Hawaiian has been making some really great moves for the past couple of years and I give them credit. Clearly the team running the show is smart and seems to do good research and planning. However, this announcement has left me a little puzzled. I would’ve guessed that HA might’ve hedged their bet by ordering a mix of all 3 NEOs or at least the A320/A321. I guess they believed fleet standardization and the advertised lower cost/seat mile was worth the risk.

I've flown the A319/A320/A321 with both the CFMs and IAEs, and the airplanes all have their strengths and some weaknesses. The A321 is great on sectors up to 4- 4.5 hours long at zero fuel weights that are at, or very close to max. If longer than that, there are usually some restrictions (especially if the airplane has 218 seats- I know HA mentioned 190). NK tried ACTs initially, but decided against them due increased DOW and reduced bulk cargo capacity. There is no way around it, performance wise, the airplane is a dog. Airbus promises a 15% improvement, I believe; however, I am not sure if that is enough to offer many of their existing city pairs (HNL-PHX/LAS) or to open many routes that are much further away than SMF/SJC/SFO/LAX.

I remember once FLL to the Caribbean with a full ship and I think MAX ALT was about FL345 (don't quote me, it's been years, but I remember it was mid-summer with temps much higher than ISA) with fuel for a less than 2 hrs flight. We ended up at FL330. Maybe the passenger profiles are different to the Hawaiian Islands than to the Caribbean Islands, but the Jamaicans, Haitians and others travel with many heavy bags. We used most of KFLL 09L- we flexed (not a wide margin between OAT and flex), used CONF 2, but still not a lot of margin for such a short flight. KFLL is ~ 9,000' long; while in comparison OOG is just less than 7,000'. An OGG departure to the mainland would be sporty even at CONF 3, packs off, TOGA. I can’t imagine an A321 with 190 passengers, their bags and fuel for 5-6 hours plus reserves getting off of a 7,000’ runway even 90% of the time at typical island temps. I’ve done departures out of LGA and DCA, but not at weights that approached MTOW.

I’m not sure if any B738 pilots will chime in or not, but I hear rumors of delayed bags being sent on other non-restricted aircraft and sometimes a re-route for a fuel stop in say OAK on the way to the islands?

As was mentioned earlier, it’s roughly the same wing on all models- flaps and slats extension changes the properties of the airfoil differently for each variant; additionally, the A321 has double-slotted flaps. IMO, the A319 has enough wing, the A320 could’ve used a bit more, and the A321 is woefully under-winged. As mentioned earlier, a big problem when using an organized track system that utilizes procedural separation between the mainland and the islands is not being able to get to (higher) OPT/planned altitudes sooner. The A321 NEO will most likely be competing for the same altitudes on the same tracks as all the B738s that make the run every day. And once stuck low beyond radar coverage, there are no vectors for climb or reduced separation to climb through another flight’s level. Unless the flights that are higher vacate their level, you are stuck. I believe that with the fuel margins, as low as I guess them to be, there won’t be much time available to be stuck 2 or 3 levels below OPT/planned.

Regarding paper airplanes- both Boeing and Airbus want to sell airplanes. They paint as rosy a picture as possible to prospective buyers. My post refers to my experience operating the CEO variants. I don’t claim to know for sure how these airplanes will perform, but I think it’ll be fascinating to see what happens. The GTFs are unproven (both reliability and fuel-burn) and, though I couldn’t find the reference, IIRC, they will have a slightly lower max thrust rating than the CEO for the A321.