Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Deltabravo1123
Topic Author
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:32 am

Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:27 pm

Hi all -

So was just looking at Hawaiian's fleet (per wikipedia), and noticed that all 18 of their A321neos have been delivered. It seems the regular A321neo is enough for Hawaiian's needs right now. But is there any reason they didn't wait a few years until they could receive slots for the LR, or even XLR? The regular neo could just barely do HNL-DFW; the LR has the range for HNL-ORD and a little further...; XLR looks like it could even do HNL-JFK! Don't think they would normally utilize this aircraft on those particular high-density routes, but if they're looking to open more long, thin routes in the future, I think a little boosted range in the LR or XLR could have helped. Thoughts?

With that being said, what are predictions on other routes HA could start with the neo, which it doesn't already serve?

Thanks!
 
Ishrion
Posts: 2843
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:40 pm

Airbus launched the A321LR in 2015 and the first one wasn't delivered until November 2018.

Hawaiian needed a 767 replacement, and the A321neo was more or less the solution. They began taking delivery of the A321neos in late 2017 and eventually Hawaiian retired its final 767 in January 2019, so they would've already needed several A321neos to replace the remaining 767s.

Hawaiian signed the MoU for A321neos some time in 2013, which is six years before the XLR program was officially announced and ten years before the first XLR is expected to be delivered. Considering they had plans to open new routes with the neos between Hawaii and the West Coast along with phasing out the aging 767s, it made sense to take these aircraft when they were available.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20014
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:47 pm

The A321NEO ordered should have the range DEN-HNL. Adding a much smaller aircraft with much more range helps HA.

When ordered, there was no xLR. There still isn't. As you note, 18 delivered. EIS of the A321xLR is 2023:
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories ... pdate.html

HA ordered in 2013 (first delivery, 2017):
http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-re ... craft.html

The 321xLR was offered in June 2019:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/america ... plane.html

By then, HA was done ordering. As there last delivery was within 18 months, too late to switch orders..
Lightsaber

ps, late edit, if the A321NEO is getting to/from DFW, that is an indication of how much it exceeded performance promise. :spin:
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:50 pm

I'm not sure anyone would want to fly 11 hours on a narrowbody. HA has the A330 and eventually the 787 for routes like HNL-JFK.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20014
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:22 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
I'm not sure anyone would want to fly 11 hours on a narrowbody. HA has the A330 and eventually the 787 for routes like HNL-JFK.

I keep seeing this, but I ask why. It is the seat. Yes, narrowbody aircraft are a little slower, but not much. Otherwise it is the seat and service.

I prefer narrowbody Aircraft as the loading and unloading is usually faster (excluding 767).

Now for JFK, HA has better aircraft.

The A321NEO opened up small routes and allowed DFW among others. The A321xLR would be a smart investment for HA.

I would rather fly HA out of LGB than LAX.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:28 am

lightsaber wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
I'm not sure anyone would want to fly 11 hours on a narrowbody. HA has the A330 and eventually the 787 for routes like HNL-JFK.

I keep seeing this, but I ask why. It is the seat. Yes, narrowbody aircraft are a little slower, but not much. Otherwise it is the seat and service.

I prefer narrowbody Aircraft as the loading and unloading is usually faster (excluding 767).

Now for JFK, HA has better aircraft.

The A321NEO opened up small routes and allowed DFW among others. The A321xLR would be a smart investment for HA.

I would rather fly HA out of LGB than LAX.

Lightsaber


I think it's just nice to be able to get up and walk around on long flights. It's just easier to do on a widebody. The ceiling is also taller giving a more spacious environment.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:28 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
I'm not sure anyone would want to fly 11 hours on a narrowbody.

No, that's just (for the millionth time) one person projecting his own preferences onto anyone else.

People have been flying longhauls in narrowbodies for decades, and they'll likely be doing it decades from now.

Can we please give this concept a rest....



TTailedTiger wrote:
I think it's just nice to be able to get up and walk around on long flights. It's just easier to do on a widebody. The ceiling is also taller giving a more spacious environment.

Uh-huh. None of that applies to the upper deck of a 747, yet half the people crying about narrowbodies would chew off their own finger for the opportunity to ride in the former.
Last edited by LAX772LR on Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2223
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:32 am

HNl-DFW on a regular A321neo is a pipe dream under real world conditions.

AA is having numerous fuel diversions on DFW-ANC, which is 750 miles shorter.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:32 am

LAX772LR wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
I'm not sure anyone would want to fly 11 hours on a narrowbody.

No, that's just (for the millionth time) one person projecting his own preferences onto anyone else.

People have been flying longhauls in narrowbodies for decades, and they'll likely be doing it decades from now.

Can we please give this concept a rest....


Where is crew rest on a 11 hour narrowbody flight? Literally no where to go and stretch on a narrowbody but one of two small galleys stuffed with tired FAs you will be bumping into and bothering.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:34 am

CobaltScar wrote:
Where is crew rest on a 11 hour narrowbody flight? Literally no where to go and stretch on a narrowbody but one of two small galleys stuffed with tired FAs you will be bumping into and bothering.

Better question would be: why are you acting as though that's never been done?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:41 am

HA could be EK of pacific ocean via a321 to 2nd tier cities in East-Asia and WestCoast
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:43 am

chunhimlai wrote:
HA could be EK of pacific ocean via a321 to 2nd tier cities in East-Asia and WestCoast

They more or less tried that, but unfortunately, pulled out of quite a few (significant) Asia/Pacific cities, even pre-COVID. :(

They're retrenched into focusing on serving the islands, rather than being a hub.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:51 am

jeffh747 wrote:
Possibly STL? But even that seems like a stretch of being feasible.

Not really. TW flew STL-LAX-HNL-STL, with the eastbound being nonstop, on a 752 into the early '00s.

Seeing as the A321XR has longer ranger and less fuel usage... it's definitely feasible.
Likely bleed money like a stuck fattened piggy, but still feasible.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
PBADC3
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:34 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:34 am

LAX772LR wrote:
chunhimlai wrote:
HA could be EK of pacific ocean via a321 to 2nd tier cities in East-Asia and WestCoast

They more or less tried that, but unfortunately, pulled out of quite a few (significant) Asia/Pacific cities, even pre-COVID. :(

They're retrenched into focusing on serving the islands, rather than being a hub.


Let’s be clear, Hawaiian has not been developing any sort of “hub” in HNL.

What is being missed in this conversation is that there is a substantial and somewhat natural affinity for “beach” destinations from the APAC region. Let’s take Japan as an example. For at least two decades the Japanese leisure market puts intense value on package tours to Guam, Saipan and the Hawaiian islands. Often these are first overseas trips for customers and are almost exclusively sold via agencies in Japan as a full package inclusive of hotel, airport transportation, tours and the like. In the case of the Japanese tourist, there is a desire to shop “Japanese” and purchase packages. This is why you see all the flying that we all do from various cities in Japan to GUM/SPN/HNL. From HNL there is distribution within the islands.

The notion that HA was building a “hub” in HNL is false. Certainly it would appear that way since the natural flow of aircraft from west to east and back again over HNL creates natural connectivity, but the entire purpose of this flying was not to build connections from LAX over HNL to MNL for example. Sure, there are opportunistic connections that are sold via that routing, and many other examples, but that isn’t what this entire operation is about. It’s focused on bringing tourist visitors to and from the Hawaiian islands. Connections help fill in the cracks.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:47 am

PBADC3 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
chunhimlai wrote:
HA could be EK of pacific ocean via a321 to 2nd tier cities in East-Asia and WestCoast

They more or less tried that, but unfortunately, pulled out of quite a few (significant) Asia/Pacific cities, even pre-COVID. :(

They're retrenched into focusing on serving the islands, rather than being a hub.


Let’s be clear, Hawaiian has not been developing any sort of “hub” in HNL.

May wish to tell them that then.

Because ever since the late '90s, they've been trumpeting to media and industry alike about how they're improving/transitioning ops and tech, specifically to function as a hub to both the islands and overall Pacific. How successful they were in implementing such, is immaterial to that point.


Way back:
https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-New ... reates-Hub


Not so long ago:
https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/new ... i-hub.html


Even last year, which is long after they dropped many of their poorly performing TPACs:
https://newsroom.hawaiianairlines.com/r ... s-20190823
Last edited by LAX772LR on Sat Jul 25, 2020 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
BeachBoy
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:05 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 4:47 am

LAX772LR wrote:
May wish to tell them that then.

