Trickijedi From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3266 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3849 times:
You're right for the most part. Since it is primarily a leisure route, airlines have to feed their passengers from different locations since departure frequencies to HNL are relatively infrequent. Distance is also another reason... it's a pretty far destination for it to be in the domestic network.
Its better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than be in the air wishing you were on the ground. Fly safe!
Spinkid From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1043 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3824 times:
One thing I noticed is that their are several JFK-Tokyo non stops. The fares are actually cheaper than to Honolulu, at least comparable. The fares from Honolulu to Tokyo are actually more expensive for the most part.
Ex_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1435 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3810 times:
(1) CO is the only major with a huge hub in the NY area, hence it has enough feed to operate a non-stop flight to HNL. The other majors would rather serve HNL from their own hubs (UA from LAX/SFO/DEN, etc), and they take HNL-bound NYC residents there through their own hubs.
(2) HNL is a leisure route that isn't terribly profitable, if at all, for any major US airline. It acts as a frequent flyer miles "dump" for people to redeem their miles on. Most of the non-hub carriers operating out of the NYC airports would much rather use their precious slots to operate higher-yielding services.
Ripcordd From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1085 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3619 times:
I would have to disagree with the route being profitable. There are more flights to Hawaii than ever before, Airlines wouldnt keep opeing routes if they were unprofitable, and airfare to Hawaii isnt cheap at all
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2499 posts, RR: 53 Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3566 times:
The 763ER can make the JFK-HNL trip no problem, even against winter headwinds.
The word around our airline is that last fall we were planing a June '02 start to JFK, and in fact even had our logo and stuff ready at JFK, but 9/11 put a hold on it. Now it looks like early next year for our startup. And yes, we will be expanding east to other cities also. Our ownership has some nice expansion plans coming up. Rumors (and at this point that's all they are) include Salt Lake City, Atlanta, Denver and Chicago - all nonstops from HNL. It's an interesting time to be here!
Knowing the business savvy of our ownership group, I'm sure they're expecting a profit on the routes. They wouldn't do it if they were going to lose $.
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
N202PA From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1551 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3494 times:
Excellent! Thanks much for the information. As I said before, I am excited that you guys are coming out this way, and hopefully I will get a chance to try your service the very next time I come out to the Islands. All things relatively equal (such as price), I would much rather fly Hawaiian than any of the other American carriers.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3499 times:
The reason there are not more flights from NYC to HNL/OGG is that flights from NYC would have no 'behind the gateway' traffic. For example, most of the US is 'behind' LAX and SFO so those are the best places for airlines to consolidate Hawaii traffic. Further, as it has been pointed out, most Hawaii traffic is leisure and therefore price sensitive. Leisure travelers won't pay the premium for non-stop service. CO pulls it off because of their hub but I don't think anyone else right now has the feed to make the flight work. It's cheaper for the airlines to make people connect through the hubs or LAX/SFO.
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2499 posts, RR: 53 Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3446 times:
Yes, east coasters do prefer the Caribbean and Bahamas - that's why there's dozens of daily flights that way. I think JFK to HNL can support two flights a day, especially when we start working with travel agencies to promote the flights.
As far as intl expansion, I'm still waiting to hear from our management which way they'll jump. I know they want to go to Japan, and are still talking with Cathay about a code share agreement that will have us fly HNL - HKG. But so far there's nothing concrete. I think our owners are waiting to see how the Asian economy does in the next few months before committing to an expansion in that direction.
I've also heard rumors about Australia and NZ but again, like before, it's just crew room rumors.
Looking forward to bringing you to paradise N202PA!
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
Pecoua From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 299 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3429 times:
STT757, the United flight from EWR to HNL was flight 35...it did make a stop in SFO though...flight 35's flight number was later changed to 93 when the equipment changed to a 757. I love the fact you remember that flight. It was the first one I worked out of EWR with UA. Wish they would bring back that flight number. It was the very first 747 service in or out of EWR and I remember the big party UA had at the departure gate when the flight began (I think it was back in 1974 or 5, can't remember).
Ex_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1435 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3423 times:
"There are more flights to Hawaii than ever before, Airlines wouldnt keep opeing routes if they were unprofitable..."
On any given large airline, even the most profitable ones, you can expect at least a third of their routes to be unprofitable. Airlines maintain unprofitable routes for several reasons, including:
(1) Expectation that the route will become (more) profitable in the future
(2) It feeds into/out of other routes and/or hubs, thus improving the bottomline of those other routes
(3) It serves as a "mileage dump" for frequent fliers. Airlines with FFPs have to fly to some resort destinations to keep their FFs happy.
(4) Politics (5) Prestige (6) Stategic/competitive reasons .... etc etc.
Many US majors' flights to Hawaii are marginally profitable or even money losers, but they keep adding flights there, primarily for (3) above, but also for (2) and possibly (1) as well.
Nonrevman From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1289 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3401 times:
(3) It serves as a "mileage dump" for frequent fliers. Airlines with FFPs have to fly to some resort destinations to keep their FFs happy
DL has stated that Hawaii is marginally profitable. No doubt, this is the same for the others. However, if an airline wanted to pull out of Hawaii completely to become more profitable, there would be a backlash from business travellers. After all, the guys paying those big business fares from New York to Chicago want to use their miles for that Hawaiian vacation. If an airline cannot offer them this reward redemption, then they will find another airline that can. The fares to Hawaii may seem high, but it does not mean much if few people are paying it. I worked in reservations for 1 year and sold maybe 3 tickets to Hawaii. However, I booked a lot of people to the islands using their miles.
762er From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 542 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3372 times:
The only airplane Delta wants to take to Hawaii is the 764, and until they work something out with the crew rest on this airplane, we won't be seeing the ATL-HNL nonstop reinstated. I'm hoping they will resolve the issue soon cause I know Delta isn't very happy with SLC-HNL which replaced it after they got the 764. Delta management really wants to bring it back to Atlanta because that's by far their biggest FF base and a lot of the FFer's are unhappy about having to stop through SLC, LAX, or SFO. They only chose SLC for the flight cause it was their only major hub less than 8 hrs. away and thus required only a two man cockpit. When and if they do resolve the issue, however, there have also been rumours about a CVG-HNL. Again, only a rumour.
Acidradio From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1860 posts, RR: 10 Reply 22, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3301 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
While routes in terms of passenger ticket sales may be unprofitable, remember that Hawaii depends on a lot of air freight as well from the mainland US. This could help out greatly in terms of revenue for the airlines as well.
Mlsrar From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1417 posts, RR: 9 Reply 24, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3271 times:
Two points to consider:
HNL is no longer a stop as it was 25 years ago for refueling towards asia. It was an ideal stop for further flights from the west coast, and airlines such as Pan Am, UA, and even HP (when they operated PHX-HNL-NGO); additionally, low-margin holiday pax could be dropped off.
HNL is not the outer-island feeder stop it once was. United, as of June 5, is losing their mainland-LIH direct service monopoly. Look at the direct service provided from the mainland to the outer islands: