Could Pan AM have flown some in state domestic routes

capejet · Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:17 am

My question is about the authority of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) pre deregulation and especially Pan Am routes. I know pre deregulation the CAB determined what routes airlines could fly but did their authority include routes that were in one state, for instance LAX-SFO? That seems like an ideal route for Pan Am in the 1970s as well as MIA-TPA, MIA-MCO, IAH-DFW, and possibly others like LAX-SMF, SFO-SAN, MIA-JAX, JFK-BUF maybe SAT-IAH, I thought I read somewhere that the CAB did not have authority over airline routes that were within the same state.So even though Pan Am could be turned down on a request to fly MIA-MSY, they could in fact fly MIA-TPA without permission from the CAB. That would provide some feed for their long haul international routes.

LAXintl · Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:40 am

Flying within the State of California was regulated by the California Public Utilities Commisio (CPUC).

From what I recall carriers like Braniff and Pan Am were allowed to operate intrastate LAX-SFO route as part of international services.

BoeingGuy · Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:56 am

LAXintl wrote:
Flying within the State of California was regulated by the California Public Utilities Commisio (CPUC).

From what I recall carriers like Braniff and Pan Am were allowed to operate intrastate LAX-SFO route as part of international services.

Yes but they couldn’t carry local traffic. PA definitely couldn’t carry local traffic SFO-LAX or any segment in the lower 48. I don’t recall if Braniff could carry local traffic on the SFO-LAX segment of the South America flights, but I don’t believe so.

DL also flew SFO-LAX-SJU and I’m not sure they had traffic rights for SFO-LAX either.

capejet · Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:00 am

Oh gosh I had no idea the states had their own regulatory boards for flying within their states, so I guess along those same lines Florida must have decided who could fly MIA-TPA and Texas decided who got to fly IAH-SAT?

jetero · Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:08 am

capejet wrote:
Oh gosh I had no idea the states had their own regulatory boards for flying within their states, so I guess along those same lines Florida must have decided who could fly MIA-TPA and Texas decided who got to fly IAH-SAT?

Texas was the Texas State Aeronautics Commission

BoeingGuy · Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:09 am

capejet wrote:
Oh gosh I had no idea the states had their own regulatory boards for flying within their states, so I guess along those same lines Florida must have decided who could fly MIA-TPA and Texas decided who got to fly IAH-SAT?

Only some states had Intra-State airlines pre-deregulation that I recall. California and Texas come to mind.

California had PSA and Air California that only flew within California. Also had Holiday Airlines which flew Electras to TVL until about 1974.

seb146 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:14 am

Not specifically PA, but I remember, at the beginning of deregulation, a couple of airlines flew PDX-SEA then on to some other, far off destination. TW, DL, and Eastern at least did it. TW flew the L-1011 STL-SEA-PDX and return into the 1990s. I don't know why. I loved seeing the L-1011, though!

In one of the aviation magazines, there were several articles about regional airlines transitioning into deregulation. Airlines like North Central and Mohawk. I should read through those again and see what it says about intrastate routes.

citationjet · Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:20 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
I don’t recall if Braniff could carry local traffic on the SFO-LAX segment of the South America flights, but I don’t believe so.

You are correct, Braniff could not carry local traffic between SFO and LAX. I have a Braniff 1976 timetable and it shows SFO to BOG one-stop service twice a week, and SFO to LIM 1 stop service three times a week. The schedule does not show the flight between SFO and LAX, but the map shows the routing thru LAX..
Same with Braniff's JFK service to South America - no local traffic between JFK and MIA. I did fly Braniff between JFK and MIA once, because I was a non-rev.

jetero · Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:20 am

seb146 wrote:
Not specifically PA, but I remember, at the beginning of deregulation, a couple of airlines flew PDX-SEA then on to some other, far off destination. TW, DL, and Eastern at least did it. TW flew the L-1011 STL-SEA-PDX and return into the 1990s. I don't know why. I loved seeing the L-1011, though!

In one of the aviation magazines, there were several articles about regional airlines transitioning into deregulation. Airlines like North Central and Mohawk. I should read through those again and see what it says about intrastate routes.

