jetbluefan1 wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

I don't follow LGB's slot allocation process that closely, but it will be interesting to hear the full details. I didn't think B6 could pick and choose who would get their slots go if they weren't to use them. I thought they would have to be returned to the airport and airlines then submitting applications for them...unless this already happened.

That's what I thought too, but I guess there's a way around it. I can't see B6 returning a slot to the general pool with the "hope" that it doesn't land in WN's or DL's hands in the lottery.

IIRC, there is a preference given to "new entrants". So B6 could have returned a slot and then HA applies and gets it.

This is going to be really successful for HA. Lots of demand from Orange County to Hawaii.

Aloha did great business out of SNA with 737 for many years.

That's a great market for the smaller NEO's they have,now.

Regarding the slot, JetBlue, recently notified airport of its intention to return air carrier slot(s) during 2018. Per policy up to 3 slots are first awarded to potential new entrant before a lottery for existing carriers. HA was sole new entrant on airports waiting list that requested the slot.

Official press release has been posted:

https://newsroom.hawaiianairlines.com/r ... lu-service

I wonder what Jetblue's involvement will be in this... the route map ("Where We Jet") on jetblue.com now shows the Hawaiian Islands, although no destination dot. It was never there before... hmmm, interesting.

Also, apparent confirmation from Hawaiian's EVP/CCO...

https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2018/01/08/hawaiian-airlines-launches-new-daily-southern.html

No mention of B6 code share or onward connections in the press release.

LAXintl wrote:

Regarding the slot, JetBlue, recently notified airport of its intention to return air carrier slot(s) during 2018. Per policy up to 3 slots are first awarded to potential new entrant before a lottery for existing carriers. HA was sole new entrant on airports waiting list that requested the slot.

Very interesting. Do we know how many slots B6 plans to return to the airport? This is some confirmation that B6 intends to do something (again) to shake up its LGB toe hold.

varsity wrote:

No mention of B6 code share or onward connections in the press release.

The times allow for virtually zero B6 onward connections, but I'd be surprised if B6 didn't slap its code on this flight anyway.

jetbluefan1 wrote:

varsity wrote:

No mention of B6 code share or onward connections in the press release.

The times allow for virtually zero B6 onward connections, but I'd be surprised if B6 didn't slap its code on this flight anyway.

Maybe rearranging the flights will be part of the "shake up". Also wondering if an onward codeshare flight using the same HA plane, maybe to a B6 non-focus city like ORD or MSP might work (although that's clearly not part of the plan going in).

jetbluefan1 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Regarding the slot, JetBlue, recently notified airport of its intention to return air carrier slot(s) during 2018. Per policy up to 3 slots are first awarded to potential new entrant before a lottery for existing carriers. HA was sole new entrant on airports waiting list that requested the slot.

Very interesting. Do we know how many slots B6 plans to return to the airport? This is some confirmation that B6 intends to do something (again) to shake up its LGB toe hold.

B6 returned a single slot to the Airport, in essence so that HA could be granted the same slot to begin service. They were likely the only, or highest, new entrant on the list so they’d have been given priority over Southwest, which definitely wants as many slots as it can get its hands on. Bravo to B6 & HA on making this a reality!

AAflyguy

bzcat wrote:

This is going to be really successful for HA. Lots of demand from Orange County to Hawaii.

Aloha did great business out of SNA with 737 for many years.

Is anyone going to try SNA-Hawaii again? I get the restrictions there, but if the demand is there?

Does the A321 have a short field package like the 737-800?

kunta67 wrote:

Does the A321 have a short field package like the 737-800?

Does the A321NEO need that at LGB? Considering that the longest runway at LGB is 10,000 feet.

bzcat wrote:

Is anyone going to try SNA-Hawaii again? I get the restrictions there, but if the demand is there?

I would bet that Southwest tries to make something of the route.

KanaHawaii wrote:

kunta67 wrote:

Does the A321 have a short field package like the 737-800?

Does the A321NEO need that at LGB? Considering that the longest runway at LGB is 10,000 feet.

My bad, I probably should’ve clarified on that a bit. I was thinking along the lines if the NEO had a package that could allow HAL to take off from SNA and make it to Hawaii.

strfyr51 wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

Slightly OT, but what did HA use for west coast ops before the NEOs started coming in? Just the A330?

