TWA772LR wrote:

I feel the MRJ is the best for HA seeing as they don't need the range of the Ejets. How many used Fokker 100 are there? Those would fit nicely.

.

azjubilee wrote:

In order to put the t-prop debate to rest and blow major holes into the theory that it may be a good idea, all one has to do is break out a calculator and crunch some numbers.

Follow closely... 170 flights/day x 128 seats = 21,760 seats/day on mainline type aircraft, with cargo carrying capacity and space for bags.
Now, entertaining the silly premise that large t-props can replicate on a practical scale what HAL does with the 717s, let's crunch more numbers. 21,760 seats divided by 75 seats (on average in large t-props) = 290.1, rounded down to 290 flights/day. For real?

The suggestion that large t-props should replace the 717 based on the fact that the neighbor island market is short haul is not only flawed, it demonstrates one has no clue what HAL really does and what this market is all about. Replacing the 717s with t-props would force HAL to grow the operation to 290 flights/day. This is absurd. This kind of operation in facilities that are bursting at the seams and often inadequate for even the current operation, would be a logistical nightmare.

Hopefully, before 2 weeks time, when the topic is broached yet again, someone will read this thread and think twice about beating an already dead horse.

nikeson13 wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

B ombardier and atr were not so long ago studieng the possiblities of
develping a 100seat turboprop.

=SOLUTION

Yeah, IF they develop it. Theres been no progress on it and it wont happen for awhile. Airbus is limiting ATR from developing it, and BBD has no money or time to develop one, so thats pretty much out of choice. And a 100 seat turboprop would still be too small, bringing up to almost 220 flights a day, an increase of 50/day vs now.

nikeson13 wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

B ombardier and atr were not so long ago studieng the possiblities of
develping a 100seat turboprop.

=SOLUTION

Yeah, IF they develop it. Theres been no progress on it and it wont happen for awhile. Airbus is limiting ATR from developing it, and BBD has no money or time to develop one, so thats pretty much out of choice. And a 100 seat turboprop would still be too small, bringing up to almost 220 flights a day, an increase of 50/day vs now.

embraer175e2 wrote:

50 a day is not that much... I don't know that market what I do know is that a 30 minutes flight is very short for a jet to fly several times a day.

embraer175e2 wrote:

50 a day is not that much... I don't know that market what I do know is that a 30 minutes flight is very short for a jet to fly several times a day.

nikeson13 wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

50 a day is not that much... I don't know that market what I do know is that a 30 minutes flight is very short for a jet to fly several times a day.

It is with the current infrastructure... HNL has some space in the Terminal 2, the interisland terminal (Gates 54-61) but during peak times it gets tricky. LIH at all times is packed.

Here's the math: there's 24-29 flights round-trip between HNL and OGG each day in the month of April(48-58 legs/day, and not peak season). That means currently 128 seats x 29/24 flights = 3072 to 3712 seats one-way each day. To get that on an ATR72-600 in 30" pitch(same as 712s) with a cargo hold: (3712 or 3072 seats) / 70 seats on a ATR72-600 = 44 to 53 flights a day, an increase of 83% in the number of flights. With an average of 13 legs/day per frame currently, that leads to 7 to 9 ATR frames just to operate HNL-OGG when only 4-5 712's are currently needed, an increase of 80% in the number of staff needed. Plus there's the additional costs of more landing fees, more staff to run gates, and it looks pretty impractical. With flights leaving every 35 to 42 minutes (29/24 flights/day from 5am to 10pm), there will now be a flight every 20 to 24 minutes, that's crazy just to fathom.

In comparison, the CS100 with 30" pitch is 125 seats would only need an addition of 1 flight roundtrip to match the current seat numbers. Even a theoretical ATR100 with 100 seats would need 30 to 37 legs one-way/day = 28% increase in flights = 5-6 frames, which is more reasonable but would a ATR100 have a large enough cargo hold? There's nothing out there that's ideal for HA to replace the 717 with, I think we can agree on that. But if the CS100's PW1519G can get quick cooling times and weather the heating and cooling issues AQ had with their 737-700s, or E2-195's PW1715G, then one of those two would be the most ideal. If they can't, who knows what HA will do.

nikeson13 wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

50 a day is not that much... I don't know that market what I do know is that a 30 minutes flight is very short for a jet to fly several times a day.

It is with the current infrastructure... HNL has some space in the Terminal 2, the interisland terminal (Gates 54-61) but during peak times it gets tricky. LIH at all times is packed.

Here's the math: there's 24-29 flights round-trip between HNL and OGG each day in the month of April(48-58 legs/day, and not peak season). That means currently 128 seats x 29/24 flights = 3072 to 3712 seats one-way each day. To get that on an ATR72-600 in 30" pitch(same as 712s) with a cargo hold: (3712 or 3072 seats) / 70 seats on a ATR72-600 = 44 to 53 flights a day, an increase of 83% in the number of flights. With an average of 13 legs/day per frame currently, that leads to 7 to 9 ATR frames just to operate HNL-OGG when only 4-5 712's are currently needed, an increase of 80% in the number of staff needed. Plus there's the additional costs of more landing fees, more staff to run gates, and it looks pretty impractical. With flights leaving every 35 to 42 minutes (29/24 flights/day from 5am to 10pm), there will now be a flight every 20 to 24 minutes, that's crazy just to fathom.

In comparison, the CS100 with 30" pitch is 125 seats would only need an addition of 1 flight roundtrip to match the current seat numbers. Even a theoretical ATR100 with 100 seats would need 30 to 37 legs one-way/day = 28% increase in flights = 5-6 frames, which is more reasonable but would a ATR100 have a large enough cargo hold? There's nothing out there that's ideal for HA to replace the 717 with, I think we can agree on that. But if the CS100's PW1519G can get quick cooling times and weather the heating and cooling issues AQ had with their 737-700s, or E2-195's PW1715G, then one of those two would be the most ideal. If they can't, who knows what HA will do.

embraer175e2 wrote:

The neo and the max have the geared turbofans too. So why do you keep mentioning the cs series? if it was such a big market the a330 would be viable for interislands flights with enough cooling time for the engines.

nikeson13 wrote:

[

nikeson13 wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

The neo and the max have the geared turbofans too. So why do you keep mentioning the cs series? if it was such a big market the a330 would be viable for interislands flights with enough cooling time for the engines.

To get why the market only calls for a 100-150 seater aircraft, you need to look at the history of inter-island service. In 1966, HA started inter-island jet service with the DC-9-10, replacing the aging and mixed CV-240 family fleet. This provided more payload, quicker flight times, and actually increased demand. Thus, AQ responded by replacing their Viscounts and F-27's initially with BAC One-Elevens and then 732s. Since then, all of the major inter-island flights have gone jet. The reliance and popularity of the jets was also boosted with some local events: AQ had a fire break out on a Viscount in '71, and later had the famous AQ Flight 243, a 737-200 flight that had an explosive decompression inflight that ripped apart half of the upper fuselage forward of the wing and successfully landed at OGG with only one fatality, boosting the ideal of the reliability and safety of a jet and increasing its popularity. Since then, only jets have been popular between the major islands: WP has never been able to capture a good marketshare since its formation. Combining the frequency of HA flights, the sense of safety in jets, and HA's inter-island travel plan(a fixed payment plan that allows a number of inter-island flights, with occasional restrictions), HA has been able to woo over islanders with its size, perks, reliability, and safety, dominating the market.

