Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pan Am 747-400?  
User currently offlineCodyKDiamond From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 537 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12376 times:

Hello.
I was on Pan Am's Wikipedia page and it said that Pan Am had the 744. Did they even order them? NTU? What construction numbers were they alloted?

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5947 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12321 times:

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.
I believe I can say without a doubt that PA never operated any -421's. Or any other -400's, for that matter.


User currently offlineVHHYI From Australia, joined Oct 2007, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12298 times:

according to Boeing's order website, no. (at least not firmed)
I've added a citation-needed tag on that particular list.



This Porsche is like an Airbus;an Engineering marvel, but without passion - Jeremy Clarkson
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3077 posts, RR: 36
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12284 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

There never was a Pan Am 747-400

Only 747-100, -200 and SPs flew for the original Pan Am.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineJetdeltamsy From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2987 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12101 times:

PanAm never operated the 400 series. Never.


Tired of airline bankruptcies....EA/PA/TW and finally DL.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12072 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):
Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.

 checkmark  It cringes me as to why people even go to that site when its so inaccurate you cant even tell fact from fiction. It is a free encyclopedia, that is why.

Pan Am never had 744's.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineCodyKDiamond From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 537 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12067 times:

Thanks for the info. It just made me wonder. I knew they did not fly them, but wondered if they were maybe NTU.

User currently offlineAlangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12049 times:

Pan Am sold its Pacific division to United in 1985, and the cost of replacing the older 747s and 747 SPs was one of the reasons given for the decision to sell.

If Pan Am was still around to operate 744s over long ranges, I wonder if some of the Delta and Continental flights that are now operated with 777s to India and Hong Kong from NY/Newark might have been tried earlier by Pan Am with 744s.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12049 times:

It would have been interesting to see how well Pan Am would have done with the 772 or 773 and the 787.


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineJimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 11978 times:



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 5):
It cringes me as to why people even go to that site when its so inaccurate you cant even tell fact from fiction.

That's a little hard on Wikipedia. It does some things very well (its articles on science, a lot of things that are overviews, many facts.) Some things it sucks at (articles about controversial figures, though facts in those articles are fine.)

Like any source, you have to weigh certain factors and figure out what is likely to be good and what is likely to be bad.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7183 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10875 times:

Pan Am was already in a death spiral when the 744 came out; I believe the last aircraft they ever bought were the A310's (at least new aircraft.) The 747 was part of the reason for Pan Am's downfall; they bought too many of them and were unable to fill them.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10676 times:



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 5):
It cringes me as to why people even go to that site when its so inaccurate you cant even tell fact from fiction. It is a free encyclopedia, that is why.

Wikipedia has been proved to be just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, but you still have to use common sense and discretion when reading it. And I was unaware that someone could be cringed, lol.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 8):
It would have been interesting to see how well Pan Am would have done with the 772 or 773 and the 787.

After deregulation and without much domestic feed I feel pretty certain they still would've gone bankrupt or been bought out or forced to merge.


User currently offlineBuddys747 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 535 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10659 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 10):
The 747 was part of the reason for Pan Am's downfall; they bought too many of them and were unable to fill them.

I would say after the bombing of 103 that would be true, but over all I think they did farely well overall filling the 747's. There were probably a few routes where they were to big, but the bombing definately was the last fall.


User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10417 times:

From late '87 throughout all of '88 Pan Am was actually doing fairly well. It was not hemmoraging money as it was for the past decade...and IIRC, it even turned a small profit. The 747's were being refurbished, and overall, things were looking up for the airline. Then the bombing of 103 took place. And the rest as they say is history.

User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9245 times:

If Pan Am had survived through into the 1990s I don't it can be assumed that it would have ordered 744s. Don't forget that for domestic operations it had ordered the A320. In addition it was operating the A300, A310-200 and A310-300, the latter specifically on trans-atlantic flights. Given it was moving over to Airbus that way it coudl have been quite likely that Pan Am would have ordered the A330-300 and A340-300.

Airbus seemed to be having lots of luck with US carriers in late 1980s/early 1990s, but TWA never took its A330-300s, CO cancelled its A340-300s and NW eventually took A330-300s in place of the A340-300s it had initially ordered.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineRyanair From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 654 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9208 times:

Yes it is true that PA was starting to turn over a new leaf around 1988. Under Tom Plaskett the strategy was to merge PA with another airline, in fact PA put in an offer to take over Northwest. However their bid was beaten.

Essentially the substantive parts of PA still operate (Pacific and LHR by UA: Europe, Africa, Mid East, India, Shuttle, JFK domestic routes by DL). The caribbean, Miami domestic and lat am routes have all gone though.

In the event these different divisions were cherry picked off by other carriers. Without PA 103 then it is possible the entire lot would have gone together with all of Pan Am sold or merged into another carrier together.

PA never ordered the 744, the last Boeing planes to be ordered by PA were some 727-200's delivered in the early 1980's. After that all jet orders were from Airbus (except for some Fokker 100s which were never delivered to PA).


User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9155 times:



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 11):
Wikipedia has been proved to be just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, but you still have to use common sense and discretion when reading it. And I was unaware that someone could be cringed, lol.

How and when was that proved.


User currently offlineBwest From Belgium, joined Jul 2006, 1380 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9086 times:



Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 16):
How and when was that proved.

Just ask google...


http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia...ritannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html



I love my Airport Job! :)
User currently offlineTriple7man From Thailand, joined May 2005, 763 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8969 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Pan Am was the first to fly the 747 and they began operations in 1970, JFK-LHR-JFK. However that was well within the range of the 747-100. They later began transpacific operations like LAX/SFO-Tokyo. I had a friend who was a 747 captain and he said often the westbound flights required a fuel stop in Anchorage. Pan Am operated the 747SP in 1975 and with that airplane nonstop transpacific flights were common. Pan Am began New York Tokyo flights which were well within reach of the SP and that is why they wanted SP's, to fly those long routes. My friend said he flew the 747SP on flights like LAX-HKG-LAX, LAX-SYD-LAX.
Remember Pan Am sold their Pacific Division to United Airlines, and UA took those 747SP's, eventually replacing them with 747-400's. When the 747-400 came out, Pan Am had already sold their Pacific Division to UA, and their routes did not really need an airplane of that range.
Today, JFK-NRT-JFK is well within reach of a 777-200ER.

If Pan Am had survived I'm sure they would have taken the 747-400, and hopefully the 777-200ER.



Have you kissed a 777 today?
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7183 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8171 times:



Quoting Buddys747 (Reply 12):
I would say after the bombing of 103 that would be true, but over all I think they did farely well overall filling the 747's. There were probably a few routes where they were to big, but the bombing definately was the last fall.

As others have mentioned, Pan Am was doing better in the couple of years before the bombing of 103, but for years before that they were losing money by the jumbo-jetload and were only staying afloat by selling off assets. This was for a number of reasons; the first was the backlash against Juan Trippe's political maneuvering (read armtwisting) which is how he built the airline in the first place. When he left he really left, and subsequent leaders not only did not have his political clout, they also were not good enough to remake Pan Am in a new mold. This was aggravated by the fact that Juan Trippe had ordered way too many 747's, and they came online during a recession when it was extremely difficult to keep them full, and due to the poisonous legacy of Juan Trippe they were totally blocked from obtaining any domestic routes. The results were the Nation merger (read disaster), the selling off of the Pan Am building, the hotel chain, and when there was nothing else left, the Pacific routes. Was Pan Am on the road to recovery in 87-88? Possibly, but I personally believe that even without 103 their chances of survival long term were small. They were too wounded and had fallen too far, and any major setback would have pushed them under. Flight 103 certainly did the trick, but a less severe setback could have done so as well; it just might have taken longer.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7968 times:



Quoting Jimbobjoe (Reply 9):
That's a little hard on Wikipedia.

Yes, that was my point. I never use Wikipedia.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineKU747 From Kuwait, joined Mar 2008, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7969 times:

Only 2 major U.S. carriers has the 744 NW and UA. and BTW I can't recall any U.S. carrier has or had 743. does anyone recall?


707,727,73all,741,742,743,744,752,753,762,763,77all,300,310,319,320,321,332,333,343,346, L10,L15,DC10,MD11,SSC,VC10
User currently offlineDennys From France, joined May 2001, 901 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7024 times:

Sorry but PANAM never flew 744.

dennys


User currently offlineIRelayer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1073 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6912 times:



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 5):
checkmark It cringes me as to why people even go to that site when its so inaccurate you cant even tell fact from fiction. It is a free encyclopedia, that is why.

It "cringes me" (makes me cringe) how people can be so dismissive of what is one of the best resources out there for information. And yes it is free, how glorious that is! Not having to pay for information. What a concept. The point of wikipedia is that people can add whatever they want. This means that people can add fiction, and that people who know better can fix it.

-IR


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6856 times:



Quoting IRelayer (Reply 23):
It "cringes me" (makes me cringe) how people can be so dismissive of what is one of the best resources out there for information.

Try telling THAT to thousands and thousands of colleges who have banned Wikipedia for its use and as a source. Shows how much you know how reliable Wikipedia really is...  sarcastic 

Quoting IRelayer (Reply 23):
The point of wikipedia is that people can add whatever they want.

That's the whole idea of Wikipedia, and that is why I am against it and never use it.

Quoting IRelayer (Reply 23):
This means that people can add fiction, and that people who know better can fix it.

 sarcastic  And we're does it end...


As for the thread to get back on topic.....

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 11):
After deregulation and without much domestic feed I feel pretty certain they still would've gone bankrupt or been bought out or forced to merge.

One will never know. But I think Pan Am would have done well with a 772. It would have looked great in those colors as well.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
25 IRelayer : There is using it as a source and using it as a STARTING point for information gathering. For the former, I would somewhat agree that, as a new parad
26 TN757Flyer : Ummm, I don't know what Britannica you read, or what source you are using, but to compare the two as just as accurate is laughable. I've found so man
27 AirframeAS : Not really, I just have different avenues to learn stuff. One good example is attending college and reading books. Now, can we get back to and also s
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...
Pan Am 747 Configuration posted Sun May 20 2007 18:53:05 by 747buff
Pan Am 747, A300 And 727 Routes Out @LAX 86 To 91 posted Tue Apr 17 2007 05:15:08 by 747400sp
Please.. Can Someone Make A Pan Am 474-400 Morph? posted Tue Jan 23 2007 00:39:33 by 747hogg
Beautiful Pan Am 747 Video! posted Thu Aug 10 2006 03:54:05 by Alberchico
Pan Am 747-100 Video posted Thu May 4 2006 13:28:25 by SparkingWave
Pan Am 747 Question posted Mon Jul 11 2005 21:27:16 by Positiverate
Where Did Most Of Pan Am 747 Pilot Go. posted Tue Feb 22 2005 06:21:37 by 747400sp
Pan Am's 747-livery posted Mon Jan 31 2005 22:42:56 by PA101
Stored Pan Am 747 posted Sat Nov 13 2004 18:37:27 by FlyinTLow
Pan Am 747's-are Any Still Flying? posted Wed Sep 8 2004 02:15:08 by Skyhawk