Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
DLHAM
Topic Author
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:38 pm

In 1984 and 1985 Pan Am took their first Airbuses, in May 1985 they got four A310-221s (N801PA, N802PA, N803PA and N804PA) -- these were Clippers Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich and Hamburg. As far as I know these four flew on Intra German Services and were not seen on the other side of the Atlantic -- at least so far.
In early 1986 they took three A310-222 (N805PA, N806PA, N807PA) -- I think these were equipped with a international cabin configuration including First Class, unlike the other ones. They flew transatlantic flights from the beginning.

Now comes my question: I read that Pan Am "upgraded" these first four A310s (801, 2, 3, 4) from A310-221s to A310-222s at some point. This meant they got a higher MTOW (also engine modificiations?) what increased their range.
Does anyone knows if these birds received a new "international" cabin and also flew on the Atlantic on a regular basis? There are some photos of these ones in the US, but not as many that you could say they definitely flew TATL regularly.

And in general: on which transatlantic routes did Pan Am use their A310-200s? I know JFK-HAM saw them a lot, also I see quite a few pictures of PA A310-200s in BRU and OSL, as well as DTW and LHR (DTW-LHR was a Pan Am A310 route AFAIK).
Also it seems like their A310-200s were based in Europe and A310-300s were based in the US, is that right?




My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
User avatar
DL_Mech
Posts: 2517
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 7:48 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 1:58 am

I only know that when they came to DL in 1991, they were all configured the same. The -200s had a different aft lav/galley setup than the -300 and the less powerful JT9D-7R4E1 engine.
This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 2069
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:05 am

I think both the -200s and -300s flew TATL ultimately. You're right that JFK-HAM, BRU, OSL (FBU) saw them, and the A310 also operated DTW-LHR, JFK-ZRH, and JFK-MXP (and FCO at times). There were I think 15 A313s and 16 A312s if I remember correctly. Not sure about the cabin interiors being configured differently.
 
LJ
Posts: 5354
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 10:05 am

Didn't they fly HAM in connection with AMS at one point? I recall seeing the A310s at AMS.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6001
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:00 am

Was the intention to get rid of all the 747s and replace them with 310s?

Or was it supplemental?
 
amc737
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:56 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:02 am

Typically from Heathrow Pan Am had up to 9 Trans Atlantic flights per day, (3 JFK, 1 IAD, 1 MIA, 1 DTW, 1 SFO 1 LAX 1 SEA) although the west coast services only all operated daily in peak summer. Only Detroit was usually an A310 and the aircraft would swap at Heathrow with a A310 that arrived from an European destination - i.e the A310 would operate JFK-BRU-LHR-DTW-LHR-BRU-JFK

As Pan Am declined coupled with the recession and Gulf War A310s replaced 747's on Washington and some JFK's along with Detroit. N801PA-N804PA certainly flew transatlantic into Heathrow. When Pan Am sold its Heathrow authority Detroit and Miami routes where not included in the sale to United and moved (with a months gap) to Gatwick, Detroit continued with the same flight numbers PA54/55 and was operated with an A310 until these routes where sold to Delta although Delta did continue to use A310's into Gatwick

amc737
 
MEA-707
Posts: 3786
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 1999 4:51 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:30 am

jfklganyc wrote:
Was the intention to get rid of all the 747s and replace them with 310s?

Or was it supplemental?

They had not much options as they ran out of money. Airbus and Fokker (they were about to get 30 Fokker 100s) were more eager to bag this prestigious name (faded glory) to their operator list and offered more financing/lease options than Boeing at the time. I am sure if they had more money they'd have liked the 767-300 and later the 777.
If their late 80s plans worked well, their shrunk fleet in 1996 would be like 40x A300/310, 30x F100, 30x A320 and maybe still a dozen 727s and 747s which they would use til a lease return or an overhaul come up.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
 
TUGMASTER
Posts: 1218
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:56 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 12:07 pm

Good questions and thread.
All I can tell you from my personal experience, was that I flew HAM - TXL on N806PA in Sept 86.... with a walk up fare of 54DM... about £18 at the time....
Plane was empty... 30 people tops.
(Return was on a PA 732, same fare...)
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6001
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 12:30 pm

MEA-707 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Was the intention to get rid of all the 747s and replace them with 310s?

Or was it supplemental?

They had not much options as they ran out of money. Airbus and Fokker (they were about to get 30 Fokker 100s) were more eager to bag this prestigious name (faded glory) to their operator list and offered more financing/lease options than Boeing at the time. I am sure if they had more money they'd have liked the 767-300 and later the 777.
If their late 80s plans worked well, their shrunk fleet in 1996 would be like 40x A300/310, 30x F100, 30x A320 and maybe still a dozen 727s and 747s which they would use til a lease return or an overhaul come up.


Interesting

What is the focus to be solely JFK and Miami?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10715
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 12:57 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
MEA-707 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Was the intention to get rid of all the 747s and replace them with 310s?

Or was it supplemental?