Because ever since the late '90s, they've been trumpeting to media and industry alike about how they're improving/transitioning ops and tech, specifically to function as a hub to both the islands and overall Pacific. How successful they were in implementing such, is immaterial to that point.


Way back:
https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-New ... reates-Hub


Not so long ago:
https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/new ... i-hub.html


Even last year, which is long after they dropped many of their poorly performing TPACs:
https://newsroom.hawaiianairlines.com/r ... s-20190823


HA claims to be a "Destination" carrier transporting pax to/from/within Hawaii.
They have never claimed to be developing HNL into a DXB-like "hub."

All the links posted refer to HNL and OGG as "hubs" because schedules are built at HNL/OGG to connect pax to/from the US Mainland and the different Hawaiian Islands vs. an EK of the Pacific-type "hub."

HA has stated that if someone wants to buy a connecting ticket from North America to Asia/Australasia theyʻll sell the ticket, but the schedule is not built to optimize those connections and most connections require an overnight stay in one direction.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 5:05 am

BeachBoy wrote:
They have never claimed to be developing HNL into a DXB-like "hub."

Well of course they've never claimed to be developing a "DXB-like hub"

Have they claimed to be building a hub? Have they marketed mainland reach upon the launch of Pacific routes (particularly PEK), not just sat around waiting for default connections scheduled by customers? Yes to both.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
BeachBoy
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:05 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 5:51 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Have they claimed to be building a hub? Have they marketed mainland reach upon the launch of Pacific routes (particularly PEK), not just sat around waiting for default connections scheduled by customers? Yes to both.


Source for the PEK marketing? The PEK fit did not connect to their US Mainland flights without a very long connection.
I have not seen any HA marketing targeting the US Mainland for Asia/Australasia connections after the dismal failure of their original HNL-SYD flt that was marketed as a direct SEA-HNL-SYD flt.

Going back to the original posterʻs question I thought HA might develop a network like FJ for the South/Central Pacific w/ an evening bank using the A321neos adding to their PPT and PPG flts w/ HNL-APW/RAR/TBU/KWA/MAJ/CXI but I guess the market is not there.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:46 am

BeachBoy wrote:
Source for the PEK marketing?

There were plenty when they launched it, both on their own site and in China.

One example, from just a quick search:

"Hawaiian Airlines will further extend the networks of both companies, bring convenience to passengers from and around China traveling to the Hawaiian Islands and U.S. Mainland"

https://newsroom.hawaiianairlines.com/r ... -agreement
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:10 am

Please keep this thread on topic or it will be locked, thanks.
 
AAMDanny
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:44 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
I'm not sure anyone would want to fly 11 hours on a narrowbody. HA has the A330 and eventually the 787 for routes like HNL-JFK.


Thing is, a good 90% of Pax pay no attention to the aircraft type, if it is a wide body etc. It's only the seasoned flyers and us AvGeeks that would spot something like the aircraft type. Even if customers did notice, the advantage of going direct vs having to connect at another hub to get to HNL would win the business most of the time.

It also gives HA the advantage to fly to markets where they might not be able to fill a wide body type. Also the bonus of common flight deck rating between the A321/A330 means a more robust pilot resource pool.
 
OB1504
Posts: 3962
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:33 am

AAMDanny wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
I'm not sure anyone would want to fly 11 hours on a narrowbody. HA has the A330 and eventually the 787 for routes like HNL-JFK.


Thing is, a good 90% of Pax pay no attention to the aircraft type, if it is a wide body etc. It's only the seasoned flyers and us AvGeeks that would spot something like the aircraft type. Even if customers did notice, the advantage of going direct vs having to connect at another hub to get to HNL would win the business most of the time.

It also gives HA the advantage to fly to markets where they might not be able to fill a wide body type. Also the bonus of common flight deck rating between the A321/A330 means a more robust pilot resource pool.


Agreed. Even the connecting itinerary is likely to be 5.5 hours in a narrowbody followed by 5.5 hours in a second narrowbody and at the end of the day you’ve wasted another hour or two on a connection.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3580
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:05 pm

A better question might be why not wait for the A321LR or even upgrade to it. Also, keep in mind that HA's A21Ns are not Cabin Flex, but the previous 8-door configuration, as early A21Ns have been.
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:08 pm

AAMDanny wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
I'm not sure anyone would want to fly 11 hours on a narrowbody. HA has the A330 and eventually the 787 for routes like HNL-JFK.


