Hawaiian CEO on A321neo In-Service Economics

Ab345 · Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:51 pm

Mark Dunkerley had some interesting comments on HA experience with the A321neo so far...

Hawaiian Airlines executives expect big cost savings from the company's incoming fleet of Airbus A321neos.

Speaking during Hawaiian's 2017 earnings call on 29 January, chief executive Mark Dunkerley says 189-seat A321neos have better trip and seat-mile costs on routes between Hawaii and the US mainland even than Hawaiian's 294-seat A330s.

"In terms of cost per seat, the A321neo is more efficient than even our A330s over that particular segment length," says Dunkerley. "It’s not by much, but it’s considerably more efficient than the competing narrowbodies that are currently flying."

The A321neo "gives us the same operating cost advantage that we get on the widebodies... It's, in fact, even a little bit better than that."

Hawaiian chief commercial officer Peter Ingram has long touted the carrier's Pratt & Whitney-powered A321neo as the "perfect" aircraft for the roughly 2,100nm to 2,300nm routes from Hawaii to US West Coast cities.

The airline has received two of 18 A321neos that it has on order, with deliveries scheduled to run into 2020, according to Flight Fleets Analyzer.

Hawaiian launched its first A321neo transpacific route – from Maui to Oakland – on 8 January, followed by Maui-Portland flights on 18 January.

The airline plans to deploy A321neos this year on the Lihue-Oakland, Kona-Los Angeles, Maui-San Diego, Kona-Oakland and Honolulu-San Francisco routes, it has said.

P&W may have had production issues but they seem to have the better engine in the long run? Not to sound like a broken record on this forum but the A321neo seems to be THE plane to buy

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 1n-445310/

SonomaFlyer · Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:55 pm

Whether its THE plane to buy depends on the mission. I think for HA, this airplane is a perfect fit and the great economics gives the airline more flexibility to deploy their 330s to other markets.

RWA380 · Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:16 pm

SonomaFlyer wrote:
Whether its THE plane to buy depends on the mission. I think for HA, this airplane is a perfect fit and the great economics gives the airline more flexibility to deploy their 330s to other markets.

I 100% agree with your assessment of the A321N, for some carriers this is one great product, if you need the range, pallet loading & capacity. I though HA would end up loving these, it'll allow more routes to the mainland & S. Pacific destinations. HA can certainly push this plane to it's limits once they have used it for a while & understand what they can really get out of it. I wish them the best with this A/C, looks like it's going to be a total winner for HA.

The one question I'd have would be, in the future, will HA increase frequency on trunk mainland routes with all A321's or run a mix of A332's & A321's? I know if they want to expand past, say DEN they'll need an A332. How many more new International destinations would make sense for HA, could they do anything profitable with a slacked up A332 fleet?

OzarkD9S · Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:24 pm

One thing I've wondered about HA is why they haven't started intra-mainland routes continuing on to Hawaii. This may be the right plane for them if say they wanted to fly HNL-SAN-BWI or OGG-LAS-MKE (off the top of my head). The widebodies would be too much aircraft for the intra-mainland segments but the 321 seems a lower risk option. I'm not saying they might start flights of this nature, but it opens up a great deal of "possibilities".

Newbiepilot · Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:29 pm

Ab345 wrote:

"In terms of cost per seat, the A321neo is more efficient than even our A330s over that particular segment length," says Dunkerley. "It’s not by much, but it’s considerably more efficient than the competing narrowbodies that are currently flying."

The A321neo "gives us the same operating cost advantage that we get on the widebodies... It's, in fact, even a little bit better than that."

Hawaiian chief commercial officer Peter Ingram has long touted the carrier's Pratt & Whitney-powered A321neo as the "perfect" aircraft for the roughly 2,100nm to 2,300nm routes from Hawaii to US West Coast cities./

A few things come to mind.

First off, that is awesome that the A321neo is performing well compared to the competition and widebodies

Secondly, I don’t think anyone else is operating the MAX or NEO to Hawaii. I think the comment about it being considerably more efficient than competing narrowbodies is referring to 737-800s operated by Alaska and 757s. That will change when Alaska puts the MAX on Hawaii runs.

