LAX and SFO handle the majority of connecting traffic between LHR and Hawaii. I don't know the statistics of connecting passenger to Hawaii from LHR to LAX/SFO by BA, VS and US3. But, I'm sure there is a market between UK/Europe to Hawaii and the opportunities for BA to attempt with an aircraft like 788 from LHR, or 772 from LGW.

The market just is not there. The distance between London and Honolulu is well over 7200 miles. Basically, no premium demand and the leisure demand will be limited at best as if Britons want flights to a beach destination in the United States they will fly to Florida which is much closer and much cheaper. Putting a 788 or a 772 on such a long and extremely thin route would be financial suicide.

If you don't know the numbers how can you state that LAX and SFO handle the majority of connecting traffic between LHR and Hawaii?

According to Hawaii Tourism Authority, there are approximately 37,000 annual visitors from the UK, from a low of 2700 in February to a high of 6000 in August. What the statistics don't show however is how many of those are strictly O&D. There's no way of knowing how many are extended transit stopovers en route to/from the South Pacific, or split vacation with time spent elsewhere in North America. I believe direct UK flights had been attempted in the late 70s without much success.

At the end of the day, the answer is always the same as it is for every "Why doesn't airline XX fly to destination XXX?" There isn't sufficient premium-yield traffic to sustain profitability.

They have before, although far from non-stop. There are plenty of opportunities, but not enough people want it non-stop. According to the HVB, Europeans that visit the Islands are definitely increasing & that trend has been only trending up.

But as the people that explore as far as Hawaii on vacation, mostly enjoy visiting other places in between, such as Las Vegas, New York, LA or SF. So the current opportunities are well covered already by BA/AA.

I don't honestly see British Airways starting service to HNL it's a long flight and yields would probably be very hard to achieve plus the aircraft used on the flight would make more money elsewhere on the airlines network.

Any connecting traffic from London to Honolulu can be taken care of by American Airlines as is the case now or otherwise with the many airlines that fly to the islands direct from many airports from mainland USA.

For example you can fly to New York and then connect with an Hawaiian Airlines flight non stop to Honolulu.

If and when London does regain a direct connection with Honolulu I would think it will more than likely be with Hawaiian Airlines with their upcoming fleet of B789.

The last time London had a direct connection with Honolulu was with Western Airlines who flew LGW to HNL three times a week with DC10-10, the routing was HNL-ANC-LGW and it only lasted for 18 months after initially starting in April 1981..

I imagine many UK tourists incorporate a few days stay in LAX, SFO, ORD and/or NYC before traveling on to Hawaii so a stopover in one or more of these cities is very useful.

RWA380 wrote:

They have before, although far from non-stop. There are plenty of opportunities, but not enough people want it non-stop. According to the HVB, Europeans that visit the Islands are definitely increasing & that trend has been only trending up.

But as the people that explore as far as Hawaii on vacation, mostly enjoy visiting other places in between, such as Las Vegas, New York, LA or SF. So the current opportunities are well covered already by BA/AA.

To my knowledge when BOAC served HNL it was part of a SFO-HKG flight, not serving London itself. It ended around 1971 or 1972. There was an interesting thread on this awhile back about European airlines that have served HNL.

BoeingGuy wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

They have before, although far from non-stop. There are plenty of opportunities, but not enough people want it non-stop. According to the HVB, Europeans that visit the Islands are definitely increasing & that trend has been only trending up.

But as the people that explore as far as Hawaii on vacation, mostly enjoy visiting other places in between, such as Las Vegas, New York, LA or SF. So the current opportunities are well covered already by BA/AA.

To my knowledge when BOAC served HNL it was part of a SFO-HKG flight, not serving London itself. It ended around 1971 or 1972. There was an interesting thread on this awhile back about European airlines that have served HNL.

And your absolutely correct with that information and there was a very interesting thread a while back regarding this

The amount of times that this topic has been brought up on a.net is unbelievable and always with the same responses, it has to be up there with the numerous 757 threads!

The market isn’t there for a LON-HNL flight.

