Should BA fly the flag in Honolulu?
Jul 17, 2010, 10:55 pm
#16
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Programs: AA GLD .25MM, CO, UA, US, DL, HH, SPG (all cardboard)
Posts: 1,951
They actually sell it as first/economy being that they're two class planes on a domestic route. I flew SFO-HNL-SFO yesterday on the daily 767 service from SFO. Nice 82F on arrival.
MEAL PHOTOS
HONOLULU ADMIRALS CLUB PHOTOS
The macadamia nut pancakes with coconut syrup were very good.
MEAL PHOTOS
HONOLULU ADMIRALS CLUB PHOTOS
The macadamia nut pancakes with coconut syrup were very good.
Jul 18, 2010, 12:08 am
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Denver • DEN-APA
Programs: AF Platinum, EK Gold, AA EXP, UA 1K, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 21,602
HNL has been part of USA for more than 100 years and a state for 51 years. HNL-Mainland is the correct way to say what you wanted to say. And not only are there plenty of daytime flights as Bear96 noted, indeed the majority of Hawaii to the mainland flights, from HNL or the neighbor islands, are to the west coast and are daytime departures.
Jul 18, 2010, 12:52 am
#19
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 20
BA should serve Honolulu with a stopover in Vancouver. Vancouverites would love the chance to fly BA to Hawaii. As it is an international flight, BA would still be able to take on passengers between there and Honolulu. Cathay does this between Vancouver and JFK. Like many others, I avoid North American airlines whenever possible. This would be a brilliant move by BA
Jul 18, 2010, 1:16 am
#20
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: Enough to travel better
Posts: 2,020
Back in the day, BA's predecessor airline, British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) did fly to HNL. From BOAC timetables in the 1960s, the route was San Francisco-Honolulu-Wake Island-Tokyo flown by the Bristol Britannia in an all First Class service configuration. Later flights were served by Boeing 707s and Vickers VC-10s. BOAC may also have had a route from HNL to Fiji and Sydney, augmenting QF's nonstop SYD-HNL route. I suspect, BOAC's SFO-HNL-HND route was part of their around the world route service that many legacy carriers had at that time. BOAC used HNL as a hub, by providing both Asia and South Pacific services while feeding those routes to the US mainland and LHR from there. The HNL-SFO route was restricted traffic, in other words, no local traffic on that segment.
Jul 18, 2010, 1:26 am
#21
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: mostly London
Programs: BA Gold - so flying too much again... plus AA, LX, VS and too many hotel programmes to mention
Posts: 594
HNL-USA?
HNL has been part of USA for more than 100 years and a state for 51 years. HNL-Mainland is the correct way to say what you wanted to say.
Thank you, SFO777. i stand corrected.
Yes, but none that allow you to connect same day to LHR, without at least a 10h layover at LAX.
I don't dispute the existence of the flights but my point is about the huge pain that traveling HNL-mainland-Europe is.
HNL has been part of USA for more than 100 years and a state for 51 years. HNL-Mainland is the correct way to say what you wanted to say.
Thank you, SFO777. i stand corrected.
Yes, but none that allow you to connect same day to LHR, without at least a 10h layover at LAX.
I don't dispute the existence of the flights but my point is about the huge pain that traveling HNL-mainland-Europe is.
Jul 18, 2010, 1:50 am
#22
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Programs: AA EXP (2MM), SAS EBG
Posts: 1,196
HNL-USA?
HNL has been part of USA for more than 100 years and a state for 51 years. HNL-Mainland is the correct way to say what you wanted to say.
Thank you, SFO777. i stand corrected.
Yes, but none that allow you to connect same day to LHR, without at least a 10h layover at LAX.
I don't dispute the existence of the flights but my point is about the huge pain that traveling HNL-mainland-Europe is.
HNL has been part of USA for more than 100 years and a state for 51 years. HNL-Mainland is the correct way to say what you wanted to say.
Thank you, SFO777. i stand corrected.
