Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.
thomasphoto60 wrote:SpaceshipDC10 wrote:Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.
Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.
Nola wrote:thomasphoto60 wrote:SpaceshipDC10 wrote:Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.
Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.
Both routes and fares were regulated. Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA. The domestic carriers had to apply to the Civil Aeronautics Board for approval of any new route or fare.
Polot wrote:Nola wrote:thomasphoto60 wrote:Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.
Both routes and fares were regulated. Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA. The domestic carriers had to apply to the Civil Aeronautics Board for approval of any new route or fare.
That is not 100% true. PA and TWA were the biggest but not the only US international carriers. You had NW going across the Pacific and Braniff to South America for example.
thomasphoto60 wrote:SpaceshipDC10 wrote:Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.
Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.
Nola wrote:thomasphoto60 wrote:SpaceshipDC10 wrote:Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.
Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.
Both routes and fares were regulated. Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA. The domestic carriers had to apply to the Civil Aeronautics Board for approval of any new route or fare.
Bobloblaw wrote:thomasphoto60 wrote:SpaceshipDC10 wrote:Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.
Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.
Not to some degree, entirely. CAB even regulated the price of alcohol and meal sizes. Fares were cost and mileage based. Which meant that business markets were under charged and leisure markets were over charged.
superjeff wrote:Nola wrote:thomasphoto60 wrote:Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.
Both routes and fares were regulated. Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA. The domestic carriers had to apply to the Civil Aeronautics Board for approval of any new route or fare.
Actually, there were a lot of U.S. international carriers. Braniff was the U.S. flag carrier to the West Coast of South America (Pan Am had the East Coast), American served Toronto, Montreal, Bermuda, and Mexico (MEX and ACA), Eastern served Toronto and Montreal, plus the Bahamas, Western served Mexico and Vancouver, Northeast served Nassau and Bermuda before 1972 when it merged with Delta, Delta had a number of ex Chicago and Southern routes ex-New Orleans to MBJ, CCS, and a few other places, Northwest had a major operation to and through the Orient, and there were probably more as well.
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.
superjeff wrote:Yes, I think they started MIA-LHR about 1975 (maybe a bit earlier).
superjeff wrote:Yes, I think they started MIA-LHR about 1975 (maybe a bit earlier).
EvanWSFO wrote:superjeff wrote:Yes, I think they started MIA-LHR about 1975 (maybe a bit earlier).
The October 25, 1970 NA timetable announced the new service to London to begin on November 1. It doesn't list an aircraft type, but it was either started with DC8's then up to 747's. Don't think NA had very many of those in the early 70s. An ad in same TT touts 747 from MIA to JFK and LAX.
Nola wrote:Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA.
Aviano789 wrote:From the late 60s to late 70s National Airlines became an all-jet airline with the DC-8, 727, DC-10 and even B-747 with transatlantic flights between Miami (MIA) & London (LHR). Why the airline never even consider entering the Hawaiian market prior to the Pan Am acquisition?
airzim wrote:I'm curious when airlines researched new routes back then, what data did they use to determine route viability? How did they determine and forecast route viability back in the 70s?
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:EvanWSFO wrote:superjeff wrote:Yes, I think they started MIA-LHR about 1975 (maybe a bit earlier).
The October 25, 1970 NA timetable announced the new service to London to begin on November 1. It doesn't list an aircraft type, but it was either started with DC8's then up to 747's. Don't think NA had very many of those in the early 70s. An ad in same TT touts 747 from MIA to JFK and LAX.
Apparently, the London service was scheduled to begin on Jan 1st, 1970 but was delayed until June 15th. NA leased two DC-8 jetTrader from Airlift International for that purpose. Their two 747s were delivered in September and October 1970
October 25th, 1970 is the date when National launched nonstop MIA-LAX 747 service.
citationjet wrote:Nola wrote:Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA.
Not true at all. Braniff started service to South America in 1946, shortly after World War II.
On May 19, 1946, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) awarded Braniff routes to the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America, competing with Pan American-Grace Airways (Panagra). The Civil Aeronautics Board awarded Braniff a 7719 statute mile route from Dallas to Houston to Havana, Balboa, C.Z., Panama, Guayaquil, Lima, La Paz, Asuncion, and finally Buenos Aires, Argentina. At that time, the airline changed its trade name to Braniff International Airways and flights to South America via Cuba and Panama began on June 4, 1948 with a routing of Chicago – Kansas City – Dallas – Houston – Havana – Balboa, C.Z. – Guayaquil – Lima (Lima service did not being until June 18, 1948).[7] after construction in remote regions of Central and South America. The route was then extended in February 1949 to La Paz and in March 1949, to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Douglas DC-4s and Douglas DC-6s flew to Rio; initially DC-3s flew Lima to La Paz. Braniff was the first airline authorized by the CAB to operate JATO or Jet Assisted Takeoff aircraft (DC-4) at La Paz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braniff_International_Airways#Latin_America_route_award
Nola wrote:citationjet wrote:Nola wrote:Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA.
Not true at all. Braniff started service to South America in 1946, shortly after World War II.
On May 19, 1946, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) awarded Braniff routes to the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America, competing with Pan American-Grace Airways (Panagra). The Civil Aeronautics Board awarded Braniff a 7719 statute mile route from Dallas to Houston to Havana, Balboa, C.Z., Panama, Guayaquil, Lima, La Paz, Asuncion, and finally Buenos Aires, Argentina. At that time, the airline changed its trade name to Braniff International Airways and flights to South America via Cuba and Panama began on June 4, 1948 with a routing of Chicago – Kansas City – Dallas – Houston – Havana – Balboa, C.Z. – Guayaquil – Lima (Lima service did not being until June 18, 1948).[7] after construction in remote regions of Central and South America. The route was then extended in February 1949 to La Paz and in March 1949, to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Douglas DC-4s and Douglas DC-6s flew to Rio; initially DC-3s flew Lima to La Paz. Braniff was the first airline authorized by the CAB to operate JATO or Jet Assisted Takeoff aircraft (DC-4) at La Paz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braniff_International_Airways#Latin_America_route_award
You're correct. Braniff sold those routes, which were very profitable, to keep the company afloat. I think the routes wound up with Eastern and later with United (when it tried a Miami hub). I could be wrong though.
Nola wrote:You're correct. Braniff sold those routes, which were very profitable, to keep the company afloat. I think the routes wound up with Eastern and later with United (when it tried a Miami hub). I could be wrong though.
superjeff wrote:Nola wrote:thomasphoto60 wrote:Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.
Both routes and fares were regulated. Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA. The domestic carriers had to apply to the Civil Aeronautics Board for approval of any new route or fare.
Actually, there were a lot of U.S. international carriers. Braniff was the U.S. flag carrier to the West Coast of South America (Pan Am had the East Coast), American served Toronto, Montreal, Bermuda, and Mexico (MEX and ACA), Eastern served Toronto and Montreal, plus the Bahamas, Western served Mexico and Vancouver, Northeast served Nassau and Bermuda before 1972 when it merged with Delta, Delta had a number of ex Chicago and Southern routes ex-New Orleans to MBJ, CCS, and a few other places, Northwest had a major operation to and through the Orient, and there were probably more as well.
EvanWSFO wrote:superjeff wrote:Yes, I think they started MIA-LHR about 1975 (maybe a bit earlier).
The October 25, 1970 NA timetable announced the new service to London to begin on November 1. It doesn't list an aircraft type, but it was either started with DC8's then up to 747's. Don't think NA had very many of those in the early 70s. An ad in same TT touts 747 from MIA to JFK and LAX.
Max Q wrote:It is quite a story, from a basic domestic carrier to the American airline with the best route system in the world
thomasphoto60 wrote:SpaceshipDC10 wrote:Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.
Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.
citationjet wrote:Nola wrote:You're correct. Braniff sold those routes, which were very profitable, to keep the company afloat. I think the routes wound up with Eastern and later with United (when it tried a Miami hub). I could be wrong though.
I don't believe Braniff ever sold their SA routes. According to John Nance's book "Splash of Colors", Braniff was in negotiation with PanAm in March of 1982 to lease Braniff's SA routes for 6 years for $30M. That deal fell thru because PanAm wouldn't use Braniff's pilots and cabin crew. Then Braniff was in discussion with Eastern to lease (not buy) the SA routes for $30M. On April 26, 1982 Braniff and Eastern signed the agreement to take effect on June 1, 1982. However Braniff filed for bankruptcy on May 12, 1982.
Braniff owned and was operating their full South America network and schedule when they shut down on May 12. Braniff had 9 DC-8 crews stuck in Lima, Peru when the airline shutdown.
I have a copy of the last timetable Braniff published dated April 25, 1982 which shows a full SA schedule.
EvanWSFO wrote:Haven't seen it mentioned, but how did NA get into LHR in the 70s? All new entrants had to go to LGW, even some BCal flights to the US.
airzim wrote:These types of questions begs a question. Braniff, Western, National, Eastern, Northwest Orient, Air Florida, etc, all did some expansion to Europe (and elsewhere), and mostly all retrenched or abandoned in fairly short order. In essence, they were all disasters.
I'm curious when airlines researched new routes back then, what data did they use to determine route viability? How did they determine and forecast route viability back in the 70s? Given nearly all flight sales were down through travel agents and GDS's, did they have MIDT data available? Or did they assume traffic stimulation. Today, the carriers have lots of data options available, and route determination is a pretty good mathematical exercise. Just curious?
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:For the record, the LHR route was served over the years with DC-8s, 747s & DC-10-30s, including this one in 1979.
Aviano789 wrote:From the late 60s to late 70s National Airlines became an all-jet airline with the DC-8, 727, DC-10 and even B-747 with transatlantic flights between Miami (MIA) & London (LHR). Why the airline never even consider entering the Hawaiian market prior to the Pan Am acquisition?
ElroyJetson wrote:EvanWSFO wrote:superjeff wrote:Yes, I think they started MIA-LHR about 1975 (maybe a bit earlier).
The October 25, 1970 NA timetable announced the new service to London to begin on November 1. It doesn't list an aircraft type, but it was either started with DC8's then up to 747's. Don't think NA had very many of those in the early 70s. An ad in same TT touts 747 from MIA to JFK and LAX.
I was in London in May 1975 as a 13 year old kid and I took a picture of a National Airlines DC-10 out of my window at LHR. So I can state for a fact National was flying MIA -LHR at least some of the time using DC-10's.
That was btw my first flight on a wide body. I flew from JFK on a TWA 747. As a kid it was a very memorable experience.
Cunard wrote:Those Air New Zealand DC10-30 that operated LHR to Miami had nothing to do with National as they were operated in conjunction with British Airways that subleased them from Air Nee Zealand from 1975 till 1979 but that's another topic altogether.
BN727227Ultra wrote:Aviano789 wrote:From the late 60s to late 70s National Airlines became an all-jet airline with the DC-8, 727, DC-10 and even B-747 with transatlantic flights between Miami (MIA) & London (LHR). Why the airline never even consider entering the Hawaiian market prior to the Pan Am acquisition?
If A.net is to be believed (and why not?) there is practically no traffic from the east coast to Hawai'i, especially from the southeast. The Caribbean is much closer.
EvanWSFO wrote:Haven't seen it mentioned, but how did NA get into LHR in the 70s? All new entrants had to go to LGW, even some BCal flights to the US.
IAHWorldflyer wrote:EvanWSFO wrote:Haven't seen it mentioned, but how did NA get into LHR in the 70s? All new entrants had to go to LGW, even some BCal flights to the US.
There was a clause that if a LGW service had more than 300,000 passengers per year for 2 years in a row, the carrier could apply to switch the service to LHR. I think DEN was able to get LHR service this way.
citationjet wrote:Nola wrote:You're correct. Braniff sold those routes, which were very profitable, to keep the company afloat. I think the routes wound up with Eastern and later with United (when it tried a Miami hub). I could be wrong though.
I don't believe Braniff ever sold their SA routes. According to John Nance's book "Splash of Colors", Braniff was in negotiation with PanAm in March of 1982 to lease Braniff's SA routes for 6 years for $30M. That deal fell thru because PanAm wouldn't use Braniff's pilots and cabin crew. Then Braniff was in discussion with Eastern to lease (not buy) the SA routes for $30M. On April 26, 1982 Braniff and Eastern signed the agreement to take effect on June 1, 1982. However Braniff filed for bankruptcy on May 12, 1982.
Braniff owned and was operating their full South America network and schedule when they shut down on May 12. Braniff had 9 DC-8 crews stuck in Lima, Peru when the airline shutdown.
I have a copy of the last timetable Braniff published dated April 25, 1982 which shows a full SA schedule.
Overthecascades wrote:Is it related to the National Airlines which was once based in Las Vegas?
Overthecascades wrote:Is it related to the National Airlines which was once based in Las Vegas?
Overthecascades wrote:Is it related to the National Airlines which was once based in Las Vegas?
Aviano789 wrote:National did serve the west coast cities, they could have file for authorization to fly from LAX, SFO, SAN, and ONT to Hawaii.
727LOVER wrote:Aviano789 wrote:National did serve the west coast cities, they could have file for authorization to fly from LAX, SFO, SAN, and ONT to Hawaii.
I don' think NA served ONT. They did however serve SJC
jetero wrote:IAHWorldflyer wrote:EvanWSFO wrote:Haven't seen it mentioned, but how did NA get into LHR in the 70s? All new entrants had to go to LGW, even some BCal flights to the US.
There was a clause that if a LGW service had more than 300,000 passengers per year for 2 years in a row, the carrier could apply to switch the service to LHR. I think DEN was able to get LHR service this way.
NB: 300k over 2 consecutive calendar years, not 300k annually 2 years in a row--there's no way BA carried 300k passengers annually on a single daily flight to DEN.
PHX and SAN got the same benefit.