@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@flopunkt3665 Not *quite*. According to gcmap, HNL-NRT-CDG is just under 9900 miles (and this assumes you can fly over Russia), HNL-SFO-CDG is a bit under 8000. For maximum optimisation, you could go via Anchorage (HNL-ANC-CDG, about 7500 miles).
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.
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.
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.
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.
While some Hawaiians might find direct flights useful, most European tourists I’ve met in Hawaii are visiting other places in the US too and would therefore at most buy a direct flight from Europe and then continue their trip with a flight to the US mainland, or arrive in Hawaii from the US mainland and then buy the direct flight home. So you basically need 2 passengers per round trip seat.
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!
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.
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.
@@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..
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!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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 🤔
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!
If they want to do a trip to a beach island, there's corsica, Sardenya, canary islands (that one is quite a bit further) And it's about a 2 hr flight from say Germany And the canary islands also have an emphasis on nature (depending on the islands) Also it's way cheaper
Just imagine the pain of spending 16 hours in low-cost economy. Then again, they also do 7 hour flights with an A320, so they probably just don't care that you have to rearrange your entire body once you've arrived.
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.
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.
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?
1:32 No joke, I remember this exact flight attendant from one trip with Swiss 😂😂😂 out of tens of thousands of flight attendants and stewards around the world, and I find him in this video 😂
french bee even flies to Thaiti, even further, with only a stopover in SF for fueling etc. It's low cost on top, you can book without meals and luggage if you want. The trip takes 22 hours including the stop.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
~ 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.
6:11 "Fuel is an airline's largest cost by a large margin" is very misleading, it's only around 25% of the operational cost. If you combine this with the other data provided in the video you will find only a 3% difference in ticket price between a direct or stop-over flight due to the fuel costs..
I thought this video was talking about why European airlines don't offer service to Hawaii, not why they don't offer non-stop service to Hawaii. That kind of goes without saying, the minority of people that would willingly sit on a plane for that long is way too small to justify non-stop service. But I think European carriers would be very smart to start offering direct service with an intermediate stop along the way. This would make for a maximum flight time of no more than about 10-12 hours, regardless where they stopped, and they'd be tapping into a virtually brand new travel market. Plus, by adding an intermediate stop to moderate flight times and maximize fuel efficiency, they're also offering passengers two different destinations in the same flight. The possibilities here are endless and European carriers would be very wise to start exploring this kind of service.
If the intermediate stop is at another US airport, then European carriers would be unable, by US legislations, to continue to the desired destination. They would, instead, be forced to return to their original hubs. Any flight between any 2 US hubs is defined as domestic and, as such no non-US carrier can operate them.
@@richs8754 But if that's true, then how come certain asian airlines are able to provide service to JFK, ORD, IAD, etc with an intermediate stop in LAX or SFO?
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.
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.
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
The 787,777,A350 and probably a330 are modern and more fuel efficient than the past models. Airlines often buy those planes for long haul flights,but if it is not economical for them to do long haul or ultra long haul,whats the point in big planes when you can have smaller,with soon almost similar capabilities,like A321XLR/NEO?
Great video, thanks! It's fascinating to see the evolution of planes, soon no corner of the globe will be unreachable in one long flight. Which makes me wonder, what will the future of planes look like? Will we hit a ceiling for range just like we did for speed, and just keep a model current to the similar one? Or will we develop planes that could go around the world in one refuelling, and use that capacity to have flexibility somewhere else? Maybe we'll one day see A320 or even A220 sized planes with enough range to reach any point of the globe, and we'll see quirky routes happening, like Naples-Chiang Mai ? Who knows!
There is little reason to try to get European leisure travelers to Hawai'i any faster than they could already transferring even at ORD (or, as mentioned in the video, LAX or SFO). UA has even occasionally dropped their ORD-HNL service (which prior to the merger with CO bore flight number UA1) in favor of routing passengers via a western hub like LAX or SFO, because (as the video mentions) even domestic traffic is heavily tourism-based.
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
Hawaii is beautiful, but there are other beautiful places so much closer to Europe. Most Europeans prefer going to SEA to experience a tropical paradise.
@@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.".
I would argue that the value of a non-stop flight for the passenger goes down the longer the flight is too. As in it saves less time over a single connecting flight and people will probably be glad to get a chance to walk around a bit instead of paying extra to avoid having to switch planes.
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.
Listen, i live in Hawaii. I only want to fly on nonstop destinations around the world. I would love to go to Europe one day if they start having a flight that would go from here to the EU. I would pay whatever amount I have to so I would not have to worry about switching flights and maybe having to deal with delays from stop. Give me nonstop, all day!! Let's get a nonstop to the EU. Please let's get this done!!
