New Hawaii Service

[BoeingBoy]

also could us deploy a-321s to hawaii from say phl-phx=hnl or something?

[post="273667"][/post]​

I believe you need an ETOPs capable airplane to fly mainland-Hawaii due to the distance from alternates. I've never heard of any carrier receiving ETOPs approval for any of the A320 series (though obviously that doesn't mean it hasn't happened). I'm not even sure the A320 series is designed so that it could be approved for ETOPs.

[edit] Let me correct that a little. Someone flew (maybe still does) Hawaii-mainland with the 737NG, so I presume that the A320 series could be qualified. I'm not sure if the A321 has the range, but the A319/20 may.

Jim

 

[Cosmo]

Someone flew (maybe still does) Hawaii-mainland with the 737NG ...

You're talking (writing?) about Aloha, which uses B737-700s to fly from places like SNA and OAK to HNL, OGG, KOA and LIH.

 

[UseYourHead]

Jim,

The 321 has better range than the 319/320 as it has much more fuel. Having said that, the 320 gross wt. is 167,500 and the 321 205,000...so, as you can imagine at 205k your not going to climb pat 290-310 for a long time.

When you take off outa SFO at 205 you wiegh 167k over ORD, the GTW of the 320.

757's are a much better suited airplane for ETOPS & flying to the PAC Islands with wx and so on.

I believe you need an ETOPs capable airplane to fly mainland-Hawaii due to the distance from alternates. I've never heard of any carrier receiving ETOPs approval for any of the A320 series (though obviously that doesn't mean it hasn't happened). I'm not even sure the A320 series is designed so that it could be approved for ETOPs.

[edit] Let me correct that a little. Someone flew (maybe still does) Hawaii-mainland with the 737NG, so I presume that the A320 series could be qualified. I'm not sure if the A321 has the range, but the A319/20 may.

Jim

[post="273669"][/post]​

 

[BoeingBoy]

UYH,

Thaks for the info. I knew that the 321 originally (as designed) had less range than the 319/320 but thought that extra fuel capacity had been added. Just didn't realize that so much extra capacity had been added.

Jim

 

[Phantom Fixer]

UYH,

Thaks for the info. I knew that the 321 originally (as designed) had less range than the 319/320 but thought that extra fuel capacity had been added. Just didn't realize that so much extra capacity had been added.

Jim

[post="273679"][/post]​

Jim,

IMHO the A321 is a unnecessary acft within our system. The Acft does NOT do what a B757-200 will...and it lacks in a number of performance related areas.

The Acft also presents a few differences here and there with regards to the MLG Tires that create support problems that we can ill afford. The oversize of the A321's main tires Vs. that of the 757's or the other narrow bodies limits one on how the tires are moved within the system.

Ground Safety concerns due in part to size and wieght prevent them from being loaded on anything other than the B767's and A330's...so link that to the number of places where the A321's operate from..but do not see any degree of wide-body service. See the rub?

The A321 also has just enough subtle differences in its CFM56 engines to make obtaining spares in a pinch a near disaster at times. The RON checks being performed in LAX are a great source of finding some real nail-biters according to friends in LAX

Frankly...I know why we opted for the 321's...and that doesn't need explaining to me...but I still think we would have been far better served by sticking with the 757's for this particular need.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Well, I've certainly made no secret of my love of Boeing products. On the maintenance side, I don't know spit from shinola but I'm more than happy to be educated.

As for the 321's, I suspect we won't see them going away anytime soon so I guess we'll (or the maintenance folks) will have to live with the differences/problems.

In the grand scheme of things, your comments illustrate just a tiny example of how seemingly insignificant differences (to those who don't know better) play a part in the complexity that produces higher costs.

Jim

 

[sandypet]

According to the Airbus web site the following are the range cpabilities of generic airplanes with aux fuel tanks and full passenger payloads.
A319 3,700 nmi
A320 3,050 nmi
A321 3,000 nmi

 

[AviationNewbie]

I believe you need an ETOPs capable airplane to fly mainland-Hawaii due to the distance from alternates. I've never heard of any carrier receiving ETOPs approval for any of the A320 series (though obviously that doesn't mean it hasn't happened). I'm not even sure the A320 series is designed so that it could be approved for ETOPs.

[edit] Let me correct that a little. Someone flew (maybe still does) Hawaii-mainland with the 737NG, so I presume that the A320 series could be qualified. I'm not sure if the A321 has the range, but the A319/20 may.

