15 Comments on “Hawaii Superferry: Deal or no deal?”

1. Mika Says:
   August 14th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

   I didn’t take it because it didn’t come to Kauai although that’s supposedly in the works, but I think it is not a bad option. You can be a lot more spontaneous about going between islands, and take the rental car so it’s less hassle than returning and renting again.

   The time - it is not a “no contest” since you have to show up at the airport an hour early at least. Then you have to take a shuttle /rent your car on the other end / take a cab or bus. Those also figure in to the time compared to showing up in your rental car.

   I wonder what the eco-impact of the ferry vs. flight is? That may also play into some people’s decision.

2. Sheila Says:
   August 14th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

   After a very rocky start and quite a bit of negative sensationalism, I’m hearing more and more positive reviews on the SF. With Aloha Airlines’ demise, it’s good that there’s another alternative for inter-island travel. So, I’d say it’s a deal.

3. Mauibrad Says:
   August 14th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

   To answer Mika’s question, HSF burns twice as much fuel as Hawaiian Air to transport the same number of people interisland. This assumes multiple HA flights to get up to the same amount of comparably priced fuel burned. Jet fuel and MDO are comparably priced. But, if you are just comparing one transit each, HSF burns 15 times more fuel by gallons than does a Hawaiian flight. This is all mainly because HSF uses 4 jet engines in higher resistent water and Hawaiian planes use 2 jet engines in less resistent air. If HSF could operate with 2 Rolls Royce jet engines, it’s long-term financial prospects would be much better. Aloha, Brad

4. Jane Engle Says:
   August 14th, 2008 at 3:01 pm

   Hi all–
   Thanks for the comments. Re: Mika’s point on the time required for the plane versus ferry. Looks like the Superferry’s operators want you there 60 to 90 minutes ahead: http://www.hawaiisuperferry.com/planning/preparing-for-your-voyage/before-you-leave-for-the-.html
   Re: Mauibrad on the fuel consumed. Interesting! I hadn’t thought about that. Where did you get your numbers, Mauibrad?

5. Mauibrad Says:
   August 14th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

   Jane, it is a compilation of sources: HSF’s own disclosures in the past on their fuel consumption, Hawaiian airline pilots on their fuel consumption, bunkerworld.com and other onlines sources for marine diesel prices, a number of articles that have appeared in the past few months on jet fuel prices per gallon, and ship officers including U.S. Navy officers recently mentioning ways to conserve marine diesel fuel including running on one or two diesel engines or half power. Aloha, Brad

6. Kimo Says:
   August 14th, 2008 at 6:43 pm

   Superferry has diesel engines, not jets so who knows where Maui Brad gets his info. Airplanes don’t carry lots of cars and trucks so what’s the point of allocating all the gas to the passengers? I hear it’s more efficient but for sure brad doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

   Got to say convenience-wise, nothing beats leaving the golf clubs and bags in the car and driving on. And I get whacked $40 each way for taking that stuff now.

   So Superferry is cheaper and easier for me. Love it.

7. David Cantrell Says:
   August 14th, 2008 at 9:28 pm

   I made a post on my blog after my first trip on the SF:
   http://blog.burdell.org/2008/07/superferry-check-maui-check.html

   Personally, I think going boat is way more fun than airplane simply to avoid airport annoyances like TSA and such.

   The SF ride is way more comfortable, there’s food, they show movies or sports, phones work, and there’s Internet access. And the fact that residents can take cars between the two islands is way cool.

   It’s pricey, yes, but I think they compensate for it with the on-ship amenities. There is another ferry on order, so they should be able to increase trip frequency next year.

   My biggest complaint is that they want you there 90 minutes before the trip. What? Ferries work well when they allow people to walk on at their convenience within a boarding window. I do understand they want to turn the ferry quickly, but making people wait like it’s an airport is not cool.

8. jonathan jay Says:
   August 14th, 2008 at 11:08 pm

   If I had a light-armor expeditionary battalion like say a Stryker Brigade ™ that I wanted to move quickly (and comfortably) between islands, or to say, a combat theater somewhere on the south-east Asian seashore within 72 hours, I would load up my boys and guns in a heartbeat onto the SuperFerry.

   For a civilian vessel, it is a remarkably great fit to our 21st century military desires!

   It meets all possible specifications - almost like they designed and built it for military use! Amazing.

