It looks like Air New Zealand is hoping to once again resume flights to London, after completely discontinuing service to Europe in 2020. However, as of now there are more questions than answers, and this is far from a sure bet.
In this post:
Air New Zealand requests London airport slots
@IshrionA reports on how Air New Zealand has requested daily slots for London Heathrow Airport (LHR), but was denied. However, the airline was able to secure daily slots for London Gatwick Airport (LGW), for service that could start as early as July 2025.
Now, it’s worth emphasizing that just because these slots have been requested, doesn’t actually mean the service will launch. However, it suggests that the airline is at least seriously considering such a flight, as airlines aren’t in the business of requesting slots for airports they have no intention of flying to.
Like so many airlines, Air New Zealand has been dealing with a shortage of aircraft, as the carrier’s new Boeing 787s haven’t been delivered on-time. However, the airline is expected to finally get some new Dreamliners in 2025.
London is around 11,400 miles from Auckland (AKL), so this service couldn’t be operated nonstop. Instead it would need to be operated via an intermedia point. Up until 2020, Air New Zealand flew to London via Los Angeles (LAX), which was a fun fifth freedom flight. Going back even further than that, up until 2013, the airline operated to London via Hong Kong (HKG), which was also a fifth freedom flight.
Funny enough, Air New Zealand actually sold its Heathrow slots back in 2020, for $27 million. It remains to be seen via which airport Air New Zealand would operate such a service next. In recent years, the carrier’s focus has been on offering ultra long haul service to the United States, including flights between Auckland and New York.
Is there merit to Air New Zealand returning to London?
I kind of struggle to see why Air New Zealand would try flying to London on its own metal yet again, especially after previous failures. These kinds of markets where nonstop flights aren’t possible are just really tough competitively:
- There are a countless number of well regarded airlines offering one-stop service between New Zealand and the United Kingdom, from Cathay Pacific, to Emirates, to Qatar Airways, to Singapore Airlines, and many more
- While Air New Zealand could operate a fifth freedom service as part of that, it’s hard to command decent yields on those flights, given other carriers’ more dominant market positions, lack of frequencies, etc.
- Never mind that this doesn’t seem like the best allocation of resources, given that Air New Zealand has a perpetual aircraft shortage
Now, some might point out that Qantas can make London service work, so why can’t Air New Zealand? Qantas is in a totally different position:
- Qantas can fly nonstop from Australia to London, thanks to its Perth to London route; Air New Zealand couldn’t operate such a route
- Qantas otherwise serves London via Singapore, with the benefit being that the airline has service from a handful of cities in Australia that all feed onto that Singapore to London flight
- Qantas and Emirates also have a close partnership, which creates a compelling overall schedule between the UK and Australia
- Qantas will eventually fly nonstop from Sydney and Melbourne to London, thanks to its Project Sunrise A350-1000s; however, Air New Zealand couldn’t do something similar, as New Zealand is just a bit too far
Bottom line
Air New Zealand is seemingly considering a return to London, as the airline was rejected for slots at Heathrow, but approved for slots at Gatwick. We’ll see if this service actually ends up starting, but clearly the airline is considering this.
In the past, Air New Zealand has flown to London via Hong Kong and Los Angeles. It remains to be seen how the airline would try to make the service happen this time around. However, I’m skeptical as to how this could be profitable.
What do you make of the prospect of Air New Zealand returning to London?
Perhaps Auckland-Rarotonga-LGW might be a good route using similar aircraft to Qantas ultra long haul.
I don't think they doing that. Because there are no direct flights from Rarotonga to LGW.
When Air NZ operated AKL-HKG-LHR (return) and AKL-LAX-LHR (return) was this then the one and only TRUE round the world air route operated solely by one airline? Very interesting.
But a return to London would be great for them I believe.
I'm just going to throw this out there.
AKL-SAN-LGW? Yes, BA already serves the market to LHR, but I can't identify a market that isn't already saturated?
I do like the comments about via DPS, though I wonder about the yields.
It would be interesting to see if Air New Zealand via YYV or YYC then direct onto Gatwick. That being said they would be in competition with Air Canada and WestJet. WestJet pulled their YYC to Gatwick, and Air Canada flies to Heathrow - prices went up sadly so a good competition point. Outside of that even BA pulled their flights from Calgary. Other options aren’t so hot.Not sure though if an agreement would allow...
