United1 wrote:

GoSharks wrote:

caflyboy wrote:

I know given slots at SNA are at a premium.

What slots? There are only 3 airports in the US that are slot restricted and SNA is not one of them.

SNA limits the number of flights (and I think passengers) that airlines can fly thought the airport each day/year. While you are correct there are only 3 airports in the US that are slot restricted by the FAA there are several other airports that limit traffic (LGB and SNA being prime examples.)

Umm...you forgot LGA and DCA. Also, you said three airports are slot-restricted yet you only cited two, LGB and SNA.

SNA and LGB are slot restricted by the local airport athourity for noise issues.

LGA, JFK, and DCA are slot restricted by the FAA due to capacity issues.

Web500sjc wrote:

SNA and LGB are slot restricted by the local airport athourity for noise issues.

LGA, JFK, and DCA are slot restricted by the FAA due to capacity issues.

I don't know too much about LGB, but are you sure SNA is slot-restricted just because of noise abatement? I'm not too sure about that.

wedgetail737 wrote:

United1 wrote:

GoSharks wrote:

What slots? There are only 3 airports in the US that are slot restricted and SNA is not one of them.

SNA limits the number of flights (and I think passengers) that airlines can fly thought the airport each day/year. While you are correct there are only 3 airports in the US that are slot restricted by the FAA there are several other airports that limit traffic (LGB and SNA being prime examples.)

Umm...you forgot LGA and DCA. Also, you said three airports are slot-restricted yet you only cited two, LGB and SNA.

No I said there are several other US airports that while they are not slot restricted limit traffic (LGB and SNA have no slots.)

JFK, DCA and LGA are the only airports requiring slots in the US.

seabosdca wrote:

So many people here are not thinking about ETOPS. UA is the only US airline that currently has equipment that could fly SNA-Hawaii (that is, ETOPS 73Gs). And they have bigger fish to fry.

We covered this earlier in the thread.

wedgetail737 wrote:

77H wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

Apparently, the bottom line is that SNA-Hawaii is NOT profitable. AQ went bankrupt and liquidated...that doesn't count. CO/UA tried it...and apparently it was not profitable...so they pulled it. It seems pretty obvious that special ETOPS 737-700's is not worth the effort.

AQ going Ch7 had nothing to do with the HI-SNA routes or any other HI-Mainland route. Long story short, AQ was in the midst of an inter-island fare war with HA and YX. The HI-Mainland routes for AQ were profitable, their inter-island network, not so at the end. It could be argued that AS picked up where AQ left off and AS has been wildly successful.

Again, if SNA were to offer incentives and additional "slots" I am sure UA or another airline would be interested in operating the flights again. I wonder if 73G's equipped with slimline seats and split-scimitar winglets would perform better out of SNA. The slimline seats reduce weight and the scimitar winglets improve fuel efficiency. Better fuel efficiency=less FOB=less weight.

77H

You obviously didn't read my post in detail. I DID mention that AQ's departure from SNA-HI didn't count.

Slim-line seats and scimitar winglets could help. But if it requires financial incentives to fly SNA-HI, then doesn't seem pretty obvious that the route is not profitable or has very poor yields?.

I read your post. The reason I brought up AQ is that from what I've read and people I've talked to AQ's mainland operation was profitable, including SNA. At the height of their mainland operations they flew HNL/KOA/OGG-SNA. If it wasn't profitable, they wouldn't have invested so much in SNA. My ultimate point is, if AQ could operate it at a profit, it can be done again under the right circumstances.

I think a major issue not touched upon is that AQ flew HI-SNA prior to the recession in '08-'09. CO/UA operated the flights after the recession was in full swing. If I remember correctly, OC was hit particularly hard by the recession. The economy and market dynamics were different both times. As the economy continues to rebound perhaps someone will pick up the route in due time.

77H

77H wrote:

If I remember correctly, OC was hit particularly hard by the recession. The economy and market dynamics were different both times. As the economy continues to rebound perhaps someone will pick up the route in due time.
77H

You got your California regions mixed up.

While the recession certainly effected Orange County, it did so no nowhere near the severe effects it had in the Inland Empire (Riverside County + San Bernardino Counties).

OC with economy focused on knowledge, technology, innovation, and trade, recovered far faster than Inland Empire which depended on more blue color industries and manufacturing and was also the epicenter to the states housing crash. 7-year later, IE has yet to recover to its pre-recessionary activity.

wedgetail737 wrote:

Web500sjc wrote:

SNA and LGB are slot restricted by the local airport athourity for noise issues.

LGA, JFK, and DCA are slot restricted by the FAA due to capacity issues.

I don't know too much about LGB, but are you sure SNA is slot-restricted just because of noise abatement? I'm not too sure about that.

