AESH16
Topic Author
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:07 pm

Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:04 pm

So we all know that Pan Am shut down in 1991 due to various problems and because of that, they never ordered any 747-400. But I'm curious, did they show some kind of interest in the 747-400 and what they have ordered the aircraft if the situation was better?
 
User avatar
Spiderguy252
Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:58 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:12 pm

PanAm got to a point in the 1980s when Boeing didn't want to deal with them unless they paid for planes upfront.

The up and coming Airbus was far more flexible in financing terms, hence the introduction of the A300 and A310.
Vahroone
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:26 pm

By the time the 747-400 entered commercial service in 1989 (NW was the launch customer) Pan Am's demise was accelerating. The Lockerbie bombing in December 1988 was another nail in the coffin for Pan Am. The 747-400 was not the right plane for a company that had a very small feed network, focused around JFK and MIA. By 1989, when the 744 was introduced, the 767 and other wide body jets smaller than the 747 (A310-200/300) were becoming the mainstay of the long and thinner TATL routes that were PA's bread and butter. Airbus was willing to take a gamble on Pan Am (hence the 14 A310-300s and 15 A310-200s that were the backbone of the Pan Am operation then, plus a handful of A300s). In late 1990, Pan Am negotiated to sell the LHR routes (to UA) and a few months later, in summer 1991, the entire TATL operation was sold to DL, leaving Pan Am focused on MIA and Latin America. In December 1991, the company shut down for good. The 747-400 had no future in a shrinking airline with no money.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:27 pm

The 747s they did have were already too much airplane for their needs.

Even as far back as the early 1980s, that much was becoming apparent.

But by the time the 744 was on offer, PAA had already done away with their Pacific network, truly the only place a 744 would have made any sort of sense. In fact, it's worth noting that the only two domestics that ever did order 744s from Boeing did so for exactly that reason.

In the late 80s, the only mid/long haul routes PAA still operated were adequately handled by their A300/310s. That they used 747s to Europe that late was only because they had them and had to use them somewhere.
"Ya Can't Win, Rocky! There's no Oxygen on Mars!"
"Yeah? That means there's no Oxygen for him Neither..."
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 6387
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:52 pm

AESH16 wrote:
So we all know that Pan Am shut down in 1991 due to various problems and because of that, they never ordered any 747-400. But I'm curious, did they show some kind of interest in the 747-400 and what they have ordered the aircraft if the situation was better?


At the time, with the network and the finances they had, where could have they used the -400? JFK-HNL? Trans-atlantics? Were it they still had their Pacific network, then it could have made sense on some routes, otherwise they had no needs, nor the money, for such aircraft. Most new U.S. airlines flying across the Atlantic were essentially using trijets and twins. Pan Am too. If the situation would have been better they could have ordered A330/340s, perhaps even be the first to operate the A333 across the Atlantic as EI did 25 years ago.


Cointrin330 wrote:
(hence the 14 A310-300s and 15 A310-200s that were the backbone of the Pan Am operation then, plus a handful of A300s).


14, 7 & 13 respectively, most new from the manufacturer.
 
KFTG
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:08 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:33 pm

I am starting to believe that someone is experimenting with AI bots on this forum.
 
Ryanair01
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:27 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:35 pm

Spiderguy252 wrote:
PanAm got to a point in the 1980s when Boeing didn't want to deal with them unless they paid for planes upfront.

The up and coming Airbus was far more flexible in financing terms, hence the introduction of the A300 and A310.


That's not quite what happened. Pan Am had 747-100s; 747-200s; 747-SPs; DC10-10s; DC10-30s and L1011-500s. They wanted to replace trijets with twin jets and simplify their fleet. Although arguably too big a plane for most of their routes, Pan Am had to keep flying a sub fleet of CRAF 747s until the mid-1990s because they had a contract with the defence department to make 747s available at times of national crisis.

Airbus had already built the A300s and A310-200s as they were not taken up by other airlines. Boeing competed for the Pan Am order, but couldn't match the immediate new build delivery USP of Airbus. Boeing's offer ironically offered second-hand L1011's and A300s as a stop-gap until 767 and 737s could be delivered.

Pan Am knew the 747-SP had no future and that they'd need to order 747-400s to remain competitive across the Pacific. Because they paid too much for National Airlines and couldn't keep up the repayments, buying more new planes wasn't an option. I'm told that was a major reason why selling the Pacific Division was attractive.

The 747-400 did well trans-pacific and from SE Asia to Europe. Post 1985 Pan Am had no use for such a plane.

In direct answer to the OP question, yes Pan Am did know about it and was interested. Had things had been different they'd have ordered them for the Pacific. However, their inability to do so was in part a reason for the Pacific sale.
 
Prost
Posts: 2419
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:22 pm

Did Pan Am have interest in A340s?
 
VC10er
Posts: 4070
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:31 pm

My apartment is covered with PanAm stuff, including a slice of a 707 fuselage with a window intact!

I will read anything that anyone has anything to do with PanAm. She may be gone for a long time, she may have even really suffered and passengers really felt she wasn’t what she used to be. But PanAm is an integral part of aviation history and American history. She also had the best logo ever, no matter what the business was.

I often imagine what PanAm would be like today had she survived, grown and was equal in size to one of the US3. With 748i’s, 787’s and A220’s!
What would international First Class looked like? PanAm lounges. A barely changed livery.
Would they cave in to the 2 class trend or be America’s Lufthansa? (I also dream about being on the USS Enterprise, and firing a hand phaser!)

And the same for:
VARIG
SABINA
TWA
NW (before they tossed out the 2nd best logo!)

And, as for learning: I had thought that Delta got their LHR routes. I always wondered why UA was so strong to LHR. Now I know.
Thanks
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
ClipperYankee
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 12:51 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:42 pm

I will have to find my negatives but Pan Am certainly had numerous 747s at the end. Right after the company shut down I parked (illegally) on a highway ramp on Le Jeune Blvd. right next to MIA and took a bunch of pictures of the idled fleet, one of which was a 727 in which a company van had been driven into the wing, likely by a disgruntled employee who just lost his job, and a piece of the wing had pierced the windshield.
Now the issue is locating those negs and prints.
707/717/727/737-100,200,300,400,500,700,800/747-200,300,400/757-200,300/767-300,400
772/788&9/DC3/DC6/DC8/DC9/DC10/MD80s/L1011/A300/A319,320,321/A332&3/A343/A359/A388/
BAE146/ATP/ATR42/DHC2,3,7,8/S340B/CRJ200,700,900/E140,145,175,190/F70,100/B1900
 
N649DL
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:45 pm

Ryanair01 wrote:
Spiderguy252 wrote:
PanAm got to a point in the 1980s when Boeing didn't want to deal with them unless they paid for planes upfront.

The up and coming Airbus was far more flexible in financing terms, hence the introduction of the A300 and A310.


That's not quite what happened. Pan Am had 747-100s; 747-200s; 747-SPs; DC10-10s; DC10-30s and L1011-500s. They wanted to replace trijets with twin jets and simplify their fleet. Although arguably too big a plane for most of their routes, Pan Am had to keep flying a sub fleet of CRAF 747s until the mid-1990s because they had a contract with the defence department to make 747s available at times of national crisis.

Airbus had already built the A300s and A310-200s as they were not taken up by other airlines. Boeing competed for the Pan Am order, but couldn't match the immediate new build delivery USP of Airbus. Boeing's offer ironically offered second-hand L1011's and A300s as a stop-gap until 767 and 737s could be delivered.

Pan Am knew the 747-SP had no future and that they'd need to order 747-400s to remain competitive across the Pacific. Because they paid too much for National Airlines and couldn't keep up the repayments, buying more new planes wasn't an option. I'm told that was a major reason why selling the Pacific Division was attractive.

The 747-400 did well trans-pacific and from SE Asia to Europe. Post 1985 Pan Am had no use for such a plane.

In direct answer to the OP question, yes Pan Am did know about it and was interested. Had things had been different they'd have ordered them for the Pacific. However, their inability to do so was in part a reason for the Pacific sale.


Also, apparently Pan Am got sweet deals on the A300 and A310 fleet. DL took on Pan Am's A310-300s (I think, or maybe they ordered them separately) but Pan Am by 1990-1991 was largely invested in having a 747, A300, A310 widebody fleet. They also had several orders ready to go for the A320 in and around 1989 but deferred them and IIRC, America West got few of them.

Prost wrote:
Did Pan Am have interest in A340s?


Yes, I honestly think they had a very strong interest in the A340 and almost ordered them.
 
shankly
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 10:42 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:06 pm

Another way of looking at this is that Pan Am had figured three and then two engine long range jets were the way forward. Is my memory correct in thinking Pan Am were a launch customer for the L1011-500?

Given the sparse historical N-reg -400 register, I think they were vindicated.

Having flown on N652PA, N4738, N751PA and another unknown PA 727-200, this airline will always have a special place in my little world
L1011 - P F M
 
FCOTSTW
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:14 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:12 pm

Me too I am interested in the Ferrari 812 Superfast. Does it mean that I can buy it? Heck no...

PA had payroll problems, let alone thinking about new aircrafts.
 
User avatar
millionsofmiles
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:18 pm

shankly wrote:
Another way of looking at this is that Pan Am had figured three and then two engine long range jets were the way forward. Is my memory correct in thinking Pan Am were a launch customer for the L1011-500?

Given the sparse historical N-reg -400 register, I think they were vindicated.

Having flown on N652PA, N4738, N751PA and another unknown PA 727-200, this airline will always have a special place in my little world


The -500s, and the DC-10s acquired in the National merger, were long gone at the time of shutdown. Given the acquisitions of A310s and A300s, it is safe to assume that two-engine aircraft were the way forward for Pan Am.

Three-engine aircraft were generally a disaster for Pan Am. They couldn’t unload the DC-10s fast enough, and, in fact, traded most for a few AA 747s, and the L-1011-500 was, arguably, one of Pan Am’s worst equipment decisions ever.
Last edited by millionsofmiles on Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
DWC
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:19 pm

on a sidenote, Pan Am's "globe logo" lives on with United, introduced by Continental in 1991 the very year Pan Am folded.
Can't be a coincidence.
 
User avatar
millionsofmiles
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:29 pm

DWC wrote:
on a sidenote, Pan Am's "globe logo" lives on with United, introduced by Continental in 1991 the very year Pan Am folded.
Can't be a coincidence.


No. Continental’s globe...introduced in 1991...PRIOR to Pan Am’s shutdown...has NOTHING to do with the Pan Am globe.

The Pan Am globe, sadly, is owned by a railroad company...Guilford Rail System.
 
User avatar
millionsofmiles
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:37 pm

DWC wrote:
on a sidenote, Pan Am's "globe logo" lives on with United, introduced by Continental in 1991 the very year Pan Am folded.
Can't be a coincidence.


You should probably do some research into what was going on with Continental that year...and since 1983...to get an accurate understanding of the 1991 rebranding campaign. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with Pan Am.

https://youtu.be/DVlNf4Io2Do
 
shankly
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 10:42 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:38 pm

millionsofmiles wrote:
The -500s and the DC-10s acquired in the National merger were long gone at the time of shutdown.


