American has revealed plans to resume its longest domestic route, which will offer travelers in Chicago a warm winter getaway. I first wrote about this a couple of days ago, but want to provide an update, as the schedule has now been published, and the flight is on sale.
Continue reading: American Adds Chicago To Honolulu Flights, Carrier’s Longest Domestic Route
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
Interesting route from Europe to Hawaii. Weather delays more of a risk than LAX, but ORD is a less arduous Arrivals ordeal too.
I did this route as a 7 year old in 1994 on a DC-10! It was way harder to entertain yourself on a plane back then
As I recall, the longest domestic flight of any airline is BOS-HNL (on HA & DL) which sounds torturous.
Like, I get the benefit here (to both AA and tourists) but... I'd rather take a breather at the west coast.
Not easy for AA to be going up on this route against the US’ most premium airline, United.
Correct - I would not call this a new route - but reinstatement of a previous route. I flew the DC10 ORD-HNL many times.
AA is also launching flights between Chicago and Naples, Italy! That seems to be the most interesting route announcement in that press release for me. AA will be the only airline flying that route nonstop.
AA is also launching flights between ORD and Madrid, as well as to Halifax, Canada using an E175!
AA in total is adding alot of capacity back to ORD including by adding frequencies to existing routes. They aren't ready to throw in the towel.
The problem w/ ORD -that AA can see and UA cannot - is that ORD is already the most expensive airport in the middle of the country in terms of airport costs to the airlines. All local passengers pay those costs in higher tickets but airlines have to absorb those costs for connecting passengers making ORD one of the least desirable hubs from a financial perspective.
The new terminal/palace that ORD is building will only make those costs higher.
ORD, when the new terminal is in place, will be much better suited as an O&D airport than a hub in terms of costs.
AA might be pushing back the inevitable cost reality at ORD while UA will end up spending hundreds of millions of dollars per year to connect millions of passengers through ORD that can more efficiently and economically connect at other airports including MDW, MSP, DTW as well as airports further south including ATL and DFW and even DEN and SLC to the west.
I'm rather curious if UA will now designate their longhaul Hawaii flights as Polaris from EWR/IAH/ORD (maybe DEN?) for upgraded service and club access. The AA Hawaii flights on a widebody are designated flagship so they get access to the lounge and better service, etc
I believe United is the outlier here as DL designates longhaul widebody hawaii flights as Delta One as well giving the onboard service an upgrade from ATL but also lounge access in JFK.
Seems like a cheap change for United to do, but I also doubt many Hawaii travelers are basing their ticket purchase on Flagship/Polaris/D1 vs loyalty/Upgrades/miles/price
The Naples flight was announced a few months ago and just repeated here, which is why, as exciting as it is (and I do agree that it's exciting) it isn't getting a lot of press time in Ben's article.
The more capacity to HNL overall, the better - especially longer haul red-eye flights where east coasters can get some sleep on the return. ORD is convenient connection point for a lot of people (even from the Northeast, where there are a fair amount of direct HNL flights).
the perk of doing the longer non-stop flight vs. the west coast connection is getting a more comfortable ride especially when you're flying AA. i'd take a 787 or 777 with more seat cushioning and IFE over a A321 any day!
Lucky - How does one (or how do you) find out the date when tickets will be sold for this route?
haha you must be joking. United doesn't even brand their longer Hawaii flights as Polaris.
"The problem w/ ORD -that AA can see and UA cannot"
More hyperbole from the DL echo chamber.
the only thing that DL has to do with the subject is that it figured out decades ago the importance of building high capacity, efficient airports to use for connecting traffic at its interior US hubs.
AA has it with DFW but w/ higher human costs to run that hub due to how spread out the terminals are and AA has a cheap but way-too-small hub at CLT.
The AirShow just highlighted how small UA's mid-continent hubs are relative to ATL for DL and DFW for AA.
UA is working to fix their small mid-continent hub problem but it comes at huge facilities costs.
and ORD's cost per enplaned passenger makes it the most costly interior US large hub and the cost will keep going up.
