Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Demise Of PA And TW  
User currently offlinelxmd11 From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 149 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6409 times:

Hi everybody,

I was wondering who could tell me the reasons behind the demise of these american giants; PA and TW. I would also like to know what happened to them after they were....no more. Were they bought, merged or just dissolved??? Thanks ahead of time.

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineatrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5692 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6308 times:

TWA was bought out/merged with American Airlines.

Combo of many things lead to TW's demise.

AA kept some of the gates and most of the slots from TWA, kept for awhile TWA's MX and Hubs, but just recently shut down STL's hub. AA kept most of the MD80's, have gotten rid of their 767, 757, 717's too.

All ex TWA Employees w/ AA are gone now I believe with exception to some pilots? (Someone can correct me).

Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineRogerThat From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6290 times:

Getting into a bidding contest with Texas Air for National Airlines in the late 1970s was one of the many nails in PA's coffin.

User currently offlineDelta763 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6291 times:

Lots of things killed PA. Deregulation forced them to come up with a completely new business strategy, which was too difficult for an airline that big. They bought National for the domestic routes but could not make the merger work due to incompatibilities. They had a huge fleet of gas-guzzling 707s and 747s which became too expensive to run after the fuel crisis. And they were a popular target for terrorists. PA103 and the aftermath of negative media and lawsuits were the nails in the coffin.

As for what became of them... They sold off their entire Pacific network to UA in 1985 The London authority and IAD operations went to UA and the DCA-LGA-BOS shuttle and the remaining transatlantic network (except Miami) went to DL in 1991. When they ceased operations, all that was left were some routes out of Miami, which ended up going to UA and AA (I think).


User currently offlineUSPIT10L From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 3295 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6182 times:

Quoting Delta763 (Reply 3):
When they ceased operations, all that was left were some routes out of Miami, which ended up going to UA and AA (I think).
AA picked up EA's Latin American authorities, which originally belonged to Braniff. BN sold the authorities to EA in 1982, just hours before their bankruptcy filing.

UA picked up the majority of Pan Am's Latin authorities during PA's liquidation in early 1992. The LHR slots were acquired in late 1990, but service didn't start until May of 1991, due to the holdup by British authorities waiting to approve the deal. DL did pick up the Shuttle and trasatlantic operations.

[Edited 2010-04-17 14:14:50]


It's a Great Day for Hockey!
User currently offlineOzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5008 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6084 times:

Quoting atrude777 (Reply 1):


All ex TWA Employees w/ AA are gone now I believe with exception to some pilots? (Someone can correct me).

There are still some CSA's from TWA with AA in STL and the DFW res office. I know two of them personally, and there are others. Have no idea of the number though.



Next Up: STL-LGA-RIC-ATL-STL
User currently offlineaviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1351 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5693 times:

What killed TW? What killed PA?


Those are such gigantic questions. The demise of those carriers took place in slow motion over many years, for many different reasons.


PS



Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlinee38 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5533 times:

lxmd11, I have to agree with the answer provided to you by aivateur (Reply number 6): "Those are such gigantic questions."

A comprehensive answer to the question you asked would fill volumes. The reasons are fairly complex and involve many decisions and events that occurred over many years. My recommendation, rather than ask the question on this forum, would be for you to do some basic research. I'm not a huge fan of Wikipedia, but that may be a good place for you to start and may provide you with some additional references. You may also find basic history of Pan Am and TWA at rzjets.net.
My suggestion is to do a little research on your own, then come back to Airliners.net for clarifiation on specific events or circumstances. There is a wealth of knowledge from folks out here on A.net., particularly first-hand accounts.

[Edited 2010-04-17 19:32:15]

User currently offlineMacsog6 From Singapore, joined Jan 2010, 525 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5466 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

PA was killed off long before it ceased operations by a sense of entitlement that took root in the management of the company. An attitude was developed that they were too important to fail (sound familiar) and the company failed to adapt to changing buisness conditions and increased competition in a timely manner. They were a 1930's product flying 40 to 50 years later.

PA tried, far too late, to change matters, both in the executive offices and at the airfield, and still had a chance till Lockerbie. When that 747 went down, PA's last chance went down with her. If you have never been there, the memorial at Lockerbie is quite moving.

TW was merged into AA when they had lost their last chance of survival. They had been dismembered gradually, but TW800 was, in many ways, the functioanl equal of Lockerbie. TW simply has failed to adapt to the changing conditions and was unable to generate the needed revenue to stay in business.

Both carriers, once the stalwarts of American aviation in the international space, both failed to keep up with the changing world of modern aviation, had business models that were grounded in 1935 concepts, and failed to adjust to a new world that was hearlded by Freddie Laker.