Thing is, a good 90% of Pax pay no attention to the aircraft type, if it is a wide body etc. It's only the seasoned flyers and us AvGeeks that would spot something like the aircraft type. Even if customers did notice, the advantage of going direct vs having to connect at another hub to get to HNL would win the business most of the time.

It also gives HA the advantage to fly to markets where they might not be able to fill a wide body type. Also the bonus of common flight deck rating between the A321/A330 means a more robust pilot resource pool.


Where are the meals being stored on a 11+ hour narrowbody flight? Where is the crew rest? Its all suboptimal and these pax will learn real quick once they take a couple trips, the difference between a wide and narrowbody on a 11+ hour flight.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10633
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:51 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
A better question might be why not wait for the A321LR or even upgrade to it. Also, keep in mind that HA's A21Ns are not Cabin Flex, but the previous 8-door configuration, as early A21Ns have been.

To be honest the A321LR really doesn’t open up too much for HA relative to the base A321neo. Maybe a bit more of Japan, but that has traditionally been a high volume market better suited for dense wide bodies, and a bit more of the US interior. Not sure that is really worth it for HA.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10164
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:01 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
A better question might be why not wait for the A321LR or even upgrade to it. Also, keep in mind that HA's A21Ns are not Cabin Flex, but the previous 8-door configuration, as early A21Ns have been.

Given how successful BOS has been for them (who could have thunk it?), to the point of wanting to restart the flight in the middle of a Pandemic, I'd say there are a few markets beyond the West coast for which the LR could be useful, where the A330 is too much plane.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5209
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:14 pm

If they are going to wait for lr, might as well get XLR, which opens a lot more markets for them.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:18 pm

I believe the intention with the A321neo order was to compete with Alaska and the service to smaller markets between California, Oregon and Washington.

The A321LR has a few drawbacks over the baseline A321neo:
  • Costs more to buy or lease
  • Weighs more meaning that it uses more fuel
  • Has higher landing fees
  • Has fuel tanks that reduce cargo volume

Hawaiian uses its widebodies for bigger and longer range markets. If Hawaiian doesn’t need the range for their narrowbodies, it’s better to buy the plane with lower total costs. I think A.net forgets the economics of higher gross weight airplanes being more expensive. At first more range always sounds appealing since it allows flexibility, but that flexibility comes at a cost
 
User avatar
DL747400
Posts: 956
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:50 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
I'm not sure anyone would want to fly 11 hours on a narrowbody. HA has the A330 and eventually the 787 for routes like HNL-JFK.


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

TTailedTiger wrote:
I think it's just nice to be able to get up and walk around on long flights. It's just easier to do on a widebody. The ceiling is also taller giving a more spacious environment.


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

LAX772LR wrote:
No, that's just (for the millionth time) one person projecting his own preferences onto anyone else. People have been flying longhauls in narrowbodies for decades, and they'll likely be doing it decades from now. Can we please give this concept a rest....


:redflag: No rest, I'm afraid. Not as long as there are people who disagree with you and have their own booking preferences. I am firmly in the anti-narrowbody crowd when it comes to flight times greater than 5-6 hours. There are many folks who choose to fly on a widebody every time, hands down when it is an option. And I would even give serious consideration to a widebody connection versus a narrowbody nonstop. It is the both the absolute spaciousness and also the perception of spaciousness (two very different things) that make people prefer widebodies.

Just because narrowbody longhaul is operationally and financially possible doesn't mean that it is preferable, especially when there is little or no price difference to fly wide. And the argument that "people flew narrowbody TATL for decades" is meaningless. It absolutely doesn't mean that is what travelers want today. HA can use whatever equipment they want on longhauls, but I think most airline planners would admit the existence of a widebody revenue premium in some cases. Some customers will purchase based on price alone, but others (like me) will aggressively avoid the narrowbody on longhauls. The NMA or similar cannot arrive soon enough.

LAX772LR wrote:
Uh-huh. None of that applies to the upper deck of a 747, yet half the people crying about narrowbodies would chew off their own finger for the opportunity to ride in the former.


Been there, done that (many times). I've got that out of my system. When used for passenger seating, the upper deck of the 747 is just as claustrophobic as a narrowbody. Give me the wide spaciousness of the main deck any day of the week. Again, there are plenty of people out there who disagree with you.
From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20014
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 3:10 pm

tphuang wrote:
If they are going to wait for lr, might as well get XLR, which opens a lot more markets for them.

If HA expands the A321 fleet, which I believe in the future they will, I would bet they buy the A321xlR

On GCmap I do two circles, one for the current NEO and one for the xLR. Now, with reserves over water, I do not believe it wise to go towards Japan. But as we see, it can just do DFW.
With reserves, I do not see the xLR doing the US east coast. I did 85% of the posted range as with winds, that is usually the effective range of aircraft.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3400nm%40hnl,+4000nm%40hnl

Adding the US MidWest would be great. The A320xLR has nice range, but in reality needs another 300nm to be really useful to HA (US East Coast and adequate margins for ICN and possibly even East Coast China.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 3:51 pm

DL747400 wrote:
...


I agree entirely with your post. There are some of us who have a strong preference. I love flying AS but I can't do 737 to Hawaii (until I can afford flying F, at least). I did it once, and decided never again. I've determined that my limit in narrow bodies is about 3-4 hours. If the flight is longer, I seek out the wide bodies, or a connecting stop to break it up. The only HA metal I've ever flown on is their A332. It's the only way to go.

DL747400 wrote:
And the argument that "people flew narrowbody TATL for decades" is meaningless. It absolutely doesn't mean that is what travelers want today.


True. Those old interiors were not what you get today in Y on typical A320s or 737s. Seat pitches of 34-38 inches were common. It would be like today's Y+ at a minimum, or a cheap J. And the soft product was geared for a long flight.
 
jeffh747
Posts: 861
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:32 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 5:54 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
jeffh747 wrote:
Possibly STL? But even that seems like a stretch of being feasible.

Not really. TW flew STL-LAX-HNL-STL, with the eastbound being nonstop, on a 752 into the early '00s.

Seeing as the A321XR has longer ranger and less fuel usage... it's definitely feasible.
Likely bleed money like a stuck fattened piggy, but still feasible.

Apologies, I meant feasible in terms of it being worthwhile of them opening up STL. I don’t have the numbers, so I’m completely unsure how many PDEW between STL/HNL there are, and if it would even be profitable. I agree and am certain that the XLR would make such a route possible, just not sure if it would be profitable.

Anyone have other ideas that HA could start that would be too small to launch with a widebody, but could work with an A321neo/LR/XLR? I am very much interested in this topic.
ATR-72-600, A318 A319 A320 A320neo A321 A321neo A332 A333 B717 B727 B734 B73G B738 B739 B752 B762 B763 B772 B788 CRJ2 DHC6 DHC8-300 E145 E190 MD82 MD83 MD90 SF340B
 
User avatar
Boeing757100
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:13 pm

That's a great question actually. Maybe they didn't see the demand for where the XLR will fit? I mean, the 330s do all the mainland US flights, the A321neos replaced the 767s, and the 717s do the intra-islands. They also have 787s on order for longer haul expansion. The 321XlR, I don't know, wouldn't FIT in this airline, if you know what I mean. The plane's extra range just isn't needed.
 
WN732
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:49 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:28 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
HNl-DFW on a regular A321neo is a pipe dream under real world conditions.

AA is having numerous fuel diversions on DFW-ANC, which is 750 miles shorter.


And that's not even an ETOPS flight. DEN is too hot and high and SLC is most likely going to be in the same boat. The winter time could be a different story for them though. LAS and PHX are probably going to be it for now, until someone gets the XLR.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:30 pm

DL747400 wrote:
:redflag: No rest, I'm afraid. Not as long as there are people who disagree with you and have their own booking preferences.

That's immaterial to what's stated. People have had a choice of widebodies vs. narrowbodies on longhauls for a half-century now, so not sure why you're speaking as if this is some matter of revelation. Ergo, all that "no rest" signifies is continued and utterly pointless whining, over a concept that's not going to go away.


jeffh747 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
jeffh747 wrote:
Possibly STL? But even that seems like a stretch of being feasible.

Not really. TW flew STL-LAX-HNL-STL, with the eastbound being nonstop, on a 752 into the early '00s.