It would be interesting to see if Air New Zealand via YYV or YYC then direct onto Gatwick. That being said they would be in competition with Air Canada and WestJet. WestJet pulled their YYC to Gatwick, and Air Canada flies to Heathrow - prices went up sadly so a good competition point. Outside of that even BA pulled their flights from Calgary. Other options aren’t so hot.Not sure though if an agreement would allow this route. I would suspect a US based touch and go, or via Hong Kong
tbh a good option is via bangkok there are no flights between Auckland + bangkok and u could definitely challenge TG/BR/BA with the london to bangkok section. I could definitely see it working
It could work as a 3x/4x a week combo flight.
AKL-Middle East-London 3x a week
AKL-LAX-London 4x a week
I guess that AKL-LAX-LHR pax have to disembark at LAX and would have to go through immigration?
I think when you touch down in Los Angeles it's either disembark and go through immigration or stay on the plane ( Either on B777-300ER or B787 9 for Air New Zealand). Or you could re check in when going through immigration.
Why not code share with COPA and fly AKL-PTY-LGW. Feed into COPA network into North and South America.
“Qantas can fly nonstop from Australia to London, thanks to its Perth to London route; Air New Zealand couldn’t operate such a route” - Ben can you please provide a source for this statement as it seems to be at odds with the Open Skies agreement between Australia and New Zealand? You can’t mean legally, so do you mean logistically? So Air NZ could not use the Dreamliner they fly to Perth daily and continue...
“Qantas can fly nonstop from Australia to London, thanks to its Perth to London route; Air New Zealand couldn’t operate such a route” - Ben can you please provide a source for this statement as it seems to be at odds with the Open Skies agreement between Australia and New Zealand? You can’t mean legally, so do you mean logistically? So Air NZ could not use the Dreamliner they fly to Perth daily and continue on to London? Interested in the basis of your research on this
Does the AUS/NZ open skies agreement apply to flights to third countries which are governed by bilaterals?
Yes, QF operates AKL-JFK and NZ previously operated SYD-LAX
I read that statement to mean that with Perth, QF can operate nonstop from its home country to the UK, but Air NZ can't from its home country (NZ) not it can't from Australia (which it legally can, under the same agreement that allows QF to operate from AKL to JFK).
I regularly flew LHR-LAX with Air New Zealand. Flights were nearly always full up until they switched from the 747 to the 777. The 777 with the dense 3-4-3 economy configuration just didnt deliver the space and comfort Air NZ offered on the 747. They also downgraded their economy food offerings from exceptional to very good. If they come back, they need to offer more space and their previous food offerings to take on the...
I regularly flew LHR-LAX with Air New Zealand. Flights were nearly always full up until they switched from the 747 to the 777. The 777 with the dense 3-4-3 economy configuration just didnt deliver the space and comfort Air NZ offered on the 747. They also downgraded their economy food offerings from exceptional to very good. If they come back, they need to offer more space and their previous food offerings to take on the competition and beat them. It would be a great move. Around 2007-2011 no other airline in the world compared to Air New Zealand in economy or business class comfort and service.
Andrew, I also flew NZ a lot to and from north America, back in the day. I agree it used to be very comfortable, no matter if you were flying economy or business (I flew in both cabins). But I can't agree with you about NZ being without compare to other airlines. SQ definitely pipped NZ in both comfort and service, as I would also fly them (and other airlines) to compare. Not sure what...
Andrew, I also flew NZ a lot to and from north America, back in the day. I agree it used to be very comfortable, no matter if you were flying economy or business (I flew in both cabins). But I can't agree with you about NZ being without compare to other airlines. SQ definitely pipped NZ in both comfort and service, as I would also fly them (and other airlines) to compare. Not sure what NZ is like in 2024, but I doubt they're anywhere near as good as they used to be, even ten years ago.
AKL-PER-LGW ?
Aust/NZ have open skies agreement, Qantas and AirNZ can operate fifth freedom flights from the other country to a third country, if the third country allows. i.e. AirNZ has flown SYD-LAX in the past, Qantas flies AKL-JFK.
The question is - would the UK allow AirNZ to operate from Perth? I think it might.
Loads would be very strong.
Honestly I think they can try Hong Kong again. There is a huge Hong Kong community in the UK now and things may work better now. I know many HK students who studied in UK actually prefer Gatwick.
