Talk:Pan Am

Tenerife disaster

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)

The stewardesses

They don't count as crew according to the current wikipedia page. Pan am treated them like avocados. Only the very few were just right - the right height, weight, age (literally "retired" at 32 - pensioner, right??),marital status and childlessless. So they were attractive enough and without obligations to.. prostitute themselves? This should be a main aspect of the page, not the glory of this airline, built on the backs of women trying to make it in the world. 94.254.103.143 (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Consolidated commodore flying boat common history.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

I propose merging Pan Am (1996–1998) and Pan Am (1998–2004) into Pan Am. Both pages are poorly sourced with Pan am II only having 4 sources total with only 2 of them being considered “reliable” per WP:RS. Pan am III has no reliable sources and only archived images that are used as “research”. I could find no reliable sources of these companies other than blogs and mentions of them in articles about the upcoming Pan Am (see wp:INDEPENDENT). I propose that the content from these pages be added to an “attempted revivals” section of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fife SB (talk • contribs) 16:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this a good idea, it is because these two pages look so similar, easily confused. Daniel198964 (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC) — Daniel198964 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Fife SB I approve of this, because simply, having three similar pages about the more or less same airline is confusing for new onlookers on Wikipedia. And the attempted revivals suggestion is a good idea as well. Agree on everything honestly. MihaelMiskic (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

three similar pages about the more or less same airline That's not an accurate way to describe them. The only similarities between the three airlines was the brand. Both "revivals" could not have been further from the original. They were primarily domestic airlines; only the 1996 airline offered flights outside the US, and they all were to countries in the Caribbean, which barely even lives up to the original's "pan American" name. As WendlingCrusader said, these are best described as get-rich-quick projects. To cover them in any more detail than they already are in this article would only confuse readers into thinking that these were, as you say, "more or less the same airline". - ZLEA ^TǀC 19:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

AGAINST - neither of these airlines look like true attempts at a revival to me. They were just get-rich-quick projects trading on an old and well-respected brand name. Where was the international angle, the transatlantic services? The original Pan Am showed the American flag and the 707 to the whole world, and launched the 747; Pan Am III was equipped with old /tired 727s that every other airline was getting rid of. Chalk-and-cheese! The fact that there are few reliable sources supporting their existence is something that would be quietly buried in the mass of true Pan Am history if they were merged. Keep these articles separate, so that their brief and miserable history stands clear for all to see. (Sorry, am I being too harsh?) WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - These are distinct airlines that share nothing but brand rights with the original Pan Am. These airlines and several others without articles are briefly covered in the Reuse of name section, but anything more than that is outside the scope of this article and therefore it would not be appropriate to merge. If one or both airlines do not meet our notability requirements, then they should be deleted rather than merged here. - ZLEA ^TǀC 15:34, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose those successor start-ups are operationally different to the original Pan Am, with their own histories. However I do agree those articles are poorly sourced per ZLEA Coastie43 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal is not a great idea at all and I cannot agree more strongly than any of the other opposing opinions. In fact the two minor articles are covered, though no well sourced, in the Reuse of name section and could even be deleted leaving behind links if thought useful. ww2censor (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Your argument seems pretty biased to me. It seems you oppose this merger simply because you didn't like the planes the other Pan Ams flew. Just because they flew 727s, doesn't mean they aren't Pan Am. Like it or not, they're the same airline. Relton66 (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

On what grounds are you making the claim that they were "the same airline"? The few reliable sources that cover the later airlines make it clear that they are distinct entities reusing the Pan Am brand rather than continuations of the original airline. - ZLEA ^TǀC 03:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe not the same, but close enough to where no harm would be done merging all three. Relton66 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

They are "close enough" only in name. The appropriate way to handle this is with a disambiguation note at the top of the article, which is already the case here. Oppose.—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

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.

It has been suggested that Pan Am should be split into History of Pan Am

The article is rather large for an airline and an article dedicated to it's history is very viable Youravreageavaitor (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)