Hawaiian, Aloha and Island Air

[English]

http://pacific.bizjournals.com/​

LATEST NEWS
12:50 PM HST Friday
Hawaiian Airlines partners with Island Air

[font=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]Hawaiian Airlines will add flights to Hilo and Maui and partner with Island Air to improve interisland service.

"Hilo and Maui residents have been calling for more service during these hours and we're going to provide it," said Joshua Gotbaum, airline trustee.

The airline will add a flight in the morning on the Honolulu to Maui route and an afternoon flight on the Honolulu to Hilo route starting Aug. 1. It expands each route by 861 seats per week.

The airline plans to increase its interisland summer capacity by 17 percent or 184,000 seats. This compares to competitor Aloha Airlines upping its capacity 28 percent this summer. Hawaiian will fly a daily average of 115 flights during the weekdays and 123 flights on the weekends.

To gain more seat capacity and exit the nonperforming Lanai and Molokai markets, Hawaiian will tie up with Island Air.

The commuter service Island Air split from Aloha Airgroup, the parent company of Aloha Airlines.

Hawaiian's new code-share pact with Island Air, effective Aug. 1, will enable the former to pull out its daily service to Lanai and Molokai. The airline will offer instead Island Air's seven flights to Lanai and eight flights to Molokai.

Hawaiian's flights in that market were on its new jets but on average carried 23 people on an aircraft that seats 123 people.

"It's been something I wanted to do since my first month at Hawaiian," Gotbaum said. "While Island Air was a subsidiary of Aloha we couldn't do it as there would have been potential legal complications."

It also opens up new markets for Hawaiian, Gotbaum said.

The airline stopped service to West Maui after it acquired the new aircraft. Now with the code-share agreement it can offer that as another route to its passengers.

"Our 37-seat de Havilland Dash-8 aircraft are better suited to serve smaller airports and resort communities with greater frequency than their jets," said Neil Takekawa, president and CEO of Island Air. "It makes sense for us to work together where our operations complement each other."


[/font]

© 2004 American City Business Journals Inc.

http://a1144.g.akamai.net/7/1144/1175/v238/img.bizjournals.com/arrows/arrow_bc.gifWeb reprint information

[size=-1]All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.[/size]

 

[Sleepyhead]

Ummm.... sounds like there was a meeting in a smoke filled room with execs from all three airlines and they decided how they can divide up HI.

 

[English]

I predict Island Air will be the only interisland carrier in three years, with an upstart, smaller carrier as competition to prevent the appearance of a monopoly.

 

[Jim]

HAL's scope clause is pretty clear. The only reason that this new code share with Island Air will probably stand is that HAL has increased other interisland flying so there is no net lose of flying.

Our scope says any interisland code share must not reduce the amount of interisland flying HAL does or cause furloughs. Since the flights being given to Island Air are less than the new flights being added, it meets this criteria. Further, our scope clause list specific island airports that HAL can not code share interisland under any circumstances.

If HAL got out of the interisland market, it would mean that they could not have any code shares interisland. This would not be very financially smart. Further, there would be a very strong backlash from the locals and the state if either HAL or Aloha tried to get out of interisland.

Still, this new code share has many upset . They feel that with pilots furloughed, any new flying should be from growth and not because we gave some old flying away to a new code share.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

I think you'll still see some interisland stuff from HA and AQ, but watch the lion's share go to WP...make that the Elephant's share.

 

[Freight Dog]

Jim.. you gotta nip this one regardless whether it *appears* that you are still gaining some temporary summer flying. Come fall, if they can totally replace you, they will...

In any case, any codeshare with Hawaiian on the interisland market is screwing your furloughees out of coming back... it sucks!

 

[Jim]

Jim.. you gotta nip this one regardless whether it *appears* that you are still gaining some temporary summer flying. Come fall, if they can totally replace you, they will...