Air New Zealand should resume to London as everyone is wanting to see this. Last time it used a Boeing 777-300ER. When it does resume it could either use a Boeing 777-300ER or a Boeing 787-9.
The stopovers Air New Zealand can use when resuming to london could be
Dallas Fort Worth (DFW)
Los Angeles (LAX)
San Francisco (SFO)
Singapore (SIN)
Tokyo Narita (NRT)
Chicago (ORD)
Bangkok (BKK)
I heard from a BA pilot in his blog something about air New Zealand trying to get back into Heathrow, so maybe true, but up in the air at the moment.
Air New Zealand’s decision to reintroduce a route to London after previously closing its London cabin crew base and resulting in job losses may come across as insensitive to those affected. The move highlights the challenges of balancing business decisions with the impact on employees, and some might view it as poor timing or lack of consideration for those who lost their roles.
There is so much to learn about the commercial aviation industry by reading the OMAAT articles and some of the comments herein too.
As every day is a school day, one is always looking forward to learning something new.
Sadly, there is a downside to contributing to an open forum internet blog, in that, it attracts the moronic trolls who are only interested in belittling others with their illiterate rhetoric.
These trolls...
There is so much to learn about the commercial aviation industry by reading the OMAAT articles and some of the comments herein too.
As every day is a school day, one is always looking forward to learning something new.
Sadly, there is a downside to contributing to an open forum internet blog, in that, it attracts the moronic trolls who are only interested in belittling others with their illiterate rhetoric.
These trolls contribute nothing and deter genuine discussion from those who are capable of contributing something which might interest others.
It has become increasingly difficult to ignore the likes of Eskimo/Mason (the same numpty one suspects?).
Therefore, I make no apologies for slapping this type of troll down, as one is not intimidated by the school yard bullies.
One now awaits the customary illiterate response and look forward to responding as necessary.
I cannot help but concur with you on this. This stems from the the fateful decision Ben — and Ben alone, I might add — in September not to fly 17 hours on Aeroméxico all the way to Tokyo Narita, and instead torture himself on airlines like Gol and Copa.
Eskimo a.k.a. Mason decided that there would be no better way to make a pantomime villain out of me (I used a different username then)...
I cannot help but concur with you on this. This stems from the the fateful decision Ben — and Ben alone, I might add — in September not to fly 17 hours on Aeroméxico all the way to Tokyo Narita, and instead torture himself on airlines like Gol and Copa.
Eskimo a.k.a. Mason decided that there would be no better way to make a pantomime villain out of me (I used a different username then) by repeating, ad infinitum, a line I’d used only but once and good-humouredly at that: ‘visualise yourself flying Qsuites, Air France or JAL or something of that kind! ;)’ His usage of that emoji at the end is as lethal as mine was friendly.
He’s the new Tim Dunn, and most people aren’t aware of it.
Thank you for sharing that experience of the diabolical daughters of discourse.
One should possibly take pity on such a creature (I remain convinced that they are one and the same individual), however, observing the moronic attitude towards others actually brings the worst out in me.
One simply cannot help one’s self but to engage the imbecile and react accordingly.
I know that one should not react to such gross ignorance …. but, it is such fun.
So one comes out ranting on an irrelevant post, another changed a username?
Why all the hiding?
If it makes both of you feel better you can go 'visualise yourself' ranting all you want about me using 'alphabet poop' with a wall.
And don't you dare involve Tim Dunn. You both are way inferior than him. While he has his own fluffy issues, he's always true to himself and sticks to his fluff. He would never change his name or go rant about others on an irrelevant post.
Proof, if proof was ever needed that the so called Eskimo is as nutty as a fruit cake.
Pity it for it knows not what to say.
A bit unrealistic as they don’t have the right aircraft for this route. If you look at other airlines they offer the option of the A380’s which although aren’t fuel efficient are loved by passengers for the space and comfort they offer. Air New Zealand couldn’t compete with the affluence of Middle Eastern airlines. Qantas can compete as a) they have a doable distance whereas New Zealand has to add at least 3-4 hours to...
A bit unrealistic as they don’t have the right aircraft for this route. If you look at other airlines they offer the option of the A380’s which although aren’t fuel efficient are loved by passengers for the space and comfort they offer. Air New Zealand couldn’t compete with the affluence of Middle Eastern airlines. Qantas can compete as a) they have a doable distance whereas New Zealand has to add at least 3-4 hours to flights to London .
b) Qantas has a close working partnership with some of the Middle Eastern carriers.
