Why Don't European Carriers Fly To Hawaii?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 чер 2024
- On the surface, it’s a little strange isn’t it? One of the world's most well-connected international air travel markets, Europe, and one of the world's most premium leisure destinations, the US state of Hawaii, lack direct air connectivity. Nonetheless, according to published statistics from the Hawaii Tourism Authority, hundreds of thousands of European travelers visit the islands yearly, flocking to its sunny beaches and pleasant weather.
While these two destinations sit thousands of nautical miles apart, in-service commercial aircraft have the appropriate range to connect the island chain and the continent nonstop. Despite these capabilities, no European airlines currently fly from their hubs to Honolulu's Daniel K Inouye International Airport or any other facility on the islands.
For today’s video, let’s examine all the reasons why this is the case!
Article: simpleflying.com/european-car...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyingnews
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflyingnews
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com - Розваги
simple summary: it's too far away and costs a lot 😂
Thanks 😂
Pretty Much 😂😂😂😂
He, you! Yes, you!
Stop telling the obvious!
😊
And the fact most Europeans, if they want a warm weather vacation, can fly to various destinations in southern Europe and even parts of Turkey for really cheap. That's why there's so many hotels in southern Europe owned by inclusive tour companies like the TUI Group.
I do think we may see direct Europe to Hawaii flights by Hawaiian Airlines for more specialized, niche vacations for well-heeled travelers.
@@Sacto1654does the 787 have enough range to reach Europe cause I know the a330s they have can’t reach Europe.
Not unusual for Hawaii, up until a few years ago there were no nonstop flights from New York to Hawaii
There still.non stop flights to New York
@@ashho313 sorry for your reading comprehension difficulties; I said there are, but only within the last several years
I flew from Vegas to Newark to fly the Continental DC-10; nonstop from Newark to Honolulu. I know EWR - HNL had nonstop service in 2002 and 2003.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 yes but it didn't last.
@@kevinbarry71 Actually New York to Hawaii has had nonstop service on a seasonal basis with United since early 2000s, I don't think it's valid to say that it was 'up until a few years ago' as they've been going on for decades. Hawaiian Airlines has also flown it year-round since 2012.
For many Europeans, The alternative of Hawaii is the Canary Islands and the Balearic Islands of Spain or the Greek Islands and Cyprus.
All of which coincidentally are better than Hawaii.
@@captainzepposyou won’t get to experience Polynesian culture, unique ww2 history, and a little Asian culture also
@SurvivorQT French Polynesia is here for that. Also European islands are way more cheaper to fly in.
@@captainzeppos Surely you're kidding.
Or Cape Verde
I think a leisure-focused airline like Condor could attempt a FRA-HNL route sometime in the near future
Not with their current A330-900neo fleet. Might happen if Condor could get the A350-900 and markets it as a niche vacation for well-heeled travelers flying from Frankfurt.
@@Sacto1654it would be just under 14 hours from Frankfurt. The -900 should be able to do this.
@@Sacto1654Frankfurt - Honolulu is 12 000 km, no problem for the A330-900 Neo.
I think with some weight restrictions, the A330neo is perfectly fine of flying directly from FRA. Similar to the test Qantas 787-9 direct flight from LHR to SYD. However, even the super fuel efficiency, I’m not sure if flying leisure passengers will make up for all of the costs. But as a charter flight is perfectly okay.
@@nikolaynikolov8047 I agree the only reason why there are no flights to Hawaii is the lack of passengers, there were charter flights to Hawaii crusises in the past, Lufthansa did one non-stop flight from Munich to Honolulu over 10 years ago, but that doesn’t seem to be a viable market, and then there are no flights.
I live in Hawaii and travel to Europe (London or Paris ) at least once a year. I can usually leave Honolulu at 7:00 AM on United and then get a late afternoon flight to London from San Francisco or LA also on United. Paris is a little more challenging, so leave HNL the night before, arrive in SFO early morning and then wait for the flight to Paris at about 2 pm.
Coming back to Hawaii has wait times in SFO of maybe two hours after non stops from either CDG or LHR.