So now we got a sense of why HA dominates with 717s versus WP and props, why the 717? HA flew their DC-9-10s and -30s till the 70s, and kept the -50's around till '01 and they were the true workhorse of interisland flying. As the 90's rolled around and the DC-9-50 fleet started to turn 20+, HA started to look to find a replacement aircraft that would actually work. As it happened, AQ also was looking to replace the 737-200s they had, and acquired a few 737-300s and -400s to replace and upgauge inter-island flying. These failed epically with the heating issues that become a problem with high-bypass turbofans, increased maintenance, frequent engine swaps, and the pair of -400s were too big, so AQ got rid of them quick and got back some 737-200s. Learning from that, HA acquired the 717 in '01, an aircraft equipped with two turbofan BR-715s, an almost identical replacement for the DC-9-50s.

So now we know why jets dominate, upgauging fails, and how HA is stuck with the 717. But, as you said, why not upgauge to a A330 or even something like a A320? Again, it comes down to the passengers. Would you think that someone would want to fly a A330 on a 40 minute flight, with a boarding process as long as the flight itself, and then waiting forever to deplane, and even longer to wait if you checked your piece of luggage? The A330 is far too big and impractical for how short those flights are and would discourage travel between islands, and some airports like LIH and KOA, they would be pretty impractical. Plus, these flights get tons of last-minute bookings, so frequency matters here. But what about a A320? The problem here comes with the engines, the quick heating to get to cruising altitude, sit there for a short time, then descend is horrific on high-bypass turbofans. A high-bypass turbofan rapidly heats up when spooled up, and a they need to stay in cruise for a while to properly cool at a reduced rate. When you get these short flights, the engines are not able to cool at a slow rate and rapidly cool, causing wearing issues. Plus, trading frequency for size hasn't worked well in the past, so that rules out anything over 150 seats. For why I mention the CSeries because 1) its a 1:1 replacement of the current fleet, which it and the the E195 can say and 2) The engine. While the turbojet, like that on the 737-200, DC-9, and 717 is most optimal for these flights after turboprops, I think there may be a chance for a geared turbofan to work. They have yet to be proven, but with the new composites and metals in them they may just weather the flights, but that's yet to be determined. Here's a article that does pretty well simply describing the current issues with the A320NEO and geared vs. high-bypass.


Sorry for how long this was and how its goes a bit off target, but I hope this helps understand the situation.

KanaHawaii wrote:

A coupe of thoughts on this:
1. The culture of Hawaii when it comes to air travel has been always driven by the idea that transportation between the islands should be both cheap and quick. Jet travel between the islands, when first introduced in the 1960's, was touted as modernizing the state, bringing the islands closer together. With the technology at the time - JT8D engined 737's and DC-9s, it made feasible sense. Because the people of Hawaii don't know really better, today they look at Hawaiian with its 717's as the first choice of travel, followed by Island Air.

2. While Hawaiian can downgrade to turboprops (which would probably add savings to operations, but the residents of Hawaii would never see the savings), the slack in available airline seats with the conversion would need to be absorbed by another airline or another form of transportation. In other island communities (French Polynesia, Maldives, etc) there are well established sea ferry operations. So transportation can be done throughout the entity at price points (ferry's being cheaper overall) that would service all populations. Hawaii currently has no commuter ferry between the islands. If Hawaiian would downgrade (which is what it would really be seen) its services to turboprop, without the associated new transportation services, all kinds of havoc could occur which both the state and industry could ill afford to experience.

3. (more conspiratorial) With Hawaiian being the largest transporter of people between the islands, using 717 jets which at one time was described to me as "flying out a B-52 bomber to go grocery shopping" they provide enough heft in the market to deter any real attempt by mainland operators (AS, UAL in the past) to enter the interisland market with anything better than what Hawaiian has. Putting asside the moment the fact that Hawaii is provincial in its corporate attitudes, the fact is that Hawaiian would be most formidable with what it has now to prevent new operators to come in at any strength. I think they tolerate Island Air right now as they, with the Q400's, still does not dent enough of the market for Hawaiian to take notice.

