Will Hawaiian fly to Europe with its A350XWB?
That would be great IMO!

I believe that from Europe to Hawaii the market is too small. I don't know how it is the other way round.

No way in hell Hawaiian wiill ever fly to Europe... I don't see Europeans sitting in a plane for 17 hours to sit on a beach.. and there are no or little economic ties

Quoting g500 (Reply 2): No way in hell Hawaiian wiill ever fly to Europe... I don't see Europeans sitting in a plane for 17 hours to sit on a beach.. and there are no or little economic ties

I visited Hawaii last year, and yet, I live in France.
Hawaii is not just a beach IMO...

Well, Europeans sit in planes for over a dozen hours just to get to beaches in the Caribbean or South East Asia and other remote places. Why not HNL?

Recently I saw someone mentioning the HNL-ANC-LHR service (or was it LGW) by WA in the 80s I guess which was not very profitable. LTU tried DUS ANC HNL with L15 but only for a few test runs. All did not work. If Europeans want to go there it is a fine combination with California or the Pacific Northwest.

For those who only want to fry at a beach for 3 weeks I never understood in first place why they do that overseas, The Canary Islands are good enough for that. Not mentioning Hawaii.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say, maybe a once a week flight to London as a token "hey look what we can do with our new plane" flight.

Quoting g500 (Reply 2): I don't see Europeans sitting in a plane for 17 hours to sit on a beach

- We went to Hawaii on our honeymoon and plan to go back for the wife's 40th.

Saw lot's of other Europeans whilst there, there is more to Hawaii than just beaches.

Been there three times and I am a European. Love it!

Quoting LY777 (Reply 3): Hawaii is not just a beach IMO...

You tell 'em LY777! Everryone should visit Hawaii at least one in his/her life.

That being said, and having no expertise in the industry, I think a 17 hour non-stop flight from Europe to Hawaii - with today's fuel prices - is unlikely. Even in Y class, HA would have to give a bit more room so its passengers don't succumb to DVT - which would mean fewer seats and even higher costs. It would make a lot more sense for HA - or any other airline marketing Hawaii to Europeans -- to permit a free layover in LA, SFO or SEA or SAN (a lil shout out to my hometown!) and then proceed on to the islands.

So my question is - what is the optimal mission of the 350? How far must HA fly the plane and with what loads to make it most efficient?

I don't think the yield would be close to anything that would be sustainable for a flight of this duration. The operating costs would be massive.

You need lots and lots of revenue to pay for the high costs of ULH.

With regards to the flight time, the actual time comes up as more like 13.5 hrs, not 17. The route taken from say LHR to HNL is way up over Greenland, Over northern Canada and almost into Alaska before heading out over the pacific. Winds at those latitudes would likely not change the time of the flight by much in either direction. This was calculated at a cruise speed of M0.82 which should be realistic. CDG, FRA etc. are not much different time wise.

As to whether it would make money, possibly. People are increasingly looking for more than just a beach holiday. There will always be those that will stick to the Caribbean, Spain, Florida etc. but there are plenty who will seek out less accessible destinations and Hawaii has a huge amount to offer.

HNL is not much further than somewhere like Vietnam, which now has direct flights to/from Europe. It's also a reasonably viable alternative as a stop off to AKL, and SYD, and it could be used as a 2 centre with LAX, LAS, SFO etc. all huge markets for Europe.

I don't necessarily think it would work right now, but it's certainly getting there and by the time the A350s turn up I think they could make europe work.

Edit....it seems I may have underestimated the A350s cruise speed, which is actually in line with the A380s M0.85, making LHR-HNL more like 13 hours, not 13.5

[Edited 2012-08-30 07:35:30]

Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 10): With regards to the flight time, the actual time comes up as more like 13.5 hrs, not 17.

More realistic would be 15 hours.