They had not much options as they ran out of money. Airbus and Fokker (they were about to get 30 Fokker 100s) were more eager to bag this prestigious name (faded glory) to their operator list and offered more financing/lease options than Boeing at the time. I am sure if they had more money they'd have liked the 767-300 and later the 777.
If their late 80s plans worked well, their shrunk fleet in 1996 would be like 40x A300/310, 30x F100, 30x A320 and maybe still a dozen 727s and 747s which they would use til a lease return or an overhaul come up.


Interesting

What is the focus to be solely JFK and Miami?

When specifically are you talking about? At the end their focus was basically MIA and rebuilding from there. Before that is was primarily JFK and Europe.
 
toobz
Posts: 871
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:33 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 1:11 pm

The 200s and 300s both flew transatlantic. Flown on both to HEL numerous times. Although 90% of the time it was the 300. Miss Pan Am. And as far as cabin..I honestly don’t recall any difference. Except like somebody mentioned maybe the lavs.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Topic Author
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 1:19 pm

LJ wrote:
Didn't they fly HAM in connection with AMS at one point? I recall seeing the A310s at AMS.


The from summer 1991 (the last months) they switched the PA46/47 JFK-HAM to PA92 JFK-AMS-HAM-JFK 4 weekly and PA93 JFK-HAM-AMS-JFK 3 weekly. So a triangle flight, this remained like that until the bitter end at I think November 1 -- after that Delta took the route over.
In 1991 also Lufthansa flew HAM-EWR daily nonstop, United had their "direct" change of gauge service to JFK via LHR and Delta flew HAM-ATL daily nonstop
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
iRISH251
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:56 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 1:47 pm

On 24 October 1989 I flew PA102 JFK-LHR, operated by N806PA.Image
 
User avatar
EstherLouise
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:16 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:27 pm

I flew DTW-LHR on N103PA in April 1988.
712 722 732 734 737 738 741 742 744 752 762 772 A310 DC91 DC93 DC94 DC1030 DC1040 F100 MD82 MD83
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5030
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:47 pm

DL_Mech wrote:
I only know that when they came to DL in 1991, they were all configured the same. The -200s had a different aft lav/galley setup than the -300 and the less powerful JT9D-7R4E1 engine.

Less Powerful? As compared to what? The 7R4-D/E/And G all had at least 56K and could be dialed up to 67K . What was the power rating on the airplanes you worked on?00
 
User avatar
Wildlander
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:08 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:17 pm

If memory serves me well the first four PA A310-200s started life as -221s with 138.6t MTOW and 49klb 74RD1 engines, these being NTU by VASP. The last three were destined for Kuwait AW but bought out by Boeing pre delivery. These were A310-222s with 142t MTOW and 50k 7R4E1 engines. I believe all were subsequently standardised at the latter configuration. PA fully optimized the transatlantic performance of these planes such that they made it across the pond in JFK most days without a fuel stop. When Delta inherited them and applied their flight planning and cabin product standards there were considerably more stops Westbound in winter. Delta explored the possibility of a higher MTOW with an added fuel tank but opted to go with more A310-300s instead (not that these lasted for long either...)
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Topic Author
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:31 pm

Wildlander wrote:
When Delta inherited them and applied their flight planning and cabin product standards there were considerably more stops Westbound in winter. Delta explored the possibility of a higher MTOW with an added fuel tank but opted to go with more A310-300s instead (not that these lasted for long either...)


I read elsewhere that Pan Am used the re-dispatch procedure in their A310. Flights were flight planned to JFK but dispatched to another closer place that is reachable with these 10% of fuel that is not usable for planning on overwater flights.
Once they reached the other end of the Atlantic these 10% of unusable fuel became usable and was usually enough then to get to JFK.
Delta would not do that and suffer from a lot more fuel stops.

But also Pan Am had to have empty seats even in summer it seems. In an old press article it says that Pan Am adds an additional weekly flight on JFK-HAM to "meet the demand of a certain number of empty seats". So they could not fly the A310-200 fully booked even in summer. Must have been much worse in winter then.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
tu204
Posts: 2178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:58 pm

DLHAM wrote:
Wildlander wrote:
When Delta inherited them and applied their flight planning and cabin product standards there were considerably more stops Westbound in winter. Delta explored the possibility of a higher MTOW with an added fuel tank but opted to go with more A310-300s instead (not that these lasted for long either...)


I read elsewhere that Pan Am used the re-dispatch procedure in their A310. Flights were flight planned to JFK but dispatched to another closer place that is reachable with these 10% of fuel that is not usable for planning on overwater flights.
Once they reached the other end of the Atlantic these 10% of unusable fuel became usable and was usually enough then to get to JFK.
Delta would not do that and suffer from a lot more fuel stops.

But also Pan Am had to have empty seats even in summer it seems. In an old press article it says that Pan Am adds an additional weekly flight on JFK-HAM to "meet the demand of a certain number of empty seats". So they could not fly the A310-200 fully booked even in summer. Must have been much worse in winter then.


Are you certain? I would be a little surprised the FAA would allow such "flight planning".
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 868
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:24 pm

tu204 wrote:
Are you certain? I would be a little surprised the FAA would allow such "flight planning".


