PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

#5: The incredibly numerous one-stop options via a multitude of U.S. airports to connect Britain to Hawai'i.

This is the biggest item IMO. If I lived in London and was going to Hawaii (for whatever reason) I would only ever consider it if Honolulu/Oahu was my final stop. If I'm going to Maui or the big island or wherever else in the islands I am without a doubt flying LHR-LAX/SFO/SEA-XXX to my specific island.

The last thing I would want to do is sit on a plane for 15 hours to land in Hawaii and have to spend another 4-5hours in the airports as I collect my bags, go through immigration and then catch another flight to my final destination.

Seattle adds 3% to the great circle route and BA can feed me onto Alaska, or 10% to go through LA on AA.

IAD380DCA wrote:

Don’t know all of the details at all. However, post pandemic, there has been an uptick in visitors from the UK to HNL according to some hotel managers and others in the hospitality industry that actually see figures.
There has also been some talk of this possible flight in HNL.
However, it seems to be more of a wish list than anything else. Now if the uptick in UK pax increases, who knows.
In the meantime, my guess is that BA, and others, will just keep a watchful eye on future numbers.

Does BA have onward routes through HNL to AKL or SYD? Years ago they had a service that operated LHR-JFK-SFO-HNL-TYO (I am not sure if it went on 'round the world, like PA 1/2), so if they had the rights, they could use it to go onward to AKL, SYD, or MEL. With OW partners' connectability (AA serves HNL from LAX, DFW, and seasonally, ORD) to feed beyond segments, that could help. But, like most people here, I seriously doubt the prospect of this ever happening.

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.

+1. If at all possible, HAL would likely want to time this with connection to AKL as not even Project Sunrise could connect AKL and LHR. The 787-9 is really the perfect aircraft to try HNL-LHR. Question is how much HAL would pay for a LHR slot and will they decide to introduce W on their 789s. They already announced the product upfront and there is a noticeable increase in seats as compared to the A332.

9w748capt wrote:

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.

I'd be curious to know how many of those J seats are upgrades vs. paid. They're definitely not business travelers (aren't the front cabins of AA's Hawaii flights marketed as "First", not "Business"?), but I'm sure a fair number are Executive Platinums flying on upgrades. I'm sure a handful of people pay the $3k+ for the fare, but I doubt there are enough of those to fill the cabin on a daily basis.

If I was the CEO of HA, I would be thinking about increasing frequency on existing routes and maybe a couple of new routes in the USA or Canada - ie densify the core market. It's likely to be a lower risk strategy than London. Not sexy and doesn't make headlines... but CEOs are paid to generate profits not have their photo in the papers. HA is a medium size airline unlike AA, DL, or UA, and it has limited resources. Using a 787 on 8 hour or 10 hour flights is perfectly acceptable; let the ME3 fight it out for penis-length-style competitions of who has the longest route

davidjohnson6 wrote:

If I was the CEO of HA, I would be thinking about increasing frequency on existing routes and maybe a couple of new routes in the USA or Canada - ie densify the core market. It's likely to be a lower risk strategy than London. Not sexy and doesn't make headlines... but CEOs are paid to generate profits not have their photo in the papers. HA is a medium size airline unlike AA, DL, or UA, and it has limited resources. Using a 787 on 8 hour or 10 hour flights is perfectly acceptable; let the ME3 fight it out for penis-length-style competitions of who has the longest route

Agree 100% with this

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

9w748capt wrote:

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.

I'd be curious to know how many of those J seats are upgrades vs. paid. They're definitely not business travelers (aren't the front cabins of AA's Hawaii flights marketed as "First", not "Business"?), but I'm sure a fair number are Executive Platinums flying on upgrades. I'm sure a handful of people pay the $3k+ for the fare, but I doubt there are enough of those to fill the cabin on a daily basis.

I disagree. I don't have access to any actual data, but we go to Hawaii almost every year, usually in PE or J. And unless we purchase our tickets well in advance, premium cabin seats simply aren't available. I'm sure there's the odd flight where EXPs get to burn SWUs, but premium fares to Hawaii are usually so reasonable, and from middle America it's definitely long enough of a flight for many to justify the price. Just to share my admittedly limited experience.

LON- HNL is only a few miles more than as BA's LHR - SCL flight. So no issues there. I'm sure a good % of passengers will be connecting from Europe, paying top $ to fly premium. Honeymooners too. I think BA should give it a go, max 3 a week.

Galwayman wrote:

jetblueguy22 wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

It doesn’t really feel new to most Europeans . It might be located in the pacific but it’s just another American place really . Europeans can get that American experience in Tampa and most already have

I’ve read some ridiculous statements on this site, but comparing Hawaii to Tampa is top 5.