And I miss them both - I still have my PanAm wings that were given to me as a child when I made one of my crossings on a Boeing 377. PA - and TW - were great airlines.



Sixty Plus Years of Flying! "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Saint Ex
User currently offlineFilAmAirlines From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5358 times:

According to wikipedia, TW's demise was credited to ignoring the Asian (sans Middle East) and Pacific market during its last 2 or 3 decades.
PA's acquiring/merging of National, like mentioned before, was a reason for its demise. PA was seeking for a better domestic presence and believed acquiring National would give PA such. However, National's routes concentrated excessively on Florida. I have seen ads regarding National Airlines' flights to Florida (Hence how PA acquired the MIA hub).
Of course what has happened to TW, PA, and its assets since:

UA only eliminated two destinations of PA's Pacific routes when UA purchased it [AKL and MNL :^( ]
The TW (later AA) hub in STL is a thing of the past
PA's hub at FRA is dismantled by DL (I don't know the story behind this)



FNT is the death knell for MBS and LAN because of WN's commitment
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15718 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5319 times:

Quoting FilAmAirlines (Reply 9):
TW's demise was credited to ignoring the Asian (sans Middle East) and Pacific market during its last 2 or 3 decades.

Well, that didn't help them any for sure, but other airlines have very sparse Asian route systems (CO, US and AA) and have done just fine. The advent of worldwide alliances help, but not even that could have saved TW in my opinion.

Quoting FilAmAirlines (Reply 9):
PA's acquiring/merging of National, like mentioned before, was a reason for its demise.

PA was just completely unprepared for deregulation and when they finally got a domestic route system via National, it was too little, too late, and at too high a price.

Quoting Macsog6 (Reply 8):
An attitude was developed that they were too important to fail (sound familiar) and the company failed to adapt to changing buisness conditions and increased competition in a timely manner.

Any notion of that should have died a quick death in 1982 with the failure of Braniff.

Quoting Macsog6 (Reply 8):
TW was merged into AA when they had lost their last chance of survival.

True, some people on these boards have said the TW may have had only days left when the merger was finalized.

Quoting Macsog6 (Reply 8):
And I miss them both - I still have my PanAm wings that were given to me as a child when I made one of my crossings on a Boeing 377. PA - and TW - were great airlines.

I've still got TWA wings around somewhere.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetonymctigue From Ireland, joined Feb 2006, 1944 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5179 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
PA was just completely unprepared for deregulation and when they finally got a domestic route system via National, it was too little, too late, and at too high a price.

From my understanding of it, PA relied heavily on regulation and lobbying the regulators to give themselves monopolies on many routes, particularly international routes. So much so that when eventually, when the deregulation did come, they suddenly found themselves up to their eyes in cheaper competition who as well also offered better domestic connections than PA. The Lockerbie bomb was the last nail in the coffin, but it probably only accelerated their demise by a few years.

I don't fully know the story behind TW but from reading what has been posted above, their demise is somewhat similar to PA in that their business model was based in the 1930's and refused to move with the times. I remember both TW and PA aircraft at SNN in the mid 1980's. SNN has never had the same charm it used to have back in those days. Such a variety of carriers, aircraft types and destinations.



Next Flights: 27/06/14 CX 178 MEL-HKG; 28/06/14 CX 830 HKG-JFK; 04/07/14 EI 134 BOS-SNN
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15718 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5138 times:

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 12):
From my understanding of it, PA relied heavily on regulation and lobbying the regulators to give themselves monopolies on many routes, particularly international routes.

In many ways that is true, but even during the regulation days PA's profitability was hit and miss at best as I understand it.

Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 12):
I don't fully know the story behind TW but from reading what has been posted above, their demise is somewhat similar to PA in that their business model was based in the 1930's and refused to move with the times.

TWA was in a much better shape going into deregulation than Pan Am, and in fact was possibly in the best position in terms of route system. Their problem was basically various forms of mismanagement over the next two decades, not the least of which was Carl Icahn's Karabu deal.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetrintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3225 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5089 times:

Many tomes have been written about the demise of Pan Am but in a nutshell, let's go. Basically PA was protected as the USA's premier international carrier and had route authorities throughout the world whereas other US carriers were granted only relatively limited rights. That said, PA was excluded from the US domestic market because its international ops would leave it in an excessively powerful position relative to the other airlines. Various comments about political influence and all that have also been made pertaining to PA and effectively it was an instrument of US foreign policy for many years.