Thirdly, I wonder if this means we may see A330s removed from all west coast routes. If they choose to go exclusively to A321neos to the West Coast and add frequency, perhaps they will convert the A330-800 orders to more A321neos and make do with shuffling their existing A330-200 fleet.

osupoke07 · Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:37 pm

OzarkD9S wrote:
One thing I've wondered about HA is why they haven't started intra-mainland routes continuing on to Hawaii. This may be the right plane for them if say they wanted to fly HNL-SAN-BWI or OGG-LAS-MKE (off the top of my head). The widebodies would be too much aircraft for the intra-mainland segments but the 321 seems a lower risk option. I'm not saying they might start flights of this nature, but it opens up a great deal of "possibilities".

That's an interesting thought as each leg (HNL-SAN / SAN/BWI) is about 5 hours in the air, so that's 20 hours airborne and 4 hours on the ground to turn 4 times. 1 frame could potentially make this a once daily operation, and any additional frequency would need to come from more frames. I think they only have 18 on order, so I'm not sure if they'd want to tie up these new planes on low frequency flights.

In my mind, it seems like they would be better used if they stayed on the west coast to increase frequency, then sent the 332 to BWI instead.

Sean-SAN- · Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:38 pm

The A321 may be slightly more efficient than an A332 but it generates much less revenue. If they can fill a plane to capacity the A332 is still superior, and I would expect to see them forever on LAS/LAX/SAN etc.

ucdtim17 · Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:41 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Secondly, I don’t think anyone else is operating the MAX or NEO to Hawaii. I think the comment about it being considerably more efficient than competing narrowbodies is referring to 737-800s operated by Alaska and 757s. That will change when Alaska puts the MAX on Hawaii runs.

They're getting a pretty big head start. AS isn't getting their first MAXes until next year and then who knows if/when they'll be put on Hawaii flights. WN isn't even starting Hawaii for another ~year and starting with 800s with MAXes sometime beyond that.

tphuang · Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:43 pm

ucdtim17 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Secondly, I don’t think anyone else is operating the MAX or NEO to Hawaii. I think the comment about it being considerably more efficient than competing narrowbodies is referring to 737-800s operated by Alaska and 757s. That will change when Alaska puts the MAX on Hawaii runs.

They're getting a pretty big head start. AS isn't getting their first MAXes until next year and then who knows if/when they'll be put on Hawaii flights. WN isn't even starting Hawaii for another ~year and starting with 800s with MAXes sometime beyond that.

Also I would imagine the larger a321neo with a lot more seats would be more efficient than 738max.

Now if as decides to keep around a321 for this kind of mission. That would be interesting.

bzcat · Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:52 pm

OzarkD9S wrote:
One thing I've wondered about HA is why they haven't started intra-mainland routes continuing on to Hawaii. This may be the right plane for them if say they wanted to fly HNL-SAN-BWI or OGG-LAS-MKE (off the top of my head). The widebodies would be too much aircraft for the intra-mainland segments but the 321 seems a lower risk option. I'm not saying they might start flights of this nature, but it opens up a great deal of "possibilities".

I'm just guessing but that would change the utilization of the aircraft. And you are also competing with network carriers with established corporate accounts so you end up chasing low yields on mainland segments. Might be better to just focus on O&D yields from West coast to Hawaii.

Newbiepilot wrote:

A few things come to mind.

First off, that is awesome that the A321neo is performing well compared to the competition and widebodies

Secondly, I don’t think anyone else is operating the MAX or NEO to Hawaii. I think the comment about it being considerably more efficient than competing narrowbodies is referring to 737-800s operated by Alaska and 757s. That will change when Alaska puts the MAX on Hawaii runs.

Thirdly, I wonder if this means we may see A330s removed from all west coast routes. If they choose to go exclusively to A321neos to the West Coast and add frequency, perhaps they will convert the A330-800 orders to more A321neos and make do with shuffling their existing A330-200 fleet.

