Talk:Pan Am

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articlePan Am is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 14, 2005.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 17, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 21, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 10, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
July 16, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 4, 2004, December 4, 2007, and December 4, 2011.
Current status: Former featured article

Unofficial "flag carrier" of the United States[edit]

The introduction to the article asserts that Pan Am was the "unofficial flag carrier of the United States," but this statement does not appear to be supported in the body of the article or by appropriate citation. Not intending any offense to a fine company or the people who worked for it, this sounds like mere boosterism, which should not have a place in a featured article. I don't want to remove that language, since this article has been through peer review, but will any editors step forward to substantiate that claim, or at least qualify it? (For example, if Pan Am marketing material spoke of the "unofficial flag carrier," then the phrase needs an "according to.")

Thanks, --Craigkbryant 02:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This description had been used in several sources that I used in writing this article, mostly because in the beginning the US government gave a lot of support to the airline (note that the article mentioned the US government's seeing the airline as the "chosen instrument" for foreign flights). Also, Pan Am had a very large presence in international flights (the article mentioned Pan Am was focused on dominating the international air travel market and its attempts to "enhance" its position as the nation's prominent international airline). If you still have any questions, feel free to ask. Pentawing 03:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pentawing,

Appreciate the response. I'd still be happiest to see a cite specific to the words "unofficial flag carrier" in the article. Without it, this still sounds like sloganeering and boosterism. Would you be willing to add such a citation?

Best, --68.19.72.220 05:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the comments above, Pan Am was the de facto flag carrier for the US. As the US has never had a government-owned flag carrier, Pan Am was used to transport diplomats and US government personnel. This persisted until at least the 70s and deregulation; I'm not sure about their status afterwards. Having seen this article featured on the front page, I should really add some more info, especially on Pan Am's decline and fall, seeing as I spent a summer at the Smithsonian working on Pan Am's history... Jakob 22:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Robins (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Richard_Robins. I was disappointed to read the first paragraph above the photo of Juan Trippe. My father was a Pan Am flight crew member from 1942 to the 1970s. Sadly, the opening paragraph places unnecessary emphasis on the events after the Company's demise at the expense of all its achievements, e.g. first to offer 'economy seating,' first to fly round-the-world, important global airline in the postwar years. The paragraphs below do a reasonable job, but the top paragraph could do a much better job. Regretably, there's no mention of promoting Boeing to build the B-367 at the end of WWII, and no mention of the Co. being the launch customer for many important aircraft, e.g. Douglas DC-6, DC-7C. Pan was the first Company to place an order for the Boeing 707 that made the "jet set" possible. Pan Am was an early contributor to the design of the Boeing 747 because Trippe wanted something very large. My main point here is to ask, Why does the first paragraph ignore Pan Am's major accomplishments?[reply]

Accidents?[edit]

The last fatal accident was Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988. The plane, a Boeing 747 named the Clipper Maid of the Seas, exploded in mid-flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, due to a bomb in its cargo hold.

Speaking as someone who lost classmates to that one, let me remind you that was not an accident but a direct terrorist attack, as the subsequent sentence makes clear. Perhaps, in airlinespeak, "incident" was intended?

It rather reminds me of the awkward wording at Syracuse University's memorial, saying that all victims died "in a plane crash over Lockerbie, Scotland, caused by a terrorist bomb." (The last clause was added after the memorial was built, at the insistence of some of the victims' parents who wanted it absolutely clear they died due to malice aforethought on another's part, but even still since when do planes crash over places?)

Also, seeing as this made the main page today, I'm really disappointed that someone couldn't find a better way to phrase this:

The airline was involved in the worst disaster in aviation history. A Pan Am 747, named the Clipper Victor, was involved in the Tenerife disaster on March 27, 1977.