.

Ranking statements you don’t agree with is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen here

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

I have to agree with the JetBlue guy that is a ridiculous statement. Tampa and Hawaii are nothing alike. And, you follow up and try to defend your ridiculous statement with another ridiculous statement. Americans who have limited options and not much free time do not go to Hawaii due to the fact that it is a 5 hour flight from the west coast (even longer out east) and Hawaii is expensive. Those Americans you refer to that either do not have much free time or have limited options due to financial reasons tend to either not travel at all or go to the Caribbean (limited parts), parts of Mexico (eg: Cancun), California, or Florida.

TC957 wrote:

LON- HNL is only a few miles more than as BA's LHR - SCL flight. So no issues there. I'm sure a good % of passengers will be connecting from Europe, paying top $ to fly premium. Honeymooners too. I think BA should give it a go, max 3 a week.

London-Seychelles is about 5 hours less flying time than London-Honolulu.... and is well within the honeymooner market. Yet BA don't fly there... why should BA fly to Honolulu if there is limited profitability on the Seychelles ? BA have decided that even a long time stable route like Bangkok with all the Thai beaches isn't sufficiently profitable for them, compared to the money that can be made on other routes

davidjohnson6 wrote:

If I was the CEO of HA, I would be thinking about increasing frequency on existing routes and maybe a couple of new routes in the USA or Canada - ie densify the core market. It's likely to be a lower risk strategy than London. Not sexy and doesn't make headlines... but CEOs are paid to generate profits not have their photo in the papers. HA is a medium size airline unlike AA, DL, or UA, and it has limited resources. Using a 787 on 8 hour or 10 hour flights is perfectly acceptable; let the ME3 fight it out for penis-length-style competitions of who has the longest route

They are doing that and have been doing it all along. It started when they replaced the 767's for A332's and A321's which allowed them to cover many more destinations. They will continue to do that simply by upgauging from A332's to 789's, which is a much larger airplane. The number of J seats alone will nearly double. Added frequencies provide very little benefit on leisure heavy routes. Although your statement makes a lot of sense you're starting with the assumption that LHR would not be profitable. I'm not making that assumption.

Interesting...

Personally, I've never understood why people East Coast of the US would want to fly 9-10+ hours to go to Hawaii when the Caribbean is so much closer -- so it's hard for me to wrap my head around Europeans doing it.

Don't get me wrong, Hawaii is great and is the go-to for a lot of people on the West Coast (only a 5-hr flight). But I've been to a few places in the Caribbean and it's beautiful and diverse in so many great ways. But if you're gonna fly 9-12 hours, might as well just go to French Polynesia, Cook Islands, Fiji, etc which are far more unspoiled and other-worldly... just my opinion.

PacificWest wrote:

Interesting...

Personally, I've never understood why people East Coast of the US would want to fly 9-10+ hours to go to Hawaii when the Caribbean is so much closer -- so it's hard for me to wrap my head around Europeans doing it.

Do we really need this discussion, again? I can't wrap my head around people who go to Florida every year but I don't knock it. Different people have different tastes.

airbazar wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

If I was the CEO of HA, I would be thinking about increasing frequency on existing routes and maybe a couple of new routes in the USA or Canada - ie densify the core market. It's likely to be a lower risk strategy than London. Not sexy and doesn't make headlines... but CEOs are paid to generate profits not have their photo in the papers. HA is a medium size airline unlike AA, DL, or UA, and it has limited resources. Using a 787 on 8 hour or 10 hour flights is perfectly acceptable; let the ME3 fight it out for penis-length-style competitions of who has the longest route

They are doing that and have been doing it all along. It started when they replaced the 767's for A332's and A321's which allowed them to cover many more destinations. They will continue to do that simply by upgauging from A332's to 789's, which is a much larger airplane. The number of J seats alone will nearly double. Added frequencies provide very little benefit on leisure heavy routes. Although your statement makes a lot of sense you're starting with the assumption that LHR would not be profitable. I'm not making that assumption.

HNL-London *might* be profitable for HA - the probability of this is definitely non-zero. I'm sure HA is capable of solving any technical issues to allow it to fly non-stop to London if they really want to. But I also see an awful lot of commercial risk with relatively low chance of good profit. The risk-reward ratio is likely a lot more in HA's favour by focussing its growth on the USA and Canada

davidjohnson6 wrote:

TC957 wrote:

LON- HNL is only a few miles more than as BA's LHR - SCL flight. So no issues there. I'm sure a good % of passengers will be connecting from Europe, paying top $ to fly premium. Honeymooners too. I think BA should give it a go, max 3 a week.