HA also flew B767's

Ya'll are speaking in past tense like the 767s are gone. Nothing further from the truth...they still FLY 767s. And the NEOs haven't even started revenue service to the mainland yet...not until next week.

kunta67 wrote:

KanaHawaii wrote:

kunta67 wrote:

Does the A321 have a short field package like the 737-800?

Does the A321NEO need that at LGB? Considering that the longest runway at LGB is 10,000 feet.

My bad, I probably should’ve clarified on that a bit. I was thinking along the lines if the NEO had a package that could allow HAL to take off from SNA and make it to Hawaii.

Even with a short field package, an A321 probably can’t do SNA-HNL. A 737-800 with the SFP can’t even do it with a full payload. Also as I understand it, much of the SFP on the 737 is for landing performance, such as greater spoiler deflection.

aeromoe wrote:

And the NEOs haven't even started revenue service to the mainland yet...not until next week.

A321neo service to the mainland started yesterday: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/HAL ... /PHOG/KOAK

aeromoe wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

Slightly OT, but what did HA use for west coast ops before the NEOs started coming in? Just the A330?

HA also flew B767's

Ya'll are speaking in past tense like the 767s are gone. Nothing further from the truth...they still FLY 767s. And the NEOs haven't even started revenue service to the mainland yet...not until next week.

Revenue service with the A321 NEO began yesterday on OGG-OAK..

And HA has been pretty clear about retiring the B767’s. They’d likely be gone by now had the A321’s not been so severely delayed in delivery.

AAflyguy

I certainly stand corrected on the inauguration of service OGG-OAK. Two weeks (or so) ago I booked my flight for third week of January when, at the time, the service looked like it was going to start around the 15th or so, IIRC. Glad to hear they started on the 8th. Looking forward to my flight on the newest North American-flown A321 later this month!

Despite whatever effect the delayed A321 service inauguration has had on retirements, the 767 is certainly still in service...no need to talk about it in the past tense for the time being.

Moe

AA623BDLSJU wrote:

If this is true, this is absolutely great news. As a Disney travel agent for Aulani, my guests would go crazy for this service. Another viable option outside of LAX and serve guests out of Orange County.

So PAX can go from HNL (Aulani) to LGB (Disneyland) and onward to MCO (WDW)? Talk about a true Disney vacation!

What's next? Disney Prime Air?

Would the 321NEO or MAX8 have any operational issues out of SNA(Rwy 5701ft) or BUR (6886ft)?

WN is a wee bit late to the party on Hawaii but I can see them adding SNA and/or BUR to counter an HA/B6 LA area alternative option given the fact AQ made them both work to HNL and OGG.

nine4nine wrote:

Would the 321NEO or MAX8 have any operational issues out of SNA(Rwy 5701ft) or BUR (6886ft)?

WN is a wee bit late to the party on Hawaii but I can see them adding SNA and/or BUR to counter an HA/B6 LA area alternative option given the fact AQ made them both work to HNL and OGG.

Without running the performance numbers, I'd still think it's a safe bet that neither the 737-8 or 321NEO could operate from SNA to Hawaii with a full payload. So yes, they'd have operational issues. The 737-800 can fly from SNA as far as ORD or DFW. The 737-7 could maybe do SNA-HNL without restriction, but I'm not certain.

AAflyguy wrote:

aeromoe wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

HA also flew B767's

Ya'll are speaking in past tense like the 767s are gone. Nothing further from the truth...they still FLY 767s. And the NEOs haven't even started revenue service to the mainland yet...not until next week.

Revenue service with the A321 NEO began yesterday on OGG-OAK..

And HA has been pretty clear about retiring the B767’s. They’d likely be gone by now had the A321’s not been so severely delayed in delivery.

AAflyguy

The 321's were not "severely" delayed. Several months, yes, but that's not a severe delay. Two YEARS for 380 and 787 delays... now that's severe. The 767s could never have been retired in this short of time. The 767 fleet has been slowly shrinking since 330s started arriving on the property in 2010.

azjubilee wrote:

AAflyguy wrote:

aeromoe wrote:

Ya'll are speaking in past tense like the 767s are gone. Nothing further from the truth...they still FLY 767s. And the NEOs haven't even started revenue service to the mainland yet...not until next week.