National did not order or ever operate the -500. Pan Am ordered the -500 direct from Palmdale. Maybe you should do some research too?
L1011 - P F M
 
User avatar
millionsofmiles
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:41 pm

shankly wrote:
millionsofmiles wrote:
The -500s and the DC-10s acquired in the National merger were long gone at the time of shutdown.


National did not order or ever operate the -500. Pan Am ordered the -500 direct from Palmdale


I did not say that. The -500s were ordered by Pan Am, and if you would bother to read on, you would see I said it was arguably the worst equipment decision ever made by PAN AM.

The -10s were acquired in the National merger.
 
bhxdtw
Posts: 1129
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:28 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:43 pm

VC10er wrote:
My apartment is covered with PanAm stuff, including a slice of a 707 fuselage with a window intact!

I will read anything that anyone has anything to do with PanAm. She may be gone for a long time, she may have even really suffered and passengers really felt she wasn’t what she used to be. But PanAm is an integral part of aviation history and American history. She also had the best logo ever, no matter what the business was.

I often imagine what PanAm would be like today had she survived, grown and was equal in size to one of the US3. With 748i’s, 787’s and A220’s!
What would international First Class looked like? PanAm lounges. A barely changed livery.
Would they cave in to the 2 class trend or be America’s Lufthansa? (I also dream about being on the USS Enterprise, and firing a hand phaser!)

And the same for:
VARIG
SABINA
TWA
NW (before they tossed out the 2nd best logo!)

And, as for learning: I had thought that Delta got their LHR routes. I always wondered why UA was so strong to LHR. Now I know.
Thanks



Lol.. Thanx for making my day. I'm here lurking and reading comments and this one made me literally laugh out loud, cue my wife: "what's so funny?" Lol

I actually do the same, I'm a huge nostalgic guy... Grew up in the days of PA, NW, Bcal, DanAir, etc etc etc..

Thx again.

And no, no-one shut this thread down. If it weren't for nostalgia life would be boring and we wouldn't learn from the past.
 
DWC
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:43 pm

millionsofmiles wrote:
DWC wrote:
on a sidenote, Pan Am's "globe logo" lives on with United, introduced by Continental in 1991 the very year Pan Am folded.
Can't be a coincidence.

You should probably do some research into what was going on with Continental that year...and since 1983...to get an accurate understanding of the 1991 rebranding campaign. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with Pan Am.
https://youtu.be/DVlNf4Io2Do

I did, CO was my first case study. Obviously there are things you ignore or fly way past your grasp.
The globe was Pan Am's trademark worldwide, TWA used one a little more different.
I was diplomatically implying CO had copied the idea. The globe is not that different, just sideways with different colours, but is a recognizable globe introduced in 1991 ( way before Bethune who came in 1994 ), in a year Pan Am was known to be on the demise.
Instead of patronizing, look at the similarities & you'll look sharper. So long.
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:48 pm

Don't forget that the late 1980s were a tumultuous time for airlines. Crippling labor strikes and bankruptcies were causing lots of financial damage. At the same time Pan Am was crumpling, Eastern was going through its strike and bankruptcy, in which Boeing, Airbus, GE and RR were being forced to take losses. I can't imagine Boeing managers came out of the Eastern bankruptcy court asking "what can we sell to Pan Am?" If they were smart they would have been asking for cash up front, which of course, Pan Am didn't have.
 
User avatar
millionsofmiles
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:50 pm

DWC wrote:
millionsofmiles wrote:
DWC wrote:
on a sidenote, Pan Am's "globe logo" lives on with United, introduced by Continental in 1991 the very year Pan Am folded.
Can't be a coincidence.

You should probably do some research into what was going on with Continental that year...and since 1983...to get an accurate understanding of the 1991 rebranding campaign. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with Pan Am.
https://youtu.be/DVlNf4Io2Do

I did, CO was my first case study. Obviously there are things you ignore or fly way past your grasp.
The globe was Pan Am's trademark worldwide, TWA used one a little more different.
I was diplomatically implying CO had copied the idea.
The globe is not that different, just sideways with different colours, but is a recognizable logo.
Instead of patronizing, look at the similarities & you'll look sharper. So long.



LOL... it’s a GLOBE, and TWA, Continental or whoever else you want to cite...were not copying Pan Am...LOL It is certainly not a stretch...although apparently for you...that a globe would be a natural element of a global airline’s branding.

That’s like saying the spirit of Pan Am lives on in Piedmont because they both begin with P.

Are you saying that the spirit of Pan Am is reflected in British Airways’ use of the globe at the end of this 1990 commercial? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

https://youtu.be/4SplYsMdes4
 
Cunard
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:54 pm

millionsofmiles wrote:
shankly wrote:
Another way of looking at this is that Pan Am had figured three and then two engine long range jets were the way forward. Is my memory correct in thinking Pan Am were a launch customer for the L1011-500?

Given the sparse historical N-reg -400 register, I think they were vindicated.

Having flown on N652PA, N4738, N751PA and another unknown PA 727-200, this airline will always have a special place in my little world


The -500s and the DC-10s acquired in the National merger were long gone at the time of shutdown. Given the acquisitions of A310s and A300s, it is safe to assume that two-engine aircraft were the way forward for Pan Am.

Three-engine aircraft were generally a disaster for Pan Am. They couldn’t unload the DC-10s fast enough, and, in fact, traded most for a few AA 747s, and the L-1011-500 was, arguably, one of Pan Am’s worst equipment decisions ever.


Just a correction to your above post.

