Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Pan Am reality check
9 views
Skip to first unread message
JF Mezei
Sep 27, 2011, 3:21:03 AM9/27/11
to
So ABC TV put out a new TV series based on PAN AM in the early 1960s.
This does not appear to be low budget, and went through great lengths to
put some early 1960s realisms (street scenes etc).
BUT...
The engines pictured on what was said to be the first 707 in service
looked like this:
http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=195761
When seeing the TV programme, I couldn't believe any such engine exhaust
ever existed and was wondering why the producers would concuct such an
odd engine exhaust. But asking my buddy Mr Google for pictures of 707
engines turned up this very design.
Anyone have explanations on those engines and why the exhaust looks like
that of a piston engine instead of a jet ? Or was this a glorified muffler ?
How long did such a design last before going to modern exhausts ?
Secondly, at what is now JFK (I suspect it was Idlewild still back in
1963), they pictured a boarding "bridge". It was an uncovered outdoor
walkway that went from departure floor level straight to the plane's
door with passengers walking past the cockpit. (as opposed to L shape
jetways where you arrive at door perpendicular to the plane)
Have such platforms ever existed ? or were stairs from tarmac still
always used back in 1963 when the 707 was allegedly introduced ?
And finally: the TV programme makes one of the flight attendants a CIA
operative. Was this really done with PanAm FAs of the time ? Or is this
just an imaginary concept developped for a TV show ?
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
mt...@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
This does not appear to be low budget, and went through great lengths to
put some early 1960s realisms (street scenes etc).
BUT...
The engines pictured on what was said to be the first 707 in service
looked like this:
http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=195761
When seeing the TV programme, I couldn't believe any such engine exhaust
ever existed and was wondering why the producers would concuct such an
odd engine exhaust. But asking my buddy Mr Google for pictures of 707
engines turned up this very design.
Anyone have explanations on those engines and why the exhaust looks like
that of a piston engine instead of a jet ? Or was this a glorified muffler ?
How long did such a design last before going to modern exhausts ?
Secondly, at what is now JFK (I suspect it was Idlewild still back in
1963), they pictured a boarding "bridge". It was an uncovered outdoor
walkway that went from departure floor level straight to the plane's
door with passengers walking past the cockpit. (as opposed to L shape
jetways where you arrive at door perpendicular to the plane)
Have such platforms ever existed ? or were stairs from tarmac still
always used back in 1963 when the 707 was allegedly introduced ?
And finally: the TV programme makes one of the flight attendants a CIA
operative. Was this really done with PanAm FAs of the time ? Or is this
just an imaginary concept developped for a TV show ?
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
mt...@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
John Levine
Sep 27, 2011, 12:10:52 PM9/27/11
to
>Secondly, at what is now JFK (I suspect it was Idlewild still back in
>1963), they pictured a boarding "bridge". It was an uncovered outdoor
>walkway that went from departure floor level straight to the plane's
>door with passengers walking past the cockpit. (as opposed to L shape
>jetways where you arrive at door perpendicular to the plane)
Yes, I recall them. Jet bridges weren't common in the early 1960s.
>1963), they pictured a boarding "bridge". It was an uncovered outdoor
>walkway that went from departure floor level straight to the plane's
>door with passengers walking past the cockpit. (as opposed to L shape
>jetways where you arrive at door perpendicular to the plane)
>And finally: the TV programme makes one of the flight attendants a CIA
>operative. Was this really done with PanAm FAs of the time ? Or is this
>just an imaginary concept developped for a TV show ?
pretty tight with the government, since for many decades it played the
role of the US' state airline in contexts that needed one.
This Wired article confirms that there was some connection:
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/09/tv-fact-checker-pan-am/
R's,
John
JF Mezei
Oct 3, 2011, 5:19:22 PM10/3/11
to
So, I watched the second episode of "Pan Am" with knowledge that they
really do try to get things right.
Today, the following story came up in canada:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2011/10/03/mb-air-canada-hotel-winnipeg.html
Basically, Air Canada ended a contract with a downtown Winnipeg hotel to
move crews to an airport hotel. They claim it was for safety issues.
What surprised me is that the Union is furious because their agreement
stipulates that crews must stay in a downtown hotel during their
layovers, wherever they may be in the world. (something about getting
access to good food and entertainment).
Looking at the second Pan Am episode, they make it look like crews
really do stay downtown and get to enjoy a night or two out during their
layover.
How common is this ?
I remember staying a few noghts at London Gatwick hotel, and there were
plenty of crews staying there.
So how common are "must stay in downtown hotel" deals between unions and
airlines ?
really do try to get things right.
Today, the following story came up in canada:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2011/10/03/mb-air-canada-hotel-winnipeg.html
Basically, Air Canada ended a contract with a downtown Winnipeg hotel to
move crews to an airport hotel. They claim it was for safety issues.
What surprised me is that the Union is furious because their agreement
stipulates that crews must stay in a downtown hotel during their
layovers, wherever they may be in the world. (something about getting
access to good food and entertainment).
Looking at the second Pan Am episode, they make it look like crews
really do stay downtown and get to enjoy a night or two out during their
layover.
How common is this ?
I remember staying a few noghts at London Gatwick hotel, and there were
plenty of crews staying there.
So how common are "must stay in downtown hotel" deals between unions and
airlines ?
Roland Perry
Oct 4, 2011, 3:42:46 AM10/4/11
to
In message <4E8A26DA...@vaxination.ca>, at 17:19:22 on Mon, 3 Oct
2011, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> remarked:
>I remember staying a few noghts at London Gatwick hotel, and there were
>plenty of crews staying there.
Long haul? Of course, some airline crews seem to regard it as a huge
perk to be able to fly to European destinations, so maybe they don't get
as much say in where they are accommodated.
>So how common are "must stay in downtown hotel" deals between unions and
>airlines ?
London Gatwick & Heathrow don't really have a "downtown" area other than
Central London which is an hour away. Although I suppose I've stayed in
plenty of foreign Capital cities where crews were routinely bussed that
far.
--
Roland Perry
2011, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> remarked:
>I remember staying a few noghts at London Gatwick hotel, and there were
>plenty of crews staying there.
perk to be able to fly to European destinations, so maybe they don't get
as much say in where they are accommodated.
>So how common are "must stay in downtown hotel" deals between unions and
>airlines ?
Central London which is an hour away. Although I suppose I've stayed in
plenty of foreign Capital cities where crews were routinely bussed that
far.
--
Roland Perry
matt weber
Oct 4, 2011, 6:05:46 PM10/4/11
to
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:19:22 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>So, I watched the second episode of "Pan Am" with knowledge that they
>really do try to get things right.
>
>Today, the following story came up in canada:
>
>http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2011/10/03/mb-air-canada-hotel-winnipeg.html
>
>Basically, Air Canada ended a contract with a downtown Winnipeg hotel to
>move crews to an airport hotel. They claim it was for safety issues.
>
>What surprised me is that the Union is furious because their agreement
>stipulates that crews must stay in a downtown hotel during their
>layovers, wherever they may be in the world. (something about getting
>access to good food and entertainment).
Access to food and entertainment on a 24/7 basis.....
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>So, I watched the second episode of "Pan Am" with knowledge that they
>really do try to get things right.
>
>Today, the following story came up in canada:
>
>http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2011/10/03/mb-air-canada-hotel-winnipeg.html
>
>Basically, Air Canada ended a contract with a downtown Winnipeg hotel to
>move crews to an airport hotel. They claim it was for safety issues.
>
>What surprised me is that the Union is furious because their agreement
>stipulates that crews must stay in a downtown hotel during their
>layovers, wherever they may be in the world. (something about getting
>access to good food and entertainment).
>
>Looking at the second Pan Am episode, they make it look like crews
>really do stay downtown and get to enjoy a night or two out during their
>layover.
>
>How common is this ?
>
>I remember staying a few noghts at London Gatwick hotel, and there were
>plenty of crews staying there.
>
>So how common are "must stay in downtown hotel" deals between unions and
>airlines ?
Many airlines distinuish between 'short' and 'long' layovers, and the
>Looking at the second Pan Am episode, they make it look like crews
>really do stay downtown and get to enjoy a night or two out during their
>layover.
>
>How common is this ?
>
>I remember staying a few noghts at London Gatwick hotel, and there were
>plenty of crews staying there.
>
>So how common are "must stay in downtown hotel" deals between unions and
>airlines ?
union contracts for many call for a Downtown Hotel for the 'long'
layovers. So the short answer is that for the legacy carriers, it is
pretty common.
Ken Rose
Nov 3, 2011, 7:00:26 PM11/3/11
to
JF Mezei wrote:
> When seeing the TV programme, I couldn't believe any such engine exhaust
> ever existed and was wondering why the producers would concuct such an
> odd engine exhaust. But asking my buddy Mr Google for pictures of 707
> engines turned up this very design.
>
> Anyone have explanations on those engines and why the exhaust looks like
> that of a piston engine instead of a jet ? Or was this a glorified muffler ?
>
> How long did such a design last before going to modern exhausts ?
Those were for noise suppression on the straight-turbojet early engines.
> When seeing the TV programme, I couldn't believe any such engine exhaust
> ever existed and was wondering why the producers would concuct such an
> odd engine exhaust. But asking my buddy Mr Google for pictures of 707
> engines turned up this very design.
>
> Anyone have explanations on those engines and why the exhaust looks like
> that of a piston engine instead of a jet ? Or was this a glorified muffler ?
>
> How long did such a design last before going to modern exhausts ?
They went away with the arrival of turbofans.
- ken
0 new messages