In the regulated days these sorts of routes were very common, PDX-SEA a big one, but there was also IAD-DCA, BWI-PHL, MIA-FLL, SJC-SFO, LAX-ONT.

flyingclrs727 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:32 am

LAXintl wrote:
Flying within the State of California was regulated by the California Public Utilities Commisio (CPUC).

From what I recall carriers like Braniff and Pan Am were allowed to operate intrastate LAX-SFO route as part of international services.

Braniff also operated a daily Pan Am 707 HOU-DAL-ORD. Then Pan Am flew the plane to LHR and a few other European business centers.

MO11 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:34 am

capejet wrote:
Oh gosh I had no idea the states had their own regulatory boards for flying within their states, so I guess along those same lines Florida must have decided who could fly MIA-TPA and Texas decided who got to fly IAH-SAT?

Not exactly. If an airline flew entirely within one state, it was not regulated by the Civil Aeronautics Board. Most states have some sort of aviation board; the degree to which they would regulate an intra-state carrier varied. In California, the intra-state airlines were regulated as a public utility.

But if a certificated carrier wanted to fly MIA-TPA or IAH-SAT or LAX-SFO, it would have to have CAB approval. The states would have no authority.

GalaxyFlyer · Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:38 am

There were numerous intra-state air carriers during the period of regulation. California, Texas and Florida were the biggest, but several other states supported intrastate airlines.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrastate_airline

GF

RWA380 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:00 am

seb146 wrote:
Not specifically PA, but I remember, at the beginning of deregulation, a couple of airlines flew PDX-SEA then on to some other, far off destination. TW, DL, and Eastern at least did it. TW flew the L-1011 STL-SEA-PDX and return into the 1990s. I don't know why. I loved seeing the L-1011, though!

In one of the aviation magazines, there were several articles about regional airlines transitioning into deregulation. Airlines like North Central and Mohawk. I should read through those again and see what it says about intrastate routes.

In it's day PDX-SEA has seen dozens of carriers who were operating it either as a stop on a west coast milk run like RW or UA did or as a tag like JFK-SEA-PDX like TW did with the L10 & 767.
AA, AS, CO, DL, EA, FL, NW, OC, WA, WC, BN, HA, QX, CZ, SY, TZ, TW, PA, RW, RC & more have flown this over the years with everything from J-31's to 747's, PA didn't have local rights.

seb146 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:24 am

RWA380 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Not specifically PA, but I remember, at the beginning of deregulation, a couple of airlines flew PDX-SEA then on to some other, far off destination. TW, DL, and Eastern at least did it. TW flew the L-1011 STL-SEA-PDX and return into the 1990s. I don't know why. I loved seeing the L-1011, though!

In one of the aviation magazines, there were several articles about regional airlines transitioning into deregulation. Airlines like North Central and Mohawk. I should read through those again and see what it says about intrastate routes.

In it's day PDX-SEA has seen dozens of carriers who were operating it either as a stop on a west coast milk run like RW or UA did or as a tag like JFK-SEA-PDX like TW did with the L10 & 767.
AA, AS, CO, DL, EA, FL, NW, OC, WA, WC, BN, HA, QX, CZ, SY, TZ, TW, PA, RW, RC & more have flown this over the years with everything from J-31's to 747's, PA didn't have local rights.

I was on a CO flight SEA-PDX. It was a DC9-30 IAH-SEA-PDX. Because I had flown from JNU, I am guessing it was interline. I get that part of it. Back in the day, many flights from Asia connected in SEA. Some flying SVO-PDX would probably connect in SEA. In the case of PA, they probably could have connected pax at LAX or SFO or wherever to their final destination.

millionsofmiles · Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:51 am

citationjet wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
I don’t recall if Braniff could carry local traffic on the SFO-LAX segment of the South America flights, but I don’t believe so.

You are correct, VBraniff could not carry local traffic between SFO and LAX. I have a Braniff 1976 timetable and it shows SFO to BOG one-stop service twice a week, and SFO to LIM 1 stop service three times a week. The schedule does not show the flight between SFO and LAX, but the map shows the routing thru LAX..
Same with Braniff's JFK service to South America - no local traffic between JFK and MIA. I did fly Braniff between JFK and MIA once, because I was a non-rev.

