Airlines Adding Hawaii Seats
Sep 25, 2000 | 5:33 am
#1
Original Poster
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 46,817
Airlines Adding Hawaii Seats
Nearly 500,000 airline seats are being added this year to the nearly 5.2 million seats flown to the islands last year, the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau said. The increase more than doubles the 163,000 new seats added to Hawaii routes in 1999, the first year of increases after four years of declines. A record number of people,- more than 7 million, are expected to visit Hawaii this year.
http://biz.yahoo.com/apf/000924/hawaii_air.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/apf/000924/hawaii_air.html
Sep 25, 2000 | 4:23 pm
#2
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Greenville, SC USA
Posts: 868
This is very good news. I was told a few years ago that the reason the flights to Hawaii were so tight is that due to the large number of FF awards used for this route they were not profitable routes for the airlines.
I always thought it was wrong to penalise Hawaii and these routes because they were popular with FFs-also it would nice to have the occasional open seat on a Hawaiian flight.
I always thought it was wrong to penalise Hawaii and these routes because they were popular with FFs-also it would nice to have the occasional open seat on a Hawaiian flight.
Sep 25, 2000 | 4:40 pm
#3
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 42,599
This "not profitable for the airlines" talk never really seemed believeable to me. (1) Even if lots of FF miles are being used, there is a mileage surcharge to use them to Hawaii ... and less miles in accounts HELPS the liabilities of an airline, (2) The cargo hold of each flight more than makes up for any theoretical "loss" on the routes. If the routes were truly unprofitable, no one would fly there without a subsidy.
HOWEVER, with all these 2 engine/narrowbody planes now rated to fly over there, it makes for a much more economical passenger service.
HOWEVER, with all these 2 engine/narrowbody planes now rated to fly over there, it makes for a much more economical passenger service.
Sep 26, 2000 | 9:21 pm
#5
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Greenville, SC USA
Posts: 868
Eastbay1K- I agree with you and I never bought the "Logic" of the airlines or felt these routes were actually unprofitable. At the time I was working with convention travel to the islands and often needed hundreds and even thousands more seats per day then they were able to supply-when questioned why there wasn't enough lift both United and American always came back with the "Unprofitable" line.
My feeling is that FFs accrue the mileage flying RT flights to ORD or wherever and it is those cities that should subsidise the flights to places where FFs redeem their mileage.
My feeling is that FFs accrue the mileage flying RT flights to ORD or wherever and it is those cities that should subsidise the flights to places where FFs redeem their mileage.
Sep 26, 2000 | 9:54 pm
#6
Join Date: Jul 1999
Programs: AA 1MM/Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,293
I would imagine that the upturn of the Asian economy has something to do w/ the Hawaiian economy picking up. The economic boom here in the US also means that Hawaii is within the budget for a lot more people, and the luxury resorts seem to be doing quite well too.
It seems like a lot of the seats are going towards OGG these days. New flights from a number of airlines, including AA out of SJC and DFW, TW out of STL and UA going to 777s out of SFO.
It seems like a lot of the seats are going towards OGG these days. New flights from a number of airlines, including AA out of SJC and DFW, TW out of STL and UA going to 777s out of SFO.
Sep 27, 2000 | 5:10 pm
#7
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: ORD
Posts: 642
I'm curious as to why people think airlines would pass up "profitable" opportunities to fly to Hawaii. B/c airlines don't like to make money?
The fact that there are some flights doesn't mean additional flights would be profitable. That logic would imply that airlines should add additional flights forever. Saying that Hawaii flights should be subsidized (i.e., should be a perk of an ff plan) is different from saying that those flights are profitable for airlines but they choose not to fly them.
The fact that there are some flights doesn't mean additional flights would be profitable. That logic would imply that airlines should add additional flights forever. Saying that Hawaii flights should be subsidized (i.e., should be a perk of an ff plan) is different from saying that those flights are profitable for airlines but they choose not to fly them.
Sep 30, 2000 | 11:57 pm
#8
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Greenville, SC USA
Posts: 868
The airlines look at total revenue per flight to a certain destination(HNL)to determine if it is a "profitable" run for them.
It is well known that Hawaii is the #1 destination for redemtion of FF awards. Thus, FF award travel cuts into total revenue for Hawaiian Flights.
I guess with the word "subsidise" I was a bit unclear, I feel the airlines should set up an internal accounting procedure so that award travel is treated as "revenue" in determining the "profitability" of a particular route.
I fly between the mainland and Hawaii 10-12 times a year and very seldom see an open seat in coach or up front(even off season). Please believe me when I say there is room for more lift and/or larger aircraft.
It is well known that Hawaii is the #1 destination for redemtion of FF awards. Thus, FF award travel cuts into total revenue for Hawaiian Flights.
I guess with the word "subsidise" I was a bit unclear, I feel the airlines should set up an internal accounting procedure so that award travel is treated as "revenue" in determining the "profitability" of a particular route.
I fly between the mainland and Hawaii 10-12 times a year and very seldom see an open seat in coach or up front(even off season). Please believe me when I say there is room for more lift and/or larger aircraft.