During dispatcher training, I do recall hearing about this technique, especially in regards to longer North American transcon flights. However, never do I recall hearing about it for ETOPS flights, not saying of course it could not be done. Especially if weather, fuel, diversion airports, alternates, and such existed.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
User avatar
Wildlander
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:08 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:29 pm

I too recall PA using reclearance. Flight plan to (say) Boston, fill the tanks, set off and if the winds were not worse than forecast and the desired track/flight level were assigned reclear to JFK before reaching the initial flight plan destination...or stop for a splash and dash at the original destination. Quite legal, AFAIK. I dare say that the PA flight crews became expert at calculating what they could do. I would be enlightening to know how many times they had to call PAN PAN when they ended up near minimums on descent.
 
User avatar
DL_Mech
Posts: 2517
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 7:48 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:58 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
DL_Mech wrote:
The -200s had a different aft lav/galley setup than the -300 and the less powerful JT9D-7R4E1 engine.

Less Powerful? As compared to what?


I was comparing them to the PW 4152 on the -300 (52K).
This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
 
tu204
Posts: 2178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:12 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
tu204 wrote:
Are you certain? I would be a little surprised the FAA would allow such "flight planning".


During dispatcher training, I do recall hearing about this technique, especially in regards to longer North American transcon flights. However, never do I recall hearing about it for ETOPS flights, not saying of course it could not be done. Especially if weather, fuel, diversion airports, alternates, and such existed.


Sorry, in my neck of the woods this ain't too legal/possible, but interested to hear more.

So let's say we file LHR to BOS, and then en route we discovered winds and routing to be better than we expected, we drop BOS as a destination and file for JFK, but as long as we still have enough fuel in the tanks to meet reserves (JFK+to alternate+45 minutes). Correct?

We can't tap into our reserves to re-file JFK as a destination, right?
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6001
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:13 pm

Polot wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
MEA-707 wrote:
They had not much options as they ran out of money. Airbus and Fokker (they were about to get 30 Fokker 100s) were more eager to bag this prestigious name (faded glory) to their operator list and offered more financing/lease options than Boeing at the time. I am sure if they had more money they'd have liked the 767-300 and later the 777.
If their late 80s plans worked well, their shrunk fleet in 1996 would be like 40x A300/310, 30x F100, 30x A320 and maybe still a dozen 727s and 747s which they would use til a lease return or an overhaul come up.


Interesting

What is the focus to be solely JFK and Miami?

When specifically are you talking about? At the end their focus was basically MIA and rebuilding from there. Before that is was primarily JFK and Europe.



Someone referenced a 1990s fleet plan

What was the 1990s network supposed to look like if they didnt meltdown in 1991
 
ERAUMBA
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:08 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:14 pm

Wildlander wrote:
I would be enlightening to know how many times they had to call PAN PAN when they ended up near minimums on descent.



Intercontinental flights are often dispatched in this manner.

Flight Plan would be filed ABC to XYZ and state “subject to re-release to XYZ [intended destination] over [insert FIX]” the flight plan with ATC never changes; you are not refiling, you are redispatching.

If there are fuel consumption issues, you land at that re-release point, or, divert for fuel to a planned diversion point that is not necessarily that re-release FIX. The re-release fix could be some randomly calculated FIX or NAVAID and not an airport (also, not necessarily the ETP)...

And, prior to declaring “PAN PAN PAN” you would simply state “minimum fuel” and continue as normal with your approach... “PAN PAN PAN” was phraseology seldom used in 1970’s and 80’s by US pilots; it was a “European” thing, as they would say - more international verbiage. “Mayday” was the word of choice. What you speculate likely never occurred....
Last edited by ERAUMBA on Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6001
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:21 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
tu204 wrote:
Are you certain? I would be a little surprised the FAA would allow such "flight planning".


During dispatcher training, I do recall hearing about this technique, especially in regards to longer North American transcon flights. However, never do I recall hearing about it for ETOPS flights, not saying of course it could not be done. Especially if weather, fuel, diversion airports, alternates, and such existed.



It is used

Usually when fuel due to weather wind loads runway usage etc is questionable

They take an airport under the route and dispatch to that point

Once airborne, if you find things more favorable, you get a redispatch to the new destination

It is like planning a tech stop...and then not needing it
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Topic Author
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:30 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
tu204 wrote:
Are you certain? I would be a little surprised the FAA would allow such "flight planning".


During dispatcher training, I do recall hearing about this technique, especially in regards to longer North American transcon flights. However, never do I recall hearing about it for ETOPS flights, not saying of course it could not be done. Especially if weather, fuel, diversion airports, alternates, and such existed.



It is used

Usually when fuel due to weather wind loads runway usage etc is questionable

They take an airport under the route and dispatch to that point

Once airborne, if you find things more favorable, you get a redispatch to the new destination

It is like planning a tech stop...and then not needing it


If I remember correctly Continental/United did that many times as well when they flew the 757 to Hamburg. The pilots did their briefing in my office when I worked at the airport.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 1035
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 8:11 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Polot wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:

Interesting

What is the focus to be solely JFK and Miami?

When specifically are you talking about? At the end their focus was basically MIA and rebuilding from there. Before that is was primarily JFK and Europe.



