Air Carolina, Part 2

By Ellis M. Chernoff

All Photos by the Author

Air Carolina, along with a number of other “Commuter Airlines”, entered into marketing agreements with major trunk air carriers. While some adopted the branding of the major, such as Allegheny, others retained their independent identity. Air Carolina offered ticketing and baggage on connections with all of the carriers operating at Charlotte Douglas Airport (CLT), but the closest relationship was with Eastern Airlines. Over ninety percent of Air Carolina’s passengers would be making connections with Eastern.

At the time, Eastern operated five banks of flights to and from major cities from a regional hub at CLT.  Oddly enough, these arrival and departure times dictated the published schedules of Air Carolina flights from Florence, S.C., and Hickory, N.C. The minimum connection times for a published connecting flight was 30 minutes. Therefore, the Air Carolina flight must be scheduled to arrive 30 minutes before the first departing Eastern Airlines flight. Likewise, the Air Carolina departure from CLT had to allow for 30 minutes after the last arrival of the Eastern flights. As a result, the published flight times had nothing to do with the actual flying time between the outstations and Charlotte!

At the time I worked there, the Air Carolina fleet consisted of PA-31-350 Chieftains, PA-31-310 Navajos, a PA-23-250 Aztec F, a PA-34-200 Seneca I, PA-32-260 Cherokee Six’s, a PA-28R-200 Arrow, and a PA-28-180 Warrior. Later a BN-2A Islander was added. 

There was no internet back in the 1970s, so telephones were used in the reservation department.  Reservations for each flight were handwritten on pages in 3-ring binders. The “reservation center” consisted of a small room in the hangar with a large glass window that looked like a fishbowl. We had four ladies who took the calls and booked the seats in the binders located on a lazy susan. Usually, two or three reservations agents were on duty at any given time.

The agents could book 21 confirmed seats on the five daily departures and return flights from Florence.  I recall the planes had a capacity of between three and nine passengers, depending upon the type. For each flight, there would be a lead pilot, several backup pilots standing by, and a mix of available planes.  The lead pilot would have to determine which plane, or planes, would be used depending upon the reservations in each direction and the passengers who would show up.  If a full twenty-one passengers were expected out of Florence, the first plane to be loaded and dispatched would hold the fewest number of seats and be the slowest. The Piper Warrior might go, followed by two Chieftains. If only 10 passengers were booked in both directions, two five-seat planes or one eight-seater plus a three-seater might go.

All of this made an appearance of a flying circus to the uninitiated passenger. Not only did each of the pilots need to be qualified and capable of flying any plane in the fleet, but they also had to load and unload the baggage and passengers personally. All flights were flown single-pilot, and the FAR 135 rules dictated duty and rest hours as well as weather criteria en route and at the destination, that was more restrictive than the general FAR 91 rules. There were times when no passengers could be carried, due to the weather, but the flights would position for the next scheduled leg. Hopefully, the weather would improve to allow a revenue flight.

Gate agents were only employed at Florence and Hickory. In Charlotte, the pilots manned the ticket counter, selling and pulling tickets, tagging baggage or receiving interline transfer bags, making PA announcements, and escorting the passengers to the plane. Again, for the initiated, seeing the “ticket agent” jumping into the pilot seat must have been a surprise. The Charlotte counter also had a telephone, but it was locked up and unmanned between flights. The company also maintained a P.O. Box at the Charlotte airport.

Flights were generally operated under Visual Flight Rules (VFR). At the time, neither Florence nor Hickory had radar for their approach control.  En route, ATC did not have radar coverage below about 7,000 feet.  While an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operation was allowable, it could result in more than doubling the block-to-block time and result in many passengers missing their connecting flights. Therefore, instrument clearances were only obtained when necessary. During many months, thunderstorms prevailed in the Carolinas, and a great deal of experience and expertise was gained visually dodging showers and severe conditions. Only a few of the planes had weather radar. We learned to correlate the radar displayed conditions with what we could observe out of the windscreen. This valuable experience would stand me in good stead throughout my future career. One time, I flew a load of passengers through a hundred miles of tornado warning safely and didn’t even know about the severe weather alert.

During my time at Air Carolina, I endeavored to improve several aspects of the operation. As I described the weight and balance process in Part 1, I considered this totally bogus. This, combined with the standard fuel loading in practice with what I arrived at, resulted in nearly every flight departing significantly overloaded. To reduce the exposure to overloading, I examined the actual fuel consumption and requirements to reduce the fuel burden when conditions were favorable to operating with minimum fuel.  In addition, I produced a series of standard passenger and baggage loading schedules for each individual plane in the fleet.