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 11):

What did you use to work that out? I'm interested because It can routinely be done in 15 hours flying time with a stop in somewhere like SFO.....10 hrs to SFO, another 5 to HNL. That's allowing for having to land and take off twice, the extra 450mn flying and more exposure to headwinds on the westbound sector (eastbound you could do it in 13.5 hours flying time WITH a stop in SFO)

I still say that 13-13.5 hours is entirely realistic for LHR-HNL based on the A350's specifications and the likely route taken.

been to Hawaii a couple of times and I know that there is more than beaches, which I am not too fond of anyhow. The question is, which European gateway they would chose. Connecting to their South Pacific and Australian routes would eventually make that flight viable.

Stop over in HNL is much more exotic than SIN or BKK.

I travel to Hawaii every July (from Perth, Australia) and every time I go there I meet more and more Europeans (especially English, French and Italian) tourists. I think a 2 x weekly HNL-LHR service would definitely work if HA snap up a few codeshares LHR-CDG/FCO/MXP to feed the flight.

Hawaiian is probably not the airline fly nonstop from Honolulu to London. They have a "First Class" that is very US domestic in pitch, about 40 inches only. Virgin Atlantic would be the airline to make this market viable, as they have 787-9 coming in a few years. Their Upper Class and Premuim Economy classes are the type of products such a flight should have. VA could do it from their LGW base.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 15): They have a "First Class" that is very US domestic in pitch, about 40 inches only. Virgin Atlantic would be the airline to make this market viable, as they have 787-9 coming in a few years. Their Upper Class and Premuim Economy classes are the type of products such a flight should have. VA could do it from their LGW base.

I heard someday that Virgin wanted to launch a London-HNL flight. But, once again, they need a few codeshare to London to feed these flights

It's hard to see Europeans traveling to Hawaii in large enough numbers to ever really make a direct flight work. HA could no doubt put any aircraft that might be capable of doing this on more profitable, reliable routes to Asia.

There are just too many closer alternatives for Europeans - even Phuket and/or Aruba are closer. Phuket is a long way from, say, London, but it's still much closer than Honolulu.

And for customer who can't afford that or don't want such a long trip, there's always the Mediterranean.

Hawaii is also much more than just the beach, but for tourists in Europe who aren't interested in the beach but are interested in the natural aspects and touring islands, there's also the Azores.

[Edited 2012-08-30 10:12:47]

I don't think HA even knows the answer to this question. However, I think people that want to go to Hawaii are going for more than just the beaches. There's no other place on earth like Hawaii the full experience cannot truly be replicated by going to some other island. I suspect cost would make this route prohibitive, not distance or demand.

Interesting that the Americans that have posted all insist us Europeans have no reason to want to travel to Hawaaii while the Europeans insist otherwise!   

I think it's much more likely that they'd code-share with a European carrier and do a plane change at a US West Coast airport they serve (SFO, LAX or SEA for example). For example LH from FRA to SFO, HA SFO/HNL

I think Hawaiian has greater "closer" higher yielding opportunities in Asia. As the China visa situation improves and open skies evolves - look at how many Chinese cities HA could link into HNL - tons of cities with over 1 million people. That is my hunch where HA will grow.

My only memory of Honolulu was a very rude waitress, then the next day we flew to Maui and I loved it, if one goes to Hawaii don't stay on Oahu..

Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 5): I am going to go out on a limb here and say, maybe a once a week flight to London as a token

Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 12): I still say that 13-13.5 hours is entirely realistic for LHR-HNL

LHR-HNL (6289 nm) is 167 nm further than YVR-AKL where NZ 772 block time westbound is 14 hrs.

MEL-DXB (6283 nm) is almost exactly the same distance as LHR-HNL and EK block time westbound (77W) is also 14 hrs.

ATL-ICN (6215 nm) is 74 nm shorter than LHR-HNL and KE block time westbound (77W) is 14:45.

I would agree with others that 13-13.5 hrs as a published block time (gate to gate) for LHR-HNL is a little too short to be realistic. It would be about right eastbound.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23): LHR-HNL (6289 nm) is 167 nm further than YVR-AKL where NZ 772 block time westbound is 14 hrs. MEL-DXB (6283 nm) is almost exactly the same distance as LHR-HNL and EK block time westbound (77W) is also 14 hrs. ATL-ICN (6215 nm) is 74 nm shorter than LHR-HNL and KE block time westbound (77W) is 14:45. I would agree with others that 13-13.5 hrs as a published block time (gate to gate) for LHR-HNL is a little too short to be realistic. It would be about right eastbound.

I don't see why the route can't be flown entirely going East. Looking at Great Circle Mapper, I could see them traveling along the northern edge of Norway on the flight to HNL. I'm not familiar with ETOPS regulations in the northern latitudes or diversion airports there. What ETOPS would be required?

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23): I would agree with others that 13-13.5 hrs as a published block time (gate to gate) for LHR-HNL is a little too short to be realistic. It would be about right eastbound.

14hrs block time is a realistic one...
I know it may sound unrealistic but I've been "flying" LHR-HNL with a PMDG 747-400 on Flight Simulator X. I was eager to check that flight out, and I've turned all realism options on (such as true aloft winds, including at high altitude, temperature, and so on...), and the result is a roughly 14 hours BLOCK time, with a global 10kts headwind on the whole road westbound.  

Maybe the market is considered too weak for this road, because no carrier offers the possibility to fly to Hawaii from Europe with a direct flight. A good friend of mine, living in Paris, spent his last holidays there, but with a stop in Seattle though. I think more people would consider some vacations in Hawaii if a direct leg would be offered. As it's been said before, a lot of European tourists don't hesitate to take a 13 or so hrs flight to get to Phuket or even Indonesia...

Quoting Concordski (Reply 24): I don't see why the route can't be flown entirely going East. Looking at Great Circle Mapper, I could see them traveling along the northern edge of Norway on the flight to HNL

Not sure what you mean. Europe-HNL is westbound and HNL-Europe is Eastbound. The great circle route crosses Greenland and northern Canada before reaching the Pacific coast.

I think HA could make HNL-LHR and possibly even FRA work. What would help it are connections on the Europe side. I'm positive BA and LH could make the connections and code shares work on the European side and then have HA's interisland routes code share with LH and BA on the Hawaii side. A 1x or 2x weekly flight(s) to LHR/LGW and 1x weekly to FRA doesn't sound that far fetched. But like I said, I think they could make LHR work, FRA would have a smaller chance, but a chance nonetheless.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 27): A 1x or 2x weekly flight(s) to LHR/LGW and 1x weekly to FRA doesn't sound that far fetched.

That type of operation is very costly, especially in crew utilization. A 1x weekly operation means an entire crew spending a week of the company's money in a hotel, and 3 or 4 nights for a 2x weekly service.

In my opinion, many Europeans wanting to visit Hawaii would also want to spend some time elsewhere in North America, and even for those who do not, there's no shortage of convenient connections.

Longhaul markets like Europe-Hawaii with virtually zero high-yield business traffic are also hard to justify economically.

The only European airport I could see a direct Hawaii flight working from would be LGW, maybe twice a week on a B787. It has the O&D to support a significant amount of leisure passangers who can afford such holidays. The question is which airline who will be operating B787's within the next few years will consider such a route to be their market? I can only think of VS beacuse they do attract some long haul J class pax on most of their leisure routes.

Europeans coming to Hawaii and Europeans coming to Hawaii nonstop are two different things. Although the Europeans who will travel to Hawaii will likely be fairly well off, I doubt even they would push yields up enough to make such a long flight to a vacation destination viable.

Potential options could be a summer only flight combining HNL and ANC or a stop somewhere in the US mainland, possibly LAS.

I know it's purely anecdotal evidence, but everytime I've been in HNL, I've met a good deal of English folks. I also know a couple who recently moved to SEA and they said they were very excited that HNL was more accessible now to them and are planning on going there for their wedding anniversary soon. I can't imagine that HA would have an issue filling up a plane maybe three times weekly to HNL from Europe?

This is where I agree with all of the yield comments. Sure HA or several other carriers could fill a non-stop flight, but at what CASM?