Yes, but none that allow you to connect same day to LHR, without at least a 10h layover at LAX.
I don't dispute the existence of the flights but my point is about the huge pain that traveling HNL-mainland-Europe is.
That gives the possibility to connect with AA136 as well as BA282 / BA284 (somewhere between 2 and 5 hours in LAX) These flights in turns have plenty of connections throughout Europe with reasonable connection time at LHR.
Still it is a long trip but if in F between LAX and LHR it is for sure ok
Jul 18, 2010, 2:55 am
#23
Join Date: Dec 2006
Programs: DL DM
Posts: 1,212
In any case, I for one believe Hawaii is very over hyped and is terribly expensive for what you get. You can the same luxury holiday with tropical climate at a fraction of the cost and with much better service in South East Asia compared with Hawaii. Been there, done that and no inclination to repeat the experience.
It is the same reason I fly British Airways. Emirates is a complete crock of s**t because the only reason they are able to offer their cheaper fares is because they employ a virtual slave labor force from South Asia in Dubai, who do all the cleaning, cooking, maintenance, etc for wages that are illegal in the United Kingdom and the United States.
Jul 18, 2010, 4:31 am
#25
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,753
As Ian001 suggests, and subject to aircraft availability and utilisation, Honolulu does indeed make commercial sense as a long, thin, non-stop route from London.
The leisure market from the UK to Hawai'i and other longhaul destinations, particularly the premium leisure market, is growing and would be augmented by connecting traffic from mainland Europe.
A route to Honolulu would be analagous with British Airways' Gatwick-Male service rather than their Heathrow-Las Vegas one, given the undoubted business traffic that the latter attracts to its convention centre.
There are, of course, Far East destinations that BA don't currently serve and which UK passengers (especially business travellers) would probably consider more worthy of priority than further Westbound options, but unfortunately these routes, given London's position on the globe, would not generate the connecting traffic from mainland Europe that the Westbound ones undoubtedly would.
Personally, I think that there are possibly another six or so US cities that could and should support direct BA service, and future aircraft deliveries combined with equipment juggling made possible with the Iberia merger would suggest that those route launches could be perfectly possible.
The leisure market from the UK to Hawai'i and other longhaul destinations, particularly the premium leisure market, is growing and would be augmented by connecting traffic from mainland Europe.
A route to Honolulu would be analagous with British Airways' Gatwick-Male service rather than their Heathrow-Las Vegas one, given the undoubted business traffic that the latter attracts to its convention centre.
There are, of course, Far East destinations that BA don't currently serve and which UK passengers (especially business travellers) would probably consider more worthy of priority than further Westbound options, but unfortunately these routes, given London's position on the globe, would not generate the connecting traffic from mainland Europe that the Westbound ones undoubtedly would.
Personally, I think that there are possibly another six or so US cities that could and should support direct BA service, and future aircraft deliveries combined with equipment juggling made possible with the Iberia merger would suggest that those route launches could be perfectly possible.
Jul 18, 2010, 5:28 am
#26
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,613
US Airlines are a complete crock of s**t because the only reason they are able to offer their cheaper fares is because they employ a virtual slave labor force from Mexico/South America in the US, who do all the cleaning, cooking, maintenance, etc for wages that are illegal in the United Kingdom
Jul 18, 2010, 6:09 am
#27
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,641
As Ian001 suggests, and subject to aircraft availability and utilisation, Honolulu does indeed make commercial sense as a long, thin, non-stop route from London.
The leisure market from the UK to Hawai'i and other longhaul destinations, particularly the premium leisure market, is growing and would be augmented by connecting traffic from mainland Europe.
A route to Honolulu would be analagous with British Airways' Gatwick-Male service rather than their Heathrow-Las Vegas one, given the undoubted business traffic that the latter attracts to its convention centre.
The leisure market from the UK to Hawai'i and other longhaul destinations, particularly the premium leisure market, is growing and would be augmented by connecting traffic from mainland Europe.
