Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
VX To Hawaii?  
User currently offlineheysfo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 47 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 11383 times:

Is VX looking at HAWAII routes

https://www.virginamerica.apply2jobs.com/ProfExt/index.cfm?fuseaction=mExternal.showJob&RID=863

[Edited 2012-06-03 21:44:32]

54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11092 times:

I believe that they have recently expressed interest in going, possibly with the NEO. But with current Airbus equipment, it would be difficult and challenging to do it profitably.


My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2885 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10775 times:

As was discussed not too long ago, VX is looking for an ETOPS program manager, the current fleet of aircraft are not ETOPS capable to operate between US mainland and Hawaii, in fact no A320 family plane is certified to fly ETOPS 180 otherwise someone would be using them by now. The NEO's are supposed to be capable of flying mainland - Hawaii flights, but the carrier, in this case VX, will still need to go through the ETOPS certification, much like G4 has been doing with their 757's recently.


Rule number One, NEVER underestimate the other guys greed
User currently offlinebestwestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10753 times:

http://easa.europa.eu/certification/..._A321_Single_Aisle-07-13062011.pdf



Certified for nearly 8 Years.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5064 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10379 times:

Yea, there was a leeeeeeengthy thread about 2 weeks ago on the matter. The Airbus narrowbodies are ETOPS180 certified, but no airlines in the U.S. have undergone the certification process for their specific operation. VX is anticipating this type of service for the NEOs. NZ comes to mind as a carrier that has ETOPS 320s.


Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2885 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5073 times:

I have been under the impression that the A320 family currently does not have an aircraft capable of operating West Coast-Hawaii routes because of a limited ETOPS issue, while many airlines are flying 737's to Hawaii and have been for ten years or better, AQ or TZ come to mind as pioneers, now it's almost the norm. Why hasn't one carrier even tried with the A320 family of aircraft? UA has Airbus planes in the 320 family, yet operate to Hawaii with only a 738 from the mainland SNA-HNL and flights to ITO. Airlines like B6, NK or VX could be potential entrants to the Hawaii market now, why wait until the NEO's come on board then?

[Edited 2012-06-05 03:22:56]


Rule number One, NEVER underestimate the other guys greed
User currently offlineluv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12090 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4962 times:

I'm curious as to why everyone thinks that an airline "has" to fly to Hawaii?


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5064 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4844 times:

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 5):
UA has Airbus planes in the 320 family, yet operate to Hawaii with only a 738 from the mainland SNA-HNL and flights to ITO. Airlines like B6, NK or VX could be potential entrants to the Hawaii market now, why wait until the NEO's come on board then?

From my understanding of the matter, UAs birds are lower gross weight aircraft. With pmUA they had 757s when the push was on to downgauge capacity to Hawaii - now they have the 737s and 753s to do the job anyway, no need to really look at the Airbus fleet. B6 and F9...is Hawaii really worth the ETOPS certification expense? The only carrier really left that would be a likely candidate for Hawaii is VX. As to why wait until the NEO's come on board...I've been waiting for a clear cut answer to that...I assumed that it was because they were not as capable as the 737s...but we know where a statement like that gets us on A.net.   



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3176 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4783 times:

"I'm curious as to why everyone thinks that an airline "has" to fly to Hawaii?"

Because they like airlines that already lose money, to lose more money... hahaha

The 319 likely has a better shot at doing it, I know the 320 has range issues.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1449 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4779 times:

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 3):
http://easa.europa.eu/certification/..._A321_Single_Aisle-07-13062011.pdf



Certified for nearly 8 Years.

Are capable and certified to do the route? Yes of course. But the issue is whether they can do so profitably - can they carry enough payload to make it worthwhile? I believe that is the problem for current Airbii.

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 7):
B6 and F9...is Hawaii really worth the ETOPS certification expense?

Same issue WN has had to deal with - is it worth creating a subfleet, since you can't possibly justify making your entire fleet ETOPS.


User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7343 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4764 times:

Quoting luv2fly (Reply 6):
I'm curious as to why everyone thinks that an airline "has" to fly to Hawaii?

