Aviano789
Topic Author
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:00 pm

Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 4:53 pm

From the late 60s to late 70s National Airlines became an all-jet airline with the DC-8, 727, DC-10 and even B-747 with transatlantic flights between Miami (MIA) & London (LHR). Why the airline never even consider entering the Hawaiian market prior to the Pan Am acquisition?
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 5265
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 5:02 pm

Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.
 
thomasphoto60
Posts: 3866
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 1:04 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 5:17 pm

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.

Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.
"Show me the Braniffs"
 
Nola
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 1:40 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 5:39 pm

thomasphoto60 wrote:
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.

Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.



Both routes and fares were regulated. Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA. The domestic carriers had to apply to the Civil Aeronautics Board for approval of any new route or fare.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8070
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 5:58 pm

Nola wrote:
thomasphoto60 wrote:
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.

Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.



Both routes and fares were regulated. Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA. The domestic carriers had to apply to the Civil Aeronautics Board for approval of any new route or fare.

That is not 100% true. PA and TWA were the biggest but not the only US international carriers. You had NW going across the Pacific and Braniff to South America for example.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 4882
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 6:15 pm

Polot wrote:
Nola wrote:
thomasphoto60 wrote:
Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.



Both routes and fares were regulated. Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA. The domestic carriers had to apply to the Civil Aeronautics Board for approval of any new route or fare.

That is not 100% true. PA and TWA were the biggest but not the only US international carriers. You had NW going across the Pacific and Braniff to South America for example.


Actually if you want to really get technical, UA flew to Canada; WA flew to Mexico and Canada; Hughes Airwest flew to Canada and Mexico, along with some eastern carriers also. A number of carriers flew to the Caribbean too, and I think Eastern went to Venezuela.

National never applied for Hawaii routes, AFAIK. Didn't Eastern apply for Hawaii and got the rug pulled out from under them for political payback reasons? I believe that's why they bought the longer range DC-8-63.
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 1815
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 6:33 pm

thomasphoto60 wrote:
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.

Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.



Not to some degree, entirely. CAB even regulated the price of alcohol and meal sizes. Fares were cost and mileage based. Which meant that business markets were under charged and leisure markets were over charged.
 
superjeff
Posts: 1021
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 7:01 pm

Nola wrote:
thomasphoto60 wrote:
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.

Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.



Both routes and fares were regulated. Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA. The domestic carriers had to apply to the Civil Aeronautics Board for approval of any new route or fare.


Actually, there were a lot of U.S. international carriers. Braniff was the U.S. flag carrier to the West Coast of South America (Pan Am had the East Coast), American served Toronto, Montreal, Bermuda, and Mexico (MEX and ACA), Eastern served Toronto and Montreal, plus the Bahamas, Western served Mexico and Vancouver, Northeast served Nassau and Bermuda before 1972 when it merged with Delta, Delta had a number of ex Chicago and Southern routes ex-New Orleans to MBJ, CCS, and a few other places, Northwest had a major operation to and through the Orient, and there were probably more as well.
 
superjeff
Posts: 1021
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 7:05 pm

Bobloblaw wrote:
thomasphoto60 wrote:
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.

Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.



Not to some degree, entirely. CAB even regulated the price of alcohol and meal sizes. Fares were cost and mileage based. Which meant that business markets were under charged and leisure markets were over charged.


Also such things like seat size and pitch (38" in First Class and 34" in Coach - domestic flights were "coach"). Meals weren't really regulated on domestic flights; international flights were regulated by IATA (that's why they had a "sandwich war" to Europe in the mid 1950's - IATA said no hot meals in coach, so SAS started serving a smorgesbord which was essentially a full meal on a piece of bread :-). Domestic U.S. was pretty impressive there.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 4882
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 7:11 pm

superjeff wrote:
Nola wrote:
thomasphoto60 wrote:
Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.



Both routes and fares were regulated. Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA. The domestic carriers had to apply to the Civil Aeronautics Board for approval of any new route or fare.