London-Seychelles is about 5 hours less flying time than London-Honolulu.... and is well within the honeymooner market. Yet BA don't fly there... why should BA fly to Honolulu if there is limited profitability on the Seychelles ? BA have decided that even a long time stable route like Bangkok with all the Thai beaches isn't sufficiently profitable for them, compared to the money that can be made on other routes

Yet they go to MRU which is a 12hr+ leisure route. Seychelles has a much lower hotel capacity, far lower population and virtually no onward connecting flights compared to Hawaii.

PacificWest wrote:

Interesting...

Personally, I've never understood why people East Coast of the US would want to fly 9-10+ hours to go to Hawaii when the Caribbean is so much closer -- so it's hard for me to wrap my head around Europeans doing it.

Don't get me wrong, Hawaii is great and is the go-to for a lot of people on the West Coast (only a 5-hr flight). But I've been to a few places in the Caribbean and it's beautiful and diverse in so many great ways. But if you're gonna fly 9-12 hours, might as well just go to French Polynesia, Cook Islands, Fiji, etc which are far more unspoiled and other-worldly... just my opinion.

No need for a passport with the associated costs and waiting if you need to apply for one, customs clearance, changing out money, potential language barrier, and everything that still goes along with international travel. While the Caribbean destinations are closer there are still barriers to entry there that Hawaii doesn’t have for a US citizen.

TC957 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

TC957 wrote:

LON- HNL is only a few miles more than as BA's LHR - SCL flight. So no issues there. I'm sure a good % of passengers will be connecting from Europe, paying top $ to fly premium. Honeymooners too. I think BA should give it a go, max 3 a week.

London-Seychelles is about 5 hours less flying time than London-Honolulu.... and is well within the honeymooner market. Yet BA don't fly there... why should BA fly to Honolulu if there is limited profitability on the Seychelles ? BA have decided that even a long time stable route like Bangkok with all the Thai beaches isn't sufficiently profitable for them, compared to the money that can be made on other routes

Yet they go to MRU which is a 12hr+ leisure route. Seychelles has a much lower hotel capacity, far lower population and virtually no onward connecting flights compared to Hawaii.

I am not sure, HNL and MRU are comparable holiday destinations.

Galwayman wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Could someone list the comparable alternatives that are closer to LGW than HNL? There must be some appealing tropical themed islands or beaches for Londoners to go to. Barbados?

Alternatives don’t really matter. Its like my wife and I traveling from the states to the Maldives.

Sometimes people just want to go somewhere new.

It doesn’t really feel new to most Europeans . It might be located in the pacific but it’s just another American place really . Europeans can get that American experience in Tampa and most already have

Comparing Hawaii to Tampa? My god keep the Brit’s in Florida then if that’s how they’ll see it.

socalflyer00 wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Alternatives don’t really matter. Its like my wife and I traveling from the states to the Maldives.

Sometimes people just want to go somewhere new.

It doesn’t really feel new to most Europeans . It might be located in the pacific but it’s just another American place really . Europeans can get that American experience in Tampa and most already have

Comparing Hawaii to Tampa? My god keep the Brit’s in Florida then if that’s how they’ll see it.

Well, how about SJU…. Not the same as Honolulu, but you can at least make a comparison. And it is only 60% as far away.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

TC957 wrote:

LON- HNL is only a few miles more than as BA's LHR - SCL flight. So no issues there. I'm sure a good % of passengers will be connecting from Europe, paying top $ to fly premium. Honeymooners too. I think BA should give it a go, max 3 a week.

London-Seychelles is about 5 hours less flying time than London-Honolulu.... and is well within the honeymooner market. Yet BA don't fly there... why should BA fly to Honolulu if there is limited profitability on the Seychelles ? BA have decided that even a long time stable route like Bangkok with all the Thai beaches isn't sufficiently profitable for them, compared to the money that can be made on other routes

I hate to be off-topic, but speaking of that, even with Bangkok (or Thailand for that matter) being a popular destination for Brits compared to Hawaii, BA failed to offer a competitive advantage to and from Bangkok; I think that even most Brits preferred flying TG, EK, EY, QR to Thailand because of their better quality compared to BA's reletively low quality services to Thailand. Oh yeah, and I think that the planes previously used to Bangkok are better off being used to add more flights to the US, where there's usually more money to be made than risking to use them on a price-sensitive route like Bangkok.

Philippine333 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

TC957 wrote:

LON- HNL is only a few miles more than as BA's LHR - SCL flight. So no issues there. I'm sure a good % of passengers will be connecting from Europe, paying top $ to fly premium. Honeymooners too. I think BA should give it a go, max 3 a week.

