Penguinflies From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 992 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2109 times:
people don't know how much money they acutally have. Since they are not public they don't discuss financials. So people say...well they are flying to a airport in Illinois called St. Louis, an airport in Indiana they call Chicago and a airport in New Hampshire called Boston. They think that will never work. Oh well.
They are owned by a transportation company worth Billions by the way. The business plan is on schedule (so the airline says) and some of the flights are popular.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2061 times:
I'm sorry but flying a Boeing 727 from Bangor Maine to Portsmouth New Hampsire as a regularly scheduled daily flight simply doesnt make financial sense.
I've been there. Bangor is a market that should see one or two Beech 1900s a day. Tops.
Pan Am is trying to get the most out of their schedule with too few of the wrong kind of airplanes. Their concept...serving underutilised airports...is not a bad one, but people will put up with crowded hubs and a few more bucks on their ticket price if they can be assured that their plane hasnt been rerouted to pick up a more profitable group of passengers.
I'd dump the 727s as soon as I could find the proper financing for RJ leases(I was really hoping Pan Am would snatch up favorable leases on many of the strike-crippled Comair jets that had to be pawned off). An empty seat on an RJ is far more forgiving financially than on a 25 year old 727. I'd stop playing musical airplanes and try to make money on my fixed routes before I go adding new ones.
Don't get me wrong...I'd like to see the Pan Am logo return as a regular and respected visitor to dozens of airports. I just hope this latest incarnation is some rich guy thinking he can play airline as a hobby.
Milemaster From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1083 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (13 years 8 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2004 times:
I agree, the 727 is makes little sense for the routes they fly... but I suppose they have their reasons if they continue to do so. If they flew 56 seat RJ's to DAL at one of Legend's old gates from Bangor, I bet they could fill some seats and make some $$$. I agree the 1st class service on 56 seat aircraft is not a profitable one... But a 56 seat RJ to key markets would do well IMHO.
VirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (13 years 8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1989 times:
I think PA should stop flying the ST Louis and Gary route and just stick to the PSM, SJU, Sanford and Allentown PA. I have a friend living in Allentown and she says their making a killing. A few moths ago on an emergency landing the 727 that was doing a St Louis-Gary ony had 30 people incuding FAs and pilots!!! This plane was configure to carry over 150!!! They need to get out of the midwest right away because they've only got 1 route to Gary from Mid America. This is according to flypanam.com The PSM-Gary died along with the Gary-Sanford route. It looks to me that PA 3 is making a killing on the routes out of Allentown-PSM and Allentown-Sanford.
I also see that Cahters are making them more $$$ than schelduled flights. What they need to do is focus on destinations of PSM, Allentown, Orlando, SJU and continue making Sanford into their second hub. I also think they should focus on airports alternative to ATL and have routes from Atlanta to Orlando and have it connected to SJU. I think PAs decision to go to MIA could be a big mistake since it is AA's territory and going after them could be suicide so It think they should find and airport alternative to MIA like they did when finding an airport alternative to MCO. The result is that they are doing well at SFD. T think they also need to expand in the Carribbean and experiment with vacation spots like Cancun.
Once they start making more $$$ They need to get rid of those gas guzzling 727s and lease second hand A320s or lease/ buy 717s. They are more fuel/maintinace efficient. Atleast a half empty 717 aint as bad as an only 1/3rd full gas guzzling 727 that can bankrupt the airline and drive the costs high.
If PA does this then profits will go higher and they'll make more $$$ and hopefully this enable Dave Fink and co to ake better decisions.
Mah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33594 posts, RR: 71
Reply 9, posted (13 years 8 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1970 times:
VirginA340, I highly disagree with you there. Pan Am is going to make a killing at MIA, and it's all because of SJU. Any MIA-SJU flight that can offer low fares will make a killing. ATA is also starting the MIA-SJU route soon, and Spirit is starting FLL-SJU. And only a year ago the only way to go MIA-SJU was on AA. Despite AA's MIA fortress, other airlines have no trouble filling up planes in Miami, which serves more airlines than SFO, JFK, LAX, or any other airport in the Western Hemisphere, including three alone from Venezuela and Brazil each (which, combined with AA and UA's flight from Miami to Venezuela and Brazil, brings five airlines competing on Miami-Venezuela/Miami-Brazil, and all flying pretty full planes). The Sanford-Miami route might not serve as well, but it offers Miami businessmen who need to make a quick, cheap flight to Orlando a nice alternative to American Eagle prop jets (though UA does fly a 757 on the route; DL flies RJs, and ). For those who don't know, Miami-Orlando* is the #1 regional route in the United States in terms of passengers traveled (#2 is Miami-Tampa*). It can also appeal to Miami families who, if it weren't for Pan Am's low, low fares, would otherwise drive to Orlando.