Actually, there were a lot of U.S. international carriers. Braniff was the U.S. flag carrier to the West Coast of South America (Pan Am had the East Coast), American served Toronto, Montreal, Bermuda, and Mexico (MEX and ACA), Eastern served Toronto and Montreal, plus the Bahamas, Western served Mexico and Vancouver, Northeast served Nassau and Bermuda before 1972 when it merged with Delta, Delta had a number of ex Chicago and Southern routes ex-New Orleans to MBJ, CCS, and a few other places, Northwest had a major operation to and through the Orient, and there were probably more as well.


Oh that's right. It was DL that served Venezuela, not Eastern. Eastern also served MEX and ACA. Hughes Airwest had multiple destinations in both Canada and Mexico.

Also IIRC, National started service to Europe prior to deregulation.
 
superjeff
Posts: 1021
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 7:15 pm

Yes, I think they started MIA-LHR about 1975 (maybe a bit earlier).
 
cschleic
Posts: 1475
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 7:21 pm

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.


This gets at the original question.... National was based in Florida and its gig was carrying people from the northeast to that vacation spot, plus linking in a few western cities. At the time, United was the dominant player to Hawaii. When National expanded, they went for linking Europe to their home area. It probably worked both ways....European tourists to Florida and Florida residents to Europe.
 
Ryanair01
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:27 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 7:22 pm

The Trans Pacific route case is talked about here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpacific_Route_Case

United gained rights to Hawaii in 1947 providing Pan Am with competition. However it was not until 1969 that American, Continental, Northwest, TWA and Western were allowed to compete.

National only had nominal market presence in the West and was focused upon European expansion from their East Coast stronghold adding London Heathrow in 1970, Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Zurich. It was another eight years until Braniff and Delta were granted rights to fly the Atlantic, so National were onto a good thing with this strategy, compared to the multi dog fight to Hawaii.
 
EvanWSFO
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 7:37 pm

superjeff wrote:
Yes, I think they started MIA-LHR about 1975 (maybe a bit earlier).


The October 25, 1970 NA timetable announced the new service to London to begin on November 1. It doesn't list an aircraft type, but it was either started with DC8's then up to 747's. Don't think NA had very many of those in the early 70s. An ad in same TT touts 747 from MIA to JFK and LAX.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 10346
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 7:43 pm

superjeff wrote:
Yes, I think they started MIA-LHR about 1975 (maybe a bit earlier).

Probably about right, because they seemed to be adding TATLs about every 2yrs.

They launched their MSY-AMS nonstop in 1977, and were going to launch MSY-ORY and MSY-FRA in 1979 (both made their timetable, but neither operated, due to the institution of both Bermuda II and deregulation in the interim).
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 5265
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 8:02 pm

EvanWSFO wrote:
superjeff wrote:
Yes, I think they started MIA-LHR about 1975 (maybe a bit earlier).


The October 25, 1970 NA timetable announced the new service to London to begin on November 1. It doesn't list an aircraft type, but it was either started with DC8's then up to 747's. Don't think NA had very many of those in the early 70s. An ad in same TT touts 747 from MIA to JFK and LAX.


Apparently, the London service was scheduled to begin on Jan 1st, 1970 but was delayed until June 15th. NA leased two DC-8 jetTrader from Airlift International for that purpose. Their two 747s were delivered in September and October 1970



October 25th, 1970 is the date when National launched nonstop MIA-LAX 747 service.
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 5265
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 8:15 pm

For the record, the LHR route was served over the years with DC-8s, 747s & DC-10-30s, including this one in 1979.

 
citationjet
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 8:39 pm

Nola wrote:
Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA.


Not true at all. Braniff started service to South America in 1946, shortly after World War II.

On May 19, 1946, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) awarded Braniff routes to the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America, competing with Pan American-Grace Airways (Panagra). The Civil Aeronautics Board awarded Braniff a 7719 statute mile route from Dallas to Houston to Havana, Balboa, C.Z., Panama, Guayaquil, Lima, La Paz, Asuncion, and finally Buenos Aires, Argentina. At that time, the airline changed its trade name to Braniff International Airways and flights to South America via Cuba and Panama began on June 4, 1948 with a routing of Chicago – Kansas City – Dallas – Houston – Havana – Balboa, C.Z. – Guayaquil – Lima (Lima service did not being until June 18, 1948).[7] after construction in remote regions of Central and South America. The route was then extended in February 1949 to La Paz and in March 1949, to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Douglas DC-4s and Douglas DC-6s flew to Rio; initially DC-3s flew Lima to La Paz. Braniff was the first airline authorized by the CAB to operate JATO or Jet Assisted Takeoff aircraft (DC-4) at La Paz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braniff_International_Airways#Latin_America_route_award
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 7686
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 8:50 pm

Introduction of London
Image

Introduction of Paris
Image



Introduction of Frankfurt & Amsterdam
Image Image

Introduction of Zurich
Image Image
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 2754
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 9:56 pm

Aviano789 wrote:
From the late 60s to late 70s National Airlines became an all-jet airline with the DC-8, 727, DC-10 and even B-747 with transatlantic flights between Miami (MIA) & London (LHR). Why the airline never even consider entering the Hawaiian market prior to the Pan Am acquisition?

Because of the CAB Which regulated where airlines COULD fly and for How Much.. Some wish the CAB were still in effect but President Carter and Alfred Kahn thought otherwise.. Thus?? We have a de-regulated Airline industry for better or worse..
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 10:03 pm

These types of questions begs a question. Braniff, Western, National, Eastern, Northwest Orient, Air Florida, etc, all did some expansion to Europe (and elsewhere), and mostly all retrenched or abandoned in fairly short order. In essence, they were all disasters.

I'm curious when airlines researched new routes back then, what data did they use to determine route viability? How did they determine and forecast route viability back in the 70s? Given nearly all flight sales were down through travel agents and GDS's, did they have MIDT data available? Or did they assume traffic stimulation. Today, the carriers have lots of data options available, and route determination is a pretty good mathematical exercise. Just curious?
 
citationjet
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 10:50 pm

airzim wrote:
I'm curious when airlines researched new routes back then, what data did they use to determine route viability? How did they determine and forecast route viability back in the 70s?


Braniff did an all out grab for routes shortly after deregulation was signed on October 18, 1978. Very little, if any, data analysis was done to determine route viability. Airlines lined up within days to file requests for over 1,300 routes opened up by the CAB. Harding Lawrence, Braniff's president, was convinced that deregulation would only last a few years, and this would be a great opportunity for Braniff to grow and to survive against the big airlines in the deregulated world.
A few days after deregulation was signed, Braniff filed with the CAB for 626 of the 1,300 dormant routes that were available. Braniff was granted 67 routes, with the stipulation that they had to start service within 45 days. On December 15, 1978 in one 24 hour period Braniff initiated 32 new routes involving 16 brand new cities that they had never before served. This was just two months after deregulation was signed into law.
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
 
EvanWSFO
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Tue May 15, 2018 11:48 pm

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
EvanWSFO wrote:
superjeff wrote:
Yes, I think they started MIA-LHR about 1975 (maybe a bit earlier).


The October 25, 1970 NA timetable announced the new service to London to begin on November 1. It doesn't list an aircraft type, but it was either started with DC8's then up to 747's. Don't think NA had very many of those in the early 70s. An ad in same TT touts 747 from MIA to JFK and LAX.


Apparently, the London service was scheduled to begin on Jan 1st, 1970 but was delayed until June 15th. NA leased two DC-8 jetTrader from Airlift International for that purpose. Their two 747s were delivered in September and October 1970



October 25th, 1970 is the date when National launched nonstop MIA-LAX 747 service.


Wonder why the timetable states that the London service starts on November 1, 1970 if it was already operating?
 