I'll fix these, but still ...Daniel Case 03:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I changed the wording concerning Pan Am 103 from "accident" to "incident" (noting that the word accident wasn't used beforehand, though it wasn't caught in the first place). As for the second passage, I can't think of a better way to say this. Any idea is appreciated. Pentawing 03:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In true Wikipedia fashion, I went ahead and fixed it myself. Daniel Case 04:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Much appreciated. Pentawing 05:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For future editors, in United States airlinespeak "incident" has a specific meaning under statute: an occurrence to an aircraft that didn't result in loss of life or serious injury or substantial damage to an aircraft. ICAO has a similar definition. A baggage cart bumping into an aircraft and denting its tail is an incident, if the dent isn't too bad. Flight 103 was a disaster and a criminal act under the laws of the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany, but was absolutely *not* an incident. --Charlene 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The airline was involved in the worst disaster in aviation history. A Pan Am 747, named the Clipper Victor, was involved in the Tenerife disaster on March 27, 1977." This sounds redundant with the repeats os invovled and disaster. How about, simply:

"The airline was invovled in the worst accident in aviation history - the Tenerife Disaster of March 27, 1977."

It says the same thing but is much less wordy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.140.42 (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to the moon![edit]

The article says: During the Apollo program, Pan Am sold tickets for future flights to the moon. These later became valuable collector's items. But my recollection is that they merely took reservations and kept a waiting list, but never actually sold tickets. Can someone verify or modify? --Keeves 15:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Waiting list tickets were given out; www.retrofuture.com/moontrip.html says by 1971, over 93,000 tickets were allocated. check out the page about 3/4 of the way down (near the 3rd picture) for more information --Rjcflyer@aol.com 00:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)--Rjcflyer@aol.com 9:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a picture of a waiting list certificate, and the text "... the air carrier established the First Moon Flights Club, which, in reality, was nothing more than a prioritized waiting list. ... the public was eager, too. By the time the airline closed out its list in 1971, Pan Am (whose name was emblazoned on the shuttle in Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey") had a list of over 93,000 people, including future president Ronald Reagan." The website was last updated in 2002 and was written by a man called Eric Lefcowitz, who seems to be a failed author and failed guitarist. It would be more accurate to say that "Pan Am opened a waiting list for future flights to the moon. Over 93,000 places were allocated, and waiting list certificates later became valuable collectors' items." To win my respect an editor would have to determine (a) whether Pan Am seriously expected to schedule moon flights, and whether the waiting list had any legal weight and (b) if so, at what point did the company abandon the project, and if applicants were ever notified of this and (c) was the list, or the data on the list, sold as part of the company's assets? -Ashley Pomeroy 03:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Port[edit]

Hi to all, we need to write something about the World Port.

Greetings. simonlebon

Item is already started. Worldport (Pan Am)..BrandlandUSA 20:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced passage[edit]

To whoever inserted this passage, can you note the sources this is based on? Also, the wording borders on positive commentary instead of straight facts (please reword to tone down the language).

At its height during the early 1970's, Pan Am was known as the "World's Most Experienced Airline." It was highly regarded for its state-of-the-art aircraft and far-flung destinations. Pan Am's crews and cabin staff were respected for both their aviation experience and their multi-lingual ability. Pan Am flight attendants were poised and dedicated, and a high percentage of them were university graduates. American passengers in particular were proud to travel on this airline, which was known for its superb safety record. On board meal service was excellent, with filet mignon served in Economy Class on some flights. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis preferred to fly First Class on Pan Am even though her Greek husband owned Olympic Airlines. But serious challenges lay ahead.

PentawingTalk 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the author of the above paragraph. I have just inserted the book by Barnaby Conrad into the "References" in the main article for Pan Am. This is where I received information that the airline had used the trademark term "World's Most Experienced Airline" in its advertising, as well as the fact that the Pan Am flight attendants tended to be university graduates. I myself have flown on Pan Am to Asia, Europe, and the Caribbean and I own a souvenir menu that shows filet mignon being served in Economy Class on a flight from Tokyo to Los Angeles in 1970. It was a well known fact, frequently cited in many sources, that Jackie Kennedy Onassis preferred to fly on Pan Am rather than her husband's airline. It is true that the airline had a high reputation during its good years, before the economic problems and disasters of the 1980's injured its brand and led to its collapse. I am new to Wikipedia. Can you rewrite the above paragraph to your liking with this information in mind? Thanks, User:DennisJOBrien@yahoo.com.

OK, updated paragraph has been added with citations provided. User:DennisJOBrien@yahoo.com

Split "reincarnations"[edit]

Following the precedent from Frontier Airlines and Arizona Airways This section should be split off into two separate airlines -- they're different companies, not really connected except by name. —Cliffb 05:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree --Gnosbush 13:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. There is no similarity between these incarnations and the original airline except the name, the logo, and one aircraft type (the most common type in the world when Pan Am went bankrupt). The current airline is mainly a charter service, the original was a schduled service carrier. These are different airlines and should be listed separately.Elwood64151 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. The two other airlines basically purchaced the name and logo and have no relation other than that to the orignal airline. I think the old Pan Am Shuttle was more of an airline than these two. Spring3100 07:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. They're different companies with the same name. Incidentally, many people when they find they are flying Pan Am even now immediately think they are flying with the old, established airline, and not a charter airline that bought the name. --Charlene 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then just go ahead and do it. But it's really more of a scheduled commuter airline than a charter service. BTW, I live in Mercer County, NJ and flew on a "Clipper" to Hanscom a year ago. The Jetstreams are white with the Pan AM Globe and each have "Clipper XYZ" names. As far as I can see the livery is identical to the 707 I flew on to Amsterdam in 1964. The tugs, gate and terminal area are similarly marked. I haven't seen anything larger than a Jetstream in Pan AM livery in years. GCW50 15:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally done... Cleaning up that old list.. —Cliffb 04:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame, bue at least the name hasn't died, and its ghost still flies. On the other hand TWA is really kaput.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simonlebon (talk • contribs) 06:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Pan Am Building[edit]

I guess the page still needs a little pic of the former Pan Am Building. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simonlebon (talk • contribs) 06:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Lockerbie disaster[edit]

I've added the following to that section just to highlight the impact of the disaster - "Two hundred seventy people from 21 countries died, including 11 people on the ground. With 189 of the victims being American citizens, the bombing was the worst terrorist attack against the United States until September 11, 2001 and remains the worst terrorist and aviation-related disaster on British soil." Kaenei 23:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added fact tags to this, as the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing killed more people and it was directed towards US forces (as well as French), and killed 299. But is it regarded as a war time attack or 'terrorist' attack? --Russavia 02:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a terrorist attack. Khadaffi had not declared war on the UK. 2601:647:4D81:4206:A544:5622:E8F7:778B (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can point to a source that made this assertion, I suggest that such a passage be left out in the meantime. PentawingTalk 01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clipper Flying Boats[edit]

Re the prewar Clipper period, no mention of the Martin (?) flying boats between the Sikorskys and the Boeings! 202.154.140.176 09:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a poster from the 1930's, it's probably still within copyright. We wouldn't have valid "fair use" criteria to use it. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am in film[edit]

I am placing this list here in the talk page, given that some of the entries do not appear very significant. PentawingTalk 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The airline appeared in other movies, notably in several James Bond films. The company's Boeing 707s were featured in Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and the well-known parody Casino Royale, while a Pan Am 747 and the Worldport appeared in Live and Let Die.

Other mentions include:

  • The 1969 film Bullitt features a chase scene at San Francisco International Airport, where Steve McQueen's character runs after the villain on the tarmac while dodging several Pan Am 707s.
  • Also in 1969, Argentine actress Isabel Sarli checks in and boards a Pan Am 707 flight from Panama City, Panamá, to Buenos Aires, Argentina, in Armando Bo's Desnuda en la arena.
  • The airline's logo was also seen in the film Blade Runner. Subsequently, Pan Am became one of the victims of the supposed Blade Runner curse on large corporations whose logos were featured in scenes from the film.
  • Pan Am also figured prominently in Scarface (set in the city of Miami, one of Pan Am's major hubs), where the airline's logo and slogan were adopted by criminal overlord Tony Montana.
  • In the I Love Lucy episode "Home from Europe," Lucy, Ricky, Fred and Ethel fly from Europe back to New York on a Pan Am flight.
  • In the 1988 film High Spirits, a family of American tourists travels to Peter Plunkett's (Peter O'Toole) Irish castle on a Pan Am 747. The film was one of the last in which an audience would see a 747 in Pan Am's new colors.
  • The airline was also featured in an opening scene of the Robin Williams's film Hook, in which the family is aboard a Pan Am 747-100 to London. Ironically, the movie opened just a week after the airline ceased operations.
  • In The Phantom (1996) a Pan Am Clipper, probably a Sikorsky S-42, tried to make a "non scale" trip between New York and the fictional country of Bengala in Africa, before an attack of air pirates stopped it. Also in the New York Port are ads: "Pan Am Clipper Cargo" and "Via Pan American", both of them with the old Pan Am logo.
  • The airline's logo was also featured in the opening sequence of The Family Man, where Nicolas Cage checks in at the Worldport for a Pan Am 747 flight from New York to London. Some years later his character finds the old Pan Am boarding passes.
  • The battle between Juan Trippe and TWA owner Howard Hughes over Pan Am's transatlantic monopoly was featured prominently in The Aviator.
  • In the television series The Simpson's in the episode Rome-old and Juli-eh grandpa metioned that if things didn't work out with him and Selma "Pan Am would have a job waiting for him".

Joke or truth?[edit]

PA had a hub in Guatemala? I knew they flew there, but a hub? See infobox. Archtrain 16:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Removal of Pan Am Flight 103 debris picture[edit]

Im showing the picture of "Clipper Maid of the Seas" is scheduled to be deleted. While trajic, this picture is highly associated with this incident. Removal of the picture has no merit and drasticlly takes away from the soul of this article. That picture has to be one of th most enduring images of the late 80's early 90's. It's historical value to this article is highly relevant. Kcuello (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the image should be retained if possible. However, it does need to be sourced on Wikimedia Commons.Phase4 (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MartinM-130 GGBridge.jpg[edit]

Image:MartinM-130 GGBridge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:PA103cockpit4.png[edit]

The image Image:PA103cockpit4.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exposed to be falling apart[edit]

"The airline was exposed to be falling apart". What is that supposed to mean? That someone revealed the unknown fact that the airline was falling apart? If so, who?  --Lambiam 08:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA Status[edit]

I'm unsure why this article is featured, seeing as it's lacking inline citations in many areas. Please let me know if I'm mistaken about this criteria, or if it's simply referenced someplace else. --Resplendent (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was promoted to FA back in September 2005; requirements are much tougher now. See also WP:FAR for when an article may not meet current FA criteria.  JGHowes  talk 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs a LOT of help - Pan American World Airways has little sourcing. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

Can I propose re-writing the introduction? It currently has three paragraphs, two of which are about stuff after Pan Am World went out of business.
Can I suggest moving those paragraph to a section on “successor companies” or something, and writing a couple of paras with a digest of PA’s progress between for the 60 years prior to that. opinions? Swanny18 (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Swanny18. I also note that we've had a fight before about the use of that word "flagship". I was going to revert 9014user's use of "major" until Cenpacrr changed the whole tone of the beginning. I think the opening paragraph should emphasize PanAm's role as the world's leading international airline in the history of flight. Who can forget the opening scenes in the movie Casablanca when you realize that those desperate refugees' dream was to catch the Clipper from Lisbon. GroveGuy (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that approach. Pan Am was not only the the most widely known US airline internationally from the early 1930's through its demise in 1991, for much of that time it was arguably also the world's "flagship" international air carrier as well. Centpacrr (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am Building photo?[edit]

Is it possible to get a photo of the building with the old Pan Am logo for the article instead of the current MetLife logo currently shown? 69.132.221.35 (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a free-use photo of it here: [1] SynergyStar (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First airmail flight from NZ[edit]

Is this worth mentioning somewhere? First airmail flight to San Francisco Includes reference to the crash on 11 January 1938 that killed Capt Musick and his crew. Jamie Mackay (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guided Missile Range Division[edit]

The Guided Missile Range Division (GMRD) was part of Pam Am for many years. Headquarted at Patrick Air Force Base, Cocoa Beach, Florida, this Division served the Air Force by operating the Eastern Test Range, from Cape Canaveral around the world including tracking stations (many former fixed base stations of the airliners), tracking ships, and operational groups at the Cape. Documentation of this Division is scarce and hard to find, but some of your references do speak of it, and your brief words do not do justice to the thousands of employees of Pan Am in this Division. Block1945 (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Astral navigation"?[edit]

Hello folks, I've just read the article and noticed that it uses the words "astral navigation" in a couple of places. I think that by "astral navigation" the author might have meant that they were trained to navigate by the stars; however, I don't believe that there's such a word in the English language. I've replaced "astral" with "celestial navigation to make the meaning more clear for the readers. Clear skies to you 24.23.197.43 (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect...[edit]

Why does Pandemonium Scareways redirect to this article? --96.32.139.209 (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by some anti-PAA nut, perhaps? 146.74.230.104 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pan American World Airways → Pan Am — I am aware that abbreviations are generally to be avoided, but is there any other reason for not calling the article Pan Am? That seems to be the name by which the airline is generally known and many pages already link to that page. The abbreviated form is used for KLM, for instance. Cjc13 (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there is Pan American World Airways, Pan American Airways (1996–1998) and Pan American Airways (1998–2004) and for disambiguation purposes I believe both should be used. likewise, we don't call Pan American Games the Pan Am Games even though that is the common name in colloquial speech.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than just "colloquial speech." Look at what's written on the planes and buildings here and here. — AjaxSmack 02:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons stated above. As it is, "Pan Am" redirects to Pan American World Airways anyway, and the hatnote links the reader to Pan Am (disambiguation) for the others. The very first sentence in the Lead says, "Pan American World Airways, commonly known as Pan Am". Seems fine to me now.  JGHowes  talk 01:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments seem to support a move → WP:UCN (use common names) and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — AjaxSmack 02:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as idiom. We should title articles as the subject is commonly known. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pan Am has been gone for almost twenty years now. So, it's commonly known to fewer and fewer people. Keep Pan American World Airways. GroveGuy (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I much prefer accuracy in titles. To me, "Pan Am" is slang, a popular name, but not what I would want to count on for an accurate web search. Pan Am now also means a small railroad operation. Mark Sublette (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pan Am is a registered trademark. The subsequent use of the name is covered by the article. Cjc13 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support usual name. —innotata 17:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As noted above, "Pan Am" already redirects to Pan American World Airways which was the actual name of the carrier. That seems more than sufficient to deal with the issue of finding the page. Centpacrr (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Disambiguation is required in this case, as there are articles on three companies, any one of which could be under Pan Am. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the same reasons User:JGHowes opposes it. "Pan Am" already redirects to this article and the hatnote links the reader to Pan Am (disambiguation) for the others. Move per WP:UCN (use common names) / WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — AjaxSmack 02:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as this is no longer the clear primary topic. However, if that as true, as pointed out by the 2 previous comments, Pan Am should not redirect here, per the given guidelines. Instead, it should host the DAB page. I'll propose that move if this one is kept here. - BilCat (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it no longer the primary topic? Even though it died before the internet era, it monopolizes almost all of the top Ghits.[2] — AjaxSmack 02:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is nothing wrong with the current tile. The article was created at this title in September 2002. So this title has worked almost since the beginnings of Wikipedia. Leave it alone! Vegaswikian (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Manila out of order?[edit]

"For almost 40 years, Pan Am westbound round-the-world route was Flight 001 originating in San Francisco with stops including Honolulu, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Manila, Kolkata, Delhi, Beirut, Istanbul, Frankfurt, London, and finally New York. "

It is difficult for me to believe that Pan Am would fly westward to Bangkok, then reverse eastward to Manilla. Can anyone verify that this is the correct flight order? Cwelgo (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, I can't find a consistent list of stops for Flight 001, Let alone the order. Here, here, here, and here all agree on San Francisco, Honolulu, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Delhi, Beirut, Istanbul, Frankfurlt, London, and New York, but some add Tokyo, Manilla, and/or Calcutta. None strike me as authoritative. Does anybody know? Cwelgo (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you pick a year I'll give you a list of stops for a year close to it. You're right, they didn't go east to Manila. Tim Zukas (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: I'm guessing it was usually flights 1/2, not 001/002. Certainly the public timetables didn't show the zeros.

Reuse of name - Flight training[edit]

I think some mention should be made of the PanAm International Flight Training Academy. It was founded as part of the original PanAm airline and even claims, on its web site (http://www.panamacademy.com/index.cfm) that it is the "only surviving division of Pan American Airlines". It still uses the colours and logos. Mesdale (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sources[edit]

Record-setting flights[edit]

Added notation on record setting airframe N533PA that was sold to UAL and eventually scrapped in 1997. Irassassin (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag carrier[edit]

Have removed "unofficial" ahead of sentence "... flag carrier of the United States" because I think some readers do not know that any airline designated as a certain country's flag carrier in bilateral aviation agreements is a flag carrier of the country where its headquarters are located and whose citizens/corporations have effective control over it, regardless of whether it is government-owned or not. Say, for example, easyJet were to start a regular scheduled service from Gatwick or Luton to a non-EU/EEA country in Europe, such as Russia or Ukraine it would become a designated UK flag carrier under the respective bilateral agreement between the UK and Russia/Ukraine. Similarly, when UK-US air services were still governed by Bermuda II, British Caledonian, Laker and Virgin Atlantic were all designated UK flag carriers at various times although none of these airlines was ever owned by the UK government (unlike British Airways). This is the correct meaning of the term "flag carrier" in an aviation context; the way it is often used in the press to refer to a particular country's government-owned airline is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.114.168 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you;ve changed cited information without (apparently) checking the wording inthe source first, or providing a new source. Your definition also disagrees with the definitions found at Flag carrier, which has several definitions for the term, not all of them cited. I am thus reverting your changes. - BilCat (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change "U.S." to "US" - this is American usage, which is allowed on WP on US-related topics. Also, see WP:OVERLINKING for WP's guidelines on overuse of wikilinks. - BilCat (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formation[edit]

The Formation section is very confusing, may I suggest this reading? Yosef1987 (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There is no reference in the article to who designed the iconic Pan Am world logo. Does anyone know the designer and do you feel it should be included within the article? Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely be some useful information to include in the article. It's one of the most recognizable logos of all time. –BMRR (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Typing "who designed the pan am logo" into Google yielded a few interesting pages, several of which claim that the logo was designed by architect Edward Larrabee Barnes. –BMRR (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the info. Best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some of these sites Barnes is indeed mentioned, but then a different associate - Charles Forborg on one; Joseph Montgomery on another. Can anyone confirm the actual designer(s), so that the correct person can be included in the article? Many thanks, David J Johnson (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pan American World Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am's first South American service[edit]

The article was in error. The Commodore, not the S-40, "started" Pan Am's South American service. The S-40 did not start service until over a year after Pan Am bought the New York, Rio, Buenos Aires Line on 19 August 1930.

The NYRBA had been operating S-38s and Commodores on the run from Miami to Buenos Aires for a a year before it was bought out. Pan Am used the same airplanes that NYRBA had been using.

The S-40s worked Miami-Havana and Miami Panama. The S-40 and Commodore had very similar performance. The S-40 had a slightly higher cruising speed, the Commodore had greater range.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Widebody jets[edit]

Could someone delve into this ? Pan Am didn't just buy the first 747's, they were instrumental in forcing Boeing to design and build them. Or Juan Trippe was, at any rate. There is a decent biography of Trippe which goes into this at length, but I read it years ago and my brain she ain't what she used to be ... 210.22.142.82 (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pan American World Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Pan American World Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pan American World Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pan American World Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosa[edit]

CBS news has a page that has this title:

"Jeffrey Epstein worked at financial firm that engaged in massive Ponzi scheme in 1980s and 1990s"

A fraudster firm tried to take over Pan AM. (that's how I read it) 2001:8003:A02F:F400:3D55:FD34:F9D3:9F26 (talk) 07:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Separate accident page[edit]