East of the Rockies, AA has CLT and DFW, DL has twin hubs at MSP and DTW on top of ATL but UA has to hope that AA will fail at ORD but can only obtain dominance of Chicago but running millions of connecting passengers through ORD at very high costs which UA has to absorb.
All AA has to do is maintain its presence in the local market - which has slipped - but AA does not need to pay for near as much of the massive ORD costs that UA will have to pay
"BOS-HNL (on HA & DL) which sounds torturous."
What is this, 1950? BOS-HNL is shorter than every single Asian flight out of both LAX and SFO.
Hardly novel in length at all, in today's age, or even a half century ago.
No one is going to fly ORD/MDW-XYZ-HNL when they can simply fly ORD-HNL. That includes Milwaukee catchment area as well.
100% jacobin77.
No one in Chicago is looking to fly through DFW, CLT, PHL (especially the disaster that is DFW) when UAL can take them direct.
As to the cost per deplaned passenger, if you want to make money you have to spend money. Chicago is a big market, small thinking gets you unemployed (see Vasu Raja) and upset shareholders (see AAL)...
chester,
the concept that you are not grasping is that passengers going from ABC to XYZ - cities which do not have flights except to airline hubs - don't care where they connect. They are simply choosing to get from ABC to XYZ.
The cost for airlines is massively different depending on where they hub.
AA and UA are battling it out for the local market. Only UA feels the need to throw tons of extra capacity into the market which will be used not just by connecting passengers but by economy basic passengers. It is quite notable how UA execs have talked about high airport costs in the NE and why it doesn't work for ULCCs but UA is doing the same thing at ORD.
ORD is simply a much higher cost airport than competitive hubs including MDW, DTW and MSP on either side of Chicago, and ATL and DFW as megahubs further away.
It doesn't matter how many gates UA has, it will cost them more to carry connecting passengers via ORD than it will for other airlines via other hubs.
I am so excited to see this happen. I have a question. How long will the flight from Chicago to honolulu take. My guess is 11hrs and 25mins.
Good one, AA !
Takes me right back to the very early 1970's (1970-1) when AA launched international South Pacific services for the first time.
AA ran AA201 / 202 as SYD-NAN-HNL-ORD-JFK 4 days a week from SYD as well as AKL-NAN-HNL-ORD-JFK on the remaining 3 days - using the same flight numbers to both SYD and AKL. The reason for launching the ORD-HNL (and vv) sector was strategic, since AA, at the time, had no West Coast access routes (LAX / SFO) to HNL for international services. JFK-SYD and AKL was run on a B707 LuxuryLiner with First and Coach (before the invention of Business Class).
Over the next few years, AA developed the route to daily SYD and daily AKL, added MEL and made NAN almost a 'mini'-hub outpost. On the mainland, AA also introduced STL-HNL-STL as an additional 'feeder' route with connections to JFK etc.
For me, its great to see this small homage to South Pacific service return - even as a seasonal service.
Since most Australia-US mainland service is now non-stop (SYD/MEL-LAX/SFO or SYD/MEL-DFW), I would suggest that AA may well benefit from Aussies wishing to break their US journey in HNL - and then onwards to the mid-west / East Coast. SYD-HNL is 11 hours approx and HNL-ORD is similar. Not everyone wants to do a 14 hr SYD-LAX / SFO and then connect elsewhere on the mainland.
AA - bringing back the 'golden' age of flying (well, a little bit). It'll give me a welcome, pleasant alternative to the usual grind of SYD US non-stops.
You’re exhausting. This entire move by AA is more likely a response to United gaining more gates next year under the use it or lose it with Chicago for gates. Clearly they’re threatened by United continuing to gain in the Chicagoland market
the only thing that is exhausting is those that are unable to see that AA has a massive hub SW of ORD. They need to be relevant in the Chicago market but they do not have to pump enormous amounts of traffic through ORD.
UA simply does not have a hub anywhere in the league of DFW for AA or even moreso ATL for DL, hubs that have influence well behind the regions where they are located.
ORD is already the most expensive non-coastal large airport on a cost per enplaned passenger basis.
