Hawaii Service

El Gato

Advanced
Mar 24, 2004
244
0
PHLfa88 said:
Had a trip last week to MAD and flew with some one who has a friend in planning. He said the target date for HNL is Nov 1st using A330 AC. Trip will be PHL-PHX(LAS) layover, work PHX (LAS) to HNL layover and back the same way. Now this is what he was told. :)
[post="279651"][/post]​

So, the combined company is going to use the US A330's that are unused due to the winter euro pulldown on HNL routes? I don't believe it. If you can find proof please do show!
 

700UW

Corn Field
Nov 11, 2003
37,637
19,488
NC
PHLfa88 said:
Had a trip last week to MAD and flew with some one who has a friend in planning. He said the target date for HNL is Nov 1st using A330 AC. Trip will be PHL-PHX(LAS) layover, work PHX (LAS) to HNL layover and back the same way. Now this is what he was told. :)
[post="279651"][/post]​
Planning does not schedule planes for routes, planning plans maintenance work on planes.

Marketing does the route schedules and type of a/c on a route along with mtc planning to make sure the planes are available and not scheduled for mtc.
 

PHLfa88

Veteran
Jan 19, 2004
826
35
What Ever! So I used the wrong name for crying out loud! MARKETING!!There...U Happy Now 700? ;)
 

700UW

Corn Field
Nov 11, 2003
37,637
19,488
NC
U does not have the widebodies to spare, I doubt you will see a A330 going to HNL anytime soon, especially since HP is retrofitting their 757s for the ETOPS requirements for the HNL flights.
 

El Gato

Advanced
Mar 24, 2004
244
0
700UW said:
U does not have the widebodies to spare, I doubt you will see a A330 going to HNL anytime soon, especially since HP is retrofitting their 757s for the ETOPS requirements for the HNL flights.
[post="279952"][/post]​

Actually, it IS possible, if you account for a few things. In the winter the MAD trips go back to a 767, and five of the summer cities(BCN, GLA, SNN, DUB, VCE) go on hiatus. This frees up 1 330 and 4 767s. Normally in the winter, they use the A330 on the morning PHL-SJU run, but that can be done by a 767 or 2 757s. Assuming that 7 330s are allocated for the European cities, this leaves 2 spares(If PHL-CDG stays a 330. If not, then 3 spares).

For a PHL-PHX-HNL type operation, you would need two minimum because of the total trip length(On a PHX-HNL, you only need 1). Essentially, one 330 departs PHL in the early morning hours, arriving at HNL in mid afternoon. While that is happening, the red eye from HNL is going to get into PHL in late afternoon as well. The HNL planes would have about a 6 hour layover, while PHL ones would be overnighters.

The only reason I could see this happening is if HP cannot get the 757s ETOPS certified on time as they would like to. Using a 330 as a back up is a reasonable option(They could use the 767 instead as well), given the size of the market.
 

sand2snow

Member
Aug 25, 2003
34
0
autofixer said:
767 is a common pilot type as a 757 ... food for thought.
[post="280176"][/post]​

Yes, but the two carriers will still have two seperate operating certificates for a couple of years, so an HP pilot wouldn't be flying a USAirways plane and vice versa until the certificates are put into one.
 

BoeingBoy

Veteran
Nov 9, 2003
16,512
5,865
Not quite true - it is possible. A somewhat extreme example was Braniff flying the Concorde - BA's planes between IAD & DFW IIRC. Between two separate airlines, it's called an interchange agreement I think.

There would possibly be some training involved (definitely if the A330 was involved), but other than that there's no reason US pilots couldn't fly a 767 from say PHL to PHX where a HP crew would get on and fly it to HNL and return to PHX.

Remember the corporate structure that will exist sometime this fall after the "merger" is consummated - both US mainline and HP will be divisions of US Group. Other than the unions, there will be absolutely nothing to prevent US Group from moving equipment between divisions as it sees fit (other than any required training, that is).

