pinniped

No one knows for certain, but I can't imagine a Hawaii flight going out with 50% award users.

It seems like the usual laws of supply and demand as they pertain to the airlines' willingness to load award inventory would apply to Hawaii just like anywhere else.

I don't think Hawaii has a truly off-peak season (clearly the cold weather months in the U.S. contain some of the max-peak weeks to warm destinations), but we've only had success using our miles to Hawaii in the (U.S.) summer when presumably fewer people are seeking a tropical island.

Maybe *our* flights (by virtue of the timing) had a higher-than-average percentage of award users, but I'd guess it was closer to 10-20% than 50% Again, anecdotal observations based on how freakin' hard it is to find award seats to Hawaii without a huge amount of advance planning.

Summer is also a nice time to go for hotel awards - we've always received nice upgrades and enjoyed less-than-full hotels, reasonably easy-to-book activities, access to restaurants, etc. (OK, that's OT...)

GYEWorldTraveler

I didn't know Colorado Springs (COS) would require an ETOPS aircraft or flew over water......lol

I think you meant Cozumel (CZM)

ByrdluvsAWACO

Anyone familiar with the two words "Yield management" knows that no plane goes out half filled with award redemptions.



Unbelievable!! I know you guys are WN fans, but .... REALLY? Have you ever flown on a 767 or A330? A 737 with Sky Interior will not feel like a 767 or A330.

With the exception of the mood lighting, the Sky interior is mostly the implementation of the 777 interior for narrow body aircraft. HA's 767's already have the new generation bin storage.

Hawaiian Airlines 767

num1bearsfan

Is it not a reasonable statement to say that a 738 with sky interior will make for an improved atmosphere? At least as compared to 738's who made the trip across the pond to Hawaii historically with the older style interiors? The 767 is obviously the more spacious of the 2, but with the sky interior the gap is narrowed by just that much.

When you say things like "you WN fans", it makes me think that perhaps you have no interest in actual Southwest related topics so you're whole point of being in this forum right now is to make derogatory remarks and stir the pot. If it's all the same to you,.. Don't worry about it.. Enjoy your experiences on what ever airline you prefer and let us "WN fans" be. We're just in here having positive discussions about perspective positive changes to our airline. Why does that bother you?

ByrdluvsAWACO

Yes, it's reasonable when you are comparing apples to apples. Its when you went way out in left field by comparing a 738 with mood lighting to a widebody with essentially the same interior, that I had to take issue.

If you had made the comparison between WN and AS' new flights, I wouldn't have made the comment.

Thats more wishful thinking on your part. The new interior isn't going to magically make the 737 any wider. The 737 hull will remain the same size and the seats will remain at 17" versus 18" on HA's 767/A330 metal.

Although not always for the same reason as many here, I do have an interest in WN topics. I've been "stirring the pot" here since 2003(ask nsx), and when I use the phrase "you WN fans" its usually in response to non-factual or absurd statements based soley on the fever many have here.

We're just in here having positive discussions about perspective positive changes to our airline. Why does that bother you?[/QUOTE]

It doesn't bother me, but if you're going to make absurd statements then expect them to be challenged.

num1bearsfan

I know this game,.. You quote what I said, but you reply as if I said something else..

Essentially all I'm saying is that a 738 with sky interior brings it just that much closer to the 767 experience than a 738 without sky interior.. There is absolutely nothing "absurd" about that statement. It's not "wishful thinking" it's simply a true statement.. If you can make a valid point as to how a 738 with an upgraded more open feel interior is NOT closer to to the experience on a widebody flight you might be on to something.

Allow me to dissect your flawed logic in this argument. You've underlined a handful of the things that still make the narrow body experience inferior to the widebody experience, but you're acting as if by saying those things that it makes my statements untrue.. Yes the seats are still 17 inches, and the plane is indeed smaller (did you honestly think I was insinuating otherwise? ). But the fact that the Sky interior makes the whole cabin seem larger and more open does make it SOME degree closer to a flight on a widebody jet.. There's nothing to disagree about.. It's not even really a matter of opinion,.. This is essentially a fact. People's ideas as to how much of an improvement it makes might vary some degree, but unless you're ready to make the case that the Sky interior actually makes for a worse experience, you haven't got a converse point to make with anything I've said here.. All you can do (and so far HAVE done) is take what I'm saying out of context so that you can argue about it.. I'm not debating the pros and cons of a 737 vs a 767,.. You're the only one doing that..

mile ho

Let's also not forget that award flights are not non-revenue. Each and every award ticket was paid for, just in a different way.