UA has to keep pumping traffic through ORD in order to win the local market share battle with AA - and it costs UA over $20/ passenger compared to what AA or DL spend to carry passengers through more cost efficient hubs. Multiplied by millions of passengers per year and that is a lot of money to pay to be the dominant airline at ORD.
@DTWNYC not hyperbole, at least for premium fares.
Fares out of ORD for TATL and TPAC flights are insane compared to NYC/BOS/SEA/LAX/SFO/LAS/SAN and even IAD. I regularly travel between CHI and London, and CHI and South East Asia; I've started positioning to YYZ or SEA because it saves me thousands. For example, a J flight to LHR I'm taking in two weeks was pricing out at over $4,000 on UA, DL, and AA (BA was about $3,500); but out of YYZ and back into MDW? $1,650 on DL; out of LAX was $2,800 on SAS or Lufthansa. Flights into BKK, SGN, and HAN are typically north of $5000 in J out of ORD, but out of SEA I've gotten them for about $3,500, and out of JFK for about the same (on Singapore or China Airlines). Even on EVA, which typically has the cheapest to Asia in J out of ORD, I couldn't find a ticket for under $5,500 when I had to buy several weeks ago for a summer trip. Fortunately, I have a ton of Alaska miles to burn for my positioning :).
Yet, the who made more profit last year? American or United?
No need to answer, you premise is flawed as always.
@Ralph, I was referring to Tim’s idiotic statement that AA knows something that UA doesn’t about operating at ORD. It had nothing to do with fares.
Tim, you’re helping me make the point that you constantly refute.
DL has four fortress hubs at low cost airports. UA has significant competition in each hub’s metro area. Even if not in the same airport (DEN, LAX, ORD), then at the city’s other airport (IAH, IAD, SFO, EWR, and ORD/LAX again).
In the hubs where DL is forced to compete (SEA and BOS), they don’t as well.
Plus DL gets billions more in credit card revenue, a tailwind UA will soon have too.
In spite of all these structural advantages DL has over UA, UA’s profits are almost in line with DL’s.
I won’t get into the Brett Snyder termed “argument loop” with you, so your turn for the last word.
Not if your flying in economy. The 767's 2-3-2 seating is 1000% better than the 3-3-3 in the 787's torture class. Love the 787 if flying business or PE, but we refuse to fly it in economy.
AA used a B777-200 on that flight. It was one way to use one of their wide bodies while waiting for European travel to recover. My wife and I flew this route in October 2021.
We also took advantage of a similar situation with USAirways in February 2010 when they temporarily re-deployed some of their B767s.
Flying CLT-HNL takes longer than flying CLT-MUC. It's a weird experience to be on such a long domestic flight. The prices for J were very reasonable.
because you don't understand the concept doesn't mean that others don't including AA.
ORD is and always will be a much more expensive airport to connect passengers than other hubs.
According to the FAA, ORD's cost per enplaned passenger in 2023 was $25 and is projected to rise to $40 by 2040
ATL is 2.27 and will grow to 10.49 in 2031
CLT is 4.22...7.84 in 2030
DEN is 10.82...16.86 in 2030
DFW is 11.56
DTW is 9.24...10.29 in 2019
IAH is 10.71
MDW 16.19...24.10 in 2028
MSP 9.72
SLC 9.97...19.96 in 2030
UA already has the most costly hubs per enplaned passenger while DL is the lowest.
UA wants desperately to dominate the ORD local market but has to push a lot of connecting traffic through ORD to dominate the local market while AA has other much more cost efficient hubs and does not need to push as much connecting traffic through ORD.
whether you understand the concept or not does not matter.... it is what is happening.
Travelcat2: "It's a weird experience to be on such a long domestic flight"
Like AUH airport pre-clearance to USA - fly all day and land at a domestic gate. Good times.
@Tim, your point is a red herring.
The CPE for ORD is irrelevant if everyone is paying the same rate.
I'll ask again, if AA is in such a cat bird seat vs UA at ORD, who is making more profit? hint, it's not AA.
Lastly, you're logic fails the sniff test when you fail to include JFK's CPE, which conveniently is a DL hub city! After EWR, JFK is the highest (higher than ORD).
The numbers don't lie, UA is doing something right at ORD.