Seeing as the A321XR has longer ranger and less fuel usage... it's definitely feasible.
Likely bleed money like a stuck fattened piggy, but still feasible.

Apologies, I meant feasible in terms of it being worthwhile of them opening up STL. I don’t have the numbers, so I’m completely unsure how many PDEW between STL/HNL there are, and if it would even be profitable. I agree and am certain that the XLR would make such a route possible, just not sure if it would be profitable.

No apologies needed: since I wasn't sure which take you were making, preemptively addressed them both. :)


Boeing757100 wrote:
I mean, the 330s do all the mainland US flights

No they don't.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
PhilMcCrackin
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:54 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:24 pm

WN732 wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
HNl-DFW on a regular A321neo is a pipe dream under real world conditions.

AA is having numerous fuel diversions on DFW-ANC, which is 750 miles shorter.


And that's not even an ETOPS flight. DEN is too hot and high and SLC is most likely going to be in the same boat. The winter time could be a different story for them though. LAS and PHX are probably going to be it for now, until someone gets the XLR.


LAS and PHX are both A330 routes during normal, non-COVID times.
 
777kkk
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:22 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:07 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
HNl-DFW on a regular A321neo is a pipe dream under real world conditions.

AA is having numerous fuel diversions on DFW-ANC, which is 750 miles shorter.

where do they divert to ?
 
smflyer
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue May 01, 2018 4:44 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sat Jul 25, 2020 11:39 pm

HA A321 is probably the most uncomfortable economy ive ever sat in in recent memory. 30" pitch combined with thick padded seats, I was crushed during the entire 5hr flight. I'd rather fly on AA's oasis compared to HA's A321. Next flight to Hawaii, im definitely flying WN with their 32" seat pitch which I find relatively spacious given their newer slimline seats in the -800 and -8max fleets.
 
Aceskywalker
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:55 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sun Jul 26, 2020 12:07 am

I'm still scratching my head as to why HA ditched the A330neo type entirely instead of buying into the A339. It would have kept Hawaiian's simple pool of "interisland" and "overseas" cabin/flight crew versus the mess the 787-9 will bring.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2223
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:51 am

777kkk wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
HNl-DFW on a regular A321neo is a pipe dream under real world conditions.

AA is having numerous fuel diversions on DFW-ANC, which is 750 miles shorter.

where do they divert to ?


Seatac.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
User avatar
hawaiian717
Posts: 3471
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sun Jul 26, 2020 5:14 am

Aceskywalker wrote:
I'm still scratching my head as to why HA ditched the A330neo type entirely instead of buying into the A339. It would have kept Hawaiian's simple pool of "interisland" and "overseas" cabin/flight crew versus the mess the 787-9 will bring.


Hawaiian wanted the A350-800. Rather then take the A350-900, which they viewed as too big for them, they converted to A330-800. When it was looking like they’d end up with an orphaned type there too, they started over and re-evaluated and determined that the 787-9 was the right plane at the right price compared to what Airbus had to offer.
 
Aither
Posts: 1292
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:52 am

If the penalty of operating an XLR over a regular A321 neo is not too big they should have at some point a few XLRs. Even if there are not many new destinations they could serve with the extra range at least it gives some flexibility to adapt to market demand and be more opportunistic.
Never trust the obvious
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sun Jul 26, 2020 1:27 pm

Aither wrote:
If the penalty of operating an XLR over a regular A321 neo is not too big they should have at some point a few XLRs. Even if there are not many new destinations they could serve with the extra range at least it gives some flexibility to adapt to market demand and be more opportunistic.


When Iberia ordered the A321XLR the list price was confirmed to be $142 Million versus $129.5 Million for the A321neo. We all know airlines don’t pay list price, but from that information we know that Airbus charges 9.6% more for the A321XLR. The flexibility of adding a few A321XLRs would add up to over a million dollars per year. That’s not insignificant. A321XLRs make sense if there are routes requiring them, otherwise it’s a significant amount of money that doesn’t have a return on investment.