Braniff was carrying local traffic on JFK-MIA and JFK-IAD-MIA on its DC-8-62 flights to South America from by January 1979. My dad and I flew on BN 901, JFK-MIA, in January 1979 on N810BN, a -62 that Braniff purchased from SAS. We returned on an Eastern L-1011, and travelled both ways in First Class. The meal service on Braniff was light years ahead as Braniff provisioned this leg to an International standard.

I would imagine that Braniff gained local traffic rights on LAX-SFO at the same time.

UpNAWAy · Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:40 pm

There is a reason most startups started as interstate airlines in the 60s and 70s because the CAB almost never approved new routes and certainly not any that would result in competition. They also didn't regulate international flying as that was a one on one negotiations between the parties and countries.

BTW the airline industry should be taught in every government and economics class. It is the perfect example of how government control stunted the industry's development.

RWA380 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 3:23 pm

millionsofmiles wrote:
citationjet wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
I don’t recall if Braniff could carry local traffic on the SFO-LAX segment of the South America flights, but I don’t believe so.

You are correct, VBraniff could not carry local traffic between SFO and LAX. I have a Braniff 1976 timetable and it shows SFO to BOG one-stop service twice a week, and SFO to LIM 1 stop service three times a week. The schedule does not show the flight between SFO and LAX, but the map shows the routing thru LAX..
Same with Braniff's JFK service to South America - no local traffic between JFK and MIA. I did fly Braniff between JFK and MIA once, because I was a non-rev.

Braniff was carrying local traffic on JFK-MIA and JFK-IAD-MIA on its DC-8-62 flights to South America from by January 1979. My dad and I flew on BN 901, JFK-MIA, in January 1979 on N810BN, a -62 that Braniff purchased from SAS. We returned on an Eastern L-1011, and travelled both ways in First Class. The meal service on Braniff was light years ahead as Braniff provisioned this leg to an International standard.

I would imagine that Braniff gained local traffic rights on LAX-SFO at the same time.

You're correct, once Dec 15th 1978 hit, BN was able to carry local traffic LAX-SFO-LAX, I flew their Calder DC-8 on this route & the Calder 72S from PDX to SEA, both of them flown, only once each.

MO11 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:49 pm

RWA380 wrote:
millionsofmiles wrote:
citationjet wrote:

You are correct, VBraniff could not carry local traffic between SFO and LAX. I have a Braniff 1976 timetable and it shows SFO to BOG one-stop service twice a week, and SFO to LIM 1 stop service three times a week. The schedule does not show the flight between SFO and LAX, but the map shows the routing thru LAX..
Same with Braniff's JFK service to South America - no local traffic between JFK and MIA. I did fly Braniff between JFK and MIA once, because I was a non-rev.

Braniff was carrying local traffic on JFK-MIA and JFK-IAD-MIA on its DC-8-62 flights to South America from by January 1979. My dad and I flew on BN 901, JFK-MIA, in January 1979 on N810BN, a -62 that Braniff purchased from SAS. We returned on an Eastern L-1011, and travelled both ways in First Class. The meal service on Braniff was light years ahead as Braniff provisioned this leg to an International standard.

You're correct, once Dec 15th 1978 hit, BN was able to carry local traffic LAX-SFO-LAX, I flew their Calder DC-8 on this route & the Calder 72S from PDX to SEA, both of them flown, only once each.

In the '60s, the South American flights from New York and Washington were operated as an interchange with either Eastern or National. [It was odd to see "707 Jet" in an Eastern timetable.]. In 1969 it received authority to operate directly to South America from New York and Washington, and the interchange ended. Although some flights operated nonstop with the -62s, others operated with a dead leg over Miami. This, of course, ended in 1978.

questions · Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:03 pm

Reading this makes you wonder what the landscape of US aviation would be like today if the industry had not been regulated. It would have been an interesting set of players.

superjeff · Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:45 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Flying within the State of California was regulated by the California Public Utilities Commisio (CPUC).

From what I recall carriers like Braniff and Pan Am were allowed to operate intrastate LAX-SFO route as part of international services.

I worked for Braniff between 1972 and 1978, and although Braniff operated SFO-LAX, JFK-MiA, and IAH-MSYas a tag on to international services (also ATL-DAL at one point, tag on to the HNL route), they could not carry local traffic on those routes. Pan Am also flew SFO-LAX and JFK-MIA but also could not carry local traffic.

MIAFLLPBIFlyer · Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:47 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
Flying within the State of California was regulated by the California Public Utilities Commisio (CPUC).

From what I recall carriers like Braniff and Pan Am were allowed to operate intrastate LAX-SFO route as part of international services.

Yes but they couldn’t carry local traffic. PA definitely couldn’t carry local traffic SFO-LAX or any segment in the lower 48. I don’t recall if Braniff could carry local traffic on the SFO-LAX segment of the South America flights, but I don’t believe so.

DL also flew SFO-LAX-SJU and I’m not sure they had traffic rights for SFO-LAX either.

IIRC Braniff COULD NOT carry local traffic on SFO-LAX. It was all continuing traffic or connecting traffic.

910A · Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:51 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Flying within the State of California was regulated by the California Public Utilities Commisio (CPUC).

From what I recall carriers like Braniff and Pan Am were allowed to operate intrastate LAX-SFO route as part of international services.

No that is not correct. Because BN/PA/NW all flew outside of California they were regulated by the CAB, hence PS and OC didn't fly outside of California because then they would be regulated by the CAB. Once deregulation came about these airlines were able to take paying customers on the LAX-SFO route. BN fares from LAX-SFO were really cheap, but they were stand-by, PA the flight was always late coming up from South America. NW ended their tag-on to/from SFO.

910A · Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:54 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
DL also flew SFO-LAX-SJU and I’m not sure they had traffic rights for SFO-LAX either.

DL did have traffic routes between SFO-LAX.

timz · Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:59 pm

Could Braniff carry local passengers JFK-MIA in, say, 1970? No, because they didn't fly that route.

A Braniff plane could fly the route, operated by Eastern, and it could carry local passengers. I'm guessing it always had been allowed to, since the interchange flight started in the 1950s.

Probably the NA-PA interchange flights could always carry local passengers JFK-MIA too?

gwrudolph · Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:07 pm

RWA380 wrote:
millionsofmiles wrote:
citationjet wrote:

You are correct, VBraniff could not carry local traffic between SFO and LAX. I have a Braniff 1976 timetable and it shows SFO to BOG one-stop service twice a week, and SFO to LIM 1 stop service three times a week. The schedule does not show the flight between SFO and LAX, but the map shows the routing thru LAX..
Same with Braniff's JFK service to South America - no local traffic between JFK and MIA. I did fly Braniff between JFK and MIA once, because I was a non-rev.

Braniff was carrying local traffic on JFK-MIA and JFK-IAD-MIA on its DC-8-62 flights to South America from by January 1979. My dad and I flew on BN 901, JFK-MIA, in January 1979 on N810BN, a -62 that Braniff purchased from SAS. We returned on an Eastern L-1011, and travelled both ways in First Class. The meal service on Braniff was light years ahead as Braniff provisioned this leg to an International standard.

I would imagine that Braniff gained local traffic rights on LAX-SFO at the same time.

You're correct, once Dec 15th 1978 hit, BN was able to carry local traffic LAX-SFO-LAX, I flew their Calder DC-8 on this route & the Calder 72S from PDX to SEA, both of them flown, only once each.

So if the Deregulation Act was signed into law on October 24, 1978, didn't it become effective immediately thereafter meaning technically any carrier could fly anywhere in the US? Of course, practically speaking I guess most had a lag between the effective date and the date they could actually implement the service (scheduling, advance bookings, etc)?

UPlog · Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:08 pm

I recall the CPUC and how airlines had to get their intra-CA fares approved.
Since the agency was often reluctant, or atleast slow to approve increases, I long remember how fares up and down the corridor were often to be had for $15 each way into the 1970s.

