With United announcing more flights to Hawaii this week and Southwest Airlines entry in the Hawaii market likely around the corner in the not too distant future, how will these developments in Hawaiian’s largest domestic markets impact the airline?

Hawaiian stands out to me for good service and on-time flights. It’s a reliable, high quality premium service. With recent cabin upgrades, a refreshed brand/livery, a re-designed website and new A321neos on the way, Hawaiian seems ready to counter the competitive threat. However with a new labor contract for pilots and higher costs in the future, will customers stick with Hawaiian if they’re not the cheapest fare?

There been talk of the secret "Blue Hawaii meetings " which is Hawaiian and JetBlue board of directors meeting the past couple of weeks talking about a possible merger.

JetBlue lost out on VX but a Hawaiian marriage would give them a great western market share.

Flyguy

wnflyguy wrote:

There been talk of the secret "Blue Hawaii meetings " which is Hawaiian and JetBlue board of directors meeting the past couple of weeks talking about a possible merger.

JetBlue lost out on VX but a Hawaiian marriage would give them a great western market share.

Flyguy

where did you hear that?

National757 wrote:

With United announcing more flights to Hawaii this week and Southwest Airlines entry in the Hawaii market likely around the corner in the not too distant future, how will these developments in Hawaiian’s largest domestic markets impact the airline?

Hawaiian stands out to me for good service and on-time flights. It’s a reliable, high quality premium service. With recent cabin upgrades, a refreshed brand/livery, a re-designed website and new A321neos on the way, Hawaiian seems ready to counter the competitive threat. However with a new labor contract for pilots and higher costs in the future, will customers stick with Hawaiian if they’re not the cheapest fare?

Southwest's entry into Hawaii has been "just around the corner" for years.... Wake me up when it actually happens. I wont be holding my breath.

I don't believe WN will be in HI anytime soon. In the time it takes an aircraft to do one round trip to the island, WN could get 3 or 4 rountrips out of the same aircraft by using it on the mainland.

wnflyguy wrote:

There been talk of the secret "Blue Hawaii meetings " which is Hawaiian and JetBlue board of directors meeting the past couple of weeks talking about a possible merger.

JetBlue lost out on VX but a Hawaiian marriage would give them a great western market share.

Flyguy

It would make no sense at all. Hawaiian's only dominant western market is Hawaii - and I'm not even sure they have the most number of seats from Hawaii to the mainland. Outside of Hawaii, they typically have just several flights a day from SAN, SFO, LAX, SJC, OAK, SMF, PDX, SEA, PHX and LAS... all to Hawaii. Jet Blue wouldn't provide any kind of significant feed to any of those places from cities other than their east coast hubs. Not saying that a merger of this type couldn't happen but the combination of B6 and HA wouldn't give them any kind of advantage on the west coast or add much to B6's present west coast lineup.

wnflyguy wrote:

JetBlue lost out on VX but a Hawaiian marriage would give them a great western market share.

Where?

HA doesn't have great market share anywhere other than Hawaii. They also have entrenched competition in most of the western cities they serve.

I do think their shareholders will wind up wishing they sold out at a peak moment at some point around 2013-2016. Brand and ego aside, most virgin america stock holders were sure pleased, by comparison.

I think Hawaiian biggest weakness if their domestic feed. This were airlines like WN will have a leg up on them. HA I think can do one of two things.
1) Create their own feed from cities out of range from Hawaii with their 321s but too small of a market for a widebody (Houston, Dallas etc..) Using an aircraft from 320 family.
2) Depend on Jetblue to grow their west coast presence to feed their gateway cities via a merger or stronger partnership. (Jetblue would need to connect the dots from already served west coast cities)

Hasn't most of HA's recent growth been to Asia/Pacific? The 321s will provide opportunities for more west coast mainland routes. Why bother merging with jetBlue and taking on the risk (from either side of the table)...just codeshare, which they already do, don't they?

The 321's will take over all of the westcoast routes freeing up 330's to grow the pacific network (read: connections). 18 321's is a ton of lower cost seats.