Nola
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 1:40 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 12:22 am

citationjet wrote:
Nola wrote:
Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA.


Not true at all. Braniff started service to South America in 1946, shortly after World War II.

On May 19, 1946, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) awarded Braniff routes to the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America, competing with Pan American-Grace Airways (Panagra). The Civil Aeronautics Board awarded Braniff a 7719 statute mile route from Dallas to Houston to Havana, Balboa, C.Z., Panama, Guayaquil, Lima, La Paz, Asuncion, and finally Buenos Aires, Argentina. At that time, the airline changed its trade name to Braniff International Airways and flights to South America via Cuba and Panama began on June 4, 1948 with a routing of Chicago – Kansas City – Dallas – Houston – Havana – Balboa, C.Z. – Guayaquil – Lima (Lima service did not being until June 18, 1948).[7] after construction in remote regions of Central and South America. The route was then extended in February 1949 to La Paz and in March 1949, to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Douglas DC-4s and Douglas DC-6s flew to Rio; initially DC-3s flew Lima to La Paz. Braniff was the first airline authorized by the CAB to operate JATO or Jet Assisted Takeoff aircraft (DC-4) at La Paz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braniff_International_Airways#Latin_America_route_award


You're correct. Braniff sold those routes, which were very profitable, to keep the company afloat. I think the routes wound up with Eastern and later with United (when it tried a Miami hub). I could be wrong though.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 7686
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 2:51 am

Nola wrote:
citationjet wrote:
Nola wrote:
Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA.


Not true at all. Braniff started service to South America in 1946, shortly after World War II.

On May 19, 1946, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) awarded Braniff routes to the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America, competing with Pan American-Grace Airways (Panagra). The Civil Aeronautics Board awarded Braniff a 7719 statute mile route from Dallas to Houston to Havana, Balboa, C.Z., Panama, Guayaquil, Lima, La Paz, Asuncion, and finally Buenos Aires, Argentina. At that time, the airline changed its trade name to Braniff International Airways and flights to South America via Cuba and Panama began on June 4, 1948 with a routing of Chicago – Kansas City – Dallas – Houston – Havana – Balboa, C.Z. – Guayaquil – Lima (Lima service did not being until June 18, 1948).[7] after construction in remote regions of Central and South America. The route was then extended in February 1949 to La Paz and in March 1949, to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Douglas DC-4s and Douglas DC-6s flew to Rio; initially DC-3s flew Lima to La Paz. Braniff was the first airline authorized by the CAB to operate JATO or Jet Assisted Takeoff aircraft (DC-4) at La Paz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braniff_International_Airways#Latin_America_route_award


You're correct. Braniff sold those routes, which were very profitable, to keep the company afloat. I think the routes wound up with Eastern and later with United (when it tried a Miami hub). I could be wrong though.


Eastern routes went to AA. United got Pan Am's Latin America routes
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
Max Q
Posts: 6246
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 3:19 am

What’s remarkable in those early days is the almost total absence of any international routes flown by United.



They were certainly a domestic powerhouse for decades, they started that one SEA-NRT flight and then of course their epic transformation began with buying Pan Ams Pacific division for $750 million


Reportedly, over at American Robert Crandall said ‘they paid way too much’ then had an analysis run on the acquisition, it was revealed to be a bargain.


In fact it may have been the best route deal of all time. It vaulted UA into the premier spot amongst all
US carriers in the Pacific, a place it has never relinquished


The subsequent deal to purchase PAA’s routes and slots to LHR was another brilliant step in building a preeminent worldwide route system


The merger with Continental was the icing on the cake, adding strategic hubs in IAH boosting their minimal presence south of the border into a network second only to AA’s


Adding the Newark hub rounds off an incredible system, compensating for their negligible presence in the NY area and a jewel of a European network from Continental


It is quite a story, from a basic domestic carrier to the American airline with the best route system in the world
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
citationjet
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 3:20 am

Nola wrote:
You're correct. Braniff sold those routes, which were very profitable, to keep the company afloat. I think the routes wound up with Eastern and later with United (when it tried a Miami hub). I could be wrong though.


