LXFlyer

I mean, they definitely have enough fuel for takeoff. Worst case you'll have a fuel stop somewhere over the mainland

EWR764

The issue is never whether the airplane is actually going to get off the ground at OGG... performance data taking into account winds, ambient temperature, pressure, etc. dictate a maximum weight at which the airplane can be dispatched at OGG, and its 6995ft runway, to take off within accepted safety margins. This is regardless of destination. The optimal mix of pax, bags and fuel for the flight is determined by the crew and dispatcher, and the flight will go.

The question is whether the amount of fuel on board (when the airplane leaves OGG) is going to be enough to get all the way to ORD with required reserves. In marginal cases, a flight plan will be filed first to a mainland airport, say SFO, and after a few hours of flight, the crew and dispatcher will look at all the factors to decide whether they can continue safely to ORD. If actual fuel burn, winds or enroute weather turn out better than forecast, the flight plan will be refiled direct to ORD. If not, then it's a gas-and-go at SFO.

Several years ago, UA flew ORD-OGG-KOA-ORD as a circle trip partially because of performance limitations on the OGG-ORD leg. UA uses some very sophisticated flight planning software which has made a big difference in the schedule reliability of many routes at the very high end of a given type's range.

drewguy

I hadn't realized just how close SFO is on the GC route from OGG to ORD (which I realize is not the actual flight path given winds, etc.)

2 segment path
OGG
SFO 053°(NE) 043°(NE) 2,339 mi
SFO
ORD 070°(E) 056°(NE) 1,847 mi
4,185 mi
OGG
ORD 053°(NE) 043°(NE) 4,185 mi

ironmanjt

Back in 1998 a United DC-10 flight 100 from ORD-BWI was diverted to IAD because of weather, then IAD also had issues and they had to divert to DCA....and its 6,800 foot runway.

I remember reading something that it was too heavy to takeoff safely and all the seats and some other stuff was removed before they tried (successfully) to get it out the next morning.

CALMSP

CO operated OGG-IAH on the 764 for a few years. Would be interesting to see the comparisons in performance of the a/c on the 772 PW vs. the 764.

764toHI

Hopefully someone will have the actual numbers, but my understanding is the 764 is a more capable aircraft, hence one of the reasons why the 772A has never operated EWR/IAD-HNL.

EmailKid

AC just took delivery of 737-8 MAX, but most of the narrowbody fleet is Airbus A320 family.

737 NG is third generation of this plane (MAX is fourth), so you are probably technically right, but we should be looking at the design of the NG model.

I could be wrong, but I though CO flew 762s to the islands. My IAH-HNL was on a 762, so kind of doubt they would have put 764 on OGG route.

guv1976

And a few years ago, a BA 777 had a close call at SKB by mistakenly performing an intersection take-off. Fortunately, it was only doing a short, intra-Caribbean flight, so it was light.

British Airways jet in narrow escape after taking off from 'too short' runway | Daily Mail Online

threeoh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...=.703c39ab9f3e

"the three-engine plane, carrying a relatively light fuel load, made it easily into the air around 9:45 p.m., and reached BWI shortly afterward, according to an operations officer at National. Carrying no passengers, but with cargo and baggage still on board, it lifted off about half way down the runway, he said.
...
By 7 p.m. the passengers from United Flight 100 were on buses chartered by the airline and bound for BWI."

So, only a few feet shorter than the runways at their main hub, MDW :-p

EWR764

A DC-10(-10) would have no trouble at all getting out of DCA for a ferry (no pax/bags) to IAD, and indeed it did not. LGA has only slightly longer runways at 7000', with similarly unforgiving conditions at either end, and long hosted revenue DC-10/L1011 service to ORD, ATL, MIA and elsewhere within the perimeter.

CO flew 764s to the Islands; any 762 service would have been an equipment sub. A point of confusion was when CO introduced a high-density configuration with the 764 (20J instead of 35J) and coded it '767' in the various timetables. IAH-OGG was scheduled as a 764 while it lasted. EWR/IAH-HNL were 764s from the retirement of the DC-10s through the merger.

3Cforme

Not a 777, but some (10-15?) years ago a business jet landed on the wrong (short!) Colorado mountain airport and had to be disassembled to depart via truck.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

CO used a 764 IAH-OGG. Had the pleasure of riding it many times. Plane was used to open IAH-EZE after deep sixing the Maui route.

cv11nyc

threeoh

My favorite is TACA 110 which lost all power and landed on a levee near MSY in 1988. Originally they were going to remove it by barge but ended up swapping the engines out on-site and the plane took off from a nearby roadway.

That 737 was still in service with WN until last year. Always hoped I'd get a chance to fly on it, but never did.

drewguy

HNL doesn't have runway issues like OGG, so presumably it has more to do with optimal deployment and the number of seats UA can sell on that route, with the 777 being better used on other denser routes.