A route to Honolulu would be analagous with British Airways' Gatwick-Male service rather than their Heathrow-Las Vegas one, given the undoubted business traffic that the latter attracts to its convention centre.
Jul 18, 2010, 6:58 am
#28
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 277
Thank you everybody who has replied so far. I phrased my question blandly (but carefully, AGSF - see (1) below) to see what the board's reflexes are about BA.
I'm pleased to see some basic enthusiasm for a long thin route. There is surely enough demand from Europe in aggregate for a direct flight LHR-Hawaii.
It would be logical with such a route, however, to offer connections on a local fleet to other leisure destinations such as Tahiti and Fiji. The LHR-HNL aircraft itself could continue to Auckland (it would be pretty much the quickest route to New Zealand around) in the style of the LHR-SIN-SYD route(2). So HNL could open up attractive "North-South" routes.
My idea was a bit bigger, though: BA should use Honolulu as a second, Pacific hub, to connect East-West traffic too, from East Asia, South East Asia and Australasia to West Coast America. The connection through HNL would be significantly quicker than through London (HKG-SFO would be half the time). Pleasingly, this would be a return to BOAC form, from tony westsider's comment, and a lot more inspiring than a second hub at Madrid!
Other than Vancouver, flights to North America would be restricted to transfer passengers, but there is already a healthy market, albeit with rubbish products, from US carriers for domestic Hawaiian flights, so this may be no great loss. For transfer passengers, though, BA could have the most atractive Trans-pac offering within Oneworld, better than connecting through HKG or NRT for many cities in China and East Asia.
For example: Shanghai, Beijing, Taipei, Seoul (they had better get a London service going to Seoul as well!) to the first tier US destinations (SFO, LAX) but also second tier such as Seattle (if not captured via Vancouver), Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas. The Chinese are just starting to travel: Chinese gamblers may like a change from Macao, Chinese skiiers may like the Rockies and Chinese sunbathers may prefer Hawaii to Hainan. You could add destinations in Texas for Chinese oil men (or ex BP employees).
Continental Club is thinking along the right lines in my view, in terms of connecting Asian cities, but gets stuck on BA's current European short-haul connectivity rather than long-haul North American market.
An analogy would be Dubai or Abu Dhabi, which are islands in a sea of sand. They may have 2Bn people within a 5-6h flight time but 95% of those "customers" are dirt poor: Hawaii has a similar number of genuine potential customers with Western incomes within a similar flying time. Moreover, the growth in air travel is in Asia, not in the RTW and in long-haul, not short-haul (which is going to be outcompeted in both Europe and in Asia by high speed train services). Long-haul trans-pac traffic has the best fundamentals for growth in the next decades.
(1) I understand the cabotage restriction, AGSF. That's why I wrote "BA can now serve non-EU destinations from the US, provided it has the other relevant rights, and it can serve onward destinations of these flights in the US."
(2) I don't understand your comment, Flyingdentist, about Australia being "A popular route for holidays and redemptions but not a prime business route, so revenues are not as good as elsewhere." Just in Oneworld, Jal, BA, Cathay and Qantas all fly there with Business and in some cases First, and Singapore and Emirates etc. also serve Australia. Even if all the premium traffic is leisure, there is still premium traffic and revenue to be had.
(3) Swanhunter, I'm not quite sure what you driving at. BA gave up many South American routes as part of a deal with Iberia, did it not? And, if you are suggesting BA should serve more Asian cities, like Seoul and Taipei and the Chinese interior,e.g. Chongqing, I agree; I just think it should serve them from LHR and HNL!
I'm pleased to see some basic enthusiasm for a long thin route. There is surely enough demand from Europe in aggregate for a direct flight LHR-Hawaii.
It would be logical with such a route, however, to offer connections on a local fleet to other leisure destinations such as Tahiti and Fiji. The LHR-HNL aircraft itself could continue to Auckland (it would be pretty much the quickest route to New Zealand around) in the style of the LHR-SIN-SYD route(2). So HNL could open up attractive "North-South" routes.
