tusphotog

Genuine question for the folks who are saying WN needs to interline and this situation would have been solved by interlining: what happens if all the flights are full, or the other viable options have departed before the cancellation?

dmbolp

Then you're out of luck in that case?

garykung

Let me just say this - Interlining is never the solution. Beside, WN will not interline.

The problem, as always, is the scheduling. Practically, all airlines have red-eye flying back to the mainland. Also - all airlines have multiple flights ex-HNL per day, allowing equipment change when needed. These are absent from WN.

If WN worked the problem, even with IRROPS, WN could cut down delays and expenses. With its current ops at HNL, when a flight is delayed for 2-3 hours, it basically means next day.

If WN wants success in this market, the rule book has to be changed.

worldwidedreamer

[QUOTE=garykung;30984114If WN wants success in this market, the rule book has to be changed.[/QUOTE]

Southwest did not launch Hawaii flights with the intention of 28 flights per week. In the near future I'd be surprised if they did not have two, or more, flights per day from most of its west coast destinations. I also suspect that having additional overwater capacity will increase irrops options and make things easier. After all if a flight HNL-OAK has problems, passengers could be routed to SJC or SMF or via a SoCal connection. Let's do some math:

A Southwest 737-800 or 737-Max has 175 seats.

Inter-island passengers from HNL (000)
OGG 983
LIH 648
KOA 625
ITO 506

ETOPS from HNL
LAX 1150
SFO 587
SEA 360
LAS 234
PHX 196

OGG
in-state
HNL 985
KOA 135
LIH 134

LAX 540
SFO 375
SEA 252
PDX 150
SJC 117
OAK 110

Current HNL-OGG schedule
4 flights per day each way...ergo
4*175*2=1400 daily seats
365 days/year=511,000 annual seats.

Current market is 984k seats each way, so about 2m annual so a 25% share.

Four flights HNL-KOA, too...but in an 625k enplanement that's about a 40% share.

If WN thinks they will have a big ETOPS share, they will have enough planes on the ground to have a big intra-island share, even with longer than normal times between flights.

Here's another one: the Bay Area->OGG market was about 600k passengers each way. If WN gets a 25% share that would be just one plane per day from each of the three airports. Let's assume that WN never flies SFO to Hawaii...still flights from eight already announced destinations are operated twice per day. That's 8 cities *2 flights *175passengers * 365 days=1m seats to HNL. That would make WN larger than AS at the airport by a big margin.

LAX
PHX
LAS
DEN
SAN
SMF
OAK
SJC

lougord99

Because you and many people like you feel that anyone who disagrees with themselves are confused ( OK, I won't use the word stupid, but that is what you are saying). In this case case they are confused about the prices of Southwest, as far as you are concerned. Because you hate Southwest, you feel that anyone who likes Southwest is 'confused'. "They couldn't possibly have a reason to take a flight that costs more than another flight if they really knew" ( assuming that their Southwest flight really did cost more than the other airline). I'm done with this thread, but your attitude just sets me off.

lougord99

Yes, I disagree. I do not believe that a significant portion of the population thinks Southwest is the low cost carrier in situations where they are not. I think that attitude about other people ( of course that attitude doesn't apply to ourselves ) is wrong and destructive.

LegalTender

'Low cost' and 'low price' aren't reciprocal. A significant portion of the population likely thinks otherwise, a state of play that is far from destructive for the airline.

lougord99

Excuse me. I obviously meant low price.