London-Seychelles is about 5 hours less flying time than London-Honolulu.... and is well within the honeymooner market. Yet BA don't fly there... why should BA fly to Honolulu if there is limited profitability on the Seychelles ? BA have decided that even a long time stable route like Bangkok with all the Thai beaches isn't sufficiently profitable for them, compared to the money that can be made on other routes

I hate to be off-topic, but speaking of that, even with Bangkok (or Thailand for that matter) being a popular destination for Brits compared to Hawaii, BA failed to offer a competitive advantage to and from Bangkok; I think that even most Brits preferred flying TG, EK, EY, QR to Thailand because of their better quality compared to BA's reletively low quality services to Thailand. Oh yeah, and I think that the planes previously used to Bangkok are better off being used to add more flights to the US, where there's usually more money to be made than risking to use them on a price-sensitive route like Bangkok.

yes, some truth here. But fundamentally with the 744's retired quickly (and earlier than planned) due to COVID, and the 787-10's and 777-9's long delayed arrival to the fleet, routes like KUL, BKK and SEZ will need to wait for service to resume - there just isnt the (suitable) fleet available. And with the roll out of the new business class product taking frames out of service for re-fit, even the current timetable is prone to cancellations due to equipment shortages.

mutu wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

London-Seychelles is about 5 hours less flying time than London-Honolulu.... and is well within the honeymooner market. Yet BA don't fly there... why should BA fly to Honolulu if there is limited profitability on the Seychelles ? BA have decided that even a long time stable route like Bangkok with all the Thai beaches isn't sufficiently profitable for them, compared to the money that can be made on other routes

I hate to be off-topic, but speaking of that, even with Bangkok (or Thailand for that matter) being a popular destination for Brits compared to Hawaii, BA failed to offer a competitive advantage to and from Bangkok; I think that even most Brits preferred flying TG, EK, EY, QR to Thailand because of their better quality compared to BA's reletively low quality services to Thailand. Oh yeah, and I think that the planes previously used to Bangkok are better off being used to add more flights to the US, where there's usually more money to be made than risking to use them on a price-sensitive route like Bangkok.

yes, some truth here. But fundamentally with the 744's retired quickly (and earlier than planned) due to COVID, and the 787-10's and 777-9's long delayed arrival to the fleet, routes like KUL, BKK and SEZ will need to wait for service to resume - there just isnt the (suitable) fleet available. And with the roll out of the new business class product taking frames out of service for re-fit, even the current timetable is prone to cancellations due to equipment shortages.

Last time I heard BA flew to Bangkok, they used ratty 777-200s which not many preferred flying on. That's not it though. Even if there were new BA planes that would've been capable of flying to KL and Bangkok, the return would've been way more up in the air because of Russian airspace closure.

I have to agree with those who speculate HNL-LHR will be a route operated by HA rather than BA. I think there is an argument to be made that given BA's size and importance to the UK, BA has far more opportunities to deploy their WBs elsewhere, unless their network planning team is highly confident it has solid money making potential.
In contrast, HA's sole function is to/from Hawaii and there are very limited unturned stones in terms of markets wherein the use case for a brand new 789 is needed over their existing 332s.
I have to imagine that if HA's sole intention was to upgauge its existing core markets, (TYO, LAX, LAS) they would have gone with a small sub fleet of 333/9s. A small sub fleet of 333/9s would have allowed HA to maintain commonality with their existing WB fleet (crew/mtx, etc) while almost certainly being cheaper either second hand or directly from Airbus in order to keep them from going to Boeing. The latest HGW versions of the 333 could easily operate any route in their existing network, as other airlines have or are currently operating 333/9s on routes also operated by HA.
Given HA specifically chose the more expensive 789 gives a strong impression they intend to use it for routes their existing fleet or a sub fleet of 333/9s would struggle to, or cannot operate.
While BA could leverage feed from its entire network on a LHRHNL route, HA can accomplish this through codeshares with any and every European airline who operates into LON that will give them a meeting.

77H

TC957 wrote:

... I think BA should give it a go, max 3 a week.

They could try it seasonally first, to test the waters.

Philippine333 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

TC957 wrote:

LON- HNL is only a few miles more than as BA's LHR - SCL flight. So no issues there. I'm sure a good % of passengers will be connecting from Europe, paying top $ to fly premium. Honeymooners too. I think BA should give it a go, max 3 a week.

London-Seychelles is about 5 hours less flying time than London-Honolulu.... and is well within the honeymooner market. Yet BA don't fly there... why should BA fly to Honolulu if there is limited profitability on the Seychelles ? BA have decided that even a long time stable route like Bangkok with all the Thai beaches isn't sufficiently profitable for them, compared to the money that can be made on other routes

I hate to be off-topic, but speaking of that, even with Bangkok (or Thailand for that matter) being a popular destination for Brits compared to Hawaii, BA failed to offer a competitive advantage to and from Bangkok;

Thailand is dirt cheap, backpacker central. People who go to Thailand are people who can't even afford to go to Palma. Completely different clientele. Which is not to say that people with money don't go to Thailand but you get the gist. On the other hand, Hawaii is expensive in and on itself. People who go to Hawaii are a much wealthier crowd. BA failed in Thailand because they couldn't compete with various lower cost operators, or didn't feel that the rock bottom yields were worth competing for.

planemanofnz wrote:

They could try it seasonally first, to test the waters.

There really are no seasons in Hawaii. Obviously Summer and Xmas see the most visitors because of school vacations but it's not like your typical tropical destinations where you have a desirable dry season vs a less desirable monsoon season. Heck, on some islands you can get both on the same day, any day of the year, depending on what side of the island you're on

Seasonally as in origin not destination season. Hawaii would be seen mostly as a winter season vacation from the UK/ Europe.

If they fly this, would it be trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific?

Ziyulu wrote:

If they fly this, would it be trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific?

Would trans-Arctic be a valid answer ?

scbriml wrote:

BA's 77Es had no problem making LHE-EZE (13 hours and 6,000nm). LHR-HNL is about 300nm further, so I suspect the plane is certainly capable, but I honestly don't know how big a deal that extra 300nm is. It would be nearly a polar route so that might have some impact in the winter.

Yes but the issue would be the westbound flight as once over the pacific the diversion location requires more added fuel than most others. HNL-AUS for instance has multiple places to divert to between the 2. US/Canada to HNL has ANC, SEA PDX. The HNL side has only HNL/ITO for a diversion.

If this route were to happen many of the premium passengers would likely want to stay on Maui instead of Oahu. If that's the case is it even worth the nonstop flight if you still have to take another flight albeit brief? You can fly to nearly twenty cities in the US and still only have one stop.

JohanTally wrote:

If this route were to happen many of the premium passengers would likely want to stay on Maui instead of Oahu. If that's the case is it even worth the nonstop flight if you still have to take another flight albeit brief? You can fly to nearly twenty cities in the US and still only have one stop.

To be on a 10 hour flight and connecting on a 6 hour flight without meals is not a good travel experience.

Ziyulu wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

If this route were to happen many of the premium passengers would likely want to stay on Maui instead of Oahu. If that's the case is it even worth the nonstop flight if you still have to take another flight albeit brief? You can fly to nearly twenty cities in the US and still only have one stop.

To be on a 10 hour flight and connecting on a 6 hour flight without meals is not a good travel experience.

Premium passengers would likely be in a cabin that provides food. Also some airlines provide food for everyone like HA.

airbazar wrote:

Thailand is dirt cheap, backpacker central. People who go to Thailand are people who can't even afford to go to Palma. Completely different clientele. Which is not to say that people with money don't go to Thailand but you get the gist. On the other hand, Hawaii is expensive in and on itself. People who go to Hawaii are a much wealthier crowd. BA failed in Thailand because they couldn't compete with various lower cost operators, or didn't feel that the rock bottom yields were worth competing for.

That is both quite a generalisation, and a gross exaggeration on almost every point, especially the utter nonsense in your second sentence. And no, I don't get 'the gist' at all. People go to Thailand, and similar destinations, for a wide variety of reasons and particularly for the cultures of SE Asia....not especially to do with 'wealthy'. After all, Hawaii is merely only a US state with nothing cultural, particularly special or even friendly about it. For Europeans, it is not particularly accessible without a very long flight(s) and for no really special reason other than ego purposes. It has very little to do with being 'wealthier', but than that and ego is pretty much a mainstay fixation on a,net. BA didn't fail in Thailand....they generally don't like competition and pretend to prefer 'premium' passengers. That's fair enough of course, and entirely up to themselves.

PacificWest wrote:

Interesting...

Personally, I've never understood why people East Coast of the US would want to fly 9-10+ hours to go to Hawaii when the Caribbean is so much closer -- so it's hard for me to wrap my head around Europeans doing it.

Don't get me wrong, Hawaii is great and is the go-to for a lot of people on the West Coast (only a 5-hr flight). But I've been to a few places in the Caribbean and it's beautiful and diverse in so many great ways. But if you're gonna fly 9-12 hours, might as well just go to French Polynesia, Cook Islands, Fiji, etc which are far more unspoiled and other-worldly... just my opinion.