When deregulation came in 1978 PA was left in a weak position. PA simply did not have any domestic network to feed its international flights - in the past it merely relied on the other US carriers to feed it, even if not explicitly. Now that AA, UA and others were able to expand overseas passengers who had loyally flown those airlines domestically over the years were now able to continue with them overseas (remember that domestic flying constitutes the majority of US aviation). PA in its haste to develop a domestic feed bought National after a bidding war but the inflated price it paid for a Flroida-skewed network which did little to feed its flights proved another financial disaster. Add to this the losses in the 70s after the oil crisis left it with a huge fleet of 747s flying empty (though to be fair to it the 747s were more fuel-efficient than the older 707s and at one point PA restructured its routes around the Jumbo, dropping some shorter sectors) and PA's state was frail, to say the least.

In the early 80's things stabilized a little and PA ordered a new fleet of Airbuses (A300, A310 and A320 - the A320s were never delivered). Losses however resurged later in that decade culminating in the Pacific Division sale to UA in 1985. Ultimately though it was the Lockerbie incident of 21 December 1988 which proved PA's final undoing. As tragic as that episode was with 270 lives lost (11 on the ground) PA was eternally symbolised as a target. While several attacks and hijackings had involved PA planes before, none was as large as Lockerbie.

PA's decline from then on was swift. In 1990 it sold its LHR rights to UA and the rest of its European network to DL the following year - its only remaining route across the pond being 2 daily MIA - LGW services. Its Latin American and Caribbean network remained quite strong though and it was this which was retained until the airline's final demise on 3 December 1991 after DL declined further cash injections. A BGI - MIA flight was the very last.

I do not know as much about TW but again the story seems similar with a pioneering airline unable to adapt to rapidly-changing circumstances and having a major tragedy to boot (TW 800 in 1996).

TrinToCan.



Hop to it, fly for life!
User currently offlinedeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9289 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5038 times:

Quoting FilAmAirlines (Reply 9):
PA's hub at FRA is dismantled by DL (I don't know the story behind this)

Thanks to the Boeing 767, growing demand from the US and codeshares.



yep.
User currently offlinedirectorguy From Egypt, joined exactly 6 years ago today! , 1651 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5005 times:

Pan Am's demise can be attributed to a number of factors:

-Buying so many 747s in 1966 or whenever they placed the initial order. This was at a time of high demand, but was far too much. By the time the jumbos were in service, there was increased competition, a recession and increased fuel costs which greatly reduced the profit margin.
-Deregulation. This meant that Pan Am would have to compete on a level-playing field, which it was not always 'tailored' to do.
-The National Airlines purchase. This came at a time when Pan Am could have invested in the right aircraft to build the right network but didn't (they wanted a 'ready-made' deal). Both corporate cultures were incompatible and there were union issues. National's route network was not a transcon one that would have fed the Pan Am hubs at either end, but rather, focused in the eastern US. I believe the high purchase price was as a result of a bidding war with Frank Lorenzo.
-Selling the InterContinental chain. This was a profitable division and one of the 'jewels' in the crown
-Selling the Pacific network to UA. The Pacific had been a Pan Am stronghold; selling it off deprived the airline of a presence in one of the world's most important markets.
-Selling the Pan Am building in NYC. This was a testament to how far management was willing to go to raise any cash.
-Pan Am 103. Although every single airline had accidents, this was highly symbolic of how Pan Am had 'fallen'


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8283 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4920 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting directorguy (Reply 15):
-Selling the InterContinental chain. This was a profitable division and one of the 'jewels' in the crown
-Selling the Pacific network to UA. The Pacific had been a Pan Am stronghold; selling it off deprived the airline of a presence in one of the world's most important markets.
-Selling the Pan Am building in NYC. This was a testament to how far management was willing to go to raise any cash.
-Pan Am 103. Although every single airline had accidents, this was highly symbolic of how Pan Am had 'fallen'

Intercontinental was sold to Grand Metropolitan plc of teh UK for lots of $$ in 1981. The Building in New York.
was sold to Met Life for a large sum of several hundred million dollars too.

Asia-Pacific was sold because Pan Am's 747-100 and 747SP were not very competitive against the newer full sized 747-200B's and 747-300 most Asian airlines had at the time. The SP's were not very profitable, very few were sold to Aian airlines. Pan Am did not have the money for a short haul fleet to feed LAX and SFO or newer full sized 747's to Asia. JAL never purchased any for NRT to JFK nonstop service waiting until 1983 for full sized 747-200B with Pratt 7R4G2 engines capable of 54,000 pounds of thrust each. The end of Pan AM was sad, onlyh if they had bought an airline with a midwest hub.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24858 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4635 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
Quoting tonymctigue (Reply 12):
From my understanding of it, PA relied heavily on regulation and lobbying the regulators to give themselves monopolies on many routes, particularly international routes.

In many ways that is true, but even during the regulation days PA's profitability was hit and miss at best as I understand it.

Their safety record was also hit-and-miss. Counting only jets, they wrote off 17 for all reasons (including terrorism) in 25 years (1963-88), including 5 fatal 707 accidents in 9 months in 1973-74. Their jet hull losses included 4 747s, 11 707s and 2 727s.


User currently offlineTWA902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4585 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
I've still got TWA wings around somewhere.

Me too! Got them when i was 10... July 1997... on TWA #902 (my namesake) flying JFK-BCN on a 747-100...

'902



life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineaa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3347 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4567 times:

Quoting directorguy (Reply 15):
-Selling the Pan Am building in NYC. This was a testament to how far management was willing to go to raise any cash.

This definitely did not contribute to its demise. It probably should have been done earlier. Financially ailing companies shouldn't have expensive headquarters in one of the most expensive cities in the world. It was kept as a symbol, not because it was needed.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5176 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4494 times:

One of the things that struck me was that as more routes to Europe opened, PA would regularly lose out to the domestic carrier with the greatest number of flights.

When the U.S. and the U.K. agreed to flights, say between London and CVG, PA and DL both tried to get the route. PA cited its many years of carrying passengers across the Atlantic, while DL simply forecast the number of passengers it could carry because of its CVG hub. So, the route went to DL.

This happened repeatedly.

Granted, PA needed a domestic network badly. After deregulation, however, it seemed that regulators would never give PA a break. I know people that have flown the likes of NW, AA, DL, and UA across the Atlantic in the late 80s and early 90s and felt that PA had better in-flight service. Whereas the domestic carriers had only competed against each other and were trying to create a trans-Atlantic produce, PA had already competed against BA, AF, LH, and the other European carriers.

So, while lacking a domestic system to feed passengers for its international flights, PA was also losing international passengers to the domestic carriers, as they built their overseas routes.

As for TWA, the STL hub wasn't a great hub, in that it didn't generate the kind of O&D traffic that hubs like DFW, ORD, ATL, and CLT do. By virtue of being a 1 hub carrier, any severe weather affecting STL caused problems for the entire airline. If DTW had a problem, NW could reroute connections through MSP. AA had ORD and DFW. And so on.

Finally, after the bankruptcy that stripped Carl Icahn of control of the carrier (which was caused by his poor management) he got the right to sell tickets through his on-line travel agency for very low costs. So, TWA wasn't generating the revenue that other carriers were, because so many tickets were being sold below TWA's cost structure.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8283 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4370 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While it seems with deregulation every time a "domestic" airline wanted a flight to London, Paris or Frankfurt it was given to them. AA, DL, NW and all teh rest got flights from their hubs.

Pan AM had 747 to LHR from seven USA cities by 1981. IAD, JFK, Miami, LAX, SFO, SEA and Detroit were all PA cities to LHR. One had up to 3 flights daily, JFK being the hub for Pan AM.


User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2072 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4285 times:

So to go back to deregulation, and with a cleam sheet, who would have been a good domestic partner for PA? I'm intrigued that they went for National in a bidding war. Was there nobody on the domestic scene who saw PA as an opportunity, or was it that the major domestic carriers didn't want to touch PA preferring organic international growth?

TWA did have its 10 767-200s that it upgraded to ER capability, plus the two ex-Braathans examples. But 12 was never really enough to exploit the opportunities across the Atlantic. I guess it never had as many 747-100s as PA, but it still had a lot.

Also, another angle to take on this question might be to ask what NW did right to survive as it did that PA and TW did not? PA was the global American carrier, with TW the main European competitor, NW the Pacific one. Yet NW was able to hold its own against PA (and later UA) in a way that TW could not. I guess regulation/late market fragmentation helped, but even so it can't have been the only factor.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2991 posts, RR: 37
Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4253 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 22):
who would have been a good domestic partner for PA? I'm intrigued that they went for National in a bidding war. Was there nobody on the domestic scene who saw PA as an opportunity, or was it that the major domestic carriers didn't want to touch PA preferring organic international growth

National should of be left to Lorenzo... if it had PA had several other options:

Eastern: big east coast presence, good match on hubs, fleet not an issue, and it would of been a much bigger pie for about the same price as National ended up at. However the union cultures probably would of clashes heavily, i don't think management would of been too bad in that respect.

Air Florida: good feed to Latin American hub at MIA... probably would of been a cheap purchase, no unions to speak of.

Braniff Mk 2: again cheap, midwest hubs, small (maybe as one of several takeovers)

Piedmont: decent sized airline, good routes network that could of been adjusted into the PA hubs a bit... probably too expensive though.

Allegheny/USAir: same as above, and not as good of a network outside the NE.

Republic: Not the best feed but a good sized airline with lots of options in the SE and West coast. again with union and management issues, no long haul so no problems there.

Western: major west coat presence, but nothing east.

Delta: If Delta had wanted to, they could of bought Pan Am instead of Western. Might of been the best option.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlinesurfandsnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2853 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4227 times:

Pan Am was THE U.S. airline during the '50s and '60s, but by the mid-70s it had entered a decline from which it would never recover, and by the late 80's it was almost unrecognizable from its former iconic self. The same happened for TWA, albeit 10 years later - TWA really rose to prominence in the late 70s as Pan Am faltered, but it began to fail in the late 80s under Icahn and by the 90s it too had become a disgraceful shell of its former self. The legacies of these two airlines live on in the 3 most prominent U.S. long haul carriers today - UA, AA, and DL. UA's massive transpacific network and large LHR operation can be traced directly back to PA, while DL's massive transpacific network, strong presence in Germany, and JFK hub can also be attributed to the airline. AA got its LHR slots from TWA, and then later absorbed the entire airline some 10 years later.


Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
25 Viscount724 : NW had a domestic feeder network, and many of their domestic routes in the days before domestic deregulation had very little competition. For eample,
26 WA707atMSP : Pan Am came close to merging with TWA twice - in 1961 and again in 1974. In 1961, TWA was in serious trouble because of delays in acquiring jets; TWA
27 SEPilot : This does come close, but the real reason for Pan Am's demise must include Juan Trippe. He was the one who built Pan Am, and he did it, not by buildi
28 jfk777 : NW held its own in Asia for several reasons, the were largely profitable being teh main reason. Pan Am lost money evry fall, winter and spring. NW wa
29 BMI727 : Like I said before that didn't help TWA, but many airlines then and now have done alright without a Pacific network, and the addition of a large Paci
30 Blueman87 : American and Flight 800 to
31 Tango-Bravo : True at least in part because PA viewed themselves as a national flag carrier and therefore, like their counterparts (in Europe, perhaps elsewhere),
32 Viscount724 : Braniff and America West had the same problem as TWA -- no rights to Tokyo. There wasn't enough traffic (and very little high yield business traffic)
33 WA707atMSP : As we've discussed on past threads, the main reason NW survived was because it was run so frugally. Northwest's headquarters for many years had no wi
34 BMI727 : While they did not have Tokyo, Braniff's Pacific route system was quite large briefly, including Seoul and Singapore at one point before the collapse
35 b737100 : There is a great book that I think covers the rise and fall of Pan American very well, titled "Skygods". I recommend it. Also, in the same vein "A spl
36 surfandsnow : This is still very much the case today. Until quite recently, NRT was the only reliably served Asian destination for both AA and (pre-merger) DL. US
37 Viscount724 : Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore and Guam. Not that big. And the only reason they served those points is because they were the only Asian points then with
38 DETA737 : The main reason for TWA's demise is unquestionably Carl Icahn. He sucked what money he could out of TWA as its CEO between 1985-1993 and then saddled
39 Post contains images KFlyer : IMHO, amongst a number of wide ranging factors, the key factor as many had earlier mentioned was inability to adapt to the new age. The Lockerbie and
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's The Status Of ORD And SPI? posted Wed Jan 28 2009 11:28:58 by Khobar
The Subject Of Age And Work Again... posted Sun May 27 2007 03:53:48 by LASOctoberB6
The Demise Of L-1011 EI-CNN posted Tue Aug 22 2006 19:45:58 by A40-TY
Did The MD-11 Cause The Demise Of MDD? posted Wed May 17 2006 07:41:29 by TWAtwaTWA
Websites About The History Of Swissair And Sabena posted Fri Apr 7 2006 06:49:34 by BA
The End Of NW And The Beginning Of........... posted Thu Mar 2 2006 02:32:04 by Nwafflyer
Sad To See The Demise Of The 737 At LHR posted Mon Nov 28 2005 19:48:33 by Bigpappa
The Demise Of Air Zimbabwe posted Thu Jul 21 2005 17:18:37 by Omoo
The Nerv Of PAX W/R And N Class Tkts posted Fri Dec 3 2004 05:01:47 by Eyesinthesky
The Demise Of US Carriers posted Fri Oct 22 2004 03:40:07 by Daddad525