Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

Were The Early 80's Really That Much Better On UA Than Now?

Were The Early 80's Really That Much Better On UA Than Now?

Old Dec 10, 2019, 10:28 pm
  #286  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
Originally Posted by vaguba
And to think, if you were planning on taking the boeing stratocruiser to Hawaii you could have your own stateroom:
A 9 hour 45 minute flight SFO-HNL - no thank you. And of course the video has a smoker. UA flew those planes to Hawaii about 4 years before they threw in the towel as the route was not profitable on that particular airplane.....
HNLbasedFlyer is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2019, 4:23 am
  #287  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,680
Originally Posted by dliesse
Almost right. PA was strictly international (and, as pointed out, AK and HI were treated as international flights in all respects except Customs). TW and NW were both hybrids, even back in the 60s.
PA operated domestic routes by the 1980s. It even opreated the BOS/LGA/DCA shuttle for awhile. Can't get much more domestic than that.
Bear96 is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2019, 7:05 am
  #288  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,357
Originally Posted by dliesse
Almost right. PA was strictly international (and, as pointed out, AK and HI were treated as international flights in all respects except Customs). TW and NW were both hybrids, even back in the 60s.
I corrected myself in a later post. UA was repeatedly denied international routes due to the strength of its domestic network, but, yes, TW and NW were both allowed limited international service.

Originally Posted by Bear96
PA operated domestic routes by the 1980s. It even opreated the BOS/LGA/DCA shuttle for awhile. Can't get much more domestic than that.
PA had long wanted domestic routes, but was repeatedly refused due to its strength internationally. They added them as soon as deregulation took effect, but they were ultimately unsuccessful. In the regulated era, they were international-only.
jsloan is online now  
Old Dec 11, 2019, 8:05 am
  #289  
Original Poster
Marriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Denver, Colorado
Programs: IHG Spire, Hilton Honors Gold, Marriott Titanium, Mileage Plus Gold
Posts: 1,736
Originally Posted by jsloan
I corrected myself in a later post. UA was repeatedly denied international routes due to the strength of its domestic network, but, yes, TW and NW were both allowed limited international service.


PA had long wanted domestic routes, but was repeatedly refused due to its strength internationally. They added them as soon as deregulation took effect, but they were ultimately unsuccessful. In the regulated era, they were international-only.
Instead of National, I wonder if merging with United would have helped PanAm or if it would have still sank and brought down United with it.
seat38a is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2019, 12:02 pm
  #290  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Port St Lucie, FL, UA1K since 1994 and 3mm, Delta 1mm
Programs: Marriott Titanium Life, Hilton Gold
Posts: 565
My days with United go back to the early 1970's. Again UA was purely domestic and the Hawaii airline, despite the fact that Pan Am was the original Hawaii Airline. Flew from Newport News, VA (worked for Air Force), through ORD to LAX, PHX, Vegas, SFO etc...
No international as Pan Am was the airline. International routes were controlled/gifted to PA and TWA. When UA wanted to go international there was only undeserved city pair available ie. SEA-HKG

Several people mentioned CAAC. My first flights to China were in 1980. It was on Northwest from SEA to NRT to PEK. NW was the first American airline to fly to China with PA being the second a day later. They were ferrying US Business to the first US Commerce Trade show in Nov 1980. A few weeks later the awards of the first routes to China were made to PA and NW. CAAC at that time flew only 707's internationally and those were limited to PEK-HKG and PEK_NRT routes.

Poor PA the National merger really killed the airline. 1985's selling of TPAC routes, Intercontinental hotel chain, PA Building -- then Bankruptcy and sale of routes to Delta plus LHR slots to UA..
PA led the way in Frequent Flier programs. What they did the others had to emulate.

As far as food on UA. Nothing beat the Caviar in International FC and in domestic F the deli cart with rare roast beef, and tons of cocktail sized shrimp. Kind of funny the deli cart was the second meal on the flight!

I do remember frequent op upgrades on UA to C fro Y. On Pan Am from Europe Op upgrades from C to F were frequent.
featheroleather and uanj like this.
PaulMCO is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2019, 12:32 pm
  #291  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: iah
Programs: ua-mm *G, hilton-gold
Posts: 704
I remember when frank Lorenzo owner of texas international airlines tried a hostile takeover of pan am.
bearkatt is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2019, 1:49 pm
  #292  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: united
Posts: 1,636
Originally Posted by PaulMCO
I do remember frequent op upgrades on UA to C fro Y. On Pan Am from Europe Op upgrades from C to F were frequent.
There were definitely fare more op-ups in the 1980's. The thing is, the other way to look at that is that if you were a frequent flyer, who should have been rewarded, you might instead be back in coach while the gate agent's buddy got upgraded.

Indeed, one of the things about flying back in the day that I really don't miss at all was what used to be referred to on travel websites as "the speech". It was these people who would line up at the gate every time they took a flight and try to browbeat the weary gate agent, who had other, more important things to do, into giving them an upgrade they didn't pay for. I would be trying to gate-check a bag or asking whether a window seat was available, and I had to wait behind a couple of these guys.

