Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pan Am/National.... What Went Wrong?  
User currently online727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6637 posts, RR: 21
Posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8513 times:

PAN AM GOES NATIONAL
Remember this slogan? Sounds all nice and cozy didn't it? Like a marriage made in heavan.   

Growing up in Florida, Eastern and National were the 2 carriers I grew up with. I was very sad to see National swallowed up by Pan Am. But what was even worse, is it seems to have been a big waste. Pan Am almost immediately started reducing National schedule and tearing down it's routes. Why was this? I thought National, despite having a labor strike every 2 months or so (exaggeration! ), I thought they were profitable. If anyone has a NA timetable from summer of '79 and a Pan Am timetable from summer '81, you can see a great reduction of flights already. September 6, 1983 was the last day of service at my home airport of SRQ. I was devastated!   The last 3 ships into SRQ were Clipper Templer, Clipper Undaunted and Clipper Surprise, which did a fly-by as the employees waved.I think FLL got the boot that day also. NA had been serving SRQ since the 1930s and PA left after only 3 years!


So anway, what went wrong with this merger? I thought the purpose was to give Pan Am a domestic feed, but what was the point if you tear down all that feed? Also, can somone explain the 3-waybidding war for National. And who was the CEO of PA then, Acker?

Also, why did President Carter have to sign off on the merger? Or was that the way it was done back then?


Another question:

Before the merger, Pan Am timetables had the 24 hour clock, but afterward they went to the 12 hour clock, why was this?



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George W. Hamlin




I feel woozy....what did you put in that Pudding Pop?
56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNADC10Fan From United States of America, joined May 2005, 165 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8446 times:

Others will be able to explain it more detail ... but here's my knowledge of it, as someone whose father worked at National from 1966 until the merger (and then with Pan Am until the bitter end).

You're correct that National was essentially profitable despite the proliferation of strikes that hit it. Had to do with the Maytag family, and its ability to whether such storms ... or so my father told me, and I presume that was the official union line. I guess this made it attractive for a hostile takeover (others could probably say better), and that came at the hands of Frank Lorenzo - he of Texas Air fame, who did eventually get his hands on Eastern (with results we all know). To avoid falling under Lorenzo, National wooed Pan Am.

That never seemed to go well. Unless I'm mistaken, Pan Am was already under some financial pressure, although not at that time terminal. (That wouldn't come until ... I want to say '85 real cracks started to show, and in '88 the Lockerbie bombing and fallout afterward really hammered it. I'll let others detail that better. Russell Ray, Jr. was CEO at that time; following Thomas Plaskett, who followed Acker. I think the Wikipedia entry on Pan Am discusses that pretty well, too.) There was also a HUGE clash of corporate culture between Pan Am (with a New York mentality) and the former National group, leading to a great deal of ill-will between the two; it was thought to have been handled about as poorly as it could have been ... and led to a great deal of irony when, in '91 (just before the final fall), Pan Am was forced to sell off its corporate HQ (and its iconic building) and leave NY for its original home back in MIA.

Like you said, they did dismantle portions of National network, but I always thought that was because there was a bit of inefficiency in those particular legs - in our two instances, why FLL when you had MIA? and why SRQ when you had TPA? - but I think most of it got kept where there was not nearby duplication of effort.

As far as President Carter having to sign off ... I'm not certain, but if I had to guess this had to do with the Airline Deregulation Act. I never really understood; I only knew that limited PanAm in a way that didn't the others (stupid kid I was, at the time) - and the merger (actually, let's be honest, buyout) with National was sold as a gamechanger for Pan Am because it finally gave them that (instead of having to rely on the traditional domestics to help feed their network). Again, however, net, that wasn't good for Pan Am (again, the Wikipedia entry talks about it pretty well, I think).

I'll be very interested to see what others have to add.



TANSTAAFL!
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8517 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8410 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NADC10Fan (Reply 1):
You're correct that National was essentially profitable despite the proliferation of strikes that hit it. Had to do with the Maytag family, and its ability to whether such storms ... or so my father told me, and I presume that was the official union line. I guess this made it attractive for a hostile takeover (others could probably say better), and that came at the hands of Frank Lorenzo - he of Texas Air fame, who did eventually get his hands on Eastern (with results we all know). To avoid falling under Lorenzo, National wooed Pan Am.