Yes SNA has a set amount of commercial slots that can be appropriated, and in addition- a set amount of seats that can be allocated. See viewtopic.php?t=1344691


LGB also has commercial airline slots, the amount is predicated on the average amount of noise aircraft have created in the past- so in 2015 the amount of slots saw an increase, and WN was able to grab enough to start service to LGB, you can also search rent threads discussing the return of LGB slots by AA, and the allocation of those slots to WN.

With the exception of those 5 airports, I am not aware of any slot constrained airports in the USA

SNA-HNL is a leisure market with low yields. Tying up an aircraft for many hours for one flight is not profitable. There is more than enough Hawaii service from the west coast.

77H wrote:

I think a major issue not touched upon is that AQ flew HI-SNA prior to the recession in '08-'09. CO/UA operated the flights after the recession was in full swing.
77H

CO/UA also operated this flight as an evening departure w/ redeye return which for O&D to Hawaii is not as appealing as a AM departure and PM return like HA does (and AQ did) from all of its West Coast cities.

azjubilee wrote:

I wouldn't be shocked if HA has SNA on the list of potential 321neo routes. As for ONT, it was flown in the past but with widebody equipment. Flying a 321neo to ONT could potentially help add capacity to the LAX market, without committing to LAX and its congestion.

This won't happen at SNA. The 321, even in NEO guise, is a runway hog. The 319 does a decent job in/out of SNA. The 320 struggles. Do you see any 321s currently going there on anything other than short-haul? They all have the same wing, but with longer/heavier fuselages the 320 & 321 aren't suited for SNA. The same is true for the 738 vs. 73G. Simply put, if HA tried flying the 321 to SNA, it would have 50% of the seats blocked, and no baggage. Not a recipe for profits.

HAL

CanesFan wrote:

The Bombardier CSeries might be an option for this.

Only if DL goes for ETOPS. Before Sana Ana tailwinds, they could takeoff at MTOW or very close to it.

But just as there are few 737-700 ETOPS planes out there, the CS100... Could be more rare.


To others:. I haven't seen the -7 runway curves, but it should be a rocket!

Lightsaber

Outside of LAX, no airport in Southern California, other than San Diego, has been able to sustain nonstop service to Hawaii.

SNA, though it has more flights to US3 hubs and some unique nonstop destinations on AS and WN, still lives in the shadow of LAX, just like LGB, BUR, and ONT.

upwardfacing wrote:

Outside of LAX, no airport in Southern California, other than San Diego, has been able to sustain nonstop service to Hawaii.

SNA, though it has more flights to US3 hubs and some unique nonstop destinations on AS and WN, still lives in the shadow of LAX, just like LGB, BUR, and ONT.

it's really shocking how these airports have zero overseas flights and very few transcons, quite the contrast with SJC and OAK,

One factor that benefited Aloha on the Hawaii - SNA routes had to do with fares. Most times (even when CO/UA flew the route), a Hawaii-LAX fare was always cheaper than a Hawaii-SNA run. I remember comparing prices once, and noted that Aloha's fares were at least $100 or so more than a comparable HNL-LAX run.

The thing with the route, which Aloha saw, was that it was a niche market that definitely could see profit when done right. What Hawaii-SNA became was, as described to me once, as a "boutique" run in which people were willing to pay the differential in order to fly out of someplace closer to their home.

With United, their challenge in running a SNA-HNL run is not to cannibalize one or more of their LAX-Hawaii runs. This is probably more an issue now with the battle for market share happening at LAX, in which UA is having to bulk up their operations to combat both AA and DL's plans to increase market share from LAX. This business situation does not lend an airline like UA to try out and develop boutique runs like Hawaii-SNA.

As for HA, they are milking profit as much as they can from the milkrun LAX-HNL and SAN-HNL runs. When AQ went out of business, I am sure that they took a look at the SNA-Hawaii runs and realized that profit was easier if they went to OAK, which they started soon after AQ and TZ went out of business. Again, HA probably is not in the mood, currently, to start boutique routes where profit is thin for the amount of work it takes to run that route (staff, equipment, marketing).

So, with all this, the only way I can see right now a SNA-Hawaii run being established is where a mindset change occurs where an airline sees profit in running boutique routes. Either that or a new piece of equipment comes into the market that provides that margin of profit and lower CASM's than the 73G.

KanaHawaii wrote:

As for HA, they are milking profit as much as they can from the milkrun LAX-HNL and SAN-HNL runs. When AQ went out of business, I am sure that they took a look at the SNA-Hawaii runs and realized that profit was easier if they went to OAK, which they started soon after AQ and TZ went out of business. Again, HA probably is not in the mood, currently, to start boutique routes where profit is thin for the amount of work it takes to run that route (staff, equipment, marketing).

HA really didn't expand their presence at OAK until AS showed that flying OAK-HI continued to be successful. Although, I have noticed that AS has shaved some of their frequencies back on the OAK-HI service. HA only flies to KOA (and LIH, I think) during the summers when all the schools are out.

wedgetail737 wrote:

KanaHawaii wrote:

As for HA, they are milking profit as much as they can from the milkrun LAX-HNL and SAN-HNL runs. When AQ went out of business, I am sure that they took a look at the SNA-Hawaii runs and realized that profit was easier if they went to OAK, which they started soon after AQ and TZ went out of business. Again, HA probably is not in the mood, currently, to start boutique routes where profit is thin for the amount of work it takes to run that route (staff, equipment, marketing).

HA really didn't expand their presence at OAK until AS showed that flying OAK-HI continued to be successful. Although, I have noticed that AS has shaved some of their frequencies back on the OAK-HI service. HA only flies to KOA (and LIH, I think) during the summers when all the schools are out.

I don't expect it but it's certainly possible AS bails on the OAK-HI flights to focus on SFO. They may not have the space there though. If it were an easy decision for them they probably would have already made the switch.

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

upwardfacing wrote:

Outside of LAX, no airport in Southern California, other than San Diego, has been able to sustain nonstop service to Hawaii.

SNA, though it has more flights to US3 hubs and some unique nonstop destinations on AS and WN, still lives in the shadow of LAX, just like LGB, BUR, and ONT.

it's really shocking how these airports have zero overseas flights and very few transcons, quite the contrast with SJC and OAK,

Part of the reason is runway length. SJC and OAK have long runways. SNA and BUR do not. Neither could handle an overseas flight, even if someone wanted to start it.

HAL wrote:

azjubilee wrote:

I wouldn't be shocked if HA has SNA on the list of potential 321neo routes. As for ONT, it was flown in the past but with widebody equipment. Flying a 321neo to ONT could potentially help add capacity to the LAX market, without committing to LAX and its congestion.

This won't happen at SNA. The 321, even in NEO guise, is a runway hog. The 319 does a decent job in/out of SNA. The 320 struggles. Do you see any 321s currently going there on anything other than short-haul? They all have the same wing, but with longer/heavier fuselages the 320 & 321 aren't suited for SNA. The same is true for the 738 vs. 73G. Simply put, if HA tried flying the 321 to SNA, it would have 50% of the seats blocked, and no baggage. Not a recipe for profits.

HAL

Good points, so I guess we'll see what happens. SNA was also on the list of potential 321neo destinations published by HAL, so it's at least on their mind. It will be interesting to see how limited, if at all, the NEO is out of LIH and OGG.

ucdtim17 wrote:

it's certainly possible AS bails on the OAK-HI flights to focus on SFO.

Nope.

The whole reason for offering service out of OAK is that there are lots of people in the Bay Area that want to go to Hawaii, but don't want to go to SFO. Building up the SFO hub won't change that strategy.

EA CO AS wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

it's certainly possible AS bails on the OAK-HI flights to focus on SFO.

Nope.

The whole reason for offering service out of OAK is that there are lots of people in the Bay Area that want to go to Hawaii, but don't want to go to SFO. Building up the SFO hub won't change that strategy.

And I am one of those people. But Alaska is clearly building up SFO and SJC, not OAK unfortunately. OAK is the most conspicuous donut hole on recent AS expansion in California - by far the largest airport with no new service. In addition to not adding new service they insist on keeping subpar Q400 service to PDX. #MostWestCoast *except at the 4th largest airport in the state, the airport most convenient to the largest population in the Bay Area.

caflyboy wrote:

So was runway length a factor for AQ or CO when they flew it? I am not aware if it was or wasn't. And I get the small airport since mine is MRY and we will never see NS to HI. But OC, although small in size, sits in a HUGE geographic area with a lot of O/D. It seemed to work in the past, but why not now?

Aloha flew 126 seat layout, CO was similar.
AS has 124 seats.
UA has 118 seats, but not much SNA feed.
WN would have 143 seats & take a payload hit on a -700 due to T-O requirements out of SNA.

missmuttley70 wrote:

Do all other US carrier flown to Hawaii?

Except for JetBlue, Southwest, Spirit, Frontier (and now Allegiant is or has recently withdrawn from the market), yes. Alaska/Virgin America, American, Delta, Hawaiian, and United all serve Hawaii

I think much of SNA's appeal/success is its convenience to business travelers. Time sensitive folks that can and will pay a premium so that they can attend the sales meeting in Chicago or be at the convention in Vegas. Hawaii is no doubt more of the VFR and leisure travelers - people much more willing to drive to LAX so that they have a few hundred more dollars to spend on vacation, or simply a better timed flight on their airline of choice. Even the Real Housewives of Orange County used LAX for their trip to Bali...

I always thought there was no non-stop because the airlines preferred to make a stop at AVX.