IAH-OIL-TRASH

I'm actually familiar with UA's OGG cargo operation. They've NEVER handled "lots" of cargo. It's a relatively small operation here. Can't speak of HNL.

kettle1

Stats, source to back this up?

spin88

I seriously hope you are not relying on that argument. Every single, and I mean every single, UA 737 is ETOPS rated. And 13 of 97 A320s are ETOPS rated. Check out the fleet site.

It is not so expensive that United did not make the entire Boeing fleet ETOPS, and former sUA airbus planes were/are not ETOPS only because none of those planes served Hawaii (as PMUA used 757/767/777s exclusively, and the early gen A320s can't reach Hawaii w/o a weight penalty).

I doubt that SWA is going to have any issues, nor will ETOPS be a major expense. They start getting 738MAX aircraft this fall (launch customer) and (1) they are using these for Hawaii as the extra efficiency will shine on this flight, and (2) they will take the entire fleet as ETOPS.

BTB, HNL, KON, and LIH from California are the first markets:

"Andrew Watterson, executive vice president and chief revenue officer, said the airline expects it could take the FAA one to two years to approve the carrier’s application for long-term service to Hawaii. Once approved, he said, Southwest will fly most of its routes from California to Kauai, Honolulu and the island of Hawaii."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...1011-story.htm also this:

"The airline has yet to announce any exact pricing or routes, but did say that the first flights will leave from the West Coast, specifically California. The company is also considering the possibility of inter-island flights."

http://fortune.com/2017/10/12/southw...rlines-hawaii/


I have my fingers crossed for OAK-LIH, basically any LIH service is a big plus given UA's sucky pricing/service to LIH.

DELee

BTB?

Also, I assume you mean KOA.

David

spin88

"By the bye", yes, I assume KOA, although the article just says the big island.

What I care about is OAK-LIH.

fly18725

It is a fallacy that belly cargo on passenger jets is more profitable than passengers.

While cargo is generally profitable, the amount of revenue it generates pales in comparison to passengers.

I think there's some confusion between ETOPS and OWS, but that's not the point.

ETOPS adds costs and operational requirements. There's nothing that prohibits Southwest from an ETOPS subfleet or making its entire fleet ETOPS. However, this is a major departure from Southwest's historic operating strategy of simple operations to enable quick turns. Southwest does not have a huge cost advantage over Alaska or Hawaiian and we should not expect that it materially changes the competitive dynamic in LAX or SFO, the core markets for AA, DL, and UA.

ucdtim17

I assume you know this, but AS and HA both fly this route(3x weekly AS, seasonal HA). HA is going daily year round starting in April on the A321neo.

LAXOGG

I too am familiar with the OGG Cargo Operation. Negligible would be a better description.

DA201

If you are flying 737s around the system and some routes require them to have ETOPS, at a certain point it makes more sense to make all the planes ETOPS so they can easily be subbed out during IRROPS.

As for potential WN routes, I think the initial routes will be some combination of OAK/LAX/SAN/SJC/SMF-HNL/OGG. In a few years, I could see them expanding to give DEN/PHX/LAS Hawaii service. Also, WN mentioned they might be interested in inter-Hawaii routes. That would make sense for LIH/KOA service.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

So United has trouble with IRROPS because a large percentage of their 737s are not ETOPS?

Rumors of WNs entry into inter-island business is just hot wind for the variety of reasons already pointed out. The only possibility I see is something like (for example) LAX-HNL-OGG-LAX. WN doesn't have the optimal planes for high cycle inter-island flights and the lack of interline agreements would shut out a not-insignificant segment of inter-island travelers. WN's model would have to see significant change to compete in the interisland market here.

And what plane type is WN going to use out of DEN and PHX? Please don't say a 737 with a fuel tank in the passenger cabin.

jasondc

As somebody who has worked very closely with the planning departments of several carriers and is intimately familiar with the P/Ls associated with Hawaii flying, I can assure you that that is not the case, particularly on narrow bodies, which carry little if any cargo. Passenger revenue is what is most important. Cargo can be scant icing on the cake, if needed.

EmailKid

No idea how much extra it costs, but flying non ETOPS can be costly, as AA 321 that was not certified flew back from Hawaii empty (of pax of course - yes, we have drones, but not for scheduled commercial aviation).

Apparently self reported to FAA and immediate software upgrade was done to make sure it does not happen again.

Well, they flew, and still fly, a LOT of connecting flights. Maybe you won't have to pay the UA hub penalty by connecting on WN.

jasondc

I went to the DOT air traffic consumer reports page and started looking through some of them. I was specifically interested in OT, which you say as "Bad" below. https://www.transportation.gov/sites...oberatcr_0.pdf

I looked through several of these. While United may not be the best, they seem to have solidly higher OT than WN in most months.
Also I fly all the airlines a lot. anecdotally, UA has been no better or worse in service than other airlines I regularly fly, and their Irrops recovery has rebounded MARKEDLY since their nadir in 2012/2013.
So while you may have had a legitimate issue with united 5 years ago, in my experience, and based on solid statistical data from the DOT, I'd say your criticism is a little dated.
And, with regards to this particular question, United will continue to be competitive and a choice for Hawaii simply because of the range of gateways in the U.S. mainland, the connectivity and cities it flies to vs Southwest, and the high capacity it will continue to offer. Southwest will certainly have a compelling value proposition, but so will UA. and for many, UA will continue to be strong.

rob_flies_ua

Weren't the vast majority of PMUA's 757-200s non-ETOPS certified until they retired/sold practically all of them (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18031892-post178.html) They certified the remaining ones that underwent the p.s. reconfig and the half of the PMCO 757-300 fleet that wasn't ETOPS rated, but it's not like PMUA had "its entire Boeing fleet ETOPS."

bocastephen

This was not the case with the widebody flights - perhaps downgrading to narrowbody aircraft has since limited the cargo options, but the widebody flights certainly carried a great deal of cargo, which is of itself, a very important component of island/mainland business.