HA pays less for labor than any of the majors do.

If anything I see HA becoming a bigger threat to the legacies than ever before. They will have a huge Tpacific network to connect through HNL on.

flyguy84 wrote:

Southwest's entry into Hawaii has been "just around the corner" for years.... Wake me up when it actually happens. I wont be holding my breath.

Might be sooner than you think...from USA TODAY https://usat.ly/2qujAJy

Southwest Airlines says Hawaii flights are a 'priority'

Dawn Gilbertson, The Arizona Republic
Published 7:05 p.m. ET May 17, 2017 |
Updated 6:23 p.m. ET May 18, 2017

PHOENIX -- Southwest Airlines is getting closer to adding Hawaii flights, a vacation destination travelers have been begging the nation's largest domestic airline to add for years.

Southwest CEO Gary Kelly, in Phoenix on Wednesday for Southwest's annual shareholders meeting, said flights to Hawaii are a high priority for the airline. In contrast, he said Canada flights are on the airline's radar but not a priority.

"We're deciding what our plans are for 2018 and Hawaii is important to us,'' Kelly said in a meeting with reporters after the shareholder event in downtown Phoenix.

Connecting from US mainland trans-Pacific through HNL? Except for Australia and New Zealand, Hawaii is pretty far out of the way and there are always other, better alternatives.

Code-share and connections via JetBlue? Well, yeah, they are offering. Ever looked at any of those, besides JFK, in terms of flight duration and number of stops compared to the majors--particularly UA? For most destinations in the continental US, these offerings are not attractive. (LIH-TPA via HNL, LAX, and JFK for instance, 26 hours eastbound as a serious offering. Starting December 20, you'll be able to do the same thing on UA via DEN in 11:35.)

HA is great if you are trying to get to/from HNL and a continental US destination they serve. Anywhere else? There are two reasons United is still dominant in the mainland-Hawaii market: 1) their feed to/from their mainland network, and 2) they choose to be. This week's UA announcement of added frequency from UA hub cities where Hawaiian goes and, especially, where they don't, is all about United's ability to serve more than just a few west coast cities plus LAS and PHX, to all of the big four islands, with sane connections, from most anywhere UA serves (i.e., most anywhere) in the continental US. Even Southwest isn't going to change that, if and when they quit talking and start flying.

Varsity1 wrote:

The 321's will take over all of the westcoast routes freeing up 330's to grow the pacific network (read: connections). 18 321's is a ton of lower cost seats.

HA pays less for labor than any of the majors do.

If anything I see HA becoming a bigger threat to the legacies than ever before. They will have a huge Tpacific network to connect through HNL on.

This sounds like a great idea of theory, but the 787 and A350 are going to continue to open up more n/s routes between the US west coast and Asia. NRT is barely relevant anymore as a connecting hub. I don't see HNL making much of a dent. HA can continue to try and diversify with some routes to China and Japan and they will continue to reign supreme on inter-island flying, but they face stiff headwinds with respect to Hawaii-Mainland flying.

This is why HA is getting the A321, so they can beat WN to the punch, although AS has beat HA to the punch with smaller aircraft, there is room enough for 2 competitors on the medium sized cities to Hawaii, especially for HA which is already in some of these cities. UA isn't as big of a threat as everyone thinks because they are hitting Hawaii only from their hubs, and won't be doing a p2p set up anytime soon from secondary mainland cities to non HNL cities, ever.

ASFlyer wrote:

I'm not even sure they have the most number of seats from Hawaii to the mainland

United is the largest airline between the other 49 states and Hawaii, although HA is the largest to HNL. If anything that points to the inherent weakness in HA's network at present.

For all the talk of UA, WN and B6, I think the airline that faces the biggest competitive threat from HA's 321s is AS. They have had the market from Neighbor Islands to secondary mainland cities pretty much to themselves.