C) very few premium passengers will opt to forgo flying in and out of Heathrow for Gatwick.
My pick is always to fly Singapore airlines A380 out of Sydney to Singapore (71/2hrs) Singapore to London (13hrs) which breaks up the journey into manageable flying times.
Air New Zealand can’t compete with the airlines already flying the route as economy passengers don’t make the profits unless they pack them in like sardines. Who will opt for flying those long distances when airlines like Emirates and Singapore airlines have upgraded their fleets?
ANZ also can't compete bc their business class seats are pathetically awful.
They have started already fitting new ones as with a complete new installation interior
I tend to disagree about the A380 - in regards to space. Flew EK first/economy HKG-BKK when a special offer on EK. First was OK but they didn't even have fizzy water. On the return economy flight my glasses were smashed off my face by the PAX in the row in front. In EK - economy is sardine land. Same experience DXB-DFW (almost the worst 16 hours I have spent in the air other than Aeroflot). If you like movies and booze EK is great. or was.
I bet on AKL-YVR-LGW
Maybe A Auckland to Dallas Fort Worth to London (LGW) could help for Air New Zealand.
They would be more likely to use Houston than DFW. But anywhere in the US is a pain as people would need to clear US arrival formalities.
Maybe it's time for Air New Zealand to return to the 'Knows the Pacific best' mentality and accept it's geographically challenged in trying to compete with Qantas and Emirates. Too many kiwis are flying Trans Tasman and catching long haul flights from Australian ports with Qantas because it's more economical. So to with the Chinese airlines flying from Auckland International Airport along with the American airlines although God knows why anyone wants to travel to...
Maybe it's time for Air New Zealand to return to the 'Knows the Pacific best' mentality and accept it's geographically challenged in trying to compete with Qantas and Emirates. Too many kiwis are flying Trans Tasman and catching long haul flights from Australian ports with Qantas because it's more economical. So to with the Chinese airlines flying from Auckland International Airport along with the American airlines although God knows why anyone wants to travel to that country on the verge of self destruction. Air New Zealand will not survive purely by delivering what they believe is a superior product. Fewer would-be passengers can afford such luxuries in these times of airlines trying to recover their Covid losses.
With this layout in 'J' you could not pay me to get on those planes.
U.S. transit is subpar (no airside/visa free transit), Russian airspace is probably closed, and adding 2 new destinations (LGW plus another new airport) instead of 1 is more difficult. If these 3 criteria are important enough then DPS, YVR, and SIN are leading candidates for an AKL-(XXX)-LGW service. SIN and DPS involve a bit of Russian airspace deviation. SIN is the most even route split (less fuel required to lift fuel), followed by YVR then...
U.S. transit is subpar (no airside/visa free transit), Russian airspace is probably closed, and adding 2 new destinations (LGW plus another new airport) instead of 1 is more difficult. If these 3 criteria are important enough then DPS, YVR, and SIN are leading candidates for an AKL-(XXX)-LGW service. SIN and DPS involve a bit of Russian airspace deviation. SIN is the most even route split (less fuel required to lift fuel), followed by YVR then DPS. YVR is the shortest in Great Circle terms. DPS currently doesn't have any competition to London. SIN and YVR have more potential Star Alliance connections (Singapore Airlines and Air Canada respectively).
If you relax these criteria then AKL-HNL-LGW is intriguing. Currently there's no nonstop competition between Honolulu and LGW/LHR.
Hi!
I use to be ex air nz London base but back in Auckland now. The route actually did make money, not always major profits but it was successful. The CEO never wanted to London to carry on, current and past! I mean when you come from Walmart, what do you expect? Bottom line - fantastic airline and people. London was a truly unique base and they really lost a lot of good people and it’s their own fault.
How much money did it make? I mean, from your observation from the cabin?
I have flow Air New Zealand a handful of times, including LHR-LAX and LAX-AKL at different times. They used to have a terrific premium economy product that I really enjoyed where you would be in a gravity neutral position. I met a person flying from LHR-LAX-AKL and I was floored thinking of how long their travel was.
There are a lot of Kiwis in London and the UK more broadly. Many expats love to be able to fly on their home nation’s flag carrier, especially if they have a good reputation. It’s part of why Qantas flies to JFK without any ability to sell JFK-LAX tickets. They could easily have everybody fly AA for that sector, but people want QF’s product.
If ANZ want to be clever, they should fly LGW-DPS-AKL. Bali...
There are a lot of Kiwis in London and the UK more broadly. Many expats love to be able to fly on their home nation’s flag carrier, especially if they have a good reputation. It’s part of why Qantas flies to JFK without any ability to sell JFK-LAX tickets. They could easily have everybody fly AA for that sector, but people want QF’s product.
If ANZ want to be clever, they should fly LGW-DPS-AKL. Bali is so popular with British tourists and there’s currently not a nonstop from the UK. Especially given the leisure heavy demand, Gatwick is the perfect departure point too. Plus ANZ already flies from DPS-AKL.
Lovely post
But the premise is a tad flawed
I don’t think QF flies jfk-lax anymore? Basically because people don’t care that much about their own carrier. They fly QF on syd-akl-jfk now?
I suppose that has a hint toward your premise, but not really.
NB: QF hasn't flown LAX-JFK since before Covid and it won't be back with the new AKL-JFK flights (and eventually SYD-JFK flights with Project Sunrise).
Nice idea about the DPS flights - ANZ could even possibly get some connecting traffic from London from Germany, Austria, Switzerland & Portugal (and even east coast US & Canada) for those wanting a one-stop to DPS.
Whether the numbers actually make sense is another story though.
My money would be on AirNZ flying AKL-PER-LON. If they did a tie up again (pre-pandemic) with Virgin Australia, they could get a tonne of feed via Perth as the domestic-to-international connection there is pretty easy for passengers. There’s obviously the question of the VA/QR deal in this one but even without a VA/NZ tie up, they’d be able to compete hard with Qantas on the route and increase competition, ideally bringing fares down, given...
My money would be on AirNZ flying AKL-PER-LON. If they did a tie up again (pre-pandemic) with Virgin Australia, they could get a tonne of feed via Perth as the domestic-to-international connection there is pretty easy for passengers. There’s obviously the question of the VA/QR deal in this one but even without a VA/NZ tie up, they’d be able to compete hard with Qantas on the route and increase competition, ideally bringing fares down, given Qantas is clearly getting heaps of demand at a premium price point on the route.
Would be a nice little way to even the playing field with QF too after QF started AKL-JFK on NZ's home turf.
LAX-LGW after DL/UA/AA each dropped 1x daily flight? It would also help the overcapacity in US-Oceania lately.
Air NZ need to focus on installing their new business class product first. Nobody in their right mind is going to fly their old seat all the way to London when you have the option of some of the world's best business class products on other airlines.
That is correct. Air New Zealand does need to focus on their new business class installation.
All of Air New Zealand's B787 9 (14) will get the new business class.
The benefit for Air NZ on doing Auckland LAX London is that the Los Angeles London leg is not served by any good airlines, so they are in a better position to sell the 5th freedom leg. The challenge there can be that Gatters does not offer great connection onwards, so they'd probably need the Heathrow slots for it to work well.
"Any good airlines??"
This is true. I used to know loads of people who would go out of their way to choose NZ over BA/UA/AA especially in PE. I also seem to remember they had much better seat pitch in Y as well.
When they were using the PE Space seat concept 100% agree along with the Sky Couch in Y, since the former was ditched in favour of the zodiac seat it’s not worth so much effort.
I'm one! 5-6 years ago, I used to fly LAX -LHR R/T once a month. I would go out of my way not to fly BA/AA/UA and fly NZ. Besides the better cabin service, they had the last flight of the day (usually in the late aft. or eve.) out of LHR, which allowed me to get a full work day in before heading home to LA. With all the others, I was shlepping to LHR first thing in the AM.
@pogo
NZ’s own withdrawal from the route would suggest that you don’t know many people buying decent fares.
And @CPH, you apparently have not flown NZ in a bit. Their business class is impressive subpar on the hard product despite how disarming a Kiwi accent can be pouring an $8 white in J
At least the US carriers go for a $12 bottle of wine…
Either a Canadian stopover or perhaps air new Zealand is going to compete on the Perth to London route given how successful it's been for Qantas
My money is on LAX-LON. NZ served the route for over 40 years and had a meaningful base of loyal leisure travelers that would choose them again. Still might be a bit of a vanity project, though.
I think it’s more likely going to be a Canadian stopover, the LAX option was messy and not very popular with transit passengers.