Pan Am purchased the L1011-500 direct from Lockheed with the first example entering the fleet in 1980. Pan Am acquired 12 examples and they had all left the fleet by 1986. Six 500's were purchased by the United Kingdom for the Royal Air Force with first three being delivered in 1984. The remaining six 500's being purchased by United Airlines after that airline had purchased Pan Am's Pacific division and route network in 1986.

Pan Am acquired the DC10 through the merger with National Airlines in 1980. In total there were 11 DC10-10 which had left the fleet by 1984 and all purchased by United Airlines and 5 DC10-30 which had left the fleet by 1985 and also purchased by United Airlines.

You may well end with the comment regarding the L1011-500 being one of Pan Am's worst equipment decisions ever but your not being too clear at the beginning of your post when you clearly stated that the ''-500's and DC10's acquired in the National merger'', hence the numerous replies by myself and others.
Last edited by Cunard on Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
94 Countries, 327 Destinations Worldwide, 32 Airlines, 29 Aircraft Types, 182 Airports, 335 Flights.
 
User avatar
millionsofmiles
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:56 pm

Cunard wrote:
millionsofmiles wrote:
shankly wrote:
Another way of looking at this is that Pan Am had figured three and then two engine long range jets were the way forward. Is my memory correct in thinking Pan Am were a launch customer for the L1011-500?

Given the sparse historical N-reg -400 register, I think they were vindicated.

Having flown on N652PA, N4738, N751PA and another unknown PA 727-200, this airline will always have a special place in my little world


The -500s and the DC-10s acquired in the National merger were long gone at the time of shutdown. Given the acquisitions of A310s and A300s, it is safe to assume that two-engine aircraft were the way forward for Pan Am.

Three-engine aircraft were generally a disaster for Pan Am. They couldn’t unload the DC-10s fast enough, and, in fact, traded most for a few AA 747s, and the L-1011-500 was, arguably, one of Pan Am’s worst equipment decisions ever.


Just a correction to your above post.

Pan Am purchased the L1011-500 direct from Lockheed with the first example entering the fleet in 1980. Pan Am acquired 12 examples and they had all left the fleet by 1986 with two examples being purchased by United Airlines after that airline had purchased Pan Am's Pacific division and route network in 1986.

Pan Am acquired the DC10 through the merger with National Airlines in 1980. In total there were 11 DC10-10 which had left the fleet by 1984 and all purchased by United Airlines and 5 DC10-30 which had left the fleet by 1985 and also purchased by United Airlines.


That is what I said. I inserted additional commas for those of you unable to read a comment in its entirety.
 
shankly
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 10:42 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:57 pm

millionsofmiles wrote:
I did not say that.


I'm sorry, you did, but I accept your sentence compilation was a tad clumsy....

All I'd asked was a memory jog as to whether PA was a launch customer for the -500....I think they were, along with BA? Wrong aircraft for Pan Am? Yep, but sadly no medals for noting that.

As an aside, the bulk of both the BA and Pan Am -500 fleets of course ended up with the RAF...i'm old enough to remember them sitting around at my then local sleepy airports, Stansted and Cambridge, between disposal and conversion to RAF requirements
L1011 - P F M
 
DWC
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:58 pm

millionsofmiles wrote:
LOL... it’s a GLOBE, and TWA, Continental or whoever else you want to cite...were not copying Pan Am...LOL It is certainly not a stretch...although apparently for you...that a globe would be a natural element of a global airline’s branding.
That’s like saying the spirit of Pan Am lives on in Piedmont because they both begin with P.
Are you saying that the spirit of Pan Am is reflected in British Airways’ use of the globe at the end of this 1990 commercial? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Thanks for quoting me trice, that will help people make their own opinion, which was the initial idea. :bigthumbsup:
But you shouldn't have, you are trolling by making my anecdote into a big problem in a thread about something else.

In case you missed it, the globe is such a strong symbol that few carriers can carry it without looking copycats.
Obviously calling oneself "Continental" does help to "wear" it, Delta or Ryanair would have a more difficult job.
Today, cite the globe logo and everyone will think United.
Nostalgics may think Pan Am, CO or TWA.
You try to toss in your P's & see how many come up with Pan Am.
FYI, BA is never associated with the Globe, but with the Union Jack.
Last edited by DWC on Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2791
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:01 pm

IIRC, PanAm’s originally ordered Tristar 500s went to United with the Pacific route sale in 1986. They didn’t linger long, and all went to Delta in 1988.
 
User avatar
millionsofmiles
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:03 pm

DWC wrote:
Thanks for quoting me trice, people will make an opinion for themselves, which was the initial idea.
But you shouldn't have, you are trolling by making what was an anecdote into a big problem in a thread that is about the something else.

In case you missed it, the globe is such a strong symbol that few carriers can carry it without looking copycats.
Obviously calling oneself "Continental" does help to "wear" it, Delta or Ryanair would have a more difficult job.
Today, cite the globe logo and everyone will think United.
Nostalgics may think Pan Am, CO or TWA.
You try to toss in your P's & see how many come up with Pan Am.
FYI, BA is never associated with the Globe, but with the Union Jack.


Continental’s use of the globe in its rebranding had no more to do with the Pan Am globe than United Airways in Bangladesh has to do with United Airlines in the USA.

I am sorry the concept escapes you.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5450
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:07 pm

The 747 arguably lit the fuse for Pan Am’s demise. They had too many of them, and couldn’t reliably fill them. But the biggest reason for their decline and fall was Juan Trippe. He built the airline on political wheeling and dealing, and made a lot of enemies in the process. When he retired the friends went away as well, but the enemies remained and remembered. This is why they were blocked from building a domestic network, which led to the disastrous National merger, and the fact that they had no clue that deregulation was coming which happened shortly after the merger. By the time the 744 came out they were in no condition to even think about it. And as to having 747s at the end, I had a flight instructor who was a 747 captain with them right up to the end. I actually only had one flight with him (he died shortly after), but I learned more in that one flight than in any ten I took with other instructors.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
shankly
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 10:42 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:11 pm

luckyone wrote:
IIRC, PanAm’s originally ordered Tristar 500s went to United with the Pacific route sale in 1986. They didn’t linger long, and all went to Delta in 1988.