Hawaiian and B6 marriage on the horizon? While it doesn't make a ton of sense so didn't the Virgin America/Alaska match-up. It's no secret B6 wants to eventually expand to deep South America/Across the Atlantic, this would give them instant access to the Pacific side. Not to mention A330's and new A321's. Heck, maybe they can stick the E190's on inter-Hawaii routes.

wnflyguy wrote:

There been talk of the secret "Blue Hawaii meetings " which is Hawaiian and JetBlue board of directors meeting the past couple of weeks talking about a possible merger.

JetBlue lost out on VX but a Hawaiian marriage would give them a great western market share.

Flyguy

While that would be great news, is there any credibility to this?

RyanairGuru wrote:

the airline that faces the biggest competitive threat from HA's 321s is AS. They have had the market from Neighbor Islands to secondary mainland cities pretty much to themselves.

...secondary mainland cities on the west coast...

FTFY.

UAs added frequency LAX and SFO to the neighbor islands, and year-round daily service from Denver to the neighbor islands, will cement UAs dominance for everywhere else in the mainland.

What's been stopping WN from flying to Hawaii w/ their 738s. I mean D8 just flew EDI-SWF which is a longer flight than for example LAS-HNL or PHX/TUS-HNL

FlyUSAir wrote:

Hawaiian and B6 marriage on the horizon? While it doesn't make a ton of sense so didn't the Virgin America/Alaska match-up. It's no secret B6 wants to eventually expand to deep South America/Across the Atlantic, this would give them instant access to the Pacific side. Not to mention A330's and new A321's. Heck, maybe they can stick the E190's on inter-Hawaii routes.

Not to go off topic, but Virgin America/Alaska made pretty good sense. The only thing about the matchup that was different was really their product. Alaska is clearly the strongest in the PNW and was expanding significantly in California, acquiring VA gave them a huge operation at SFO and LAX, which complimented Alaska's operations in those cities as well as other airports (SJC, SAN, OAK to some extent). Alaska's growth strategy necessitated significant movement outside of the PNW. Moreover, there are a lot of opportunities to lower costs with VA and Alaska's management is one of the best out there.

Re: B6 and Hawaiian - that really does not make sense. They are very different operations. If anything, a big codeshare or JV would make more sense to allow JetBlue to push connections on the west coast and, more importantly, east coast (yes, I know east coasters go to the Caribbean more, but I still believe its a big opportunity). Perhaps you see some ownership interest in by JetBlue in Hawaiian, but operationally, brands, etc. just doesn't give either airline much.

Hawaiian will be just fine, even if WN starts flying to Hawaii. They have weathered bigger problems and came out ahead. As for Jet Blue? I just don't see it. I can however see a nice codebase would be beneficial.

FlyUSAir wrote:

Hawaiian and B6 marriage on the horizon? While it doesn't make a ton of sense so didn't the Virgin America/Alaska match-up. It's no secret B6 wants to eventually expand to deep South America/Across the Atlantic, this would give them instant access to the Pacific side. Not to mention A330's and new A321's. Heck, maybe they can stick the E190's on inter-Hawaii routes.

I disagree. B6 and VX would've been a match made in heaven and would have allowed much more for the consumer. The intra-CA expansion AS is doing could've been done without merging with VX.

TWA772LR wrote:

FlyUSAir wrote:

Hawaiian and B6 marriage on the horizon? While it doesn't make a ton of sense so didn't the Virgin America/Alaska match-up. It's no secret B6 wants to eventually expand to deep South America/Across the Atlantic, this would give them instant access to the Pacific side. Not to mention A330's and new A321's. Heck, maybe they can stick the E190's on inter-Hawaii routes.

I disagree. B6 and VX would've been a match made in heaven and would have allowed much more for the consumer. The intra-CA expansion AS is doing could've been done without merging with VX.

He never said B6 and VX didn't make sense. He said B6/Hawaiian and VX/Alaska didn't. Further, while it is true AS could and was actually expanding in California without acquiring VX, doing so gave them a legs up in its expansion and possibly without the losses it would have otherwise incurred (still will, though, plus the cost of acquisition).

