heysfo
Topic Author
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:31 am

VX To Hawaii?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:44 am

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]
 
QANTAS747-438
Posts: 1668
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 7:01 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:25 am

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 avatar
RWA380
Posts: 4527
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:01 am

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.
707, 717, 720, 727-1/2, 737-1/2/3/4/5/7/8/9, 747-1/2/3/4, 757, 767-2/3/4, 777, DC-8-5/6/7, DC-9-1/3/5, MD-80/2/3/7/8, DC-10-10/30/40, MD-11, F-27, F-28, SWM, J31, D38, DH7, DH8, DH4 SD-330, B-146, L-1011-2/500, ATR-42/72, VCV, A-300/310/318/319/320, CR2/7
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7201
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:07 am

You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4235
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:09 pm

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 avatar
RWA380
Posts: 4527
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:21 am

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]
707, 717, 720, 727-1/2, 737-1/2/3/4/5/7/8/9, 747-1/2/3/4, 757, 767-2/3/4, 777, DC-8-5/6/7, DC-9-1/3/5, MD-80/2/3/7/8, DC-10-10/30/40, MD-11, F-27, F-28, SWM, J31, D38, DH7, DH8, DH4 SD-330, B-146, L-1011-2/500, ATR-42/72, VCV, A-300/310/318/319/320, CR2/7
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:00 pm

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 avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4235
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:24 pm

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 avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4077
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:49 pm

"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.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:51 pm

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.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6185
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:55 pm

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.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:10 pm

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/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4235
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:09 pm

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
 
UALWN
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:14 pm

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/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4235
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:24 pm

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
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8103
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:09 pm

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
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:24 pm

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!
 
UALWN
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:29 pm

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/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4235
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:44 pm

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20147
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:46 pm

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4235
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:52 pm

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20147
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:02 pm

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
SANFan
Posts: 3745
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:07 pm

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
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:07 pm

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
 
UALWN
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:33 pm

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/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20147
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:40 pm

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 23):
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.

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 least going to Hawaii, there are other diversion airports available. If HNL is closed for some reason, there are other options.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:57 pm

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 2):
in fact no A320 family plane is certified to fly ETOPS 180 otherwise someone would be using them by now
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 4):
no airlines in the U.S. have undergone the certification process for their specific operation.

B6 has.

NS
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20147
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:16 pm

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, then why would so many airlines be salivating over it? There are very few routes flown just for prestige these days.

In fact, I challenge you to book a flight to Hawaii from the mainland. See what kinds of fares you get. It's not cheap by any means. Not only that, but while there isn't a huge amount of "business traffic," per se (as there is between major financial centers like LHR-JFK there are a lot of people flying there on expenses. A lot of industries hold conventions, meetings, conferences, etc. in Hawaii. There is also a huge hospitality business in Hawaii (at any given time, about half of the population of the islands is composed of visitors) and a lot of business traffic pertaining to that industry. A friend of mine does IT work for Marriott and winds up flying to Hawaii about twice a month on business. There's also a lot of scientific businiess traffic, since Hawaii is a hotspot for both geological and marine research.

So, while it isn't JFK-LHR, it's not a "low-yield" market to be sneezed at that airlines only offer for prestige and so that their passengers have a place to spend reward miles.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:20 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25):
A more significant ETOPS flight is SCL-IPC, where the only diversion airport is SCL. At least going to Hawaii, there are other diversion airports available. If HNL is closed for some reason, there are other options.

Yes, that is true, although the alternate islands are all close to the destination, just flying minutes apart. But nothing enroute, hence all the ETOPS issues.

As to IPC, I do remember hearing that the first flight into IPC has to land before the second flight following it reaches the point of no return, just in case the IPC runway is ....uh.... rendered unusable by the first flight's botched landing.
Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
 
ROSWELL41
Posts: 755
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2001 3:50 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:29 pm

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 notably the need to create an ETOPS subfleet.
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4235
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:35 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 24):
600 mi is over an hour worth of flying: it is a very significant difference.

not really, especially when ETOPS would need over 2 hours of fuel reserves...correct?
Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
 
ha763
Posts: 3170
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:01 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):

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.

Wikipedia says 3200nm. Airbus says 3300nm is with sharklets.

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamili...ft/a320family/a320/specifications/

Also, no one is flying with the sharklets yet, as Airbus is still doing the flight tests and will not enter service with an airline until the 4th quarter of 2012

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...uipped-a320-completed-in-toulouse/

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.

I wouldn't discount profitability issues. That could very well be it.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
I'd like to take a moment to dispell the myth that flying to HI is "low-yield leisure."

Thank you for doing this. I got tired of explaining this in every thread about Hawaii.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:51 am

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 30):
not really, especially when ETOPS would need over 2 hours of fuel reserves...correct?

Why?
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 4527
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:51 am

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 7):
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.

