American Airbuses to Hawaii ?

[strangiatotheme]

Take a look in the MCM. The ETOPS cards are in the manual plus the 321 is flying MIA - LAX which is about 2100 NM and LAX HNL is 2200 NM and the 321 range with sharklets is 3200 NM. I've heard the FAA hold up was the shorter runways at KOA and LIH and the winter winds where a flight that is normally 5.4 FH can take 6.0. It sounds reasonable that the plane could be weight restricted under some high head wind flights.

m

KOA has a pretty long runway at 11,000'. OGG is just under 7,000'.

 

[mistified]

What other US carriers are currently taking delivery of the newer A321's besides American?
That might be the answer as to why no one has tried that piece of hardware LAX to Hawaii?

mistified

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL has new 321s on order for delivery within a year. Not sure how the technical specs compare between the 2. Given that it can carry as many passengers as current configuration 757-200s with newer engines on a lighter aircraft, the economics are certainly better. and the question is not just about the 321 but the entire 320 family.

Virgin America is also starting Hawaii service with current engine 320s so maybe it really was that the 737 was available for US carriers that wanted to start Hawaii service and Boeing had done the work to get ETOPS on them.

AA and DL both have 738s in service. DL also like UA has 739ERs in service; UA uses their 739ERs and 738s to Hawaii. I don't believe that DL's 738s are ETOPS but I've heard that some of AA's are. AS has 738s in service which are regularly used for Hawaii flights. I'm not sure if their 738 fleet or only a subset are ETOPS and if there are any other technical differences between their ETOPS and non ETOPS 738s if there is a subset.

Someone can correct any or all of this.

UA has a combination of 738s and 753s for its narrowbody service from Maui in December 2015

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

"But which aircraft will most likely fill the gap that the 757 will leave? Boeing has the 737-900ER and variants of the new 737 Max as well. Airbus is offering the A321 and soon the A321neo."

"The A320neo family should extend the range of this aircraft by a good 600 miles. This could be the difference of serving a route or not and combines the capacity of the original A321, with the range of an A319 (the aircraft in the Airbus narrow body family with the longest range)."

"American Airlines has selected the A321 to replace its aging 757-200s and 767-200s on its transcontinental routes. Hawaiian Airlines just ordered the A321neo to expand its ETOPS operations. Flights from Honolulu to Los Angeles for instance are in the range of an A321neo and by utilizing this aircraft, they can free up some of their A330s or 767s to serve other, longer routes or routes that need the higher capacity. The A321neo will allow them to expand to possible new markets that do not have the demand for the larger A330 or 767." ...

"On Monday Hawaiian Airlines made a big announcement that it was ordering the Airbus A321neo to add to its expanding fleet.

"The order is for 16 A321neos along with the rights to purchase up to nine more of the type. The carrier currently has 43 aircraft that is a mix of Boeing 767-300ER that it primarily uses on its west coast operations from the islands, the A330-200 used on international long haul ops and the Boeing 717 that it uses for inter-island hopping."

Everyone at Hawaiian wants us to keep our position as the market leader in service quality, cost efficiency and choice of destinations. Ordering the A321neo will secure this legacy on routes to the U.S. West Coast beyond the middle of this decade, said Mark Dunkerley, president and CEO of Hawaiian Airlines. The A321neo will be the most fuel-efficient aircraft of its type after its introduction in 2016. With its slightly smaller size well be able to open new markets that are not viable for wide-body service, while also being able to augment service on existing routes to the West Coast of North America.

At 146-feet-long, the A321neo will seat approximately 190 passengers in a two-class configuration (First and Coach) and has a range of 3,650 nautical miles. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed, however, the aircraft have a total list-price value of approximately $2.8 billion if all of the purchase rights are exercised."

Full article here:

http://www.airlinereporter.com/tag/airbus-a321neo/

 

[eolesen]

NEVER say NEVER that two engines can't quit on a two engine A/C.  I'm not advocating bringing the DC-10 back, but sooner or later, these money hungry bas-tards (companys) are going to push the envelope until a trip crashes into the sea !!

Yep, heard that tired argument since ETOPS started in the 1980's. And we're still waiting for an aircraft to drop into the sea, no?

 

[MetalMover]

Yep, heard that tired argument since ETOPS started in the 1980's. And we're still waiting for an aircraft to drop into the sea, no?

How true. the ETOPS program is proven time and time again.

Whats the flight time in hours, during the worst time of the year..(winds blowing toward the US maineland) ?
 
I was NEVER a fan of Etops, but I've moderated a bit as it pertains to BOS/NYC/PHL to LHR...only because there is usually a "strip of Ice R/w" nearby in greenland somewhere.
 
B U T.......there ain't shiit (to land) in between LAX and HNL.   Nada / zip / NOWHERE !
 
NEVER say NEVER that two engines can't quit on a two engine A/C.  I'm not advocating bringing the DC-10 back, but sooner or later, these money hungry bas-tards (companys) are going to push the envelope until a trip crashes into the sea !!

Twin engine ops are more the norm now. 
If two engines can quit on a two engine A/C, using US 1549 Hudson landing as an example, that many geese would have taken out 3 and 4 engine aircraft as well. 
If someone worried about a bad batch of fuel...guess what? That fuel would affect EVERY engine on the aircraft.

 

[LD3]

I think using 1549 may be kind of a stretch when looking at the bodies of water they would need to land on and the distance 1549 had to glide...

 

[MetalMover]

I think using 1549 may be kind of a stretch when looking at the bodies of water they would need to land on and the distance 1549 had to glide...

I was only referring to TWO ENGINES that could be lost as a result of one event. So could a DC10 had made it across the Atlantic on one engine? I doubt it. 
The topic has become "Are ETOPS really all that safe?"

 

[WorldTraveler]

on the subject of ETOPS, there is enough evidence that multiple engine failures are not dependent on the number of engines on the aircraft - flying thru a volcano, extensive bird strikes have taken out ALL engines on commercial aircraft - whether it be 2 or 4.

the safety of ETOPS will be pretty hard to challenge given that the industry has used it for decades with success.

and Q,
I don't think anyone doubts that the neo and NG series of aircraft will increase range and you are correct that the neo provides a lot more confidence that the 320 family can make it for 6 hours across the Pacific.

There are 320 series aircraft that are operating on westbound transcon flights and in other parts of the world for as long as is necessary to get a plane from the west coast to Hawaii.

I'd like to hear some perspective on what airlines are currently operating 321s on flights of comparable time - not just mileage because winds are different on different routes - and what kind of limit has actually be reached in real life situations with 180 plus passengers with normal baggage

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Yep, heard that tired argument since ETOPS started in the 1980's. And we're still waiting for an aircraft to drop into the sea, no?

 
What you're saying eric is refusing to acknowlege the truism of "Never say Never"
And i'll agree that goes for any a/c whether it has 2-3-4 engines.
With that said, if A flt. I might have been on hit a massive bird strike, we'd all have much better odds being on board a DC-10 with it's seperate engine located in the rear, and up higher than the wing mounted engines.
NO ONE, not even me will dispute the enormous success of etops.
Moving on further to a totally disabled a/c relying on gliding to survive, the chances are better going over the atlantic because of the availability of perhaps a patch of terra firma, or even a huge ice flow. BUT over the Pacific, you and I know that there is NO WHERE to try to get to.  It's ALL H2O brother.
ONLY a FOOL would say......." It CAN'T HAPPEN " !
 
(The equivalent of that is like saying that the GOP will occupy '1600 in '16)(except that would be "It CAN happen")  !

 

[WorldTraveler]

(The equivalent of that is like saying that the GOP will occupy '1600 in '16)(except that would be "It CAN happen")  !

there's a whole lot more likelihood of this than a 2 holer not making it to Paradise.

a WHOLE lot more likely.

since you mentioned it.

 

[mistified]

Just to be clear;
American is planning on using the A321 and not the A 321neo.
Yes the neo has better range. But apparently AAL believes that the non neo version is just fine for now.
And besides I am not even sure the range is the biggest issue.


Mistified

 

[FWAAA]

What possible issue is there if it's not range?

 

[MetalMover]

What possible issue is there if it's not range?

Probably comes from the same crowd who complained when the transcon 767's were replaced by the A321t's...Narrow body and less seats.

 

[dariencc]

 
 
I was NEVER a fan of Etops, but I've moderated a bit as it pertains to BOS/NYC/PHL to LHR...only because there is usually a "strip of Ice R/w" nearby in greenland somewhere.

 
You don't know what you're talking about.  All the majors have 180 minute etops now so flights  from the northest US (BOS/NYC/PHL) to LHR can use an alternate in Newfoundland, for example, and another in Ireland.  That's it. 
 
When weather permits, which it almost always does, the standard enroute alternates on BOS/NYC/PHL to Euroope flights are in Iceland and/or the Azores.  Greenland is almost never a factor unless ther is an operational etops restriction.