User avatar
BN727227Ultra
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 6:59 pm

Aviano789 wrote:
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.


But with no west coast network, they'd be in a fistfight with PA and UA to fill the planes. Look at LAX-HNL now--everyone with a Part 121 and his dog flies the route and everyone defines LAX as a focus city. Given the state of play at the time of the route-letting, not only was hub-n-spoke nonexistent, but focus cities were unheard of. National may have been able to feed traffic from IAH/MSY to LAX to send to HNL, but that'd be it.

Braniff did well at DFW, but IAH didn't have a hometown airline yet. DL waited, then tried to replace BN at DFW while AA saw them both off eventually. WN did DEN then SLC. NW had SEA and PDX. There was no catchment left for National to draw from.

By the time aircraft size was the right fit for mid-America-HNL, National was a shell, still hubless, and a lousy fleet. PA made it worse.
 
Nola
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 1:40 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 7:30 pm

BN727227Ultra wrote:
Aviano789 wrote:
BN727227Ultra wrote:

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.


But with no west coast network, they'd be in a fistfight with PA and UA to fill the planes. Look at LAX-HNL now--everyone with a Part 121 and his dog flies the route and everyone defines LAX as a focus city. Given the state of play at the time of the route-letting, not only was hub-n-spoke nonexistent, but focus cities were unheard of. National may have been able to feed traffic from IAH/MSY to LAX to send to HNL, but that'd be it.

Braniff did well at DFW, but IAH didn't have a hometown airline yet. DL waited, then tried to replace BN at DFW while AA saw them both off eventually. WN did DEN then SLC. NW had SEA and PDX. There was no catchment left for National to draw from.

By the time aircraft size was the right fit for mid-America-HNL, National was a shell, still hubless, and a lousy fleet. PA made it worse.


Totally off topic, but I wonder what position DL would have been in if it had gone to IAH instead of DFW.
 
Overthecascades
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 8:06 pm

727LOVER wrote:
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


Thanks for critical piece of info!
 
User avatar
BN727227Ultra
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 8:31 pm

Nola wrote:

Totally off topic, but I wonder what position DL would have been in if it had gone to IAH instead of DFW.


Good point. DL seemed more enamored with MSY, imo.

(I'm imagining DC-8-61s and DC-10-30s painted in Texas International...)
 
jetero
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 9:22 pm

IAHWorldflyer wrote:
jetero wrote:
IAHWorldflyer wrote:

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.


Hey I had never heard of this part of the rule so I learned something new myself!
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8047
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 9:25 pm

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
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


I stand corrected. Thanx


EDIT: Did some digging, I'm still not convinced. I think it's part of Los Angeles, although the did serve LGB. They didn't serve OAK either
Last edited by 727LOVER on Wed May 16, 2018 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
User avatar
cathay747
Posts: 890
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 8:47 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 9:28 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
Polot wrote:
Nola wrote:


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.


You're quite correct. EAL was a party to the Trans-Pacific Route Case, applying for Hawaii and I believe Japan (extension from Hawaii), and yes, that's one reason they bought the DC-8-63...for the range...the other reason was for greater capacity in the SJU market, particularly from NYC.
Try a Little VC-10derness
 
User avatar
cathay747
Posts: 890
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 8:47 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 9:41 pm

727LOVER wrote:
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:
727LOVER wrote:

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




Image


I stand corrected. Thanx


Nope, you're only partly incorrect. NA did not serve ONT as you said. They also didn't serve SJC...or OAK or LGB for that matter. NA was an airline with a somewhat annoying habit of showing points on their route maps with muti-city labeling, such as Los Angeles/Ontario/Long Beach etc. If you look at this 1974 timetable from departedflights.com you can see they did not serve those airports: http://www.departedflights.com/NA070174intro.html
Try a Little VC-10derness
 
Nola
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 1:40 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 9:44 pm

BN727227Ultra wrote:
Nola wrote:

Totally off topic, but I wonder what position DL would have been in if it had gone to IAH instead of DFW.


Good point. DL seemed more enamored with MSY, imo.

(I'm imagining DC-8-61s and DC-10-30s painted in Texas International...)


We did have a huge DL presence in Nola back then. They had the entire west wing of the airport to themselves.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8547
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 9:44 pm

jetero wrote:
IAHWorldflyer wrote:
jetero wrote:

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.


Hey I had never heard of this part of the rule so I learned something new myself!

It should also be noted that the rule only applied if the British LHR authorized operator was the sole carrier on the route. If someone else launched the route it was back to LGW. That’s why other cities like Houston did not get LHR service.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4951
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 10:09 pm

Quick history question:

Why did National build the Sundrome at JFK?

They didnt fly to Europe and seemed to be limited to Florida.

I know a terminal at JFK was the thing to do in the 60s, but this seems a bit much for a small airline with no intl presence from the airport.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8047
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 10:18 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Quick history question:

Why did National build the Sundrome at JFK?

They didnt fly to Europe and seemed to be limited to Florida.

I know a terminal at JFK was the thing to do in the 60s, but this seems a bit much for a small airline with no intl presence from the airport.


Future plans maybe. Didn't they fly JFK-AMS?
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8047
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 10:23 pm

cathay747 wrote:

Nope, you're only partly incorrect. NA did not serve ONT as you said. They also didn't serve SJC...or OAK or LGB for that matter. NA was an airline with a somewhat annoying habit of showing points on their route maps with muti-city labeling, such as Los Angeles/Ontario/Long Beach etc. If you look at this 1974 timetable from departedflights.com you can see they did not serve those airports: http://www.departedflights.com/NA070174intro.html


You didn't check the 1979 timetable, because they did serve SJC. In fact they flew SFO-SJC
http://www.departedflights.com/NA050179p14.html
Last edited by 727LOVER on Wed May 16, 2018 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5142
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 10:23 pm

jfklganyc wrote:

Quick history question:

Why did National build the Sundrome at JFK?

They didnt fly to Europe and seemed to be limited to Florida.

I know a terminal at JFK was the thing to do in the 60s, but this seems a bit much for a small airline with no intl presence from the airport.


They did have a good deal of flights to Florida of course, but they also had a good amount of service to DCA and the Palmetto Hopper from JFK to PHF/ORF/CHS as well as BOS/PVD/PHL/BWI. The Sundrome was probably more than NA needed at JFK at the time but they were larger than NW and BN and maybe DL then but they were a player, at least if you were heading south. Plus, at the time the Sundrome was domestic only.
Where to next? :cool2:
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8047
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Wed May 16, 2018 10:28 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Quick history question:

Why did National build the Sundrome at JFK?

They didnt fly to Europe and seemed to be limited to Florida.

I know a terminal at JFK was the thing to do in the 60s, but this seems a bit much for a small airline with no intl presence from the airport.

By INTL, I'm going to assume you meant ocean-crossing/S American

UA, AA & EA didn't have those either
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 5342
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Thu May 17, 2018 12:17 am

cathay747 wrote:
727LOVER wrote:
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:



Image


I stand corrected. Thanx


Nope, you're only partly incorrect. NA did not serve ONT as you said. They also didn't serve SJC...or OAK or LGB for that matter. NA was an airline with a somewhat annoying habit of showing points on their route maps with muti-city labeling, such as Los Angeles/Ontario/Long Beach etc. If you look at this 1974 timetable from departedflights.com you can see they did not serve those airports: http://www.departedflights.com/NA070174intro.html


The other poster was correct. NA served SJC-IAH.

EA dis serve ONT-ATL at one time in the mid-1970s. NA did not serve ONT, AFAIK.
 
User avatar
millionsofmiles
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Thu May 17, 2018 6:54 am

Regarding National and the JFK Sundrome. When first opened, the satellite to the west was occupied largely by Trans Caribbean Airways, with the easternmost satellite solely devoted to National flights, including, eventually, the 747 and DC-10.

Trans Caribbean may not have had a huge operation at JFK in terms of number of flights but their DC-8 (both standard and stretch) and 727 (-100 and -200) flights to SJU; PAP; AUA and STX/STT carried armies of passengers and the Sundrome had the space for them.

National had a surprisingly large operation at JFK with 747s (1970-1975); DC-10s (1972-end), as well as DC-8s ranging from standard -8s to stretch -61s, along with a small armada of 727-100s and -200s. In addition to JFK-Florida nonstops, National launched a series of multi-stop East Coast flights from JFK, along with a short-lived JFK-AMS route (1978-1980).

