LHMark From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 50 Posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1679 times:
Assuming Pan Am III stays in business, and continues to grow over the years, what do you think their future fleet plans might be? Replacing the 727s? If so, with what? I'm interested in your speculations. -Mark
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
Bobo2196 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1588 times:
I dont think that Pan Am III would replace those 727's anytime soon, seeing that they have heavily invested in making them "quiet" with the winglets/wing modifications and engine modifications. Not to mention the extensive interior refits.
Future fleet: maybe more 727's as they come off of other carriers?
For long-haul Maybe L-1011's from Delta (way in the future!)?
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 13 Reply 5, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1539 times:
PanAm will need newer planes for long-term fleet plans, for sure. The 727s may be around for awhile longer, but no more than 5 or 6 years, I'd say. After that, I'd place my bets on 737NGs and 767s, maybe 757s and A330s. It depends on their plans for expansion.
Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1519 times:
If Pan Am continue in their current nice of serving secondary airports at fairly low frequencies, the 737NG and A320 will probably be too expensive and they couldn't really support a widebody!!!
My money would be on Pan Am renewing their fleet with secondhand B737-400s and B737-300s. Fairly low cost to acquire, cheap and reliable to operate, should be plenty on the secondhand market as they are replaced by A320/737NGs. Why would Pan Am want the expense, complexity and capabilities they just don't need in the A320/737NG?
ILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1512 times:
I think that they would operate a fleet of 737-700/800s. They might also get the 757 for longer haul/ greater pax trips. The 757 can cross the Atlantic, well, so can the 737NG. The 767-400 could be in their fleet, if they were to start a lot of international routes.
Hypermike From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1001 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1497 times:
If I'm not mistaken, Pan Am is running fairly high load factors. These "secondary" airports tend to be a lot more convenient for people. From what I understand, the only thing holding back Pan Am right now is their lack of aircraft.
On behalf of the several million people in my town, we resent you calling Pittsburgh a "secondary" city.
Sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5243 posts, RR: 27 Reply 10, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1492 times:
It's interesting to look at PanAmIII, their plan, their operations to date and their prospects for future success...
...there is a real tendency to assume that, if an airline's business model doesn't look and smell like the traditional airlines we are all accustomed to, they are not legitimate, cannot succeed, are "riddled with bogosity" (as a wise old sage once said).
When the Guilford Transportation people announced their intention to operate an airline called "Pan American," I did not think they'd actually start ops. And when I learned that they intended to base in Portsmouth, NH, and operate flights to Bangor, ME, it added to the surreal tone.
But guess what? If it works, it works, and if they are successfully putting fare-paying pax in flights to less heavily-traveled airports, well, great going.
WN started with three jets flitting DAL-SAT-HOU, and almost noone expected them to actually succeed- how could they dream of taking share away from Texas International and Braniff? Now they are operating a huge and hugely-profitable operation.
You just never know- carefully chosen city pairs, and well-chosen facilities, and PanAm might just make a new reality. I know that, if I lived in one of those locales, and could fly to where I needed to be and never *touch* a mega-jetport, I'd do it and never look back. Big airports are great for spotting, but traveling to and through them just plain sucks.
As for equipment, I look for 727's for at least 8 years (unless they grow much faster than I expect), then 757's, or 737-700/900.
I hope they do great.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
N-156F From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1488 times:
I expect PA3 to hold on to its B727s as long as they can (i.e., until Stage IV sets in), then purchase a mixed fleet of B737-700/-800/-900, or A319/320/321. I doubt if they'll even try to enter the transatlantic market for a while to come, but rather stick to secondary cities and airports (like PIT ).
An interesting suggestion- if Boeing were to go ahead with the 717-100/-300, I think there's a chance they'd opt for those over B737s or A320s, and invest in a few B757s for transcons.
TWAneedsNOhelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1477 times:
Jet Setter, your completely right (although you did spell "niche" wrong. You left out the "h".