When Pan AM and Frank Lorenzo were fighting for National the stock traded at $16/share, when PA merged they paid $50/share. Frank Lorenzo was fairly small at the time, he took his profits and ran. PA over paid for a fleet of old 40 727's and 15 Dc-10's. PA should have taken over an east-west airline feed its Pacific routes, the UA or AA of teh day would have done that very nicely. National was primarily an east coast airline to Florida, Miami was never the center of PA that JFK was.


User currently offlineUnitedTristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8332 times:

Well, as many horror stories of the day, it all started in DC with a bill that would essentially deregulate the airline industry, the bill had two parts, one would allow the domestic carriers to build international route networks (beyond their limited current service) and the other would allow Pan Am to fly domestically. With the relative strength of the domestic trunk carriers, they could afford the lobbyist to pass provision one and indefeniatlly stall the second part. Pan Am, still suffering from the finical impact of the fuel crisis (which hit Pan Am more then most) and the spending of Trippe on the 747 was hard pressed to compete! They desperately needed domestic feed, they ended up being pushed into a bidding war with Lorenzo and Texas Air making the final purchase price too large for the frail carrier to handle on their own. Soon after the merger closed DC passed the second part of the deregulation act, PA could have built it's own network, better suited to it's needs. Pan Am was slowly fading. National's feed and business model didn't suit Pan Am very well at all and it showed, very quickly routes started to fail due to PAs higher cost structure, plus the feed was north south, which as mentioned above was wrong for PAs network. At the end of the day, the merger just provided a further drain to PAs pocket book, in an act of desperation, PA sold UA it's entire pacific division for a song to get capital to operate. Pan am went on for a few more years when they finally decided to retrench and go back to their roots of South America, to gain the necessary capital, PA and DL worked out a deal where DL would buy PAs Atlantic division and provide PA financing to convert back to South America only operation. Sadly DL decided after it bought the PA routes that the new PAs finicial plan was not viable and pulled all funding forcing PA into chapter 7.

A bit more then you asked for but it was necessary to tell the story!

-m

  


User currently offlineWA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2264 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8114 times:

When Pan Am took over National, National's labor costs were much lower than Pan Am's (thanks to previous National management's willingness to take lengthy strikes rather than give in to labor's demands). National's work rules were much less restrictive, too. When the two airlines merged, Pan Am was forced to bring National's employees up to PA's wage rates / work rules. For example, one of Pan Am's work rules required pilots to go off duty whenever they arrived in New York. This was fine if a pilot had just flown a 747 in from Europe, but it wasn't fine if a pilot had just flown a 727 in from TPA.

Operating National's routes at Pan Am's higher labor rates immediately rendered much of National's previously profitable route system unprofitable. The profitability of the ex-National routes were further eroded when low fare airlines like Air Florida, with costs lower than even pre-merger National, began flying from the Northeast to Florida, and the 1979-83 recession reduced demand for air travel in general, forcing airlines to discount their fares to fill up otherwise empty seats.



Seaholm Maples are #1!
User currently offlineBostonBeau From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 465 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7919 times:

I remember the repeated strikes at National. National was used a lot by tour companies to get people in Boston to JFK for European package-tour flights. Supposedly because of the mutual-aid pact that existed among airlines back then, National made as much (if not more) money when the employees were on strike than when they were flying...hehehe.

Pan Am drastically overpaid for National. Pan Am wanted the right to fly domestic routes between their gateways, and many airlines did not believe deregulation would last, so Pan Am thought it was better to buy an existing domestic carrier rather than trying to start up their own domestic routes (and then have them frozen if deregulation ended). Pan Am did drop a lot of traditional National routes, and put the planes on routes that fed their international hubs. Pan Am operated a lot of one-flight-a-day routes between JFK and interior cities, timed to feed the JFK hub.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8517 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7655 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BostonBeau (Reply 5):
Pan Am operated a lot of one-flight-a-day routes between JFK and interior cities, timed to feed the JFK hub.

Pan AM cared only about international flights, domestic was an inconvenience.


User currently offlineTan Flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1920 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7646 times:

Quoting NADC10Fan (Reply 1):
As far as President Carter having to sign off ... I'm not certain, but if I had to guess this had to do with the Airline Deregulation Act.