I don't believe Braniff ever sold their SA routes. According to John Nance's book "Splash of Colors", Braniff was in negotiation with PanAm in March of 1982 to lease Braniff's SA routes for 6 years for $30M. That deal fell thru because PanAm wouldn't use Braniff's pilots and cabin crew. Then Braniff was in discussion with Eastern to lease (not buy) the SA routes for $30M. On April 26, 1982 Braniff and Eastern signed the agreement to take effect on June 1, 1982. However Braniff filed for bankruptcy on May 12, 1982.
Braniff owned and was operating their full South America network and schedule when they shut down on May 12. Braniff had 9 DC-8 crews stuck in Lima, Peru when the airline shutdown.
I have a copy of the last timetable Braniff published dated April 25, 1982 which shows a full SA schedule.
Last edited by citationjet on Wed May 16, 2018 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
 
User avatar
admanager
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:28 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 3:31 am

superjeff wrote:
Nola wrote:
thomasphoto60 wrote:
Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.



Both routes and fares were regulated. Until deregulation, the only US international carriers were PanAm and TWA. The domestic carriers had to apply to the Civil Aeronautics Board for approval of any new route or fare.


Actually, there were a lot of U.S. international carriers. Braniff was the U.S. flag carrier to the West Coast of South America (Pan Am had the East Coast), American served Toronto, Montreal, Bermuda, and Mexico (MEX and ACA), Eastern served Toronto and Montreal, plus the Bahamas, Western served Mexico and Vancouver, Northeast served Nassau and Bermuda before 1972 when it merged with Delta, Delta had a number of ex Chicago and Southern routes ex-New Orleans to MBJ, CCS, and a few other places, Northwest had a major operation to and through the Orient, and there were probably more as well.


In addition to the airlines mentioned above; service to Canada alone prior to deregulation was also from: Northwest Orient, Allegheny, Mohawk, North Central, NorthEast, Western, and Hughes Airwest.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 5:06 am

EvanWSFO wrote:
superjeff wrote:
Yes, I think they started MIA-LHR about 1975 (maybe a bit earlier).


The October 25, 1970 NA timetable announced the new service to London to begin on November 1. It doesn't list an aircraft type, but it was either started with DC8's then up to 747's. Don't think NA had very many of those in the early 70s. An ad in same TT touts 747 from MIA to JFK and LAX.



I was in London in May 1975 as a 13 year old kid and I took a picture of a National Airlines DC-10 out of my window at LHR. So I can state for a fact National was flying MIA -LHR at least some of the time using DC-10's.

That was btw my first flight on a wide body. I flew from JFK on a TWA 747. As a kid it was a very memorable experience.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
Jamake1
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 5:55 am

Max Q wrote:
It is quite a story, from a basic domestic carrier to the American airline with the best route system in the world



The best route system in the world perhaps, but not the most well-managed airline in the world. Nearly eight years later, United still has a long way to go toward leveraging its assets into creating an earnings powerhouse that is on par with Delta.
Come fly the sun.
 
Polarisguy
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:55 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 12:47 pm

thomasphoto60 wrote:
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
Back then, airlines were not free to open new routes where ever they wanted. The industry was regulated until 1979. Also, National was essentially a north-south east coast airline based in Miami with some transcon' flights to California from Florida with stops en route.

Yep, if memory serves along with routes (correct me if I am wrong), to some degree, fares were regulated by the CAB.