...save the three that went to the RAF in 1984 N503PA, N508PA & N509PA
L1011 - P F M
 
User avatar
millionsofmiles
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:15 pm

SEPilot wrote:
The 747 arguably lit the fuse for Pan Am’s demise. They had too many of them, and couldn’t reliably fill them. But the biggest reason for their decline and fall was Juan Trippe. He built the airline on political wheeling and dealing, and made a lot of enemies in the process. When he retired the friends went away as well, but the enemies remained and remembered. This is why they were blocked from building a domestic network, which led to the disastrous National merger, and the fact that they had no clue that deregulation was coming which happened shortly after the merger. By the time the 744 came out they were in no condition to even think about it. And as to having 747s at the end, I had a flight instructor who was a 747 captain with them right up to the end. I actually only had one flight with him (he died shortly after), but I learned more in that one flight than in any ten I took with other instructors.


This is absolutely true. The 747s came at the worst possible time, and Pan Am, like other airlines, purchased too many. They could not have predicted the global drop in air travel due to a variety of factors in the early 70s.

Washington DC worked against Pan Am, and when deregulation hit, it was an anachronistic relic.

No place is this better explained than in the documentary, “Death of an American Dream,” which I had posted to my YouTube channel, which I no longer possess. I probably have one of the few surviving copies. I’ll post it if I ever start up a YouTube channel again.
 
Cunard
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:19 pm

luckyone wrote:
IIRC, PanAm’s originally ordered Tristar 500s went to United with the Pacific route sale in 1986. They didn’t linger long, and all went to Delta in 1988.


Pan Am ordered 12 L1011-500 direct from Lockheed with the first example entering the fleet in 1980, they had all left the fleet by 1986. Six examples were sold to the United Kingdom for the Royal Air Force with the first three examples arriving in 1984. The other six being acquired by United Airlines after that airline had purchased Pan Am's Pacific division and route network in 1986, these were later sold on to Delta by 1988.

It's already been stated before your post that six examples went to the RAF and not all 12 500's went to United Airlines as part of the Pan Am Pacific route sale in 1986.
94 Countries, 327 Destinations Worldwide, 32 Airlines, 29 Aircraft Types, 182 Airports, 335 Flights.
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:27 pm

If PA beat Al Checchi to buy NWA it would have gotten the 744 and it would have been used over the pacific (plus, I suspect on LHR). In full irony, if that happened, the whole result would probably ended up the same way: Delta (except it would have a MIA hub).
 
Cunard
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:36 pm

DWC wrote:
millionsofmiles wrote:
LOL... it’s a GLOBE, and TWA, Continental or whoever else you want to cite...were not copying Pan Am...LOL It is certainly not a stretch...although apparently for you...that a globe would be a natural element of a global airline’s branding.
That’s like saying the spirit of Pan Am lives on in Piedmont because they both begin with P.
Are you saying that the spirit of Pan Am is reflected in British Airways’ use of the globe at the end of this 1990 commercial? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Thanks for quoting me trice, that will help people make their own opinion, which was the initial idea. :bigthumbsup:
But you shouldn't have, you are trolling by making my anecdote into a big problem in a thread about something else.

In case you missed it, the globe is such a strong symbol that few carriers can carry it without looking copycats.
Obviously calling oneself "Continental" does help to "wear" it, Delta or Ryanair would have a more difficult job.
Today, cite the globe logo and everyone will think United.
Nostalgics may think Pan Am, CO or TWA.
You try to toss in your P's & see how many come up with Pan Am.
FYI, BA is never associated with the Globe, but with the Union Jack.


FYI.........

FYI BA is not associated with the Union Jack.

FYI BA is associated with the Union Flag.

FYI The flag of the United Kingdom is only referred to as the Union Jack whenever it is officially flown on the foremast or ''jack'' of a vessel of the Royal Navy or any vessel carrying the Blue Ensign. At all other times it is referred to as the Union Flag.

FYI a common mistake made by so many people including yourself :-)
94 Countries, 327 Destinations Worldwide, 32 Airlines, 29 Aircraft Types, 182 Airports, 335 Flights.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:42 pm

It's largely United's fault. The 747SP was bought for pacific routes. It was the 747-400 that replaced it.
When UA took over PA's pacific routes, there and then the need for the 744 disappeared. The 744 was built
for the likes of Airlines like Qantas, BA, Air NZ, KLM, JAL and Singapore that had a need for the longer hauls.
You could ask the same question about TWA and American and you'd basically get the same answer.
 
N649DL
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:57 pm

millionsofmiles wrote:
DWC wrote:
on a sidenote, Pan Am's "globe logo" lives on with United, introduced by Continental in 1991 the very year Pan Am folded.
Can't be a coincidence.


You should probably do some research into what was going on with Continental that year...and since 1983...to get an accurate understanding of the 1991 rebranding campaign. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with Pan Am.

https://youtu.be/DVlNf4Io2Do


Seriously. I'm still ticked UAL didn't keep the Tulip logo, but the CO globe was released independently of anything Pan Am. In fact, based on assets alone, CO was largely an extension of Eastern from the Texas Air days (OnePass and SystemOne were Eastern products at CO)

Regarding Pan Am merging with NW, I was at the Smithsonian in DC and read this amazing history of NW book in the gift shop for about an hour. Not only was NW in final negotiations with Pan Am in 1989, but KLM was heavily included into the deal. Many in MSP at NW thought it was coming (daily rumors) but IIRC Pan Am pissed off a few at KLM and some high level banks from NYC corporate at PA and the deal went dead.

The deal they were trying to reach was a carbon copy of the DL/AF/KL alliance established in 2009 after merging NW. Back then it was posed to be PA/NW/KL. Honestly, it was sad it didn't happen after reading that NW book in DC this past year. DL essentially screwed over Pan Am in more ways than a few but they were dead after Lockerbie. Also sad because PA was a bit better financially by 1987 with new management in place.
Last edited by N649DL on Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2791
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:00 pm

Cunard wrote:
luckyone wrote:
IIRC, PanAm’s originally ordered Tristar 500s went to United with the Pacific route sale in 1986. They didn’t linger long, and all went to Delta in 1988.


Pan Am ordered 12 L1011-500 direct from Lockheed with the first example entering the fleet in 1980, they had all left the fleet by 1986. Six examples were sold to the United Kingdom for the Royal Air Force with the first three examples arriving in 1984. The other six being acquired by United Airlines after that airline had purchased Pan Am's Pacific division and route network in 1986, these were later sold on to Delta by 1988.

It's already been stated before your post that six examples went to the RAF and not all 12 500's went to United Airlines as part of the Pan Am Pacific route sale in 1986.

Yes, thank you for the clarification. I actually stated that post and it lingered in limbo, and the other poster provided a clearer answer before my post went through. What I should have clarified is that all of United’s Tristars went to Delta.
Last edited by luckyone on Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
DWC
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:10 pm

Cunard wrote:
FYI BA is not associated with the Union Jack.
FYI BA is associated with the Union Flag.
FYI The flag of the United Kingdom is only referred to as the Union Jack whenever it is officially flown on the foremast or ''jack'' of a vessel of the Royal Navy or any vessel carrying the Blue Ensign. At all other times it is referred to as the Union Flag.
FYI a common mistake made by so many people including yourself :-)

Both terms are synonyms, not just colloquially but also in the diplomatic world.
If you want to waste time over nothing, you can take it up with the UK government & wiki too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack

Last, you are totally besides my point, everyone can see the British flag on BA's tails, whatever you like to call it.

N649DL wrote:
the CO globe was released independently of anything Pan Am. In fact, based on assets alone, CO was largely an extension of Eastern from the Texas Air days (OnePass and SystemOne were Eastern products at CO)
Regarding Pan Am merging with NW, I was at the Smithsonian in DC and read this amazing history of NW book in the gift shop for about an hour. Not only was NW in final negotiations with Pan Am in 1989, but KLM was heavily included into the deal. Many in MSP at NW thought it was coming (daily rumors) but IIRC Pan Am pissed off a few at KLM and some high level banks from NYC corporate at PA and the deal went dead.
The deal they were trying to reach was a carbon copy of the DL/AF/KL alliance established in 2009 after merging NW. Back then it was posed to be PA/NW/KL. Honestly, it was sad it didn't happen after reading that NW book in DC.

If you want to copy a good idea without paying royalties or to avoid a court trial, are you going to ask it officially ?
Anyway, I know for a fact CO wanted a global logo & looked at the world's most famous one after that of the United Nations.
I'll give you other examples : Mitsubishi ( means 3 Suns, mitsu & hishi ) looked at Daimler Benz' logo, and opted for the 3 diamonds, thicker & redder so as to not be called copycats. Likewise, in Thailand, I once worked on "Banana computers", branded that way with a rainbowed banana logo, copycats of Apple IIs.
In aviation, QF's famous red down the tail was pioneered by UTA a whole decade earlier, Lufthansa's revized livery is even more similar, yet I am sure you will find here members stating they have nothing to do with either. Serve yourselves.

More to the point, NW & KLM had the first airline alliance ever, both served much of the whole world, I still remember how that was proudly advertized in Schipol.
Would be interesting to know what is it Pan Am did that irked them so much to walk away.
Last edited by DWC on Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5450
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:23 pm

N717TW wrote:
If PA beat Al Checchi to buy NWA it would have gotten the 744 and it would have been used over the pacific (plus, I suspect on LHR). In full irony, if that happened, the whole result would probably ended up the same way: Delta (except it would have a MIA hub).

Pan Am acquiring NW was a pipe dream. They were floundering badly and had no liquid assets at all. It would be like your neighborhood developer on the brink of bankruptcy buying out Donald Trump. Yes, NW was a ripe takeover target but you still had to bring something to the table, and Pan Am had nothing to bring. If Al Checchi had not then some other shark would have. NW was just too attractive and too vulnerable, and PA just did not have the financial strength to pull it off. This was at the height of the leveraged buyout boom, and there were many sharks out hunting for tempting targets.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
N649DL
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:33 pm

DWC wrote:
Cunard wrote:
FYI BA is not associated with the Union Jack.
FYI BA is associated with the Union Flag.
FYI The flag of the United Kingdom is only referred to as the Union Jack whenever it is officially flown on the foremast or ''jack'' of a vessel of the Royal Navy or any vessel carrying the Blue Ensign. At all other times it is referred to as the Union Flag.
FYI a common mistake made by so many people including yourself :-)

Both terms are synonyms, not just colloquially but also in the diplomatic world.
If you want to waste time over nothing, you can take it up with the UK government & wiki too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack

Last, you are totally besides my point, everyone can see the British flag on BA's tails, whatever you like to call it.