Another technical aspect that I addressed was engine operation. In aviation, a long-standing practice was for someone to “check you out” in an unfamiliar type. This type of training could result in “rules of thumb” and “procedures” that differed from what was specified by the engine and airplane manufacturer. I obtained my own set of manuals and other documents from the sources and found many of the power settings being used were incorrect. Correct and precise operation of advanced engines, such as the Lycoming TIO-J2BD in the Chieftain, was necessary not only to achieve optimum fuel economy but also service life of the components.

Many owners and operators of these engines, even today, think the way they operate them is more conservative. In truth, running them too rich and too cool can have a detrimental effect on the turbochargers and associated components. Having all of our pilots operate the engines exactly the same way, and as prescribed by Lycoming, resulted in excellent reliability. I could tell just by observing the color of the exhaust pipe if the engine was being operated correctly. The spark plugs rarely fouled, and we had no misbehaving engines.

Previously, I mentioned the ticket counter at the Charlotte airport. Ours was a small counter situated with those of Piedmont, Southern, United, and Delta. Once, a customer approached me at the counter and asked, “When is your flight from Frankfurt arriving?”  I said, “We only fly to Florence and Hickory.”  No flights were arriving at this airport from Europe. This was an example of one of the many times we were perceived as the central information counter. It was amusing as Air Carolina and Wheeler Airlines were two tiny local commuter lines.

On another occasion, I had a couple of customers in line purchasing tickets. A third gentleman was in line, and when it was his turn to be served, he started by grabbing me by my necktie and accusing me of being rude to him. He left the counter in a huff and went to Avis to rent a car instead of taking our flight.  He filed a complaint with my employer and I was called on the carpet to answer. What we concluded was the man’s company had sent him on this trip and booked him with the connection from an Eastern flight. There was no way he wanted to ride on a small plane with a young single pilot.  By making a scene and complaining, he could justify the expense of the rental car to his employer.

Stay tuned for Part 3, Flying the line for Air Carolina.

By Fons Schaefers

Introduction

In the 1970s, civil transport aircraft spotting was quite different from what it is today. Airport security was much more relaxed. Although airport ramps were off limits, at many airports it was easy to find vantage photography spots near runways. Even hangars were not always off-limits. The jet age was less than two decades old. First-generation jets ¹ were still being produced and flew in increasing numbers, all but up for phasing out. There was one exception, though: the Convair jets.

In the U.S., American Airlines had disposed of its Convair 990 fleet after only five years of operation. Most went to Europe and the Middle East. Delta had disposed of its fleet of 880s in 1973/74. TWA laid up its fleet of 25 880s around the same time, triggered by soaring jet fuel prices following the 1973 Arab-Israel war. The 880 consumed more fuel than its peers, such as the 707, so it was the first to go. All 25 were parked in one place. In those days, a congregation of so many identical airplanes was extremely rare.

U.S. Visit

Having been a civil aircraft spotter since 1973 and having visited the more exciting airports of Europe, in 1977 I decided to explore another spotters’ heaven: the U.S. Once the hurdle of obtaining a visa was taken (still an issue in those days; ESTA would be invented much later), I could plan my visit. My plan was to cross the entire U.S. in 30 days by Greyhound bus. High on the list were the military storage facility at Davis-Monthan AFB, Tucson, AZ (with a bus tour every second Saturday of the month), some major airports, the Grand Canyon (hoping for a scenic flight by Ford Trimotor, but alas…), Detroit Willow Run (for the Zantop prop fleet), Niagara Falls and Miami (for its corrosion corner). Also on the list was Kansas City.

TWA Convair 880s

Why Kansas City? JP Airline-Fleets, the contemporary spotter’s bible, in its 1976 edition, listed TWA’s congregation of 25 Convair 880s was right there:

In November 1976, the monthly spotter’s magazine Aviation Letter in # 120 reported:

In February 1977, the news was:

So, with some luck, the 880s were waiting to be logged and photographed when I would pass Kansas City on my way from New York to Tucson.

MCI, May 12, 1977

I left New York on Tuesday, May 10, at 7:00 pm, allowing me a brief, sunset visit to STL the next day. Another night on the bus, and I was in Kansas City. A short ride on the KCI Airport Express brought me to the new Mid-Continent International Airport (MCI) with its three circular terminals: A, B and C.

Looking east from the terminal area, I could see the Convairs. Through my binoculars, I identified the four nearest by registration number. But how nice would it be to have a closer look and take pictures? In terminal B, TWA had an information booth. I boldly stepped up and asked them if it would be possible to visit the Convairs. Quite to my surprise, the lady made one telephone call and then announced it was sorted. She handed me a TWA message note and said, “Take a taxi to the maintenance area and ask there for Larry Andrews.” (or words to that effect).

