Honolulu, Hawaii Return from Melbourne $451 and Sydney $453 (Fly in September 2022) on Jetstar @ IWTF

920

Go to Deal

Store RepIWantThatFlight on 05/10/2021 - 14:48 iwantthatflight.com.au (1547 clicks)
Last edited 08/10/2021 - 13:43 by 2 other users

International Travel is scheduled to start in November 2021, and Jetstar is celebrating with cheap flights to Hawaii in Sept 2022.

Lots of dates available, and hopefully no international border restrictions by then (but maybe purchase a flexible ticket just in case?). Current entry requirements to Hawaii can be found at https://hawaiicovid19.com/travel/faqs/ though hopefully most restrictions will be eased by Sept 2022.

These fares do not include checked luggage or in-flight food.

$451 Return Melbourne to Honolulu Flights.

.Depart.	.Return.	.Price.
04/Sep	11/Sep	$451	View Flight
07/Sep	14/Sep	$460	View Flight
04/Sep	18/Sep	$460	View Flight
14/Sep	21/Sep	$461	View Flight
07/Sep	18/Sep	$470	View Flight
11/Sep	18/Sep	$470	View Flight
11/Sep	21/Sep	$471	View Flight
07/Sep	21/Sep	$471	View Flight
04/Sep	21/Sep	$471	View Flight
04/Sep	14/Sep	$489	View Flight
28/Aug	04/Sep	$508	View Flight
31/Aug	07/Sep	$508	View Flight
28/Aug	07/Sep	$508	View Flight
24/Aug	04/Sep	$508	View Flight
31/Aug	11/Sep	$508	View Flight
21/Aug	04/Sep	$508	View Flight
24/Aug	07/Sep	$508	View Flight
28/Aug	11/Sep	$508	View Flight
21/Aug	07/Sep	$508	View Flight
24/Aug	11/Sep	$508	View Flight

$453 Return Sydney to Honolulu Flights.

.Depart.	.Return.	.Price.
01/Sep	08/Sep	$453	View Flight
03/Sep	10/Sep	$453	View Flight
05/Sep	12/Sep	$453	View Flight
08/Sep	15/Sep	$453	View Flight
10/Sep	17/Sep	$453	View Flight
12/Sep	19/Sep	$453	View Flight
01/Sep	10/Sep	$453	View Flight
03/Sep	12/Sep	$453	View Flight
08/Sep	17/Sep	$453	View Flight
10/Sep	19/Sep	$453	View Flight
15/Sep	24/Sep	$453	View Flight
01/Sep	12/Sep	$453	View Flight
15/Sep	26/Sep	$453	View Flight
01/Sep	15/Sep	$453	View Flight
01/Sep	24/Sep	$453	View Flight
15/Sep	22/Sep	$468	View Flight
10/Sep	24/Sep	$469	View Flight
03/Sep	08/Sep	$480	View Flight
05/Sep	10/Sep	$480	View Flight
10/Sep	15/Sep	$480	View Flight

For this airfare and more, check out our deals site http://iknowthepilot.com.au/

Related Stores

I Want That Flight

Third-Party

Jetstar Airways

• 1
• 2

• • 

    try2bhelpful on 06/10/2021 - 16:51

    +3

    Not fear, risk assessment. I don’t tend to jump off random bridges into stony canyons either. To travel in the USA without health insurance is insane.

• 

  1st-Amendment on 06/10/2021 - 20:25

  -2

  To travel in the USA without health insurance is insane.

  You've made your position clear. Some people are less adventurous than others and that's ok.

  • 

    try2bhelpful on 06/10/2021 - 22:41

    +1

    This has nothing to do with being adventurous. This is encouraging people to juggle with chainsaws when they’ve never juggled before; especially with Covid around.

    • 

      1st-Amendment on 07/10/2021 - 10:06

      -1

      This is encouraging people to juggle with chainsaws when they’ve never juggled before;

      Lol, you keep making the same point over and over. You are not the adventurous type. We get it.

      • 

        try2bhelpful on 07/10/2021 - 10:41

        And you keep trying to pass off foolhardy with adventurous, we get that. I just hope nobody is contemplating following your advice. Having travelled, quite a bit in the US and talked to people over there, even with insurance, the medical costs are eye watering.