N649DL wrote:
the CO globe was released independently of anything Pan Am. In fact, based on assets alone, CO was largely an extension of Eastern from the Texas Air days (OnePass and SystemOne were Eastern products at CO)
Regarding Pan Am merging with NW, I was at the Smithsonian in DC and read this amazing history of NW book in the gift shop for about an hour. Not only was NW in final negotiations with Pan Am in 1989, but KLM was heavily included into the deal. Many in MSP at NW thought it was coming (daily rumors) but IIRC Pan Am pissed off a few at KLM and some high level banks from NYC corporate at PA and the deal went dead.
The deal they were trying to reach was a carbon copy of the DL/AF/KL alliance established in 2009 after merging NW. Back then it was posed to be PA/NW/KL. Honestly, it was sad it didn't happen after reading that NW book in DC.

If you want to copy a good idea without paying royalties or to avoid a court trial, are you going to ask it officially ?
Anyway, I know for a fact CO wanted a global logo & looked at the world's most famous one after that of the United Nations.
I'll give you other examples : Mitsubishi ( means 3 Suns, mitsu & hishi ) looked at Daimler Benz' logo, and opted for the 3 diamonds, thicker & redder so as to not be called copycats. Likewise, in Thailand, I once worked on "Banana computers", branded that way with a rainbowed banana logo, copycats of Apple IIs.
In aviation, QF's famous red down the tail was pioneered by UTA a whole decade earlier, Lufthansa's revized livery is even more similar, yet I am sure you will find here members stating they have nothing to do with either. Serve yourselves.

More to the point, NW & KLM had the first airline alliance ever, both served much of the whole world, I still remember how that was proudly advertized in Schipol.
Would be interesting to know what is it Pan Am did that irked them so much to walk away.


Yeah I should've paid 40 bucks for the book. It was from 2013 and this read was just this year on business travel to DC from LA. I couldn't fit it in my bag either.

Bottom line, it was extremely close with NW and PA merging. Debt from PA was core issue at hand but NW had plans around it to get it done.

I also recall the chapter was centered around NW corporate being in chaos in the 1980s after swallowing up Republic and for NW to get a deal with PA was a "nice to have" ---- but for PA it was essentially imperative for survival and it was "do or die" mode. By no means were things Rosy at NW either but they ran a tight ship financially compared to PA. IIRC Pan Am corporate was fine with NW management but it got complicated with KLM and the banks were very cautious, doubty & restrictive with Pan Ams massive debt problems for a merger in 1989.
Last edited by N649DL on Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Prost
Posts: 2419
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:35 pm

Checchi and Wilson didn’t exactly bring a hell of a lot to the NWA table either.
 
georgiabill
Posts: 1191
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 11:53 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:47 pm

If the attempt to buy NW was before selling their asian route authorities to UA I would have thought government regulators would have demanded some diversifying of the combined asian route network
 
global2
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:50 am

Several comments made here that the L1011-500 was a bad choice for Pan Am. I'm just curious as to why? Was it just wrong for Pan Am, or was the -500 derivative not a great derivative?
 
User avatar
millionsofmiles
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Mon Sep 09, 2019 2:24 am

global2 wrote:
Several comments made here that the L1011-500 was a bad choice for Pan Am. I'm just curious as to why? Was it just wrong for Pan Am, or was the -500 derivative not a great derivative?


As with just about everything in Pan Am’s later years, if was a convergence of events which made the L-1011-500 a poor equipment decision.

The -500 was originally envisioned by Pan Am management to be a 707 replacement. Arguably, other then tri-jets, there were not a lot of choices at the time for longish routes that did not justify the capacity of the 747. Even the 747SP was just too big to be considered a 707 replacement for Pan Am. The 757; 767; A300-600 and A310 were still a few years away.

Against this backdrop, Pan Am got into a costly bidding war for National Airlines against Texas Air and Eastern (still separate companies at the time). Pan Am only received access to domestic routes with deregulation (one notable exception (and perhaps one more) was the JFK-DTW leg of an international flight to which Pan Am was given local traffic rights just prior to deregulation), and, rightly or wrongly, felt that acquiring National would give it an instant domestic route system. Much has been written about the folly of the National purchase: the acquisition of debt; the clash of cultures; the increase in employee compensation involved in bringing National’s employees up to Pan Am’s edges; the operational problems (Orange vs Blue divisions); the incompatible fleet; the somewhat incompatible route system...all of which hit at a time when the airlines began feeling the effects of a fuel crisis and a worsening economy.

Many will argue that the National merger was pivotal in assuring Pan Am’s eventual demise. National was a great airline with a loyal following and a paid-for fleet. However , Pan Am over paid for a route system that it could have built on its own if the merger had never occurred, and it would have had the luxury of choosing to open ONLY the routes that made sense and that it really wanted to fly. Much of the National route system was gone in a couple years anyway.

Meanwhile, the first deliveries of the -500s came right around the same time. One of the first routes was JFK-CCS, arguably a perfect fit since it was mainly the purview of the 707. However, with the National merger, Pan Am also acquired a fleet of DC-10s, including 4 -30s (soon to be 5) that could easily accomplish what the -500 was supposed to do.

This redundancy resulted in Pan Am struggling to place the -500s on suitable routes, most of which could have been operated by the very flexible DC-10, a fleet that was already paid for.

When the bottom fell out in 1980 and all the major airlines began to suffer, Pan Am found itself struggling to incorporate the merged National Airlines as well as saddled with the debt of an airplane, the -500, which was already made redundant before it ever hit the property.

