doulasc From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 614 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 13413 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.
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16403 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 13343 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.
CairnterriAIR From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 412 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 13308 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.
FI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 12985 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.
UA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 428 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 12772 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.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8689 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 12122 times:
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.
catiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3254 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 10512 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?
PanAm1971 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10056 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)
UA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 428 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9504 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.
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.
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.