Originally Posted by
bored
I agree, I think we need some kind of west coast base, mostly for reserve coverage and to keep the operation running smoothly. This is after all, Hawaiian Airlines. It only makes sense to have its principle base of operation in Hawaii, since that's where all our flights are concentrated.
There's a difference between giving up on something and not pursuing it because it doesn't make financial sense. Our planes are simply too big to do what AS is doing. When our NEOs arrive, we can properly join the party. Until then, we build the trans-pac wide body network, lower unit costs and get into the financial position to operate the neighbor island flights at a profit, not a loss. We can't shoulda coulda woulda and must compare apples to apples.
AS is a 5B company because they're a well run company have loyal customer base, low unit costs and are more than twice our size. We have all those things, but are on a much smaller scale. This is the healthiest HAL is been in its existence and as our first phase of HALs transformation comes to an end, our financials will only improve, in preparation for the next phase.
I hope you're right, but I disagree about the plane size being an issue...
We could have had A330 or 767 service from LA to Big Island, Maui or Kauai long ago... United even covers a lot of routs from SF/LA to neighbor islands now..
Bases on the west coast would make those efficient turns unless we want to open bases on the neighbor islands.. Alaska after all is called Alaska but has it's principal base of ops in Seattle.