DDR wrote:

I don't believe WN will be in HI anytime soon. In the time it takes an aircraft to do one round trip to the island, WN could get 3 or 4 rountrips out of the same aircraft by using it on the mainland.

Southwest already has nonstop service to BWI out of OAK and seasonal nonstop service to EWR out of OAK, and both BWI and EWR are farther from OAK than HNL is from OAK.

jbs2886 wrote:

FlyUSAir wrote:

Hawaiian and B6 marriage on the horizon? While it doesn't make a ton of sense so didn't the Virgin America/Alaska match-up. It's no secret B6 wants to eventually expand to deep South America/Across the Atlantic, this would give them instant access to the Pacific side. Not to mention A330's and new A321's. Heck, maybe they can stick the E190's on inter-Hawaii routes.

Not to go off topic, but Virgin America/Alaska made pretty good sense. The only thing about the matchup that was different was really their product. Alaska is clearly the strongest in the PNW and was expanding significantly in California, acquiring VA gave them a huge operation at SFO and LAX, which complimented Alaska's operations in those cities as well as other airports (SJC, SAN, OAK to some extent). Alaska's growth strategy necessitated significant movement outside of the PNW. Moreover, there are a lot of opportunities to lower costs with VA and Alaska's management is one of the best out there.

Re: B6 and Hawaiian - that really does not make sense. They are very different operations. If anything, a big codeshare or JV would make more sense to allow JetBlue to push connections on the west coast and, more importantly, east coast (yes, I know east coasters go to the Caribbean more, but I still believe its a big opportunity). Perhaps you see some ownership interest in by JetBlue in Hawaiian, but operationally, brands, etc. just doesn't give either airline much.

They have been working together closely for a while. Considering Hawaii is a major market from West Coast, a merger would be part of B6's effort to expand it's west coast presence. They both operated A320 series with A321NEO being a large part of the future. The addition of A330 into B6 makes a lot of sense, since it's likely to pick A330for Europe and South America if it decides it needs widebody. You can bet the Jetblue pilots are all excited about addition of A330.

As for what HA can get, the combined airline would be able to put A321NEO mint on many of the west coast to Hawaii, which would be a much superior product to what other airline on those routes offer. It would likely result in additional B6 resources into SFO/LAX providing feeds for Hawaiian flights. There will be increased opportunity for feed into JFK/BOS/FLL for flights to Hawaii.

They already operate next to each other in SFO, LAX and JFK. It seems like integration at these bases, the integration of product would be more straight forward than any other possible merger involving these 2 airlines. Their networks are quite complimentary.

Of course, they could just integrate and cooperate more with each without a merger, but that hasn't seemed to happened at all.

jplatts wrote:

DDR wrote:

I don't believe WN will be in HI anytime soon. In the time it takes an aircraft to do one round trip to the island, WN could get 3 or 4 rountrips out of the same aircraft by using it on the mainland.

Southwest already has nonstop service to BWI out of OAK and seasonal nonstop service to EWR out of OAK, and both BWI and EWR are farther from OAK than HNL is from OAK.

So? No one said it couldn't be done, only that the opportunity cost of 3-4 trips on the mainland may outweigh a single Hawaiian flight.

tphuang wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

FlyUSAir wrote:

Hawaiian and B6 marriage on the horizon? While it doesn't make a ton of sense so didn't the Virgin America/Alaska match-up. It's no secret B6 wants to eventually expand to deep South America/Across the Atlantic, this would give them instant access to the Pacific side. Not to mention A330's and new A321's. Heck, maybe they can stick the E190's on inter-Hawaii routes.

Not to go off topic, but Virgin America/Alaska made pretty good sense. The only thing about the matchup that was different was really their product. Alaska is clearly the strongest in the PNW and was expanding significantly in California, acquiring VA gave them a huge operation at SFO and LAX, which complimented Alaska's operations in those cities as well as other airports (SJC, SAN, OAK to some extent). Alaska's growth strategy necessitated significant movement outside of the PNW. Moreover, there are a lot of opportunities to lower costs with VA and Alaska's management is one of the best out there.

Re: B6 and Hawaiian - that really does not make sense. They are very different operations. If anything, a big codeshare or JV would make more sense to allow JetBlue to push connections on the west coast and, more importantly, east coast (yes, I know east coasters go to the Caribbean more, but I still believe its a big opportunity). Perhaps you see some ownership interest in by JetBlue in Hawaiian, but operationally, brands, etc. just doesn't give either airline much.

They have been working together closely for a while. Considering Hawaii is a major market from West Coast, a merger would be part of B6's effort to expand it's west coast presence. They both operated A320 series with A321NEO being a large part of the future. The addition of A330 into B6 makes a lot of sense, since it's likely to pick A330for Europe and South America if it decides it needs widebody. You can bet the Jetblue pilots are all excited about addition of A330.

As for what HA can get, the combined airline would be able to put A321NEO mint on many of the west coast to Hawaii, which would be a much superior product to what other airline on those routes offer. It would likely result in additional B6 resources into SFO/LAX providing feeds for Hawaiian flights. There will be increased opportunity for feed into JFK/BOS/FLL for flights to Hawaii.

They already operate next to each other in SFO, LAX and JFK. It seems like integration at these bases, the integration of product would be more straight forward than any other possible merger involving these 2 airlines. Their networks are quite complimentary.

Of course, they could just integrate and cooperate more with each without a merger, but that hasn't seemed to happened at all.

The point is Hawaiian doesn't have much of a "west coast presence" other than flights to Hawaii. People on the west coast aren't likely, other than maybe a few, to switch to B6 because it is the same airline as Hawaiian.

I'm not saying there aren't some synergies (similar aircraft) or that co-location and integration would be difficult. My point is that other than feed for Hawaii and maybe some connections to Asia (moreso Australia/NZ) neither party has much to gain other than what could be gained through just greater cooperation.

jbs2886 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

FlyUSAir wrote:

Hawaiian and B6 marriage on the horizon? While it doesn't make a ton of sense so didn't the Virgin America/Alaska match-up. It's no secret B6 wants to eventually expand to deep South America/Across the Atlantic, this would give them instant access to the Pacific side. Not to mention A330's and new A321's. Heck, maybe they can stick the E190's on inter-Hawaii routes.

I disagree. B6 and VX would've been a match made in heaven and would have allowed much more for the consumer. The intra-CA expansion AS is doing could've been done without merging with VX.

He never said B6 and VX didn't make sense. He said B6/Hawaiian and VX/Alaska didn't. Further, while it is true AS could and was actually expanding in California without acquiring VX, doing so gave them a legs up in its expansion and possibly without the losses it would have otherwise incurred (still will, though, plus the cost of acquisition).

I am still curious how this whole AS+VXVX thing works out. Will we see a long lasting impact or will this just be a competitor buying up another competitor?

jbs2886 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Not to go off topic, but Virgin America/Alaska made pretty good sense. The only thing about the matchup that was different was really their product. Alaska is clearly the strongest in the PNW and was expanding significantly in California, acquiring VA gave them a huge operation at SFO and LAX, which complimented Alaska's operations in those cities as well as other airports (SJC, SAN, OAK to some extent). Alaska's growth strategy necessitated significant movement outside of the PNW. Moreover, there are a lot of opportunities to lower costs with VA and Alaska's management is one of the best out there.

Re: B6 and Hawaiian - that really does not make sense. They are very different operations. If anything, a big codeshare or JV would make more sense to allow JetBlue to push connections on the west coast and, more importantly, east coast (yes, I know east coasters go to the Caribbean more, but I still believe its a big opportunity). Perhaps you see some ownership interest in by JetBlue in Hawaiian, but operationally, brands, etc. just doesn't give either airline much.

They have been working together closely for a while. Considering Hawaii is a major market from West Coast, a merger would be part of B6's effort to expand it's west coast presence. They both operated A320 series with A321NEO being a large part of the future. The addition of A330 into B6 makes a lot of sense, since it's likely to pick A330for Europe and South America if it decides it needs widebody. You can bet the Jetblue pilots are all excited about addition of A330.

As for what HA can get, the combined airline would be able to put A321NEO mint on many of the west coast to Hawaii, which would be a much superior product to what other airline on those routes offer. It would likely result in additional B6 resources into SFO/LAX providing feeds for Hawaiian flights. There will be increased opportunity for feed into JFK/BOS/FLL for flights to Hawaii.

They already operate next to each other in SFO, LAX and JFK. It seems like integration at these bases, the integration of product would be more straight forward than any other possible merger involving these 2 airlines. Their networks are quite complimentary.

Of course, they could just integrate and cooperate more with each without a merger, but that hasn't seemed to happened at all.

The point is Hawaiian doesn't have much of a "west coast presence" other than flights to Hawaii. People on the west coast aren't likely, other than maybe a few, to switch to B6 because it is the same airline as Hawaiian.

I'm not saying there aren't some synergies (similar aircraft) or that co-location and integration would be difficult. My point is that other than feed for Hawaii and maybe some connections to Asia (moreso Australia/NZ) neither party has much to gain other than what could be gained through just greater cooperation.

I agree on that front. I think if it does happen, it would have to be part of B6's overall growth strategy in West Coast from LAS/LAX/SFO. Maybe it would support B6 claims to more gate access at SFO/LAX.

jplatts wrote:

BWI and EWR are farther from OAK than HNL is from OAK.

Of course, there are a lot more options between OAK and EWR or BWI if one of the engines stop turning.

For all those talking about a merger between B6 & HA would the combined carrier remain as separate brands? I think heads would roll in Hawaii if HA was rebranded as JetBlue. HA would lose all of its brand capital in the state and the Pacific Rim. Moreover the JetBlue name is virtually unknown internationally in the Pacific. It's not insurmountable if they were to proceed but as others have said, B6+HA doesn't give much to value add to either carrier.

77H

77H wrote:

For all those talking about a merger between B6 & HA would the combined carrier remain as separate brands? I think heads would roll in Hawaii if HA was rebranded as JetBlue. HA would lose all of its brand capital in the state and the Pacific Rim. Moreover the JetBlue name is virtually unknown internationally in the Pacific. It's not insurmountable if they were to proceed but as others have said, B6+HA doesn't give much to value add to either carrier.

77H

Would surely remain separate like AF/KL...

77H wrote:

For all those talking about a merger between B6 & HA would the combined carrier remain as separate brands? I think heads would roll in Hawaii if HA was rebranded as JetBlue. HA would lose all of its brand capital in the state and the Pacific Rim. Moreover the JetBlue name is virtually unknown internationally in the Pacific. It's not insurmountable if they were to proceed but as others have said, B6+HA doesn't give much to value add to either carrier.

77H

I don't see why B6 couldn't assume the Hawaiian brand. 'Alaska' is HQ'd in Washington and has hubs in California. Southwest is far from limited to that region.

Varsity1 wrote:

77H wrote:

For all those talking about a merger between B6 & HA would the combined carrier remain as separate brands? I think heads would roll in Hawaii if HA was rebranded as JetBlue. HA would lose all of its brand capital in the state and the Pacific Rim. Moreover the JetBlue name is virtually unknown internationally in the Pacific. It's not insurmountable if they were to proceed but as others have said, B6+HA doesn't give much to value add to either carrier.

77H

I don't see why B6 couldn't assume the Hawaiian brand. 'Alaska' is HQ'd in Washington and has hubs in California. Southwest is far from limited to that region.

AS is a west coast airline. You're proposing that Hawaiian Airlines operate it's two largest hubs in cities 5000 miles away from it's namesake state? I don't think a name is everything but Hawaiian Airlines operating flights from MCO to PVD or JFK to CHS really would be odd and not make a lot of sense.