And so I did. Larry was waiting for me and handed me a visitor pass. Together we walked to the Convairs on the ramp east of the new hangar with its outstanding architecture. The sun was shining, casting sharp shadows. I noted the 880s were roughly parked in three rows. We started walking along the front row, with N808TW being the first, and I started taking pictures.

My tactic was not to take a picture of each airplane from the same angle, but rather a mix so that each airplane, including its registration mark on the tail or fleet number on the nose, would later be traceable. Conscious of time and intending not to ask too much of Larry, I went at quite a pace. At the end of the front row, there were some ships parked at an angle to that row. There we moved to the furthest ship and then returned between the middle and the back, constantly taking pictures.

Halfway, I changed the film from black and white to color slides. Larry shadowed me and offered to take a picture of me in front of one of the 880s.

When we were back to the point where we started, I spotted a set of maintenance steps and asked Larry if I could climb those to take some overview pictures. He agreed.

In all, I took about 35 pictures in what I estimate lasted about 20 minutes. Larry was so kind as to drive me back to the terminal area. I thanked him profusely. From a spot close to terminal C I took one final slide of the Convairs from a distance against a backdrop of the characteristic water tower and the KCAC building (which, as I learned much later, housed TWA administration) before continuing my trip through the United States.

One Month Later

Once back at home, with the pictures developed and returned to me (digital cameras were still futuristic), I could make a rough sketch of the parking pattern. For 23 ships, I positively fixed their location. For N828TW and N816TW, I was not so sure.

43 Years Later

Life went on, and occasionally, when seeing an article in a magazine about Convair 880s, I hoped there was an aerial picture so that I could validate my sketch. But it was in vain. Even Jon Proctor’s book on 880s and 990s did not have one, nor was he aware of any when I asked him at the WAHS convention in Portland, OR, in 2011. But in May 2020, I was lucky. Searching the internet, I found a picture on the website of the TWA Museum, 43 years after my visit. It had been posted in May 2018.

Now I could verify the actual pattern against my original sketch. Looking again at the overview slide, N828TW could be confirmed both by its location and number. But I had misplaced the location of N816TW. This was the only 880 that was not in any of my pictures. Or so I thought. It turned out that I did have a picture of it, taken straight from the rear, so that no registration marks were visible. By gauging the relative location of neighbor ships and by a process of elimination, it had to be #816. Puzzle solved.

Fate of the Convairs

Only twelve days after my visit, TWA sold the first of the 25 Convairs, and soon after, it was broken up on site: N811TW. Jon Proctor describes this as a tough job as its skin was much thicker than that of other airplane types, for which the demolition company was not prepared.

In 1978, N818TW was ferried to Van Nuys, CA, for conversion to a full freighter. Fifteen more Convairs were ferried to Harlingen, TX. Later, they were all ferried to the much drier climate of Mojave, CA. The eight ships remaining on the MCI ramp were broken up in 1979. Four of the Mojave ships were ferried to Atlantic City (3) or Laurinburg-Maxton (1) for use in FAA safety experiments. They were later destroyed, except for 803’s nose, which is kept in Teterboro, NJ. Of the remaining 12, the forward sections of two more ended up in museums: 871 in the Delta Flight Museum in Atlanta, and 817 in the Tillamook Museum in Oregon. Nine others were completely broken up around 2000. In 2024, only N828TW is still intact in Mojave, as N815AJ.

TWA Museum

When I contacted the TWA Museum in May 2020, I learned that Larry worked in material management at the time of my visit. He had retired since and sadly died. Reflecting on the warm welcome reception I received in 1977, I now surmise that perhaps TWA was so eager to sell the ships that anybody who asked to see them was considered a potential buyer and deserved to be shown around.

Last year, I visited the TWA Museum at the old Kansas City airport. On that occasion, I passed by the MCI maintenance area and saw a relic of the Convairs: Convair Drive. How apt.

---

Footnote

1: As defined by Airbus, ref. Generations of Jet – accidentstats.airbus.com: Comet, Caravelle, BAC- 111, Trident, VC-10, 707, 720, DC-8, Convair 880/990.

---

Sources

• Aviation Letter issue 120 (Nov. 1976), 123 (Feb. 1977) and 144 (Nov. 1978).
• Convair 880 & 990, Great Airliners Volume One, Jon Proctor, 1996.

---

Fons Schaefers: f.schaefers@planet.nl, January 2025

By Tiemen Spits

The flag pins were a private issue and were allowed by the Airline’s corporate office to adorn the Pan Am uniform. No clear policy existed about the usage of the pins; the popularity of it was purely driven by the flight personnel. Research shows that the use was multi-purpose.

• As a destination pin: the flight attendant wore the flag of the country or state that was the final destination of the flight. For ease of use, we have divided the pins in three groups:
  • Country contains the pins from the different foreign countries,
  • USA State/Territory/Commonwealth contains the USA state and Commonwealth pins,
  • Special/other, for example Berlin and the Pan Am globe pins are found in this group.
• As an indication of the country/state of origin of the flight attendants: this was not the original intention of the pins, but developed over time and was widely embraced in support of national pride of the individuals.
• As an indication of the linguistic skills of the person wearing it: this is not to be confused with the language pin/badge.

The pins are a simple but elegant form: two flags crossed at the pole with the Pan Am stylized globe underneath. The flag on the left is always the flag of the USA, while the flag on the right varies with the country of origin. The example below is the flag pin of Guatemala.

From ex-Pan Am employees we learned that the pins started to show up in the mid to late 1980s. However, the existence of the Cuba pin indicates that the earliest use must be before 1963 when the Cuba travel restrictions were put in place. These were not lifted until the year after Pan Am’s bankruptcy in 1991.

There are a few pins that do not adhere to the general format described above. These include the Joint Venture pins, the EU pin, and the Pan Am logo pin.

Joint Venture (JV) Pins

The Joint Venture (JV) pins were issued to show the commitment of Pan Am to partnerships with Russia and Hungary with respectively Aeroflot and Malev airlines. The Russia/Aeroflot partnership was signed in 1988 and operated flights between New York Kennedy Airport and Moscow International Airport. The flights used the Pan Am 747’s and the cockpit and cabin crews were Pan Am, while three of the flight attendants were Aeroflot. They would also act as interpreters. The Malev partnership was signed in 1989 and committed to non-stop flights between New York and Budapest. Both joint ventures lasted until Pan Am’s demise in 1991.

The Pan Am logo pin is distinguished from the others by the fact it does not sport the blue ball/globe.

The European Union Pin

The European Union pin depicts the European Union logo which was designed in the mid-1950s when the European Economic Community (EEC) was formed.

The Berlin Pin

The Berlin pin is a special issue to show that Pan Am was one of only three airlines to fly into West Berlin, Germany after Berlin was isolated at the end of World War II. Commercial flights into Berlin were limited during the Cold War. The only three airlines flying into Tegelhoff were British Airways, Air France, and Pan Am.

The Flying Flag Pin

Instead of a static flag, the flag is designed actively flying in the wind. The pin is thicker, the wells are deeper, and the cloisonné has been deposited thicker. In my years of collecting I have only found one pin in this style: Indonesia.

Variant Versions of the Same Country Pin

Finally, there are country pins that exist in multiple variant issues due to a change of the national flag while the pins were in use at Pan Am. These pins are

• Austria
  • Without any device in the horizontal white bar.
  • With the Austrian coat of arms in the horizontal white horizontal bar (variant version). Because the new Austrian coat of arms was officially approved/adopted in its current form in 1984, it is possible that this variant version started to appear in the same year.
• Romania
  • With the communist device in the yellow vertical bar. (30 Dec. 1947 – 27 Dec. 1989).
  • Without any device in the yellow vertical bar (from 27 Dec. 1989 – end of use).

How to Use This Guide

To find whether a pin was issued for the country/region of interest, use this alphabetical index.  For easy identification we have divided the pins into three main groups:

1. International destination pins
2. USA State/Territory/Commonwealth pins
3. Other pins

Within each group, the pins are listed in alphabetical order by their country/state/commonwealth’s name. Each pin’s image is accompanied by the country represented by the flag and a one-line note elaborating on the image when needed. The author is still looking for Honduras and Portugal and any other pin not shown in this collector’s guide.

International flag pins

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

USA flag pins

In the USA these pins present the state of origin or destination. According to some sources, pins existed for all 50 states; however, I have found no evidence of this. Below are the currently known state pins.

Miscellaneous Flag Pins

There are two pins in this group that deviate from the “standard” issue, namely the Pan Am logo and the Indonesia pins. The Pan Am logo pin does not have the globe in the center below the flags and the Indonesia pin is made thicker than the “normal” pin and the cloisonné wells are deeper. Also, the flag is not draped but waving.

Each pin is approximately 1” wide by 1 ¼” high, except for the Aeroflot pin, which is approximately 1 ½ “high.

As of March 2018 – a total of 77 pins have been identified. If you have additional information about the pin usage, personal experience with them, or want to trade, please contact me at terschellin49@gmail.com or leave a comment below. Happy collecting!

This article and all images originally appeared on www.halpostcards.com (copyright 2017-2021) and are used here with the author’s permission.