: 15 Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 716 times:
I have to agree with Dtwclipper. Hit the books and you'll learn a lot of factual information, not some posters personal advice. Pan Am really started failing in 78 when deregulation took over. The crash of 103 was just another BIG nail in the coffin. So make sure you go back far enough and not just concentrate on the 103 tragedy.
Try looking at Pan Am on the "Timetables & Route Maps". There's a brief history of Pan Am from the very beginning. You can even e-mail the creator of the site - he might send you some useful information. He's really cool!!
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Wdleiser From United States, joined Apr 2004, 881 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 626 times:
I see,
but what I need to prove is that flight 103 was the beginning of the end of the last chapter to Pan Am's struggle to stay alive. I have emailed that guy and I am looking in to buying those books. But any information from the fellow A.netters would be greatly welcomed too!
Iflewrepublic From United States, joined Jun 2000, 532 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 594 times:
If memory serves me correct...I believe the insurance companies wouldn't allow their more high profile clientele to travel via Pan Am. This, of course, didn't help matters much. If you get your hands on the collector's issue of Airways magazine, you'll find the entire thing is dedicated to Pan Am. It's very interesting...brought some tears to my eyes.
Iflewrepublic.
Aviation is proof that, given the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
Dc863 From Madagascar, joined Jun 1999, 1414 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 574 times:
Actually PA made money in 1978 the first time since 1968. The profit lasted till the end of 1979 when in the following year(1980) PA bought National which was a huge mistake.
Wdleiser From United States, joined Apr 2004, 881 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 536 times:
Thanks guys for your help, the guy from that website has told me to go check out some books or buy them so I think that is what I am going to do. I just remember living back in Oklahoma City back in 91 when I was 3 and seeing all these Pan Am jets parked over there.
Tommy767 From United States, joined Aug 2003, 1380 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 520 times:
Flight 103 had to be the nail in the coffin, but it also had to do with deregulation, which it was one of the carriers badly effected. I remember that they had lots of international routes, but there was not nearly enough domestic routes to compensate and compete with other U.S. carriers.
Clipper002 From United States, joined Aug 2004, 651 posts, RR: 15 Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 510 times:
Tommy767,
That was the sole reason Pan Am had to go out and buy NA. Actually EA also went after NA at the same time and drove the price sky high. I remember flying EA JFK/MIA and finding a handout in the seatback that asked their passengers to contact their legislators to back the EA/NA deal over the PA/NA buyout. As stated earlier, I agree that deregulation was the beginning of the end. How we survived 12 more years is beyond me.
Dtwclipper From United States, joined Oct 2003, 6621 posts, RR: 30 Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 496 times:
Clipper002:
Actually it was Frank Lorenzo who really drove the price up.
dtwclipper
Compare New York Air, the Airline that works for your Business
Panamair From United States, joined Oct 2001, 3057 posts, RR: 16 Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 474 times:
No one event precipitated the fall of Pan Am. It was a whole string of events, management missteps, deregulation, government interference or non-interference, etc., that over the years helped make Pan Am weaker and weaker until it could not weather another event.
You can start with the purchase of the 747s, the early 70s oil shock, lack of domestic route rights while domestic airlines obtained international authorities, bad/arrogant management (Seawell, Acker), the NA merger/acquistion, the Pacific route sale in 1985, 1986 terrorism fears, etc. By the time Lockerbie came around, Pan Am was already weakened (though it had started to make operating profits again in 1988). Had Pan Am been in a stronger financial position at the time of Lockerbie (i.e., had none of the aforementioned events and had strong management), it could have survived further.
1989 was spent trying to recuperate from Lockerbie; 1990 saw recovery in the first part until the Gulf War pretty much put an end to things; that, coupled with the recession pretty much ruined all chances of any further recovery.
So, in summary, Lockerbie by itself was not the nail in the coffin; the final nails in the coffin were really the Gulf War and the recession. Had Lockerbie been the only or only one of few negative events affecting Pan Am, Pan Am could still be with us today.
Kkfla737 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 1033 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 464 times:
Another nail in the coffin was AA's expansion at MIA. In 1989, Tom Plaskett and the Pan Am brass decided to protect the Miami hub at all costs and started a rapid expansion which PA really could not afford in the post-Lockerbie climate. Pan Am essentially doubled the number of flights and nonstop destinations from Miami rather quickly.
Another under rated factor, though somewhat minor was the loss of Pan Am's very profitable IGS until following German reunification. Lufthansa took over this highly profitable until to/from Berlin.
Ltbewr From United States, joined Jan 2004, 8522 posts, RR: 16 Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 439 times:
Besides PA103, PanAm (as well as TWA) had been a target of terror acts as far back into the 1970's. As suggested above, the terror act upon PA103 did have a significant psychlogical and economic affect not only upon PanAm, but also TWA (they were involved in a June 1985 terror hijacking), in that there was a shift of some passangers away from USA based airliners internationally as those were believed to be greater symbolic targets of America. As a note here, I work in NYC in what used to be called the PanAm Building (now the Met Life Building) just by Grand Central Station.
The terror acts upon TWA didn't bring their collaspe in the early 1990's like PanAm. TWA would fail in about 2000, shortly after TWA800 and due to other factors. There were other factors that PanAm faced in the he 1980's and into the 1990's that contributed to their downfall :
- United, American and Continential, gained the rights to serve European and Asian destinations (UA bought out PanAm's rights to Asia in the 1980's), thus adding competition to PanAm.
- Anti-american, Anti-Israel and European terror, other political changes with the economic losses due to them in the 1980's also made PanAm and TWA withdraw service to a number of Middle Eastern, African and South Asian countries.
- Deregulation in the USA and various trade agreements meant PanAm (and TWA) no longer could get subsidies the USA government gave them to operate on some international routes.
- International deregulation of airlines routes and fare pricing much like in the the USA started to take hold and depress revenue due to pricing competition.
- Low-cost airlines such as Laker (in the early-mid 1980's), PeopleExpress (mid 1980's), Virgin Atlantic (1985 to present, although it is no longer a budget airline), and others in the 1980's on critical routes from the USA to the UK and other major European cities also lowered the revenue on routes critical to PanAm. PanAm and TWA thus had to sell tickets at a low price to compete that depleting their income. In fact, as to PA103, a number of the pax, especially the Syracuse Univ. students, were on that flight as they had more cheap late purchase and standby seats available than other airlines to JFK.
- PanAm had strict limits as to routes within the USA until deregulation in the late 1970's. TWA on the other hand was originally a domestic airliner that was allowed to expand internationally and keep and expand their domestic routes after WWII, unlike PanAm. PanAm's purchase of National to gain some routes within the USA was a bad merger in many ways, including culture, marketing , manangement and routes. They also had tried to expand within the USA with 747's to LAX, SFO, other places and were forced due to the competition to sell '$99' each way tickets JFK-LAX and took major losses there too.
There are a number of factors that added up and eventually ruined PanAm. PA103 was a very public part of that but not the only one.
Kkfla737 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 1033 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 429 times:
United, American and Continential, gained the rights to serve European and Asian destinations (UA bought out PanAm's rights to Asia in the 1980's), thus adding competition to PanAm.
Don't forget about Delta! Delta was the third largest US Airline in Europe by 1989, (Behind PA and TWA) flying to 10 destinations from Atlanta, as well as Frankfurt from DFW and MCO, and London from CVG - carrying East coast traffic to Europe that Pan Am depended on.
- Deregulation in the USA and various trade agreements meant PanAm (and TWA) no longer could get subsidies the USA government gave them to operate on some international routes.
Very important factor indeed. PA without subsidies did not know when to pull the plug on certain destination as well in Europe and Asia.
PanAm's purchase of National to gain some routes within the USA was a bad merger in many ways, including culture, marketing , manangement and routes.
I have changed the way I think about the Pan Am/National merger in recent years. For the longest time I attributed PA's downfall to the merger, but in fact the route systems were more compatible than many give credit for. Yes the corporate cultures clashed, but the route structure didn't. Examples: Pan Am had the bulk of its flights to Latin America originating in Miami which was National's home base. NA's domestic flights should have given Pan Am the neccesary feed to make Miami very succesful- in addition traffic on National's Miami-Europe flights could be moved to PA's Latin flights. Also traffic from Florida and Latin America could connect via London and Frankfurt on Pan Am, due to National's Miami-Europe flights.
Also, National had a number of flights to LAX- flights from Houston, Miami, Tampa, Fort Lauderdale and New Orleans which should have helped feed PA's South Pacific, Honolulu, Osaka and Tokyo routes from LA.
National's mini-hub at IAH would have allowed PA to fly more extensively to Mexico than just Mexico City and could have transported traffic from the Southwest to Europe or Latin America.
The route systems were more compatible than many people have stated since the emrger, IMHO.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Apr 2004, 881 posts, 
From Madagascar, joined Jun 1999, 1414 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