Most brits that wish to holiday afar go to places like the Caribbean, Thailand, Maldives etc. Hawaii is just to far, as likely direct flight would be too expensive.

OMAA

Why? Hawaii flying is low yield vacationers often using points. LHR-HNL is a rather long route to operate for low yielding passengers. There are code share partners that fly LAX-HNL and PHX-HNL. That's what code shares are for.

I doubt it could make money.

It's so long. A us carrier could try london-anc-nhl maybe that has a shot but again probably too low fares are needed to fill it. I don't see a market large enough of people paying a premium for a non-stop. I personally prefer to stretch and get a good walk in on such a long trip anyway I wouldn't pay anymore for this non-stop especially if I were stuck in coach.

OMAAbound wrote:

The market isn’t there for a LON-HNL flight.

Most brits that wish to holiday afar go to places like the Caribbean, Thailand, Maldives etc. Hawaii is just to far, as likely direct flight would be too expensive.

OMAA

There is a market from London to Honolulu but not a big enough market for a direct flight, that market is already covered by the many flight connections from the USA mainland.

A direct non stop flight from London to Honolulu would probably take about 11 or 12 hours and therefore not much difference time wise if someone was flying nonstop from London to Mauritius.

Although Brits enjoy their long haul vacations to the likes of the Caribbean, Thailand, Mauritius, etc there are also more and more going further afield than they previously had done before but that doesn't equate to a potential non stop flight to Honolulu.

The islands of Hawaii are attracting far more British tourists than ever before and even in my workplace there are several who take a yearly vacation to the islands flying with BA to either LAX/JFK/SFO and taking a connecting flight with Hawaiian Airlines.

A lot of British tourists that are visiting Hawaii are actually flying to Honolulu to join the Norwegian Cruise Lines vessel ''Pride of America'' which undertakes 7 night itineraries around the Hawaiian islands, the last few years has been a significant increase of cruises available from Honolulu and in particular British passenger joining the cruise ships in Honolulu, those passengers currently connect via the mainland and usually with a stopover.

On a side note people don't always go on a week or two week vacation especially the British and I for one never hesitated when the option of a long weekend in Sydney came up last year, five nights away including two of those on an aircraft, the length of the flight didn't deter me from going for such a short time in Australia.

OMAAbound wrote:

The market isn’t there for a LON-HNL flight.

Most brits that wish to holiday afar go to places like the Caribbean, Thailand, Maldives etc. Hawaii is just to far, as likely direct flight would be too expensive.

OMAA

For someone who supposedly works for an airline and in particular an airline that predominantly uses red in it's livery you do surprise me with your rather uneducated posts!

LHR-NYC-HNL don't work. There isn't a flight earlier enough from LHR to catch the 3 dailies from NYC that leave at 830a-1030a

There is probably little cargo demand on the route, so money has to be made mainly from the self loading variety.

BoeingGuy wrote:

To my knowledge when BOAC served HNL it was part of a SFO-HKG flight, not serving London itself. It ended around 1971 or 1972. There was an interesting thread on this awhile back about European airlines that have served HNL.

While this is correct for a given time the reality was much more complex over the 1950s. 60s & 70s. BA served HNL with two basic routes.

The northern route was from HKG via TYO to SFO or LAX [depending on date] sometimes terminating, sometimes going onto LHR

The southern route was from SYD, later MEL via SYD, & NAN and on to LAX, NYC to LHR.

Aircraft were B707-436/336s and Vickers VC-10/Super VC-10 again varying over time. All aircraft on the southern route operated "around the world" via the Middle East, India, SE Asia, Australian [& New Zealand, sort of] & vv. BA being AFAIK the only Northern Hemisphere airline to do so.
The Northern Route was the same to BKK then HKG & TYO and across the Pacific to SFO/LAX and some times on to LHR thereby completing an "around the northern hemisphere" route like PA & AF. & vv.

There were various variations & connections that I have not covered.

Gemuser

If I had to put $ on it, I'd guess DY or FI using WW to HA.

Cunard wrote:

OMAAbound wrote:

The market isn’t there for a LON-HNL flight.