I was very young when my parents and I flew on National to visit a very new Walt Disney World. We flew on National flight 61, operated that day by a a 727-235 named "Gloria". The flight was packed to the gills and the JFK terminal was an absolute madhouse with an also packed 747 leaving for Miamj around the same time.

TWA expanded the terminal during its time there, adding gates between the two satellites. It was actually quite a bit smaller in the National days.

IIRC, National, Trans Caribbean and Air Canada were the three final airlines to leave the Temporary Terminal. BOAC was in the IAB, and moved into its own terminal which was built ion the site of the old Temporary Terminal but I don't know where Air Canada went in the interim.

Those were exciting days at JFK with many interesting airline combinations within the various buildings, and a few very interfering terminal changes.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4951
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Thu May 17, 2018 1:17 pm

That is so interesting about the Sundrome.

I looked at an old pic, and you are right, there were no gates between the satellites!

That explains why both satellites had an usable tiny gate when TWA and later B6 were occupants.

TWA added 4 gates mid terminal while making a gate in the satellite unusable!

B6 later reduced those 4 mid terminal gates to 3 Airbus-sized gates.
 
EvanWSFO
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Thu May 17, 2018 2:00 pm

727LOVER wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Quick history question:

Why did National build the Sundrome at JFK?

They didnt fly to Europe and seemed to be limited to Florida.

I know a terminal at JFK was the thing to do in the 60s, but this seems a bit much for a small airline with no intl presence from the airport.


Future plans maybe. Didn't they fly JFK-AMS?


Yes, not long before the PA merger. SEA-IAH/LAX was the last domestic addition. The LAX flight was on a D10.
 
jetero
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Thu May 17, 2018 2:16 pm

Nola wrote:
BN727227Ultra 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.


But with no west coast network, they'd be in a fistfight with PA and UA to fill the planes. Look at LAX-HNL now--everyone with a Part 121 and his dog flies the route and everyone defines LAX as a focus city. Given the state of play at the time of the route-letting, not only was hub-n-spoke nonexistent, but focus cities were unheard of. National may have been able to feed traffic from IAH/MSY to LAX to send to HNL, but that'd be it.

Braniff did well at DFW, but IAH didn't have a hometown airline yet. DL waited, then tried to replace BN at DFW while AA saw them both off eventually. WN did DEN then SLC. NW had SEA and PDX. There was no catchment left for National to draw from.

By the time aircraft size was the right fit for mid-America-HNL, National was a shell, still hubless, and a lousy fleet. PA made it worse.


Totally off topic, but I wonder what position DL would have been in if it had gone to IAH instead of DFW.


Yes IAH was a free-for-all in the early 1980s with EA, PA, DL, and CO-TI serving many of the same trunk routes. DL had longstanding service from the C&S merger. I think had DL chosen IAH instead of DFW, CO wouldn’t have survived.
 
Nola
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 1:40 am

Re: Why National Airlines never went Pacific

Thu May 17, 2018 2:34 pm

jetero wrote:
Nola wrote:
BN727227Ultra wrote:

But with no west coast network, they'd be in a fistfight with PA and UA to fill the planes. Look at LAX-HNL now--everyone with a Part 121 and his dog flies the route and everyone defines LAX as a focus city. Given the state of play at the time of the route-letting, not only was hub-n-spoke nonexistent, but focus cities were unheard of. National may have been able to feed traffic from IAH/MSY to LAX to send to HNL, but that'd be it.

Braniff did well at DFW, but IAH didn't have a hometown airline yet. DL waited, then tried to replace BN at DFW while AA saw them both off eventually. WN did DEN then SLC. NW had SEA and PDX. There was no catchment left for National to draw from.

By the time aircraft size was the right fit for mid-America-HNL, National was a shell, still hubless, and a lousy fleet. PA made it worse.


Totally off topic, but I wonder what position DL would have been in if it had gone to IAH instead of DFW.


Yes IAH was a free-for-all in the early 1980s with EA, PA, DL, and CO-TI serving many of the same trunk routes. DL had longstanding service from the C&S merger. I think had DL chosen IAH instead of DFW, CO wouldn’t have survived.


ATL wouldn't have turned into quite the powerhouse it is today, but it would have been very interesting to see. DL would have had a great jumping off point for Latin America and kept its presence in Texas without major competition. Cincinnati probably still would have been necessary but not as large as it was at its peak.

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