In any case, any codeshare with Hawaiian on the interisland market is screwing your furloughees out of coming back... it sucks!

I agree completely. HAL ALPA has the whole thing at the lawyers now, but they say at first glance it looks like it is within the scope. HAL ALPA will be tracking interisland block hours closely to ensure there is no drop. If there is, the grievance will immediately be filed and per our contract, scope grievances are fast tracked. I think the time limit for going all the way through every appeal process is 30 days total. Any drop will be a very clear violation of our contract.

Since we gave back 2 717s last year, it makes additional routes interisland hard to start. It is a lot easier to turn the same plane more times on the same route to add capacity. However there are creative ways - like putting a 767 on during the 10am - 2pm rush (which has been discussed many times) and using those 717s else where. Gotbomb seems to think we can't add planes while in bankruptcy. This is horse$hit. All he has to do is show the judge where the additional aircraft will produce revenue. He's too worried about pumping the profit figures up so he gets the best "bonus" (i.e. seller's commission) possible when we emerge from chapter 11 this fall. It's all a game to him without any care for the employees.

Hopefully whoever ends up in control next fall will value employees. In any case, look for expansion than because any investor will be in with Boeing and Boeing wants to sell/lease more planes. It's commonly agreed and stated in all perspective plans that there will be expansion. How much and how fast is the big question.

 

[igneousy2]

HAL's scope clause is pretty clear. The only reason that this new code share with Island Air will probably stand is that HAL has increased other interisland flying so there is no net lose of flying.

Our scope says any interisland code share must not reduce the amount of interisland flying HAL does or cause furloughs. Since the flights being given to Island Air are less than the new flights being added, it meets this criteria. Further, our scope clause list specific island airports that HAL can not code share interisland under any circumstances.

If HAL got out of the interisland market, it would mean that they could not have any code shares interisland. This would not be very financially smart. Further, there would be a very strong backlash from the locals and the state if either HAL or Aloha tried to get out of interisland.

Still, this new code share has many upset . They feel that with pilots furloughed, any new flying should be from growth and not because we gave some old flying away to a new code share.

Your 2nd point about public backlash is probably correct, however, the argument you make in your first paragraph is not as clear as you think. I don't mean to burst your bubble but other pilot groups have been slammed recently for language that is seemingly as strong, if not stronger than what you stated. The whole argument will hinge on what actually "CAUSED" the reduction in interisland flying, i.e. lack of demand, high cost, etc. 2nd, is it specified in your contract how you will measure a "reduction" in flying. Is it numer of flights, is it ASM's, is it number of routes? A 717 doing 1 r/t to maui is about 16000 ASM's, where a Dash-8 doing the same round trip is about 6000 ASM's, i.e you can have 2 flights on a Dash 8. If the flights aren't making money/aren't full it doesn't matter about the lost seats. How close together does the codeshare and the cx of a flight have to be to coincide. If HAL does not cx any HA flights but signs a code share with IA for HNL-OGG say, then 6 months later slowly cx's flights, would that be a causal relationship? what if it's a year? what about 18 months? Anyway, you get my point. Remember, you don't have to convince me, you have to convince an ARBITRATOR (i.e. former lawyer/judge usually, not in the industry, not willing to come down too far to one side or the other, likes the first class upgrade the company gave him on the way out to Hawaii and any other time he or his family wants to fly, wants to work in Hawaii again, etc.)


In my opinion, I would say that your union should probably be filing a grievance right now about this issue. You are giving the company the benefit of having a past-practice argument on the issue when it does (and it will) come up again at a later time. Belive me, your lack of actions in these situations is just as important as your actions. "this is how it has ALWAYS been done Mr. Arbitrator, this is industry practice...see, they didn't object the last time we did this because they knew it didn't violate their contract just like it doesn't violate their contract now, their just desperate now and grasping at straws."

Anyway, don't mean to be a grinch but i've just seen a lot of "clear" cases go the other way in my time.

Later