Most brits that wish to holiday afar go to places like the Caribbean, Thailand, Maldives etc. Hawaii is just to far, as likely direct flight would be too expensive.

OMAA

There is a market from London to Honolulu but not a big enough market for a direct flight, that market is already covered by the many flight connections from the USA mainland.

A direct non stop flight from London to Honolulu would probably take about 11 or 12 hours and therefore not much difference time wise if someone was flying nonstop from London to Mauritius.

Although Brits enjoy their long haul vacations to the likes of the Caribbean, Thailand, Mauritius, etc there are also more and more going further afield than they previously had done before but that doesn't equate to a potential non stop flight to Honolulu.

The islands of Hawaii are attracting far more British tourists than ever before and even in my workplace there are several who take a yearly vacation to the islands flying with BA to either LAX/JFK/SFO and taking a connecting flight with Hawaiian Airlines.

A lot of British tourists that are visiting Hawaii are actually flying to Honolulu to join the Norwegian Cruise Lines vessel ''Pride of America'' which undertakes 7 night itineraries around the Hawaiian islands, the last few years has been a significant increase of cruises available from Honolulu and in particular British passenger joining the cruise ships in Honolulu, those passengers currently connect via the mainland and usually with a stopover.

On a side note people don't always go on a week or two week vacation especially the British and I for one never hesitated when the option of a long weekend in Sydney came up last year, five nights away including two of those on an aircraft, the length of the flight didn't deter me from going for such a short time in Australia.

Through September of 2018, 36,890 visitors to Hawaii have originated in the United Kingdom which is on track to blow 2017 numbers out of the water.
36,890 people over a year shakes out to roughly 101 people/day. BA's 788 fleet have 214 seats, nearly half way to filling the plane already. If you also factor in that nonstop flights often further simulate demand, it may not be unreasonable to think this wouldn't work.

77H

BOAC flew to Honolulu as a stopover on a flight via SFO to Sydney, Australia.

Insertnamehere wrote:

The market just is not there. The distance between London and Honolulu is well over 7200 miles. Basically, no premium demand and the leisure demand will be limited at best as if Britons want flights to a beach destination in the United States they will fly to Florida which is much closer and much cheaper.

We go through this discussion every time the subject of LHR-HNL service comes up. If distance were a prohibitive factor, Europeans would not be travelling en masse to Thailand for winter holidays, nor to places like the Seychelles.

jfk777 wrote:

BOAC flew to Honolulu as a stopover on a flight via SFO to Sydney, Australia.

Also SFO-HKG as I mentioned earlier.

Pretty sure BA can feed all their Hawaii flying customers to American. Hawaii is way too far for them to fly to, even with a layover. AA can handle all their connecting customers.

Both BY and TCX and their parent travel companies took a long, hard look into this market as a potential for the UK tourism trade. One issue both came up against was the added problem of finding suitable streams of hotel rooms at the right wholesale prices.

BY would have used the 789 on the route and TCX their A332 with a fuel stop. As both do not carry a business class cabin, the economics of the route would have meant the costs of a package deal would just not close at a suitable price point. Basically, too expensive for the average tourist. That's why it has remained in the field of the bespoke travel deal rather than regular semi-charters out of Gatwick or Manchester, the elements just are not there to offer a brochure-type price at a reasonable cost.

77H wrote:

Through September of 2018, 36,890 visitors to Hawaii have originated in the United Kingdom which is on track to blow 2017 numbers out of the water.
36,890 people over a year shakes out to roughly 101 people/day. BA's 788 fleet have 214 seats, nearly half way to filling the plane already. If you also factor in that nonstop flights often further simulate demand, it may not be unreasonable to think this wouldn't work.

77H

So, travelers are going to leave every other carrier competing on LON-XXX-Hawaii (not just HNL) to half-fill a BA plane. Fantasy.