It just doesn't make sense to operate a low yield flight if the airline does not have to. All the European carriers have code share partners through the three major alliances (Star, One World or Skyteam) besides the major US carriers offering their own connecting flights. How much demand can their be on a particular day to fly a flight on a single city pair? But if you can connect 40 each from LHR, CDG, FRA and AMS through a hub (say SFO) then you can fill a 737 to Hawaii and make a profit.
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 TH-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.
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.
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.
The 2000 nm optimum efficiency for jet travel explains the cheap SWA tickets from OAK, LAS, and PHX to HNL for honorable daughter (tm) attending university in Hawaii. Since I'm the one paying for those tickets, the physics thrills me. 🤣
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.
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
In my opinion it kinda doesn’t make any sense an average flight between Europe and the u,s East coast is 7-9 hours add on 10 more to the middle of the Pacific Ocean that’s 17-19 hour flights much easier to fly from Europe to Japan, Korea, Singapore and take Japan airlines, ANA, Asiana and more on a 4 hour flight from the east coast of Asia to Hawaii
I figured it would be cheaper for Europeans to fly to Teneriff or Bahamas for a Island getaway than going to Hawaii. Just the same for US citizens, it would be cheaper to fly to Hawaii or Bahamas rather than Teneriff or Malaysia or Philippines, or Thailand for an Island vacation.
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.
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.
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.
Well if you didn’t want to fly directly over the pole you’d have to fly on a similar route to the flights which have a connection so there’s limited fuel and time savings
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't it the same distance if you fly via Japan?
@@flopunkt3665 Not *quite*. According to gcmap, HNL-NRT-CDG is just under 9900 miles (and this assumes you can fly over Russia), HNL-SFO-CDG is a bit under 8000. For maximum optimisation, you could go via Anchorage (HNL-ANC-CDG, about 7500 miles).
@@tz8785 oh ok. I remember checking flights from Munich to Hawaii several years ago and they suggested having a layover in Japan.
@@tz8785Do you suppose that, if Alaska gets approval to buy Hawaiian, they might fly from Europe to Hawaii?
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.
Ultra long flights also require relief crews which is also expensive.
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.
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.
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.
While some Hawaiians might find direct flights useful, most European tourists I’ve met in Hawaii are visiting other places in the US too and would therefore at most buy a direct flight from Europe and then continue their trip with a flight to the US mainland, or arrive in Hawaii from the US mainland and then buy the direct flight home. So you basically need 2 passengers per round trip seat.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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..
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!
Simple Answer: There are no enough demands for BUSINESS CLASS traveller which makes up most of the profit for an airline.
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.
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).
I once saw a Balair A310 at HNL. If I recall it was late December 1994. Not sure however if it was a scheduled charter or just a rare visit.
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.
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
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 🤔
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.
If they want to do a trip to a beach island, there's corsica, Sardenya, canary islands (that one is quite a bit further)
And it's about a 2 hr flight from say Germany
And the canary islands also have an emphasis on nature (depending on the islands)
Also it's way cheaper
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.
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
Edelweiss Air might become the first european airline to fly there once the new A350 are delivered 🤫 😊
Just imagine the pain of spending 16 hours in low-cost economy. Then again, they also do 7 hour flights with an A320, so they probably just don't care that you have to rearrange your entire body once you've arrived.
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.
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.
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?
1:32 No joke, I remember this exact flight attendant from one trip with Swiss 😂😂😂 out of tens of thousands of flight attendants and stewards around the world, and I find him in this video 😂
french bee even flies to Thaiti, even further, with only a stopover in SF for fueling etc. It's low cost on top, you can book without meals and luggage if you want. The trip takes 22 hours including the stop.
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.
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.
Can you guys do a video on the passanger aircrafts that habe become unicorns. Like the A310
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.
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.
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.
I thought is was just about flying close to the Artic Circle. Navigation even in the GPS age can get a bit dicey there.
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.
~ 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.
Finally iam watching video on air travel / aviation after 1 or 2 months
6:11 "Fuel is an airline's largest cost by a large margin" is very misleading, it's only around 25% of the operational cost. If you combine this with the other data provided in the video you will find only a 3% difference in ticket price between a direct or stop-over flight due to the fuel costs..
I thought this video was talking about why European airlines don't offer service to Hawaii, not why they don't offer non-stop service to Hawaii. That kind of goes without saying, the minority of people that would willingly sit on a plane for that long is way too small to justify non-stop service. But I think European carriers would be very smart to start offering direct service with an intermediate stop along the way. This would make for a maximum flight time of no more than about 10-12 hours, regardless where they stopped, and they'd be tapping into a virtually brand new travel market. Plus, by adding an intermediate stop to moderate flight times and maximize fuel efficiency, they're also offering passengers two different destinations in the same flight. The possibilities here are endless and European carriers would be very wise to start exploring this kind of service.
If the intermediate stop is at another US airport, then European carriers would be unable, by US legislations, to continue to the desired destination. They would, instead, be forced to return to their original hubs. Any flight between any 2 US hubs is defined as domestic and, as such no non-US carrier can operate them.