BoeingGuy · Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:22 pm

UPlog wrote:
I recall the CPUC and how airlines had to get their intra-CA fares approved.
Since the agency was often reluctant, or atleast slow to approve increases, I long remember how fares up and down the corridor were often to be had for $15 each way into the 1970s.

PSA had that Midnight Flyer which had outrageously cheap fares.

Anyone remember the California Intrastate airline Holiday Airlines, that I referred to in a previous post? There’s an interesting obscure airline from the past.

MO11 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:28 pm

gwrudolph wrote:

So if the Deregulation Act was signed into law on October 24, 1978, didn't it become effective immediately thereafter meaning technically any carrier could fly anywhere in the US? Of course, practically speaking I guess most had a lag between the effective date and the date they could actually implement the service (scheduling, advance bookings, etc)?

Everything was phased in. Toward the end of 1978, there was a lottery for routes. The first airline in line got first pick. And the first in line was United which requested only one route: BUF-FLL (which it never did operate). Next in line was Braniff, which requested and received a whole bunch of routes (many of which were never operated). By 1980, all of the route restrictions were eliminated (except for EAS).

gwrudolph · Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:41 pm

MO11 wrote:
gwrudolph wrote:

So if the Deregulation Act was signed into law on October 24, 1978, didn't it become effective immediately thereafter meaning technically any carrier could fly anywhere in the US? Of course, practically speaking I guess most had a lag between the effective date and the date they could actually implement the service (scheduling, advance bookings, etc)?

Everything was phased in. Toward the end of 1978, there was a lottery for routes. The first airline in line got first pick. And the first in line was United which requested only one route: BUF-FLL (which it never did operate). Next in line was Braniff, which requested and received a whole bunch of routes (many of which were never operated). By 1980, all of the route restrictions were eliminated (except for EAS).

Oh wow. I didn't know that. Sounds like airlines doing mad grabs for rights that might or might not make sense. Sounds like the HND, China, and Cuba plays we've seen in more recent times :-)

Bobloblaw · Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:24 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
capejet wrote:
Oh gosh I had no idea the states had their own regulatory boards for flying within their states, so I guess along those same lines Florida must have decided who could fly MIA-TPA and Texas decided who got to fly IAH-SAT?

Only some states had Intra-State airlines pre-deregulation that I recall. California and Texas come to mind.

California had PSA and Air California that only flew within California. Also had Holiday Airlines which flew Electras to TVL until about 1974.

Illinois Commerce Commission. They'd approve anything for intrastate flying.

citationjet · Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:31 pm

MO11 wrote:
Everything was phased in. Toward the end of 1978, there was a lottery for routes. The first airline in line got first pick. And the first in line was United which requested only one route: BUF-FLL (which it never did operate). Next in line was Braniff, which requested and received a whole bunch of routes (many of which were never operated). By 1980, all of the route restrictions were eliminated (except for EAS).

Braniff did an all out grab for routes shortly after deregulation was signed on October 18, 1978. 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.

OzarkD9S · Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:59 pm

MO11 wrote:

gwrudolph wrote:

So if the Deregulation Act was signed into law on October 24, 1978, didn't it become effective immediately thereafter meaning technically any carrier could fly anywhere in the US? Of course, practically speaking I guess most had a lag between the effective date and the date they could actually implement the service (scheduling, advance bookings, etc)?

Everything was phased in. Toward the end of 1978, there was a lottery for routes. The first airline in line got first pick. And the first in line was United which requested only one route: BUF-FLL (which it never did operate). Next in line was Braniff, which requested and received a whole bunch of routes (many of which were never operated). By 1980, all of the route restrictions were eliminated (except for EAS).

Actually UA requested BUF-MIA.

MO11 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:32 pm

OzarkD9S wrote:
MO11 wrote:

gwrudolph wrote:

Everything was phased in. Toward the end of 1978, there was a lottery for routes. The first airline in line got first pick. And the first in line was United which requested only one route: BUF-FLL (which it never did operate). Next in line was Braniff, which requested and received a whole bunch of routes (many of which were never operated). By 1980, all of the route restrictions were eliminated (except for EAS).

Actually UA requested BUF-MIA.