Anyway PanAm has no plans to cross the atlantic or any other high impact, long range, high volume travelling. It just ain't happening, its not how the airline was envisioned or set up. I agree with much of the aforementioned. PanAm will most likely keep their 722s for quite a while and if they do upgrade it won't be too new 76s or 75s or even 320s. It will be most likely be older 737-300s and 737-400s, which can be had for reasonable tarriffs from major leasing companys liek GECAS and ILFC. Someone above said A330s and someone else said 767-400s!! Ha. You are so out of touch with where this airline is going its funny!
The day PanAm 3 is flying 767-400s from JFK to LHR and CDG is the day Forrest Gump and Mr. Anderson (from the Matrix) get married (in Hawaii or New Hampshire of course). You people are so funny!
Rominato From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 268 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1474 times:
Fun topic, thanks for the discussions. Given the route they fly, I can't help but think some 737 variant will be the eventual successor. The big question is how much cash the parent corporation is willing to pump into new equipment...
Panamfanatic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1474 times:
I was talking to the senior maintenance manager at SFB (where i work) and he was saying that they are looking at getting some used A320's for long haul trans-con service, and the DC-10 to start service to Europe/Caribbean...Kinda a strange fleet but that is what he said. They plane on serving the over-seas.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7860 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1460 times:
Actually, if Pan Am "III" does succeed with its carefully-drafted plan, I think what they might do is lease A320's from GECAS or ILFC. This is because the A320 can be gotten on lease fairly quickly (both GECAS and ILFC have large numbers available for lease), and because it is a modern plane, it will have economical fuel burn per passenger mile and also will meet FAR Part 36 Stage III noise requirements easily.
VirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1438 times:
If PAN AM 3 gets into international markets it will be into Canada, destinations into the carribean, Cancun Mexico, Pretty much any foreign country that doesn't require a crossing over a huge body if water like the atlantic. It would be nice to imagine 747-400s flying the good old JFK-LHR but it won't happen until I'm a really old man like 75. (I'm 21 right now) I predict that the airline will keep the 727s until eight years down the road abd rhwn we can start seeing a mixed 737 fleet or an all 717 fleet like Air Tran is aiming for. But if PAN AM wants to go to the carribean, Mexico and places up in Canada then the should go for 757s or the 737 fleet. If PA wants a few wide bodies I think buying a few 767-200ERs from US Airways isn't too bad (They too have a great maintieance record). I don't think L-1011s will be easy to maintain considering that you might have to canabalize of other L-1011s for parts (dont't expect to see an L-1011 in PA colors anytime soon). With 767-200ER parts; They're relativaly easy to find considering that Boeing is still in the commercial airline business AND THAT 767-200ER parts are avialible form Everette, Washington on any given time.
LHMark From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 50 Reply 18, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1422 times:
Remebmer, Pan Am touts its "Clipper Class" very heavily, so any aircraft it acquires will need low seat mile costs to make up for the removal of seating rows.
As far as shifting paradigms go, check out www.flyoneida.com, the webite of a new Syracuse-NY based startup scheduled to commence operations this October. Their model seems loosely based around Guildford's principles, although stage III of their plan- the part involving 767 service from SYR to cancun, seems a little grandiose.
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
B777-200LR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1404 times:
WEll i feel that Pan AM will keep the 727s for the time being , but i feel they might order new aircrafts and expansion .. IF they do , i hope they order Airbus A318, A319 , A320 or A321. For bigger fleets A330 or even A340 and even be considered .. With Airbus aircrafts , they save a lot of $$ in pilot trainings . Sorrie no offence to Boeing fans .
Varsity From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 187 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (13 years 3 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1338 times:
I agree that they will probably end up with 733's, 734's or A320's. I can't drawing more than 150-200 people at a time for most of the routes they go for... you don't see to many domestic widebodies ... even the majors seem to be going for more frequency with smaller jets.
Speaking of which, I hope they will start having more than one flight a day on each city-pair soon.
I am also curious to know how the Pittsburgh service is going. I watched an evening flight come in from PSM early on, and nobody got off!
I don't think they meant any offence saying Pittsburgh was a "secondary city". To me "Primary Cities" are NYC, LAX, London, etc.