claaaaaydavis

The UA fares to the islands are often $100-200 more than Delta, Hawaiian, etc. Makes no sense.

HNLbasedFlyer

And, just as often they are not.....

My first search on Orbitz, 9/18 to 9/25 HNL-SFO, shows UA at $396, Delta $399, and Hawaiian $477

Or, same dates, HNL-LAX, UA $303, Delta $377, Hawaiian $424

In my experience, flying near weekly to the mainland - practically every flight is at 100% capacity, I see that more as a reflection or pricing for all the airlines.

Wx4caster

Good points - perhaps there is confusion in the choice of wording used, between "New" Diamond Head terminal, and "Extended" terminal. I absolutely dread departures from gate 6! No gate that I know of at IAD comes close to matching this debacle of design. And I had completely forgotten about the sterile issue. "Isn't really" is putting it mildly - It is stunning that HNL was able to get away with their process for as long as they did - with 4 or 5 sheep herders responsible for monitoring hundreds of passengers to make sure nobody ducks under the seatbelt strap lane guides and out the door.

COSPILOT

Hawaii is the poster child for how to do things wrong, and always has been. They want the tourist dollars, but complain about new hotels. Companies leave, as wages are too high to justify the expense.

Don't' get me wrong, I love Hawaii, and I'm glad to see improved options, but HNL being 30 years behind in improving things is IMO typical for the islands. I visit, despite the feeling that Hawaii loves the money, but hates me at the same time.

HNLbasedFlyer

Given we are on what 8 or 9 years straight of record tourism, I'd have to disagree - Hawaii is doing this wrong. You may want a bunch of more hotels, but at the end of the day Oahu is 40x16 mile island, it only has so much room. Just a drive from SF to San Jose is longer than the length of the island of Oahu. As a resident, I would argue the inn is full, there just isn't more room for more hotels regardless of how many more people want to come visit.

What companies are leaving besides agriculture? Regardless, wages aren't very high when compared to SF or LA or Seattle and are across the board lower - nobody moves to Hawaii for higher wages - they move away because of low wages and high cost of living. Costs are high - especially electricity (we have import oil for that) - real estate is expensive (again, tiny island) - I suppose if we throw agriculture into the mix, sure wages are high compared to lets say the Philippines - where most pineapples and sugar cane now come from - but who in the US competes with South Asia wages?

COSPILOT

HNLbasedFlyer

I personally don't have much of a desire to experience Oahu in the 80's - I can watch Magnum PI for that. Growth isn't stopping. I suspect Hawaii will set more records next year and the year after. My point was, there does come a point you run out of room to add hotel buildings - If an area is zoned for a hotel, by all means, build it. On the same token, I don't think we need a bunch of high rise hotels on the North Shore or Kailua (where I live) - The flood gates aren't being shut, hence the expansion of Southwest soon and a massive expansion by UA. Sure, come - but I don't think there is anything wrong with it being expensive due to limited capacity.

DA201

I would think the DEN scheduling changes would be having the planes spend less time on the ground in Hawaii. Currently, the DEN flights arrive in Hawaii between 2-4 pm and don't depart until around 8. They don't need to spend that much time on the ground and could be better utilized. A 757 can easily be turned in an hour and a 772 doesn't need more than 1.5-2 hours for a flight of that length.

They only overnight flights from the mainland would probably come from the east coast (EWR and IAD) with a midnight departure and 5 am arrival. Maybe fly the planes in a EWR/IAD-HNL-SFO/LAX/DEN-HNL-EWR/IAD rotation instead of just back and forth from the east coast.

dkc715

IAH-OIL-TRASH

New G7-G10 numbering is still one gate (old 6), but it allows the airport to add new gates to east (eventually) with logical numbering.

greg99

It's the same thing even if you arrive at 1pm. As you say, unless you're lucky, you're not going to get your room for at least a couple of hours, so you check your bags with the bell desk and take advantage of the pool, the bar and the beach. I assume that if you were to arrive early AM you just get breakfast before going to the pool.

usbusinesstraveller

HNLbasedFlyer

That's not really the same thing at all. If I arrive at 1pm, by the time I get my bags and uber/taxi/rental car to the hotel, it is definitely check in time. And a daytime flight, in my experience - is a heck of a lot different than a red-eye for most people especially in economy.

If I arrive at 5am (like the Vegas flight) - I'm groggy (it is not a fun flight - I've done it a few times) - you'd get to Waikiki by 6:30am, you have no shower - you are tired - after you change in a public bathroom and have breakfast (a lot of people don't have breakfast) it's still 8am - so I groggy it out until 10am for the pool - get sunburned off the charts - finally get drinks at 11am when the bar opens - and eventually get into my at 3pm checkin. Then, I'm so exhausted, I can't even rally for evening number 1.

I just don't see a market for that for tourists. Sure, some will do it - once. Fewer, twice or more.

I just don't see a bunch of people leaving at 3am (LAX/SFO) or 1am (EWR) to land at 5am. I don't see the mass market appeal at all. I think Oscar was either mis-quoted or meant something else.

uastarflyer

riphamilton