The international flight are configured so much more comfortable than flights from Hawaii to the west coast.
Because it's a gazillion hour flight. Most people in Europe are flying economy as well. How many people want to sit in economy for 12 hrs to California and then another 5 hrs to Hawaii when they can get the same(or better) beaches on a 2-4 hr flight to Spain/Italy/Greece?
Also Morocco, Croatia, Turkey, Tunisia, Egypt!
Won’t get that Polynesian culture, ww2 history, and Asian culture in one place
plus way cheaper xD
I live on a nice european beach in Croatia and can tell you that nothing can match the beauty of Hawaian islands.
Ive been to the mediterranean a few times and i still think hawaii is alot better.
Europeans usually take a few days before flying to Hawaii, so they can stay a few days in Los Angeles and Las Vegas for example.
French companies fly from Paris to Papeete, Tahiti via Los Angeles or San Francisco. During the pandemic, Air Tahiti Nui had to operate some direct flights from Paris to Papeete because they couldn't transit anywhere.
I suspect severals reasons notabley less passenger demand because of travel restrictions on non essential travel, fewer aircraft flying resultng in less congested airspace and favourable weather conditions
@@leeklass3907 yeah at least, the 789or the 359 are smaller to fill than 777.
@@leeklass3907 i think that the 321 will become a standard of efficiency
Have to remember the French companies are incentivized to fly there because they’re a French overseas department similar to a full US state. US airlines go to most US territories other than the far pacific which has less economic Sense because their tourism markets are less developed, while the French Polynesia is very developed in terms of tourism.
Gov't logic at work.
Europeans have a lot of closer and cheaper warm weather destinations. Those Europeans who do go to Hawaii are usually combining it with visiting California or another North American destination.
The obvious workaround is the carrier partnerships like Star Alliance and Oneworld. Partnerships economically discourage non-stop Europe-Hawaii routes. However, it may not be a win-win for the passenger.
It kinda sucks for the people of Hawaii and Europe since they can’t go nonstop to Europe/Hawaii
They can, Over the northpole to Helsinki
@@anttikuusela9581In a private jet???
@@johnp139 No but Finnair has A350
@@anttikuusela9581 But Finnair doesn't fly to Hawaii. So no, you can't fly from Hawaii to Helsinki. Only in your dreams...
@@wayneyung2718 No they dont, but they Could.
The distanse to Helsinki Vantaa airport to Honolulu airport is 6800 Miles over the northpole. The range of A350-900 is 9200miles..
Most EU-HNL flights would also fly over the north pole, which has increased radiation compared to other non polar flights.
Crew are typically limited to the amount of polar flights they can operate in a given time period, so such flights would also create problems with crewing the flights for a long term basis.
Not really. A flight is a flight. A route is a route. If a market exists which can fill seats there is no reason to not make it.
@@yungrichnbroke5199actually, radiation exposure when flying closer to the poles is notably higher - look it up.
Emirates, Qatar deals with that for most of their flights to the US west coast but they have the crew to handle all their flights
@@JeanClaudeCOCO They don't really care about the wellbeing of their employees.
they don't have to; the 787 can make the direct flight without going over the pole, as they explained in the video.
However, there would be very few business travelers for that journey, and leisure travelers don't want to spend what a direct flight would cost (plus, the average European has a lower salary).
It’s also why Qantas handed off flights to Honolulu to its low cost offshoot, Jetstar. Qantas do maintain a limited Sydney to Honolulu service, but that only exists for frequent flyers to burn points.
My Columbus, OH based relative was telling me that his trip to Hawaii from his home will take 13 hours which includes changing flight at Phoenix, it took 15 hours of non stop flight for me to EWR from my country while my relative travel for similar amount of time within USA itself.
could of went cmh-jfk jfk-hnl.. i feel like that would of been shorter
@@jorey_banks2why fly east when just go CMH-LAX-HON or CMH- ORD- HON or CMH-DFW-HON.
Yes a 3 hour layover in PHX will make the trip 13 hours.
Super informative 😊
Simple Answer: There are no enough demands for BUSINESS CLASS traveller which makes up most of the profit for an airline.