Seriously. It's been like that on a.net for over a decade. Its like it some sort of prestige thing.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2654 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4617 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 8):
The 319 likely has a better shot at doing it, I know the 320 has range issues.

As it has been mentioned before here, charter operators like JK and MyTravel used to fly A321 packed full with 212 passengers and their bags between Finland and the Canary Islands (HEL-LPA: 2920 mi). Also, bmi used to fly A321s between LHR and IKA (2754 mi). For comparison, SFO-HNL is just 2399 mi. It should be perfectly feasible. Even SEA-HNL is just 2677 mi.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5064 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4472 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 11):

True, but I don't believe there are prevailing wind issues or ETOPS issues on those type of routes.



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2654 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4455 times:

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 12):
True, but I don't believe there are prevailing wind issues or ETOPS issues on those type of routes.

There are no ETOPS issues, but ETOPS has nothing to do with the range of the plane, which is what was being discussed. As for winds, I honestly don't know. Still, HEL-LPA seems to be comfortably longer than, say, SFO-HNL to be able to accommodate all sort of winds...



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5064 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4429 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 13):
but ETOPS has nothing to do with the range of the plane, which is what was being discussed. As for winds, I honestly don't know. Still, HEL-LPA seems to be comfortably longer than, say, SFO-HNL to be able to accommodate all sort of winds...

The winds do have alot to do with it. So while your points are appreciated, I don't know how applicable they really are to West coast Hawaii runs. The other thing is what engine options/range do the carriers have that we are talking about? I'm not a big 320 series fan so I'm not very well versed in their options and capabilities.



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7934 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4358 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 8):
I know the 320 has range issues.

Is that true? I've flown by A320 from Heathrow to Beirut which is only 400 mi less that LAX-HNL, and British Midland fly the A321 from Heathrow to Tehran IKA which is 198 mi further.

One might be tempted to disqualify British Airways' transatlantic A318 ops (JFK-LCY) because, surely those machines have the extra tanks, like an A318CJ? Well, the tanks weren't ready so BA started without them, intending to retrofit them in time for the winter westbounds (higher winds) but the aeroplanes turned out to be so capable, they never needed them.

I think the A320 series has plenty of range, and have also wondered why they've never done Hawaii since they do plenty of long haul elsewhere in the world (eg Iran to UK which is further).



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4320 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 13):
There are no ETOPS issues, but ETOPS has nothing to do with the range of the plane, which is what was being discussed.

14 CFR 121.646 requires that all airplanes flown in extended operations must carry an ETOPS fuel reserve sufficient to allow flight to an ETOPS alternate airport in the event of these three scenarios:

A rapid loss of cabin pressure at the most critical point followed by a descent to a safe altitude as defined by oxygen availability.
A rapid loss of cabin pressure and a simultaneous engine failure at the most critical point followed by a descent to a safe altitude as defined by oxygen availability.
An engine failure at the most critical point and descent to one-engine-inoperative cruise altitude and diversion at one-engine-inoperative cruise speed.

Whichever of the above requires the greatest amount of fuel shall be the basis of computation for this reserve. Because of the increased fuel consumption of turbine engines at low altitudes, and the corresponding reduction in airplane range, the decompression scenarios logically define this reserve, which ensures sufficient fuel for an extended low-altitude diversion followed by a descent to 1,500 feet at the alternate airport, a 15-minute hold, and an approach and landing. Further allowance is made for possible airframe icing, wind forecasting error, and in-flight use of the auxiliary power unit

A flight operating under ETOPS rules needs more fuel than an airplane operate a route of the same distance not under ETOPS rules. Just because an airplane can operate a route of a certain distance overland (non ETOPS) does not mean it can operate the same route under ETOPS. An airplane might be able to fly HEL-IPA or LHR-IKA under normal conditions, but does it still have the range to operate that route with half the flight at 10,000ft and on one engine. I don’t know the answer to that question.

Maybe someone else has the answer to how much additional fuel is required due to Hawaii requiring ETOPS 180, and if the A320/A319 has that range. My only point that comparing other Non-ETOPS routes to an ETOPS route is not an fair range comparison.