Seeing how Pan Am has had plenty of accidents and how some are in the main article and some are in a different article (List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by airline (P–Z)) I was thinking that we should just put them all into a separate article and have them based on decade, like how List of Japan Airlines Incidents And Accidents is laid out. Just a thought CZ3699 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 April 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Since the airline is already the primary topic of "Pan Am" (which redirects to the airline), it is only a question of how to best title the article, rather weighing the importance of different topics with that name. Those opposing the change have not successfully refuted the argument that Pan Am is the WP:COMMONNAME of the company. Repeating that it is the "name of the company" is an appeal to WP:OFFICIALNAME, which we do not follow when there is another name which is clearly used more frequently in common parlance. "Long-term significance" is a red herring, as that is used solely to determine the primary topic, and is irrelevant to determining the ideal name of an article when multiple choices are unencumbered. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pan American World Airways → Pan Am – Per WP:COMMONNAME the most commonly used name should be used. I checked the Google Ngram viewer, and Pan Am seems to be more commonly used, see here Afvalbak (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It clearly is/was the common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though "Pan American" seems far more common than "Pan Am". Admittedly that could include uses of "Pan-American" at the starts of sentences since I think the ngram viewer treats hyphens and spaces identically, but the curves have the same shape. Even if it were, I'd prefer "Pan Am" as a common name since "Pan American" is ambiguous (Pan American currently targets the DAB at Pan-American). 94.21.253.28 (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Pan American World Airways" was the name of the company. "Pan Am" already redirects to the page.Clipper471 (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citing WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". Pan American World Airways is the official name, but Pan Am is most commenly used. Therefore, Pan Am should be used. Pan American World Airways should become a redirect to Pan Am, instead of the other way around. Afvalbak (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Pan American World Airways" is the company. Similar to "Coca-Cola" in which that page is not "Coke". 104.54.216.202 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a false analogy. Coke is a disambiguation page at which Coca-Cola is the first of many meanings listed: there was a rejected request to make it an RPRIMARY in 2014. The airline founded in 1927 is clearly the primary topic for Pan Am, so the other meanings are at Pan Am (disambiguation). and this discussion is limited to whether "Pan Am" or another title is better. 94.21.253.28 (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Um, there was a similar proposal about this back in April 2010, a decade ago. Lemonreader (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, this was the principal airlines of the United States from 1927 to 1991, and is a major historical topic of both air travel and corporations of the 20th century. The comment above captures the essence, that 'Coca-Cola' is not encyclopedically called 'Coke'. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Coca-Cola" is very often seen. Who on earth ever referred to the airline as Pan American World Airways? Absolutely everybody called it Pan Am. Its own logo called it Pan Am. It had Pan Am prominently written on the side of its aircraft. What more evidence do you need that its overwhelmingly common name was Pan Am? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although Pan Am is the common name, the historically long-term significant name would be the full corporate title. After this company failed two other companies used the shortened names 'Pan American Airways' and 'Pan Am'. This page is about the primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Absolutely, so this is the very clear primary topic for Pan Am, which already redirects here. WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME clearly support Pan Am. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just the opposite, per long-term significance. The words 'Pan Am' were used by six other companies after Pan American World Airways ended as a legal entity. Pan American World Airways remains the long-term significant topic for its accomplishments from 1927 to 1991. Major accomplishments. The words 'Pan Am' lived on in other unrelated projects after 1991, the legal entity 'Pan American World Airways' did not. This is an important difference, which is why I said 'Strong oppose' instead of 'Oppose'. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just the opposite, per long-term significance. I don't get what you mean. Clearly the company we're discussing here has the most long-term significance by a long, long way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, and the companies name is Pan American World Airways. The term 'Pan Am' was used by several companies. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take note of the failed 2010 renaming attempt and its discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn:, you linked to the article not the discussion, so I fixed it. 94.21.253.28 (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support It does seem more logical to move it to Pan Am but the other folks out here have a point. Augend (drop a line) 17:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pan Am is clearly the common name and the article itself uses the term Pan Am.– BrandonXLF (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose More encyclopedic to include the full name. 109.158.239.84 (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"encyclopedic" is an empty phrase without referring to specific Wikipedia policies or guidelines. As @Necrothesp: already pointed out, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME supports using Pan Am as the title. Afvalbak (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Pan Am Smile"[edit]

A term used in popular psychology is "Pan American (or Pan Am) Smile." Named after the greeting stewardesses supposedly gave to passengers. It consists of a perfunctory mouth movement without the activity of facial muscles around the eyes that characterizes a genuine smile.[163]

Never head of this, and it is a dead link. Seems safe to remove, unless someone has another source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.241.140 (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has a lot of hits in Google Books (dating back to the 1940s), as well as a few journal articles in Google Scholar. It's kind of trivial, but a legitimate term. I'll find a decent replacement citation for the dead link ... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Paragraph[edit]

The paragraph beginning “Trippe and his associates planned to extend Pan Am's network” in the “Formation” section appears to be duplicated in the subsequent “Clipper era” section. I leave the decision of which one to remove to the experts of the panel… Mr Larrington (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While reading the article today I came across that section and removed the second instance, since it fits better with the chronology of the first section. Didn't check the talk page for this beforehand, though. KiraLiz1 | she/her 11:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tenerife disaster[edit]

Looking at the history of the talk page, it seems that the Tenerife airport disaster was at least mentioned in this article in 2007, but no longer appears anywhere in the article. It seems like the airline's involvement in the worst air disaster in history bears mention here, even though KLM was at fault for the crash. KiraLiz1 | she/her 20:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pan_Am&oldid=1212049699"