This merger was BEFORE the Airline Deregulation act was signed. In those days the President had teh power to approve or no any merger once DOJ / DOT were done with thier "findings" in the case. I believe the same "rule" applied to route awards prior to the Deregulation Act. Many were not approved and other carriers "awarded" routes they may not have even really sought. Seems that I read that LBJ and Nixon both "awarded" routes to carriers that made no sense, or marginal economic sense in many cases as "prizes" to certain Senators or lobbyists.


User currently offlineWA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2264 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7569 times:

Quoting Tan Flyr (Reply 7):
Quoting NADC10Fan (Reply 1):
As far as President Carter having to sign off ... I'm not certain, but if I had to guess this had to do with the Airline Deregulation Act.

This merger was BEFORE the Airline Deregulation act was signed. In those days the President had teh power to approve or no any merger once DOJ / DOT were done with thier "findings" in the case. I believe the same "rule" applied to route awards prior to the Deregulation Act. Many were not approved and other carriers "awarded" routes they may not have even really sought. Seems that I read that LBJ and Nixon both "awarded" routes to carriers that made no sense, or marginal economic sense in many cases as "prizes" to certain Senators or lobbyists.

Before deregulation, the Civil Aeronautics Board approved / disproved mergers, not DOJ or DOT. The Justice Department could make "recommendations" about mergers, but these recommendations were not legally binding on the CAB.

The President's only legal authority regarding mergers was if one or both carriers had international routes. So, for example, the President would not have any legal influence on a merger involving two purely domestic airlines.

Likewise, the President had no legal authority over route awards within the United States - only route awards outside the USA.



Seaholm Maples are #1!
User currently offlineisitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7526 times:

[quote=727LOVER,reply=0]Also, why did President Carter have to sign off on the merger? Or was that the way it was done back then?

WA707 has it.
If I remember right, if international routes were involved by one or either carrier, the president had to sign the document approving an airline merger.
safe

[Edited 2011-07-25 13:44:21]


If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2012 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7386 times:

What made for the sale of National originally was the value of used aircraft. National's fleet was entirely made up of DC-10's and 727's, mostly 727-235's. At the time, especially after the Iranian Revolution oil price shock, these aircraft were in high demand. (747's were considered "too big" by most carriers), and 727's were wanted to replace 707's and DC-8's in domestic carriers fleets. If you do a google news search, I am sure you can find articles that will tell you that the so called value of National's fleet far exceeded the stock price, and that is what led to a bidding war by Frank Lorenzo, Eastern and Pan Am. Pan Am, like the winners in many auctions, paid too much, and while they wanted a domestic route system to feed their international hubs, National, before deregulation, flew only from BOS to MIA via NYC, PHL, BAL, WAS, PHF, ORF, CHS, JAX, DAB, MLB, PBI, and FLL; up the west coast of Florida MIA-FMY-SRQ-TPA, across central Florida DAB-MCO-TPA, and from Florida to California via Panama City, PNS, MOB, MSY, and IAH. Not great feed for Pan Am's MIA Latin America Hub, the Pacific routes from the West Coast, or the JFK Trans Atlantic Hub. Then the US suffered a bad recession and ever increasing interest rates in late 1979-1982, and again their timing was horrible, plus with deregulation, they could have built their own domestic system or acquired an airline with a better route structure. National also had a route from SFO to ATL, that had no feed whatsoever, and they didn't operate it for very long.

User currently offlineTan Flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1920 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7258 times:

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 8):
Before deregulation, the Civil Aeronautics Board approved / disproved mergers, not DOJ or DOT. The Justice Department could make "recommendations" about mergers, but these recommendations were not legally binding on the CAB.

WA, you are correct..I forgot to add that the DOJ would send the "findings" or recommendations over to the CAB.

Thanks for clarifing for everyone!!


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7258 times:

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
Before the merger, Pan Am timetables had the 24 hour clock, but afterward they went to the 12 hour clock, why was this?


Because it switch from an predominantly international carrier to a predominately domestic carrier!


User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7236 times:

I have a Pan Am timetable from mid 1984 and by that time, there wasn't much left of the former National system. Mind you the SFO Pacific hub was still intact, but some of the domestic feed from the former NA system was gone or greatly reduced. I can tell you at that time there was still a MSY-IAH-SFO on a 727...flight 811, which changed equip in SFO to a 747 to NRT I believe. From '81-'83 you still saw routes like MSY-LAS/LAX/SFO/TPA/MCO, IAH-LAX/LAS/MCO/TPA, etc. I seem to recall MOB, PNS, PFN getting the can not long after PA took over. National was very popular in MSY (I've worked with several ex-NA folks who ended up at PA only to be let go in '84 when PA closed the former NA call center there) and of course in IAH where they had a large operation.