Pan Am first got rid of the DC-10s, all but one traded to AA for some 747s, but, by then, Pan Am had contracted considerably from its immediate post-merger peak. Pan Am entered some really hard times, and was then offered a sweetheart deal by Airbus for a fleet of A300B4s and A310s. The arrival of the Airbus arguably sounded the death knell for the -500, and Pan Am eagerly unloaded them to United in the 1985 Pacific route acquisition.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:15 am

Who cares..if they do not like a thread..do not partake...simple!!

I miss Pan Am...maybe cause it was my 1st 747 flight...way back in 1973!
 
global2
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:16 am

millionsofmiles wrote:
global2 wrote:
Several comments made here that the L1011-500 was a bad choice for Pan Am. I'm just curious as to why? Was it just wrong for Pan Am, or was the -500 derivative not a great derivative?


As with just about everything in Pan Am’s later years, if was a convergence of events which made the L-1011-500 a poor equipment decision.

The -500 was originally envisioned by Pan Am management to be a 707 replacement. Arguably, other then tri-jets, there were not a lot of choices at the time for longish routes that did not justify the capacity of the 747. Even the 747SP was just too big to be considered a 707 replacement for Pan Am. The 757; 767; A300-600 and A310 were still a few years away.

Against this backdrop, Pan Am got into a costly bidding war for National Airlines against Texas Air and Eastern (still separate companies at the time). Pan Am only received access to domestic routes with deregulation (one notable exception (and perhaps one more) was the JFK-DTW leg of an international flight to which Pan Am was given local traffic rights just prior to deregulation), and, rightly or wrongly, felt that acquiring National would give it an instant domestic route system. Much has been written about the folly of the National purchase: the acquisition of debt; the clash of cultures; the increase in employee compensation involved in bringing National’s employees up to Pan Am’s edges; the operational problems (Orange vs Blue divisions); the incompatible fleet; the somewhat incompatible route system...all of which hit at a time when the airlines began feeling the effects of a fuel crisis and a worsening economy.

Many will argue that the National merger was pivotal in assuring Pan Am’s eventual demise. National was a great airline with a loyal following and a paid-for fleet. However , Pan Am over paid for a route system that it could have built on its own if the merger had never occurred, and it would have had the luxury of choosing to open ONLY the routes that made sense and that it really wanted to fly. Much of the National route system was gone in a couple years anyway.

Meanwhile, the first deliveries of the -500s came right around the same time. One of the first routes was JFK-CCS, arguably a perfect fit since it was mainly the purview of the 707. However, with the National merger, Pan Am also acquired a fleet of DC-10s, including 4 -30s (soon to be 5) that could easily accomplish what the -500 was supposed to do.

This redundancy resulted in Pan Am struggling to place the -500s on suitable routes, most of which could have been operated by the very flexible DC-10, a fleet that was already paid for.

When the bottom fell out in 1980 and all the major airlines began to suffer, Pan Am found itself struggling to incorporate the merged National Airlines as well as saddled with the debt of an airplane, the -500, which was already made redundant before it ever hit the property.

Pan Am first got rid of the DC-10s, all but one traded to AA for some 747s, but, by then, Pan Am had contracted considerably from its immediate post-merger peak. Pan Am entered some really hard times, and was then offered a sweetheart deal by Airbus for a fleet of A300B4s and A310s. The arrival of the Airbus arguably sounded the death knell for the -500, and Pan Am eagerly unloaded them to United in the 1985 Pacific route acquisition.


Thanks for that info--sounds like lots of bad timing. I see mostly accolades posted here about the L-1011 (sadly I never got to fly on one) so I was curious about the negative remarks about the -500 version. My last flight on Pan Am, after a fifteen year break was on a A300 from JFK to BOS. The beverage service was done on trays with choices of soft drinks, not from a dingy cart. I thought at the time it was classy, just as many of us would like to remember Pan Am.
 
global2
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:18 am

Scotron12 wrote:
Who cares..if they do not like a thread..do not partake...simple!!

I miss Pan Am...maybe cause it was my 1st 747 flight...way back in 1973!


I'm not trying to one-up you but mine was in 1972; LHR to JFK. I'll never forget my astonishment at the size of that cabin! The year before that I flew on one of their 707's from JFK to HND (I think it was TYO at the time), with a refueling stop in Fairbanks.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21520
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:05 am

VC10er wrote:
I often imagine what PanAm would be like today had she survived, grown and was equal in size to one of the US3. With 748i’s, 787’s and A220’s!
What would international First Class looked like? PanAm lounges. A barely changed livery.


In an alternate universe where PA survived and a different carrier (say DL) didn't, PA would simply be another of the US3. They would have a similar product to the product offered by UA, DL, or AA, but with lots of blue. And I'm pretty sure their livery would have been updated. Perhaps the original Saul Bass globe would still be in use. More likely, it would have been swooshified into something else. They'd have graduated to a sans-serif font by now (serif fonts went out between 2000 and 2010)

People would wistfully wonder what would have become of DL if they had survived. And the world would otherwise look the same.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Scotron12
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Pan Am and the 747-400

Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:42 am

global2 wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:
Who cares..if they do not like a thread..do not partake...simple!!

I miss Pan Am...maybe cause it was my 1st 747 flight...way back in 1973!


I'm not trying to one-up you but mine was in 1972; LHR to JFK. I'll never forget my astonishment at the size of that cabin! The year before that I flew on one of their 707's from JFK to HND (I think it was TYO at the time), with a refueling stop in Fairbanks.


Did the 747SP JFK-NRT connect to PAN AM 002 NRT-HKG...way back in 1979....longest on the L1011 was JFK-GIG in 1985.

To think that Pan Am once owned InterContinental Hotels, and of course the iconic Pan Am building in NYC! Sad huh?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos