Hawaii To U.S West Coast


Here is a list of what airlines fly from Hawaii To the U.S West Coast.

162 to 189 Passengers
200 to 228 Passengers
200 to 228 Passengers
218 to 350 Passengers
United:B757-200(United mostly flies these)
200 to 228 Passengers
United:B767-300(United flies some of these)
218 to 350 Passengers
United:B777-200(United flies 2 of these)(SFO-OGG and SFO-HNL)
305 to 440 Passengers
200 to 228 Passengers
243 to 280 Passengers

I think that a B737-800 is too small of a airplane to fly to Hawaii.
Tell me your opinions.


A seat is a seat. You can fly coast to coast on a 737 or a320 so whats the diff going to Hawaii? What advantage do you have on a larger plane? I don’t see that it matters.


I think that airlines should fly based upon the economics principle of supply and demand- fly the most practical aircraft. If there is little demand on the route, then a 737-800 is fine. I bet americanairdude would concur. However, if you need more capacity, I think that a 757 or 767 are fine choices as well. With trans-Atlantic routes which I have taken on a DC-10 now being flown with ETOPS certified 757s which have limited capacity, then Hawaiian flights should be flown on whatever aircraft meets the company needs which seems to be the new industry trend these days.


I remember when the only aircraft flying between Hawaii and the mainland were all the size of the 737-800 or 757. The only difference was that they had 4 engines instead of 2. I’m talking about 2 of the greatest aircraft every made: The 707 and DC8.

What difference does it make if a plane has a single aisle or two aisles? It’s still just as crowded.

I am still amazed at the 737. It’s an extremely versatile aircraft. When it first came out, it had a capacity of about 100 in mixed configuration. It couldn’t just about make it 2/3rd of the way from coast to coast.

Now, the aircraft can seat as many passengers as the 707 and DC-8s (except for the -61 and -63 models).

As nenyedi alludes to, any given route should have an aircraft that is the right size for the route. Additionally, on some routes frequency is more important that aircraft size. It would be better to have two flights a day using a 737-800 between, say, HNL and OAK than use a larger aircraft and have only one flight a day.


I do believe there are benefits in flying larger aircraft like the 757-300, because of the low yields the Hawaii routes carry.


That’s true - if they can fill up the aircraft.


I flew on a B757-300 that only had about 6 seats left.


Then the airline in this situation is using the correct aircraft to meet their demand. Because this was the demand on your flight does not mean that it is the level of demand for all Hawaiian flights. The 737-800 may be the right choice based upon the current market for air travel.


Maybe Alaska Airlines makes more money by filling up the smaller B737-800.


Another consideration is that there is a possibility that they could make an equal amount of money using a 757 or 767, however if they are unable to fill the aircraft, it may be more viable to use the larger aircraft on a more high volume route.


That may be true but the economics of flying a low yield destination 5+ hours isn’t there for a 737. Maybe some airlines can make it work, but it means higher fares.


Aloha was flying the 737-700. I think WestJet flies the -700 to Hawaii although the only one I can find right now is a -800.

I think the 700 and 800 make sense for point to point service. SEA to HNL not so much. Picking off the islands from west coast markets makes sense. YKM to PHKO sign me up! :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:


Now you all have gone and done it…left the door open for AAdude to get all excited about his beloved B737-800.

Really, I agree with one of the above postings about B737 & A320 traffic already going coast to coast. It is a good plane, just do it!! :wink:


I believe the 757 has more toilets per passenger than the 737 and makes it better suited for the longer flights. :smiley:


maybe for the benefit of being able to haul more freight/cargo in addition to the passengers to the islands and back? is there a big difference in loading capabilities between the 737 and say 757/767?


I’m not sure I would call Hawaii a “low yield” market. Rarely can one fly from the mainland to/from Hawaii for less than $500 round trip. To me that’s a high yield route. Only time I’ve ever paid that much was for a trans-con ticket a week before I left.

Just my opinion. Also, I would never fly a 757 or a 737 to hawaii, unless I was in F. Just too small. I’ve flown CO 767’s to HNL as well as NW 757’s in coach DTW-LAX. The difference was night and day.

I recently cashed in some ff miles to send Mrs. CJ and I to OGG again. I intentionally avouded carriers flying narrow-bodies due to comfort level. Taking UA from MDT-ORD-OGG.


$500 may sound expensive, but it’s a very long stage length. Other than Florida and Vegas, Hawaii has had some of the lowest RASM numbers.

Yes, a 767 can lift a LOT more cargo than a 737 and has a lot more cargo space than a 757. Cargo to Hawaii is a fairly lucrative business (since they grow so many flowers and fruit that have to be shipped to the mainland and that they have to import nearly everything else FROM the mainland).


Hawaii is a very long flight even from the west coast. Your point is exactly the problem with low yield markets. If you raise the fare, then lots of people don’t go to these vacation destinations. If you raise the fare between Chicago and New York, you lose less traffic.


There’s a lot more cargo flying out of Hawaii than flying into it. There’s also an airline - Pacific Air Cargo - that operates a 5x a week 747 between LAX and HNL. I have the feeling that, because many flights to Hawaii are narrow bodies, that Pacific Air Cargo carries a good portion of the cargo to Hawaii. In fact, their web page says they carried over 80 million pounds of cargo last year.