        • 

          1st-Amendment on 07/10/2021 - 11:27

          @try2bhelpful:

          And you keep trying to pass off foolhardy with adventurous

          Well that's what fearful people think of more adventurous people. It makes perfect sense for you to think that.

          I just hope nobody is contemplating following your advice.

          I didn't offer any advice, I made an observation. Millions of people are traveling right now, they do not let fear rule their lives.

          • 

            try2bhelpful on 07/10/2021 - 12:46

            @1st-Amendment: Frankly I let logic rule my life. I’m sure it is adventurous to jump off tall cliffs onto the rocks; it just isn’t wise.

            However, off you go, I’m sure you won’t come to any harm. However, I, personally, know of one family where they had to sell an apartment to cover the costs of a family member that had decided to be “adventurous” overseas. It works until it doesn’t. My view is you learn from other people’s mistakes.

• 

  1st-Amendment on 08/10/2021 - 08:34

  Frankly I let logic rule my life.

  Do you wear a helmet when you drive? The science is clear on this: https://colvilleandersen.medium.com/the-case-for-motorist-he…

  I guessing this is the part where you decide that logic no longer rules your life lol…

  My view is you learn from other people’s mistakes.

  Let me know when you start wearing a helmet every time you get in a car.

  • 

    try2bhelpful on 08/10/2021 - 08:49

    There is a difference between wearing a helmet when driving a car and not being insured when travelling. It is logical to ameliorate the risk when travelling by being insured it is not necessary for everyone in a car to wear a helmet. The risk analysis is quite different. However, I’m sure you can find other “examples” you think are relevant.

    However, I think we have both made our points now. If people follow your path they can’t say they haven’t been warned.

• 

  1st-Amendment on 08/10/2021 - 10:01

  It is logical to ameliorate the risk when travelling by being insured it is not necessary for everyone in a car to wear a helmet.

  This is what passes for logic to you? You just decide something is true and it is!

  The risk analysis is quite different.

  How exactly? Feel free to explain the logic here using actual logic not just emotional statements. The article posted quite clearly analyses the risk with actual science, yet you choose to ignore it offering nothing in return other than your opinion. This is not logic

  If people follow your path they can’t say they haven’t been warned.

  I have suggested no path, but you've clearly demonstrated that logic is something you are not very familiar with.

  • 

    try2bhelpful on 08/10/2021 - 10:10

    Happy trails mate.

    What you don’t see is a bunch of safety experts advocating that helmets should be worn in cars but most travel experts indicate health coverage is important in America.

    If I was “fearful”, as you indicate, I would already be wearing a helmet in a car. In fact if I was, truly, fearful I wouldn’t be travelling at all because insurance would be the least of my issues.

    However, I am happy to do a cost/benefit risk analysis and come to an acceptable outcome.

    I’ll just wait for the posting, “I’ve got a massive bill from a hospital stay in America how can I get out of it”.

• 

  1st-Amendment on 09/10/2021 - 05:35

  What you don’t see is a bunch of safety experts…

  Logical fallacy (argumentum ab auctoritate).

  travel experts

  What exactly is a 'travel expert'. Do tell lol…

  If I was “fearful”, as you indicate, I would already be wearing a helmet in a car.

  No because emotional decisions usually not logical. And fear is applied irrationally and randomly as you have quite clearly demonstrated.

  I’ll just wait for the posting, “I’ve got a massive bill from a hospital stay in America how can I get out of it”.

  This is what passes for a logical argument to you?

  • 

    try2bhelpful on 09/10/2021 - 07:00

    You have decided on a false definition of reasonable caution as being fearful. The problem is you’ve used too “emotive” an insult. I don’t care about your attempts to insult me, my intention here was, purely, to warn people about being reckless.

    Deciding that travelling is an enjoyable experience I wish to undertake, and that the cost of insurance is a small price to offset what might be a financially crippling risk, is completely rational and logical. Thinking it “won’t happen to me” is the illogical stance. Frankly, I think I have demonstrated my point to the people who are willing to listen; you are not the person I am trying to convince. My invitation is for people to do their own research before deciding to be “adventurous”.

    If you want to bring in a car example then it is like the people we get on here trying to work out how to clean up the mess after they have been so “adventurous” as to decide to drive without having insurance. People who understand these things will, also, understand my logic. To the people who don’t then I have tried my best.

    I, also, think people need to do a risk/benefit analysis on the use of helmets in cars rather than rely on one “authority” that a person has introduced into a discussion to try to bolster an unrelated argument.