A321 doesn't have enough seats to compensate A330 on 1 for 1 basis. So you need 3x A321 to replace 2x A330 on HNL-LAX for example. You are still flying 3 airplanes instead of 2 so your total cost is higher (and thus profit margin is lower). And unlike other routes, adding frequencies on leisure routes to Hawaii won't necessarily lift yield - people are generally not time sensitive when they go on vacation. So it doesn't make any sense to remove A330 from the West coast.

777PHX · Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:53 pm

Sean-SAN- wrote:
The A321 may be slightly more efficient than an A332 but it generates much less revenue. If they can fill a plane to capacity the A332 is still superior, and I would expect to see them forever on LAS/LAX/SAN etc.

That’s my thought.

If they can profitably fill an A330 from xxx-Hawaii, I’m not sure why they would leave money on the table by downgauging the route to an A321. Unless the opportunity cost was just too great. I’d have to imagine the A330/767 also benefits by having a far superior cargo capacity.

mrpippy · Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:02 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Secondly, I don’t think anyone else is operating the MAX or NEO to Hawaii. I think the comment about it being considerably more efficient than competing narrowbodies is referring to 737-800s operated by Alaska and 757s. That will change when Alaska puts the MAX on Hawaii runs.

Thirdly, I wonder if this means we may see A330s removed from all west coast routes. If they choose to go exclusively to A321neos to the West Coast and add frequency, perhaps they will convert the A330-800 orders to more A321neos and make do with shuffling their existing A330-200 fleet.

Alaska does send their (ex-VA) A321neos to Hawaii (especially N922VA lately), although not exclusively. Also those birds are LEAP powered, not PW.

I think we will still see HA sending A330s to the west coast, but only between the bigger city pairs. i.e. LAX/LAS-HNL will still be A330, with maybe one of the daily flights downgauged to A321n. Neighbor island service and smaller west coast cities will be A321n, with possible upgauge during the holidays or peak summer season.

thevery · Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:04 am

Aren't narrowbody planes overall have better CASM on medium haul routes over any widebody?

HAL · Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:09 am

Newbiepilot wrote:

Thirdly, I wonder if this means we may see A330s removed from all west coast routes. If they choose to go exclusively to A321neos to the West Coast and add frequency, perhaps they will convert the A330-800 orders to more A321neos and make do with shuffling their existing A330-200 fleet.

HA carries a huge amount of cargo out of the big west coast cities so there will continue to be 330s going to LAX, SFO, and SEA. The 321s don't have the cargo capacity to do the job. You'll also see the 330s remain in LAS.

HAL

Newbiepilot · Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:10 am

bzcat wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

A few things come to mind.

First off, that is awesome that the A321neo is performing well compared to the competition and widebodies

Secondly, I don’t think anyone else is operating the MAX or NEO to Hawaii. I think the comment about it being considerably more efficient than competing narrowbodies is referring to 737-800s operated by Alaska and 757s. That will change when Alaska puts the MAX on Hawaii runs.

Thirdly, I wonder if this means we may see A330s removed from all west coast routes. If they choose to go exclusively to A321neos to the West Coast and add frequency, perhaps they will convert the A330-800 orders to more A321neos and make do with shuffling their existing A330-200 fleet.

A321 doesn't have enough seats to compensate A330 on 1 for 1 basis. So you need 3x A321 to replace 2x A330 on HNL-LAX for example. You are still flying 3 airplanes instead of 2 so your total cost is higher (and thus profit margin is lower). And unlike other routes, adding frequencies on leisure routes to Hawaii won't necessarily lift yield - people are generally not time sensitive when they go on vacation. So it doesn't make any sense to remove A330 from the West coast.

A321s allow more capacity flexibility. They can run more segments Friday to Monday when there is increased demand and reduce capacity midweek to keep yields decent. Smaller planes tend to increase RASM and allow more schedule flexibility.

Flighty · Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:16 am

What amount of freight can an A321 NEO haul into HNL from the mainland?

redzeppelin · Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:30 am

OzarkD9S wrote:
One thing I've wondered about HA is why they haven't started intra-mainland routes continuing on to Hawaii. This may be the right plane for them if say they wanted to fly HNL-SAN-BWI or OGG-LAS-MKE (off the top of my head). The widebodies would be too much aircraft for the intra-mainland segments but the 321 seems a lower risk option. I'm not saying they might start flights of this nature, but it opens up a great deal of "possibilities".