Someone referenced a 1990s fleet plan

What was the 1990s network supposed to look like if they didnt meltdown in 1991


Depends on what is your starting point, and who's planning you do.
As far as facts are concerned, by mid-1991, all trans-Pacific business was gone for years, Heathrow flying was gone, and now all trans-Atlantic was gone. Shuttle gone, too.

Prognostication.
If you read Skygods: The fall of Pan Am by Robert Gandt, about the final months of Pan Am, the basics are quite clear -- Pan Am was retrenching to Miami. Following shutdown of Eastern, a void was created in its home markets -- Atlanta and Miami.
Thus Miami was indeed not the worst choice to start from. Emotionally, it made a lot of sense to PanAmers -- PanAm started as a South Florida-based airline, so it was kind of "back to roots" -- Caribbean and South America flying, stabilizing the airline, making money, and then gradually returning to re-conquer their old glories -- trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific flying.
More practically minded, couldn't help but notice:
1) "restructured Pan Am" was to be 45% owned by Delta, and Delta was expected to provide advice and support
2) Caribbean and Latin America were "blind spots" for Delta -- they had no knowledge nor even good feeling for business there.
They suspected that Delta would use Pan Am as low-risk pathfinders. Still, that was better than just closing doors. But closing doors was exactly what happened to Pan Am later that year.
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
N649DL
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 9:39 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Polot wrote:
When specifically are you talking about? At the end their focus was basically MIA and rebuilding from there. Before that is was primarily JFK and Europe.



Someone referenced a 1990s fleet plan

What was the 1990s network supposed to look like if they didnt meltdown in 1991


Depends on what is your starting point, and who's planning you do.
As far as facts are concerned, by mid-1991, all trans-Pacific business was gone for years, Heathrow flying was gone, and now all trans-Atlantic was gone. Shuttle gone, too.

Prognostication.
If you read Skygods: The fall of Pan Am by Robert Gandt, about the final months of Pan Am, the basics are quite clear -- Pan Am was retrenching to Miami. Following shutdown of Eastern, a void was created in its home markets -- Atlanta and Miami.
Thus Miami was indeed not the worst choice to start from. Emotionally, it made a lot of sense to PanAmers -- PanAm started as a South Florida-based airline, so it was kind of "back to roots" -- Caribbean and South America flying, stabilizing the airline, making money, and then gradually returning to re-conquer their old glories -- trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific flying.
More practically minded, couldn't help but notice:
1) "restructured Pan Am" was to be 45% owned by Delta, and Delta was expected to provide advice and support
2) Caribbean and Latin America were "blind spots" for Delta -- they had no knowledge nor even good feeling for business there.
They suspected that Delta would use Pan Am as low-risk pathfinders. Still, that was better than just closing doors. But closing doors was exactly what happened to Pan Am later that year.


As much as I love DL and having Platinum status with them, I'm not sure if they were fully invested in the benefit of the Pan Am brand, or just investing and waiting for them to go up s*it's creek so they could gobble up the assets. They got into a real nasty court battle with Pan Am after they went under and almost wanted to completely wash their hands of even touching Pan Am. Pan Am employees literally lost their retirement and health benefits overnight when they shut down.

I could see DL's "blind spots" in the Caribbean and LatAm though, but those routes could've easily been tried out of DL's then big MCO hub (or even FLL where DL was also large). Most of these routes eventually were opened out of ATL with ease after Pan Am liquidated. I just couldn't see a scenario "Pan Am: Part of Delta Air Lines" as it looked like it was heading in that direction. UA also had no problem taking over Pan Am's gates at MIA once they folded as well.

Most (if not all) of Pan Am's A310s ended up with Delta anyway and fully retired in 1995-1996. They even took on new deliveries from Airbus in the early/mid 1990s as well. There was also a rumor I read on here a few years ago that Delta stored Pan Am 747 parts in ATL and potentially evaluated putting them into service (but didn't want to deal with the maintenance risk of doing so.)

I still find it interesting that DL wasn't interested in Pan Am's A300s as they were still relatively young at the time when they folded. Pan Am's A310s might've been covered in cigarette ash, but they looked a hell of a lot cleaner than DL's multicolored / pastel seat patterns at the time of acquisition.
 
panamair
Posts: 4343
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 2:24 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 10:49 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Polot wrote:
When specifically are you talking about? At the end their focus was basically MIA and rebuilding from there. Before that is was primarily JFK and Europe.



Someone referenced a 1990s fleet plan

What was the 1990s network supposed to look like if they didnt meltdown in 1991


Depends on what is your starting point, and who's planning you do.
As far as facts are concerned, by mid-1991, all trans-Pacific business was gone for years, Heathrow flying was gone, and now all trans-Atlantic was gone. Shuttle gone, too.


When they retrenched to MIA in 1991, I believe they still kept operating one transatlantic route, MIA-CDG (PA134) with the 747.
 
Halophila
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:44 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:21 pm

When I was 8 I flew from Germany (FRA?) to NBO on Pan Am and I seem to recall it was a 310. Maybe I’m making this up...
Flown on A36 310 319 320 321 332 333 343 388 350 707 717 727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 741 742 743 744 74SP 757 753 762 763 772 773 77W 787 D10 DC9 M11 M80 M87 CRJ CR7 CR9 CR1000 120 135 145 175 190 146 F28 F50 F70 F100 Tristar
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 2069
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:52 pm

amc737 wrote:
Typically from Heathrow Pan Am had up to 9 Trans Atlantic flights per day, (3 JFK, 1 IAD, 1 MIA, 1 DTW, 1 SFO 1 LAX 1 SEA) although the west coast services only all operated daily in peak summer. Only Detroit was usually an A310 and the aircraft would swap at Heathrow with a A310 that arrived from an European destination - i.e the A310 would operate JFK-BRU-LHR-DTW-LHR-BRU-JFK

As Pan Am declined coupled with the recession and Gulf War A310s replaced 747's on Washington and some JFK's along with Detroit. N801PA-N804PA certainly flew transatlantic into Heathrow. When Pan Am sold its Heathrow authority Detroit and Miami routes where not included in the sale to United and moved (with a months gap) to Gatwick, Detroit continued with the same flight numbers PA54/55 and was operated with an A310 until these routes where sold to Delta although Delta did continue to use A310's into Gatwick

amc737


At the very end, the DTW route operated CLE-DTW-LHR using the A310.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 2069
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:55 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Was the intention to get rid of all the 747s and replace them with 310s?

Or was it supplemental?


I think the A310's were acquired because they got a better deal from Airbus Industrie than they would from Boeing at a time when the 767-200ER was becoming a thing on TATL routes, and Pan Am's finances in the 1980s as we all know, were not in great shape. Airbus was keen to capture more orders from US carriers at the time. I am not sure the A310 was designated as the full replacement for the 747 since Pan Am operated 31 A310's in total and most of the 747 fleet remained other than a handful sold off to UA in 1986 as part of the TPAC sale, including the SP's.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 2069
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:57 pm

As to the 1990s fleet plan, wasn't there an A320 order planned or was that order repurposed into the A310 order?
 
MIAFLLPBIFlyer
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:25 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:41 am

Halophila wrote:
When I was 8 I flew from Germany (FRA?) to NBO on Pan Am and I seem to recall it was a 310. Maybe I’m making this up...


FRA-NBO was most certainly an A310 route. So your memory is solid!
 
MIAFLLPBIFlyer
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:25 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:44 am

panamair wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:


Someone referenced a 1990s fleet plan

What was the 1990s network supposed to look like if they didnt meltdown in 1991


Depends on what is your starting point, and who's planning you do.
As far as facts are concerned, by mid-1991, all trans-Pacific business was gone for years, Heathrow flying was gone, and now all trans-Atlantic was gone. Shuttle gone, too.


When they retrenched to MIA in 1991, I believe they still kept operating one transatlantic route, MIA-CDG (PA134) with the 747.


Correct, PA had one European route left at time of the shutdown, MIA-CDG. PA 134 had been the flight number since the service resumed in 1986. Route was inherited from NA (MIA-ORY), which gave PA access to Paris again in 1980 after pulling out in 1975 as part of the TWA route swamp. MIA-ORY was discontinued in Oct 82, and by the time the Miami flight returned Pan Am had moved to CDG. TWA, I believe had moved to CDG much earlier, maybe in 1980?
 
MIAFLLPBIFlyer
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:25 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:48 am

N649DL wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:


Someone referenced a 1990s fleet plan

What was the 1990s network supposed to look like if they didnt meltdown in 1991


Depends on what is your starting point, and who's planning you do.
As far as facts are concerned, by mid-1991, all trans-Pacific business was gone for years, Heathrow flying was gone, and now all trans-Atlantic was gone. Shuttle gone, too.

Prognostication.
If you read Skygods: The fall of Pan Am by Robert Gandt, about the final months of Pan Am, the basics are quite clear -- Pan Am was retrenching to Miami. Following shutdown of Eastern, a void was created in its home markets -- Atlanta and Miami.
Thus Miami was indeed not the worst choice to start from. Emotionally, it made a lot of sense to PanAmers -- PanAm started as a South Florida-based airline, so it was kind of "back to roots" -- Caribbean and South America flying, stabilizing the airline, making money, and then gradually returning to re-conquer their old glories -- trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific flying.
More practically minded, couldn't help but notice:
1) "restructured Pan Am" was to be 45% owned by Delta, and Delta was expected to provide advice and support
2) Caribbean and Latin America were "blind spots" for Delta -- they had no knowledge nor even good feeling for business there.
They suspected that Delta would use Pan Am as low-risk pathfinders. Still, that was better than just closing doors. But closing doors was exactly what happened to Pan Am later that year.


As much as I love DL and having Platinum status with them, I'm not sure if they were fully invested in the benefit of the Pan Am brand, or just investing and waiting for them to go up s*it's creek so they could gobble up the assets. They got into a real nasty court battle with Pan Am after they went under and almost wanted to completely wash their hands of even touching Pan Am. Pan Am employees literally lost their retirement and health benefits overnight when they shut down.

I could see DL's "blind spots" in the Caribbean and LatAm though, but those routes could've easily been tried out of DL's then big MCO hub (or even FLL where DL was also large). Most of these routes eventually were opened out of ATL with ease after Pan Am liquidated. I just couldn't see a scenario "Pan Am: Part of Delta Air Lines" as it looked like it was heading in that direction. UA also had no problem taking over Pan Am's gates at MIA once they folded as well.

Most (if not all) of Pan Am's A310s ended up with Delta anyway and fully retired in 1995-1996. They even took on new deliveries from Airbus in the early/mid 1990s as well. There was also a rumor I read on here a few years ago that Delta stored Pan Am 747 parts in ATL and potentially evaluated putting them into service (but didn't want to deal with the maintenance risk of doing so.)

I still find it interesting that DL wasn't interested in Pan Am's A300s as they were still relatively young at the time when they folded. Pan Am's A310s might've been covered in cigarette ash, but they looked a hell of a lot cleaner than DL's multicolored / pastel seat patterns at the time of acquisition.


On MCO, when UA won PA's Latin American route authorities in a bankruptcy auction their was some concern in South Florida that UA might actually try and use MCO as a base. It's often forgotten but in 1991 and 1992 when PA collapsed, UA in addition to getting PA's Heathrow routes was building MCO up into maybe it's largest non-hub station - certainly it's largest station in the southeast. At the time UA was flying MCO-LGA/BOS/DCA among other point-to-point flights. Also flew within Florida from MCO to every destination UA served. IIRC even had a nonstop to MDW. So UA may have actually used MCO also. People were relieved when all their route applications were from MIA.
 
superjeff
Posts: 1374
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:51 am

Cointrin330 wrote:
As to the 1990s fleet plan, wasn't there an A320 order planned or was that order repurposed into the A310 order?



Correct, they had ordered some A320's, which they couldn't afford. Those planes ended up with Braniff 2, and ultimately went to America West when Braniff 2 shut down. I recall reading something at some point where they found remnants of the Braniff 2 livery under the America West paint on one or two of them.
 
SmokinL1011
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:43 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:01 am

LJ wrote:
Didn't they fly HAM in connection with AMS at one point? I recall seeing the A310s at AMS.



Mid to late 80s they flew the A310s DTW-LHR-AMS.
 
N649DL
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:07 am

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:
N649DL wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:

Depends on what is your starting point, and who's planning you do.
As far as facts are concerned, by mid-1991, all trans-Pacific business was gone for years, Heathrow flying was gone, and now all trans-Atlantic was gone. Shuttle gone, too.

Prognostication.
If you read Skygods: The fall of Pan Am by Robert Gandt, about the final months of Pan Am, the basics are quite clear -- Pan Am was retrenching to Miami. Following shutdown of Eastern, a void was created in its home markets -- Atlanta and Miami.
Thus Miami was indeed not the worst choice to start from. Emotionally, it made a lot of sense to PanAmers -- PanAm started as a South Florida-based airline, so it was kind of "back to roots" -- Caribbean and South America flying, stabilizing the airline, making money, and then gradually returning to re-conquer their old glories -- trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific flying.
More practically minded, couldn't help but notice:
1) "restructured Pan Am" was to be 45% owned by Delta, and Delta was expected to provide advice and support
2) Caribbean and Latin America were "blind spots" for Delta -- they had no knowledge nor even good feeling for business there.
They suspected that Delta would use Pan Am as low-risk pathfinders. Still, that was better than just closing doors. But closing doors was exactly what happened to Pan Am later that year.


As much as I love DL and having Platinum status with them, I'm not sure if they were fully invested in the benefit of the Pan Am brand, or just investing and waiting for them to go up s*it's creek so they could gobble up the assets. They got into a real nasty court battle with Pan Am after they went under and almost wanted to completely wash their hands of even touching Pan Am. Pan Am employees literally lost their retirement and health benefits overnight when they shut down.

I could see DL's "blind spots" in the Caribbean and LatAm though, but those routes could've easily been tried out of DL's then big MCO hub (or even FLL where DL was also large). Most of these routes eventually were opened out of ATL with ease after Pan Am liquidated. I just couldn't see a scenario "Pan Am: Part of Delta Air Lines" as it looked like it was heading in that direction. UA also had no problem taking over Pan Am's gates at MIA once they folded as well.

Most (if not all) of Pan Am's A310s ended up with Delta anyway and fully retired in 1995-1996. They even took on new deliveries from Airbus in the early/mid 1990s as well. There was also a rumor I read on here a few years ago that Delta stored Pan Am 747 parts in ATL and potentially evaluated putting them into service (but didn't want to deal with the maintenance risk of doing so.)

I still find it interesting that DL wasn't interested in Pan Am's A300s as they were still relatively young at the time when they folded. Pan Am's A310s might've been covered in cigarette ash, but they looked a hell of a lot cleaner than DL's multicolored / pastel seat patterns at the time of acquisition.


