Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
airlineworker wrote:Years back Pan And TWA were the only US airlines allowed to fly to LHR. When that restriction was lifted, it spelled the end of both airlines, Pan Am first then TWA, no extensive domestic route system.
airlineworker wrote:Years back Pan And TWA were the only US airlines allowed to fly to LHR. When that restriction was lifted, it spelled the end of both airlines, Pan Am first then TWA, no extensive domestic route system.
LASVegan wrote:airlineworker wrote:Years back Pan And TWA were the only US airlines allowed to fly to LHR. When that restriction was lifted, it spelled the end of both airlines, Pan Am first then TWA, no extensive domestic route system.
TWA had far more extensive domestic routes than PAs almost non existent domestic structure. I do wonder why TW was allowed a domestic and international route structure, while PA was limited to international. I also presume TW had some pretty bad management. They had a large European presence, especially at LHR and CDG, some coveted US transcon and domestic routes and they still managed to blow it all.
cynlb wrote:Almost any airline would of been. National was attractive because of the original low price. When Lorenzo got into a bidding war for it... Then it became a huge liability. Pan Ams best option would of been to drop the airline on him at a hugely inflated price and taken the money elsewhere... But they got fixated and did the opposite.I think if Pan Am merged with Braniff instead of National they would have been much better off. A Braniff merger would have given Pan Am a strong domestic hub (DFW). National didn't do much for them domestically.
LASVegan wrote:airlineworker wrote:Years back Pan And TWA were the only US airlines allowed to fly to LHR. When that restriction was lifted, it spelled the end of both airlines, Pan Am first then TWA, no extensive domestic route system.
TWA had far more extensive domestic routes than PAs almost non existent domestic structure. I do wonder why TW was allowed a domestic and international route structure, while PA was limited to international. I also presume TW had some pretty bad management. They had a large European presence, especially at LHR and CDG, some coveted US transcon and domestic routes and they still managed to blow it all.
Aurantiaco wrote:I've been crafting a story for if Pan Am survived into the 21st century. The point in divergence in my timeline is if the airline is granted it's proposed routes in the 50s. My story essentially leads to it competing with the domestic airlines and navigating deregulation better. What would happen if by a blue moon Pan Am gets its' domestic networks earlier on? Would it survive to today? What might it look like? How would the industry and its' players change?
oldannyboy wrote:To begin with: PA did have a domestic network. They did. Always. But it was small, was geographically ill-distributed, did not offer decent enough connections. They lacked hubs and focus cities to offer and "distribute" capacity across a viable nation-wide system. The offered many international flights than ended in their (very few) international hubs, where a few domestic onward connections were offered almost solely for those arriving on said international services!
oldannyboy wrote:
By the late 1970s PA were considered a rather shambolic operation in comparison with most other US carriers (even TW was better), not to mention international carriers. Their in-flight service ranged from bad to average at best.
By the mid-80s PA were considered truly among the worst international airlines to fly with, with an old, dilapidated fleet - broken seats, broken PSUs, broken overhead lockers were pretty much the norm. Not to mention delays (LOADS of technical ones due to inoperative items), bad maintenance practices (bogus parts were aplenty), sour crews, and non-existing customer service.
Only Tower Air were worse. But not far off. They were more often than not both named in the same sentence when referring to the low levels of [international service] offered to JFK in the 1980s. I remember people NOT wanting to fly PA on the JFK runs, with people even thinking they were unsafe so old and tatty were their 747s.... TW, even through their darker ages, seemed really like a flying carpet compared to PA, which really says a lot about them. You really have no idea how bad they were.
FGITD wrote:AA definitely got more TWA than anyone got of PA. American got the whole deal, whereas PA was really just split up and different assets were sold off...
The civil aircraft were performing their duty as civil aircraft, whereas Lusitania…
KlimaBXsst wrote:FGITD wrote:Did UA and DL get more Pan Am heritage, or did AA get more heritage out of TWA might be a further refinement of the what if’s question.
AA definitely got more TWA than anyone got of PA. American got the whole deal, whereas PA was really just split up and different assets were sold off, including the name which ended up being a railroad.