I've wondered about the viability of a scissor hub someplace like OAK. Imagine flights from, for example, MSP, IND, MCI and CMH arriving in OAK, then passengers switch as needed before the same 4 planes continue to OGG, LIH, HNL and KOA. Then imagine if the 4 inland cities were switched up from day to day, thus offering less-than daily service to a variety of midsized inland markets. The hub could be almost anywhere on the west coast, and they can of course sell the individual segments. Crazy?

Newbiepilot · Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:31 am

redzeppelin wrote:
OzarkD9S wrote:
One thing I've wondered about HA is why they haven't started intra-mainland routes continuing on to Hawaii. This may be the right plane for them if say they wanted to fly HNL-SAN-BWI or OGG-LAS-MKE (off the top of my head). The widebodies would be too much aircraft for the intra-mainland segments but the 321 seems a lower risk option. I'm not saying they might start flights of this nature, but it opens up a great deal of "possibilities".

I've wondered about the viability of a scissor hub someplace like OAK. Imagine flights from, for example, MSP, IND, MCI and CMH arriving in OAK, then passengers switch as needed before the same 4 planes continue to OGG, LIH, HNL and KOA. Then imagine if the 4 inland cities were switched up from day to day, thus offering less-than daily service to a variety of midsized inland markets. The hub could be almost anywhere on the west coast, and they can of course sell the individual segments. Crazy?

Rarely is a scissor hub profitable. If HA tried that in OAK, WN would probably retaliate and slaughter the, since WN dominates O/D. I don’t see mainland flights as much of an opportunity.

Busyboy2 · Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:39 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
redzeppelin wrote:
OzarkD9S wrote:
One thing I've wondered about HA is why they haven't started intra-mainland routes continuing on to Hawaii. This may be the right plane for them if say they wanted to fly HNL-SAN-BWI or OGG-LAS-MKE (off the top of my head). The widebodies would be too much aircraft for the intra-mainland segments but the 321 seems a lower risk option. I'm not saying they might start flights of this nature, but it opens up a great deal of "possibilities".

I've wondered about the viability of a scissor hub someplace like OAK. Imagine flights from, for example, MSP, IND, MCI and CMH arriving in OAK, then passengers switch as needed before the same 4 planes continue to OGG, LIH, HNL and KOA. Then imagine if the 4 inland cities were switched up from day to day, thus offering less-than daily service to a variety of midsized inland markets. The hub could be almost anywhere on the west coast, and they can of course sell the individual segments. Crazy?

Rarely is a scissor hub profitable. If HA tried that in OAK, WN would probably retaliate and slaughter the, since WN dominates O/D. I don’t see mainland flights as much of an opportunity.

It might work since WN is buying HA anyway. Total market cap is only $2 Billion. WN can pay cash tomorrow. It'll be run a separate entity (until the 797's come online at WN) for awhile with massive feed in OAK, SFO, LAX, SAN, SEA, DEN, PDX, SLC and SJC. Over 65% of Hawaii's traffic comes from western North America worth $7 Billion a year. Can't remember the exact number though.

777PHX · Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:11 am

As a regular passenger of HA, I'd avoid them if I had to connect twice to visit an outlying island. I guarantee you no one on the west coast wants to spend most of the day flying to Hawaii via a connection if there's a direct option available.

lightsaber · Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:30 am

bzcat wrote:
OzarkD9S wrote:
One thing I've wondered about HA is why they haven't started intra-mainland routes continuing on to Hawaii. This may be the right plane for them if say they wanted to fly HNL-SAN-BWI or OGG-LAS-MKE (off the top of my head). The widebodies would be too much aircraft for the intra-mainland segments but the 321 seems a lower risk option. I'm not saying they might start flights of this nature, but it opens up a great deal of "possibilities".

I'm just guessing but that would change the utilization of the aircraft. And you are also competing with network carriers with established corporate accounts so you end up chasing low yields on mainland segments. Might be better to just focus on O&D yields from West coast to Hawaii.

Newbiepilot wrote:

A few things come to mind.

First off, that is awesome that the A321neo is performing well compared to the competition and widebodies

Secondly, I don’t think anyone else is operating the MAX or NEO to Hawaii. I think the comment about it being considerably more efficient than competing narrowbodies is referring to 737-800s operated by Alaska and 757s. That will change when Alaska puts the MAX on Hawaii runs.

Thirdly, I wonder if this means we may see A330s removed from all west coast routes. If they choose to go exclusively to A321neos to the West Coast and add frequency, perhaps they will convert the A330-800 orders to more A321neos and make do with shuffling their existing A330-200 fleet.

A321 doesn't have enough seats to compensate A330 on 1 for 1 basis. So you need 3x A321 to replace 2x A330 on HNL-LAX for example. You are still flying 3 airplanes instead of 2 so your total cost is higher (and thus profit margin is lower). And unlike other routes, adding frequencies on leisure routes to Hawaii won't necessarily lift yield - people are generally not time sensitive when they go on vacation. So it doesn't make any sense to remove A330 from the West coast.

No. Per passenger the A321 is cheaper. So 3x A321 should be cheaper to fly. Adding frequency improves connections, so yeilds will go up fractionally. I have paid more for better timed vacation flights.

Where the a332 thrives is cargo.

Where the A321 thrives is opening new markets. Markets that we're just a little too small will now thrive.

The cost per passenger is less. There will be more profit at low cargo markets than with the A332.

Now, the A332 isn't the greatest widebody. There is a reason that as soon as the A333 hit 5,700nm, sales shifted away from the shrink. Shrinks have poor costs per passenger. The A333 would beat A321NEO economics, but is too big for HA.

Because of NEO and MAX economics, more and more mid-haul routes will go narrowbody just as TCON went mostly narrowbody. Cest la vie.

Wait for the A321LR in about a year and a half from now. Game changer...

Then the MoM...

Aerospace engineering is a perpetual marathon with no finish line.

Lightsaber

lightsaber · Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:34 am

777PHX wrote:
As a regular passenger of HA, I'd avoid them if I had to connect twice to visit an outlying island. I guarantee you no one on the west coast wants to spend most of the day flying to Hawaii via a connection if there's a direct option available.

Agreed. I don't know HA's route map, but if the A321 opens up a set of flights at a better time from say Maui or Kawaii to PHX, SLC, DEN, or PDX... The best timed direct will win. Since the cost per flight is low, HA will try more. With success, they'll shift to a more narrowbody to West coast strategy (not 100% narrowbody, but more).

Lightsaber

c933103 · Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:54 am

777PHX wrote:
As a regular passenger of HA, I'd avoid them if I had to connect twice to visit an outlying island. I guarantee you no one on the west coast wants to spend most of the day flying to Hawaii via a connection if there's a direct option available.

I thought HA is supposed to open different direct routes to west coast from those other islands with the help of these new 321N?

crownvic · Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:02 am

And that is why they should order 787s to replace the A330s!

zeke · Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:08 am

crownvic wrote:
And that is why they should order 787s to replace the A330s!

Do not follow the logic of your post ? How is the A321 related to the 787 ?

CARST · Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:58 am

zeke wrote:
crownvic wrote:
And that is why they should order 787s to replace the A330s!

Do not follow the logic of your post ? How is the A321 related to the 787 ?

The comparision of narrowbodies to widebodies was made by Hawaiians CEO, see the opening post. So now he's comparing newest gen aircraft (A321neo) to last gen aircraft (A330). He would have to replace the A330 by another newest gen wideboy (787 or A350 or even A330neo) to really have a fair comparision. That the A321neo is more efficient than the last gen A330s kind of is a given on a per seat basis. But now let's add freight revenue (which is important to Hawaii I guess) and replace the A330 with a new-gen widebody and the narrowbody sure will loose out again. Not because the A321neo is not good, just because the widebody will be more efficient again...

seahawk · Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:01 am

Not that impressive if you consider that he is comparing A321NEO vs A332CEO. If they would operate a 787-10 instead of the A332 the A321 would be hopeless.

RalXWB · Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:25 am

Let´s see, the best plane in its segment is great for them...what a surprise. I still think a couple of LRs would be a great fit for HA especially towards Asia.

StTim · Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:30 am

seahawk wrote:
Not that impressive if you consider that he is comparing A321NEO vs A332CEO. If they would operate a 787-10 instead of the A332 the A321 would be hopeless.

Only if they reliably filled it at a good RASM

Samrnpage · Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:41 am

Sean-SAN- wrote:
The A321 may be slightly more efficient than an A332 but it generates much less revenue. If they can fill a plane to capacity the A332 is still superior, and I would expect to see them forever on LAS/LAX/SAN etc.

ah yes, but profit is all companies care about. Spend £100 to get £250 back on A321 is much better than spending £500 on an A330 and getting £600 back.

armchairceonr1 · Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:56 am

seahawk wrote:
Not that impressive if you consider that he is comparing A321NEO vs A332CEO. If they would operate a 787-10 instead of the A332 the A321 would be hopeless.

I think that there is not so big difference on short routes. Look what Leeham wrote about a330-300 and a330-900neo few years ago

If we leave the per seat gains for the moment and focus the 12% trip fuel gain, this is valid for 4,000nm missions and beyond. For the common 2,000nm missions or below, the increased weight will negate most if not all of the projected fuel consumption improvements. This has also been confirmed by Airbus VP of Strategy and Marketing, Kiran Rao, in press quotes in the days leading up to Farnborough. What this all means in detail will be subject of deeper analysis with our proprietary airplane model. We will present our overall findings here and put the detailed results in an updated version of our 60 page A330neo report.

For now we can see that the A330-900neo will be as good as today’s A330ceo on short haul but not really better. It will, however, be considerably more efficient on the longer haul 8-10 hours Trans-Atlantic and intra-Asia networks. As the typical A330-300 route of today has an average stage length of 2,000nm, we can see that the A330ceo’s attractiveness will not be gone, but will still be a good alternative for short-haul networks with high capacity requirements. Now that the ambiguity hanging over the A330 program is gone, it should not be difficult to sell the 200 open slots that remains until the A330neo is planned to fully replace the A330ceo production end in 2018. How close the A330neo comes to the efficiency of Boeing’s 787 will be the subject of our next assessment.

gokmengs · Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:15 am

SonomaFlyer wrote:
Whether its THE plane to buy depends on the mission. I think for HA, this airplane is a perfect fit and the great economics gives the airline more flexibility to deploy their 330s to other markets.

Couldn't agree more. For HA 321NEO is thee perfect plane for markets that are a bit thin or lacking heavy cargo, in this case actually even the MoM would not be a better fit than the NEO's for these mission as I think it would be too much plane, if I'm not mistaken HA never operated 757's either.

parapente · Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:18 am

I guess one should add this (a new NB being as efficient as a midsize) the comments of the Qantas CEO.That (in certain circumstances?) a (midsize)787 is as efficient as a (VLA) A380.
As stated above of course these broad brush statements do not allow for the myriad of other important variables that change from route to route.Which will and do change the equations.
However the airline purchasing and planning departments clearly have a far more complicated process than their forbears.And yes I guess it will only get more complicated as more super efficient aircraft arrive in various sizes/ranges.Far more complicated from now on!

seahawk · Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:29 am

armchairceonr1 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Not that impressive if you consider that he is comparing A321NEO vs A332CEO. If they would operate a 787-10 instead of the A332 the A321 would be hopeless.

I think that there is not so big difference on short routes. Look what Leeham wrote about a330-300 and a330-900neo few years ago

[/quote]

Agreed but HA uses A332s. So even a A333 should be better than the A321 on CASM. Surely in the end it depends on if you can fill the extra seats and this is the interesting part, as yield management can favour the smaller frame.

zeke · Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:55 am

CARST wrote:
The comparision of narrowbodies to widebodies was made by Hawaiians CEO, see the opening post. So now he's comparing newest gen aircraft (A321neo) to last gen aircraft (A330). He would have to replace the A330 by another newest gen wideboy (787 or A350 or even A330neo) to really have a fair comparision. That the A321neo is more efficient than the last gen A330s kind of is a given on a per seat basis. But now let's add freight revenue (which is important to Hawaii I guess) and replace the A330 with a new-gen widebody and the narrowbody sure will loose out again. Not because the A321neo is not good, just because the widebody will be more efficient again...