The 321's were not "severely" delayed. Several months, yes, but that's not a severe delay. Two YEARS for 380 and 787 delays... now that's severe. The 767s could never have been retired in this short of time. The 767 fleet has been slowly shrinking since 330s started arriving on the property in 2010.

My sincere apologies for the offense created by my apparent inappropriate use of the word severely.

AAflyguy

BUR would have runway performance issues especially during days of runway 33 ops. During those periods airlines hop planes over to places like ONT or LAS to refuel before they continue on their journey.

During the period Aloha served BUR with their sporty 737-700 they would regularly leave baggage behind which would be sent down to LAX and forwarded to Hawaii on other airlines.

AAflyguy wrote:

azjubilee wrote:

AAflyguy wrote:

The 321's were not "severely" delayed. Several months, yes, but that's not a severe delay. Two YEARS for 380 and 787 delays... now that's severe. The 767s could never have been retired in this short of time. The 767 fleet has been slowly shrinking since 330s started arriving on the property in 2010.

My sincere apologies for the offense created by my apparent inappropriate use of the word severely.

AAflyguy

You don't have to apologize and there was no offense taken. I was purely make a point.

azjubilee wrote:

AAflyguy wrote:

aeromoe wrote:

Ya'll are speaking in past tense like the 767s are gone. Nothing further from the truth...they still FLY 767s. And the NEOs haven't even started revenue service to the mainland yet...not until next week.

Revenue service with the A321 NEO began yesterday on OGG-OAK..

And HA has been pretty clear about retiring the B767’s. They’d likely be gone by now had the A321’s not been so severely delayed in delivery.

AAflyguy

The 321's were not "severely" delayed. Several months, yes, but that's not a severe delay. Two YEARS for 380 and 787 delays... now that's severe. The 767s could never have been retired in this short of time. The 767 fleet has been slowly shrinking since 330s started arriving on the property in 2010.

Would the 767s be gone by now if the A358s had been on schedule (deliveries originally planned to start in 2017)?

pasu129 wrote:

AA623BDLSJU wrote:

If this is true, this is absolutely great news. As a Disney travel agent for Aulani, my guests would go crazy for this service. Another viable option outside of LAX and serve guests out of Orange County.

So PAX can go from HNL (Aulani) to LGB (Disneyland) and onward to MCO (WDW)? Talk about a true Disney vacation!

It has been done. Especially if they just come back from Disney Cruise Line.

mrpippy wrote:

azjubilee wrote:

AAflyguy wrote:

Revenue service with the A321 NEO began yesterday on OGG-OAK..

And HA has been pretty clear about retiring the B767’s. They’d likely be gone by now had the A321’s not been so severely delayed in delivery.

AAflyguy

The 321's were not "severely" delayed. Several months, yes, but that's not a severe delay. Two YEARS for 380 and 787 delays... now that's severe. The 767s could never have been retired in this short of time. The 767 fleet has been slowly shrinking since 330s started arriving on the property in 2010.

Would the 767s be gone by now if the A358s had been on schedule (deliveries originally planned to start in 2017)?

Likely not, as the original 767 retirement schedule had them finally leaving in 2020.

Not to go off topic but (I) wonder if ONT is on the radar for them. If CI's service is any indication, might be a nice feed for HA's Asia network in addition to an alternative to LAX.

Dreamflight767 wrote:

Not to go off topic but (I) wonder if ONT is on the radar for them. If CI's service is any indication, might be a nice feed for HA's Asia network in addition to an alternative to LAX.

HA did fly ONT-HNL with a 767 in the past. Not sure why it didn’t work since that is still a large population base. UA did it briefly in the late 1970s with a DC-8 also.

I wonder if ONT would work now. I also wonder if HA will add other Hawaii destinations from LGB if that new flight does well.

Criminal though that JetBlue management did not plan to start their own Hawaii service, years ago, if there was all this pent up demand from their one and only west coast focus city. Oh well, at least they are adding more Dominican Republic?!?

CobaltScar wrote:

Criminal though that JetBlue management did not plan to start their own Hawaii service, years ago, if there was all this pent up demand from their one and only west coast focus city. Oh well, at least they are adding more Dominican Republic?!?

They print money on the dr routes. They also didn't have the aircraft back then to fly to Hawaii. And even if the a320 could make it, hard for an all y configuration to survive in a market with so much premium demand.

Precisely. The Hawaii market can be a low yielding proposition with the intense competition. They may have been smart not to fly there and employ their assets more profitably on other, higher yielding routes.

HA did fly ONT-HNL with a 767 in the past. Not sure why it didn’t work since that is still a large population base. UA did it briefly in the late 1970s with a DC-8 also.

They also used DC-10s out of ONT, if memory serves, way back in the day. I really hope they will begin Ontario services again. Its usually a much better drive for many Orange Countians, and the Inland Empire population would doubtless enjoy not having to make the drive to LAX. Plus, I could stop at my favorite sandwich shop after getting off of the plane! Yeah, greedy me...

Dreamflight767 wrote:

Not to go off topic but (I) wonder if ONT is on the radar for them. If CI's service is any indication, might be a nice feed for HA's Asia network in addition to an alternative to LAX.

HA's previous ONT service was primarily aimed at Orange County residents, which the new LGB service is doing. Don't see them serving both airports when what they really want to do is SNA but cannot due to equipment restriction.

CI's service hasn't began and too soon to draw any conclusion. Besides, not many people will want to connect in HNL to get to Asia from LA... it's a long detour.

bzcat wrote:

Dreamflight767 wrote:

Not to go off topic but (I) wonder if ONT is on the radar for them. If CI's service is any indication, might be a nice feed for HA's Asia network in addition to an alternative to LAX.

HA's previous ONT service was primarily aimed at Orange County residents, which the new LGB service is doing. Don't see them serving both airports when what they really want to do is SNA but cannot due to equipment restriction.

CI's service hasn't began and too soon to draw any conclusion. Besides, not many people will want to connect in HNL to get to Asia from LA... it's a long detour.

Surely the Inland Empire could support a Hawaii flight just from its own population base, couldn’t it?

BoeingGuy wrote:

bzcat wrote:

Dreamflight767 wrote:

Not to go off topic but (I) wonder if ONT is on the radar for them. If CI's service is any indication, might be a nice feed for HA's Asia network in addition to an alternative to LAX.

HA's previous ONT service was primarily aimed at Orange County residents, which the new LGB service is doing. Don't see them serving both airports when what they really want to do is SNA but cannot due to equipment restriction.

CI's service hasn't began and too soon to draw any conclusion. Besides, not many people will want to connect in HNL to get to Asia from LA... it's a long detour.

Surely the Inland Empire could support a Hawaii flight just from its own population base, couldn’t it?

I wouldn’t be shocked if ONT was added once again to the network. Serving LGB and ONT will supplement service at LAX and is a way to add to seats to the LA market without piling on the constraints that LAX poses. This could be like the Bay Area coverage HAL offers.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Precisely. The Hawaii market can be a low yielding proposition with the intense competition. They may have been smart not to fly there and employ their assets more profitably on other, higher yielding routes.

HA did fly ONT-HNL with a 767 in the past. Not sure why it didn’t work since that is still a large population base. UA did it briefly in the late 1970s with a DC-8 also.

They also used DC-10s out of ONT, if memory serves, way back in the day. I really hope they will begin Ontario services again. Its usually a much better drive for many Orange Countians, and the Inland Empire population would doubtless enjoy not having to make the drive to LAX. Plus, I could stop at my favorite sandwich shop after getting off of the plane! Yeah, greedy me...

As an “orange countian” I disagree. I would rather do the jaunt to LAX or SAN where traffic can be hit or miss than deal with the 91 and 15 freeways which are usually completely stopped everyday at any hour of the day to go to ONT.
From what I hear there aren’t even any concessions at ONT these days other than a snack bar where you can buy a prepackaged cold sandwich and a can of coke. LGB sits 2 1/2 miles from the Orange County border so why drive all the way out to ONT on a highway turned parking lot.

if you can’t do SNA operationally then LGB is the next best option. Good call On HA.

nine4nine wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

Precisely. The Hawaii market can be a low yielding proposition with the intense competition. They may have been smart not to fly there and employ their assets more profitably on other, higher yielding routes.

HA did fly ONT-HNL with a 767 in the past. Not sure why it didn’t work since that is still a large population base. UA did it briefly in the late 1970s with a DC-8 also.

They also used DC-10s out of ONT, if memory serves, way back in the day. I really hope they will begin Ontario services again. Its usually a much better drive for many Orange Countians, and the Inland Empire population would doubtless enjoy not having to make the drive to LAX. Plus, I could stop at my favorite sandwich shop after getting off of the plane! Yeah, greedy me...

As an “orange countian” I disagree. I would rather do the jaunt to LAX or SAN where traffic can be hit or miss than deal with the 91 and 15 freeways which are usually completely stopped everyday at any hour of the day to go to ONT.
From what I hear there aren’t even any concessions at ONT these days other than a snack bar where you can buy a prepackaged cold sandwich and a can of coke. LGB sits 2 1/2 miles from the Orange County border so why drive all the way out to ONT on a highway turned parking lot.

if you can’t do SNA operationally then LGB is the next best option. Good call On HA.

As an “Orange Countian”, I have to disagree to your disagreement. I find the 57 to the 60 or 10 way better than any of the routes to LAX. Don’t know when you’re driving the 91 and 15, but your assessment of those freeways is completely off. I’ve driven the 91 during off peak hours toward ONT and found it to be a quick drive. Any freeway in the LA basin is a mess during rush hours.

I wonder if the SHARP kit will make it to the A321NEO...

Has anyone heard the performance of the SHARP kit? I know for the A320NEO it allows operations off of 4,321ft (1,323m) at SDU in Brazil.

Since it is a wingroot package, it should be possible (and should help).

BoeingGuy wrote:

kunta67 wrote:

KanaHawaii wrote:

Does the A321NEO need that at LGB? Considering that the longest runway at LGB is 10,000 feet.

My bad, I probably should’ve clarified on that a bit. I was thinking along the lines if the NEO had a package that could allow HAL to take off from SNA and make it to Hawaii.

Even with a short field package, an A321 probably can’t do SNA-HNL. A 737-800 with the SFP can’t even do it with a full payload. Also as I understand it, much of the SFP on the 737 is for landing performance, such as greater spoiler deflection.

Here are the Airbus technical documents, but I couldn't find the PW1100G or LEAP-1A runway requirements:
http://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support- ... stics.html

Select the one for the A321NEO and look at page 3-3-2 for a hot day with V2500 engines. The CEO takes an incredible amount of runway on a hot day. The NEO will eventually have more thrust (in 2019).
Heck, the information is sparse. The NEO on page 3-2-1 (same page above for CEO range) only has range with 1 ACT (better than the CEO with 2).

We had a thread on finding the A321NEO takeoff performance a little over a year ago:
viewtopic.php?t=605637

From that thread, we should expect better than A321CEO takeoff performance, but not good enough for SNA to Hawaii. LGB, SAN (not SNA, but San Diego), ONT, OAK, PDX, probably MFR (Medford Oregon), and a few others are opened up by the NEO to Hawaii. But not SNA.

What is more important is the Maui airport. With just under 7,000ft, the NEO is not capable of MTOW with crosswinds and such. But the A321LR with the 35,000 lbf engine should do well from there...

Lightsaber

As an “Orange Countian”, I have to disagree to your disagreement. I find the 57 to the 60 or 10 way better than any of the routes to LAX. Don’t know when you’re driving the 91 and 15, but your assessment of those freeways is completely off. I’ve driven the 91 during off peak hours toward ONT and found it to be a quick drive. Any freeway in the LA basin is a mess during rush hours.

Plus, you can avoid many freeways by taking the toll roads the "back way" into the Ontario area, thus cutting off more potential gridlock, say the 241 to the 91 to the 15 and over on the 10. From where I live east of Mission Viejo, I'd save well over 30 minutes in normal traffic, maybe even 45 minutes. Much as I hate paying tolls, the thought of a less than 45 minute drive to Ontario is really appealing compared to the alternative that is the nightmare run to LAX.

In my opinion, opening ONT to direct service to Hawaii would serve a large swath of the northern LA population stretching from Palm Springs to Pasadena and even Santa Clarita. The LGB route would serve better for the Orange County folks, with a large part of the "Hawaii expat" population living in that area.

I've been thinking ONT as well, it makes perfect sense & I wouldn't be surprised at all, get there before WN does. Considering HA's bay area strategy, ONT makes sense.