It’s much better now. If you fly in Air France to Tahiti from Paris or vice versa, bags are checked through and you have a passport check in the midfield concourse/west gates.
Vancouver would be the only logical option then and fellow Star Alliance carrier AC already operate YVR-LHR
I gave up on ANZ after doing a round the world home when they flew - briefly - via HKG as well as LAX. Three segments in their cramped 3-4-3 Y class 777s was enough - the 34” economy pitch of old was long gone. People chose the HKG route for one stop to London as the transit process was easier, post 9-11 even transit passengers at LAX had to go through immigration just to...
I gave up on ANZ after doing a round the world home when they flew - briefly - via HKG as well as LAX. Three segments in their cramped 3-4-3 Y class 777s was enough - the 34” economy pitch of old was long gone. People chose the HKG route for one stop to London as the transit process was easier, post 9-11 even transit passengers at LAX had to go through immigration just to get back on the plane and the shambles there meant some missed the onward flight and J passengers had no time to visit the lounge. They dropped HKG as there was too much good Asian competition on the London segment.
Same reason was given for axing LAX to LHR; lots of competition from U.K. and US airlines.
These days I fly Emirates via Dubai - have done a couple of all-A380 round trips - from my local airport. There’s more room in J and the catering is way better. Last flight back from DXB, I scored a seat in the small upstairs J cabin on one of the newer two class 380s. ANZ can’t compete with that.
LGW is a cramped dump of a holiday airport full of inexperienced travellers holding up the security lines and much harder to access from much of the U.K. Public transport is also unreliable. That’s why ANZ moved from LGW to LHR years ago.
If there is sufficient traffic between Gatwick and Auckland, Air New Zealand should be able to make it work based on local traffic only. They could stop in Vancouver or Honolulu. They would have no non-stop competition between HNL and LGW. They could also try SFO in conjunction with United.
They could also have a technical stop and offer a few seats if they stopped in San Jose (California), Portland, Seattle, Ontario, etc. Granted AKL-ONT-LGW...
If there is sufficient traffic between Gatwick and Auckland, Air New Zealand should be able to make it work based on local traffic only. They could stop in Vancouver or Honolulu. They would have no non-stop competition between HNL and LGW. They could also try SFO in conjunction with United.
They could also have a technical stop and offer a few seats if they stopped in San Jose (California), Portland, Seattle, Ontario, etc. Granted AKL-ONT-LGW would present a higher risk of little traffic between ONT and LGW.
Air New Zealand basically got two sets of slots for free from Heathrow in the 1990s and 2000s respectively, which they turned around and liquidated for pure cash gains in 2013 and 2020. To then expect that they should be allocated more pool slots for free is chutzpah of the highest order.
They're not expecting them for free.
@GDog - absolutely they are. They applied for free slot allocations in the S25 season from ACL.
And?
Operate the route via lax and encompass lax-lhr under the UA transatlantic joint venture. Would need to have the new product ready because the old one isn't enough for that route.
With aircraft shortages, seems like resuming AKL-ORD should come first...
Historically they also flew via ppt/hnl-dfw-lgw, akl-nrt-lgw and akl-HNL-yvr-lgw
But that was a long time ago
Auckland- London Via Perth might work
If Qantas had any clue they'd already be doing that, but they don't even operate a Perth-Auckland nonstop anymore.
I think they will compete directly with Qantas and start from one of the Australian ports.
Auckland-London via Newark/JFK. That’ll be fun
NYLON is pretty oversaturated and they would need to get access to additional slots at both JFK and LHR.
I think eventually NZ moves the JFK flight to EWR
Could HNL work? HNL-LON is a route people have wanted for a long time.
You would be backtracking...flying to HNL you would be heading northeast. Then flying to London? Doesn't make sense for kiwis.
I don’t think HNL would be the first option, but it’s definitely not a backtrack; AKL-HNL-LHR is closer to the great circle route for AKL-LHR than AKL-LAX-LHR (or AKL-YVR-LHR for that matter)
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=AKL-LHR%0D%0AAKL-HNL-LHR%0D%0AAKL-YVR-LHR%0D%0AAKL-LAX-LHR&MS=wls&DU=nm
AKL-HNL-LON is only 199 miles further than AKL-LON nonstop.
I wish!… that would be an awesome route and great to have a direct flight from Europe to HNL. It does seem a logical route (in a sense) as it is almost a straight line and 300 miles less than via LAX.
No. This is a thing of the past.