One of the analysts asked was how the A321neo compares with the 767 (ie an aircraft that has 70 seats less and burns half the fuel), as the A321neo is replacing the 767 at HA (all seven remaining 767s will be gone this year). They said that the A321neo was the most efficient narrow body serving the Islands including the 737/757, and is even more even more efficient than their A330s. They went on to say the A321neo will be deployed on new O&D routes which they did not serve, these are direct flights from the lower 48 to the different island direct. These are the highest RASM routes for them. They were very happy to have the second highest margins in the world.

They said they did deploy widebodies on some of these routes as a one off, buy hinted that they were too big for these routes, they only thing that made these flights work was the higher revenue. The A321neo is the righ size aircraft for the routes, and they can change the departure times to best extract revenue.

So I fail to see how the 787 comes into this discussion, they were saying that the A321neo is going on direct flights to the islands rather than the trunk routes where the A330s are. Also only on a.net is the cost of not having flown the A330 for the years they have already, and how long they would have to wait for 787s, and that the cost of ownership of 787s is much higher.

eamondzhang · Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:06 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Secondly, I don’t think anyone else is operating the MAX or NEO to Hawaii. I think the comment about it being considerably more efficient than competing narrowbodies is referring to 737-800s operated by Alaska and 757s. That will change when Alaska puts the MAX on Hawaii runs.

Virgin America (and thus soon-to-be-Alaska) A321neos do make daily appearance in HNL for both SFO and LAX routes.

Michael

parapente · Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:48 am

Does a 767 have 70 more seats than an A321NEO?
I suppose it depends on configuration but that sounds a large difference.

zeke · Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:50 am

I think so, 189 vs 259

parapente · Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:19 am

Thx Zeke.Guess that's right then.
I was confused as (I know it's not launched yet) the A321LR is stated to carry 206 pax in two classes (generous pitch) for 4knm.Thus,one assumes, for shorter legs (say 2-3.5 knm) and a reduced pitch/config this might raise to 218 or so?
That would be 30 odd more pax.

zeke · Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:40 am

That is just the reality of real airline configurations. HA have a a more generous first class (10” more than the ACAPS), and 9 rows of extra comfort economy seats (5” more than the ACAPS). All that takes up floor space.

Newbiepilot · Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:30 pm

keesje wrote:
I think Hawai's A330NEO's on order will become -900's.
]

From the CEO comments, Hawaiian appears to be preferring A321s to A330s. I think there is an equal change the A330neos become A321s.

keesje · Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:52 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think Hawai's A330NEO's on order will become -900's.
]

From the CEO comments, Hawaiian appears to be preferring A321s to A330s. I think there is an equal change the A330neos become A321s.

Contrary to opinions that I sometimes see floating around, capacity is not another variable airlines take into account filling their network with aircraft types. Capacity is the decisive one.

Newbiepilot · Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:18 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think Hawai's A330NEO's on order will become -900's.
]

From the CEO comments, Hawaiian appears to be preferring A321s to A330s. I think there is an equal change the A330neos become A321s.

Contrary to opinions that I sometimes see floating around, capacity is not another variable airlines take into account filling their network with aircraft types. Capacity is the decisive one.

If three A321s cost less to operate than two A330s, most airlines chose frequency and flexibility to better match demand. Hawaiian doesn’t have slot constraints to worry about. Hawaiian has lots of routes that can easily use A321s with multiple frequencies if needed. Filling an A339 consistently is a lot harder. SEA/SFO/LAX-HNL/OGG probably have enough demand. Is it worthwhile to have A339s limited to those routes when they can add extra A321 flights with frequency to allow people to chose a red eye vs daylight eastbound flight?