    Making rational decision based on a risk/benefit analysis is not being “fearful”. It is what most of us do everyday.

• 

  1st-Amendment on 10/10/2021 - 08:25

  The problem is you’ve used too “emotive” an insult.

  The fact that that you think this only lends weight to my claim. Logic is a thing. And while a lot of people claim to be logical, they very rarely are.
  Decisions are logical or emotional. And since no actual logic has been demonstrated, by the rules of deductive logic this has to be emotion (disjunctive syllogism)

  Making rational decision based on a risk/benefit analysis is not being “fearful”. It is what most of us do everyday.

  It's not rational when you just believe something without actual logic being demonstrated. People make decisions everyday and claim them to be rational when they very rarely are.

  my intention here was, purely, to warn people about being reckless.

  Sure, based on what you think. Not any demonstrated and valid logic.

  Thinking it “won’t happen to me” is the illogical stance

  That wasn't the claim, so it's a Strawman logical fallacy. Once again, not valid logic.

  Frankly, I think I have demonstrated my point to the people who are willing to listen;

  'I think' is not logically valid.

  People who understand these things will, also, understand my logic.

  Well they will understand your thought process, I think that is now quite clear.

  Making rational decision based on a risk/benefit analysis is not being “fearful”. It is what most of us do everyday.

  It is when you claim something is rational or logical when that hasn't been demonstrated. This is common problem these days when people want the authority of 'science' or 'logic' but don't actually understand how it works.

  If you are interested in actual logic, maybe have a read of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic

  Just thinking something and believing it is not how actual logic works.

  • 

    try2bhelpful on 10/10/2021 - 09:27

    “Fearful” and “Adventure” are emotive terms. There isn’t a set measurement of “fearful” or “adventure”; these are very much aligned with the experiences and tolerance of the individual and various sections of society. You are using judgemental terminology with almost no understanding of the individual and based on your criteria alone. Without an empirical standard you don’t get to define “fearful” and “adventure” for everyone else. I’m not the one lacking in logic here.

    Interesting. You seem to get into the technical details of “logic” definitions, bring in irrelevant examples to back your argument, but totally ignore the underlying message. When in doubt, distract.

    All I am saying is people need to do their research. They need to investigate the costs of the using the medical facilities in America - visiting doctors, going to hospital, purchasing medicines. At my personal level, fearful would be, injured, sitting in an American hospital whilst thousands of dollars in bills is racking up. It is only my opinion but, I suspect, this might be something that quite a few people could relate to. Frankly I am not trying to change your opinion; I am trying to get others to do their own research. Given the costs the only logical reason people wouldn’t take out the insurance is because they think “it won’t happen to me” so I don’t see how this is a straw man argument. You don’t get to tell people that they aren’t equipped to undertake this research.

    I’m sure you will find another “technical” term to determine why your opinions are more worthy than mine; however, you are not exhibiting logic all you have shown is you know how to define it at a technical level. You throw in a bit of Latin and terminology and think will suffice. It is like the difference between reading a recipe and baking a cake.

    The underlying concept of logic is to undertake the assessment and come up with the best decision based on all the factors. Let’s approach that issue rather than window dressing.

• 

  1st-Amendment on 11/10/2021 - 10:10

  “Fearful” and “Adventure” are emotive terms.

  Correct, yet you were the one to define them as logic. "Frankly I let logic rule my life"

  How do you let logic rule your life when you have no idea what it is?

  • 

    try2bhelpful on 11/10/2021 - 11:51

    I did not define them as logical; you are the one who brought these terms into the equation. In fact I was countering these terms by saying they weren’t logical; that they were emotive and subjective. That was the point of my sentence.

    What I was pointing out is I don’t use emotive terms I do the cost/benefit analysis then come up with the logical conclusion. I don’t approach this from the emotions of “fear” or “adventure” I look at it from the cost vs benefit. In fact, in relation to insurance, I apply a friend of mine’s theory which is “if I can, comfortably, afford to carry the cost of a negative outcome then I don’t buy insurance, if I can’t then I do”. I have insurance for my house, my car (mainly because who I might hit) and health travel insurance to avoid the chance of incurring a high, open ended, cost dependent on what accident/illness I might have. I don’t see how you define this as anything but logical.

