Aptivaboy wrote:

Why would anyone in London fly ULH to HNL when there’s Tenerife, Mykonos and Ibiza so close? Maybe a westward Kangaroo route?

I have to agree. Its a VERY long flight compared to beach areas in the Med and the Atlantic. And, Hawaii has lately been adopting more anti-tourist taxes and fees which will make the islands far less appealing; certain islands are implementing fees for tourists to visit certain beaches, cracking down on AirBNB/VRBO listings, things like that. A British tourist may not want to deal with hassles like that and instead visit the Bahamas, Tenerife, the Aegean, or any one of a number of warm weather destination far closer to home, and far less expensive.

Now, I could very well be wrong, but that's my two cents worth. Is there a market for this route? Perhaps. I'm just not sure that it will be as popular as British Airways might like.

Have a great day everyone, and stay safe!

Yes, why is BA flying to the Caribbean then when those destinations are available in Europe? Male? Hawaiian should drop East Coast destinations, no reason those people should be trekking out to Hawaii.

There are many reasons people choose to visit places, sure the majority may go with something closer, but there can still be enough demand elsewhere. The argument of X, Y, and Z are closer so why would anyone visit somewhere else is just ridiculous.

airbazar wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

With a 40 tonne payload, which is a full passenger load plus just a couple of tonnes of cargo, you get a ZFW of about 185 tonnes. That leaves a potential fuel uplift of ~102 tonnes. Just about enough to get you to Hawaii. None of BA's aircraft have polar survival equipment so are limited to about 75°N (it might ve 82, I don't have the manual reference in front of me), but it just makes the whole thing rather unlikely.

Would just like to point out that the GC path between LGW and HNL barely touches 75°N so that wouldn't be a factor.

Thanks, haven't looked into it as I doubt it's a route that I'll be flying anytime soon! I think Goa, or even DXB, SFO, LAX or MIA are far more likely from Gatwick than HNL. DXB and MIA can be done with the unbunked GE 777s too.

Was more for those talking about polar routes, none of the BA fleet is equipped for it, even the 787s doing the HND flights at the moment.

American living in the UK. From discussions over the years, I have found Hawaii has a good deal of cache among older Brits and they may be intrigued. I've heard many say they've long dreamed of it.

That said, salaries here are too low (the UK would be the second-poorest state in the Union were it to join the US) and the pound too weak for this to be a particularly viable route as Hawaii is quite expensive. I think when they searched for their "ATOL-protected package holiday" (they're still obsessed with package vacations here) the prices would probably be a turn off vis-a-vis other tropical places.

dfdubflyer wrote:

American living in the UK. From discussions over the years, I have found Hawaii has a good deal of cache among older Brits and they may be intrigued. I've heard many say they've long dreamed of it.

That said, salaries here are too low (the UK would be the second-poorest state in the Union were it to join the US) and the pound too weak for this to be a particularly viable route as Hawaii is quite expensive. I think when they searched for their "ATOL-protected package holiday" (they're still obsessed with package vacations here) the prices would probably be a turn off vis-a-vis other tropical places.

Realistically, package holidays are just a Northern European thing, there are entire airlines that are mostly if not all package holiday based, a few like Jet2 or the various TUIs sell seats aswell but the likes of Sunclass or Enter air are package holiday only, for the likes of the UK,Benelux, Germany and the Scandics, Package holidays are still huge business

I remember the closest airport in Europe would be HEL, maybe I'm wrong but would it make sense to fly from there for Scandinavians?

Kikko19 wrote:

I remember the closest airport in Europe would be HEL, maybe I'm wrong but would it make sense to fly from there for Scandinavians?

Looking at it Tromso (TOS/ENTC) is ~600 nm closer to HNL and has an 8000 ft runway so maybe that should be the Scandinavian gateway to Hawaii. On the other hand it has been established that no business case exists as Europeans, including Scandinavians have other places to go to be warm and Hawaiians have several options to Canada or the NE US or heck they can take AS to ANC if they want to be cold.

Yes, why is BA flying to the Caribbean then when those destinations are available in Europe? Male? Hawaiian should drop East Coast destinations, no reason those people should be trekking out to Hawaii.

There seems to be an East Coast - Hawaii market, so that Hawaiian route exists. However, Europe - Hawaii is that much further and a lot of folks may not desire the extra time and expense of such a flight. The Caribbean is also much closer the Britain that Hawaii is, plus the Med, Spain, Greece, etc. The fact that Europe - Hawaii isn't a regular routing for any of the major airlines should also be a large hint that the market may not exist. Airlines are rapacious when it comes to profit, so if the route isn't being flown today then that's saying something. I'm not saying that the route couldn't be profitable, just that a lot of things will have to go right for it to be.

There are many reasons people choose to visit places, sure the majority may go with something closer, but there can still be enough demand elsewhere. The argument of X, Y, and Z are closer so why would anyone visit somewhere else is just ridiculous.

It isn't just the distance. As I stated in my post, Hawaii has begun enacting what can be described charitably as tourist unfriendly policies. Why visit a place that more and more seems to not want you there? There's far more to traveling than just distance, obviously, but the idea of visiting a locale that's far and away and one that may not want one there might just put a damper into the desire to go there. That's all that I was saying.

jbs2886 wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

Why would anyone in London fly ULH to HNL when there’s Tenerife, Mykonos and Ibiza so close? Maybe a westward Kangaroo route?

I have to agree. Its a VERY long flight compared to beach areas in the Med and the Atlantic. And, Hawaii has lately been adopting more anti-tourist taxes and fees which will make the islands far less appealing; certain islands are implementing fees for tourists to visit certain beaches, cracking down on AirBNB/VRBO listings, things like that. A British tourist may not want to deal with hassles like that and instead visit the Bahamas, Tenerife, the Aegean, or any one of a number of warm weather destination far closer to home, and far less expensive.

Now, I could very well be wrong, but that's my two cents worth. Is there a market for this route? Perhaps. I'm just not sure that it will be as popular as British Airways might like.

Have a great day everyone, and stay safe!

Yes, why is BA flying to the Caribbean then when those destinations are available in Europe? Male? Hawaiian should drop East Coast destinations, no reason those people should be trekking out to Hawaii.

There are many reasons people choose to visit places, sure the majority may go with something closer, but there can still be enough demand elsewhere. The argument of X, Y, and Z are closer so why would anyone visit somewhere else is just ridiculous.

Well there you have the answer to the whole thread. BA is flying to the Caribbean because sufficient people want to fly there for a price that makes it good business sense. The same does not apply to Hawaii. It's as simple as that, the thread could really be closed. However much people insist the world is desperate to descend on Hawaii on masse the airlines have the numbers on this.

There's a lot of ridiculous posts in this thread from both sides. Yes of course some people will travel further than Ibiza, likewise obviously distance does affect demand, hence the Caribbean attracts more people than HNL. It's not rocket science.

Also worth noting when people think of tropical destinations, they tend to have in their mind somewhere fairly undeveloped, the idea of flying so far to be in a concrete city like HNL with a very western culture doesn't appeal to a lot of people. This is where the likes of Thailand shine.

Planetalk wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

I have to agree. Its a VERY long flight compared to beach areas in the Med and the Atlantic. And, Hawaii has lately been adopting more anti-tourist taxes and fees which will make the islands far less appealing; certain islands are implementing fees for tourists to visit certain beaches, cracking down on AirBNB/VRBO listings, things like that. A British tourist may not want to deal with hassles like that and instead visit the Bahamas, Tenerife, the Aegean, or any one of a number of warm weather destination far closer to home, and far less expensive.

Now, I could very well be wrong, but that's my two cents worth. Is there a market for this route? Perhaps. I'm just not sure that it will be as popular as British Airways might like.

Have a great day everyone, and stay safe!

Yes, why is BA flying to the Caribbean then when those destinations are available in Europe? Male? Hawaiian should drop East Coast destinations, no reason those people should be trekking out to Hawaii.

There are many reasons people choose to visit places, sure the majority may go with something closer, but there can still be enough demand elsewhere. The argument of X, Y, and Z are closer so why would anyone visit somewhere else is just ridiculous.

Well there you have the answer to the whole thread. BA is flying to the Caribbean because sufficient people want to fly there for a price that makes it good business sense. The same does not apply to Hawaii. It's as simple as that, the thread could really be closed. However much people insist the world is desperate to descend on Hawaii on masse the airlines have the numbers on this.

There's a lot of ridiculous posts in this thread from both sides. Yes of course some people will travel further than Ibiza, likewise obviously distance does affect demand, hence the Caribbean attracts more people than HNL. It's not rocket science.

Also worth noting when people think of tropical destinations, they tend to have in their mind somewhere fairly undeveloped, the idea of flying so far to be in a concrete city like HNL with a very western culture doesn't appeal to a lot of people. This is where the likes of Thailand shine.

Nowhere did I say people will descend on Hawaii en masse. I was simply responding that distance is not the only factor - I did not say it isn't relevant, despite your suggestion that I did. Also, some people may want more western culture with their tropical destination - its all personal preference.

Regardless, you also can't say Hawaii can't work - by your standard any route not flown isn't viable because it doesn't make "good business sense." I don't have the data to say whether it could or won't work and I suspect you don't either.

Planetalk wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

I have to agree. Its a VERY long flight compared to beach areas in the Med and the Atlantic. And, Hawaii has lately been adopting more anti-tourist taxes and fees which will make the islands far less appealing; certain islands are implementing fees for tourists to visit certain beaches, cracking down on AirBNB/VRBO listings, things like that. A British tourist may not want to deal with hassles like that and instead visit the Bahamas, Tenerife, the Aegean, or any one of a number of warm weather destination far closer to home, and far less expensive.

Now, I could very well be wrong, but that's my two cents worth. Is there a market for this route? Perhaps. I'm just not sure that it will be as popular as British Airways might like.

Have a great day everyone, and stay safe!

Yes, why is BA flying to the Caribbean then when those destinations are available in Europe? Male? Hawaiian should drop East Coast destinations, no reason those people should be trekking out to Hawaii.

There are many reasons people choose to visit places, sure the majority may go with something closer, but there can still be enough demand elsewhere. The argument of X, Y, and Z are closer so why would anyone visit somewhere else is just ridiculous.

Well there you have the answer to the whole thread. BA is flying to the Caribbean because sufficient people want to fly there for a price that makes it good business sense. The same does not apply to Hawaii. It's as simple as that, the thread could really be closed. However much people insist the world is desperate to descend on Hawaii on masse the airlines have the numbers on this.

There's a lot of ridiculous posts in this thread from both sides. Yes of course some people will travel further than Ibiza, likewise obviously distance does affect demand, hence the Caribbean attracts more people than HNL. It's not rocket science.

Also worth noting when people think of tropical destinations, they tend to have in their mind somewhere fairly undeveloped, the idea of flying so far to be in a concrete city like HNL with a very western culture doesn't appeal to a lot of people. This is where the likes of Thailand shine.

Don't forget old empire ties. BA links nearly all English islands with London for decades. There's significant two-way traffic and BA exercises 5th freedom rights grandfathered from the old BOAC days.

Well, Hawaii is the only US state that includes the Union Jack in its state flag, so the symbolic connection with Britain remains strong. Of course that says nothing about Hawaii as a tourism market for Brits.

CHSNYC wrote:

Well, Hawaii is the only US state that includes the Union Jack in its state flag, so the symbolic connection with Britain remains strong. Of course that says nothing about Hawaii as a tourism market for Brits.

Just a point of order though. You mean the Union flag......it is only known as the Union Jack when flown from the bow of a Royal Navy warship.

Zidane wrote:

lying so far to be in a concrete city like HNL with a very western culture doesn't appeal to a lot of people. This is where the likes of Thailand shine.

Don't forget old empire ties. BA links nearly all English islands with London for decades. There's significant two-way traffic and BA exercises 5th freedom rights grandfathered from the old BOAC days.[/quote]

What do you mean by "English" islands, and such doesn't exist. Actually, BA drastically cut, and flies very little, to the countries of the old Empire.

jbs2886 wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Yes, why is BA flying to the Caribbean then when those destinations are available in Europe? Male? Hawaiian should drop East Coast destinations, no reason those people should be trekking out to Hawaii.

There are many reasons people choose to visit places, sure the majority may go with something closer, but there can still be enough demand elsewhere. The argument of X, Y, and Z are closer so why would anyone visit somewhere else is just ridiculous.

Well there you have the answer to the whole thread. BA is flying to the Caribbean because sufficient people want to fly there for a price that makes it good business sense. The same does not apply to Hawaii. It's as simple as that, the thread could really be closed. However much people insist the world is desperate to descend on Hawaii on masse the airlines have the numbers on this.

There's a lot of ridiculous posts in this thread from both sides. Yes of course some people will travel further than Ibiza, likewise obviously distance does affect demand, hence the Caribbean attracts more people than HNL. It's not rocket science.

Also worth noting when people think of tropical destinations, they tend to have in their mind somewhere fairly undeveloped, the idea of flying so far to be in a concrete city like HNL with a very western culture doesn't appeal to a lot of people. This is where the likes of Thailand shine.

Nowhere did I say people will descend on Hawaii en masse. I was simply responding that distance is not the only factor - I did not say it isn't relevant, despite your suggestion that I did. Also, some people may want more western culture with their tropical destination - its all personal preference.

Regardless, you also can't say Hawaii can't work - by your standard any route not flown isn't viable because it doesn't make "good business sense." I don't have the data to say whether it could or won't work and I suspect you don't either.

No-one was saying Hawaii can't work but most routes are indeed not flown primarily because they don't make good business sense. Whilst I am not a proponent of such policy it is unfortunate reality. If they made good business/revenue, airlines would have been flying them long before now.

This thread makes me wonder why I flew all the way to SYD a few years ago...

Vicenza wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

Well there you have the answer to the whole thread. BA is flying to the Caribbean because sufficient people want to fly there for a price that makes it good business sense. The same does not apply to Hawaii. It's as simple as that, the thread could really be closed. However much people insist the world is desperate to descend on Hawaii on masse the airlines have the numbers on this.

There's a lot of ridiculous posts in this thread from both sides. Yes of course some people will travel further than Ibiza, likewise obviously distance does affect demand, hence the Caribbean attracts more people than HNL. It's not rocket science.

Also worth noting when people think of tropical destinations, they tend to have in their mind somewhere fairly undeveloped, the idea of flying so far to be in a concrete city like HNL with a very western culture doesn't appeal to a lot of people. This is where the likes of Thailand shine.

Nowhere did I say people will descend on Hawaii en masse. I was simply responding that distance is not the only factor - I did not say it isn't relevant, despite your suggestion that I did. Also, some people may want more western culture with their tropical destination - its all personal preference.

Regardless, you also can't say Hawaii can't work - by your standard any route not flown isn't viable because it doesn't make "good business sense." I don't have the data to say whether it could or won't work and I suspect you don't either.

No-one was saying Hawaii can't work but most routes are indeed not flown primarily because they don't make good business sense. Whilst I am not a proponent of such policy it is unfortunate reality. If they made good business/revenue, airlines would have been flying them long before now.

I’m literally responding to a poster that said Hawaii can’t work. He states: “BA is flying to the Caribbean because sufficient people want to fly there for a price that makes it good business sense. The same does not apply to Hawaii.”

I also strongly disagree that no route can make good business sense unless it has been flown for “long before now.” By that standard no route should ever be launched because it doesn’t make good business sense.

I think it’s far more likely that Hawaiian will launch non stop service to London and other European cities when they get their 787s

Zidane wrote:

Don't forget old empire ties. BA links nearly all English islands with London for decades. There's significant two-way traffic and BA exercises 5th freedom rights grandfathered from the old BOAC days.

That would be an interesting twist. BA could fly LGW-YVR-HNL with fifth freedom rights between YVR and HNL.

Vicenza wrote:

Zidane wrote:

lying so far to be in a concrete city like HNL with a very western culture doesn't appeal to a lot of people. This is where the likes of Thailand shine.

Don't forget old empire ties. BA links nearly all English islands with London for decades. There's significant two-way traffic and BA exercises 5th freedom rights grandfathered from the old BOAC days.

What do you mean by "English" islands, and such doesn't exist. Actually, BA drastically cut, and flies very little, to the countries of the old Empire.[/quote]
"English speaking" i.e Anglophone Caribbean... The point still stands...

If Hawaii can offer all-inclusives such a route would have a better chance. Also…Hawaii is more than HNL.

airbazar wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

At the end of the day , Americans go to Hawaii because they have limited options and very little free time and aren’t really into international travel

Europeans have significantly more interesting travel options and tend to travel more globally . Hawaii is only interesting for most Europeans enroute to somewhere

That's an antiquated opinion. Leisure travel patterns changed with the Millennial generation thanks to Instagram and airlines like EK and QR. My younger American friends go on vacation to places their parents never imagined: Maldives, Bali, Tahiti, etc. My American company now gives me 6 weeks of paid vacation and I suspect that is not uncommon across industries with highly competitive labor markets such as Tech, Life Sciences, and Finance.
Yes Hawaii is far from Europe and it's not for the typical European vacationer but to say that there is no market is ludicrous. As some pointed out the issue is not a lack of a market but whether the yields are good enough to support the route and that no one really knows.

It’s not only antiquated it’s flawed logic, particularly with respect to time. For most Americans east of the Mississippi, Dublin is closer than Hawaii. I won’t go much further about the dunderheaded notion that Americans don’t travel internationally, and how even a glance at an airport’s Wikipedia page makes that a foolish statement…

I think the only way this makes financial sense is to launch LON-HNL-AKL.

Personally, I think it's very unlikely - largely because it's primarily a tourist destination and also because of the multitude of stopover options available via LAX/SEA/SFO and others.

But if I got the chance, well, Hawaii not?

bam111998 wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

I remember the closest airport in Europe would be HEL, maybe I'm wrong but would it make sense to fly from there for Scandinavians?

Looking at it Tromso (TOS/ENTC) is ~600 nm closer to HNL and has an 8000 ft runway so maybe that should be the Scandinavian gateway to Hawaii. On the other hand it has been established that no business case exists as Europeans, including Scandinavians have other places to go to be warm and Hawaiians have several options to Canada or the NE US or heck they can take AS to ANC if they want to be cold.

Yeah. I meant hubs, TOS is secondary airport. But yeah. Thailand, canarias and all Mediterranean places can offer much more for lower prices to European tourists. And cam prices be reached multiple times daily with low costs and charters.

For the aircraft to be away from base that long there better be a solid premium cabin demand to offset the opportunity cost. In other words, LON-HNL isn't going to happen.

bam111998 wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

I remember the closest airport in Europe would be HEL, maybe I'm wrong but would it make sense to fly from there for Scandinavians?

Looking at it Tromso (TOS/ENTC) is ~600 nm closer to HNL and has an 8000 ft runway so maybe that should be the Scandinavian gateway to Hawaii. On the other hand it has been established that no business case exists as Europeans, including Scandinavians have other places to go to be warm and Hawaiians have several options to Canada or the NE US or heck they can take AS to ANC if they want to be cold.

KEF is closer to HNL than either of those and actually has European connectivity opposed to TOS.

Then again, what argument is there for an ULH from Europe to HNL rather than funneling pax through SEA/SFO/LAX? There better be some serious premium, time-sensitive clientele for it to work.

eta unknown wrote:

For the aircraft to be away from base that long there better be a solid premium cabin demand to offset the opportunity cost. In other words, LON-HNL isn't going to happen.

I get what you're saying but what makes you think there isn't premium demand? Hawaii is not exactly a backpacker destination. Even for Americans it's not the same crowd you see in Cancun. From the UK it would probably cater to the same demographic that goes to Barbados, the Seychelles, or African safaris, which is not a lot but it's a wealthy bunch.

Aptivaboy wrote:

It isn't just the distance. As I stated in my post, Hawaii has begun enacting what can be described charitably as tourist unfriendly policies. Why visit a place that more and more seems to not want you there? There's far more to traveling than just distance, obviously, but the idea of visiting a locale that's far and away and one that may not want one there might just put a damper into the desire to go there. That's all that I was saying.

There's some truth here. I have been to Hawaii 3 times from the East Coast and I absolutely love the place, not the people. Hawaiians are some of the most unfriendly people I have ever met, and I have traveled a lot. Having said that, what they are against the most is mass tourism outside the typical tourist spots. Hawaiians want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the tourist dollars without the tourists. A few wealthy British visitors not venturing far from their high end resorts is something they'd be ok with, I think.

Back in the day when Hawaii Five-0 was a top hit TV show in the UK Hawaiian Airlines ran a L1011 from HNL-LAX-STN, didn't last long.

dfdubflyer wrote:

American living in the UK. From discussions over the years, I have found Hawaii has a good deal of cache among older Brits and they may be intrigued. I've heard many say they've long dreamed of it.

That said, salaries here are too low (the UK would be the second-poorest state in the Union were it to join the US) and the pound too weak for this to be a particularly viable route as Hawaii is quite expensive. I think when they searched for their "ATOL-protected package holiday" (they're still obsessed with package vacations here) the prices would probably be a turn off vis-a-vis other tropical places.

An interesting but false observation. With the UK economy (still) being the 5th largest in the world ($2.8trn) and the US economy being the largest (S20.9trn) and 7.7x larger than the UK, for a population that is 5x larger than the UK, I am not sure it is mathematically possible that the UK would be the second poorest state in the Union!!!

The UK economy is broadly comparable in size with Califormia, which is the wealthiest US state. So in actual fact the UK, if it were a US state, would be the second wealthiest, behind California and above Texas, New York and Florida.

Perhaps explaining why so many brits take vacations to luxury long haul destinations!!

The issue really is: Is Hawaii really a luxury destination in the same league as Maldives, Barbados, Bermuda, etc to attract sufficient premium leisure pax 3 days a week to support such a route. Flight length is not an issue for Brits, who happily travel to Australia for a weeks vacation to watch a cricket or rugby match!!!

airbazar wrote:

eta unknown wrote:

For the aircraft to be away from base that long there better be a solid premium cabin demand to offset the opportunity cost. In other words, LON-HNL isn't going to happen.

I get what you're saying but what makes you think there isn't premium demand? Hawaii is not exactly a backpacker destination. Even for Americans it's not the same crowd you see in Cancun. From the UK it would probably cater to the same demographic that goes to Barbados, the Seychelles, or African safaris, which is not a lot but it's a wealthy bunch.

Aptivaboy wrote:

It isn't just the distance. As I stated in my post, Hawaii has begun enacting what can be described charitably as tourist unfriendly policies. Why visit a place that more and more seems to not want you there? There's far more to traveling than just distance, obviously, but the idea of visiting a locale that's far and away and one that may not want one there might just put a damper into the desire to go there. That's all that I was saying.

There's some truth here. I have been to Hawaii 3 times from the East Coast and I absolutely love the place, not the people. Hawaiians are some of the most unfriendly people I have ever met, and I have traveled a lot. Having said that, what they are against the most is mass tourism outside the typical tourist spots. Hawaiians want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the tourist dollars without the tourists. A few wealthy British visitors not venturing far from their high end resorts is something they'd be ok with, I think.

You need the premium cabins full and that usually means business travellers, not the wealthy leisure travellers as there aren't enough if them to sustain a route like this.

mutu wrote:

dfdubflyer wrote:

American living in the UK. From discussions over the years, I have found Hawaii has a good deal of cache among older Brits and they may be intrigued. I've heard many say they've long dreamed of it.

That said, salaries here are too low (the UK would be the second-poorest state in the Union were it to join the US) and the pound too weak for this to be a particularly viable route as Hawaii is quite expensive. I think when they searched for their "ATOL-protected package holiday" (they're still obsessed with package vacations here) the prices would probably be a turn off vis-a-vis other tropical places.

An interesting but false observation. With the UK economy (still) being the 5th largest in the world ($2.8trn) and the US economy being the largest (S20.9trn) and 7.7x larger than the UK, for a population that is 5x larger than the UK, I am not sure it is mathematically possible that the UK would be the second poorest state in the Union!!!

The UK economy is broadly comparable in size with Califormia, which is the wealthiest US state. So in actual fact the UK, if it were a US state, would be the second wealthiest, behind California and above Texas, New York and Florida.

Perhaps explaining why so many brits take vacations to luxury long haul destinations!!

The issue really is: Is Hawaii really a luxury destination in the same league as Maldives, Barbados, Bermuda, etc to attract sufficient premium leisure pax 3 days a week to support such a route. Flight length is not an issue for Brits, who happily travel to Australia for a weeks vacation to watch a cricket or rugby match!!!

The UK's relative income compared to the US has been written about extensively, however you could literally google what I said and have found a number of pieces on the topic. Here is a link: https://www.google.com/search?q=would+the+uk+be+the+poorest+us+state&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB984GB984&oq=would+the+uk+be+the+poorest+us+state&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l4j33i22i29i30l2.7852j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

In fact, since those pieces were last written the gap has grown.

US per capita GDP hit $77k last quarter (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RC0Q052SBEA)

While the UK sits around $47k per person. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2021&locations=GB&start=2017

Although the state-level comparisons are from the prior year (while the overall US data is from 3Q) the comparison still remains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP#50_states_and_the_District_of_Columbia

That said, cost of living is lower in the UK than in the US so PPP-adjusted figures do benefit the UK a good bit, so it would likely be in the bottom third of states when adjusted for COL (however state-level PPP data can be unreliable).

eta unknown wrote:

For the aircraft to be away from base that long there better be a solid premium cabin demand to offset the opportunity cost. In other words, LON-HNL isn't going to happen.

This ^

Honestly, HNL seems more of an LHR destination than LGW. Pick up connecting traffic, along with the inbound traffic from Hawaii (Hawaiians, like Australians, love to travel).

N1120A wrote:

Honestly, HNL seems more of an LHR destination than LGW. Pick up connecting traffic, along with the inbound traffic from Hawaii (Hawaiians, like Australians, love to travel).

I dont think BA have sufficient long-haul frames available for such a long route as HNL, until more 787-10's and A350's come in. That should release a couple of 789's needed - wouldn't think BA would attempt HNL with a 777, especially the high-density LGW-based ones. BA could pick up some LON - SYD traffic as Hawaii generally would be seen as an attractive stop-over point and an alternative to Dubai or the Far East cities.

Perpetual and six monthly recurring subject of what if based on my mates aunts uncle conversations.

Simply not enough traffic (or interest for that matter) through I did go many many moons ago on CP Air via Vancouver .

BeachBoy wrote:

I think the only way this makes financial sense is to launch LON-HNL-AKL.

Hardly. You just doubled the amount of aircraft required, massively lengthened/increased crew requirements, and all to be a third-run participant on a medium-sized route with two long-entrenched competitors?

TC957 wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Honestly, HNL seems more of an LHR destination than LGW. Pick up connecting traffic, along with the inbound traffic from Hawaii (Hawaiians, like Australians, love to travel).

I dont think BA have sufficient long-haul frames available for such a long route as HNL, until more 787-10's and A350's come in. That should release a couple of 789's needed - wouldn't think BA would attempt HNL with a 777, especially the high-density LGW-based ones. BA could pick up some LON - SYD traffic as Hawaii generally would be seen as an attractive stop-over point and an alternative to Dubai or the Far East cities.

Hawaii isn't attractive if you just want to transit, because of the need to clear immigration and customs.

I do agree that BAs poorly managed aircraft shortage doesn't help, but this would assume they were going to open the route.

N1120A wrote:

TC957 wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Honestly, HNL seems more of an LHR destination than LGW. Pick up connecting traffic, along with the inbound traffic from Hawaii (Hawaiians, like Australians, love to travel).

I dont think BA have sufficient long-haul frames available for such a long route as HNL, until more 787-10's and A350's come in. That should release a couple of 789's needed - wouldn't think BA would attempt HNL with a 777, especially the high-density LGW-based ones. BA could pick up some LON - SYD traffic as Hawaii generally would be seen as an attractive stop-over point and an alternative to Dubai or the Far East cities.

Hawaii isn't attractive if you just want to transit, because of the need to clear immigration and customs.

I do agree that BAs poorly managed aircraft shortage doesn't help, but this would assume they were going to open the route.

Remember NZ stopped flying LAX-LHR because the LAX 'transit experience' was a lot more 'unpleasant' than transiting via Asia or the Middle East.

Also quite a few London-Australia pax would be from countries that are not in the ESTA program, so they would have to apply for a full US visa just so they can transit an airport....

Adipocere wrote:

Why would anyone in London fly ULH to HNL when there’s Tenerife, Mykonos and Ibiza so close? Maybe a westward Kangaroo route?

The Canary Islands are supposed to be quite similar to the Hawaiian Islands for obvious reasons.

Having been to the former but not the latter I cannot make that call.

I love Santa Monica, especially the bike path from Redondo to Venice. Such a great way to spend a day.

Who here I wonder wouldn’t take a break under the LAX departures. Fabulous. Roaring out over the Pacific.

Or lunch in Sausalito, or a few days in Vegas.

Seems churlish not to stop over on the West Coast for a few days in my opinion. ( from the U.K. )

I was referring to passengers stopping off for a few days in Hawaii en route to SYD, the current QF timings on HNL - SYD would make any straight connection from any London flight nigh-on impossible.

eta unknown wrote:

airbazar wrote:

eta unknown wrote:

For the aircraft to be away from base that long there better be a solid premium cabin demand to offset the opportunity cost. In other words, LON-HNL isn't going to happen.

I get what you're saying but what makes you think there isn't premium demand? Hawaii is not exactly a backpacker destination. Even for Americans it's not the same crowd you see in Cancun. From the UK it would probably cater to the same demographic that goes to Barbados, the Seychelles, or African safaris, which is not a lot but it's a wealthy bunch.

Aptivaboy wrote:

It isn't just the distance. As I stated in my post, Hawaii has begun enacting what can be described charitably as tourist unfriendly policies. Why visit a place that more and more seems to not want you there? There's far more to traveling than just distance, obviously, but the idea of visiting a locale that's far and away and one that may not want one there might just put a damper into the desire to go there. That's all that I was saying.

There's some truth here. I have been to Hawaii 3 times from the East Coast and I absolutely love the place, not the people. Hawaiians are some of the most unfriendly people I have ever met, and I have traveled a lot. Having said that, what they are against the most is mass tourism outside the typical tourist spots. Hawaiians want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the tourist dollars without the tourists. A few wealthy British visitors not venturing far from their high end resorts is something they'd be ok with, I think.

You need the premium cabins full and that usually means business travellers, not the wealthy leisure travellers as there aren't enough if them to sustain a route like this.

So how exactly does BA fill the premium cabins on their numerous carribean routes, the Maldives or Orlando?

Swed3120 wrote:

eta unknown wrote:

airbazar wrote:

I get what you're saying but what makes you think there isn't premium demand? Hawaii is not exactly a backpacker destination. Even for Americans it's not the same crowd you see in Cancun. From the UK it would probably cater to the same demographic that goes to Barbados, the Seychelles, or African safaris, which is not a lot but it's a wealthy bunch.


There's some truth here. I have been to Hawaii 3 times from the East Coast and I absolutely love the place, not the people. Hawaiians are some of the most unfriendly people I have ever met, and I have traveled a lot. Having said that, what they are against the most is mass tourism outside the typical tourist spots. Hawaiians want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the tourist dollars without the tourists. A few wealthy British visitors not venturing far from their high end resorts is something they'd be ok with, I think.

You need the premium cabins full and that usually means business travellers, not the wealthy leisure travellers as there aren't enough if them to sustain a route like this.

So how exactly does BA fill the premium cabins on their numerous carribean routes, the Maldives or Orlando?

Wealthy U.K. tourists will want to take their kids to Disney World as much as the next person.

As for the Caribbean, surely that does not need explanation. Barbados was a Concorde route !

N1120A wrote:

Hawaii isn't attractive if you just want to transit, because of the need to clear immigration and customs.

True, but HNL has the easiest customs and immigration of any US airport to clear that I've travelled through. Just very relaxed.

Swed3120 wrote:

So how exactly does BA fill the premium cabins on their numerous carribean routes, the Maldives or Orlando?

These routes aren't short, but they're not really all that long.

LAX772LR wrote:

BeachBoy wrote:

I think the only way this makes financial sense is to launch LON-HNL-AKL.

Hardly. You just doubled the amount of aircraft required, massively lengthened/increased crew requirements, and all to be a third-run participant on a medium-sized route with two long-entrenched competitors?

Two competitors? Make that a dozen or so. None of which require a transit immigration and customs check (nor a visa) for UK or NZ citizens, whether that transit is in DXB, DOH, SIN, KUL, BKK, TYO, ICN, HKG, YVR...

dfdubflyer wrote:

American living in the UK. From discussions over the years, I have found Hawaii has a good deal of cache among older Brits and they may be intrigued. I've heard many say they've long dreamed of it.

That said, salaries here are too low (the UK would be the second-poorest state in the Union were it to join the US) and the pound too weak for this to be a particularly viable route as Hawaii is quite expensive. I think when they searched for their "ATOL-protected package holiday" (they're still obsessed with package vacations here) the prices would probably be a turn off vis-a-vis other tropical places.

Yes and no. You need to use mode averages of disposable income after typical local expenses, categorised into demographics, with the demographics scaled. Official figures aren't good enough, not least because consumers spend their money on different things.

The UK is one of the most geographically unequal major economies, despite being relatively physically small. Parts of the North of England are poorer than parts of the former communist block. All that's kind of "so what", as this flight would leave a London airport, where the market is London, SouthEast and East of England. There is enough volume of people, with large disposable income, in those geographic markets to support a niche of luxury long haul leisure, BA Holidays, Kuoni etc. As you say, that market is older, generally because they don't have accommodation costs as their mortgages are paid off and their kids have left home.

The package market has had high teens market share for years now, roughly double the US. It's very much a niche thing, Jet 2 and TUI are the main players, with their operations disproportionately focused on the poorer north.

Anyway, I think you'd probably get a weekly or twice weekly UK seasonal out of HNL, if you had spare capacity sat around. I'd see it as something like Condor's Frankfurt to Anchorage service, which ties in with cruises. You'd probably offer HNL for a few nights plus a 7 night cruise Honolulu - Kahului - Hilo - Kona - Nawiliwili - Kauai - Honolulu. I can't see anything like this happening with fuel expenses so high.

Flogskipari wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

BeachBoy wrote:

I think the only way this makes financial sense is to launch LON-HNL-AKL.

Hardly. You just doubled the amount of aircraft required, massively lengthened/increased crew requirements, and all to be a third-run participant on a medium-sized route with two long-entrenched competitors?

Two competitors? Make that a dozen or so. None of which require a transit immigration and customs check (nor a visa) for UK or NZ citizens, whether that transit is in DXB, DOH, SIN, KUL, BKK, TYO, ICN, HKG, YVR...

Was referring specifically to the addition of an HNL-AKL segment, but true, your point also stands.

Hawaiian airlines will probably be the airline flying from Honolulu to London when they get their 787-9 fleet. For BA, HNL is (or was) a stop to Australia.

eta unknown wrote:

airbazar wrote:

eta unknown wrote:

For the aircraft to be away from base that long there better be a solid premium cabin demand to offset the opportunity cost. In other words, LON-HNL isn't going to happen.

I get what you're saying but what makes you think there isn't premium demand? Hawaii is not exactly a backpacker destination. Even for Americans it's not the same crowd you see in Cancun. From the UK it would probably cater to the same demographic that goes to Barbados, the Seychelles, or African safaris, which is not a lot but it's a wealthy bunch.

Aptivaboy wrote:

It isn't just the distance. As I stated in my post, Hawaii has begun enacting what can be described charitably as tourist unfriendly policies. Why visit a place that more and more seems to not want you there? There's far more to traveling than just distance, obviously, but the idea of visiting a locale that's far and away and one that may not want one there might just put a damper into the desire to go there. That's all that I was saying.

There's some truth here. I have been to Hawaii 3 times from the East Coast and I absolutely love the place, not the people. Hawaiians are some of the most unfriendly people I have ever met, and I have traveled a lot. Having said that, what they are against the most is mass tourism outside the typical tourist spots. Hawaiians want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the tourist dollars without the tourists. A few wealthy British visitors not venturing far from their high end resorts is something they'd be ok with, I think.

You need the premium cabins full and that usually means business travellers, not the wealthy leisure travellers as there aren't enough if them to sustain a route like this.

Then explain how even AA (by all accounts a pretty terrible airline) manages to fill premium cabins on their Hawaii routes? You think the J cabin on a 787 or 777 flying DFW-OGG is full of business travelers? Nope.

this route borders on MIA-NRT on one of the most "rumored" on this site that never amounts to much. I do agree that if it launched, it'd be an LHR route, but I also just don't see it. there's bigger fish to fry for BA (and HA) out there

jfk777 wrote:

Hawaiian airlines will probably be the airline flying from Honolulu to London when they get their 787-9 fleet. For BA, HNL is (or was) a stop to Australia.

If they had a bank of departures to SYD/MEL/BNE, and then AKL/WLG/CHC perhaps - I could see it being interesting. Also if it had feed from Japan - especially secondary cities which require TYO connections anyway.

But that is selling HNL as a hub - and UK passengers don't really need more options to get to ANZ. Whereas ANZ people to connect to broader US/CA places, it has more merit.

jfk777 wrote:

Hawaiian airlines will probably be the airline flying from Honolulu to London when they get their 787-9 fleet. For BA, HNL is (or was) a stop to Australia.

I agree. All major carriers have a TATL JV therefore they are happy using any of their hubs in N.America to connect passengers between Europe and Hawaii. HA does not have a TATL JV with anyone so they would be the most interested in serving this route. Also their business model is to serve markets where there is potential to bring tourists to Hawaii. Being a leisure route they wouldn't even need prime slots at LHR.

wenders825 wrote:

this route borders on MIA-NRT on one of the most "rumored" on this site that never amounts to much. I do agree that if it launched, it'd be an LHR route, but I also just don't see it. there's bigger fish to fry for BA (and HA) out there

For BA yes but for HA I can't imagine a bigger fish than LHR.
I'm honestly curious what other unserved long haul markets would be better than LHR? Japan feels tapped out. China didn't work out.
PHL? MIA? CVG? YUL?