Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Didn't Pan Am Order The Boeing 767?  
User currently offlinedoulasc From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 534 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 12897 times:

In the early 1980s after C.Edward Acker took over after William Seawell retired,he swapped the ex National DC-10s for more 747s with American Airlines. Last thing Pan Am needed was more 747s flying more than half empty on routes that were a over kill for a 747. Pan Am retired their last 707-321Bs in 1980. I would think some Boeing 767-221ERs would have been a good replacement for the 707s. I wonder if Boeing approached Pan Am to order the 767. By 1984 Pan Am had 747s,727s, A300 and chose the Airbus A310 instead of the 767. I think if Seawell would have stayed CEO he might have gone with the 767. When he ordered the L1011-500 that was considered to be the 707 replacement,Pan Am only had 12.

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3480 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 12870 times:

I think Pan Am was going Airbus.

310/300 were good replacements for the 747.

Look at pics from JFK in the last few years...lots of busses around.

Pan Am didn't evolve quickly enough and didn't have a solid domestic route structure.

Many problems beyond 747s


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16281 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 12825 times:

In summer 1978, when the 767 was first offered, the 767 was intended, at that time, to be a US domestic aircraft -- which would not have suited PA for a 707 replacement. PA also ordered the L15 (as you mentioned) in April 1978 as the 707 replacement just prior to the 767 launch.

By the time the 762ER was offered by Boeing in the early-to-mid 80's, PA had already absorbed National and had ordered the A300B4 and the A310. So it's WB fleet consisted of the 741, 747SP, L15, D10, A300B4 and A310. The last thing PA needed at that time was (yet) another WB type.

Although I agree with you that the 762ER would have been the ideal 707 replacement (in terms of capacity and range) but the 707 fleet could not have hung on that long. Very few early 767 customers still had active 707 fleets, so the 767 was never really a direct 707 replacement.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineCairnterriAIR From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 404 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 12790 times:

At the time Pan Am was swapping National DC-10's, the 767 was not yet flying, nor was it planned to be an intercontinental aircraft (not ETOPS certified). Pan Am's domestic route system didn't warrant an aircraft the size of the 767 (the former National 727's were fine for that role)...nor was Pan Am in much shape to partake in an aircraft order considering they had just paid through the nose for National. Once twin engine widebody planes were permitted to fly across the ocean, Pan Am went with the Airbus 310...better pricing and deal for between the two than Boeing offered.

User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 12467 times:

PA loved the A310, (or hated it as some of it's small size, crews found it claustrophobic).,
because it had good economics. and could serve markets that had low demand.
The A310's were also on month-to-month leases, which means PA could return the aircraft with a 30
day notice.Given the financial condition of PA, this was very attractive. ETOPS saved them a lot
of fuel, and the smaller aircraft allowed them to offer service to a number of cities that the 747
was not economical to use on.

About twenty years ago, I met one of the chief engineers on the A310. He said that he
was personally disappointed with the aircraft because of interior noise and the lack of
ability to extend the range of the aircraft.

I though it looked amazing in PA's Billbord livery.



737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12254 times:

I can think of three main reasons:
1)Pan Am financial difficulty. They needed to keep costs low and revenue high to stay afloat. They didn't, and I don't know if the 762 could've helped. The 763s are pretty efficient but the 762s were much less so, especially the early versions.
2) The A300. They already had the A300, and it fit them perfectly. No real reason to change, and it could be expensive.
3) The 762ER wasn't ready immediately. The 762 could fill most then present gaps, but wasn't better than the A30) for them. Extra crew, mechanic, and ETOPS Tim's and money. Look at WN or most LCCs today.
You answered your own question somewhat. For them the 767 couldn't do really anything the A300/310 couldn't do, and they already had the airbuses. Had they made it through 1991 and 2001 and 2008, I wouldn't be surprised to see a long haul fleet of A330s, with A320 short haul and quite possibly the 747 or 777 for high capacity Long Haul. But I could see them using the A330s like some 767s are today. Also, they would probably have new passenger A300s, or at least circa 2006. They still wouldn't have a reason to get the 767.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8375 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 11604 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 5):
1)Pan Am financial difficulty. They needed to keep costs low and revenue high to stay afloat. They didn't, and I don't know if the 762 could've helped. The 763s are pretty efficient but the 762s were much less so, especially the early versions

The idea of a 762ER "saving" PA has some legs, but timing was an issue. TWA didn't operate the first 767ER(converted) from BOS to CDG until 1983, so Boeing would have taken until 1985 to deliver new 767-200ER's. By that time the first 6 A310-300 arrived in 1987 and 6 more in 1988. A 763ER would have helped PA but that plane wasn't around until 1988. BY 1988 nothing could have saved PA with the Lockerbie accident. The war in Iraq didn't help in 1990 and when Plaskett sold the LHR routes to United, that was the sign the end was coming.


User currently offlineupcfordcruiser From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10686 times:

Airbus needed A300/310 customers and Pan Am needed new planes with flexible finance terms.

User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3031 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9994 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 5):
The 762ER wasn't ready immediately. The 762 could fill most then present gaps, but wasn't better than the A30) for them. Extra crew, mechanic, and ETOPS Tim's and money. Look at WN or most LCCs today.

How does the 762, a 2 pilot airplane, require extra crew?


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9815 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting catiii (Reply 8):
How does the 762, a 2 pilot airplane, require extra crew?

You need new crews (extra) for a new plane type in the system, and new tools specific to that frame etc, plus all of the simulators and training.

A TON of extra costs for a severely struggling airline.

135Mech

[Edited 2012-12-27 07:37:32]

User currently offlinePanAm1971 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9538 times:

I would add to what has been said that Pan Am was cash poor through most of the 1980's. However, in my opinion, had Lockerbie and the 1991 Gulf War not happened-there is a good chance Pan Am would have survived and become a smaller airline with mainly A-330's in the 1990's (and possibly with A-320's for short haul and a few 744's)

User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8986 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 9):
A TON of extra costs for a severely struggling airline.

Plus all of the ETOPS time, training, and money.
IF Pan Am recieved a 767: At least a month of training without revenue flights, and a ton of extra cost.
If Pan Am recieved an A300: Put it straight into revenue service with crews already trained, and be able to return it at short notice.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3031 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7216 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 11):
If Pan Am recieved an A300: Put it straight into revenue service with crews already trained, and be able to return it at short notice.

You mean the A310...


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2189 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7167 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 12):
You mean the A310...

Either works, Pan Am had both.

Edit: Another plus for the A300 vs the 767 for Pan Am, other than the great pricing that Airbus was offering, was that they could take delivery of planes almost immediately, as Airbus was sitting on some unclaimed planes due to earlier cancellations from other airlines.

[Edited 2012-12-27 11:07:17]

User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3031 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6907 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 13):
Either works, Pan Am had both.

Not in the context of a 30 day turnback. I believe that provision was only on the A310 leases.


User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1325 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6743 times:

Because it had Airbus A300/A310 and also it was cash strapped in the 1980's. An argument in favour of the B767 is going to be counter factual, so I wouldn't bother.

User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8375 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6617 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

When PA went A310 the entire reason for a 767 left. Had they survived into the late 1990's then 767 may have helped. But its a moot point since once PA sold Europe to DL it was Delta's fleet plan.

User currently onlinesteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5541 times:

Why did PA buy out National Airlines?


Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8375 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5319 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting steeler83 (Reply 17):

Why did PA buy out National Airlines?

Because they "needed" a domestic airline. They should have purchased an airline with a hub in Chicago. National didn't have a Latin system in Miami, never understood what the point was. This has to go down as one of the worst megers in any industry.


User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2090 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5251 times:

What's always struck me is that after DL acquired the JFK hub, and the PA A310s, that it ditched them in the mid-1990s for 763ERs. And this was after it added more A310-300s in the early 1990s.


Let's Go British Caledonian!
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...
Will Qantas Airways Order The Boeing 747-8I posted Mon Dec 12 2011 05:34:30 by mcpcshowcaseHD
Pan Am Into The Soviet Union posted Sat Nov 12 2011 12:04:50 by levg79
For Pan Am Fans, The Lounge In Berlin. posted Sun Jan 2 2011 12:08:55 by trauha
Air Austral Order The Boeing 777-200LR posted Wed Jul 21 2010 01:57:55 by PanAm_DC10
Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380? #2 posted Thu Jun 10 2010 13:11:06 by scbriml
Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380? posted Sat Jun 5 2010 17:49:51 by ATLflyer
Pan Am To The Moon posted Wed May 26 2010 23:31:00 by LatinPlane
Why Did Pan Am Turn To Ua For Assets, Snubbing Aa? posted Sat Jul 18 2009 14:09:03 by 727LOVER
Pan Am - Around The World Video posted Tue Apr 7 2009 00:13:31 by LatinPlane
Questions On Pan Am In The 1980s posted Wed Jan 9 2008 14:30:36 by TranStar