I was kinda surprised HA didn't take a stab at trying to merge with VX. Maybe they didn't and I just missed it. I know different culture, etc., etc., but it would have given HA some nice access to other markets and build a nice hub at LAX ((or SFO) (or somewhere else)).

Varsity1 wrote:

77H wrote:

For all those talking about a merger between B6 & HA would the combined carrier remain as separate brands? I think heads would roll in Hawaii if HA was rebranded as JetBlue. HA would lose all of its brand capital in the state and the Pacific Rim. Moreover the JetBlue name is virtually unknown internationally in the Pacific. It's not insurmountable if they were to proceed but as others have said, B6+HA doesn't give much to value add to either carrier.

77H

I don't see why B6 couldn't assume the Hawaiian brand. 'Alaska' is HQ'd in Washington and has hubs in California. Southwest is far from limited to that region.

Jetblue is an east coast and Caribbean airline. The same thing that can be said about the Hawaiian name on the west coast and the Pacific rim can be said about Jetblue on the east coast and in the caribbean

Can HA build HNL into a trans-Pacific hub? I know HNL is not on the Great Circle. But DXB is also far from the Asia-Europe Great Circle, it has nonetheless become a super-hub for Asia-Europe traffic. HNL has sufficient O&D traffic on both sides to (i.e. Asia-HNL and US-HNL), and some of those leisure traffic are not so low-yielding as well. If HA does it right and time the connections to minimize waiting time at HNL, it can attract quite some trans-Pacific traffic. HNL is probably a more pleasant airport to transit than many US mainland airports too.

INFINITI329 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

77H wrote:

For all those talking about a merger between B6 & HA would the combined carrier remain as separate brands? I think heads would roll in Hawaii if HA was rebranded as JetBlue. HA would lose all of its brand capital in the state and the Pacific Rim. Moreover the JetBlue name is virtually unknown internationally in the Pacific. It's not insurmountable if they were to proceed but as others have said, B6+HA doesn't give much to value add to either carrier.

77H

I don't see why B6 couldn't assume the Hawaiian brand. 'Alaska' is HQ'd in Washington and has hubs in California. Southwest is far from limited to that region.

Jetblue is an east coast and Caribbean airline. The same thing that can be said about the Hawaiian name on the west coast and the Pacific rim can be said about Jetblue on the east coast and in the caribbean

Which is ultimately my point. It would be silly for New York's Hometown Airlines to be named Hawaiian Airlines so I didn't even consider that a possibility. However, should the merger become reality it would be more likely that the combined carrier would be called JetBlue if they didn't keep their brands separate like AF/KL. My point being is the name Jetblue means next to nothing in the Pacific Rim where HA has successfully branded itself as a destination carrier for the state. In my opinion B6 and HA is unlikely because HA does not have a West Coast Network and B6 is primarily an East Coast airline. The combined carrier would still leave a big hole in Middle America and not be much stronger in the West than either carrier is today. With AS gobbling up VX the ship has somewhat sailed for B6 to gain a meaningful presence in the West. HA isn't the answer.

77H

raylee67 wrote:

Can HA build HNL into a trans-Pacific hub? I know HNL is not on the Great Circle. But DXB is also far from the Asia-Europe Great Circle, it has nonetheless become a super-hub for Asia-Europe traffic. HNL has sufficient O&D traffic on both sides to (i.e. Asia-HNL and US-HNL), and some of those leisure traffic are not so low-yielding as well. If HA does it right and time the connections to minimize waiting time at HNL, it can attract quite some trans-Pacific traffic. HNL is probably a more pleasant airport to transit than many US mainland airports too.

The other question is if they went the Icelandair route and priced a stopover at the same price as a connection. "Visit Hawaii on your way to Australia/Singapore/Japan/China, etc"

Great Circle for HA worKs for EU/AU, EU/NZ, and EU/S.Pac., and for S.Am/NE Asia, with a stopover in HNL. HA is, of course, aware of the possibilities. No one has solved the EU to HI puzzle yet, mainly because of payload/range issues.

IME, there are more "adventure tourists" in the EU than in the US, based on anecdotal experience in the S. Pac. and Asia.