Jim

[post="273669"][/post]​

PrivatAir in operates non-stop service from DUS to EWR on behalf of LH using 319LR's configured for an all business class configureation (48 seats total I think). They used to also offer these flights into ORD. It's a big seller for my business clients, I'm guessing it's possibly seasonal service.

I'm not a pilot, so I have no idea, but I wonder if the all business class configuration is what it would take to get the aircraft light enough to be ETOPS certified. Maybe someone who is more in the know can answer that.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I'm not a pilot, so I have no idea, but I wonder if the all business class configuration is what it would take to get the aircraft light enough to be ETOPS certified. Maybe someone who is more in the know can answer that.

[post="273692"][/post]​

There are better "experts" (and some real experts) on the subject of ETOPs than me, but I suspect the reduced seating is required to get the range necessary for that length of flight - it allows more fuel to be carried.

The ETOPs requirement is based on distance from a suitable alternate airport - I haven't kept up but think it's still a maximum of 180 minutes of flying time on one engine with ETOPs approval. It's possible (I think) to fly the north Atlantic without ETOPs, but the route would be significantly longer.

For any mainland-Hawaii service, ETOPs is required due to their being no alternates between the west coast and Hawaii.

Jim

 

[osunut]

US Airways - America West Merger Bankruptcy Court Filing (route map on page 6 with new Hawaii service, which appears to include LAX-HNL, SAN-HNL, PHX-LIH, PHX-HNL, PHX-OGG, and PHX-KOA service)

See Story

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="273441"][/post]​

Pretty accurate. This was on the HP board, but here goes. 3 ETOPS, 5 by DEC, hopefully. Going to do 9 total. PHX-HNL (2 daily by end of 2006) PHX-OGG, PHX-LIH, PHX-OGG & LAS-HNL. All should be up by the end of 2006.

They are talking maybe SAN-HNL or LAX-HNL. blah

 

[Hope777]

Just a side note, PrivatAir also operates the B737NG non-stop EWR-MUC in an all Business Class config. Both the A319LR and the B737NG seat 48 passengers.

 

[USA320Pilot]

PineyBob:

PineyBob asked: "Do they still do the carriage rides through the Lagoons on the property? I won a President's Club trip when I worked for Xerox and we stayed at teh facility. It was the Westin Kauai back then."

USA320Pilot comments: We did not see any so I really do not know. What we did do that was really cool was the Dolphin swim with our kids. It was a lot of fun for our family.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[LGA / 037]

Bottom line is can HP/US make money in the market ? The only airline to make a profit out of the Hawaii market was UA and that was due to the cargo contract with Dole.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Bottom line is can HP/US make money in the market ?  The only airline to make a profit out of the Hawaii market was UA and that was due to the cargo contract with Dole.

[post="273798"][/post]​

"Making money" on the Hawaiian markets is a factor that's hard to pin down. I think HNL and the othe islands is a loss leader most of the time for all the airlines. Having HNL service on the system might be one factor that makes the USAirways FF plans more attractive. Lack of HNL service has historically been a complaint of many US FF members.

So the question is: How many more new business flyers will come on board the US FF system when they know they can take family vacations to Hawaii? How many have over the years avoided US in favor of DL/AA/UA/NW just for that reason? Will getting these folks to try the US product, and maybe stick around, be worth a loss on the HNL runs?

Years ago I worked as a warehouseman for the A&P. (I actually have a long family legacy with the A&P.) Somewhere in that period someone pointed out that most of the paper products that the store sold were sold at a loss. But A&P could not just stop selling these things because shoppers EXPECTED to have them available when they went shopping for the profitable products. If shoppers couldn't get their toilet paper and napkins at A&P, they'd simply skip that stop and go elsewhere.

HNL service is a similar situation in light of the popularity of business travelers' attraction to FF clubs.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Bottom line is can HP/US make money in the market ? The only airline to make a profit out of the Hawaii market was UA and that was due to the cargo contract with Dole.

[post="273798"][/post]​

Oddly enough, 4 of the 5 markets with the largest average fare increases last year were in Hawaii - Honolulu, Kona, Lihue (Kauai), and Kahului (Maui). It generally didn't matter if you looked at year over year or compared to 1995 (the benchmark year used by BTS in the Air Travel Price Index).

Jim