[Edited 2011-07-25 16:44:45]

User currently offlinesunking737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2058 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7207 times:

The Airline Deregulation Act was signed in like 1978. The merger between PA/NA was in 1986? the NC/SO into RC was 1979 RC/RW was 1980. IIRC NWA wanted RC because of the UA purchase of PA Pacific div. and they (NWA) wanted more domestic feed for Int'l routes.


Just an MSPAVGEEK
User currently online727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6637 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6998 times:

Quoting sunking737 (Reply 14):

PA/NA was 1980

And I'm pretty sute PFN was gone before then along with DAB and TLH



I feel woozy....what did you put in that Pudding Pop?
User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1159 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6882 times:

PFN, DAB and TLH were dropped in1978.

National is my favorite of the original major airlines. They were the first to fly jets (707) domestically. It was the next to the smallest major - Northeast was last.

It had a unusual route structure; one part functioned as a Florida local service airline using 727s on very short routings like JAX-DAB-MCO-TPA-SRQ-FMY-MIA. The Northeast and Eastern Seaboard was also well-served from Florida. From 1961 Florida was finally connected to the West Coast by non-stops and service from MSY and IAH. The only city ever served away from the coastline (except LAS) was ATL-SFO and it only lasted a few years. Finally, in 1970 National was awarded MIA-LHR, only the third U.S.airline to fly trans-atlantic. More international was added to Paris, Frankfurt and Zurich in the late '70s.

With deregulation, NAL dropped some of the smaller cities and began to build up IAH as a connecting hub, which probably attracted Lorenzo's interest in the first place. With TXI DC-9s connecting with the DC-10s and 727s at IAH, NAL could have began to achieve the mass to survive in the new airline world. The Pan Am merger was doomed from the start, since NAL didn't have the feed from anywhere except Florida and New York, basically. A sad ending for two great airlines....


User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2012 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6859 times:

Here is a link to a Time Magazine article about the purchase and what a great deal it was because of the value of the aircraft. It doesn't go into the specifics but does mention that National had a fleet of 55 aircraft and little or no debt.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912124,00.html


User currently online727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6637 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6849 times:

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 16):

AMS also.



I feel woozy....what did you put in that Pudding Pop?
User currently offlineNADC10Fan From United States of America, joined May 2005, 165 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6680 times:

Quoting BostonBeau (Reply 5):

I remember the repeated strikes at National. National was used a lot by tour companies to get people in Boston to JFK for European package-tour flights. Supposedly because of the mutual-aid pact that existed among airlines back then, National made as much (if not more) money when the employees were on strike than when they were flying...hehehe.

Was talking to my father about this last night ... I guess it was a point of humor amongst him and his fellow mechanics to call National "Cobra Airlines" - strike at any time for any reason. But that was the essence, management didn't care because they made money back in the day whether they were flying or not.

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 16):
National is my favorite of the original major airlines. They were the first to fly jets (707) domestically. It was the next to the smallest major - Northeast was last.

That 707 was borrowed (ironically) from Pan Am. No 707's in National's fleet. Pretty much every type of DC-8 (which was why they had to borrow the PA 707; the -8 was late ... or, at least, later than the 707!), the DC-10 of course, and the 727 and (2) 747s (which I used to crawl around on, as a stupid kid!).

@ Tan & WA707 - Cheers, gents, for the correction!



TANSTAAFL!
User currently offlinedirectorguy From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1708 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6647 times:

Fascinating thread.
What surprises me the most is PA's reckoning that National would be an ideal fit to feet its international gateways. Didn't they see the obvious-that National's north-south network wouldn't do much to feed JFK/LAX (and MIA, I guess)? Also,regarding PA over-paying National-didn't it occur to anyone at PA to simply invest in its own domestic division instead of buying so many 727s? As to the incompatibilities between both airlines-didn't it occur to PA to 'tweak' its corporate culture/labor structure to accommodate National (or vice versa)? In principal PA was right about acquiring a domestic carrier (or division) but they did so under the worst conditions possible.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8517 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6602 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting directorguy (Reply 20):
Fascinating thread.
What surprises me the most is PA's reckoning that National would be an ideal fit to feet its international gateways. Didn't they see the obvious-that National's north-south network wouldn't do much to feed JFK/LAX (and MIA, I guess)? Also,regarding PA over-paying National-didn't it occur to anyone at PA to simply invest in its own domestic division instead of buying so many 727s? As to the incompatibilities between both airlines-didn't it occur to PA to 'tweak' its corporate culture/labor structure to accommodate National (or vice versa)? In principal PA was right about acquiring a domestic carrier (or division) but they did so under the worst conditions

Pan AM was a heavily unionized airline, even the secrateries were teamsters. National employees were given a raise to PA levels, to ask PA employees to take a pay cut would be unthinkable as PA was buying National.


User currently offlineUnitedTristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6568 times:

Quoting directorguy (Reply 20):
Also,regarding PA over-paying National-didn't it occur to anyone at PA to simply invest in its own domestic division instead of buying so many 727s?

The problem was that the second part of the deregulation act allowing PA to operate domestic was not passed until after the merger closed, see my original post.

Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 3):
it all started in DC with a bill that would essentially deregulate the airline industry, the bill had two parts, one would allow the domestic carriers to build international route networks (beyond their limited current service) and the other would allow Pan Am to fly domestically. With the relative strength of the domestic trunk carriers, they could afford the lobbyist to pass provision one and indefeniatlly stall the second part. Pan Am, still suffering from the finical impact of the fuel crisis (which hit Pan Am more then most) and the spending of Trippe on the 747 was hard pressed to compete! They desperately needed domestic feed, they ended up being pushed into a bidding war with Lorenzo and Texas Air making the final purchase price too large for the frail carrier to handle on their own. Soon after the merger closed DC passed the second part of the deregulation act, PA could have built it's own network, better suited to it's needs. Pan Am was slowly fading. National's feed and business model didn't suit Pan Am very well at all and it showed, very quickly routes started to fail due to PAs higher cost structure, plus the feed was north south, which as mentioned above was wrong for PAs network. At the end of the day, the merger just provided a further drain to PAs pocket book,

-m

  


User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1159 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days ago) and read 6401 times:

Quoting NADC10Fan (Reply 19):
That 707 was borrowed (ironically) from Pan Am. No 707's in National's fleet

Guess I should have gone into more detail. George T. Baker was always looking for ways to one up his main rival, Eddie Rickenbacker's Eastern Airlines. He entered into a stock swap with Juan Trippe at Pan Am (which even then wanted domestic routes) and one of the agreements was National would lease two PAA 707s during the winter high months. They would perform a MIA turn from IDL during the day after a Europe arrival. National pilots and flight attendants flew the aircraft and it was entirely dispatched and marketed as a National flight. The first trip was on December 10, 1958 and the history books show National to be the first to fly a jetliner on U.S. domestic service. The lease agreement lasted until 1960, and for a time NALs own DC-8s were operated side by side with the 707s.


User currently online727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6637 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days ago) and read 6369 times:

These 707s were not in NA colors, correct? What was first airline to fly jets on domestic routes in own colors?


