Bear96

Why do you assume they haven't?

PSU Mudder

As an example, when DL ran PIT-CDG, they had to schedule a 757 or 767 on ATL-PIT or JFK-PIT to get the aircraft in place. The lounge access in PIT I think was contracted with US/AA for J passengers, so they didn't have a full DL branded experience and the lounge was nowhere near the DL gate.

Using PIT again as an example, UA currently flies regional jets on EWR-PIT, IAD-PIT, IAH-PIT, and a combination regional/mainline on ORD-PIT. So they would have to put a 787 on one of those routes, which while awesome for the passengers, probably crushes the yield if not being outright half empty. So the overseas leg has to be so profitable as to pay for the positioning flight. That's probably unlikely for a secondary city.

CALMSP

why would UA have to operate a 787 ORD-PIT? You can simply do a W pattern with HUB-FRA-PIT-FRA-HUB.

JimInOhio

They could do that but it would also require deadheading crews all of the time, probably to/from ORD as that has the bigger aircraft.

pseudoswede

If there was remotely viable traffic to/from Europe, I think Hawaiian Airlines would've already tried. Plus, Hawaii is 11/12/13 hours behind Europe whereas most popular beach/tropical destinations (Canary Islands, Mediterranean, Caribbean, and SE Asia) have less of a jet lag issue.

jhayes_1780

Pretty much... IIRC, ATL, BOS, DFW, MIA, DTW, PHL, SEA (I'm sure I missed a few). Between those and all the hub flights... what are we talking here (aside from those mentioned like PIT, CLE, RDU, etc). PHX? LAS? CVG?

I think you could easily make the case that LH/UA already have FRA pretty covered in the US. Sure, I'd like to see GRR/CMH/BNA/TPA/JAX service to FRA but as mentioned above... you might be able to fill that 1X... maybe 2x per week. but certainly not at sustainable levels.

WRT LHR vs. FRA I think the big component you are missing is that LHR is a big O&D market that is not a hub for a *A carrier (since BD's demise). So there are greater opportunities there to get somewhat creative with routes. If it was a more business centric location I think you could make the same case(as LHR) for CDG or FCO (mainly because of its lack of *A dominant carrier)

CALMSP

you still wouldn't have to deadhead crews, a trip would be built the same way........crew starts at XXX-FRA(overnight)-PIT(overnight)-FRA(overnight)-XXX trip over.

Bear96

Yep. "W" patterns for equipment and crew are nothing new. UA does this regularly (at least it did pre-Covid and I am sure will again as necessary in the new "normal"). As does DL to get to a lot of its "secondary" cities from AMS / CDG.

Yes it does increase crew layover costs a bit but overall it is much more efficient than deadheading crews all over the place and mismatching widebodies onto short domestic shuttling legs.

JimInOhio

Your proposed schedule is way longer than any current UA crew trip. Also, when you write "crew starts (and ends) at XXX", those are extra deadhead trips on each end.

Bear96

You are just wrong about this. When I worked at UA there were definitely pilot schedules like IAD-LHR-LAX-LHR-IAD. Six days, no deadheading. IAD-based 777 pilots. I think at the time there was no LAX 777 base but UA decided a 777 was the best A/C for LAX-LHR.

DELee

All of this discussion highlights that it's not just the potential markets between non-hub secondary cities to international destinations but all of the operational considerations: crews, lounges, catering, maintenance, irrops, etc.

David

CALMSP

correct, but thats part of every city an airline fly's to, with the exception of lounges.

ATOBTTR

What was the actual schedule like on that? I.e. what days were the flying days and what days were rest days?
Was it:
DAY 1: Depart IAD
DAY 2: Arrive LHR, rest remainder of the day
DAY 3: Fly LHR-LAX, overnight rest on arrival
DAY 4: Depart LAX
DAY 5: Arrive LHR, rest remainder of the day
DAY 6: Fly LHR-IAD, end of trip

I thought pilots (and even FAs) got longer rest periods than that following TATL flights (at least eastbound redeyes) but I admit to not being privy to pilot rest agreements beyond what is required by the FAA for crew rest.

Does HA have the equipment to operate to Europe if they even wanted to? HNL-LHR is over 7,200 miles. While within the "published" range of 13,450 km or ~8,350 miles for the A330-200 on Airbus's website, that's a long route once you begin to factor in passenger loads, cargo, reserve fuel, etc. It might be a more viable option (at least in terms of operational capability) once HA takes on their 787s but the economics and demand for the route are another matter, for the reasons you note in your post.

HNLbasedFlyer

They don't do it all the time but they have occasionally taken delivery of a A330 direct from the factory in France to Honolulu. But I agree, adding passengers and likely no cargo doesn't make this a financially viable flight. I'll add - Hawaiian did announce a HNL-LHR flight in 2014 when they had a A350-800 on order.

Airbus A330 | Hawaiian Airlines

"Each plane is assembled at the Airbus facility in Toulouse, France, then flown 16 hours and 6,600 miles to Hawaii, often non-stop."

JimInOhio

I stand corrected! What I was thinking of was for narrowbody AC where I was told a shorter number of days than would be required for a W trip like this. It appears widebody crews can be scheduled longer.