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 to Hawaii for ETOPS issues that will change with the NEO's apparemtly.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 13):
There are no ETOPS issues, but ETOPS has nothing to do with the range of the plane,

Agreed, just because the aircraft has the legs to fly a route, does not mean it is capable of that said route.

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 23):
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
Quoting ha763 (Reply 31):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):I'd like to take a moment to dispell the myth that flying to HI is "low-yield leisure."Thank you for doing this. I got tired of explaining this in every thread about Hawaii.

It has been discussed in other threads that AS tries to hover around 10% profit on it's routes, they dedicate 20% of their flying to the Hawaii market, they turn good profits, guess Hawaii is not that low yield place everyone says it is. In fact as Americans are staying more and more in the US for vacations Hawaiis tourism has seen nice icreases in service to the Islands and increases in tourist numbers. I think HA was smart to start JFK, Hawaii will only increase it's arrival numbers continue upwards. There will be plenty of room for
G4, WN and VX as well.
707, 717, 720, 727-1/2, 737-1/2/3/4/5/7/8/9, 747-1/2/3/4, 757, 767-2/3/4, 777, DC-8-5/6/7, DC-9-1/3/5, MD-80/2/3/7/8, DC-10-10/30/40, MD-11, F-27, F-28, SWM, J31, D38, DH7, DH8, DH4 SD-330, B-146, L-1011-2/500, ATR-42/72, VCV, A-300/310/318/319/320, CR2/7
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4235
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:06 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 32):
Why?

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 1/2 flight time is not that long at all, considering under normal circumstances a good 50-100 miles can be used for descent alone. Prevailing winds can add 2 hours to westbound flight times here in the U.S. If an A320 (or any aircraft for that matter) is ETOPS 180 that means at no point can it be out of 180 minutes from an alternate airport...the only alternates between LAX and HNL are LAX and HNL. So if you are midway you need another 2hrs and 20 minutes of fuel to be able to make it back or keep going...when you add that reserve fuel in an A320...how much profitable payload is left? That answer I do not know. Therefore while a 321 can fly to the Canary Islands from mainland Europe...it does not need the fuel reserves needed that a Hawaiian crossing would need. I am not discounting the capabilities of the 318/319/320/321 birds...I'm just trying to understand their economics in regards to Hawaii travel. This has proven to be an elusive answer.
Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
 
UALWN
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:49 pm

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 34):
Why to the not really long distance?

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 or not.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
qf002
Posts: 3125
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:57 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 35):
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 or not.

Because you need enough fuel to reach a diversion airport with only one operable engine.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20147
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:08 pm

Quoting ha763 (Reply 31):
Wikipedia says 3200nm. Airbus says 3300nm is with sharklets.

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 lists the A320 at max of 30,190 liters of fuel and the 73G family at 26,020 liters. Not sure if this is accurate since that suggests that the 738 fuel burn is significantly lower than the A320 for the same range assuming similar seat counts.

Quoting ha763 (Reply 31):
Thank you for doing this. I got tired of explaining this in every thread about Hawaii.

No prob. I really just need to copy my post and then use it pre-emptively every time someone brings up Hawai'i.   (Kidding, mods!)
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4235
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:50 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
Wiki lists the A320 at max of 30,190 liters of fuel and the 73G family at 26,020 liters. Not sure if this is accurate since that suggests that the 738 fuel burn is significantly lower than the A320 for the same range assuming similar seat counts.

And yet...we still wait on the answer...can a 320/321/319 PROFITABLY fly west coast Hawaii?
Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20147
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:56 pm

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 38):
And yet...we still wait on the answer...can a 320/321/319 PROFITABLY fly west coast Hawaii?

If it can profitably fly from JFK to SFO then the answer is: "Yes."
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
UALWN
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:30 am

Quoting qf002 (Reply 36):
Because you need enough fuel to reach a diversion airport with only one operable engine.

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?
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4235
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:35 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 40):
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?

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 - prevailing winds can make a transcon a 6 1/2 trek...hence occasional fuel stops.
Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6185
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:10 am

I'm glad a.net has now proved it is possible to fly A319s and A320s to Hawaii.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
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, then why would so many airlines be salivating over it? There are very few routes flown just for prestige these days.

You are correct, Hawaii is not the "low yield" market that everyone claims on A-net. Yes it is leisure, it is not the non-rev and FF mileage dumping grounds that some people claim. The airlines have reduced capacity and control mileage awards to the point where this simply isn't true.

Granted, on the other side of the equation, Hawaii is a finite market. Unlike most international routes that have good feed in both directions, Hawaii is heavily skewed to originating traffic in the US Mainland. Plus the use of widebodies with heavy F or J cabins generally do not command the airfares to justify the lower density seatings. Yes, there is demand for F to the island, but on the scale of other international markets.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
A lot of industries hold conventions, meetings, conferences, etc. in Hawaii.

Yes they do, however the convention business on the islands has taken a beating in recent years due to corporate cutbacks.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
So, while it isn't JFK-LHR, it's not a "low-yield" market to be sneezed at that airlines only offer for prestige and so that their passengers have a place to spend reward miles.

It's no so much prestige for the airline, but some people on a.net have this believe that every carrier MUST serve Hawaii as if its some sort of status symbol. The airlines don't view it that way.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 33):
I think HA was smart to start JFK, Hawaii will only increase it's arrival numbers continue upwards. There will be plenty of room for
G4, WN and VX as well.

The other issue to consider is that Hawaii is a competitive market. Passengers are very much price-sensitive. Unlike heavy business markets where flight schedules and frequency can be a higher priority than price, leisure passengers are very sensitive to the price and will alter their schedules to save money. This is partially due to the relatively high overall cost of the flights but also leisure passengers are more flexible. They don't necessarily mind the multiple stops, red-eyes, etc. There are several airlines in the US Mainland - Hawaii market that have a considerably lower cost structure than the legacy carriers. AS for example has a 2-3 cent lower CASM-ex fuel than DL. AS may be able to make a suitable profit margin and may be the price-setter in the market, but it may not make a suitable margin at DL's cost structure.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 39):
If it can profitably fly from JFK to SFO then the answer is: "Yes."

That just isn't true. The cost side of the equation isn't the same, nevermind that it doesn't consider the revenue side which can be entirely different too.
 
ha763
Posts: 3170
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:47 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
Wiki lists the A320 at max of 30,190 liters of fuel and the 73G family at 26,020 liters. Not sure if this is accurate since that suggests that the 738 fuel burn is significantly lower than the A320 for the same range assuming similar seat counts.

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 to be running the entire flight? The 737NG is required to have the APU running the entire flight to act as a backup generator which increases fuel burn. I've looked around and it looks like that the 737NG APU burns around 115kg/h on the ground while the A320 APU burns around 130kg/h. I haven't found consistent numbers for fuel burn while inflight.
 
sandrozrh
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:19 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:53 am

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 41):
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 - prevailing winds can make a transcon a 6 1/2 trek...hence occasional fuel stops

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 critical point along the route to the ETOPS alternate (which between LAX and HNL would be more or less pretty much in the middle of the route). People keep forgetting that ETOPS isn't just about engine failures, even though the term might suggest so. That planning principle is called EC (ETOPS Combined) and is almost always more restricting than either a sole decompression or a sole engine failure. Very seldom either of the two are more restricting on their own, for example when winds vary greatly with altitude (Think of it this way, you're almost always going to burn more fuel flying on one engine at 10'000 feet than close to the aircraft's engine out service ceiling, except in the seldom case that headwinds at altitude are so much stronger that flying lower may cost you less fuel).
 
QANTAS747-438
Posts: 1668
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 7:01 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:01 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 39):
If it can profitably fly from JFK to SFO then the answer is: "Yes."

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.
My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
 
qf002
Posts: 3125
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:06 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 39):
If it can profitably fly from JFK to SFO then the answer is: "Yes."

Which then begs the question: Why hasn't it already been done?

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 41):
Well, I'm no aeronautical engineer...but I would think that the fuel burn is severely impacted with the loss of an engine.

As is the speed of the aircraft... And as SandroZRH touched on, it is about planning for the absolute worst case scenario. What if an engine goes and there's a fuel leak?

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 45):
So then because NZ flies SYD-AKL on a A320, LAX-HNL should work? Doesn't make sense.

LAX-HNL is double AKL-SYD... But the logic is 100% correct  
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20147
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:30 am

Quoting qf002 (Reply 46):
Which then begs the question: Why hasn't it already been done?

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 relatively before the current 73G operators did. There are only three current 73G operators to Hawaii and all of them have relatively young 73G fleets, so it made sense.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
BOS2LAF
Posts: 353
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:21 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:27 pm

Quoting gigneil (Reply 26):
B6 has.

B6 does NOT have ETOPS certified aircraft. They have OVERWATER certified aircraft, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

Overwater certification only involves adding safety equipment such as life rafts and inflatable life vests. ETOPS requirements, as mentioned above, speak to aircraft performance, i.e. carrying enough fuel to fly at lower altitude to the nearest diversion airport.

ETOPS certification ≠ Overwater certification
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: VX To Hawaii?

Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:37 pm

Quoting ha763 (Reply 43):

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 to be running the entire flight? The 737NG is required to have the APU running the entire flight to act as a backup generator which increases fuel burn. I've looked around and it looks like that the 737NG APU burns around 115kg/h on the ground while the A320 APU burns around 130kg/h. I haven't found consistent numbers for fuel burn while inflight.

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 it is worth, the 737 does not have to have the APU running on ETOPS flights either as long as the in air restart reliability rate is high enough. AS ran the APU to Hawaii when they first started operations, but I don’t think they do anymore. Don’t quote me on that as I am going based on memory of the MEL.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos