Does anyone think Airtran will operate the 737NG on the expensive$$ and always booked LAX-HNL and LAS-HNL route since they now have a base at LAX and LAS and an A/C with ETOPS??? Would FL ever make LAX or LAS a HUB?

(B6/JetBlue can't do this because the A320 does not have the ETOPS 180 minute ETOPS like the 737NG)

I'm sure everyone will throw a million reasons about why an LCC other than ATA can not survive flying to Hawaii. I will say I think it would be really cool if they did. The more LCCs flying to Hawaii the better cause I would assume that the fares would come down, thus making it more possible for me to bring my girlfriend there.

(B6/JetBlue can't do this because the A320 does not have the ETOPS 180 minute ETOPS like the 737NG)

Yes it does-

http://www.eads.com/frame/lang/es/1024/xml/content/OF00000000400006/7/78/29801787.html

WOW! I stand corrected! This was recent and I remember checking on A320 ETOPS as part of a consulting project a year ago and it only had 90 or 120-minute. However, does anyone know of B6's are ETOPS automatically or will they have to jump through hoops with the FAA? I beleive the 737NG may be ETOPS out of the box (somebody correct me if I am wrong).

With this said, how about B6 from Long Beach...it is a focus city and LGB-HNL would fly under the radar of the majors from LAX as well as provide more demand on their east cost to LGB routes for the connection.

This talk of WN or B6 proposing service to/from HNL has been hashed out for the past couple of years. Now that FL has 73Gs, they have been thrown into the speculation pool.

WN's 73Gs are not ETOPS rated, and to do so, will cost them $$$. Whether they decide to invest $ on that project, depends on the potential ROI. They may have to re-work their Rapid Rewards program, to limit losses to those who redeem their rewards for free HNL flights.

I'm not sure if B6's A320s are ETOPS rated. If not, they will face the same dilema as WN.

If FL has had their 73Gs built ETOPS capable from the get-go, they have a distinct advantage. Question is, how much are they willing to invest in opening a base in HNL? Another LCC in HNL will open up more seats.

AQ has proved that ETOPS 73G service is viable, and profitable. Their 73Gs came from Boeing ETOPS rated factory fresh.

I find it so interesting that so many people think that service to Hawaii is a priority for a new or smaller airline. Its simply not true, its very difficult for an airline to make money on routes to the Hawaiian islands since there is a huge amount of competition, the yeilds are rather mediocre, and during many times of the year, flights to Hawaii are dominated by frequent flyers cashing in miles.
The mainland-Hawaii market has gotten even more complicated, first with the introduction of direct flights to the smaller islands and now, with aircraft like the 73G, with flights from "secondary" airports direct to Honolulu and the outer islands. It was much more simple 20 years ago when pax in the Los Angeles area wanted to travel to Hawaii - they booked a flight on UA or WA from LAX to HNL, and then Aloha or Hawaiian would take them on to Maui, simple and no choices. Now, there are a multitude of flights from every LA area airport to each of the 4 major Hawaiian island airports - lots and lots of choice and competition. Also, most airlines offer service to Honolulu and Maui from their primary hubs throughout the US; CO has a daily nonstop to HNL from EWR - UA tried this several times in the 1960s and 1970s without success.

Due to Aloha's innovation in offering new flights to the Hawaiian islands, and Hawaiian Airlines persistance in the markets, and ATA offering cheap flights to the islands, many legacy carriers have cut back or restricted capacity on their Hawaiian routes. The big news is that NCL cruises is developing the Hawaiian cruise market in a big way, with several ships based in Honolulu year round, which will increase the demand for seats to HNL (having 3 or 4 2500 pax ships departing evey week from HNL requires lots of airline seats) - UA re-started the ORD-HNL route primarily because of the new cruise services. NW, which cut back service from the west coast to Hawaii, is re-launching flights between LAX, SFO and PDX to HNL only because the economics of the 753 make these flights possible, trying to fly these routes with the DC10 or a brand new (expensive) A330 only costs money.

Thus, I really do not think that Southwest, JetBlue or AirTran are going to try to enter the Hawaiian market in the near future - its too risky, there is too much competition, and the services would tie up too many aircraft. Each roundtrip from the west coast to the islands requires the equivalent of one aircraft on a daily basis - each of these airlines are known for frequency - it just doesnt make sense. I could be wrong, but I think that the LCC carriers will leave Hawaii to the legacy airlines and Aloha and Hawaiian.

It is an expensive route though and at the worst it would come down to the price of trans-con ($99 each way) which WN B6 and FL all charge $99 for; go to FL's website Airtran.com and book PHL/SFO x-ATL....EVERY date INCLUDING the day before Thanksgiving is $92 each-way...the same cannot be said about HNL which is a shorter route than PHL-ATL-SFO (even if it were direct). What about HNL-LAS? LAS is the #1 destination for Hawaiians and with LAS's growing resident population wanting to vacation, that may be better than LAX.

CO has a daily nonstop to HNL from EWR - UA tried this several times in the 1960s and 1970s without success.

Did UA try EWR too? If it failed they most likely did something wrong like they always do, may be too big of an a/c or 3-class or something. I have heard from CO that the EWR/HNL flight is a cash cow and has been ever since it started a year ago. I beleive they are even adding a daily EWR/OGG/HNL. CO's choice of a/c (767) was smart! I tried booking for off season and the flight was nearly full and the best price was $800 r/t.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, UA flew JFK-HNL nonstop, sometimes daily, sometimes, 3 or 4 times per week, sometimes only on a seasonal basis, with DC8-62s.

I flew this flight in 1974, I think, but it was dropped shortly thereafter.

In the late-70's it cost more to operate a DC8 with fuel prices the way they were than people were willing to pay to fly, so it died.

CO capitalized on the popularity of EWR among now only the NYC market but the PHL market as well. With efficient 767-400's and lots of people willing to spend $800 r/t for EWR/HNL, the route is a winner. Now lets see US take a 767-200ER that they don't know what to do with since it was replaced by an A330 to on its former Europe route and use that to fly PHL/HNL....wait that would make too much sense...US...make sense...I can't use those words together.

Right before the end came, Eastern was planning to run an L-1011 from LAX to HNL for frequent flyer and employee travel only. It might be a good idea to promote frequent flyer membership. I believe yields are pretty low anyway.

IMO, the Mainland/Hawaii markets are not ripe for a new entrant right now, particularly a LCC. UA has just resumed high capacity nonstops from ORD, and NW is in the process of adding significant additional capacity from major west coast cities. The LCCs other than TZ would be wise to defer getting into Hawaii.

Long Beach. Slot controlled hell. I imagine jetBlue, in this enviroment, is very cautious as to what routes they serve from their West coast focus city.

Las Vegas. Served on a onestop basis by Aloha, either through Oakland or Burbank. Hawaiian does it nonstop. I don't think a third carrier on the route makes sense.

There is still a lot of capacity going to Hawai'i, and as someone stated above, it's all crappy yields. The planes might be full, but they still ain't making a dime, just so the FFs have something to spend their miles on.
Hawai'i in the airline business is what I would call, "A Necessary Evil" or "Damned if you, Damned if you don't".

Moneyshot-So if I am reading your post correctly, at present you leave the girlfriend at home when you go to Hawai'i?
Well, then you're a wise young-man.
If you give in and take her to Maui this year, next year she'll want Bora Bora, then after that, shopping in Paris, it continues to spiral out of control to the point you're working 3 jobs and still driving a rusty old 82 Mazda, driving around on the gas you bought with the change you found between the cushions, eating 2 day-old PB&J sandwiches.....while she's out shopping for new 'vacation clothes'.

When in doubt, let'em pout!

Did UA try EWR too? If it failed they most likely did something wrong like they always do, may be too big of an a/c or 3-class or something.

CO's service is their international product. Granted, not 3 actually classes, but not domestic service either.

They've offered it for a very, very long time too. They used to operate it with the DC-10. If its a cash cow, its because they connect people onwards to Guam and other Air Mike destinations.

It is an expensive route though and at the worst it would come down to the price of trans-con ($99 each way) which WN B6 and FL all charge $99 for

It wouldn't be that cheap. Operating a 2200nm route with ETOPS 180 and the associated costs is not the same as a jaunt across middle America. The costs of having a crew in Hawaii to bring the plane back would be huge, as well.

I challenge you to find a WN fare across the country for only $99 each way. WN's cheapest fares sell out very, very quickly. People are mistaken if they think Southwest is always the cheapest way to go.

N

I challenge you to find a WN fare across the country for only $99 each way. WN's cheapest fares sell out very, very quickly. People are mistaken if they think Southwest is always the cheapest way to go.

I agree; I fly nearly weekly all over the country and have never flown WN because they have NEVER given me the best deal; they never have that $89 transcon fare or $19 short hop fare available. FL or the legacies are always cheaper. Since LAX-HNL is the same distance as LAX-EWR/PHL/etc, the operating costs are only going to be a few extra dollars for the ETOPS preflight inspection, however the average fare on LAX-HNL is most likely double LAX-EWR/PHL/etc.

The reason all of the legacies are increasing capacity on the west coast is because the planes are running full. They put an end to the frequent flier thing; if you want to use your 40,000 miles to go to Hawaii than you absolutely must book between 12 months in advance when the seats go on sale and 11 1/2 months in advance when all the frequent flier seats are already taken! This is true during the fall slow travel season on that route.

Mainland demand for seats to Hawaii is growing faster than seats are being added in the market. Thus far in 2004 arrivals are up by nine percent and load factors still hover in the mid-80's. If you think you can get a $99 fare o/w you better think again. Lowest west coast - Hawaii fares are currently averaging over $500 r/t except for Omni and ATA. And, quite often last minute bookings off the west coast for coach travel will be in excess of $1,000 round trip.

Despite the positive numbers, I think it is highly unlikely we'll see carriers like Southwest, AirTran or Frontier enter the market with the 737NG product. Aloha can make the economics work with that type of equipment because they already have an established operation in Honolulu. They're able to fly mulitple frequences to multiple markets and support them with their total network in Hawaii. The cost of flying one flight a day with only a 130 or so seats to a market like Hawaii just doesn't make economic sense for the carriers mentioned.

I think it's far more likely we'll see new, Hawaii based "wide body" LLC start ups if the demand continues at its present pace.

Aloha can make the economics work with that type of equipment because they already have an established operation in Honolulu.

Yes, but no base in California. Airtran has the base in CA but not HI. Either way they each need to open one new station.


If you think you can get a $99 fare o/w you better think again. Lowest west coast - Hawaii fares are currently averaging over $500 r/t

My point exactly! $99 o/w is the standard fare for transcon (and they still only fill 60%) now which is the SAME distance. These companies are taking this and abandoing a market with MORE demand AND fares THREE times as much for the same distance. Make sense? NO!

...does anyone know of B6's are ETOPS automatically or will they have to jump through hoops with the FAA? I beleive the 737NG may be ETOPS out of the box (somebody correct me if I am wrong).

WN's 73Gs are not ETOPS rated, and to do so, will cost them $$$ ... I'm not sure if B6's A320s are ETOPS rated ... If FL has had their 73Gs built ETOPS capable from the get-go, they have a distinct advantage.

Apologies for going slightly off-topic this far into the thread, but can anyone shed a little more light on ETOPS approval? Is this more of a regulatory thing to do with an individual carrier's procedures and so on (I'm imagining it as along the same lines as those "Investor In People" things you see companies proclaiming in the UK - satisfy the conditions and get the certificate), or is there a lot of work to be done on the aircraft as well? I was assuming that once a particular type was certified for ETOPS, that approval for an individual carrier to operate ETOPS routes would be more a case of the former, rather than the latter (ie. the aircraft would physically be capable, but the airline would have to satisfy the relevant authorities first).

Does this make sense? Do airlines typically have to specify particular equipment on their aircraft to allow for ETOPS work?

I'm beginning to confuse myself now  

Rich

I think there are a lot of people without FF miles who can't justify the typical fares from the mainland US to HI. If a LCC could offer flights for around $300 RT from CA or $450 RT from the East Coast (with a connection) and still make money, I think it would tap a new market of passengers.

According to previous posts, AirTran's 737NG's are ETOPS certified. Why would the carrier invest that money into this if they didn't anticipate using it?

AirTran had an ambitious year last summer with its invasion of the west coast and eradication the 4-digit walk-up fares from Atlanta that Delta had been enjoying for quite some time. I would bet on them considering expansion to Hawaii (or maybe Alaska) at least seasonally. Where else would ETOPS be useful? Trans-atlantic service from Boston to Ireland and code-share with RyanAir? That would be an entirely different topic, so I'll leave it at that.

I still think that F9 will be the first LCC into the Hawaii market and I think that we will see this happen within the next year. F9 is ETOPS cirt. and they have already talked about ordering larger aircraft to serve "tropical" destinations. We all know that F9 is planning on the Caribbean market but it would make a lot of since for them to start Hawaii also. Right now F9 serves Alaska from DEN with load restrictions and they are still making money on that flight and talking about adding frequency. You can look at their Mexico service which a lot of people said wouldn't make a lot of money and see how it has blown up. F9 is opening up service from every market that they can and all the flights are full in and out. As F9 starts receiving more aircraft I think that we will see them dominate the vacation market as far as LCC's are concerned.

F9 will need to upgrade the MTOW on some of their 319s if they're serious about consistently serving ANC and adding HNL.

They selected a relatively low MTOW.

Airtran is in the same boat... they selected an extremely low gross weight for their 73Gs.

N

...Now I am curuous about F9 as well as FL and B6 (maybe WN too if their NGs are ETOPS). Can anyone claify the ETOPS thing more?

I think that myth about this route being only for ff's redeeming milage can be put to rest though, right? Try finding room on these flights using your ff miles even if you have them! If you are not 11 1/2 months in advance to 12 months FORGET ABOUT IT!

Wow this post turned around! It went from NEVER, no way and not profitable to the opposite:

Hnl-Jack: Mainland demand for seats to Hawaii is growing faster than seats are being added in the market. Thus far in 2004 arrivals are up by nine percent and load factors still hover in the mid-80's. If you think you can get a $99 fare o/w you better think again. Lowest west coast - Hawaii fares are currently averaging over $500 r/t except for Omni and ATA. And, quite often last minute bookings off the west coast for coach travel will be in excess of $1,000 round trip.

BUFJets:I think there are a lot of people without FF miles who can't justify the typical fares from the mainland US to HI. If a LCC could offer flights for around $300 RT from CA or $450 RT from the East Coast (with a connection) and still make money, I think it would tap a new market of passengers.

Av8rdal: According to previous posts, AirTran's 737NG's are ETOPS certified. Why would the carrier invest that money into this if they didn't anticipate using it?
AirTran had an ambitious year last summer with its invasion of the west coast and eradication the 4-digit walk-up fares from Atlanta that Delta had been enjoying for quite some time. I would bet on them considering expansion to Hawaii (or maybe Alaska) at least seasonally. Where else would ETOPS be useful?

UAL747DEN:I still think that F9 will be the first LCC into the Hawaii market and I think that we will see this happen within the next year. F9 is ETOPS cirt. and they have already talked about ordering larger aircraft to serve "tropical" destinations. We all know that F9 is planning on the Caribbean market but it would make a lot of since for them to start Hawaii also. Right now F9 serves Alaska from DEN with load restrictions and they are still making money on that flight and talking about adding frequency. You can look at their Mexico service which a lot of people said wouldn't make a lot of money and see how it has blown up. F9 is opening up service from every market that they can and all the flights are full in and out. As F9 starts receiving more aircraft I think that we will see them dominate the vacation market as far as LCC's are concerned.

Can anyone claify the ETOPS thing more?

Its not just a stamp you get.

It involves very different maintenance practices, additional onboard systems, and a host of other things.

N

Gigneil
I will post this in responce to your post. This information is posted on a F9 site for managers.

Rumor: Frontier is modifying a bunch of Airbus aircraft to increase their power.

Reality: Eight Airbus aircraft will undergo a change to increase the engines’ thrust; however, the modification is primarily in paperwork; not in the engines’ make-up.

As background, an engine’s power is rated by thrust, which is measured in pounds. Frontier’s A319s are powered by CFM 56-5B5/P engines, which have 22,000 lbs. of thrust per engine. Frontier can “buy” additional thrust through a change to the 319s’computer systems, because the engines have a range of power capabilities to accommodate an entire family of aircraft.

Through a change to the 319s’ computer systems, and by working with GE (the engine manufacturer) and Airbus, eight Frontier aircraft will soon operate at 23,500 lbs. per engine, and the engines will be classified as CFM 56-5B6/P. Two additional aircraft – scheduled for delivery later this year – will arrive at Frontier with the same authorization.

The additional engine power will allow Frontier a better performance in existing markets, such as LGA, where shorter runways can make full-load departures challenging. New, longer routes, such as DEN-ANC and LAX-MSP, MCI, and STL, will also be better served with the more powerful Airbus aircraft.

That is just what we need......another carrier flying on an already oversaturated market.

What about Maui? There are far fewer flights from there to the mainland and it's more of a vacation spot than HNL.

One factor failed to mention ... HNL has only 28 gates for "overseas" traffic. These proposed flights will be coming and going during off-peak time and gate slots. Will any of these airlines bring their own ground and support crews here? Or will they contract srevices out?

As I have mentioned, how much are they willing to invest?

UAL747DEN-

Right on.  

N

It sounds like F9 is the one we should be taking about, not FL. Can anyone confirm anything solid? They seem to just jump right in without talking about it too much...like their enterance to PHL; the day they announced it they had ads running on TV in Philadelphia.

Is that the best way to enter the market?

Would they be on the HNL-DEN and/or HNL-LAX or HNL-LAS?

I'd like to emphasize that I don't believe F9 or FL will serve HNL

However, if F9 does, they can't do it from Denver. Their 319s just wouldn't have the legs for that trip.

I also sincerely doubt that any LCC except for HP would serve HNL from LAS, and they had poor experiences with that in the past, so I wouldn't hold my breath there either.

LAX-HNL is certainly possible. F9 does have some feeder there, although its not that much.

The problem with serving LAX for a new LCC entrant is that the 500,000 other airlines that serve that route already could respond VERY quickly with cost cuts, possibly driving the margin for this LCC down to an unacceptable or even negative level.

N

I also do not think that F9 will serve Hawaii from DEN at least at this point. UA already has a nonstop DEN-HNL flight. I do think however that they will start service from LAX. This could even be the reason for using LAX as a focus city. It makes lots of since to me, ATA is the only LCC in the market and they are not doing to bad with this route. I see no reason with the success of the Mexico routes that F9 should not try HNL.

While I DO expect LAX-HNL on F9 appear, I beleive B6 would do better with the route because they will not get into a price war with the other companies since they fly out of LGB...and since they have their hub at LGB, they can have people connect from all of their other destinations insuring (JFK, LAS, IAD, FLL, SLC etc) that they will NEVER have an empty seat. The only problem is they will have to steel the slots from one of their other routes into LGB since they are currently at max capacity.

What would it take B6 to get their A320's ETOPS? Don't they already have the higher MGTOW?

If Airtran does not want this route (and maybe they shouldn't without a hub at LAX), then why did they order their 737NGs with ETOPS? For the luxury of flexability alone?

I'm not 100% sure Airtran did order them with ETOPS. The only place I've heard that is here, and only as a maybe.

I see no reason whatsoever why a B6 A320 wouldn't be able to do it. LGB-HNL is within a few tens of miles of LGB-JFK, however, with the additional reserve fuel necessary it might be a stretch. Those Pacific winds can be brutal, and I don't know what gross weight B6 ordered.

I am positive B6 is ETOPS already. They fly the overwater route from JFK to MIA and FLL, and they obviously serve SJU.

N

Gigneil: JFK-MIA is NOT ETOPS !!!!!!!!!!

By the way JFK/SJU is not ETOPS either!

...ETOPS is for when you are flying in the middle of a big ocean all alone  

There are a few exceptions to that such as some parts of Africa where there are no airports to divert to; even though NO water there, there are a few routes there that actually are ETOPS.

SJU is. And the route they fly JFK-MIA requires the extra overwater gear necessary, which is expensive and a pain in the ass.

N

Extra overwater geer (life vests) are a pain in the ass but are now on nearly every aircraft. While it may be a pain in the ass and expensive, THAT IS NOT ETOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SJU is not either!

Extra overwater geer (life vests) are a pain in the ass but are now on nearly every aircraft.

These routes require rafts, not just vests, and most planes do not have them.

SJU is not either!

I was wrong. You're right, but only barely. It passes within about 15 or 20 nm of being ETOPS.

N

Even if it were 20nm farther, they could fly a slightly less direct flight plan to fly closer to the islands so they do not have to go through ETOPS.

It is actually possible to fly from JFK to LHR without ETOPS, but the flight takes a little longer.


...by the way, when was the last time a plane crashed and everyone was saved by the rafts?  

While there is a lot of scheduled capacity, also don't forget the charter capacity. HA use to fly LAS charters. ATA, World, North American, and Omni all do fly charters putting 1000s of more seats into the market. The beautiful thing about a charter is at least it is profitable for the carrier. With the right sales contracts, any carrier can make Hawaii work.

Bluewave: I thought all gates at HNL were common use gates. I could be wrong, but as long as one gate is open at the time any airline could potentially use it.

Yes, they ARE common use (international terminal style).

Slots at HNL are not really a problem unless none are available and they have to park you out back with airstairs and a bus.

This will add some fuel to the fire! A319's are equipped to fly farther than the A320 because of the weight difference so if they wanted HNL why didn't they just order the 319? I believe if they fly the A320 they will have to restrict it to even less seats than the A319 would be.

HELLO UAL747DEN....F9 doesn't have 1 A320. They are ALL A319s (plus some A318's and 737s).

LRGT,
Your a smart one! I wasn't talking about F9 I was talking about B6, someone said that they ordered A320's for this reason and after review I learned that along with the extra room on the 320 DOES NOT come extra power just extra weight. I too thought that the A320 would be good for the LCC to start HI routes but that is not the case.

The 320 does come with significantly extra power, to offset the additional weight, just not the extra range.

An A320 or a 319 should be able to serve LAX-HNL no problem, as long as they aren't cheap on the gross weight.

LGB-HNL is exactly 90nmi further than LGB-JFK on the great circle.

N

Checking the Airbus website there is really not that much additional power but the A319 has about an additional 700nm in distance compared to the A320 both fullyloaded with baggage.

Just FYI: AirTran orders for the 737NG are about a 50/50 mix of planes owned by AirTran (first time since the DC-9) and those financed by GECAS. Only the GECAS planes are ETOPS equipped, since GE and not AirTran can dictate some of the optional equipment in case they have to try and lease the planes to someone else. The first two planes (300 and 301) are GECAS planes, and are ETOPS. 302 which comes next week is not only owned out-right by FL, but paid for!! (not ETOPS) I big move for us.. Further, having just completed Capt. transition on the 73NG, I can tell you that we were not ETOPS qualified. We were however, fully trained on -800 differences. (Delta recently opted out of 87 737-800 orders and options) Let the rumors begin!Capt. M

Thanks for the info Swaluvfa; that makes sense then why they (FL) are ETOPS.

While that makes it seem that FL then does not show intentions to fly LAX-HNL, the news of the A320/19 just becoming 180 ETOPS puts F9 and B6 into the ball game. Sorry UAL747DEN, we were mostly speaking of F9 so I thought you were talking about that too. I beleive F9 not only has the highest chance, but most likely WILL go there and SOON. They are very quiet about new routes until the tickets go on sale for flights beginning quite soon and they are the first LCC to go to Mexico and that was very successful for them. The A319 would have no problems with DEN-HNL, LAX-HNL or LAS-HNL.

However, B6's A320s would have payload restrictions from LGB because they have less range than the 319. Since cargo revenuse are not a big part of B6's revenue model, this should not matter though. It is most likely that F9 will be the first LCC on Hawaii, with B6 MAYBE following suit. Personally, while B6 looks less willing, I think they would do BETTER because they would be going from LGB and would not effect the other carriers' pricing like would happen at DEN or LAX and have connecting flights from LGB to nearly a dozen other destinations. If B6 opened that route and didn't make a 30%+ margin, I would be VERY surprised. They would have been better to open HNL as a new destination rather than ATL! From what I understand that devistated their earnings.

As far as F9 going DEN-HNL, why not? The distance is just 5390KM and the A319 can go 6859km! In fact, I be willing to put money on F9 doing DEN-HNL with the next 12 months, with all of the cities they connect to from DEN.

Airbus.com: The highest-weight A319 has the exceptional non-stop range capability of 3,700nm/6,850km.

On a similiar issue regarding leasure destinations, I could see F9 possibly opening PHL-CUN too, B6 with JFK-CUN and/or FLL-CUN and FL opening ATL-CUN; recently NK opened FLL-CUN.

It is most likely that F9 will be the first LCC on Hawaii

ATA has been serving Hawaii with scheduled flights for years.

The A319 would have no problems with DEN-HNL, LAX-HNL or LAS-HNL.


There is absolutely no way an A319 could fly DEN-HNL with anywhere near a full load. That aside, F9's A319s are not the 3700 nm variety, nor are they ETOPS certified machines.

In fact, I be willing to put money on F9 doing DEN-HNL with the next 12 months, with all of the cities they connect to from DEN.


Can you support this argument with any logic?

N

Gigneil is right, DEN to Hawaii could not be done by any 737 or A320 series aircraft with a reasonable payload, unless you are talking about the bizjet variants. No US airlines use the bizjet versions yet and I am not aware of any that are planning to.

It is also true, as mentioned before, that variations between MTOW and engine power on 737 and A320 series planes are more often software and certification differences than real differences in physical capabilities. When you buy a 737 or A320, you pay more for a higher certified MTOW even though the plane you are being sold is physically identical to one used with a lower MTOW. It is kind of like software. Lower versions (Windows XP home as opposed to Windows XP professional, for example) have the same capabilities as higher versions, it is just that they are disabled in the lower versions. In some cases, the only difference is in the terms of the license the software company gives you.

In wide body planes, sometimes there are real and significant physical differences between low MTOW and high MTOW versions of the same plane - the 777-300 and -300ER is one example. Converting one to the other would be prohibitatively expensive. But in narrowbodies, the difference is mainly in the software and in what the plane is legally certified to do. These things can be easily changed - all that is needed is to simply renegotiate with the manufacturer for a higher MTOW. You then have to pay the manufacturer more, and perhaps reload some software, but that is about it.

Note that ETOPS and MTOW are different things. ETOPS Certification does require some additional equipment, but it is mainly a matter of how a plane is operated and maintained. Having an airline and an airplane(both must be inspected and approved) certified for ETOPS is a significant expense. However, most of the time it is a lot less expensive than flying a 3 or 4 engined aircraft on the same route.