If you ever get a chance to go, make it happen. Hawaii is just so beautiful. I flew HA from BOS-HNL and it was a nice flight.
Thank you.
Once we watch your post, it confirms what we think, but you have a great way of explaining it on a global platform.
Thanks
Lufthansa 2572 did this with an A340-600 as a charter flight from Munich to Honolulu that carried cruise passengers for a line named "MS Germany". It was 14:43 hours long at 6,991 nautical miles.
Mainline carriers are seeing a huge increase in leisure travelers and a decline in business travel due to remote working (hence BA closing their San José route), it would be interesting to see how a direct flight would fare from a European hub with high connectivity as I feel like it could work.
Very clear explanation.
I prefer to have a stopover on flights >8h anyways. I like to stretch out my feet and walk a bit after being in a plane for so long.
Plus the enormous jet lag would be a killer!
I’ll watch another movie and skip the extra unnecessary layover, myself.
Edelweiss Air might become the first european airline to fly there once the new A350 are delivered 🤫 😊
Very interesting.
I would say, ALL Europeans visiting the Hawaii archipelago combine that visit with a stop in the US/Canada. A week California, then a week Hawaii, then a few days New York before heading back to Europe. A once in a lifetime trip!
A once in a lifetime trip indeed, because a lot of people can't affort this trip for a second time!
@@arienoordzij3823 Exactly this, very well said.
Genuinely a solid and interesting video. I would prefer a stopover anyway.
If any airline would do it, it would likely be Finnair. They've got a bunch of extended range A350s and a large domestic market who enjoys spending winters somewhere outside the Arctic. Also, HEL is one of the closest major European airports from Honolulu.
That was a speculation-wish I saw off a forum, it would be nice! Considering that FIN unfortunately have gotten a bad hit off having to avoid Russian airspace.
@@wotajaredHaha I’m not the only one remembering this speculation/wish from the forum. Would indeed be cool, but seems like Finnair is quite satisfied with how their network is now arranged and the possibility of such a route seems less and less likely. Still, would be cool and could make use of the short connections HEL offers.
It's completely doable. HNL-HEL would be comparable to flights like HND/NRT/ICN/NGO/KIX-HEL which Finnair is already operating (most of these even daily). Flight time would also be most likely under 12 hours.
The problem is there is not enough demand for business class for the route to be profitable
@@busofmauritius8306 neither is there to MIA, and they still operate a seasonal route there.
It's also an easy connection in the US, because if you have a visa or visa waiver to go to Hawaii, you're all clear elsewhere in the US. Contrast that with South America to EU, where a US visa is required even just for a transfer, and you can see why there are direct flights to South America from the EU, even for the furthest countries.
As a person in Hawaii, this sucks. I ain’t flying 14 hours to NYC or Boston, then another 6-8 hour flight to Europe
YEAH....... losing those few hours by having too stop is a real turn off. Soooo many people have changes their plans or cancelled because of THAT reason hahahahaha. You really think people who wants to fly between Hawaii & Europe are not going to go because there r no direct flights????? hahaha u fool
@@charlesjay8818 My guy. If they’re able to fly from Singapore to New York, which is like 19 hours, then I’m pretty sure they can figure out flights between Europe and Hawaii
@@charlesjay8818 Also you’re the fool. Ever heard of long haul flights? Oh right you don’t
@@JakobIsaiahLadiero They are. But they have no interest in them. Singapore and New York are both major economic and connectivity hubs. Plus Singapore has its own major international airline.
The point is not that it's not technologically feasible but that it's economically not feasible.
@@ohauss So why you calling me a FOOL?
Ultra long flights also require relief crews which is also expensive.
I wish they did, because its certainly a flight id be interested in taking!
Nope. You lay out the logistics and ballistics quite well.
Back in 2015, there was speculation that Edelweiss (Switzerland) might add a route from Zürich to Hawai'i. That would have been nice, as part of our family lives on the islands, and we live in Zürich. Overall, flying to Hawai'i to see family there is extremely expensive as it is. Often times, the cost to fly to Hawai'i per passenger from the U.S. West Coast is 25-50% more expensive than the flight from Switzerland to the U.S. West Coast!