Quint1 wrote:

Que the Sukhoi

jagraham wrote:

KanaHawaii wrote:

A coupe of thoughts on this:
1. The culture of Hawaii when it comes to air travel has been always driven by the idea that transportation between the islands should be both cheap and quick. Jet travel between the islands, when first introduced in the 1960's, was touted as modernizing the state, bringing the islands closer together. With the technology at the time - JT8D engined 737's and DC-9s, it made feasible sense. Because the people of Hawaii don't know really better, today they look at Hawaiian with its 717's as the first choice of travel, followed by Island Air.

2. While Hawaiian can downgrade to turboprops (which would probably add savings to operations, but the residents of Hawaii would never see the savings), the slack in available airline seats with the conversion would need to be absorbed by another airline or another form of transportation. In other island communities (French Polynesia, Maldives, etc) there are well established sea ferry operations. So transportation can be done throughout the entity at price points (ferry's being cheaper overall) that would service all populations. Hawaii currently has no commuter ferry between the islands. If Hawaiian would downgrade (which is what it would really be seen) its services to turboprop, without the associated new transportation services, all kinds of havoc could occur which both the state and industry could ill afford to experience.

3. (more conspiratorial) With Hawaiian being the largest transporter of people between the islands, using 717 jets which at one time was described to me as "flying out a B-52 bomber to go grocery shopping" they provide enough heft in the market to deter any real attempt by mainland operators (AS, UAL in the past) to enter the interisland market with anything better than what Hawaiian has. Putting asside the moment the fact that Hawaii is provincial in its corporate attitudes, the fact is that Hawaiian would be most formidable with what it has now to prevent new operators to come in at any strength. I think they tolerate Island Air right now as they, with the Q400's, still does not dent enough of the market for Hawaiian to take notice.

Look up "Hawaii Superferry"

embraer175e2 wrote:

so the a319 neo with geared turbofans and 100-120 seats would also be an option.

Polot wrote:

Assuming geared turbofans can actually handle it. GTFs also get hot like high-bypass engines, because at the end of the day it is still a high bypass engine. PW is still having trouble getting the engines to work reliably under typical A320 flight conditions/utilization; I have my doubts that the PW1000G is ready for the demands of interisland hopping anytime soon.

The CFM56 doesn't like flight profiles that include high power settings on climb and carrying power on descent without nice, cool, cruise air (and lower thrust settings) in between. You can do that for a few cycles, but as I understand it, operating the engines like this constantly significantly shortens the engine life, which is why AQ withdrew 737 Classics and NG's from inter-island flying...

I believe that the NGs aren't that great for interisland flying because the engine cores don't have enough time to cool down. The plane has such short flights at lower altitudes that the engines are stressed more than usual. There was something with the 737-200 engine design that made that engine more forgiveable for those flights, hence Aloha using them.

baje427 wrote:

Does anyone know how the Q400 is going for Island Air so far?

nikeson13 wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

so the a319 neo with geared turbofans and 100-120 seats would also be an option.

Yes an option, no to viability. The A319NEO is a shrink of the A320NEO, with the latter being cheaper to operate per seat. So if HA did want to go bigger but not A320NEO big, something more like the CS300 would be viable. The CS300 would burn less fuel and be cheaper to operate per seat because, like the A320, its the normal model, not a stretch or shrink. Plus, the PW1100G Series thats on the NEO family is having the current problems, not the PW1500G series on the CSeries. So in the 150-seat category, a CS300 beats the A319 NEO anyday, so acquiring a A319NEO is not optimal. (PS. only 55 orders have been placed for A319NEO vs. 3624 for A320NEO and 237 for CS300)

nikeson13 wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

The neo and the max have the geared turbofans too. So why do you keep mentioning the cs series? if it was such a big market the a330 would be viable for interislands flights with enough cooling time for the engines.