In those days, Airline Tickets were like cash. If you had a reservation on United but when you got to the airport and found Eastern had a better flight you could walk up to the counter with your United ticket and if the seat was available use your Eastern ticket to get the seat. And yes the fares were regulated and the service was pretty much the same. Big difference was attitudes of the airline employees and reliability of the carrier. Think the tipping point was introduction of People’s Express
Flown on DC3, 6,7,8,9,10 Conviar 440,880, Boeing 707,717,727,737,7472-3-4, Concorde, HS125, Lear23, Airbus 318,319,320,330 YS11, Saab340, Short 330,360, Cessna 150,172,177,210,310,340,421
 
EvanWSFO
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 12:56 pm

Haven't seen it mentioned, but how did NA get into LHR in the 70s? All new entrants had to go to LGW, even some BCal flights to the US.
 
Nola
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 1:40 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 1:23 pm

citationjet wrote:
Nola wrote:
You're correct. Braniff sold those routes, which were very profitable, to keep the company afloat. I think the routes wound up with Eastern and later with United (when it tried a Miami hub). I could be wrong though.


I don't believe Braniff ever sold their SA routes. According to John Nance's book "Splash of Colors", Braniff was in negotiation with PanAm in March of 1982 to lease Braniff's SA routes for 6 years for $30M. That deal fell thru because PanAm wouldn't use Braniff's pilots and cabin crew. Then Braniff was in discussion with Eastern to lease (not buy) the SA routes for $30M. On April 26, 1982 Braniff and Eastern signed the agreement to take effect on June 1, 1982. However Braniff filed for bankruptcy on May 12, 1982.
Braniff owned and was operating their full South America network and schedule when they shut down on May 12. Braniff had 9 DC-8 crews stuck in Lima, Peru when the airline shutdown.
I have a copy of the last timetable Braniff published dated April 25, 1982 which shows a full SA schedule.


I defer to you. I’ve read splash of colors but it was a few years ago, so my recollection may not be correct. I also recently read s book about deregulation so various buyouts, mergers and failures are likely jumbled in my mind....
 
Cunard
Posts: 1348
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 3:05 pm

EvanWSFO wrote:
Haven't seen it mentioned, but how did NA get into LHR in the 70s? All new entrants had to go to LGW, even some BCal flights to the US.



HM Government that owned the former BAA British Airports Authority officially declared that all new airlines entering the London market would use London Gatwick from March 1977 as London Heathrow was 'supposedly' full, the fact that National obtained the route authority for Miami to LHR in 1970 this is why they served LHR rather than LGW.


The Government of the time along with BAA were pushing ahead with expansion plans for LGW making it an alternative major gateway to London along with LHR, LGW saw a huge increase in passengers with a huge host of new airlines.

LHR was declared open again to all new entrants in 1991 except for the incumbent US airlines that remained at LGW until 2008 when a new air agreement was signed to replace Bermuda II.

Regarding BCAL, LGW was their home base and all of their flights operated from there not just the USA flights. The only scheduled flights operated by BCAL into LHR was the Airlink helicopter service between LGW and LHR that was operated in partnership with BA but the Sikorsky S61 was painted in BCAL colours with BCAL crew, BCAL only operated one service of their own at LGW which was a single weekly Sunday cargo only flight from LHR with a Boeing 707-320C to Houston via Bangor which started in 1977.
 
User avatar
BN727227Ultra
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 4:28 pm

airzim wrote:
These types of questions begs a question. Braniff, Western, National, Eastern, Northwest Orient, Air Florida, etc, all did some expansion to Europe (and elsewhere), and mostly all retrenched or abandoned in fairly short order. In essence, they were all disasters.

I'm curious when airlines researched new routes back then, what data did they use to determine route viability? How did they determine and forecast route viability back in the 70s? Given nearly all flight sales were down through travel agents and GDS's, did they have MIDT data available? Or did they assume traffic stimulation. Today, the carriers have lots of data options available, and route determination is a pretty good mathematical exercise. Just curious?


Map/Darts/Ego. Just ask Braniff. I used to draw imaginary airline route maps back in the late 70s-early 80s. Deregulation took all the fun out of it.
 
Cunard
Posts: 1348
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 4:29 pm

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
For the record, the LHR route was served over the years with DC-8s, 747s & DC-10-30s, including this one in 1979.