Let’s do some math to examine how much the additional flexibility of purchasing the A321XLR would cost over the A321neo. A new A321neo Leases for about $400,000 per month. Assuming 1.8 flights per day, that equates to leasing fees representing $7285 per flight. With 80% load factor, that means $48 per ticket sold are going to airplane lease fees. If we assume the A321XLR costs 10% more, that means Hawaiian would be paying $53 per ticket sold to cover the lease of the airplane. $5 in revenue is not insignificant.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10164
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sun Jul 26, 2020 1:32 pm

hawaiian717 wrote:
Aceskywalker wrote:
I'm still scratching my head as to why HA ditched the A330neo type entirely instead of buying into the A339. It would have kept Hawaiian's simple pool of "interisland" and "overseas" cabin/flight crew versus the mess the 787-9 will bring.


Hawaiian wanted the A350-800. Rather then take the A350-900, which they viewed as too big for them, they converted to A330-800. When it was looking like they’d end up with an orphaned type there too, they started over and re-evaluated and determined that the 787-9 was the right plane at the right price compared to what Airbus had to offer.

And even that was heavily based on the idea of flying to Europe, and further into Asia which in today's world is looking less and less likely. At this point I'm filing the 789 in HA's fleet in a folder titled "I'll believe it when I see it". I think it's far more likely that HA will order more A321's than that they will ever take delivery of a 789.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:08 pm

airbazar wrote:
hawaiian717 wrote:
Aceskywalker wrote:
I'm still scratching my head as to why HA ditched the A330neo type entirely instead of buying into the A339. It would have kept Hawaiian's simple pool of "interisland" and "overseas" cabin/flight crew versus the mess the 787-9 will bring.


Hawaiian wanted the A350-800. Rather then take the A350-900, which they viewed as too big for them, they converted to A330-800. When it was looking like they’d end up with an orphaned type there too, they started over and re-evaluated and determined that the 787-9 was the right plane at the right price compared to what Airbus had to offer.

And even that was heavily based on the idea of flying to Europe, and further into Asia which in today's world is looking less and less likely. At this point I'm filing the 789 in HA's fleet in a folder titled "I'll believe it when I see it". I think it's far more likely that HA will order more A321's than that they will ever take delivery of a 789.

I think another thing is the A330's on leases, I'm not sure how many they actually own. Despite the quarantine rules the demand for Hawaii is still high, and I think some routes demand more than the 180-190 seats of the neo.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:36 pm

DL747400 wrote:
:redflag: No rest, I'm afraid. Not as long as there are people who disagree with you and have their own booking preferences. I am firmly in the anti-narrowbody crowd when it comes to flight times greater than 5-6 hours. There are many folks who choose to fly on a widebody every time, hands down when it is an option.


I do wonder whatever happened to the

"99% of people don't even know what they're flying on"

And the

"It will never be a 757 - which is the best plane there ever was, and Boeing should bring back in an eyeblink"...

arguments ... *shrug*

Rgds
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sun Jul 26, 2020 5:01 pm

Because it doesn’t do much for HA. The extra range doesn’t get them into many markets that would be profitable.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:10 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
PBADC3 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
They more or less tried that, but unfortunately, pulled out of quite a few (significant) Asia/Pacific cities, even pre-COVID. :(

They're retrenched into focusing on serving the islands, rather than being a hub.


Let’s be clear, Hawaiian has not been developing any sort of “hub” in HNL.

May wish to tell them that then.

Because ever since the late '90s, they've been trumpeting to media and industry alike about how they're improving/transitioning ops and tech, specifically to function as a hub to both the islands and overall Pacific. How successful they were in implementing such, is immaterial to that point.


Way back:
https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-New ... reates-Hub

Hawaiian has had to change it's tactics because many other airlines changed THEIR tactics. How in heck could Hawaiian sty the same? When almost everybody on the west coast except Jet Blue is now flying into their corner of the world? And? I'd Bet Jet Blue isn't that far OFF from flying To Hawaii. HA not only has to defend their hub but they'll need a mainland Hub in the near future as well as the coming airplanes might make it impossible for them to conduct long range operations with only the single hub at HNL and the Hawaiian Islands themselves. Right now I'd bet they're looking at Mainland destinations for a hub and you can bet they're not going to sit around until the 787's arrive to wait to spring the trap. It's pretty much a given that the A330's are going to be remotely based in the future as HA expands their footprint and it would be foolish to think that other Airlines like JetBlue, Frontier, Spirit and even Alaska are not looking at what they're doing. I think even Alaska is not that far off from their OWN long range airplanes, Even WN might change their minds on longer range airplanes, Not because they want to? But because the marketplace calls for it. Hawaiian is only a hairs width away from joining the big 4 of AA, UA, DL, WN in Multiple Hub operations and Instead of building West? They're building EAST. You can already see where there's a business case for a few of the secondary carriers to mob up to take on the the big 4. Whether they mob up in an accordance? Or? Mob up operationally.. Following this COVID crisis? If UA, AA DL and WN Don't downsize as has been speculated they might? (which I doubt) then carriers like B6 HA F9 and NK might upsize ! Some of the foreign alliances might call it a day as the big state airlines seek a better alliance where they might control their region as I can see where SQ might well leave Star, and some of the members of Oneworld might fly the coop as well, if for nothing else? to try aand build their Own deal. The Mainland China Airlines would be prime candidates to jump ship from their Alliances as all are looking for an edge. The next 36 months are going to be a heady time. Especially after our Presidential Election this coming Fall. There'll be Butt Kissing and Backstabbing the like of which we're never seen before. And if I'm wrong? I'd bet I'm not FAR Wrong!!
Not so long ago:
https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/new ... i-hub.html


Even last year, which is long after they dropped many of their poorly performing TPACs:
https://newsroom.hawaiianairlines.com/r ... s-20190823
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21841
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:07 pm

A major limitation of the LR/XLR is that the ACTs take up belly cargo space. I'm going to guess that Hawaii has a very high air cargo demand as opposed to, say, Maine or Nebraska (which have similar populations).

That said, as HA has been an A321 customer, it would not be a major investment for them to acquire LRs or XLRs if they felt that they had the need for them. But given current events, I would be surprised if HA has need of more aircraft for passenger use any time in the next couple of years.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
dstblj52
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: Why didn't Hawaiian wait for the A321LR/XLR?

Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:12 am

DL747400 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
I'm not sure anyone would want to fly 11 hours on a narrowbody. HA has the A330 and eventually the 787 for routes like HNL-JFK.


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

TTailedTiger wrote:
I think it's just nice to be able to get up and walk around on long flights. It's just easier to do on a widebody. The ceiling is also taller giving a more spacious environment.


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

LAX772LR wrote:
No, that's just (for the millionth time) one person projecting his own preferences onto anyone else. People have been flying longhauls in narrowbodies for decades, and they'll likely be doing it decades from now. Can we please give this concept a rest....


:redflag: No rest, I'm afraid. Not as long as there are people who disagree with you and have their own booking preferences. I am firmly in the anti-narrowbody crowd when it comes to flight times greater than 5-6 hours. There are many folks who choose to fly on a widebody every time, hands down when it is an option. And I would even give serious consideration to a widebody connection versus a narrowbody nonstop. It is the both the absolute spaciousness and also the perception of spaciousness (two very different things) that make people prefer widebodies.

Just because narrowbody longhaul is operationally and financially possible doesn't mean that it is preferable, especially when there is little or no price difference to fly wide. And the argument that "people flew narrowbody TATL for decades" is meaningless. It absolutely doesn't mean that is what travelers want today. HA can use whatever equipment they want on longhauls, but I think most airline planners would admit the existence of a widebody revenue premium in some cases. Some customers will purchase based on price alone, but others (like me) will aggressively avoid the narrowbody on longhauls. The NMA or similar cannot arrive soon enough.

LAX772LR wrote:
Uh-huh. None of that applies to the upper deck of a 747, yet half the people crying about narrowbodies would chew off their own finger for the opportunity to ride in the former.


Been there, done that (many times). I've got that out of my system. When used for passenger seating, the upper deck of the 747 is just as claustrophobic as a narrowbody. Give me the wide spaciousness of the main deck any day of the week. Again, there are plenty of people out there who disagree with you.

If the xlr is being used right your choices are going to be to connect, take a less convenient time (ie the transatlantic flight that takes off between banks at hubs if an xlr candidate), or depending on traffic flows take a different airline. But for most people the hassle factor is real and I suspect its a fairly small minority of passengers who will take a less convenient flight to avoid one. I think this might end up like allegiant where yes the plane is cramped, yes its often late, but its the only nonstop on the route so it gets most of the business

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos