HNLbasedFlyer

Saw this on the local news this morning - and sure enough it is happening

https://thepointsguy.com/news/united...s-summer-2021/

On Friday, the Chicago-based carrier announced its newest Hawaii route between Orange County, California, and Honolulu, which is set to take off on May 6.

The Orange County flight will fly once daily in each direction on a 126-seat Boeing 737-700, taking off at 8:30 a.m. local time and arriving in Honolulu (HNL) at 11:30 a.m. The return flight is slated to depart at 12:50 p.m. and arrive in California at 9:10 p.m.

Flights will be available for purchase starting on Saturday, Feb. 13, at United.com or through the carrier’s mobile app.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

737-700? 738SFP can't do it? What's the SNA runway length?

I don't even recall being on a 737-700 in southwestern U.S. on UA for years now.

EWR764

Interesting... and a restart of one of the early crossover CO/UA routes that didn't last very long into the merger era.

SNA presents a curious case as there's clearly a local market for Hawaii service, but facility constraints (short runway) make an ETOPS-rated 737-700 about the only suitable airplane for the mission. Aloha flew to SNA prior to its demise, and UA briefly, but besides that, nobody else has flown it. Southwest and Alaska might be candidates, but their respective ETOPS fleets are 737-800/900s, not -700s. HA A321s wouldn't be able to take off from SNA with a reasonable load, and Delta never tried with their tiny 73G fleet (now moot).

The issue with the 737-700 has been its small capacity, so the flights need to drive a premium over LAX-Hawaii fares in order to generate enough revenue to cover operating cost. In the COVID-19 era, there might be a cohort of passengers willing to pay a premium to fly from SNA and avoid LAX, not to mention a dramatically changed opportunity cost calculus given the current business travel environment, as well as the specter of a potential CARES III.

Kacee

When I saw the thread title, I thought this would be the 753. Or maybe a 752 with lie-flats. UA previously flew 752s from SNA.
5700 feet. No expert, but pretty sure the 738SFP could do it.

HNLbasedFlyer

They noted on the news that with noise restrictions it necessitates a smaller aircraft - they also seemed puzzled by the route announcement.

Also, hardly anyone is coming to Hawaii with hotels under 20% occupancy - so they clearly think things will change.

EWR764

I understand forward bookings for Hawaii have been outperforming the rest of the system. Latin beach markets are down, and while Florida continues to be strong overall, there is an aversion to it among certain segments of travelers. West Coast-Hawaii, in particular, is gaining steam.

The problem is ETOPS reserves on the SNA-HNL leg. The -800SFP has better performance than the standard -800, but still not quite the -700, especially with required climb performance out of SNA for noise abatement. Operating under ETOPS rules, the amount of fuel required for SNA-HNL westbound is substantially more than, for example, eastbound SNA-EWR. Even the 757, with its excellent overall performance, would have considerable restrictions on SNA-HNL.

AA, UA and DL have flown 757s for years out of Southern California to Hawaii, and never tried SNA-HNL, for a reason.

Kacee

Appreciate the informed comments, definitely beyond my knowledge base. I would just note that I don't think any of them ever tried a 737-700 SNA-HNL, either.

LarryJ

Any of the airplane can takeoff on SNA's short runway. The question is how much fuel, passengers, and baggage can they take when they do it.

All of the NGs (737-600 through 737-900) have the same sized fuel tanks so range differences become a function of fuel burn. The lighter the airplane, the lower the fuel burn. That gives the 737-700 the longest range.

Short runways, like SNA, limit the amount of weight (fuel) at takeoff which further reduces range from that runway. Same thing for high-altitude airports. That's why you only see the 737-700 on BOG-EWR or SNA-EWR.

The 737-700 is also noticeably overpowered as compared to the 737-800/900. This makes a very big difference on takeoff performance. You'll notice this on 737-700 flights when climb power is set shortly after takeoff. On most airplanes the power is reduced. On the 737-700, it is usually a power INCREASE after takeoff.

The MAX has a significantly lower fuel burn than the NG. When I flew our 737-9 MAX the fuel burn was comparable to the much smaller 737-700. That makes we wonder if the 737-8 MAX will be able to do the SNA-HNL leg down the road when we have them. I don't know what its takeoff performance will be, though.

luke5111

I'm really happy about the flight times, about the best they could possibly be in both directions. Arrive at a time when I can check into my hotel and return just after I get kicked out of my hotel.

EWR764

AA never flew the -700, Delta only had 10 (now withdrawn from service), mostly based out of ATL for performance-intensive Latin markets and EYW, but UA did SNA-HNL (albeit briefly) with CO 73Gs just after the merger. AS and WN 73Gs are not ETOPS-rated, AFAIK.

I think the combo of a 757 on the SNA-HNL sector, with trip fuel (a lot, considering how much the 757 burns per hour), plus ETOPS reserves and a financially-viable payload, might negate the 5700' runway at SNA. Even at near-sea level, 5700' is a very short runway for airline operations.

azepine00

Aloha used to fly from SNA - i assume on 737..

DELee

BUR--HNL?

David

HNLbasedFlyer

Yes, they flew the 737-700 on that route.

They only had single 737-800

The rest of the fleet was 737-200 which was interisland flights

physioprof

I have definitely ridden UA 737-800 inbound or outbound on SNA-EWR (but I don't remember if inbound or outbound).

Kacee

Probably SFP. IIRC, UA has used 738SFP for SFO-LIH, which also has a relatively short runway. I believe it's also been used on EWR-BOG as well.