How are you verified?? Oh right, you’ve hacked the system smh
An other reason is that euro carriers would most likely make it a one stop route combining a Europe to NHL route with a Europe to continental US one (like AF does on its Paris to Tahiti route via LAX). Just to make it economicaly viable.
But that would make the, say LAX-NHL leg, a US domestic flight (even if no passenger are allowed to board the plane at LAX) that non US carrier are not allowed to operate under US policies!
While on the other hand each leg of a Paris-LAX-Tahiti is an international flight by itself even though the whole flight is a FR domestic one.
Weird isn't it 🤔
As far as I can remember there was a very very short-lived service (sometimes in the 80ies) from my home-airport Düsseldorf (DUS) via Anchorage to HNL by the sadly long gone LTU International Airways, operated by their fantastic L1011-500 TriStar! The demand was (and is) just not there to make it viable!
Because we have Azores and Canary Islands ;D
The reason why you don't see a direct Cathay service from HKG to TFS, even tho there is a large Sindhi diaspora in both cities that can service the two places, it doesnt make sense as the average Chinese or Canarian has probably never heard of either Tenerife or HK.
@@thehypetraveler8114 Was only a joke :). However, I don't know people from HK, but here in Europe everybody knows Hawaii or HK, other thing it's people want to go there hehe.
Yeah i know you were joking, but i as an european don't see any appeal in hawaii, i mean not just those you mentioned, we have crete, sicily, cyprus, baleari, sardinia, aegean and adriatic islands, every single one of those seems more appealing than hawaii, and if you go to pacific, there's thousands of islands, all of them cheaper than hawaii and with non american culture, or their indigenous culture if you will, like hawaii are the dead last when i think touristic travel, on paar with dubai perhaps, just nothing to see, that would enrich you that is.
@@dannyboy-vtc5741 I’d rather go to Hawaii than anything that’s considered a “beach” in Europe.
@@dannyboy-vtc5741 Obviously you've never been to Hawaii.
It's not so much the lack of business travellers as that it is also the case for many long-haul vacation destinations you can reach non-stop from Europe. Phuket/Thailand, the Maldives, Mauritius or the Carribean islands are all within the 10-12 hour flight time bracket. So Hawaii would also compete on many more items than just flight hours with those established destinations. One could be the costs of accomodation, rental cars, dining etc. in Hawaii - compared for example to Thailand. The Maldives are not exactly cheap but score high on being exclusive and remote. And so on.
France has plenty of similar territorial islands, thus no passport/visa required. Same with Netherlands, they have Caribbean and South American territories. Also yes, economics.
I feel like just Hawaiian on their A330-200s or 787-9s (as they get more) could work tbh. I used simbrief to calculate the route and it shows around 13:41 using an A330-200 and 13:14 on a 787-9. So maybe Hawaiian could try it out in the future.
I would also like to add the fact that crews might be away for a week or more: This was the ultimate reason why Austrian Airlines gave up flying from Vienna via Singapore/Kuala Lumpur to Sydney and Melbourne.
Can you guys do a video on the passanger aircrafts that habe become unicorns. Like the A310
Great video. Simply put airlines arent going operate a route on a loss. Now maybe some the smaller carriers if they had the range with their equipment would operate it as seasonal route
not only that but for some reason apps don’t even offer you connecting flight from europe to hawaii. at least not from my country Croatia. had to buy separate tickets to LA and then from LA to Honolulu
London Hawaii as an example, ETOPS may have been a problem in the past. But I think these days it is doable on a twin engine aircraft with Iceland, Resolute Bay , Inuvik, Whitehorse/Anchorage as alternates.
I an curious if there are cargo exports from Europe to Hawaii. And curious if the EU or Engue Land would welcome fruits/veggies/coffee from Hawaii. If there is no cargo revenue potential, then it makes those non stop flight far less attractive to an airline.
Flew to Hawaii in 1979 from LHR via LAX ( Pan Am 747 Clipper Constitution) then onto Hawaii on another PA 747 (can't remember the name) I remember being shocked at the flying time to Hawaii it was about 6 hours, I thought it was only going to be about 3 hours.
Thank headwinds.
From Maui to Phoenix, it is just 4 and a half hours. It depends on winds.
I was thinking about my next HI holiday a few months ago, and with me being in the EU i'm in the exact group of travelers that are discussed in this video.
I would love a nonstop flight, mainly due to the lack of customs formalities and all the formalities you have to go thru the second you set foot on US soil, and then having to recheck the bags and all that is just nonsense.
Besides, it makes the travel time longer, and travel time wasted on a holiday trip means less time to relax and enjoy yourself.
I remember the last time i flew back from HI, i had a ELEVEN hour stopover in Atlanta to get back to Europe.
That was just insane, about 20 h of flight time plus the 11h stopover in Atlanta and then another stopover in Europe.
That was the longest trip i ever took, and i'm not looking forward to repeating it, so if i can get a nonstop trip, i'll gladly take it.
But i fear it's unrealistic, just like the video concluded.
Still have US customs when you got to HI
@@LukeSimmondsTravel Yes, sure, but your trip is done then, no rechecking for second leg and potential flight schedule issues where you might be tight on time to reach the next flight.
I think part of the problem is leisure travellers love to say they are willing to pay higher ticket price for a nonstop service, but the data shows that most people will tolerate a connecting flight and a delay for even a slightly cheaper fare.
That’s great to stop every 2k nm. However, what’s the cost of doing an extra landing/takeoff cycle, with the added cycling, and maint?
Still cheaper to stop.
I’m surprised though that at least one airline doesn’t do it during the summer season. Usually British Airways or Lufthansa love snapping up routes nobody else is operating. Like London to San Diego for example.
~ 5:40 - that's just 10% difference. I would gladly pay a 10% premium to avoid a stopover. Refueling stop with the _same_ aircraft would be more palatable. As for cabin layout, it would probably be wise to equip those planes with a small business cabin cabin and larger than usual premium economy for those who splurge on their once-in-a-lifetime dream vacation.
this right here, would be a great place for a Mach 3+ SST - LHR to HNL in say, 5-6 hours. Fly over water and ice for 90% of flight
Condor should do this.
There has been talk about Hawaiian airlines going to Europe with their 787s. QANTAS are starting non stop to London from Australia so its not far off.
Hawaii's business climate is short sighted, expensive and does not encourage the kind of business activity that is more prevalent in the U.S. mainland. Bottom line is that Hawaii is mainly a leisure vacation market.
most of the profit made by European airlines is midweek corporate travel in high economy fare buckets. Carsten Spohr personally told me back in 2013.
Also most major airlines have joint ventures for TATL routes, like LH Group with United, so there is no need to flight direct to Hawaii when you can have a stopover at a UA hub, like EWR, SFO or IAH..
Not only do we not have non-stop service from Hawaii to Europe, we don't even have any DIRECT service between the two. I think Hawaiian Airlines might have done it (given their 2016 musings about flying the route), but now that it is hoping to merge with Alaska means that a non-stop route is not likely. However after the HA-AS latchup, maybe we can get one-stop DIRECT service via ANC?
Well MSP has a direct flight to Honolulu. Obviously also to cdg, ams, LHR, dub, and fra. So any European pax would just connect through rather than going all the way to the west coast.
With Hawaiian Airlines now having the 787-9 Dreamliner, it would be interesting to see if they try to operate a flight to Europe (like LHR or something) since that flight/routes are an untapped market.
All I know is, I could watch shots of a Swiss 777-300 over the Alps all day.
I wished our National carrier (Hawaiian) flew to Europe direct. I’d fly it. Having to stop and lay over is so tiring on us here in Hawai’i.
I’d love them to start non stop and I think people would be less sensitive to price as they appreciate how far they’re flying.
Um, no, you do NOT know more than the actuaries.
Perhaps in the future, it would become more economically viable for an airline to fly from europe to hawaii. Would be very cool to be in a flight that flies over both the atlantic and the pacific!
Personally, I don’t think we’ll ever see too many flights between europe and Hawaii. Also in logistic terms, Hawaii airports can be tricky to plan with, making a flight that long at high risk for potential diversions and/or cancelations. Recovery options for European airlines would be much harder as well. Then, there is also the crewing challenges. Al, of those can end up with a lot of money spent. Slots are also at a premium at both Maui and Honolulu. Seems to make more sense for European passengers going to Hawaii, to just connect through the US or Canada.
And what about flights between Paris and Papeete (Fiji) with one stop at L.A.? Are they still existing?
If yes, I don't think there are a lot of business class passengers either on that trip. So it costs a lot of money for the companies as well (Air France and Air Tahiti Nui) Or is it still a 'regional' route for them?
yes…. and I mainly know this since Alaska Airline’s codeshare agreements mean that you can book a LAX-CDG flight via their interline agreement with Air Tahiti Nui who has a interline with Air France
French Bee also operates ORY-YYR-PPT with their A350s
As it is French-Polynesia it is a route French airlines have to operate, and for competition, not only AF is allowed.
I believe that's a bit of a loss leader for Air France. Air Tahiti Nui makes more of their money from the non-stops from Los Angeles/Seattle and from Tokyo.
@@Sacto1654 Not so sure if it's a loss for AF, because Polynesia is French territory and there are a lot of islands, with mostly French people with relatives in Europe. I am not sure about this, but if I am correct French people pay a lot less because it's an internal flight.
Distance, flight frequency, cost effectiveness, lack of US customs resources & Europeans have all sorts of other island vacation choices.
Another thing is connecting in the US is more viable since you would only need to clear customs once. the US is unique in that it forces international transfers to clear customs as if the US is their final destination regardless. A LHR-MIA-GRU passenger would need to clear customs 2x. A LHR-JFK-HNL passenger would only need to clear 1x making the direct flight less of a benefit compared to the former.
HA could do it because there model is the leisure market. The have the B787 witch is very fuel efficient, and easily has the range. 6,200 NM's is not ultra long haul. London is the logical choice, but not LHR due to the cost of the slots. So they could operate HNL to LGW 4 or 5 days a week to start.
I don't think Hawaii travelers are price sensitive. Especially in regards to European tourists. Who specifically wants to Hawaii is probably wealthy enough and doesn't have to save a few dollars on the flight, especially if the comfort of a nonstop connection is being offered. On the other hand, I'd say that for the airlines there's probably not enough demand to gly more often than a few times a week which makes aircraft and crew allocation difficult as probably the same crew would have to flight both ways and in the meantime, while the crew needs to rest, the aircraft would just sit in Hawaii without making any money.
There are many premium leisure travellers, more than we can think of!
They would be able and willing to pay for Business, or even First Class, to reach their dream destination Hawaii the most comfortable way.
I think, a once, or twice a week nonstop-connection can make sense.
The only disadvantage for the airlines: they would have to pay for their operating crews a week's, or half a week's layover costs. And the hotels in Hawaii are the most expensive ones in the US.
So, operating costs, besides higher fuel costs, would be very high. Even though many European airlines would only need fewer own ground staff, due to alliances. Lufthansa, for example, could hand over almost the entire ground handling to United Airlines.
B.T.W.: Lufthansa did a nonstop flight FRA-HNL for PR reasons, using an A340, but it was half empty. At that time, the US did not allow Lufthansa to fly over mainland US to reach HNL.
Since the governor of the State of Hawaii has more political power and rights grthan any other governor, he granted the right to use Hawaiian airspace for that specific flight. And Lufthansa used Canadian airspace for that flight.
More fuel to carry... More fuel. That one line explains the problem perfectly
Lufthansa used to fly to hawaii if I remember correctly on the A340
Luftahansa flew direct MUC-HNL non-stop with a A340-600 as a charter flight for a cruise ship company in 2011
More likely restricted payload rather than maximum nuber of seats the aricraft are configured for
Be interesting to try aerial refueling with commercial airliners. It would allow planes to not have to lug excessive fuel loads to cruising altitude, thus maximize efficiency. The drawback however, is that there would have to be aerial tankers flying around constantly, and they would need to be accessible at almost all times: but hey, more jobs and opportunities to utilize older airplanes.
Aerial refueling is actually really dangerous. It looks easy in the UA-cam videos because the pilots are all highly skilled and well trained. On the ground airliners are refueled without passengers aboard if at all possible. If it can't be avoided, it's probably the only time the flight attendants will tell you to NOT put on your seatbelt, to gain you a few precious seconds in case something goes wrong and the plane has to evacuate.
@@NoewerrATall Fueling planes with passengers on board is common practice that complies with regulations around the globe. I've been on flights that were still fueling as passengers boarded.
It can be dangerous however if we're talking about Jet B or JP4 fuels which are more volatile than conventional aviation fuels. Those higher combustible fuels are used in military operation though.
Not the way you want to experience it, but LH sent a 747 direct from FRA to pick up 50 people stranded when Covid rules where imposed. Refueled there and back to FRA direct as the plane was not allowed to land anywhere else in the US but HNL on either leg.
Great question!
As an aging passenger, I don't want to be on a super long flight. I like the stop over
And direct flights to Vegas and Phoenix are business traveller based ? Doubt it
Could easily make the same argument about US to Maldives having a lack of direct flights
Not really. Not as much EU flights go directly to maldives as much as US to Hawaii though, despite being closer. And many americans go to hawaii especially cause no passport needed, same with guam mostly american tourists. Plus distance is significantly longer from US to maldives as well
Simple. We have beaches, islands and oceans near to mid range. Greek islands, Canaries, Capo Verde, Madeira and Acores, heck even Maldives, Mauritius, Seychelles and Zanzibar.
And what else could you do in Hawaii? History? Sure. But we have enough of that in Europe as well.
It's just not worth it.
I think it’s easier for the Europeans to fly to The Caribbean islands, beautiful islands in Indian Ocean like Maldives and S.E. Asia.
Of course it's easier but some people want to go to Hawaii
日本からはリゾート地ハワイは人気がありA380が飛んでいます。
Makes sense. It's sad that the first class and business class customers keep the airlines profitable. I find that a bit hard to believe. Been there; done that; but it never has made sense.
Hawaiian didn’t order all those new 787s just to fly to the Mainland and Asia. Now that they’re merging with Alaska, they will be going to Europe eventually……..that’s the local hot rumor. Hawaiian Airlines doesn’t cater or need the business passenger to make money. It’s all leisure travel coming here. Nonstop to EU and back would save hours in transit and connection time.
i thought airfrance has a route from paris to hawaii via lax i saw a video about it
Air France flies to Tahiti with a stop in Los Angeles.
Yes, this video is about non-stop flights
hawaiian airlines should be the ones to perform this feat!
One of reasons they purchased 787 Dreamliners.
It’s possible with the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner or the Airbus a350-900ULR can make it but it’s just the demanded that snit really there
Warum will man sich das antun, wir haben 1 x in Los Angeles übernachtet. War wesentlich entspannter 🤗😊🇦🇹
I wonder if, now that there's an increased demand for premium seats by leisure travelers, European carriers will start operating the route.
Condor may be able to make it work.
A stop at LAX is not bad
Flying into the headwinds all the way
but this reasoning dosen’t explain the european player that does do tourist oriented ultra long hauls: Condor, who does have some crazy seasonal flights like FRA-ANC and FRA-YZF
Because they don’t have choice for Northern scenes (I went to both ANC, 3 nothern territories in Canada and all northern Euro countries - I can tell they are very different). Versus Hawaii - for 6 hours they can fly to Maldives why bother go to Hawaii
They would have to carry too much fuel as mainland to Hawaii is one of the biggest etops gap in the world. Wouldn’t make economical sense to carry the extra fuel to comply with etops regs.
My home airport is a Delta hub. I used to be a loyal customer paying whatever Delta wanted for a nonstop. Now I prefer a cheaper flight with a connection. Get a sandwich and stretch my legs halfway through the trip and I feel better when I arrive.
It should be easier if Boom Supersonic gets off the ground (literally and metaphorically) as well as Exosonic. Boom Supersonic will go Mach 0.95 over land, and Mach 1.7 over water. So LHR-JFK at Mach 1.7, about 4 hours, then JFK-SFO about 4 hours, and SFO-HNL 2.5 hours.
Exosonic will be a bit faster as they will be able to go supersonic over land (they are commercializing the new tech from NASA to break the sound barrier with a barely audio sonic boom). So they can do the JFK-SFO in 2.5 hours or so. So 9 hours rather than 11. 🙂
Don't forget even farther into the future with Mach 5 airliners which will make the whole trip in six hours, or true spaceplanes, Mach 25, which could land in Hawaii about 30 minutes after taking off from Europe. 🙂 (or possibly point to point rockets such as Blue Origin and/or SpaceX). 🙂
I'm surprised Hawaiian does not fly to London, as they have many Asian & South Pacific routes.
For the same reason European carriers don't fly to New Zealand or locations that are at the other side of the globe. It's just very far away and thus too costly, there are very few European business travelers who care to go there and both tickets and accommodation would be extremely expensive. Someone mentioned that the distance between central Europe and Bali (or Argentina) is effectively similar between central Europe and Hawaii, yet there are non-stop flights that reach the former destinations. But these are much cheaper places and equally breathtaking, if not more. Why spend something like $10000 for a European family to go to Hawaii when with 1/10th of that money there are better places to visit in Europe (80% of all Mediterranean countries). You'd go to Hawaii only AFTER you've visited Greece, Turkey, Italy, Spain, southern France, Croatia, Albania, Malta, Cyprus, Portugal, Morocco, Egypt etc.
You don't get it. It doesn't matter how much money it takes to go from Germany or Norway to Hawaii. There are already hundreds of thousands of people doing it according to the video. That means whatever the euro amount is, it's already paid by thousands of tourists. So the cost for a traveller is not a problem. New Zealand is not a popular vacation destination on the other hand. Also it wouldn't be possible to directly connect long range planes with full capacity between NZ and London or Paris in an A350. Only if airlines decreased the number of passangers to 25 and installed additional fuel tanks then it's possible.
According to the video Hawaii actually is a popular destination so it would make sense to make a direct flight. It would make more sense for Lufthansa or Air France to take 100% of the ticket than to split the same amount with American Airlines or Delta. The argument given in the video that there are no business travelers on that route doesn't make sense. There are no business travelers between Dubai and Male in Maldives or Mahe in Seychelles, yet those long distance routes are served by direct connections from Emirates with business class seats and first class seats. Somehow it makes sense for Emirates to send planes to 100% tourist destinations. Some of those tickets cost more than 5,000 euros. Why can't Lufthansa do the same with Hawaii if there's strong demand? It doesn't make sense.
Also just because a lot of Europeans fly to Ibiza and Egypt for vacation doesn't mean there isn't demand for all sorts of different destinations like Vietnam or South Korea. If the market wants Hawaii there's no point in saying "no" to the market.
I think there may be a different reason why the connections are lacking. Maybe it's a shortage of planes. Airbus and Boeing have waiting lists that can last over 10 years, they can't keep up with production. Maybe some routes are more needed at the moment and airlines prioritise.
I could see Condor doing this, but it still seems unfeasible
Europeans can fly to Palma de Mallorca or the Aegean.
Flying two entire days and suffering jet lag atleast once on their vacation just to lay next to hundreds of wealthy europeans and US-Americans all day until it's time to go home is properly mad. I'm glad those people get ripped off by the locals.
Didn't BA have service to HNL in the 80's?
Don't think so. What plane did they use?
@@shrimpflea I would have thought a 47, but I guess I was wrong....However, I did some research and found this “In 1974 the 'world's favourite airline' actually did fly around the world, although it probably wasn't a hugely economic exercise to do so, even then,” he says. “Three times a week, the BA591 westabout VC10 set off from Heathrow via New York JFK, Los Angeles, Honolulu, Nadi and Sydney to Melbourne.".
Getting off the aircraft half way, stretching legs etc., isn't a bad thing anyway...