rwinn

I'm not complaining about the lack of lie-flat seats but your post made it sound as though a lie-flat option existed between HNL and the mainland (which would have been a nice find.)

United, Delta, and American all offer (or are preparing to offer) lie-flat seats on trans-con flights of similar lengths, so I don't think it's a matter of distance so much as a matter of Hawaii being primarily a leisure market that can't command a premium for lie-flat seats.

LIH Prem

lie flat options do exist between Hawaii and the mainland on at least AA and UA on select routes and flights.

At some point opportunistic posts that redirect you to the posters blog become noise around here.

-David

irishguy28

London, Paris, Madrid and Frankfurt appear as "potential routes" on this HA slide.



Given the huge number of potential destinations, though, it's clear that the vast majority of these are hugely speculative, and most will never happen. I would expect that London would be the favoured European destination, but appears so far down the list behind a huge number of North American/South American/Asian destinations that it's not going to happen.

Source

irishguy28

But it's telling that Hawaii's heyday as a hub/stopover is in the past. Those days are gone and they're not coming back.

HA could never offer a compelling service from Europe to the Pacific. They have too few desinations, most of which are more easily reached via a shorter (and presumably far cheaper) flight via the Gulf or Asia. (Pago Pago seems to be the only destination that would make sense - but there would be even fewer passengers bound for Pago Pago than for Hawaii itself). HA could presumably not even offer a daily service from Europe, which puts it at a complete disadvantage against the Gulf superconnectors and Asian airlines - Emirates has 8 daily departures from London, for instance.

I'm not saying HA doesn't carry connecting passengers, but I expect that such passengers represent a low percentage of their total traffic. (KLM's figure for connecting traffic is approaching 70% - despite being based at an airport which is a major tourist and business destination in its own right). And the logic for HNL being a hub for (European) passengers just doesn't exist anymore in today's market - it once was for technical and logistic purposes which are no longer constraints for modern planes.

tonywestsider

Disagree. HA's ad below on their new AKL-HNL route is all about stopover:

http://www.hawaiianairlines.com/Spec...L_homepg_12Mar

So is HA's SYD-HNL route established in 2004:

http://investor.hawaiianairlines.com...904&highlight=

In which HA quoted in 2004:

A Boost for Hawaii's Visitor Industry
Hawaiian is providing nonstop, roundtrip service from Down Under four times weekly, adding more than 1,000 seats to Hawaii per week, a 20 percent increase to the levels currently provided by other carriers connecting Australia and Hawaii.

Hawaiian is tapping a travel market that has been underserved for more than a decade, yet consists of the world's sixth largest country, a city, Sydney, with four million residents, and other large cities nearby.

Visitor traffic from Australia has been in steady decline since 1990 when Hawaii received 238,000 arrivals. By 2003, that figure had sunk to 78,000, according to the Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT), the result of major carriers using more long-range jets to bypass Hawaii and fly nonstop from Australia to the West Coast.

Previously, carriers would refuel in Hawaii leading many passengers to use the stopovers as an opportunity to spend time in the islands before continuing with their travel itinerary.

Hawaiian's service will also help stem a trend of diminishing seat capacity from Down Under. In 2003, DBEDT reported that year-over-year seat capacity from Australia declined by 14.3 percent compared to 2002.

You keep saying HA stopover traffic will never happen from Europe or elsewhere. The reality is that HA's stopover traffic is from many new points today.

HA also just mentioned at their HNL-AKL inauguration ceremony that their international route schedules in/out of HNL have now just surpassed their number of Mainland-Hawaii flights. You don't think HA's hub/stopover network will happen or is in the past? Well, it did happen and it keeps on happening.

irishguy28

In the Australia/NZ to United States market, then yes, Hawaii makes a brilliant stopover - and not for technical/logistics reasons as in the past, but because travellers may wish to have two-centre holidays that take in Hawaii as a holiday destination in its own right, and because it is more-or-less "on the way". And in the very, very expensive Aus/NZ to US market (I can't get over how expensive those flights are), HA comes in as very competitively priced. Those that don't wish to visit Hawaii may fly HA anyway, if they get a good fare, but there is actually no need for Aus/NZ passengers bound for the continental US to stop in Hawaii as they can choose a direct flight. There was a time when such flights were technically not possible - and that's what I meant by Hawaii's heydey as a "hub". Passing traffic HAD to stop there. These days, passing traffic can just keep passing, and only those that choose to visit will actually stop off.