Those Air New Zealand DC10-30 that operated LHR to Miami had nothing to do with National as they were operated in conjunction with British Airways that subleased them from Air Nee Zealand from 1975 till 1979 but that's another topic altogether.
 
User avatar
BN727227Ultra
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 4:31 pm

Aviano789 wrote:
From the late 60s to late 70s National Airlines became an all-jet airline with the DC-8, 727, DC-10 and even B-747 with transatlantic flights between Miami (MIA) & London (LHR). Why the airline never even consider entering the Hawaiian market prior to the Pan Am acquisition?


If A.net is to be believed (and why not?) there is practically no traffic from the east coast to Hawai'i, especially from the southeast. The Caribbean is much closer.
 
Cunard
Posts: 1348
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 4:35 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
EvanWSFO wrote:
superjeff wrote:
Yes, I think they started MIA-LHR about 1975 (maybe a bit earlier).


The October 25, 1970 NA timetable announced the new service to London to begin on November 1. It doesn't list an aircraft type, but it was either started with DC8's then up to 747's. Don't think NA had very many of those in the early 70s. An ad in same TT touts 747 from MIA to JFK and LAX.



I was in London in May 1975 as a 13 year old kid and I took a picture of a National Airlines DC-10 out of my window at LHR. So I can state for a fact National was flying MIA -LHR at least some of the time using DC-10's.

That was btw my first flight on a wide body. I flew from JFK on a TWA 747. As a kid it was a very memorable experience.


National initially started with two DC8-53 leased from Airlift International in June 1970.

Once National received their B741's in 1971 they soon appeared on the route until the airline received their first DC10-30 in 1974 which the airline used on the route up until it's takeover by Pan Am in 1979 and even after then they were still used by Pan Am on LHR to Miami.
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 5265
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 4:45 pm

Cunard wrote:
Those Air New Zealand DC10-30 that operated LHR to Miami had nothing to do with National as they were operated in conjunction with British Airways that subleased them from Air Nee Zealand from 1975 till 1979 but that's another topic altogether.


I know the interchange that existed between BA and NZ on the LHR-LAX-AKL route, however I also know that this particular DC-10 was leased to National Airlines Apr. 1st-Oct. 29th, 1979. You can even see the fleet number '85' on the nose.

I learned it while reading this book and TAHS Production List back in the '90s.

https://www.amazon.com/National-Airline ... B0006F62CE

https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/ ... b/jrLbS72N
 
Overthecascades
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 5:34 pm

Is it related to the National Airlines which was once based in Las Vegas?
 
Aviano789
Topic Author
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:00 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 5:54 pm

BN727227Ultra wrote:
Aviano789 wrote:
From the late 60s to late 70s National Airlines became an all-jet airline with the DC-8, 727, DC-10 and even B-747 with transatlantic flights between Miami (MIA) & London (LHR). Why the airline never even consider entering the Hawaiian market prior to the Pan Am acquisition?


If A.net is to be believed (and why not?) there is practically no traffic from the east coast to Hawai'i, especially from the southeast. The Caribbean is much closer.


National did serve the west coast cities, they could have file for authorization to fly from LAX, SFO, SAN, and ONT to Hawaii.
 
IAHWorldflyer
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 5:59 pm

EvanWSFO wrote:
Haven't seen it mentioned, but how did NA get into LHR in the 70s? All new entrants had to go to LGW, even some BCal flights to the US.


Under the original Bermuda Agreement of the 1940's between the UK and the USA, certain cities were selected to be allowed service to LHR. Miami was one of them. Under Bermuda II from 1978, new services had to go to LGW. There was a clause that if a LGW service had more than 300,000 passengers per year for 2 years in a row, the carrier could apply to switch the service to LHR. I think DEN was able to get LHR service this way. All of the designated US cities in the original agreement were basically the big cities of the US at the time, such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, Baltimore and a few others. I think Miami was the only one in the South.
 
jetero
Posts: 2746
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 6:14 pm

IAHWorldflyer wrote:
EvanWSFO wrote:
Haven't seen it mentioned, but how did NA get into LHR in the 70s? All new entrants had to go to LGW, even some BCal flights to the US.


There was a clause that if a LGW service had more than 300,000 passengers per year for 2 years in a row, the carrier could apply to switch the service to LHR. I think DEN was able to get LHR service this way.


NB: 300k over 2 consecutive calendar years, not 300k annually 2 years in a row--there's no way BA carried 300k passengers annually on a single daily flight to DEN.

PHX and SAN got the same benefit.
 
superjeff
Posts: 1021
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 6:16 pm

citationjet wrote:
Nola wrote:
You're correct. Braniff sold those routes, which were very profitable, to keep the company afloat. I think the routes wound up with Eastern and later with United (when it tried a Miami hub). I could be wrong though.


I don't believe Braniff ever sold their SA routes. According to John Nance's book "Splash of Colors", Braniff was in negotiation with PanAm in March of 1982 to lease Braniff's SA routes for 6 years for $30M. That deal fell thru because PanAm wouldn't use Braniff's pilots and cabin crew. Then Braniff was in discussion with Eastern to lease (not buy) the SA routes for $30M. On April 26, 1982 Braniff and Eastern signed the agreement to take effect on June 1, 1982. However Braniff filed for bankruptcy on May 12, 1982.
Braniff owned and was operating their full South America network and schedule when they shut down on May 12. Braniff had 9 DC-8 crews stuck in Lima, Peru when the airline shutdown.
I have a copy of the last timetable Braniff published dated April 25, 1982 which shows a full SA schedule.


You are correct. Braniff was "leasing" their South America routes; when, however, they filed bankruptcy, Eastern got them permanently. They subsequently sold the routes to American.
 
superjeff
Posts: 1021
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 6:20 pm

Overthecascades wrote:
Is it related to the National Airlines which was once based in Las Vegas?


No. Totally different company.
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 5265
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 6:21 pm

Overthecascades wrote:
Is it related to the National Airlines which was once based in Las Vegas?


Nope. The National of this thread was acquired and merged into Pan Am in 1980, while the National from LAS was around between 1999 and 2002 and only flew 757s. Since a few years there's another National Airlines flying adhoc charters and military contracts.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 7686
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 6:31 pm

Overthecascades wrote:
Is it related to the National Airlines which was once based in Las Vegas?


The very first sentence reads:
From the late 60s to late 70s National Airlines became an all-jet airline with the DC-8, 727, DC-10 and even B-747
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 7686
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 6:33 pm

Aviano789 wrote:
National did serve the west coast cities, they could have file for authorization to fly from LAX, SFO, SAN, and ONT to Hawaii.


I don' think NA served ONT. They did however serve SJC
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 5265
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 6:45 pm

727LOVER wrote:
Aviano789 wrote:
National did serve the west coast cities, they could have file for authorization to fly from LAX, SFO, SAN, and ONT to Hawaii.


I don' think NA served ONT. They did however serve SJC




Image
 
IAHWorldflyer
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 6:56 pm

jetero wrote:
IAHWorldflyer wrote:
EvanWSFO wrote:
Haven't seen it mentioned, but how did NA get into LHR in the 70s? All new entrants had to go to LGW, even some BCal flights to the US.


There was a clause that if a LGW service had more than 300,000 passengers per year for 2 years in a row, the carrier could apply to switch the service to LHR. I think DEN was able to get LHR service this way.


NB: 300k over 2 consecutive calendar years, not 300k annually 2 years in a row--there's no way BA carried 300k passengers annually on a single daily flight to DEN.

PHX and SAN got the same benefit.



Thanks Jetero, I knew I didn't remember all the details about that, just remembered there was a way to convert Gatwick service into Heathrow service.

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