Jackstay

Braniff flew LAX-GUM non-stop with a 747SP back around 1980 as part of their LA-Hong Kong service. If it could be done 30 years ago, it still can be done.

sbm12

But apparently not profitably. @:-)

NickP 1K

Would be happier to see LAX-HNL-GUM *SAME PLANE* - I'm fine with a 1hr or so stop in HNL - just don't make me change planes.

I'm hoping the new UA exec team *KILLS* all the direct flights that don't have same gauge/aircraft - e.g. same plane [understand Intl - US - US requires a change of planes, but *STOP* doing this on US - US - Intl: If you can't right gauge the direct flight to do SAME PLANE one stop/direct then STOP selling it as that.)

777Brian

Don't count on that. UA already has a lot of "direct" flight numbers both for international flights as well as domestic ones. It’s a common trick used to improve the order in which flights are displayed in the GDS (Apollo, Sabre, etc). I find most of UAs flights use the same gauge but not necessarily the same aircraft on US direct flights. Not that I am a fan of government regulation but that probably the only way to get it solved as no one carrier will want to be at a disadvantage.

Back to the subject, I'm excitied about the new destinations GUM adds to the new UA network!

Jackstay

I was responding specifically to an earlier comment about the runway length at GUM being a factor in the feasibility of such a route. I'm pretty sure that the laws of physics have not changed and the performance of aircraft has improved, so if it could be done in 1980 it can be done now.

I doubt we have visibility into how profitable it was or wasn't since it ended abruptly with the sudden implosion of Braniff as a whole. There were visible rows between Braniff and the Government of Guam about Guam's liquid fuel tax and its impact on the economics of the flights.

Both airline economics and the availability of international route authorities has changed dramatically in the past 30 years. I suspect Braniff's main rationale was they could fly LAX-GUM on domestic authority (Guam is US territory) and GUM-HKG on a then-unused international route authority. They were latecomers to the Pacific and all too eager in starting new routes after deregulation. The physical routing doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise. LAX-GUM-HKG is 13 percent longer than LAX-NRT-HKG. Today's UA has no such problems.

The original question, though, still stands. Does it make sense to operate this route? There are many aspects of economics, utilization, and sale-ability that enter into the decision. A way to explore one such aspect -- and I suspect is the overriding concern -- is to play around at Great Circle Mapper with great circle routes between mainland cities, GUM, and potential onward connections. In general, GUM is not in a preferential position to be a hub to connect the US mainland to very many places that generate a lot of traffic. If it was it would already be popular for that purpose. NRT, being much further north, is better placed for great circle routes. This is all a matter of time and distance which translates to fuel and money. Given this lack of connection appeal, a GUM-mainland non-stop flight would have to appeal to enough O&D traffic that finds the HNL stop and the 4 percent longer route onerous versus a non-stop to make it worthwhile to fly an additional non-stop flight. I'm thinking this is a high bar to cross.

chasbondy

It's just a short stop in HNL to catch the flight to GUM, so I doubt you'd get a non-stop from LAX. and besides, the luxurious 737 from LAX finally roars by the PanAm Clipper about the time you see Maui off the port side windows

CALMSP

if CO is going to fly IAH-AKL, I'd say there is def a chance that we'll see a mainland GUM flight. There is more of a market for the GUM and beyond than there is for an AKL flight. Not sure if UA codeshares with NZ, but if they dont, will the new UA merge the relationship that CO has with NZ?

EWR764

I was surprised nobody had brought this up yet. IMO, this is the main reason why we haven't seen a mainland nonstop yet. CO1/2 HNL-GUM-HNL is extremely profitable, probably one of the highest-grossing, highest-margin flights in the US airline industry. Until CO is confident that a great deal of new demand and growth will be generated as a result of the military buildup on Guam, I doubt we'll see a nonstop flight LAX-GUM. Anything less would result in the existing traffic being diluted with a large capacity increase.

I doubt your beloved 737s will be long for LAX-HNL once the merger-related 'synergies' go into effect.

SNA will be a different story... it's either 737s or the 405.