@@richs8754 But if that's true, then how come certain asian airlines are able to provide service to JFK, ORD, IAD, etc with an intermediate stop in LAX or SFO?
More fuel to carry... More fuel. That one line explains the problem perfectly
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.
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.
All I know is, I could watch shots of a Swiss 777-300 over the Alps all day.
Omg that klms 787 in start is so dashing and beautiful
They tried that years ago. There was a direct flight to Frankfurt from Honolulu......it failed miserably.
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.
Distance, flight frequency, cost effectiveness, lack of US customs resources & Europeans have all sorts of other island vacation choices.
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
The 787,777,A350 and probably a330 are modern and more fuel efficient than the past models. Airlines often buy those planes for long haul flights,but if it is not economical for them to do long haul or ultra long haul,whats the point in big planes when you can have smaller,with soon almost similar capabilities,like A321XLR/NEO?
Nope. You lay out the logistics and ballistics quite well.
And direct flights to Vegas and Phoenix are business traveller based ? Doubt it
Great video, thanks! It's fascinating to see the evolution of planes, soon no corner of the globe will be unreachable in one long flight. Which makes me wonder, what will the future of planes look like? Will we hit a ceiling for range just like we did for speed, and just keep a model current to the similar one? Or will we develop planes that could go around the world in one refuelling, and use that capacity to have flexibility somewhere else? Maybe we'll one day see A320 or even A220 sized planes with enough range to reach any point of the globe, and we'll see quirky routes happening, like Naples-Chiang Mai ? Who knows!
British airways: *bu- but I fly to Hawaii*
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
There is little reason to try to get European leisure travelers to Hawai'i any faster than they could already transferring even at ORD (or, as mentioned in the video, LAX or SFO). UA has even occasionally dropped their ORD-HNL service (which prior to the merger with CO bore flight number UA1) in favor of routing passengers via a western hub like LAX or SFO, because (as the video mentions) even domestic traffic is heavily tourism-based.
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
Hawaii is beautiful, but there are other beautiful places so much closer to Europe. Most Europeans prefer going to SEA to experience a tropical paradise.
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.".
I would argue that the value of a non-stop flight for the passenger goes down the longer the flight is too. As in it saves less time over a single connecting flight and people will probably be glad to get a chance to walk around a bit instead of paying extra to avoid having to switch planes.
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.
Listen, i live in Hawaii. I only want to fly on nonstop destinations around the world. I would love to go to Europe one day if they start having a flight that would go from here to the EU. I would pay whatever amount I have to so I would not have to worry about switching flights and maybe having to deal with delays from stop. Give me nonstop, all day!! Let's get a nonstop to the EU. Please let's get this done!!
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
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.
It just doesn't make sense to operate a low yield flight if the airline does not have to. All the European carriers have code share partners through the three major alliances (Star, One World or Skyteam) besides the major US carriers offering their own connecting flights. How much demand can their be on a particular day to fly a flight on a single city pair? But if you can connect 40 each from LHR, CDG, FRA and AMS through a hub (say SFO) then you can fill a 737 to Hawaii and make a profit.
I wish they did, because its certainly a flight id be interested in taking!
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 TH-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.
Very clear explanation.
Super informative 😊
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.
When I was vacationing in Hawaii, we ran into so many europeans there. I was so surprised how many there are.
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
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.
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.
The 2000 nm optimum efficiency for jet travel explains the cheap SWA tickets from OAK, LAS, and PHX to HNL for honorable daughter (tm) attending university in Hawaii. Since I'm the one paying for those tickets, the physics thrills me. 🤣
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.
Genuinely a solid and interesting video. I would prefer a stopover anyway.
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
Now this is fascinating and sadly unsurprising
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.
Please don’t. The islands are overwhelmed by tourists as it is.
In my opinion it kinda doesn’t make any sense an average flight between Europe and the u,s East coast is 7-9 hours add on 10 more to the middle of the Pacific Ocean that’s 17-19 hour flights much easier to fly from Europe to Japan, Korea, Singapore and take Japan airlines, ANA, Asiana and more on a 4 hour flight from the east coast of Asia to Hawaii
Condor should do this.
I figured it would be cheaper for Europeans to fly to Teneriff or Bahamas for a Island getaway than going to Hawaii. Just the same for US citizens, it would be cheaper to fly to Hawaii or Bahamas rather than Teneriff or Malaysia or Philippines, or Thailand for an Island vacation.
Lufthansa used to fly to hawaii if I remember correctly on the A340
As an aging passenger, I don't want to be on a super long flight. I like the stop over
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
Very interesting.
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.
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.
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.
Well if you didn’t want to fly directly over the pole you’d have to fly on a similar route to the flights which have a connection so there’s limited fuel and time savings