Jim
 

sand2snow

Member
Aug 25, 2003
34
0
BoeingBoy said:
Not quite true - it is possible. A somewhat extreme example was Braniff flying the Concorde - BA's planes between IAD & DFW IIRC. Between two separate airlines, it's called an interchange agreement I think.

There would possibly be some training involved (definitely if the A330 was involved), but other than that there's no reason US pilots couldn't fly a 767 from say PHL to PHX where a HP crew would get on and fly it to HNL and return to PHX.

Remember the corporate structure that will exist sometime this fall after the "merger" is consummated - both US mainline and HP will be divisions of US Group. Other than the unions, there will be absolutely nothing to prevent US Group from moving equipment between divisions as it sees fit (other than any required training, that is).

Jim
[post="280192"][/post]​


Wouldn't this require America West to have the B767 in there OP Specs?
 

BoeingBoy

Veteran
Nov 9, 2003
16,512
5,865
You're right - I over-simplified the details. There are some regulatory hurdles to jump over but nothing major.

Something similiar happened during the US/PI merger back in '89. The 737-400's that PI had coming ended up going to US before the certificates were merged. US had not operated the -400 before, but had no difficulties meeting the requirements. The 757/767 differences should be little different since it's a common type rating also. Obviously, doing this with the A330 would present bigger hurdles but still nothing insurmountable if they wanted to do it.

Jim
 
BoeingBoy said:
There would possibly be some training involved (definitely if the A330 was involved), but other than that there's no reason US pilots couldn't fly a 767 from say PHL to PHX where a HP crew would get on and fly it to HNL and return to PHX.
[post="280192"][/post]​

I don't see why even that would be necessary. Couldn't one US crew just do PHL-PHX-HNL-PHX-PHL, just making it a 4-day (or whatever) trip based at PHL? I understand that there will be fences up preventing actually transferring into another base, but pilots fly trips that go through other bases all the time.

(And I don't want to make it sound like I'm suggesting that US pilots hog the flying; a PHX based HP A320 crew could likewise fly a PHX-CLT-PVD-CLT-PHX trip or whatever. While I'm purely speculating as to sending the 762s to Hawaii, I DO see the second type of example I gave happening.)
 

Bear96

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
2,926
122
This is too funny.

HP announces the start of HNL serivce, from PHX, the main HP hub, with or without U, on ETOPS-certified HP 757s, and we get contortions of how U crews are gonna be flying it.

At least pretend not to be so greedy. At least on the HP board. Have a little class!

Sounds like some of the same things we heard from U employees when the UA acquistion of U was in the air.

Good luck, HP employees -- you're gonna need it. I think you just bought yourselves a whole heap of trouble.

(I know ... I know ... let the screechings of "pot-stirrer" begin. Riiiight. Hey, HP folk, just sit back, close your eyes, and relax. Nothing bad will happen to you. You'll get FENCES, remember? Hmmm, I woulda thought a PHX-HNL trip would have been one of those "fenced" for HP crews, wouldn't you?)
 
L

luvn737s

Guest
This whole board is a bunch of impatient kids trying to get a peek under the tent. Give me a call when someone finds some leverage.
 

BoeingBoy

Veteran
Nov 9, 2003
16,512
5,865
Bear96 said:
This is too funny.

HP announces the start of HNL serivce, from PHX, the main HP hub, with or without U, on ETOPS-certified HP 757s, and we get contortions of how U crews are gonna be flying it.
[post="280235"][/post]​

Actually, most of the discussion centered around how the HNL service could be done with widebodies flown by HP crews if management thought the extra capacity was needed, and from a regulatory standpoint little stands in the way.

Other than ringmaruf, who I don't believe is a US pilot so doesn't have that particular axe to grind, nobody mentioned US crews doing the HNL flights. All he did was mention an obvious alternative method of using widebodies on those flights, but not being a beneficiary it's hard to call it greedy.

Obviously, any perceived transfer of flying before the integration of the employee groups would be seen by one side or the other as patently unfair. Which is why the unions - particularly the two ALPA units in this case - would be the biggest obstacle.

Jim