On MCO, when UA won PA's Latin American route authorities in a bankruptcy auction their was some concern in South Florida that UA might actually try and use MCO as a base. It's often forgotten but in 1991 and 1992 when PA collapsed, UA in addition to getting PA's Heathrow routes was building MCO up into maybe it's largest non-hub station - certainly it's largest station in the southeast. At the time UA was flying MCO-LGA/BOS/DCA among other point-to-point flights. Also flew within Florida from MCO to every destination UA served. IIRC even had a nonstop to MDW. So UA may have actually used MCO also. People were relieved when all their route applications were from MIA.


UA also flew MCO-EWR briefly in the early 1990s as well.
 
MIAFLLPBIFlyer
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:25 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:37 am

N649DL wrote:
MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:
N649DL wrote:

As much as I love DL and having Platinum status with them, I'm not sure if they were fully invested in the benefit of the Pan Am brand, or just investing and waiting for them to go up s*it's creek so they could gobble up the assets. They got into a real nasty court battle with Pan Am after they went under and almost wanted to completely wash their hands of even touching Pan Am. Pan Am employees literally lost their retirement and health benefits overnight when they shut down.

I could see DL's "blind spots" in the Caribbean and LatAm though, but those routes could've easily been tried out of DL's then big MCO hub (or even FLL where DL was also large). Most of these routes eventually were opened out of ATL with ease after Pan Am liquidated. I just couldn't see a scenario "Pan Am: Part of Delta Air Lines" as it looked like it was heading in that direction. UA also had no problem taking over Pan Am's gates at MIA once they folded as well.

Most (if not all) of Pan Am's A310s ended up with Delta anyway and fully retired in 1995-1996. They even took on new deliveries from Airbus in the early/mid 1990s as well. There was also a rumor I read on here a few years ago that Delta stored Pan Am 747 parts in ATL and potentially evaluated putting them into service (but didn't want to deal with the maintenance risk of doing so.)

I still find it interesting that DL wasn't interested in Pan Am's A300s as they were still relatively young at the time when they folded. Pan Am's A310s might've been covered in cigarette ash, but they looked a hell of a lot cleaner than DL's multicolored / pastel seat patterns at the time of acquisition.


On MCO, when UA won PA's Latin American route authorities in a bankruptcy auction their was some concern in South Florida that UA might actually try and use MCO as a base. It's often forgotten but in 1991 and 1992 when PA collapsed, UA in addition to getting PA's Heathrow routes was building MCO up into maybe it's largest non-hub station - certainly it's largest station in the southeast. At the time UA was flying MCO-LGA/BOS/DCA among other point-to-point flights. Also flew within Florida from MCO to every destination UA served. IIRC even had a nonstop to MDW. So UA may have actually used MCO also. People were relieved when all their route applications were from MIA.


UA also flew MCO-EWR briefly in the early 1990s as well.


Yep, and I think UA may have flown MCO-PHL and MCO-BDL at some point also. They were for a year or two really trying to fill the void left by Eastern and Braniff II in Orlando. Pan Am flew MEX-MCO in the late 80's and maybe up into 1991- that route ended up being flown by UA at some point in the early 90's also.

Also worth noting in this thread, that though unrelated to the 310s, PA was still flying far too many domestic and short-half 727s in 1990 & 1991. Once Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990 and oil prices shot up, those planes became untenable on many routes. I do believe some of the 737-200s that had flown the IGS services were headed back for the US when bankruptcy struck. Or maybe I am not remembering correctly.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Topic Author
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 9:37 am

jfklganyc wrote:
Was the intention to get rid of all the 747s and replace them with 310s?

Or was it supplemental?


I am pretty sure it was supplemental for the most part. Pan Am I think realized that the 747 was way too large for many places they already served, too it was harder or even impossible to expand to "smaller" european markets with those giant 747s. This is where the A310 was a perfect aircraft. For example my Home Airport HAM was served daily with 747s. In Summer they were full but in winter they reduced to four weekly flights and L1011s and 747SPs were seen more often in Winter than the then wayyyyy too large 747-100. The A310 was the perfect Equipment when they arrived -- also in Summer after other US Airlines started flights in direct competition. The L1011 and 747SP were gone anyway soon after.

I think Pan Am should have gone a step further and replace most 747s with the A310s -- I am sure the 747s were a money loser on a large part of their flights. Problem was that the resale value for these very early 747s probably was very low, too low. So this would have been a very bad deal at the end but would have helped with running cost.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 1035
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:04 am

In Pan Am's fleet, 747's were both a curse and a blessing. Many of them, reportedly, were modified with reinforced floors, to comply with special CRAF requirements -- and were due a subsidy to compensate for it. Rumor mill was spouting stuff like "each time a Pan Am 747 takes off, it makes money, even if empty". More knowledgeable people should confirm if this is true or not. But filling such a plane, during route fragmentation time, while smaller equipment is available, was difficult.

After sale of routes and A310's to Delta, unless I am mistaken, Pan Am became a fairly 747-heavy airline: around 100 jets total, 25 of them 747's; many being the very first 747's in existence, heavily used and fairly tired, and full of early problems. Not a good fleet configuration during a traffic downturn, while you are actually re-establishing the airline on a new ground (Miami).
Not a very good fleet to sell, as well, again especially during a downturn.
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 7054
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:46 am

Cointrin330 wrote:
I think both the -200s and -300s flew TATL ultimately. You're right that JFK-HAM, BRU, OSL (FBU) saw them, and the A310 also operated DTW-LHR, JFK-ZRH, and JFK-MXP (and FCO at times). There were I think 15 A313s and 16 A312s if I remember correctly. Not sure about the cabin interiors being configured differently.


Actually they had 7 -200s and 14 -300s.

Cointrin330 wrote:
As to the 1990s fleet plan, wasn't there an A320 order planned or was that order repurposed into the A310 order?



viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1444283

PA should have transitionned to an almost all Airbus fleet.



A310s characteristics: https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... c-2009.pdf
 
User avatar
deltacto
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:49 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:48 am

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
I think both the -200s and -300s flew TATL ultimately. You're right that JFK-HAM, BRU, OSL (FBU) saw them, and the A310 also operated DTW-LHR, JFK-ZRH, and JFK-MXP (and FCO at times). There were I think 15 A313s and 16 A312s if I remember correctly. Not sure about the cabin interiors being configured differently.


Actually they had 7 -200s and 14 -300s.


Yes ... and all 21 went to Delta in 1991 .... keeping their original PA registrations
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 2069
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:59 am

Phosphorus wrote:
In Pan Am's fleet, 747's were both a curse and a blessing. Many of them, reportedly, were modified with reinforced floors, to comply with special CRAF requirements -- and were due a subsidy to compensate for it. Rumor mill was spouting stuff like "each time a Pan Am 747 takes off, it makes money, even if empty". More knowledgeable people should confirm if this is true or not. But filling such a plane, during route fragmentation time, while smaller equipment is available, was difficult.

After sale of routes and A310's to Delta, unless I am mistaken, Pan Am became a fairly 747-heavy airline: around 100 jets total, 25 of them 747's; many being the very first 747's in existence, heavily used and fairly tired, and full of early problems. Not a good fleet configuration during a traffic downturn, while you are actually re-establishing the airline on a new ground (Miami).
Not a very good fleet to sell, as well, again especially during a downturn.


The 747 was not an ideal plane for the routes that Pan Am (and TWA for that matter) operated toward the end of their respective service lives at each carrier. These were mostly early models, and thus had teething problems throughout and were simply not efficient aircraft compared to the twin-jets becoming more commonplace, on longer thin routes. The 747 worked fine for PA for LHR, FRA, and a handful of other routes, but like TWA, they had trouble filing them at JFK during the non-summer travel periods and were configured quite densely. When Pan Am sold off the TATL routes and the A310s to Delta, it was left with 747s, A300s (those did not go to DL), 727s and a handful of 737s plus the regional fleet to operate the Latin America routes, a business plan that lasted less than 6 months.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8265
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:05 pm

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:

PA should have transitionned to an almost all Airbus fleet.


My first recollection of a DL A310 was DTW-LHR, or maybe CVG-CDG? It was a definite 'What is this? Not a 767 nor L-1011' moment.

By the time Pan Am sold routes to DL it was cooked - irreparably damaged. It wouldn't have mattered what they were flying. As mentioned, even well before then they didn't have the cash flow to conduct a comprehensive widebody refleeting.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Topic Author
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:42 pm

deltacto wrote:
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
I think both the -200s and -300s flew TATL ultimately. You're right that JFK-HAM, BRU, OSL (FBU) saw them, and the A310 also operated DTW-LHR, JFK-ZRH, and JFK-MXP (and FCO at times). There were I think 15 A313s and 16 A312s if I remember correctly. Not sure about the cabin interiors being configured differently.


Actually they had 7 -200s and 14 -300s.


Yes ... and all 21 went to Delta in 1991 .... keeping their original PA registrations


On a side note: why was Delta not interested in the A300 fleet? Too close to the 767-300A? Would have complemented the A310 fleet well. Maybe the leases were too expensive?
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 7054
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:54 pm

DLHAM wrote:
On a side note: why was Delta not interested in the A300 fleet? Too close to the 767-300A? Would have complemented the A310 fleet well. Maybe the leases were too expensive?


On one hand, what would it have added for DL to have another type to its fleet (just 13), on the other, perhaps was it determined that PA still needed some aircraft of a size between the 727 and the 747 to serve some routes in the U.S. or south of MIA.
 
User avatar
Wildlander
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:08 pm

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:57 pm

From (fading) memory, Delta only really wanted the PA Transatlantic route network and needed the A310s to operate it until such time as they could organise or grow their own fleet. The A300s didn't have Transatlantic range and so were of no interest. I doubt if Delta management realised (or cared?) how much the A310s were in need of t.l.c. until the maintenance and ops teams inherited them.
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 7054
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Re: Question about Pan Am's A310-200s

Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:10 pm

Wildlander wrote:
From (fading) memory, Delta only really wanted the PA Transatlantic route network and needed the A310s to operate it until such time as they could organise or grow their own fleet.


I remember the same but they still went to order nine more A310s, of the -325 variant.

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