LHR to HNL is approximately 6300 nmi...which is basically ultra-long-haul. Even a route like LHR-SEZ, a route that is 4420 nmi, is long for a holidaymaker route. British Airways doesn't even fly LGW-HKT (5360 nmi), although TUI Airways does seasonally. If anyone might consider flying London to HNL right now, it would likely be BY on a B789 (whose Y seats at 33"/17" are actually roomier than BA's seats) seasonally, twice weekly, and I suspect that the last row would have to be blocked off (the range for the B789 is 7635 nmi at 290 passengers; BY B789s are W63Y282). LON-HNL sounds like a low-yield route...and a BA B77E might be too much plane even though the Gatwick frames are 3-4-3. However, two posts before mine, it was noted that BY doesn't see an economic opportunity there...and so a one-stop journey via LAX or SFO, and connecting to HA or AS there, makes more sense.

Now, what could be interesting down the line is if HA decides to send a B789 past the East Coast of the USA to LGW if it has desires on Europe (currently, beyond the West Coast of the USA, it only flies to LAS, JFK, and soon BOS). (HA has an order book of 10 B789s from Boeing with purchase rights for 10 more...which could supplant the A330-200s they have now). Thus, I say, if anyone does attempt this route, it would be Hawaiian Airlines, and I could see BA codesharing on the flight.

No one has mentioned an important point


Hawaii is considered an exotic destination for many people in Europe and the UK, furthermore it’s considered safe and they speak the same language (sort of)


Brits are adventurous by nature and love to travel, this will be a very attractive and really different destination.

It will create significant new demand that a non stop flight will trigger.

crescent wrote:

LHR-NYC-HNL don't work. There isn't a flight earlier enough from LHR to catch the 3 dailies from NYC that leave at 830a-1030a

It does work if you preplan an overnight in the Big Apple as part of your travel plans, what's one night when your traveling as far as Hawaii and who doesn't appreciate an overnight in New York especially us Brits

Obviously flying directly from London to the west coast of the USA will give you better connection possibilities to Honolulu but then again many use the opportunity to stop off halfway before flying onwards to Hawaii.

On another note

I do find it strange that so many people on here posting especially the Brits by the sounds of it who seem to think that Hawaii doesn't have any appeal to the British for a vacation because of the distance or the fact that there are beaches that are closer!

Honest is it all about beaches, do real travelers choose a destination purely on beaches, people choose a vacation destination for many reasons and I can assure you that there are other things to enjoy whilst on vacation other than beaches, of course the Hawaiian islands does have some beautiful beaches and with a completely different backdrop compared to those that your find in Florida.

I personally know several people that regularly vacation or have vacationed in Hawaii and myself included having been to the islands four times already

The thought of a direct flight from LGW to HNL on an Hawaiian Airlines B789 I find very appealing

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Now, what could be interesting down the line is if HA decides to send a B789 past the East Coast of the USA to LGW if it has desires on Europe (currently, beyond the West Coast of the USA, it only flies to LAS, JFK, and soon BOS). (HA has an order book of 10 B789s from Boeing with purchase rights for 10 more...which could supplant the A330-200s they have now). Thus, I say, if anyone does attempt this route, it would be Hawaiian Airlines, and I could see BA codesharing on the flight.

I believe HA stated that one of the reasons they bought the 789 was to launch service to Europe.

Does BA have ETOPS 180? You only need ETOPS 120 to fly Transatlantic, but you need 180 to fly to Hawaii due to the distance between the islands and the western coast of North America. All US and Canadian carriers flying to Hawaii are ETOPS180.

LHR-HNL is easily served over LAX,SFO, YVR, SEA, where one can fly AC, BA/AA, UA, DL/VS with a short, ~2hr layover. HNL-LHR is a similar story, though BOS (soon), EWR, IAD, and JFK become additional possibilities with short layovers.

I wonder if QF or NZ would ever use their fifth freedom rights to fly HNL-LHR as a tag on from SYD/AKL.

usxguy wrote:

I wonder if QF or NZ would ever use their fifth freedom rights to fly HNL-LHR as a tag on from SYD/AKL.

And why would they even bother to do so, it would definitely lengthen the flight for no real economic reason and even if it was viable I am sure that either one of them would have done so by now which neither hasn't so I would assume going by that it's not really a viable idea.

usxguy wrote:

I wonder if QF or NZ would ever use their fifth freedom rights to fly HNL-LHR as a tag on from SYD/AKL.

Definite no for QF...as their B789s are intentionally low-density and high-premium frames. NZ is a lower premium carrier, but they would be foolish to fly such a long low-yield sector not from their home market, and (at this time, at least until LY starts TLV-SFO) there isn't a flight that long on a RR Trent-powered B789 (QF's B789s are GE-powered). The only possibility here is HA to Gatwick in about 5-6 years. (HA, BTW, will have GE-powered B789s.)

Channex757 wrote:

Both BY and TCX and their parent travel companies took a long, hard look into this market as a potential for the UK tourism trade. One issue both came up against was the added problem of finding suitable streams of hotel rooms at the right wholesale prices.

BY would have used the 789 on the route and TCX their A332 with a fuel stop. As both do not carry a business class cabin, the economics of the route would have meant the costs of a package deal would just not close at a suitable price point. Basically, too expensive for the average tourist. That's why it has remained in the field of the bespoke travel deal rather than regular semi-charters out of Gatwick or Manchester, the elements just are not there to offer a brochure-type price at a reasonable cost.

I have No idea how Brits take their vacations, but if they wanted blocks ot rooms set aside then they might get them in the Low season Sept to Thanksgiving and January to just before Easter. After that? it's "Bombs away" because that's when the Party Starts and goes all spring and summer long...

I am sorry but it does not work. It is simply the fact that there's absolutely no demand for it right now. It is not the distance since many Britons do fly at least once a year to an exotic and far away destination. 11 hours is not really that much. The problem is that there's simply not enough passengers for this.
Maybe in future when the numbers do go up. Norwegian Cruise Lines do take a good intake from passengers from UK on their Hawaii trip but a lot of them usually spend a day or so either in Los Angeles, Las Vegas or San Francisco.
Also, from LHR???? An Airport where slots are at a maximum premium??? BA??? A premium airline with a moto "Pay more for Less"??? I would see Hawaiian Airlines having a go on this from LGW or, firstly, a charter like TUI testing the waters. Once it does picks up then, who knows. Virgin? then an US3?
And this is not even considering the fact that there's also no flights from mainland Europe.
I guess this topic will come back but. if waits maybe enough for more demand to pick up, who knows? We might be discussing who would do it rather than when.

HA starting HNL/BOS is a harbinger.
LON is bigger than BOS. Much bigger... the catchment is Europe.
The B789 is the right frame.

Just no market or yield for a nonstop .

Europeans have a massive choice with non stops to the most amazing places ... HNL is too meh for Europeans unless they’re going to Oz or travelling around South Pacific

Wow...so much certainly on this thread. So much of it wrong.

There is PLENTY of market for this. And Hawaii is not a low-yield market by any stretch. It is a luxury destination that commands some of the highest hotel room rates in the world. Hawaii also commands high fares from most of its international markets. There is a reason Qantas still flies SYD-HNL in spite of Jetstar also being in the market. And ANA is configuring the entire upper deck of the 380s in a premium layout for a reason. The challenge with yields isn't that they are low, it is that that there is no way for BA to know exactly HOW MUCH premium demand there is. Combined with a tremendous length-of-haul, the risk is great to BA.

Demand to Hawaii outpaces the island's ability to accommodate, hence record visitor numbers for the past 6-7 years. Visitors from the UK and Europe are not worried about the airfare. The issue is that LHR-HNL is a barely inside the range of a 787-9 and the schedule options are very challenging for connections at LHR.

The problem with LHR-HNL isn't demand or yields. It is risk due to length-of-haul and opportunity cost. Eventually there will be nonstop service on this route. We just aren't there yet.

jetlanta wrote:

Wow...so much certainly on this thread. So much of it wrong.

There is PLENTY of market for this. And Hawaii is not a low-yield market by any stretch. It is a luxury destination that commands some of the highest hotel room rates in the world. Hawaii also commands high fares from most of its international markets. There is a reason Qantas still flies SYD-HNL in spite of Jetstar also being in the market. And ANA is configuring the entire upper deck of the 380s in a premium layout for a reason. The challenge with yields isn't that they are low, it is that that there is no way for BA to know exactly HOW MUCH premium demand there is. Combined with a tremendous length-of-haul, the risk is great to BA.

Demand to Hawaii outpaces the island's ability to accommodate, hence record visitor numbers for the past 6-7 years. Visitors from the UK and Europe are not worried about the airfare. The issue is that LHR-HNL is a barely inside the range of a 787-9 and the schedule options are very challenging for connections at LHR.

The problem with LHR-HNL isn't demand or yields. It is risk due to length-of-haul and opportunity cost. Eventually there will be nonstop service on this route. We just aren't there yet.

Yeah, I agree. Hawaii is low yield? Have you checked what it costs to fly to Hawaii these days during the season? It's anything but low yield.

Anecdotally, the last time I was on Kauai, we were the only people speaking English at the hotel pool. Everyone else was caucasian and speaking Dutch/French/Danish/German, etc.

The issue is not just about demand on the route: it's about whether BA should launch flights to HNL from slot-constrained LHR and make enough money. BA's Revenue Management isn't totally stupid, and the failure to fly to HNL indicates that there are other more profitable routes. Bear in mind that the distance is about 7,330 miles, which is a long way to tanker fuel.

United has been worried about Hawaii and defending their turf. They announced a big expansion from Hawaii last year. If they wanted to solidify their frequent flyer base that is in HNL, I always thought that LHR would compliment it nicely! They would have both NRT and LHR and coupled with their very good service to the USA Mainland, they would have almost everything covered except ANC. I think ANC would work seasonally as well even though Alaska files it but that is a different subject.

United's 787-8 would be perfect for this route as a lower premium demand flight but still has 183 economy seats.

They would have to get another LHR slot though. Do they currently have extra's they are leasing out to other airlines they could take back?

Cunard wrote:

The amount of times that this topic has been brought up on a.net is unbelievable and always with the same responses.

From 2016:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1337249

From 2017:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1374205

From 2018:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1385325

From 2002, 16 years ago, believe it or not:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=155517

Non-stop London to HNL service doesn't seem that beneficial. Most tourists traveling to Hawaii don't go to HNL, or don't go just to HNL. They take a short flight to one of the other islands. Since it is not practical to have non-stop London to the Hawaiian islands other than Oahu, two flights would be required to visit the other islands. If you were going to make a stop anyway, you might as well fly from London to the US (SEA, PDX, SFO, LAX, PHX, DEN, LAS, SLC, SAN, DFW) and take a fight that goes non-stop to one these islands and bypass HNL. The current airline network allows multiple options to go from London to Hawaii (bypassing HNL) with one stop/one change.

If this were to happen I could see BA doing twice weekly LGW-HNL. It would require one if the densified 777s and it would have to be Rolls engined one (G-YMM* series) because they have crew rest.

However, it would need some guaranteed fill for the cabins, e.g. a deal with Norwegian Cruise Lines and possibly some good hotel/resort deals for BA Holidays to market themselves.

Others have pointed out potential blockers. It is not so much the flight length but the fact I think the USA offers so many one-stop options that appeal to people to do a multi-leg journey. That is what I did when I went back in 2004 with CO with a few days in New York before flying on to HNL. When my parents went they did it as part of a round the world itinary.

It is a bit like Bali or Phuket. Also popular tourist destinations in South East Asia but there are so many one-stop options that not a high priority for the likes of BA to add for a non-stop.

gunnerman wrote:

There is probably little cargo demand on the route, so money has to be made mainly from the self loading variety.

Even if there was cargo demand, it would probably be useless anyway. Cargo is making the plane heavier and therefor reducing it's range. For a flight this long you need maximum range and therefor minimum weight. This means there's no room for cargo anyway.

77H wrote:

Through September of 2018, 36,890 visitors to Hawaii have originated in the United Kingdom which is on track to blow 2017 numbers out of the water.
36,890 people over a year shakes out to roughly 101 people/day. BA's 788 fleet have 214 seats, nearly half way to filling the plane already. If you also factor in that nonstop flights often further simulate demand, it may not be unreasonable to think this wouldn't work.

77H

This would be true if every single visitor from the UK would take that flight, which is of course not going to happen. Even with a direct flight in place, there will still be people taking other possibilities.

On top of that, direct from London isn't direct for the whole UK as the UK is bigger than London. Say someone from Manchester wants to go on holiday to Hawaii. There are no direct flights between Manchester and Hawaii, so he'd have to transfer anyway. Then he's got the choice, transfer in London or transfer in mainland USA or Canada. On both occasions it would be one transfer, so no difference there except that a transfer in mainland USA would most likely be cheaper.

Many years ago CPAir holidays offered two centre holidays including Hawaii via Vancouver from Manchester and Gatwick.

Cunard wrote:

The last time London had a direct connection with Honolulu was with Western Airlines who flew LGW to HNL three times a week with DC10-10, the routing was HNL-ANC-LGW and it only lasted for 18 months after initially starting in April 1981..

How about charter flights? The only one that sticks in my mind one the weekly Hawaiian charter HA584/585 which routed HNL-somwehere-MAN-STN and return in summer 1989. MAN had just under 10,000 passengers with STN around 4,000 passengers. If we call it a maximum of 26 return trips then each round trip had 538 passenger or 269 one way passengers and used a mix of DC8s and L1011s. Not sure who would have been the tour operator but it way well have been Airtours.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

On top of that, direct from London isn't direct for the whole UK as the UK is bigger than London. Say someone from Manchester wants to go on holiday to Hawaii. There are no direct flights between Manchester and Hawaii, so he'd have to transfer anyway. Then he's got the choice, transfer in London or transfer in mainland USA or Canada. On both occasions it would be one transfer, so no difference there except that a transfer in mainland USA would most likely be cheaper.

Exactly. And if the Manchester passenger's final destination is not HNL, but rather an outer Hawaiian island such as Kauai or Maui, this would require three flights to get to Hawaii (MAN to LON, LON to HNL, and HNL to OGG).

David_itl wrote:

Cunard wrote:

The last time London had a direct connection with Honolulu was with Western Airlines who flew LGW to HNL three times a week with DC10-10, the routing was HNL-ANC-LGW and it only lasted for 18 months after initially starting in April 1981..

How about charter flights? The only one that sticks in my mind one the weekly Hawaiian charter HA584/585 which routed HNL-somwehere-MAN-STN and return in summer 1989. MAN had just under 10,000 passengers with STN around 4,000 passengers. If we call it a maximum of 26 return trips then each round trip had 538 passenger or 269 one way passengers and used a mix of DC8s and L1011s. Not sure who would have been the tour operator but it way well have been Airtours.

Yes it was the British tour operator AIRTOURS that used Hawaiian Airlines for their ''CHARTER'' flights to Honolulu from both Manchester and Stansted in 1989.

I remember them operating for one season as in summer 1989 but did they also operate in 1990 as well?

The routing if I can remember correctly was STN-MAN-BGR-HNL.

There are many photos online of Hawaiian Airlines DC10-30 taken at LGW during the mid nineties, what were those flights, also various photos of Hawaiian Airlines L1011s with the additional titles of Suntrips added?

I wasn't heavily involved in aviation as a hobby during that period although I had started in 1978 but I was out of the link during the mid nineties as I was overseas for the majority of the time.

Galwayman wrote:

Just no market or yield for a nonstop .

Europeans have a massive choice with non stops to the most amazing places ... HNL is too meh for Europeans unless they’re going to Oz or travelling around South Pacific

But how is CHS not meh?

stl07 wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

Just no market or yield for a nonstop .

Europeans have a massive choice with non stops to the most amazing places ... HNL is too meh for Europeans unless they’re going to Oz or travelling around South Pacific

But the how is CHS not meh?

Although your wording or grammar is absolutely terrible I'm assuming that your referring to the recently announced seasonal LHR to CHS route.

There is absolutely NO comparison whatsoever to British Airways flying to Charleston rather than to Honolulu, none whatsoever!