This is the same conversation we have in regards to the A380. It is great when full, but can be hard to consistently fill year round. This may be the case with A339s to Hawaii, especially as the number of competitors has increased and point to point service is drawing people directly to islands other than Oahu and HNL. I could see Hawaiian going mostly A321 to the West Coast except a few A330 flights for cargo and to SEA/SFO/LAX etc. They have 24 A332s.

tphuang · Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:25 pm

I also see them getting more a321neo, maybe at the expense of a330s. There are 11 markets where Alaska airlines have monopolies due to having 737 that can fly those thin routes. Many of them would be viable for ha with a321neo.

keesje · Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:28 pm

It kind of assumes airlines look at the cost of operation, then select an aircraft type and then adjust schedules, frequencies. I have the impression fleet selection is a function of market requirements (traffic, slots, connections, cargo) for a route, not the other way around.

zeke · Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:42 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think Hawai's A330NEO's on order will become -900's.
]

From the CEO comments, Hawaiian appears to be preferring A321s to A330s. I think there is an equal change the A330neos become A321s.

Not sure where you got that from, as the CEO didn’t say it. He said the A321neo is the right aircraft for the right routes, and some of those new routes will be announced in May. They are for different roles.

jbs2886 · Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:46 pm

Busyboy2 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
redzeppelin wrote:
I've wondered about the viability of a scissor hub someplace like OAK. Imagine flights from, for example, MSP, IND, MCI and CMH arriving in OAK, then passengers switch as needed before the same 4 planes continue to OGG, LIH, HNL and KOA. Then imagine if the 4 inland cities were switched up from day to day, thus offering less-than daily service to a variety of midsized inland markets. The hub could be almost anywhere on the west coast, and they can of course sell the individual segments. Crazy?

Rarely is a scissor hub profitable. If HA tried that in OAK, WN would probably retaliate and slaughter the, since WN dominates O/D. I don’t see mainland flights as much of an opportunity.

It might work since WN is buying HA anyway.

Umm....since when is WN buying HA?

keesje · Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:53 pm

If they ever get ACF's, extending range by a few hundred miles, it opens up a few interesting market opportunities, charters, seasonal, low frequency, expanding frequencies / to A330s when it works. E.g. US MidWest, SouthWest & Japan.

3500-4000NM ranges from HNL

Newbiepilot · Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:55 pm

zeke wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think Hawai's A330NEO's on order will become -900's.
]

From the CEO comments, Hawaiian appears to be preferring A321s to A330s. I think there is an equal change the A330neos become A321s.

Not sure where you got that from, as the CEO didn’t say it. He said the A321neo is the right aircraft for the right routes, and some of those new routes will be announced in May. They are for different roles.

It is how I interpret these comments

Speaking during Hawaiian's 2017 earnings call on 29 January, chief executive Mark Dunkerley says 189-seat A321neos have better trip and seat-mile costs on routes between Hawaii and the US mainland even than Hawaiian's 294-seat A330s.

"In terms of cost per seat, the A321neo is more efficient than even our A330s over that particular segment length," says Dunkerley. "It’s not by much, but it’s considerably more efficient than the competing narrowbodies that are currently flying."

The A321neo "gives us the same operating cost advantage that we get on the widebodies... It's, in fact, even a little bit better than that."

Mark said the A321neos have better trip and seat mile costs. I think it is logical to conclude from that statement that they appear to be preferring A321neos to the A330 fleet between Hawaii and the West Coast. Obviously they need the A330s for their longer flights, but they have 24 in the fleet already

Newbiepilot · Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:08 pm

keesje wrote:
If they ever get ACF's, extending range by a few hundred miles, it opens up a few interesting market opportunities, charters, seasonal, low frequency, expanding frequencies / to A330s when it works. E.g. US MidWest, SouthWest & Japan.

3500-4000NM ranges from HNL

I don’t think Japan would work year round. The problem is the jetstream and headwinds. HNL-ICN/NRT has pretty much the worst headwinds of any route in the world. Air times are often 50% higher westbound than eastbound. When winds are strong, it is fairly common for westbound legs to Japan exceed 10 hours. For example HNL-KIX took over 11 hours yesterday in the air.

Winds pretty much blow directly from Japan to Hawaii at 200mph

http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display ... a=npac_250

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net