However, for a European traveller, Hawaii does not make any sense as a "stopover", as there are not many (any?) places which one would naturally travel over the Pacific in order to reach from Europe. Visitors wishing to have a two-centre holiday in the US/Hawaii will find it easier to use the continental US as the "stopover" point on such an itinerary (LON-LAX-HNL-LAX-LON makes more sense than LON-HNL-LAX-HNL-LON). Hawaii doesn't act as a good stopover for any route from Europe, as the destinations served by HA are nearly all more easily reachable via Asia. The earlier suggestion that Hawaii could act as a hub only holds these days for people who may want to visit Hawaii as part of a larger trip, or for price-sensitive passengers. Hawaii will never be a natural stopover for European customers if HA does serve any point(s) in Europe.

tonywestsider

The point here is that there is a different market for travelers from Australia/Oceania moving to the UK rather than continental Europe. That market is essentially moving in and out of the UK because of free movement between the UK and Commonwealth countries and not because of Hawaii being perceived as a primary leisure destination to Europeans. Hawaii is, as you said earlier, on the way. There is a lot non-leisure travel between the UK and down under either through Asia or the mainland US. Traveling through Asia takes longer to get from Oz or NZ to the UK than going through the US. A routing through Hawaii would serve as an alternative that an airline like HA would take full opportunity of because HNL is their hub and capturing stopover traffic, as mentioned above is in their business plan. So, if in your opinion that Hawaii will never be a natural stopover for European customers, that is not necessarily true in the UK-Australia/Oceania market. LON-LAX-HNL-LAX-LON is actually a routing that is done today via using VS and HA. And I am not suggesting at all that a future route for HA is LON-HNL-LAX-HNL-LON. That is not how HA operates. A more likely scenario is SYD/AKL-HNL-LHR. I would agree, HNL-LHR as a standalone route would not work but I was never suggesting that either. Perhaps others were stuck on that scenario because HA is known as a leisure destination carrier and to others, they see HA just going in/out of HNL and not seeing their entire present and future network.

irishguy28

Going by the Great Circle, even for points as far west as Reykjavik, Iceland, the shortest route to Sydney is generally eastwards, or at least away from the United States:



I've just returned from my 6th trip to Australia. I have never once seen a viable itinerary that routes westward from Europe to Australia (the so-called "Southern Cross route"). I've just done an ITA search on fares from London to Sydney, and not a single US airline is returned in the results.



(the "multiple airlines" option above is BA and QF, heading via Asia)

I have never heard of anyone (save for round the world trips) heading west from Europe to reach Australia (and spending a year on a Working Holiday Visa in Australia was a right-of-passage for all of my peers). When you fly from any part of Europe to Australia, you end up taking the Kangaroo Route (or its modern day variations, the Falcon Route (via the Gulf) and the Canton Route (via China)).

The alternate Southern Cross Route - across the Pacific - just doesn't compete and is not seemingly or actively pushed by any of the airlines that can offer that route, except for Air New Zealand who no longer fly the Kangaroo Route now that they have suspended LHR-HKG earlier this month.

There is LOTS of competition on the Kangaroo Route. I would be very surprised if HA were able to compete on Europe-Australia routes when no other US airline seems to chase that market. And I'm not convinced that Hawaii is "on the way" for Europe to Australia or Europe to anywhere-else-in-the-Pacific itineraries, or that routing via Hawaii would give a quicker journey time.

From www.gcmap.com:

Distances from LHR-XXX-SYD (in miles) where XXX is:

CAN - 10,575
HKG - 10,575
BKK - 10,620
PVG - 10,624
PEK - 10,631
SIN - 10,672
KUL - 10,681
ICN - 10,684
NRT - 10,820
DXB - 10,901
AUH - 10,924
DOH - 10,948

HNL - 12,303
LAX - 12,944


A HA HNL-Europe service would have to stand on its own on point-to-point traffic. If they partnered with a European package holiday company who could sell seats on the service, then perhaps it would be viable.

Travelomania

Well, the route was heavily promoted a few years back, when VA was starting it's new LAX-SYD/MEL/BNE service and loads of Brits boarded in London on their holidays with VS thru LAX on special fares - at least they were frequently on my flights.

I myself also used the westbound LHR-LAX-SYD route when Delta had double/triple miles promos to compete with VA and others.
Fares were about half of what they're currently

DCF

Irishguy28
I live on Australia's Gold Coast, and visit the UK annually.

I long ago gave up on the Kangaroo Route via Asia.

Like many Australians, I'm time-rich: I get 5 weeks' paid vacation per year, and around 5 weeks of work-related travel, and can combine the two.

I ALWAYS route to Europe on Air New Zealand via AKL and LAX, even though the through-journey adds around 6 hours to the Kangaroo Route.

Why do I do this?

1. Better timing of sectors makes it easier to avoid jet-lag, in both directions.

2. I have no wish ever to take a stopover in Dubai or Singapore ever again. Stinking hot and humid repressive states don't float my boat.

3. I love spending a few days on the coast anywhere from San Diego to Orange County to Santa Barbara, and often visit San Francisco too.

4. If meet up with my wife and kids for a stopover, I prefer Hawaii or Tahiti to anywhere I've visited in Asia.

5. Several trips via southeast Asia, northeast Asia and the Middle East have been marred by unruly passengers of a variety of ethnic origins.

Even on a business trip to London it's often nice to have a few days in southern California in either direction.

Travelomania

+1 ... Completely agree ... plus you have an additional option with HA now ^

YVR Cockroach

Unless fares are very competitive, I wouldn't want the hassle of flying through the U.S. (i.e., clearing U.S. entry whether one is transiting or not) unless I was making a stop-over there.

The old UA used to market fares between Australia and Europe but not sure if that is done anymore.

What free movement? If there is (there may have been prior to c. 19470, I want to know about it.

YVR Cockroach

This made sense prior to increased U.S. paranoia. Transit in HNL (co-operation of flights of CP flying in from YYZ and YVR, QF from SYD, MEL and BNE and NZ from AKL) used to be sterile >11 years ago. Even prior to certain events in the NE U.S., INS was starting to hassle transit travellers. With full-blown transit clearance required and the availability of economic long-haul a/c, the HNL stopover isn't very attractive.


Unfortunately, flying via HNL when going between the U.S. and NE Asia adds more than 3 hours of straight flying time (I've done it a few times mainly because of the miles ) Only destination in Asia that makes sense flying via Hawaii is MNL (PR does this - lots of VFR traffic too).

tonywestsider

Regarding transit at HNL, all of the infrastructure is still there for international to international airside terminal transit. How do you know that HNL will not reinstitute international airside transit again? NZ has it at LAX T2, and LAX was not initially designed with international airside transit in mind. Also, HA is probably seeing a market for an HNL stopover as well and not just transiting passengers.

Yes, it does take longer to fly the route as JL and PA did years ago, and therefore the overfly TPAC market took over, because longer range aircraft is available. But the reality of today's travel market is that not everyone wants to fly the fastest route. It all depends on schedule, fare, more mileage accrual for some who want that, convenience and for some, a stopover for rest in between flights. FYI: An LAX-HNL-HND itinerary is bookable on HA. So is an LAX-HNL-NRT itinerary, for competitive fares, are also bookable on DL.

AA_EXP09

With regards to #2 it rains less in SIN than the places I visit often, and there's quite a bit to do in SIN. I do agree that DXB is mostly a dump, though (unless you like the desert excursion, but that requires a high heat tolerance)
3-American customs are usually worse on average than almost all Asian countries I have visited.
5-Americans can also be DYKWIA-in fact, I saw one yesterday from America in the JL lounge.
It's not as if I hate America-in fact, I like it for a number of reasons, but don't discount other places either.