To get why the market only calls for a 100-150 seater aircraft, you need to look at the history of inter-island service. In 1966, HA started inter-island jet service with the DC-9-10, replacing the aging and mixed CV-240 family fleet. This provided more payload, quicker flight times, and actually increased demand. Thus, AQ responded by replacing their Viscounts and F-27's initially with BAC One-Elevens and then 732s. Since then, all of the major inter-island flights have gone jet. The reliance and popularity of the jets was also boosted with some local events: AQ had a fire break out on a Viscount in '71, and later had the famous AQ Flight 243, a 737-200 flight that had an explosive decompression inflight that ripped apart half of the upper fuselage forward of the wing and successfully landed at OGG with only one fatality, boosting the ideal of the reliability and safety of a jet and increasing its popularity. Since then, only jets have been popular between the major islands: WP has never been able to capture a good marketshare since its formation. Combining the frequency of HA flights, the sense of safety in jets, and HA's inter-island travel plan(a fixed payment plan that allows a number of inter-island flights, with occasional restrictions), HA has been able to woo over islanders with its size, perks, reliability, and safety, dominating the market.

So now we got a sense of why HA dominates with 717s versus WP and props, why the 717? HA flew their DC-9-10s and -30s till the 70s, and kept the -50's around till '01 and they were the true workhorse of interisland flying. As the 90's rolled around and the DC-9-50 fleet started to turn 20+, HA started to look to find a replacement aircraft that would actually work. As it happened, AQ also was looking to replace the 737-200s they had, and acquired a few 737-300s and -400s to replace and upgauge inter-island flying. These failed epically with the heating issues that become a problem with high-bypass turbofans, increased maintenance, frequent engine swaps, and the pair of -400s were too big, so AQ got rid of them quick and got back some 737-200s. Learning from that, HA acquired the 717 in '01, an aircraft equipped with two turbofan BR-715s, an almost identical replacement for the DC-9-50s.

So now we know why jets dominate, upgauging fails, and how HA is stuck with the 717. But, as you said, why not upgauge to a A330 or even something like a A320? Again, it comes down to the passengers. Would you think that someone would want to fly a A330 on a 40 minute flight, with a boarding process as long as the flight itself, and then waiting forever to deplane, and even longer to wait if you checked your piece of luggage? The A330 is far too big and impractical for how short those flights are and would discourage travel between islands, and some airports like LIH and KOA, they would be pretty impractical. Plus, these flights get tons of last-minute bookings, so frequency matters here. But what about a A320? The problem here comes with the engines, the quick heating to get to cruising altitude, sit there for a short time, then descend is horrific on high-bypass turbofans. A high-bypass turbofan rapidly heats up when spooled up, and a they need to stay in cruise for a while to properly cool at a reduced rate. When you get these short flights, the engines are not able to cool at a slow rate and rapidly cool, causing wearing issues. Plus, trading frequency for size hasn't worked well in the past, so that rules out anything over 150 seats. For why I mention the CSeries because 1) its a 1:1 replacement of the current fleet, which it and the the E195 can say and 2) The engine. While the turbojet, like that on the 737-200, DC-9, and 717 is most optimal for these flights after turboprops, I think there may be a chance for a geared turbofan to work. They have yet to be proven, but with the new composites and metals in them they may just weather the flights, but that's yet to be determined. Here's a article that does pretty well simply describing the current issues with the A320NEO and geared vs. high-bypass.


Sorry for how long this was and how its goes a bit off target, but I hope this helps understand the situation.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Great write up in general, but the DC-9-30, 717 and 737-200 engines are not "turbojets". They are also "turbofan" engines.

When did HA retire the Convair 240? Didn't they last until at least the early 1970s on the Hana route?

nikeson13 wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

B ombardier and atr were not so long ago studieng the possiblities of
develping a 100seat turboprop.

=SOLUTION

Yeah, IF they develop it. Theres been no progress on it and it wont happen for awhile. Airbus is limiting ATR from developing it, and BBD has no money or time to develop one, so thats pretty much out of choice. And a 100 seat turboprop would still be too small, bringing up to almost 220 flights a day, an increase of 50/day vs now.