The Caribbean does not have the same dry, almost perfect weather that parts of Hawaii do. It can also be expensive to fly to any one island from the US, and by that point you might as well fly to Hawaii. The other Polynesian islands are nice, but they’re even farther than Hawaii is and can be even more expensive.

Meanwhile, BA may not have the cost structure to support flying to Hawaii. They have high costs already by operating from the U.K., so they would need at least some premium business to warrant tying up an A350 on such a long route. I’m not saying the market is infeasible, but I do think it would be risky.

Does the A330-200 have the legs for the journey? I get the feeling that if demand existed maybe HA would have tried it first?

Vicenza wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Thailand is dirt cheap, backpacker central. People who go to Thailand are people who can't even afford to go to Palma. Completely different clientele. Which is not to say that people with money don't go to Thailand but you get the gist. On the other hand, Hawaii is expensive in and on itself. People who go to Hawaii are a much wealthier crowd. BA failed in Thailand because they couldn't compete with various lower cost operators, or didn't feel that the rock bottom yields were worth competing for.

That is both quite a generalisation, and a gross exaggeration on almost every point, especially the utter nonsense in your second sentence. And no, I don't get 'the gist' at all. People go to Thailand, and similar destinations, for a wide variety of reasons and particularly for the cultures of SE Asia....not especially to do with 'wealthy'. After all, Hawaii is merely only a US state with nothing cultural, particularly special or even friendly about it. For Europeans, it is not particularly accessible without a very long flight(s) and for no really special reason other than ego purposes. It has very little to do with being 'wealthier', but than that and ego is pretty much a mainstay fixation on a,net. BA didn't fail in Thailand....they generally don't like competition and pretend to prefer 'premium' passengers. That's fair enough of course, and entirely up to themselves.

Tell me you haven't been to Hawaii without telling me you haven't been here. Hawaii has a very distinct culture to the rest of the US not to mention native Hawaiian culture. It is also one of the most ethnically diverse states in the country.

Are you going to experience that culture, and what makes Hawaii special if you never leave the confines of Waikiki, Wailea or Waikoloa ? No...
But you could say the same for any destination. If you stay in and around your resort in Thailand or Bali, the Caribbean or Mexico they are all devoid of culture or anything special. That's by design. Resorts/resort areas are designed to be homogeneous, with little superficial bits of the locale sprinkled in.

As for your assertion that there is nothing special about the Hawaiian islands. There are 8 volcanic rocks in the middle of Pacific teeming with flora and fauna found no where else on the planet. You can drive up to Mauna Kea and have a snow ball fight with your friends/family and be at the beach an hour later. The Hawaiian island chain as a collective has all but 2 of the "climate classifications" in the world and boasts the associated change in scenery befitting each climate class and can be experienced in a matter of hours by car.

The one thing I will agree with you on is that locals need to quit with the unwarranted hostility towards visitors. That said, there are a lot of behind the scenes factors that contribute to a less than favorable view on visitors, some warranted, some not. Not sure why you would respond to someone "trashing" Thailand by trashing another place. Both places offer unique experiences for those willing to go out and take them in.
I've never understood why discussions on potential leisure routes ALWAYS devolves into the narrow minded "why go there when you could go here" argument. Different strokes for different folks.

77H

Philippine333 wrote:

mutu wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

I hate to be off-topic, but speaking of that, even with Bangkok (or Thailand for that matter) being a popular destination for Brits compared to Hawaii, BA failed to offer a competitive advantage to and from Bangkok; I think that even most Brits preferred flying TG, EK, EY, QR to Thailand because of their better quality compared to BA's reletively low quality services to Thailand. Oh yeah, and I think that the planes previously used to Bangkok are better off being used to add more flights to the US, where there's usually more money to be made than risking to use them on a price-sensitive route like Bangkok.

yes, some truth here. But fundamentally with the 744's retired quickly (and earlier than planned) due to COVID, and the 787-10's and 777-9's long delayed arrival to the fleet, routes like KUL, BKK and SEZ will need to wait for service to resume - there just isnt the (suitable) fleet available. And with the roll out of the new business class product taking frames out of service for re-fit, even the current timetable is prone to cancellations due to equipment shortages.

Last time I heard BA flew to Bangkok, they used ratty 777-200s which not many preferred flying on.

What is "ratty" about BA's 777s? The Heathrow ones are mostly refitted with the latest cabins. I don't think that most of the flying public know the difference between a 777 and a 787 or care. Ivwould love to see some supporting evidence for "not many preferred flying on"

Vicenza wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Thailand is dirt cheap, backpacker central. People who go to Thailand are people who can't even afford to go to Palma. Completely different clientele. Which is not to say that people with money don't go to Thailand but you get the gist. On the other hand, Hawaii is expensive in and on itself. People who go to Hawaii are a much wealthier crowd. BA failed in Thailand because they couldn't compete with various lower cost operators, or didn't feel that the rock bottom yields were worth competing for.

That is both quite a generalisation, and a gross exaggeration on almost every point, especially the utter nonsense in your second sentence. And no, I don't get 'the gist' at all. People go to Thailand, and similar destinations, for a wide variety of reasons and particularly for the cultures of SE Asia....not especially to do with 'wealthy'. After all, Hawaii is merely only a US state with nothing cultural, particularly special or even friendly about it. For Europeans, it is not particularly accessible without a very long flight(s) and for no really special reason other than ego purposes. It has very little to do with being 'wealthier', but than that and ego is pretty much a mainstay fixation on a,net. BA didn't fail in Thailand....they generally don't like competition and pretend to prefer 'premium' passengers. That's fair enough of course, and entirely up to themselves.

Have you ever actually been to Hawaii or are these just your emotions and bias speaking here?

bchandl wrote:

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

#5: The incredibly numerous one-stop options via a multitude of U.S. airports to connect Britain to Hawai'i.

This is the biggest item IMO. If I lived in London and was going to Hawaii (for whatever reason) I would only ever consider it if Honolulu/Oahu was my final stop. If I'm going to Maui or the big island or wherever else in the islands I am without a doubt flying LHR-LAX/SFO/SEA-XXX to my specific island.

The last thing I would want to do is sit on a plane for 15 hours to land in Hawaii and have to spend another 4-5hours in the airports as I collect my bags, go through immigration and then catch another flight to my final destination.

Seattle adds 3% to the great circle route and BA can feed me onto Alaska, or 10% to go through LA on AA.

So you would rather wait 4 hours collecting bags etc in LAX/SFO or SEA??? First off, I think a lot of people who would fly from LGW to HNL would probably stop in multiple (read two places) just to see it. BA flying 3X per week would do just fine. As far as where you connect, a lot of us like to go on a long flight and then have a short hop at the end (especially when such short hop has tons of frequencies where a misconnect would be no issue). Flights from HNL-LAX_LGW could mean a red eye of 5 hours to then connect for 12 hours. Nightmare for me. I want the sleep. Anyway to each their own.

As far as the debate on Hawaii vs MRU vs Thailand. They are all totally different destinations. The UK has tons of relatively affluent pax that like to see the world. Hawaii is in a class of its own. So even if you've been to MRU (which is awesome) and Thailand, you still need to see Hawaii. Brits would love it IMHO

Like any destination, Hawaii has pros and cons for people who want to visit from the UK.

Pros:
-English-speaking
-First-world country (sanitation, drinking water, law-enforcement, infrastructure, technology, transportation, etc.)
-Diverse lodging options (5-star beachfront resorts to youth hostels and camping
-Diverse dining options (Michelin-star restaurants to plate lunches)
-Wonderful climate
-Beautiful and varied scenery, wildlife, etc.

Cons:
-Distance
-Cost
-Potentially "less-exotic" than other options

The bean-counters will be the ones to figure out whether the demand for travel can be met at a reasonable cost, and whether they do so at fares people are willing to pay.

evank516 wrote:

Does the A330-200 have the legs for the journey? I get the feeling that if demand existed maybe HA would have tried it first?

You would need a 238 or 242t variant and you would be limited to 220-230 pax westbound. I think HAL's are 230/3t variants.

Regardless, this is another one of those threads which appears once a year. I can't see it happening.

TC957 wrote:

Seasonally as in origin not destination season. Hawaii would be seen mostly as a winter season vacation from the UK/ Europe.

I don't know if that would be the case. Peak TATL traffic is in the Summer and I don't think Hawaii would be any different. Brits and Europeans in general aren't any different than Americans: they take their big, expensive vacations in the Summer. There's a reason why Hawaii receives more visitors in the Summer than they do in the Winter.
https://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/ ... stics.xlsx

PhilMcCrackin wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

That is both quite a generalisation, and a gross exaggeration on almost every point, especially the utter nonsense in your second sentence. And no, I don't get 'the gist' at all. People go to Thailand, and similar destinations, for a wide variety of reasons and particularly for the cultures of SE Asia....not especially to do with 'wealthy'. After all, Hawaii is merely only a US state with nothing cultural, particularly special or even friendly about it. For Europeans, it is not particularly accessible without a very long flight(s) and for no really special reason other than ego purposes. It has very little to do with being 'wealthier', but than that and ego is pretty much a mainstay fixation on a,net. BA didn't fail in Thailand....they generally don't like competition and pretend to prefer 'premium' passengers. That's fair enough of course, and entirely up to themselves.

Have you ever actually been to Hawaii or are these just your emotions and bias speaking here?

Clearly he's never been to either Hawaii or Thailand
And yes I was exaggerating to make a point which is Thailand is dirt cheap and BA clearly doesn't feel inclined to spend resources for that sort of yield.

Premium cabin fares from Europe to HNL are pure trash , especially from Dublin and Budapest. It's just not not considered an interesting place for Europeans ( who are essentially spoiled for choice compared to Americans) . BA would probably make more money adding rotations to Tenerife,

Galwayman wrote:

Premium cabin fares from Europe to HNL are pure trash , especially from Dublin and Budapest. It's just not not considered an interesting place for Europeans ( who are essentially spoiled for choice compared to Americans) . BA would probably make more money adding rotations to Tenerife,

Just looked it up, DUB-HNL 7/15-7/29 AA via DFW, cheapest fare in J is $5,292. That's not trash.

Galwayman wrote:

Premium cabin fares from Europe to HNL are pure trash , especially from Dublin and Budapest. It's just not not considered an interesting place for Europeans ( who are essentially spoiled for choice compared to Americans) . BA would probably make more money adding rotations to Tenerife,

It's more likely the travel time that's unappealing rather than what the destination has to offer. I live on the east coast of the US and we are more likely to go to the Caribbean over Hawaii not because it's better but it's far more convenient. I've been to Hawaii and it was my favorite place I have traveled to but I haven't been back because of the daunting travel.

JohanTally wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

Premium cabin fares from Europe to HNL are pure trash , especially from Dublin and Budapest. It's just not not considered an interesting place for Europeans ( who are essentially spoiled for choice compared to Americans) . BA would probably make more money adding rotations to Tenerife,

It's more likely the travel time that's unappealing rather than what the destination has to offer. I live on the east coast of the US and we are more likely to go to the Caribbean over Hawaii not because it's better but it's far more convenient. I've been to Hawaii and it was my favorite place I have traveled to but I haven't been back because of the daunting travel.

There's nothing particularly interesting or exciting about Hawaii for Europeans really .

Galwayman wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

Premium cabin fares from Europe to HNL are pure trash , especially from Dublin and Budapest. It's just not not considered an interesting place for Europeans ( who are essentially spoiled for choice compared to Americans) . BA would probably make more money adding rotations to Tenerife,

It's more likely the travel time that's unappealing rather than what the destination has to offer. I live on the east coast of the US and we are more likely to go to the Caribbean over Hawaii not because it's better but it's far more convenient. I've been to Hawaii and it was my favorite place I have traveled to but I haven't been back because of the daunting travel.

There's nothing particularly interesting or exciting about Hawaii for Europeans really .

I'll take your word on behalf of the 750 million people of Europe. Tenerife is too cold to comfortably swim 6 months out of the year with the water being 10-15 degrees colder. Hawaii has an average high in the low to mid 80s 12 months a year or 27c to 31c for all of Europe whom don't enjoy that weather.

airbazar wrote:

There really are no seasons in Hawaii.

Sure, but fairly certain that he meant seasonal from EUROPE... which very much does.

Galwayman wrote:

There's nothing particularly interesting or exciting about Hawaii for Europeans really .

Riiiiight. Europeans flock to Florida, the literal armpit of America, and think they're going some place interesting/exciting. Let's not kid ourselves shall we. lol

Galwayman wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

Premium cabin fares from Europe to HNL are pure trash , especially from Dublin and Budapest. It's just not not considered an interesting place for Europeans ( who are essentially spoiled for choice compared to Americans) . BA would probably make more money adding rotations to Tenerife,

It's more likely the travel time that's unappealing rather than what the destination has to offer. I live on the east coast of the US and we are more likely to go to the Caribbean over Hawaii not because it's better but it's far more convenient. I've been to Hawaii and it was my favorite place I have traveled to but I haven't been back because of the daunting travel.

There's nothing particularly interesting or exciting about Hawaii for Europeans really .

Clearly trolling. Did you merely cut and paste your previous post or did you type it again? Spare us.

Galwayman wrote:

IPremium cabin fares from Europe to HNL are pure trash , especially from Dublin and Budapest. It's just not not considered an interesting place for Europeans ( who are essentially spoiled for choice compared to Americans) . BA would probably make more money adding rotations to Tenerife,

If you Euros are "so spoiled" for vacation spots do you think you could start going to those places and stop clogging our roads, buying up our houses and clogging our spaces?

Thanks,
Floridians