UA flew ROC-BUF-MIA in the '60s with 727s. In 1969, it received authority to skip BUF on its routes from ROC, so ROC-MIA was nonstop December-April, and BUF was a separate flight.

citationjet · Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:09 pm

timz wrote:
Could Braniff carry local passengers JFK-MIA in, say, 1970? No, because they didn't fly that route.

Yes, Braniff did fly the JFK to MIA route then. I have a March 5, 1969 Braniff timetable that shows two flights a day between JFK and MIA, with continuing service to South America. Flight numbers were 977 and 979, using DC-8 aircraft.
I have various Braniff schedules from the early 1960s thru 1982, and all show nonstop service between JFK and MIA. In 1966 the service was an interchange with Eastern.

timz · Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:33 pm

You're right-- I forgot that things changed after the Panagra merger.

PSAjet17 · Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:44 pm

I think there is confusion here about when a carrier could fly passengers within a state. I worked for DL in SAN during the summer of 73 and many of our departures and arrivals at SAN were from LAX (with service to/from ATL, DFW and other cities). We carried passengers SAN-LAX and had a published fare for that segment. We also carried passengers to/from LAX where they connected to other destinations (with fares published in the official Tariff.)

I believe the airlines could not carry "local" passengers were international flights only. If I remember correctly, there was an international flight that stopped at LAX and/or SFO before continuing on to JFK that could not carry point to point passengers unless they were connecting to another destination on the tariff approved fare and routing.

DaveFly · Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:14 pm

A bit off the topic of intrastate authority, but the original question was about Pan Am. Their corporate culture, from my experience, looked down on domestic flying. They were INTERNATIONAL, thank you. Shortly after the merger with National, I went to the Airline Ticket Building, across the street then from Grand Central Terminal. I needed to book an urgent LGA-MIA ticket. The folks behind the counter, in their most condescending tone, said, we don’t fly from New York to Miami. I said, as of a few weeks ago you do. General confusion. Animinated whispers. Then they said, well, apparently we do. Pan Am. Ugh.

MO11 · Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:05 am

PSAjet17 wrote:
I think there is confusion here about when a carrier could fly passengers within a state. I worked for DL in SAN during the summer of 73 and many of our departures and arrivals at SAN were from LAX (with service to/from ATL, DFW and other cities). We carried passengers SAN-LAX and had a published fare for that segment. We also carried passengers to/from LAX where they connected to other destinations (with fares published in the official Tariff.)

If you were a certificated carrier (like Delta), the within-state route would have to be on your CAB certificate.

EvanWSFO · Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:19 am

MO11 wrote:
gwrudolph wrote:

So if the Deregulation Act was signed into law on October 24, 1978, didn't it become effective immediately thereafter meaning technically any carrier could fly anywhere in the US? Of course, practically speaking I guess most had a lag between the effective date and the date they could actually implement the service (scheduling, advance bookings, etc)?

Everything was phased in. Toward the end of 1978, there was a lottery for routes. The first airline in line got first pick. And the first in line was United which requested only one route: BUF-FLL (which it never did operate). Next in line was Braniff, which requested and received a whole bunch of routes (many of which were never operated). By 1980, all of the route restrictions were eliminated (except for EAS).

Braniff applied for 600+ routes, obviously they didn't get them all - just enough to hang themselves.. In the end, they flew basically the same schedule and routes they had pre-deregulation.

e38 · Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:11 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply # 14), "I was on a CO flight SEA-PDX. It was a DC9-30 IAH-SEA-PDX."

seb146, I doubt this flight was operated by a DC9-30 as this type aircraft did not have the range to fly from Houston to Seattle. Could it have been a Boeing 727-224 perhaps?

To the best of my knowledge, Continental never operated the DC-9 fleet to the Pacific Northwest; i.e., PDX / SEA.

e38

e38 · Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:16 am

many comments about intrastate flights PDX - SEA
.
All of you realize, of course, that this is not an intrastate route--Portland, OREGON - Seattle, WASHINGTON. It's short, but not intrastate.

e38

superjeff · Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:50 am

millionsofmiles wrote:
citationjet wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
I don’t recall if Braniff could carry local traffic on the SFO-LAX segment of the South America flights, but I don’t believe so.