I'm all for op-ups when they are truly necessary. Sometimes they are either a legitimate customer service gesture or a response to a sudden change of equipment or some sort of overbooking issue. But in general, I like the idea of the status-controlled upgrade list. It is a distinct improvement.
jsloan likes this.
dilanesp is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2019, 2:47 pm
  #293  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: SLC
Programs: United Gold, Hilton Silver, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 768
My experience flying in the 70's and 80's was somewhat limited, but I did do some flying, including international coach. It was more comfortable, but only because I was a lot younger, and I ended up with a whole row to myself. I hated flying for the most part because the cabins were filled with smoke.

I flew a lot in the 90's, including several international flights in business. I thought it was great, but compared with the lie-flat comfort and IFE available now in business, it was nothing. If anyone had the seats and service now in business class that they did then, they wouldn't sell any seats, and would have nothing but complaints here on FT.
BBSHOPSINGER is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2019, 3:43 pm
  #294  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by seat38a
Instead of National, I wonder if merging with United would have helped PanAm or if it would have still sank and brought down United with it.
A lot more than National went on with Pan Am

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/18/b...-struggle.html

Fun fact discussed above - Trippe in the 30s lobbied to require presidential approval of overseas route awards. That worked in his favor for a while, then the Johnson administration got very Texas friendly - to the benefit of

You could argue jumbo jets disrupted Pan Am - loads of new capacity - and they had an uncompetitive cost structure from a time they had a monopoly on many routes.

UA's pickup of Pacific has to be right up there with the DL/NW merger in best airline deals of all time
cerealmarketer is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2019, 4:51 pm
  #295  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Pacific Wonderland
Programs: ʙᴏɴᴠo̱ʏ Au, IHG Au, HH Dia, Nexus, Pilot FlyingJ Preferred
Posts: 5,336
From the NYT article

Just to break even, it had to fly its planes at nearly 69.4 percent full in the first quarter, compared with an average of 64.5 percent for the industry. During the first six months of this year, Pan Am's actual load factor from scheduled service was only 56.7 percent, although last month's traffic indicates a slight improvement. The industry's actual load factor in the first quarter, the latest figures available, was 57.5.
rustykettel is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2019, 5:12 pm
  #296  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Programs: Delta Platinum Medallion, Hilton HHonors, AAdvantage, Tier 8 Status - Hotel Tonight
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by seat38a
Instead of National, I wonder if merging with United would have helped PanAm or if it would have still sank and brought down United with it.
Actually Pan Am came very close to merging with Northwest in 1989. The alliance would've been PA / KL / NW much like the DL / KL / AF alliance in 2009 and that would've solved the domestic problem at Pan Am. Talks were removed at apparently the last second and Delta swooped in shortly after that. In this excerpt I read I think it recalled that it was actually some of the banks and KLM that called off the deal. The Dutch and Pan Am Corporate in NYC didn't get along all that well. IIRC, Pan Am even thought the deal was a slam dunk too.
LAX_AUS_DL_FLYER is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2019, 6:00 pm
  #297  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 237
Domestic coach seating was better than today's economy class. It had more padding. Leg room was a bit more. However, the overhead bins were somewhat smaller. In the early 1980's, there were no rollaboards so carry on did fit the overhead bins of that era. There was a smoking section, which isn't good for non-smokers and smokers who don't want to smoke at the moment.
A318neo is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2019, 6:30 pm
  #298  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Programs: UA
Posts: 104
Goofy video from United for their inaugural 777 flight:
vaguba is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2019, 6:41 pm
  #299  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hawai'i Nei
Programs: Au: UA, Marriott, Hilton; GE
Posts: 7,128
T
Originally Posted by dilanesp
There were definitely fare more op-ups in the 1980's. The thing is, the other way to look at that is that if you were a frequent flyer, who should have been rewarded, you might instead be back in coach while the gate agent's buddy got upgraded.

... I like the idea of the status-controlled upgrade list. It is a distinct improvement.
I am all for meritocracy, but one of my most memorable flight was from PBI-ORD back in the day when GA’s ruled. Turns out the woman who checked my bags and who gave me my boarding pass must have taken a liking towards me. She turned out to be the GA for that flight and called my name for an unexpected upgrade. It was a surprise and delight experience.

Another memorable flight was from DCA during terrible IRROPS. I got on board, and in F. Turned out the seat next to me remained unoccupied. Asked the GA who did the final check if she could grab a colleague who was not boarded, and put him in the seat next to me. Done!
747FC is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2019, 6:48 pm
  #300  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: 1K, MM, Marriott Plat
Posts: 427
Originally Posted by Wilbur
UA in the 1980s had a lot of elements that made the travel experience a good one, and many of these elements are gone today. Some of these general expectations of that day included the following.
Anyone else remember getting to the gate early so you could ask the agent for your seats which were on a board behing the counter and they would actually pull the seat number/sticker off the paper layout and stick it on your paper ticket? Or, the monthly OAG subscription that you used to find flights...a 4x9 booklet that came in the mail for the traveler.and a larger version in the office? There was no internet, only the OAG guide or the telephone.
seagar is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.