[Edited 2012-06-05 10:36:21]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2654 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4151 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 16):
An airplane might be able to fly HEL-IPA or LHR-IKA under normal conditions, but does it still have the range to operate that route with half the flight at 10,000ft and on one engine. I don’t know the answer to that question.

I don't know the answer either. When flying on one engine, does fuel consumption increase? Clearly it does increase when flying at low altitude.

In any case, as I said before, HEL-LPA (by the way, it's LPA [Las Palmas de Gran Canaria], not IPA) is about 600 mi longer than SFO-HNL, a large difference. And, of course, it's not obvious that HEL-LPA is the absolute maximum range of a 321.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5064 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4118 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 17):

600 mi is not really a large difference and prevailing winds and ETOPS fuel requirements negates this being a true comparison.



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18703 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4109 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 8):
The 319 likely has a better shot at doing it, I know the 320 has range issues.

JFK-SFO is 2247 NM. There are A320's currently flying this route.
SFO-HNL is 2084 NM. I don't think there is a range issue.

Furthermore, Airbus lists the range of the A320 as 3,300 nm. Boeing lists the range of the similarly-sized 738 as 3,100 nm. This suggests that range, even with ETOPS requriements, is not the issue.


User currently offlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5064 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4084 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
This suggests that range, even with ETOPS requriements, is not the issue.

So that leaves us to believe it is just the subset of airlines operating Airbus narrowbodies in the U.S. that precludes it...and not payload/profitability issues.



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18703 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4064 times:

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 20):
So that leaves us to believe it is just the subset of airlines operating Airbus narrowbodies in the U.S. that precludes it...and not payload/profitability issues.

It would seem so. It may also be that the airlines that currently fly to Hawaii have older A320-family aircraft that would be more expensive to upgrade to the task than airlines with younger A320 fleets like VX and B6. They would have to operate a "sub-fleet" of HI-capable A320's, complicating operations. In addition, those airlines that have older A320-family aircraft also all have 757's. So DL, PM UA, and US all use 757's (and larger). Only AA, PMCO, and AS (and only recently) use 737's on that route, AFAIK.


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5229 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4057 times:

Quoting luv2fly (Reply 6):
I'm curious as to why everyone thinks that an airline "has" to fly to Hawaii?

Especially, as in VX's case, from, let me take a wild guess here, SFO and LAX?!   

bb


User currently offlineWingtips56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3932 times:

What seems to be missing from some of these comments is the issue of nothing but water between the West Coast and Hawaií; longer distances like JKF-LAX, LHR-IKA, etc., offer alternate airports all along the way. But if you lose an engine between SFO and HNL, you either have to turn back or limp forward to HNL anyway if you are past the point of no return.


Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2654 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3881 times:

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 18):
600 mi is not really a large difference and prevailing winds and ETOPS fuel requirements negates this being a true comparison.

600 mi is over an hour worth of flying: it is a very significant difference.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
25 DocLightning : We have been discussing that. That's what ETOPS is all about. A more significant ETOPS flight is SCL-IPC, where the only diversion airport is SCL. At
26 gigneil : B6 has. NS
27 DocLightning : I'd like to take a moment to dispell the myth that flying to HI is "low-yield leisure." It's a lot of leisure, yes. However, if it were so low-yield,
28 Wingtips56 : Yes, that is true, although the alternate islands are all close to the destination, just flying minutes apart. But nothing enroute, hence all the ETO
29 ROSWELL41 : NK has a newer fleet of A319A320 aircraft and plenty of NEO's on the way. I doubt they will be heading to HI simply for the reasons mentioned above no
30 drerx7 : not really, especially when ETOPS would need over 2 hours of fuel reserves...correct?
31 Post contains links ha763 : Wikipedia says 3200nm. Airbus says 3300nm is with sharklets. http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamili...ft/a320family/a320/specifications/ Also, no one i
32 UALWN : Why?
33 RWA380 : Hey, thanks for the info, I was reading other past threads and many replies are exactly the same there too, The A320 for whatever reason is not used
34 drerx7 : Why to the not really long distance? Well 600 miles is not as far as El Paso from here in Houston...granted it is Texas, but an hour to an hour and a
35 UALWN : No: why would ETOPS add over 2 hours of fuel reserve? If you're half way between LAX and HNL, you need enough fuel to reach either LAX or HNL, ETOPS
36 qf002 : Because you need enough fuel to reach a diversion airport with only one operable engine.
37 Post contains images DocLightning : Either way, that's more range than the 738, even if only by ~100 nm. Assuming similar fuel burn rates, that implies similar fuel capacities. Wiki lis
38 drerx7 : And yet...we still wait on the answer...can a 320/321/319 PROFITABLY fly west coast Hawaii?
39 DocLightning : If it can profitably fly from JFK to SFO then the answer is: "Yes."
40 UALWN : So? Flying from, say, LAX to HNL the diversion airports must be OGG, KOA, LIH, etc. How does that add two hours worth of fuel?
41 drerx7 : Well, I'm no aeronautical engineer...but I would think that the fuel burn is severely impacted with the loss of an engine. On a related note - prevai
42 PSU.DTW.SCE : I'm glad a.net has now proved it is possible to fly A319s and A320s to Hawaii. You are correct, Hawaii is not the "low yield" market that everyone cla
43 ha763 : I'm starting to wonder what operational requirements does the A320 have to meet in order to fly in ETOPS? For example, does the A320 require the APU
44 SandroZRH : Well, yes, but you need to cover one engine out AND a decompression at the same time, so basically flying at 10'000 feet on one engine from the most
45 QANTAS747-438 : Huh? Since when does flight length equal profitability? So then because NZ flies SYD-AKL on a A320, LAX-HNL should work? Doesn't make sense.
46 Post contains images qf002 : Which then begs the question: Why hasn't it already been done? As is the speed of the aircraft... And as SandroZRH touched on, it is about planning f
47 DocLightning : Mostly circumstance. The only A320 operators who could have done this would have to create an ETOPS-only A320 fleet, since they got their A320's rela
48 bos2laf : B6 does NOT have ETOPS certified aircraft. They have OVERWATER certified aircraft, which is a whole different kettle of fish. Overwater certification
49 Roseflyer : I don’t think the A320 has to have the APU running. I don’t think it can be deferred, but with the RAT it does not have to be running. For what i
50 yeelep : You memory is accurate, AS can fly to Hawaii without the APU running. A cold soak start has to be performed at regular intervals to keep each aircraf
51 TWA902fly : This isn't true at all. The topic of discussion here is Virgin America which has A320s younger than AS or UA/CO 73G/738s that currently fly to the is
52 ha763 : How long has this been in effect? I remember a thread within the past year where someone from AS said they were working with the FAA on a way to redu
53 yeelep : About four to six months ago. I am the person you are referring to about the past thread.[Edited 2012-06-08 05:00:51]
54 ha763 : Thanks. I couldn't find the thread as the search function doesn't pull anything after Jan 2011.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Alaska Airlines OPS To Hawaii posted Sat May 5 2012 23:00:41 by southwest737500
Largest Carrier To Hawaii? posted Wed Apr 11 2012 13:20:39 by BACCALA
When Did AA Start Services To Hawaii? posted Fri Jan 6 2012 06:12:26 by pecoua
VX To SJC In 2013? posted Fri Oct 28 2011 10:31:39 by psa188
WSJ: VX To ORD In April 2011 posted Sat Sep 11 2010 05:53:59 by bt824
Possibility Of Southwest B738s To Hawaii? posted Sat Sep 4 2010 14:48:49 by mrskyguy
VX To Mexico posted Tue Aug 31 2010 12:54:31 by KBUF
VX To DFW posted Mon Aug 9 2010 22:25:50 by CGKings317
VX To CUN & SJD From SFO/LAX posted Tue Jun 29 2010 09:22:54 by heysfo
VX To Get 2 A320s Leased From Lionhart posted Thu Mar 25 2010 11:27:09 by aviators99