You are correct, VBraniff could not carry local traffic between SFO and LAX. I have a Braniff 1976 timetable and it shows SFO to BOG one-stop service twice a week, and SFO to LIM 1 stop service three times a week. The schedule does not show the flight between SFO and LAX, but the map shows the routing thru LAX..
Same with Braniff's JFK service to South America - no local traffic between JFK and MIA. I did fly Braniff between JFK and MIA once, because I was a non-rev.

Braniff was carrying local traffic on JFK-MIA and JFK-IAD-MIA on its DC-8-62 flights to South America from by January 1979. My dad and I flew on BN 901, JFK-MIA, in January 1979 on N810BN, a -62 that Braniff purchased from SAS. We returned on an Eastern L-1011, and travelled both ways in First Class. The meal service on Braniff was light years ahead as Braniff provisioned this leg to an International standard.

I would imagine that Braniff gained local traffic rights on LAX-SFO at the same time.

When deregulation took effect in 1978, the initial stage permitted any airline flying restricted sectors (i.e. Braniff's JFK/IAD-MIA and SFO-LAX segments of international flights to carry local traffic.

superjeff · Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:52 am

EvanWSFO wrote:
MO11 wrote:
gwrudolph wrote:

So if the Deregulation Act was signed into law on October 24, 1978, didn't it become effective immediately thereafter meaning technically any carrier could fly anywhere in the US? Of course, practically speaking I guess most had a lag between the effective date and the date they could actually implement the service (scheduling, advance bookings, etc)?

Everything was phased in. Toward the end of 1978, there was a lottery for routes. The first airline in line got first pick. And the first in line was United which requested only one route: BUF-FLL (which it never did operate). Next in line was Braniff, which requested and received a whole bunch of routes (many of which were never operated). By 1980, all of the route restrictions were eliminated (except for EAS).

Braniff applied for 600+ routes, obviously they didn't get them all - just enough to hang themselves.. In the end, they flew basically the same schedule and routes they had pre-deregulation.

This has been discussed many times. Braniff made a calculated attempt to grow in order to survive. If it had not been for the Iran hostage crisis, and the subsequent increase in fuel costs and recession, it might well have worked.

superjeff · Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:02 am

DaveFly wrote:
A bit off the topic of intrastate authority, but the original question was about Pan Am. Their corporate culture, from my experience, looked down on domestic flying. They were INTERNATIONAL, thank you. Shortly after the merger withce National, I went to the Airline Ticket Building, across the street then from Grand Central Terminal. I needed to book an urgent LGA-MIA ticket. The folks behind the counter, in their most condescending tone, said, we don’t fly from New York to Miami. I said, as of a few weeks ago you do. General confusion. Animinated whispers. Then they said, well, apparently we do. Pan Am. Ugh.

Condescending yes Not wanting domestic, definitely no. (I can remember needing to change a flight from Pan Am to United HNL-SFO in 1970 and they made me run over to United and have them "endorse" the ticket over to them. In those days that was required on international itineraries, not domestic. That is what drove the National acquisition (a mistake in hindsight). Even after deregulation, there were attempts to merge with Northwest, TWA, and even Braniff but couldn't get the requisite approvals to make something work. If any one of those mergers had actually happened, they still might be around.

EvanWSFO · Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:42 am

superjeff wrote:
EvanWSFO wrote:
MO11 wrote:

Everything was phased in. Toward the end of 1978, there was a lottery for routes. The first airline in line got first pick. And the first in line was United which requested only one route: BUF-FLL (which it never did operate). Next in line was Braniff, which requested and received a whole bunch of routes (many of which were never operated). By 1980, all of the route restrictions were eliminated (except for EAS).

Braniff applied for 600+ routes, obviously they didn't get them all - just enough to hang themselves.. In the end, they flew basically the same schedule and routes they had pre-deregulation.

This has been discussed many times. Braniff made a calculated attempt to grow in order to survive. If it had not been for the Iran hostage crisis, and the subsequent increase in fuel costs and recession, it might well have worked.

No, it would not have. They were flying routes that made no sense. LAX-GUM-HKG on an SP 2x a week? C'mon. At a time when hubs were really coming of age, they were flying tag-ons to domestic routes that probably had little or no revenue. BN's fate was sealed by Harding Lawrence and his unrealistic dream. The fact they lasted as long as they did was the only surprise. AA smelled blood and that's when they stated piling on at DFW. I lived in Dallas through all that. I had friends who worked for BN. It got so bad, morale was down. The employees saw it coming long before management did.

capejet · Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:03 am

So it sounds like airlines that did not venture outside the state of California like AirCal and PSA before deregulation were exempt from the CAB route application process and could fly LAX-SFO if they wanted, but Pan Am which served several states, would have to get CAB approval to fly it. The CAB never gave them authority but they flew it anyway, just couldnt carry local traffic. I guess that helped with the positioning of crews and aircraft which must have been an enormous headache for Pan Am back in those days.

GalaxyFlyer · Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:13 am

No, they had authority to fly domestic routes but only to carry passengers ONWARD to the international destination. They didn’t “fly it anyway”. Interestingly, these “domestic” legs were frequently dispatching under flag rules instead of domestic rules. Once the resulted in a flamed out PAA 747 on the divert from JFK to EWR. From IAH, IIRC.

GF

superjeff · Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:22 am

EvanWSFO wrote:
superjeff wrote:
EvanWSFO wrote:

Braniff applied for 600+ routes, obviously they didn't get them all - just enough to hang themselves.. In the end, they flew basically the same schedule and routes they had pre-deregulation.

This has been discussed many times. Braniff made a calculated attempt to grow in order to survive. If it had not been for the Iran hostage crisis, and the subsequent increase in fuel costs and recession, it might well have worked.

No, it would not have. They were flying routes that made no sense. LAX-GUM-HKG on an SP 2x a week? C'mon. At a time when hubs were really coming of age, they were flying tag-ons to domestic routes that probably had little or no revenue. BN's fate was sealed by Harding Lawrence and his unrealistic dream. The fact they lasted as long as they did was the only surprise. AA smelled blood and that's when they stated piling on at DFW. I lived in Dallas through all that. I had friends who worked for BN. It got so bad, morale was down. The employees saw it coming long before management did.

I agree. I lived in Dallas then and still do now. But International routes were not affected by deregulation. Only domestic. I agree that LAX-GUM-HKG may have seemed strange (but don't forget airplanes didn't have the range to fly LAX-HKG back then), There were other issues (like scheduling flights into Seoul when they would have violated curfews, etc.), but that was not due to deregulation.

HAWAIIAN932 · Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:49 am

Pan Am briefly flew 737's between LAX and SAN. Braniff DID allow passengers to fly just LAX to SFO because I took the flight a couple of different times just to fly Braniff. The flight originated in Ecuador and then nonstop to LAX and on to SFO.

Max Q · Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:59 am

superjeff wrote:
EvanWSFO wrote:
superjeff wrote:

This has been discussed many times. Braniff made a calculated attempt to grow in order to survive. If it had not been for the Iran hostage crisis, and the subsequent increase in fuel costs and recession, it might well have worked.

No, it would not have. They were flying routes that made no sense. LAX-GUM-HKG on an SP 2x a week? C'mon. At a time when hubs were really coming of age, they were flying tag-ons to domestic routes that probably had little or no revenue. BN's fate was sealed by Harding Lawrence and his unrealistic dream. The fact they lasted as long as they did was the only surprise. AA smelled blood and that's when they stated piling on at DFW. I lived in Dallas through all that. I had friends who worked for BN. It got so bad, morale was down. The employees saw it coming long before management did.

I agree. I lived in Dallas then and still do now. But International routes were not affected by deregulation. Only domestic. I agree that LAX-GUM-HKG may have seemed strange (but don't forget airplanes didn't have the range to fly LAX-HKG back then), There were other issues (like scheduling flights into Seoul when they would have violated curfews, etc.), but that was not due to deregulation.

Braniff flew the 747-SP on that route,
it could have flown non stop, in that same era PA and QF flew LAX - SYD non stop and PA flew SFO-HKG non stop.

Not accurate to say aircraft did not have the range back then

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net