We are seeing poor payload performance and weight restrictions on HNL-Mainland flights which are eastbound. We even have payload issues on HNL-LAX/SFO which are well inside the 77A's "published" range.
ETOPS fuel is the reason. Sometimes.
Eastbound in winter, HNL-SFO is frequently limited by max structural landing weight. ETOPS additional fuel can be very high depending on whether it includes anti ice fuel. Since the ETOPS fuel requirement is based on "worst case", there is a need to consider the loss of an engine and/or pressurization leading to a descent into icing conditions. This would require the continuous use of engine and/or wing anti ice systems. Which can mean thousands of pounds additional fuel at the critical point and subsequently for landing. The additional landing fuel at SFO versus HNL can be 8,000-10,000 lbs due to this and other ETOPS considerations.
Westbound SFO-HNL there is much less chance of carrying anti ice fuel and the ETOPS alternate, usually ITO, is a couple hundred miles closer to the critical point than the destination. There is no closer ETOPS alternate than SFO to use whilst flying to SFO so you land with your ETOPS "penalty" intact. Counterintuitive as it sounds, you could conceivably carry more payload to a destination further inland.