JetBlue TrueBlue - How likely is it that JetBlue will fly to Hawaii?

Obviously, the A320 has the capability of flying to Hawaii. Is there any buzz about their looking for slots in Koa, Hnl or Ogg? Would love to see flts from Lgb to the islands. My guess is that those planes would be filled.

LGB-HNL/OGG sounds great but B6 would have to get its planes ETOPS certified. From what i understand this is very expensive.

Based on previous inquiries from FTers, it seems that JetBlue freely gives away a list of all potential up-and-coming airports.

A quick email to JetBlue might reveal more info!

-Chris

I'm moving to Hawaii so I'd love it if they did, but the planes and the maintenance operation both have to be ETOPs certified so it seems unlikely for now. I've always wondered why none of the discount airlines take up the west coast to Hawaii route, the load factors are very high on that route and the minimum price is always twice that of a transcon flying roughly the same distance.

ATA flies from West Coast to Hawaii and many consider them a discount carrier. Here is their route map:
http://www.ata.com/flifo/routemap.html

If they flew to Hawaii they might lose one of their benefits that a lot of people will fly them for and that is DirecTV. Its seems it won't work over the ocean on their Puerto Rico route so I assume it won't work on the Pacific either. Although they could always show movies on the PTVs. It would be great to see a low cost alternative to flying to Hawaii though.

Silence in this thread for awhile, and obviously B6's finances are not as robust as they once were. Any current speculation of service into Hawai'i?

Thanks,
Chris

Obviously, the A320 has the capability of flying to Hawaii. Is there any buzz about their looking for slots in Koa, Hnl or Ogg? Would love to see flts from Lgb to the islands. My guess is that those planes would be filled.
JetBlue would have great load factors on routes from LGB or OAK to HNL or OGG, however the A320 would not be able to make it with a strong head wing going westbound. The return to mainland would be no problem. On transcons, there are tons of places to refuel if needed. If they got the A321, then it would be no problem.....however, their hands are full with the E190 now in addition to the A320. Hawaii is a possibility somewhere down the road...possibly 2015 or 2020. Flights from LGB would be so much better than going from LAX!

Hawaii is a possibility somewhere down the road...possibly 2015 or 2020.

the only thing that's a possibility in 2015 or 2020 is that JetBlue would exist at all.

As posted on the 2/17 winds thread, the 321 has a range a few hundred miles less than the 320. The 319 has a longer range version capable of 3700 miles.

the only thing that's a possibility in 2015 or 2020 is that JetBlue would exist at all.

Everyone is welcomed to express their opinions. Some people had unsatisfactory experiences recently with jetblue. They expressed their distress and frustrations... they were heard, they were discussed.

1. They would most certainly lose Direct TV.

2. A320s are general not that level of ETOPS certified.

3. They have no planes that can fly to Hawai'i even from the left coast... a 737 prolly could have done it though ;)

-Vincent

1. They would most certainly lose Direct TV.

2. A320s are general not that level of ETOPS certified.

3. They have no planes that can fly to Hawai'i even from the left coast... a 737 prolly could have done it though ;)

-Vincent

1. They already lost DirecTv on some flights. They replace that with movies for free, which usually would cost $5.

2. I am almost positive that all of the Airbus are ETOPS certified.

3. Even if Jetblue had the 737, I don't think that they would have any preference to fly that route. Fares are already pretty low, and I heard a couple of months ago that the yields are barely anything. There is no need for that route.

1. They already lost DirecTv on some flights. They replace that with movies for free, which usually would cost $5.

2. I am almost positive that all of the Airbus are ETOPS certified.

3. Even if Jetblue had the 737, I don't think that they would have any preference to fly that route. Fares are already pretty low, and I heard a couple of months ago that the yields are barely anything. There is no need for that route.

I am frankly concerned about he profomance issues with the Airbus; the need to refuel in strong head winds is just a little worrysome, transcon is about the same as West Coast-Hawai'i and if they can't make it without unscheduled fuels stops transcon - how would Hawai'i be fesable?

'Sides I agree and am pretty sure from what I know Hawai'i is not an interested destination... I was just playing devil's advocate...

-Vincent

Obviously, the A320 has the capability of flying to Hawaii. Is there any buzz about their looking for slots in Koa, Hnl or Ogg? Would love to see flts from Lgb to the islands. My guess is that those planes would be filled.I imagine it depends upon the slot fees at Hawaiian airports and the ease in which parts can be made available at such a far off location. As others have said, they would lose satellite TV so unless they can work out the costs of establishing full satellite availability, I don't see it happening. In addition, Jetblue doesn't feed you. How long is a flight to Hawaii from JFK? ;)

How long is a flight to Hawaii from JFK? ;)

Bring along your spiderman lunch box :)

There are no slot restrictions at Hawaiian airports.

I imagine it depends upon the slot fees at Hawaiian airports and the ease in which parts can be made available at such a far off location. As others have said, they would lose satellite TV so unless they can work out the costs of establishing full satellite availability, I don't see it happening. In addition, Jetblue doesn't feed you. How long is a flight to Hawaii from JFK? ;)

You realize, don't you, that you quoted a three year old post that I'm certain obscure2k would rather have never written, given that there's nothing accurate about it?

The past month has proven that JetBlue's A320s most certainly cannot fly to Hawaii in their present configuration. Perhaps with fewer seats or no bags or if Airbus manufactures one with more fuel capability. ;)

And as JS noted, Hawaii is an open-skies destination like every other airport in the USA save LGA, DCA, and to a lesser extent, ORD and JFK (which are still sorta capacity-controlled). Hawaii airports are not slot-restricted.

And to answer the basic question - there's zero chance that JetBlue initiates service to Hawaii, unless it foolishly adds a third fleet type. :D

Hawaii is not an underserved, high-fare market, and thus doesn't offer LCCs much opportunity.

JFK-Hawaii? Are you serious? More than twice the distance JetBlue is capable of flying, with its present aircraft. For the last couple of weeks, B6 couldn't manage to reliably fly nonstops from JFK to any of its west coast cities. And there aren't any airports between SFO and Hawaii, so there's no stopping for gas. Hawaii is another 2,500 miles away from the West Coast.

ATA flies from West Coast to Hawaii and many consider them a discount carrier. Here is their route map:
http://www.ata.com/flifo/routemap.html

http://www.ata.com/reservations/routemap.html

Here this is better one for you with the route map on TZ start new nonstop OAK-ITO, ONT-HNL.

1. They already lost DirecTv on some flights. They replace that with movies for free, which usually would cost $5.

2. I am almost positive that all of the Airbus are ETOPS certified.

3. Even if Jetblue had the 737, I don't think that they would have any preference to fly that route. Fares are already pretty low, and I heard a couple of months ago that the yields are barely anything. There is no need for that route.

ETOPS ratings are not just aircraft specific but airline specific. Depending on the airline the 737 is approved for different ETOPS ratings 90, 120...etc. ETOPS allows you to fly certain distances (120=minutes) away from an airport where you can land. ETOPS requires you to carry equipment on your aircraft that you would not otherwise carry (i.e. safety equipment). It would not make sense to make your entire fleet ETOPS equiped as it would add weight and fuel burn to the aircraft. I believe that all Jetblue aircraft carry lifevests which allows over water flights that are not far enough away from an airport were ETOPS rules would become nessecary. ETOPS also requires that your airline prove its maintance and operation plans in an intense audit I would liken it to ISO certification.

For example, UAL has some 757s that are ETOPS approved and other that aren't for flights to Hawaii - this adds some complexity to UAs fleet planning. Lets say UA gave an ETOPS 757 to Jetblue that plane would no longer be ETOPS becuase JetBlue dosen't have the certification.

Also the A320 or 321 don't have the legs to make it to the islands of Hawaii from the mainland. B6 would need to invest in another fleet type - perhaps an A319 but I believe it would be weight restricted and not profitable to Hawaii. (The 319s that fly ~3,000 miles are in all business class configurations at $7,000 dollars a seat.) There is also a lot of capacity to the islands - and you can get some relatively cheap tickets. As we have seen from B6 in the last few weeks price is important and they would likely not be interested in entering an already saturated market. There are lots of other more profitable routes out there.

Brian, and others in this thread have provided a good analysis on the topic at hand. JetBlue will not be flying to Hawai'i unless they introduce a third aircraft type to their fleet that has the "legs" to reach the islands nonstop from the West Coast. The A320 would definitely run into problems when headwinds are strong, and what makes Hawai'i flying different from transcon flying is the fact that there isn't any place to stop for fuel on the way there.

The longest flight currently on JetBlue, if I recall, is Boston-Oakland, measured 2,674 miles. Though most of the year it can make the trek nonstop, it is around the winter time, and more specificly this time of year, where the headwinds in this part of the hemisphere are terribly strong and at lower altitudes. These headwinds would almost eliminate any chance of a successful nonstop transcon or even in some cases Oakland-Hawai'i. The evening BOS-OAK flight has had to refuel in Salt Lake City three times this week, in essence the flight only went about 2,100 miles before landing. BOS-OAK as it is is already pushing the envelope for the A320 performance limits. Oakland to Kahului (Maui) is 2,349 miles and is about as close to Hawai'i as you'll get from the West Coast (SFO is closer by 10 miles). If you can't even make it that distance nonstop in a strong headwind, you are bound to have problems. Long story short: A320 does not equal Hawai'i.

JetBlue has planes that are EOW equipped, that is, they have life vests on board. EOW planes are not ETOPS planes. These two are almost unrelated. In order to fly to Hawai'i, JetBlue would need to certify their mechanic regimen and aircraft for ETOPS180. ETOPS120 is far from enough, and ETOPS138 misses the dead center between California and Hawai'i.

The A319 would be a viable choice if JetBlue were to pursue Hawai'i operations. Operationally, it is in the same class size as the Boeing 737-700 and shares crew and flight deck commonality with the A320 (and A321). It's effective range at maximum payload is just a little less than the 73G, but would still be able to make it under many circumstances. Strong headwinds like this time of year may cut into payload and force small minor restrictions, but nothing of the sort that the A320s are seeing.

unless airbus made some modifications to the A320 to make it fly a longer distance, i doubt jetBlue would invest in a 3rd type of plane just to fly to Hawaii unless if theres other destinations they want to hit up with the 3rd type of aircraft, but I might be wrong, I mean, did anyone see jetBlue buying a 2nd type of aircraft back in, let say, 2002? But maybe we have a better chance of that happening than having someone on this board stop bashing jetBlue

Its likely that at some point, they'll get into another type of aircraft.

They apparently have their hands full with their second model now. However, as a growth company, they will have to branch out into different vehicles at some point; its only natural.

Take a look at Walmart; forever they had strict specifications for what their stores look like; huge one-level layout with a big parking lot. Now they're getting into multi-level stores because for them to continue to grow they need to consider that.

Just like JetBlue needed to get into these smaller jets for certain markets, its only safe to assume they'll get into a larger jet at some point; it may be a while but with their current growth they'll need to. There comes a point where getting a few bigger planes is better than adding a whole new flight many times over. The only question is when.

JFK-Hawaii? Are you serious? More than twice the distance JetBlue is capable of flying, with its present aircraft. For the last couple of weeks, B6 couldn't manage to reliably fly nonstops from JFK to any of its west coast cities. And there aren't any airports between SFO and Hawaii, so there's no stopping for gas. Hawaii is another 2,500 miles away from the West Coast.

Agreed, JFK-Hawaii is a HUGE distance. CO flies EWR-HNL non-stop and it used to do so on DC-10s, which have seen been replaced with 767-400ERs. The flight is just shy of 11 hours westbound and about nine-and-a-half hours eastbound. An A320 doesn't have anywhere near the legs for this sort of hop.

LGB-HNL, on the other hand... Still, I doubt it.

I got a idea, make a aircraft carrier big enough for a A320 and use it as a refueling station between LGB / OAK and Hawaii! That should do the trick! :D




PS: Yes, I know I know, its not possible, but its one solution HAHA

I don't know if you've ever read any books by John J Nance, but he had one a few years ago about a Navy pilot who also flew 727 cargo jets. The plot worked out that the pilot was over the Atlantic, off the east coast low on fuel in the 727, and oh yeah, there was a nuclear bomb on the plane that would detonate if the plane crashed, and would also detonate if he got too close to the US mainland, and he just happenned to know where the aircraft carrier he was based on was at the time. Sounds realistic so far, right? LOL

It was a really windy night, approx 60 mph winds, and he also knew the classified top speed of the carrier was something near 50 knots. So that meant wind over the deck of 110+mph. Darn near the landing speed of a lightly loaded 727. All he had to do was come in from behind a little faster than 110, get over the deck, slow down to match the carrier's speed, then drop down onto the deck before running out of fuel and scattering radioactive contamination up and down the eastern seaboard. Of course, he manages to just barely make it.

So what the heck. It sounds good in theory. A 727 isn't too much smaller than a 320, and talk is that the Navy is going to retire the carrier JFK anyway. It kind of makes sense that Jetblue has 2 JFK's LOL.

Just something light after the bars have closed LOL.

2. I am almost positive that all of the Airbus are ETOPS certified.

An A320 could be certified, but ETOPS also requires special maintenance schedules. Most LCCs do not want to have to create a subfleet to service Hawaii, a relatively low yield market. There is also hefty competition from the majors, the Hawaii carriers and charters.

B6 still has some markets in the 48states to tap before making the investment to go that far west. I would think we would see expansion deeper into the Caribbean before Hawaii.