When discussing ULH, is your yield going to be high enough to justify the aircraft/crew utilization vs deploying that same aircraft/crew on a higher yielding route? By the time the right aircraft are available fuel prices will most likely be higher which has the smart money betting on no.

This topic sure keeps coming back.

One thing one needs to realize is that European tourism to Hawaii is tiny in comparison to other markets. Sure HA could go chase Europe, but why? HA has the entire Pacific basin, and even opportunity in Latin America before is crosses the Atlantic.

To put European tourism to Hawaii in perspective the following is from the Hawaii visitors and convention bureau.

2011 Total arrivals - 7,299,047

of which were European = 119,825

Of the European ones, largest group was from the UK (38%), Germany (29%), France (13%).

Now look at it this way... 119,825 only averages to only 328 per day from the entire continent.
That's barely little more than a single HA A330.


Not much of a market in the grand scheme of things.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 30): Although the Europeans who will travel to Hawaii will likely be fairly well off, I doubt even they would push yields up enough to make such a long flight to a vacation destination viable.

Why? European travelers already do that when they choose Asia, South Africa or South America destinations. These are vacation destinations in the same 12+hrs range than Hawaii... I really don't think flight time is an issue here.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 33): Of the European ones, largest group was from the UK (38%), Germany (29%), France (13%). Now look at it this way... 119,825 only averages to only 328 per day from the entire continent. That's barely little more than a single HA A330. Not much of a market in the grand scheme of things.

Well to me it seems to be a very decent debut market, to promote with some seasonal and weekly flights first, and to improve if demand requires it with some additional frequencies... But hey, I'm definitely not an expert..  

Let's see HA add cities like DEN, DFW, IAH, ORD before we talk about Europe.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 33): To put European tourism to Hawaii in perspective the following is from the Hawaii visitors and convention bureau. 2011 Total arrivals - 7,299,047 of which were European = 119,825 Of the European ones, largest group was from the UK (38%), Germany (29%), France (13%). Now look at it this way... 119,825 only averages to only 328 per day from the entire continent. That's barely little more than a single HA A330. Not much of a market in the grand scheme of things.

This a kind of chicken and egg situation. If you have a good direct flight (14hrs should not be a problem - I fly 13+hrs on a regular basis in 77E Y-class between Europe and Asia) and with some good marketing, maybe the 120,000 become 500,000 .... Markets need to be developed. If it existed today, someone would fly it but that one would have also started without a market.

And the same for me: I would love to go on a holiday to Hawaii, but today it is just too much a pain in the butt to get there.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23):

Quoting airproxx (Reply 25):

I only mentioned FLYING time, not block time. I would agree that 14 hrs BLOCK is about right.

Bear in mind that this is not your regular eastound/westbound flight. The "westbound" flight heads initially almost due north, close to the north pole and then starts heading south again right down to the Hawaiian islands.

This would mean almost no difference to flying times on either sector, so westbound only comparisons are not accurate. These flights would not be subject to the jetstream winds which affect most Europe-north America flights. I checked the winds aloft charts for the next few as which backs up my claim

Back to the viability of the flights, I still think HA (or someone else) could "grow" into this market. Granted, it's marginal today but that doesn't tell the whole story. Look at how many fewer Europeans travelled to Hawaii 10 years ago. The numbers grow by thousands each year (the only figures I could find suggested between a 5-7% annual increase), and HA's A350's are many years away.

On top of that there's also the additional market that the flights themselves would create. This happens almost without exception when new city pairs are opened up. When VS started flying LON-LAS the market grew hugely overnight and has continued to do so. 11 years ago there were no LON-LAS non stop flights. On some days this winter there will be 3!. That's over 1000 seats each way every day that until a few years ago simply didn't exist.

[Edited 2012-08-30 17:51:26]

Quoting scbriml (Reply 19): Interesting that the Americans that have posted all insist us Europeans have no reason to want to travel to Hawaaii while the Europeans insist otherwise!

Yes, I've noticed that sentiment as well. The majority of Americans prefer to stay inside our borders, so I can see some average Joe assuming that, but here on Anet probably 99% of us like to travel - so that thought surprises me a bit. I personally don't buy the notion that since the Canary Islands have nice beaches Europeans won't want to travel to Hawaii.
I've been to Hawaii several times but still have always wanted to go to the Canary Islands....

(now that is a different question then if LHR/FRA-HNL could be a sustainable route - personally I'll believe that when someone makes it work consistently).

Quoting sweair (Reply 22): My only memory of Honolulu was a very rude waitress, then the next day we flew to Maui and I loved it, if one goes to Hawaii don't stay on Oahu..

Agreed. I've always found Honolulu to be underwhelming and overated, but the rest of the islands are spectacular....

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 36): This a kind of chicken and egg situation.

Not really, as private airlines are not in the business of developing longhaul markets.

Look at how HA is watching China. They are waiting for the time that the conditions are right, and the existing volume is sufficient to provide a successful route. HA being a small carrier cannot nurse a long haul market for years, hoping it will eventually grow.

Once Europe maybe grows to that 500,000 then HA can consider the flight with some comfort knowing its prospects look better.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 36): And the same for me: I would love to go on a holiday to Hawaii, but today it is just too much a pain in the butt to get there.

Somehow 46,245 of your countrymen made it in 2011 to Hawaii.

Back in the day SQ served HNL as part of its US West Coast, so there likely is some affinity between the islands.

Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 37): Look at how many fewer Europeans travelled to Hawaii 10 years ago.

Um its actually the other way around.

In 2000 (I picked pre 9/11 period) European arrivals in Hawaii totaled 166,973. (was 180,000's in 1990s)

So its actually dropped by 30%+ !

Quoting SEA (Reply 31): can't imagine that HA would have an issue filling up a plane maybe three times weekly to HNL from Europe?

The only thing I'd say is that "Europe" is a pretty big place. :- ) They need to pick one city to start with. If London, then that's a market of rougly 48,000 people each way per year, or about 300 passengers per flight if flown 3 times a week. However, that assumes that everyone chooses HA. I'm guessing a large number of folks would travel on UA/DL/AA/US via hubs, or on codeshare partners to the US mainland and then connect. Even assuming that they are able to grow the market 50%, it still doesn't seem like it'd add up to a full plane - and at that distance, they'd need it to be FULL in order to make any money.

IMHO.

Quoting nomorerjs (Reply 35): Let's see HA add cities like DEN, DFW, IAH, ORD before we talk about Europe.

Well, we're talking about the arrival of XWB's, so we're years away and the capabilities of these birds will surpass the needs of those routes.

-Dave

This topic surfaces all the time with the same predictable responses. Why would anyone travel so far to go to the beach when ______ is just a 2 hour flight away? This same logic was used when HA started nonstop HNL-JFK service. Why would New Yorkers want to travel 10+ hours to go to the beach when the Caribbean is just a few hours away?
Not only has HA proved the nay-sayers wrong with JFK but rumor around the HA campus is that the route is proving so popular, they may be adding more service to JFK. In fact, future bookings on the JFK route are surpassing all other routes from HI to North America according to HA's CEO Mark Dunkerley.
People forget that Mr. Dunkerley is British. People must have also forgotten that when the A350 orders were placed, Mr. Dunkerley was quoted as saying that HA was absolutely interested in flying to Europe with these aircraft. LHR and CDG were the two cities that were mentioned.
The first A350's are due here in 2017, less than 5 years from now. I not only think that HNL-Europe is a possibility, I would say it is a probability.
As has been proven by HA in the past few years with it's rapid expansion, "build a bridge and they will come".

Aloha,
HALFA

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 38): The majority of Americans prefer to stay inside our borders,

Hmmm... virtually everyone I know has been to Mexico. Ditto Canada. Many to the Caribbean. I know they aren't exotic, overseas destinations but they are indeed outside our borders.  

Quoting g500 (Reply 2): I don't see Europeans sitting in a plane for 17 hours to sit on a beach.. and there are no or little economic ties

Our American cousins keep trotting this one out, don't they?

POINT 1: Significant numbers of Europeans already do travel similar distances for tropical vacations in Mauritius, the Maldives, Thailand and Malaysia.

POINT 2: It might be something to do with all Europeans being entitled to 4-8 weeks of paid annual leave from their jobs.

POINT 3: It might also be something to do with Europeans being more accustomed to higher service standards when flying more than 3 hours compared with Americans.

Chicago-Honolulu and London-Barbados are flights with sector lengths which are identical (London-Barbados is actually 42 miles shorter).

American passengers associate such a flight with nine hours with no included food, no included entertainment, no included luggage, no included pillow and blanket, etc. Because ORD-HNL is classified as domestic as if it were a short-haul flight, and service standards are spectacularly low.

In contrast, passengers flying on Virgin Atlantic's Barbados flights (or to other long-haul destinations) get all those things included, and are more likely to view the flight as an opportunity to catch up on a couple of movies after enjoying their welcome cocktail (in economy class!) And apart from getting a meal with dessert, plus a boxed snack plus a cocktail plus liquor with their meal, they also get an ice cream service in between to keep them occupied while they catch a movie.

It all makes a long-haul trip in Economy class pass as comfortably and pleasantly as possible. For Europeans. But if they go to Hawaii at present they will face a long flight from LAX / SFO / IAH / EWR / ORD with none of those comforts available. So they go to Mauritius or the Seychelles or the Maldives instead, because they don't want their vacation to start and finish with a long-haul ordeal, which is currently the only readily-available way to holiday in Hawaii.

The end result is that Americans from east of the Rockies are more likely to go short-haul to Mexico or the Caribbean than Europeans are to travel long-haul for a tropical vacation. Lastly, unfortunately, there is the ignorance factor. Unfortunately few Americans are even aware that one of their states has a Royal Palace and Mausoleum or active volcanoes, and most of them think that a beach on an intrinsically ugly island like Aruba is interchangeable with one on Hawaii.

I live on the east coast of Australia and it's a long trip to my unit on Maui. But compared with American vactioners I'm time-rich, and I understand the attractions of flying over much closer beaches (Great Barrier Reef, Vanuatu, Fiji) to get to Hawaii.

For what it's worth, for many years after longer-range ended HNL refuelling stopovers on Australia-USA flights, I had to listen to people saying there was no demand to Hawaii. LAXintl's comments about European visitor numbers are similar to what he has previously said about the market to Hawaii from Australia - only for us to see non-stop flights to Hawaii added from both Brisbane and Melbourne.

European visitors to Hawaii are currently driven elsewhere by the inconvenience of having to fly one-stop via another US city and by a refusal to fly from the mainland to Hawaii with the appalling US "domestic" service standards which mandate extreme discomfort on part of a long-haul journey. My parents tried it not so long ago, and after a marginally-acceptable 3,000 mile flight to Newark then had to endure a 4,000 mile onward trip to Honolulu in extreme discomfort.

The thing is, for Hawaiian to make Europe a success, they will require a Premium Economy cabin, as the better-heeled European passengers want a wider seat with 36-38 inch pitch, IFE and unlimited food and wine and they want it for around double the cost of the cheapest Economy seat and half the cost of Business Class.

The same is true of Australian and New Zealanders, however, too. If HA insist upon operating 2-class aircraft which service all long-haul flights, they will miss out on that profit opportunity. But if they fit out a sub-fleet for international long-haul with Premium Economy class, they could make destinations such as London, Manchester and possibly Frankfurt profitable.

[Edited 2012-08-30 21:03:40]

Quoting sweair (Reply 22): My only memory of Honolulu was a very rude waitress, then the next day we flew to Maui and I loved it, if one goes to Hawaii don't stay on Oahu..

My only memory of Stockholm was a rude waitress. Because of that, I will avoid the whole country.

Somehow Europeans by the millions tolerate horrid charter conditons mid-long haul that make the domestic US airlines seem downright civilized.

if the EU-Hawaii market is 120K today, well, in 5 years that may well be 350-300K which could sustain at least seasonal service between the 2. Lots of 14 hour flights do make money, flying that long does not guarantee bankruptcy. Also agree lots of low hanging fruit in China and SE Asia to go after before Europe, but then there is also the prospect of LCC competition, like Jetstar is already doing to HNL.

Quoting koruman (Reply 43): Lastly, unfortunately, there is the ignorance factor. Unfortunately few Americans are even aware that one of their states has a Royal Palace and Mausoleum or active volcanoes, and most of them think that a beach on an intrinsically ugly island like Aruba is interchangeable with one on Hawaii.

Was this paragraph even necessary?

Quoting skycub (Reply 44): My only memory of Stockholm was a rude waitress. Because of that, I will avoid the whole country.

Somebody had to say it. A rude waitress = don't visit Oahu. Oye.

Quoting timpdx (Reply 45): Somehow Europeans by the millions tolerate horrid charter conditons mid-long haul that make the domestic US airlines seem downright civilized.

Ya, for a minute I thought everyone flew VS on vacation. Then I remembered the plethora of charter type options out there.

-Dave

If HA every wanted to fly to Europe, IMO they would have to get a flat bed on those aircraft's for F. The domestic F seats they have now are not going to a cut it for a 13-15 hour flight with people paying for F.

I actually would prefer to take HA when I fly out of the NYC area, but you can't beat UA's BF 767 seat from EWR when you compare.

[Edited 2012-08-30 22:16:37]

Quoting timpdx (Reply 45): Somehow Europeans by the millions tolerate horrid charter conditons mid-long haul that make the domestic US airlines seem downright civilized.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 46): Ya, for a minute I thought everyone flew VS on vacation. Then I remembered the plethora of charter type options out there.

But this thread isn't talking about either that demographic or that distance.

Firstly, you have to remember that in the UK over 70% of residents have taken an overseas vacation by air in the last 2 years. A far larger proportion of the population flies overseas, and obviously the lower demographics are more likely to travel either short-haul or cheap medium-haul.

Secondly, London-Hawaii is 7,000 miles, making it much more similar to Mauritius or the Seychelles or the Maldives than Cancun or the Dominican Republic which are an 8 hour flight away as opposed to a 13 hour flight away.

And which carriers carry British visitors to Mauritius? The answer is not the LCC model carriers such as Thomson, Thomas Cook and Monarch - who are big players on UK-Cancun - but rather British Airways, Air Mauritius and Emirates.

I say this until I'm blue in the face, but most European travellers going on a genuinely long-haul holiday will only book a full-service product. And most of them have done enough long-haul travelling (or know people who have) to ensure that if the only long-haul option is an LCC model they will go somewhere else instead.

And Americans aren't that different. Faced with a garbage product for 9 hours to Hawaii or for 3 hours to Mexico or the Caribbean they mainly choose to endure three hours of derisory "service" instead of 9.

Quoting COEWR2587 (Reply 47): If HA every wanted to fly to Europe, IMO they would have to get a flat bed on those aircraft's for F. The domestic F seats they have now are not going to a cut it for a 13-15 hour flight with people paying for F.

Outside the USA few carriers have First Class anymore, although what you're describing is a standard long-haul Business Class product.

I would be inclined to say that for London-Honolulu on an A350, the ideal would be:

3 rows of angled-flat 2-2-2 Business Class (18 seats)
4 rows of 36 inch pitch 2-4-2 Premium Economy as a distinct class (32 seats)
27 rows of 3-3-3 Economy at 32 inch pitch (243 seats)

But the actual configuration would vary with the carrier and network connection opportunities.

In the case of Hawaiian, it depends upon whether they will ever configure a part of their fleet for non-US routes.

If all their long-haul aircraft are configured for US routes, there will never be a high-quality Business Class seat, because they only need to meet US market standards and expectations.

Furthermore, Hawaii has an amazing climate all year round: contrary to the Carribeans, there is (almost) no risk of a hurricane: the weather is dry including in Summer, and the heat is much more bearable