What about inter-island? Since Aloha shut down in 2008, HA has not had a mainline competitor for interisland routes. Southwest, with an all mainline fleet, can change this.

To increase utilization, they could connect the neighbor islands via one-stop, same plane connections to/from the mainland.

PDX-HNL-LIH-HNL-PDX
SEA-OGG-HNL-OGG-SEA
LAS-HNL-KOA-HNL-LAS
SAN-OGG-ITO-OGG-SAN

Locals here are hungry for an alternative to interisland fares as high as $200 R/T in coach and the 'Southwest Effect' can help to stimulate neighbor island travel. HA will win on frequency and match WN fares but there is room for a competitor and WN inter-island flights would be fairly full, IMO as word spread about their offerings among locals.

As others have stated on Anet in the past, interisland will likely be part and parcel of any Southwest service to Hawaii. It doesn't make sense to land passengers in Honolulu, let's say, only to have them connect to another island aboard a competitor. When Southwest eventually does make the move to Hawaii, it will likely include some form of interisland service, as well. Here's hoping, as HA really does have a monopoly on that service and their charge for it. Boy, do they ever charge for it.,

National757 wrote:

What about inter-island? Since Aloha shut down in 2008, HA has not had a mainline competitor for interisland routes. Southwest, with an all mainline fleet, can change this.

If WN really wants to do inter-island, they'd better get a different plane...or a bunch of spare CFM's...the short stage lengths would be murder on those engines.

So the "Southwest Effect" would work for interisland fares on one flight a day between the neighbor islands and HNL?!? Seriously? If WN prices those seats so low that "WN wins on price" then their one flight a day will be full and so what? How many people will still be getting on HA and MK the rest of the day?

weekendppl wrote:

So the "Southwest Effect" would work for interisland fares on one flight a day between the neighbor islands and HNL?!? Seriously? If WN prices those seats so low that "WN wins on price" then their one flight a day will be full and so what? How many people will still be getting on HA and MK the rest of the day?

It won’t be just one flight per day once WN ramps up. I hope they’ll connect the islands with P2P service on their way to/from the mainland. The point won’t be marketshare. Let the majority of traffic continue to fly HA and MK with more frequent flights. WN will just be another option in the marketplace which will lower interisland fares for local families and visitors.

IMO the free market will sort things out. HA will go from earning economic profits on interisland routes to normal profits. Be interesting to see how HA responds other than price. Perhaps double or triple mile offers on interisland routes to keep the business?

So, let's say WN does connect the islands with interisland service on their way to and from the mainland. How many flights a day would you think they'd route through, say, Honolulu and Lihue? (Not to mention interisland OGG-LIH and KOA-LIH, both of which HA offers now.)

If they are going to do interisland on the way to/from the mainland, let's follow your routings and have two interisland hops per mainland flight. Say, PDX-HNL-LIH-HNL-PDX. That's one extra HNL-LIH and one extra LIH-HNL. Certainly some of those seats would be WN passengers that wanted to go LIH to/from PDX or connecting with some other WN mainland flight at HNL. The added interisland capacity is grains of sand on the beach. Unless WN stations aircraft here dedicated to interisland, there's no conceivable way they are going to fly so many mainland flights that adding two interisland hops to each mainland city pair, flown once or at most twice a day, makes even a perceptible change in interisland capacity/demand.

Sure, it sounds nice. Color me extremely skeptical that WN is any kind of solution to high interisland fares. History is littered with carriers that tried to make money selling cheap fares interisland. HNL will not be the next DEN in the WN story.

@Weekendppl and National757. MK is AIR MAURITIUS. ?? Maybe.. MW (Mokulele)?
Maybe WP, Island Air?

UA is entering the market. Do you think UA will stop at just long-haul from CONUS when UA was prepared to go up against HA and AQ in the past, and has plenty of NBs to spare?

I don't think you will ever see WN operating inter island flights.

Flyguy

Is there any possibility of HA flying A321s from/to Fresno and the Islands?