I feel woozy....what did you put in that Pudding Pop?
25 WA707atMSP : AA, on 25 Jan 1959, LAX-IDL
26 TOMMY767 : I was just on wiki and something I didn't know was that PAA's most profitable quarter ever was Q3 in 1988, right before Lockerbie. Reminds me a bit of
27 ericaasen : Who should PA have bought then? Was there any one airline at that time that had the feed PA needed?
28 WesternA318 : When Pan Am bought National, it was William Seawell at the helm, and a month after the merger,he was so angry that the merger was taking so long he o
29 727LOVER : Not sure I follow. Wouldn't stuff be painted in PA colors anyway?.......
30 WesternA318 : At first the initial plan was to operate National as a stand-alone company, but Seawell denied that. The planes and equipment would have eventually b
31 maxpower1954 : Yes, that's right. Full Pan Am titles and colors. Very similiar to the interchange services during regulation, example - MIA-TPA-MSY-DAL-LAX, which w
32 LTBEWR : The first problem was the history of PanAm where it was severely limited in operating flights within the USA after WWII, only really served outside th
33 727LOVER : Nationals 2 747s were sold to Northwest in 1976.National did operate them on MIA-LHR. NA never flew JFK-LHR.
34 jfk777 : The 2 National 747 were replaced by DC-10-30 which were a better size for MIA to LHR in the early 1970's. National did fly one European route from JF
35 WesternA318 : This was the only way Pan Am and TWA (sadly) could fill up the cavernous cabins in their dilapidated 747 fleet. While BA and other TATL airlines coul
36 727LOVER : That's correct, but you never know what the future held. That aircraft had to arrive at IAB correct? Seems I remeber TPA-AMS.....but I'm not sure.
37 jfk777 : The National AMS to JFK flight did arrive the IAB as their Terminal, T6, did not have an FIS station.
38 bdl2stl2pvg : I also believe that there was a tremendous amount of dissent between the two pilot groups. IIRC, the two pilot groups had a Federal mediation and the
39 maxpower1954 : Sounds like America West/US Airways! National did fly non-stop DC-10s between TPA-AMS in 1979, Monday and Wenesday only.
40 DesertAir : In retrospect, PanAm and National should have formed an alliance like the Northwest/KLM one that seemed to be successful. National could have provided
41 jfk777 : Alliance and code-shares as we know them today did not exist back in 1980.
42 NorthStarDC4M : If PanAm hadn't bought National, Lorenzo would of, he already held a good chunk of the stock before PanAm started snapping up shares.
43 OzarkD9S : At the time no one airline would have have been the perfect fit for PA. TW, NW, BN and CO had overlapping international networks, AA and UA were too
44 WA707atMSP : In 1973, Pan Am and Allegheny signed what would today be known as an alliance. Allegheny moved their JFK operation into the original (1959 / 1960) por
45 bjorn14 : This may have been already mentioned but IMHO it was going to be difficult to combine a low-frequency long haul airline with a high-frequency, short h
46 Post contains images NorthStarDC4M : It is interesting to look at what might of happend had National not been taken by PanAm: So Lorenzo gets National, merges it with CO, CO now has hubs
47 Post contains links and images RogerThat : I was wondering why this Tw'otter was docked at Worldport. View Large View MediumPhoto © Howard Chaloner
48 Post contains images kiwiandrew : Oh dear, so many might've beens ( or, as seems to be the way on this site , "might of beens" ). Grammar aside, you have certainly laid out a very int
49 727LOVER : Weren't Continental & National supposed to merge years earlier? Did Pan Am have an actual offer on the table for Northwest in 1989?
50 maxpower1954 : Yes, in 1961. It fell apart over a disagreement over who would be the survivng carrier; Bob Six insisted CO would take over National, even though NA
51 kiwiandrew : Thanks, I never knew about that. It is fascinating to ponder what might have been the consequences for the whole industry over time if just a single
52 727LOVER : Well that wasn't the only one. There was American and Eastern Northwest and Northeast......ironically both in Delta
53 WALmsp : IIRC, Bob Six pulled out of a merger with Western Airlines because Continental lost the coin flip as to whose name would go first.
54 thomasphoto60 : Bob Six, where are ya when we need ya?
55 jfk777 : YES, Pan AM with an additional investment from private equity was going to buy Northwest Orient. Another group backed by Al Checci did an LBO of NW w
56 Post contains links milesrich : Western-Continental Merger Proposal Years Ago? (by Tom in NO May 6 2003 in Civil Aviation) Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 50): Yes, in 1961. It fell apar
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...
FlyBE - What Went Wrong At Norwich? posted Sun Feb 17 2008 04:21:46 by Gilesdavies
What Went Wrong With Delta's MD-90s? posted Tue Sep 26 2006 19:22:02 by 1337Delta764
What Went Wrong With The Unducted Fan Engine? posted Mon Jan 16 2006 22:24:47 by 1337Delta764
What Went Wrong (video) posted Mon Jan 16 2006 02:42:48 by Fubar37
What Went Wrong With MD-11 posted Sat Jan 7 2006 19:56:07 by FlyDreamliner
Pan Am-TWA (What Happened?) posted Wed Dec 7 2005 21:58:21 by GREATANSETT
Pan Am/National Terminal In TPA posted Fri Dec 2 2005 22:17:21 by MSYtristar
Pan Am Today, A What If Thread posted Thu Jun 23 2005 21:01:23 by MKEdude
Pan Am-National Merger And Miami posted Sun Nov 7 2004 16:45:45 by Kkfla737
What Went Wrong With The Engine Markings? posted Mon May 31 2004 04:26:37 by Arcano