Ryanair From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 654 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1934 times:
The 722's are a very good plane for them, as to make newer types pay, you must fly them into the ground because of the high lease rates. PA has a fairly leisurely schedule, because while they could put on more flights there isn't enough people to justify that. You must balance fixed costs (like lease rates) and variable costs (like fuel consumption), with a low utilisation like Pan Am it;s best to have low fixed costs (as the 722's have) and live with the higher variables, because as a rule of thumb the total bill when there's low utilisation will be less that way.
As one flies more and more the balance will shift in favour of newer types, but that isnot the case yet. Bringing in other types to fleet (RJ's) would be a disaster, there's no charter market for them (which is a big chunk of the business) so you'd have to keep some 722's, which would leave four aircraft types. Not a good idea.....
PA's problem is they are so secretive about money, it creates doubt. People assume the worst when there's no evidence to suggest anything else.
Ryanair From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 654 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1931 times:
I was just wondering if they receive any 'back handers' to fly into their out of the way airports, as companies that want to build a new factory, or shift headquarters might get from the local area towards start up costs. I know Ryanair get about USD500,000 every six months to fly one daily flight into many of their 'under used' airports, just wonder if Pan Am gets the same.
Teva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1877 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (13 years 8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1927 times:
A lot of past experiences have proven that starting an airline with old planes is rarely a success.
Passengers prefer more modern aircraft.
The airline gives the feeling it does not have enough money to buy new planes (it can be true or false, it is just the image you give).Then what about their ability to finance maintenance, route expansion, etc...?
Even an airline that has built its succes on old planes is changing its mind: Ryanair is replacing its 737-200 by NGs.
Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
Maniac From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1919 times:
A couple of things about Pan Am
1) As someone already mentioned, Pan Am is privately held by Guilford Transport, a large company which could likely support the costs of getting and airline of the ground.
2) The markets served by Pan Am do need jet service, Take BGR for example, just a few short years ago, the city had mainline Delta, USair, and United service. Now it has Comair, American Eagle, and Usair express. While Bangor itself is small, if you get out a map of Maine, you will see that EVERYONE north of Bangor uses that airport, or has to drive to Portland. It can, and has supported that traffic.
I will admit that Pan Am's choices of new routes seem a bit odd, but hey, give them the chance, I hope the succeed.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 8 months 6 days ago) and read 1895 times:
I stated in another thread the experience of a good friend of mine and his wife recently on Pan Am. They live 5 minutes from Orlando Sanford but are originally from New England and travel back to see family three or four times a year.
They were thrilled at the idea (as many who live in the exploding northern burbs of Orlando) to spare themselves a 40 minute drive to a highly congested airport. They are (or were) exactly the kind of regular customer Pan Am needs.
They found Pan Am's in flight service to be excellent, but on the ground they thought the airline was completely disorganized. In Worcestor, they were almost 90 minutes late getting off the ground because they held the plane to pick up more passengers....I forget if it was a connecting flight or just a later flight that was cancelled due to poor sales.
At any rate, my friends are typical US airline customers....they have no patience for things like that.
They correctly point out that that delay and a minor one on the inbound trip more than negated any time saved from driving to Orlando International.
They don't plan on flying Pan Am again.
Ryanair, you make good points but ignore a fundamental flaw....startup airlines that 'make things up as they go along' do it because they don't have a game plan. I stand by my notion that Pan Am is trying to 'utilise' too few of the wrong kind of airplane.
And no matter how you slice it, Boeing 727s carrying 30 passengers (as posted earlier) at Pan Am's ticket prices LOSE MONEY!
Rominato From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 268 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (13 years 8 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1889 times:
here's hoping they get their act together. I'm sure it's not easy starting a new airline, and the possibility of overexpanding too fast is a great one, but if they continue to focus on SFB, they just may be able to fill their role as a solid niche carrier
PHX Flyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (13 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1857 times:
"Why Will Pan Am III Die?"
The entire question is wrong. First of all, there is no such thing as a Pan Am III, it's still Pan Am II. It's still the same company that was founded by ex-Pan Am I CEO, Marty Shugrue. Secondly, you can only ask, whether they will fail or not, or, at best, why they might fail. So much on semantics.
As far as their business strategy is concerned, they stand a better chance to survive than most other recent start-ups, because they have not fallen prey to the temptation of early over-expansion. The B727s work just fine them. They do not pay lease rates, because most of them were bought by Guilford with cash. A vintage B727 costs about $6-8 million, a new A320 close to $40 million. You can burn a lot of fuel, until you reach the expense level of an operation with brandnew aircraft. Pan Am has done the math and they know that for their purposes the B727 has the lowest operating cost per seat. Pan Am earns a lot of its revenue with cahrter flights. Therefore, they need a reasonably sized aircraft with lots of cargo space, and not regional jets (RJs have the highest operating cost per seat of all commercial aircraft). Btw, the single daily B727 flight out of Bangor gives Pan Am 36% market share in this city. Not bad, is it? And the four biggest airlines in the U.S. (and in the world for that matter) all fly B727s. I don't see how the utilization of that type may hurt Pan Am.
This is eye candy to me. Their 727s are well-maintained, and personally, I feel more comfortable in a 27 than in a B737 with its crappy rudder hydraulics.
One other thing: Midamerica Airport is much closer to St. Louis than Gatwick is to London, and St.Louis is the closest city to BLV, so why shouldn't Pan Am be able to market BLV as St. Louis??? The same is true for Sanford. The airport itself uses Orlando as its primary name:
Pan Am (I) earned its reputation by pioneering the airline industry, and this tradition certainly lives on in the new Pan Am. As someone else pointed out, opening up underserved airports to scheduled airline service has never hurt Southwest. Why should it be diffrent in Pan Am's case. And, with a few exceptions, Southwest flies to almost all the premium airports in the U.S. nowadays. Who is to say that Pan Am will not do the same 20 years from now? To quote John Nadolny, Guilford's senior vice president and general counsel, "We feel we are the custodians of something very precious. The name is held near and dear to people," he says. "We have a high standard to live up to. We want to bring the Pan Am name back to its rightful place."
CactusA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (13 years 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1825 times:
How do you know PA is losing money on the Midwest, just because one flight had a load of 30 pax? Might have been a light day. Not all airlines pack em in on every route every single day. Do you have extensive load factor numbers to validate your contention that they're losing money in the Midwest?
I think they're strategy is fine, although a little mis-guided, which is why they add and drop cities and routes. However they seem to be finding their niche now.
One thing that could help is more advertising and marketing. Here in Chicago they fly to Gary, yet hardly anyone knows who they are. They could easily market to people on the South side of the city as well as the south suburbs who would normally have to drive to ORD and MDW instead of GYY which would be closer to them.
Giantjets From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1788 times:
Frankly, I think they should start updating their website any time soon. It is a little out dated! However, If that how they see it, using underutilized airports, and it turns out to be a positive out come. However, there are also another case that people don't care about over crowded airports or never even cross their minds, They just want to fly right into the city, the cities where people go! As far as Orlando go, they could use Orlando/Sanford since it is the city's second airport and only 25-30 minutes from the city and attractions. i hope their slow expansion plan is doing well, although we don't know how long is it going to be by the meaning of "slow". Like some one has mentioned earlier, it is a shame to see such a name to fly their network such as this. JetBlue is a start up too and look at them go. Anyway, Pan Am brobably have some thing up their sleeves, only time will tell!
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1784 times:
Thanks for a good opinion on Pan Am.
I repect your insight be respectfully disagree with you on these points:
-You say they haven't been tempted by too much unwarranted expansion. I would argue exactly the opposite. The airline seems to be scanning the road atlas, finding out what towns are screaming the loudest for jet service and providing it. That's just not smart, not with big Boeings. They're already flying to San Juan, yet they barely got a phone center set up to deal with Spanish speakers in time. With a limited fleet, rushing headlong into a market simply because you sniff potential is not smart. The big guys can do it. The little ones can't, not without pissing off a lot of people who are at the reciving end of busted airplanes and weather delays.
-You say the 727 is a great charter airplane. It is, I agree absolutely. But it's a lousy airplane to serve Bangor with. It's a lousy airplane to serve Allentown with. Its an AWFUL airplane to fly 50 people between the Great Lakes and the East Coast with. 150, great. 50, you lose. Just like you can't be 'half pregnant' , history has shown it's tough to be 'half charter'. And while the fact that Pan Am instantly got 36 percent of the Bangor market is impressive, I'd venture to guess 36 percent of the people flying from Bangor on a monthly basis couldn't even fill a ballpark. A minor league one.
-You say RJs have the highest cost per seat. I'll take you at your word, I don't know. But I do know that basic math tells me that it's easier to fill 70 seats than 150. It seems like smaller, more fuel efficient jets with higher dispatch reliability would be more advantageous...at least to an airline that decided being a regular schedule was it's bread and butter. And, like cars, leases are smart for short term, not long term.
-Finally, I got some facts wrong on an earlier post...I re-checked with my friend who flew Pan Am out of Sanford....his delay time wasn't 90 minutes but 2 1/2 hours going up, 4 hours coming back. He and his wife live exactly 5 minutes from that Sanford sign you posted a picture of. They are the types of people that should be Pan Am frequent flyers. He even told me the convenience was unbeatable. But next time, they'll drive to Orlando International and fly US Airways or Metrojet.
As much as I too would love to see a New Enland-based Pan Am reclaim at least a portion of its' glory, it seems like the reborn Pan Am is failing many early tests.