    As I said before it sounds like you can read the recipe but you don’t know how to bake the cake. Being able to half apply a bunch of terms doesn’t mean you are being logical.

• 

  1st-Amendment on 12/10/2021 - 08:35

  I did not define them as logical
  You: "Frankly I let logic rule my life"

  In fact I was countering these terms by saying they weren’t logical; that they were emotive
  Me:"Feel free to explain the logic here using actual logic not just emotional statements"

  Being able to half apply a bunch of terms doesn’t mean you are being logical.

  You mean being able to apply actual logic lol…

  • 

    try2bhelpful on 12/10/2021 - 08:53

    Can’t counter the argument so you are sticking to the semantics.

    • 

      1st-Amendment on 12/10/2021 - 08:59

      Can’t counter the argument so you are sticking to the semantics.

      The argument was countered multiple times, it's all there in black and white. I can't help you if you don't understand what words mean.

      • 

        try2bhelpful on 12/10/2021 - 09:04

        It is pointless continuing this. Frankly I’m leaving this up to each individual to decide based on the cost/benefit analysis. You can go down whatever “logic” definition rabbit holes you want to.

• 

  1st-Amendment on 12/10/2021 - 09:24

  You can go down whatever “logic” definition rabbit holes you want to.

  So "Frankly I let logic rule my life", is now "I don't care for logic when it disagrees with my opinion" lol.
  Glad we got there in the end…

  • 

    try2bhelpful on 12/10/2021 - 10:14

    There is a difference between definition and application. As I, keep, reiterating, I will leave this up to people to do their own cost benefit analysis and then making their own decisions. Not sure why this isn't the point you are discussing rather than the semantics on the definitions around logic.

• 

  1st-Amendment on 12/10/2021 - 13:12

  Not sure why

  That is abundantly clear…

  • 

    try2bhelpful on 12/10/2021 - 16:11

    Actually, you are correct, it is abundantly clear why you won't discuss the actual issue.

    • 

      1st-Amendment on 13/10/2021 - 09:07

      Actually, you are correct

      Thanks.

      Frankly I’m leaving this…

      I will leave this…

      You are the gift that keeps on giving….

      • 

        try2bhelpful on 13/10/2021 - 09:13

        Actually I’m more interested in the practical outcome than the minutia of the definitions.

        You have taken a half a sentence out of context and you think this bolsters your argument?

        If we want to talk about the gift that keeps giving it is yourself.

        • 

          1st-Amendment on 14/10/2021 - 11:27

          @try2bhelpful:

          Actually I’m more interested in the practical outcome than the minutia of the definitions.

          Lol, so not interested in actual definitions of actual words. You really are a lost soul…

          If we want to talk about the gift that keeps giving it is yourself

          No, you are lol…

          • 

            try2bhelpful on 14/10/2021 - 13:01

            @1st-Amendment: I just find it amusing that you think you are winning this discussion. You appear to have lost the whole point of the discussion by reducing this down to your interpretation of the definition of “logic”.

            “Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.” ― George Santayana.

            My aim, has always, been to advise people they should do their own research into the American health costs to understand the implications of not having health insurance when travelling. I do wonder if I hadn’t used the word “logical” which other word definition you would be obsessed with; maybe “the”.

            • 

              1st-Amendment on 15/10/2021 - 10:00

              @try2bhelpful:

              “Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.” ― George Santayana.

              Yet here you are, the irony of this is delicious…

              Keep it coming, I mean you said repeatedly you would leave but yet it's so easy get you to keep biting lol…

              • 

                try2bhelpful on 17/10/2021 - 00:59

                @1st-Amendment: I’m not “leaving” the discussion, mate? You don’t seem to know the context that I was using that word either.

                Frankly you don’t know what irony is either.

                You are more concerned about defining words than the context and appropriate use of them. Keep reading that recipe whilst the rest of us concentrate on the cake.

                I notice you still haven’t addressed the issue I was raising.

• 

  1st-Amendment on 17/10/2021 - 08:18

  I’m not “leaving” the discussion, mate?

  Chomp, and he bites once again, So easy…
  Tell me, was that a question? I'm not sure why there is a question mark in there? Is English your first language?

  I notice you still haven’t addressed the issue I was raising.

  It was addressed repeatedly, I can't help that you can't read.
  But you keep "redoubling your efforts" and see where that takes you lol…

• 1
• 2