- Always wondered why BI had a IAH-DFW flight with two stops that left at around 3pm and arrived at DFW after 11, with stops in SEA and PDX. A lot of weird routings were in TT's in the 1970s.
A 'round robin' flight. Fairly common then, but that's one of unusual length. I'm surprised they even listed it as an IAH-DFW choice in the timetable. The only comparable one I can think of off the top of my head is an America West 'through flight' in the '90s that routed TUS-LAS-PHX and was shown in the timetable as a TUS-PHX one-stop. One could drive it as fast, as could one drive from Houston to Dallas faster than that flight time.
Why didn't BI publish the JFK/IAD-MIA nonstops in the 70s?
This one I can answer: This was part of the long-running Easterm-Braniff interchange between JFK and IAD to Panama City and South America. BN did not have local traffic authority between JFK/IAD and MIA. The interchange point was MIA. There was a second BN-EA interchange between Denver and Atlanta, with Memphis as the interchange point. Again, Braniff couldn't carry local MEM-ATL traffic, nor could Eastern on the MEM-DEN leg.
Check on the round-robin flight. They had a lot of long multi-stop flights. I think one was JFK-IAD-TUL-OKC-DEN or something like that.
Makes sense about the BN-EA tie up on JFK-IAD - Would I have seen those flights published in the EA timetable then?
One additional question - Did PANAGRA fly LAX-BOG/LIM or was that always a BI route? Curious I've heard through the years the PANAGRA/BI routes similarly overlapped and a merger would smooth things out from a departure time POV. (Though all the BI flights seem to fly at odd hours). Were any of the SA routes profitable during the last year ahead of bankruptcy?
From what I understand (a lot of it from unofficial sources), Braniff had to utilize creative accounting due to limitations on expatriation of funds from several South American countries (most notably, Argentina). As a result, a lot of costs were allocated to the Latin American routes, which probably made the show a loss, but, in reality, I think they were very profitable. I can remember, for example, that Braniff (partially due to their South American based cabin crews) were pretty much looked on as the local carrier of choice on that continent, with a major hub in Lima, and crews based in Panama, Bogota, Lima, Buenos Aires, Santiago, and Sao Paulo/Rio). And anybody who worked the ticket counter at Miami would joke that they made more money with excess baggage charges on many of those flights, as the South Americans would check all kinds of purchases, including furniture, electronics, etc. So, in reality, I think they were profitable down there, but they wanted to show a loss to get their costs out.