My idea was a bit bigger, though: BA should use Honolulu as a second, Pacific hub, to connect East-West traffic too, from East Asia, South East Asia and Australasia to West Coast America. The connection through HNL would be significantly quicker than through London (HKG-SFO would be half the time). Pleasingly, this would be a return to BOAC form, from tony westsider's comment, and a lot more inspiring than a second hub at Madrid!
Other than Vancouver, flights to North America would be restricted to transfer passengers, but there is already a healthy market, albeit with rubbish products, from US carriers for domestic Hawaiian flights, so this may be no great loss. For transfer passengers, though, BA could have the most atractive Trans-pac offering within Oneworld, better than connecting through HKG or NRT for many cities in China and East Asia.
For example: Shanghai, Beijing, Taipei, Seoul (they had better get a London service going to Seoul as well!) to the first tier US destinations (SFO, LAX) but also second tier such as Seattle (if not captured via Vancouver), Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas. The Chinese are just starting to travel: Chinese gamblers may like a change from Macao, Chinese skiiers may like the Rockies and Chinese sunbathers may prefer Hawaii to Hainan. You could add destinations in Texas for Chinese oil men (or ex BP employees).
Continental Club is thinking along the right lines in my view, in terms of connecting Asian cities, but gets stuck on BA's current European short-haul connectivity rather than long-haul North American market.
An analogy would be Dubai or Abu Dhabi, which are islands in a sea of sand. They may have 2Bn people within a 5-6h flight time but 95% of those "customers" are dirt poor: Hawaii has a similar number of genuine potential customers with Western incomes within a similar flying time. Moreover, the growth in air travel is in Asia, not in the RTW and in long-haul, not short-haul (which is going to be outcompeted in both Europe and in Asia by high speed train services). Long-haul trans-pac traffic has the best fundamentals for growth in the next decades.
(1) I understand the cabotage restriction, AGSF. That's why I wrote "BA can now serve non-EU destinations from the US, provided it has the other relevant rights, and it can serve onward destinations of these flights in the US."
(2) I don't understand your comment, Flyingdentist, about Australia being "A popular route for holidays and redemptions but not a prime business route, so revenues are not as good as elsewhere." Just in Oneworld, Jal, BA, Cathay and Qantas all fly there with Business and in some cases First, and Singapore and Emirates etc. also serve Australia. Even if all the premium traffic is leisure, there is still premium traffic and revenue to be had.
(3) Swanhunter, I'm not quite sure what you driving at. BA gave up many South American routes as part of a deal with Iberia, did it not? And, if you are suggesting BA should serve more Asian cities, like Seoul and Taipei and the Chinese interior,e.g. Chongqing, I agree; I just think it should serve them from LHR and HNL!
Last edited by rtah100; Jul 18, 2010 at 6:59 am Reason: Forgot to thank you all for posting in response!
Jul 18, 2010, 7:11 am
#29
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: Mixed Fleet CSM
Posts: 153
The 787 is designed for exactly this type of mission (long and thin ooh er). It will open up certain new routes like the IAH-AKL just announced by CO.
I can see BA using it on LHR-HNL, and also to new (old) destinations such as Osaka, KL, Jakarta, Santiago, Seychelles etc.
Just my 2p.
I can see BA using it on LHR-HNL, and also to new (old) destinations such as Osaka, KL, Jakarta, Santiago, Seychelles etc.
Just my 2p.
Jul 18, 2010, 8:14 am
#30
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Isle of Skye, Scotland
Programs: BA gold
Posts: 3,902
I thought an Asian carrier (think it was Thai?) that tried to do long and thin routes and ordered a bunch of long range 777s a few years back and it wasn't terribly profitable... going from vague memory, I recall that so much fuel had to be carried, and thus needed fuel to carry the fuel; it became expensive? 