I think when we are discussing how many award seats are on each flight many make the wrong assumption that the airline is giving away that seat. While one can say it's a seat that could have been sold for cash, if a pax using an award is in that seat it has already been paid for. And for an ff program to work the airline must reasonably allow those redemptions... which the airline has received the revenue for already.

So even if a flight went out full of award pax it would still probably be, in toto, a money maker.

pinniped

Well, I don't think an airline could operate a flight full of award travelers profitably - but I since Hawaii is hardly an underserved market, covered by many of the largest airlines in the world, that tells me the see it as a profitable place to operate. And I agree with the points above: yield management concepts still apply to Hawaii and every airline needs to balance carefully how much inventory to allot to a highly-popular leisure route, keeping in mind that the passengers who hold miles perceive them to have value based largely on their utility.

Sidebar: I recall lengthy discussions a few years back about how AA was known for loose availability to Hawaii and UA was known as tight. I found that experience to be true...and then 180-degrees flip-flopped for Europe in the same time period. I was happy I held both miles.

As for the discussion about aircraft type, I'm happy to see WN adding a roomier (or roomier-feeling) 737. Aircraft type is rarely a factor in my decision to buy a ticket: the exception might be a carrier midway through a cabin renovation (e.g., UA 767's vs 777's in F/C). But still, I'll never complain about new planes and improvements to a cabin interior. Not sure why this is a controversial or caustic topic.

The 767 vs. 737 discussion is moot as none of us realistically expect WN to fly widebodies. If we're considering a WN ticket at all, our expectations are the 73x platform, so seeing them adding a new version is a positive.

jrpaguia

I concur. I wouldn't start to worry until we see discussions on the WN board like this:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/catha...nt-caviar.html

Bishope2

Let's assume that SWA jumps into the Hawaiian market. As everyone has pointed out, Hawaii is not underserved. That said, would this force the hands of some of the legacy carriers to scale back or drop out of the Hawaiian market?

KeaauFlyer

A few legacy carriers might drop a few west coast flights, but IMHO HA needs to be looking over its shoulder more than the big guys. The legacy carriers all have well-developed mainland networks feeding their Hawaii flights, and so will WN. HA, on the other hand, gets by on its loyalty factor with Hawaii residents and its interisland feed. A look at the Hawaii-Based forum on FT will show you some cracks in the loyalty factor due to outsourcing Hawaii jobs and devaluations of their FF program. They may be small cracks for now, but here in the islands there is grumbling about that and interisland price escalation.

In an interesting side note, CO has announced LAX-ITO service, which will hurt HA at least a little. Any speculation as to whether WN may fly anywhere in Hawaii other than HNL? Here in the Neighbor Islands, we are drooling over the prospect of WN service, either interisland or to the mainland.

ByrdluvsAWACO

Deleted

InkUnderNails

I know nothing about the Hawaiian inter-island system, but I would love to go sometime. Since most of my flying is on WN, I would like to be able to go free, or nearly so.

In the past, WN has in part made their presence by utilizing under served airports to provide new competition, i.e. LUV, MDW, PVD and MHT for BOS, and three airports for southern CAL instead of LAX. Is there an airport in HI that is good sized that would handle all of the mainland to HI flights and serve as a feeder site to the rest of the island?

If WN were to fly out of ONT and OAK for example as feeders to this HI destination, and feed HI like they do Texas with directs and connections, would that work?

There may be difficulties with HI that I do not see, but that would seem to be a plan to look at. It also seems that it would hit Hawaiian Air the hardest.

KeaauFlyer

num1bearsfan

Gary Kelly confirmed at a company event in Dallas last night that Southwest will initiate service to both Alaska and Hawaii. No dates at this time.