   Also, to make things even better, the second ferry (now 75% completed) will have a massive mechanical arm and ramp system that will allow for loading and unloading even in areas that don’t particularly want visitors.

   In my book, that is a deal-breaker!

9. Karen Chun Says:
   August 15th, 2008 at 8:53 am

   The Hawaii Superferry is still operating a loss and offering its tickets without the fuel surcharge. Our other ferries say they will go out of business without the fuel surcharge (which amounts to 50% of the ticket price now)

   So as soon as Superferry starts charging full price instead of its loss-leader price it is going to be MORE expensive than taking the plane and renting a car.

   In addition, we still haven’t solved the problem of the $12 million boondoggle barged that can’t stand up to our winter swells and has to be tied at our limited freight dock space.

   The Superferry has been a disaster to our freight operations which supply over 90% of Maui’s food, goods and fuel.

10. Johnah K Says:
    August 15th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    Two completely different products for two different travel styles, in my opinion. Both services have their purpose. Movies, entertainment, fun activities, or not. For anyone time usually IS MONEY. For a retired person the SF is quick enough. No rush, have fun. No work. Go for it, enjoy, but the ticket price (even w/o the fuel surcharge) may be to much for most retirees on a regular basis. Once SF has to charge for it’s fuel expenses (they will), it may not be too competitive anymore compared to fast, modern, fuel efficient inter-island jet flying. Tough to match that convenience and service. Car rental rates are still cheap with planning, it may cost more to ship your car than to rent one, even with all the extra fees and taxes. So, SF is a good thing, air travel is a good thing. We need both. One does not replace the other. Pau

11. Mauibrad Says:
    August 15th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    The engines on the Alakai are called waterjet engines made by Rolls Royce. They are jet engines. Here is a link about them: http://marine.rolls-royce.com/water-jet-marine-engines/

    Jet fuel and MDO are comparably priced per gallon, so the comparison of fuel cost can be made.

    Aloha, Brad

12. Mikey Says:
    August 15th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    Airplane by far is better! Yes, you have to show up 60 to 90 minutes before the flight, but the same is true for the SF. Likewise, it takes longer to get off the SF when compared to a plane. Did anyone check out the price of food on the SF? Much more expensive than at the airport! Jet fuel burns much cleaner than diesel; and yes, the SF has 4 turbine engines, but they call them jet engines. Car rental companies are just now starting to let their cars on the SF; for a short trip, 3 or less days, it’s cheaper to fly in and rent a car. Biggest plus for the SF, its open and spacious, comfortable to walk around for the 3 hours. However it’s horrible when the seas are rough.

13. Mauibrad Says:
    August 16th, 2008 at 1:29 am

    See the following, “Comparing Marine diesel and Jet fuel prices‏” at: http://hisuperferry.blogspot.com/2008/08/comparing-marine-diesel-and-jet-fuel.html

    Aloha, Brad

14. MOK- Says:
    August 18th, 2008 at 4:49 am

    Short trip as in a weekend and need a rental car, I’d go by air. Going for a couple of weeks or more, I’d take the ferry with my car. BTW, the waterjet propulsion is not the engine. It’s what the engine drives. The ENGINEs that turn and power the waterjets are diesel engines as opposed to turbine engines (jet engines that power jet airplanes).

15. Mauibrad Says:
    August 18th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    MOK,

    Thanks for the clarification. Here are the parts to the drive system from HSF’s page:

    PROPULSION
    Main Engines 4 x MTU 20V8000 M70
    4 x 8200 kW (4 x 10,988 bhp)
    Gearboxes 4 x ZF 53000-2
    Waterjets 4 x Kamewa 125 SII

    The 4 MTU are the main diesel engines. Everything else about the comparison is still accurate. HSF burns about 1,950 gallons of MDO diesel fuel per hour or a little less than 6000 gallons per one way transit. Hawaiian Air burns about 400 gallons of jet fuel for the same transit. MDO and Jet Fuel are comparably priced, esp. by the metric ton. Even if you multiplied the HA fuel and passengers times 7 to compare the same number of people transported on the route by each, HA is half the fuel cost or twice the fuel efficiency of HSF at transporting people.

    Whether the jets are driven by diesel generators and what we call them doesn’t change the above fundamental comparison.

    Aloha, Brad

Leave a Comment

If you are under 13 years of age you may read this blog, but you may not participate. Here's the full legal spiel.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this blog until the author has approved them.

All fields are required