Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
WPvsMW wrote:Which brings up... were UA's expansion of HI service to include interisland, what frame would UA use?
lightsaber wrote:HA peaks at 17 cycles per airframe during peak season, less during the off season.
HA has looked at the C-series. They could expand with larger aircraft.
They have also looked at the MRJ. The PW1200G will have a quicker turn time, due to lower heat thanks to the much lower pressure ratio.
The drop in resale values of the 717 (which then recovered) allowed HA to keep to one type.
WPvsMW wrote:HA averages about 20 cycles per plane per day on the active planes in its 20 plane fleet of B712s, so the cycle clock ticks quickly on those birds. What's the interisland replacement for HA? I think HA will follow DL's lead, and we'll see CS100s, maybe some CS300s (though the CS300 seating enters the A321 range) flying interisland for HA .... assuming the PW 1500G issues are sorted out. What other choice does HA have for its interisland fleet? I don't see Russian- or Chinese-made frames as possible. The 108 to 133 seat range of the CS100 would fit interisland loads perfectly.
Which brings up... were UA's expansion of HI service to include interisland, what frame would UA use?
csturdiv wrote:[Several months ago I flew HNL-OGG-HNL and both flights were not very full at all, a lot of entire empty rows on both flights (not as lucky on my SYD-HNL-SYD flights).
csturdiv wrote:lightsaber wrote:HA peaks at 17 cycles per airframe during peak season, less during the off season.
HA has looked at the C-series. They could expand with larger aircraft.
They have also looked at the MRJ. The PW1200G will have a quicker turn time, due to lower heat thanks to the much lower pressure ratio.
The drop in resale values of the 717 (which then recovered) allowed HA to keep to one type.
I base my question after only two flights, so I do agree that it is not a big enough sample for stats.
Do they really need a bigger/larger aircraft? Several months ago I flew HNL-OGG-HNL and both flights were not very full at all, a lot of entire empty rows on both flights (not as lucky on my SYD-HNL-SYD flights).
Varsity1 wrote:Rotating 321's on a few hops before running the mainland TPAC seems likely.
WPvsMW wrote:csturdiv wrote:[Several months ago I flew HNL-OGG-HNL and both flights were not very full at all, a lot of entire empty rows on both flights (not as lucky on my SYD-HNL-SYD flights).
I'm guessing your flights were early morning or late evening. From 0800 to 1900, interisland HA flights are usually very high LF.
AQ famously ran 722s for years. It's unusual .... the engines' tolerance of high-frequency, short stages will drive the choice of frame to succeed the 712.
c933103 wrote:How about for example E195 E2?
WPvsMW wrote:c933103 wrote:How about for example E195 E2?
The E195-E2 uses the new PW1000G GTF.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW1000G
So, the E2 would be a candidate... if it lacks the hot core problem and the root cause of the PW GTF failures in the A320neo is solved.
The HI interisland market could be the perfect test case for an open rotor, hub-feeder aircraft. Speculating even more... two versions, STOL and regular. Several airports in HI have prop service only, or no scheduled service, due to runway length.
rbavfan wrote:csturdiv wrote:lightsaber wrote:HA peaks at 17 cycles per airframe during peak season, less during the off season.
HA has looked at the C-series. They could expand with larger aircraft.
They have also looked at the MRJ. The PW1200G will have a quicker turn time, due to lower heat thanks to the much lower pressure ratio.
The drop in resale values of the 717 (which then recovered) allowed HA to keep to one type.
I base my question after only two flights, so I do agree that it is not a big enough sample for stats.
Do they really need a bigger/larger aircraft? Several months ago I flew HNL-OGG-HNL and both flights were not very full at all, a lot of entire empty rows on both flights (not as lucky on my SYD-HNL-SYD flights).
Depends on the part of year your in. They were saying a while back the needed to increase seating because they had to high a fill % on many flights.
rbavfan wrote:Varsity1 wrote:Rotating 321's on a few hops before running the mainland TPAC seems likely.
Short flight, high humidity takes longer for engines to cool. Unless the heat issues are fixed with the new engine cores they would need to much time after each flight to cool the engines for the next flight. were and tear on parts is not worth it. They fly average of 15 min flights between islands and never really get to cruise altitude. That operation is the problem Aloha had with the CFM56's on the 737's. Without time at cruise they would have to let the planes sit to long between flights.
Roadcruiser1 wrote:Probably not. The reason is neither the C.F.M. nor the Pratt, & Whitney engines can handle the short, high cycle, and hot routes. The engines would simply stop working. As people have mentioned earlier the Boeing 737 planes with similar engines fell apart after a short while. The Boeing 717 along with the Rolls Royce engines fill a niche that is not capable for any other aircraft. Before them Hawaiian flew D.C. 9 planes since they filled the same role plus they were equally capable. The Boeing 717 is actually a McDonnell Douglas product that was known as the M.D. 95. The Boeing 717 is sort of a D.C. 9 N.E.O.. So it is why they got them in the first place.
Unfortunately there are almost no planes that are as capable. Only the Antonov An-148 along with the Antonov An-158 could even replace the Boeing 717 in a similar role since it is built for these conditions, but I doubt that Hawaiian Airlines would buy a Ukrainian Plane.
Lufthansa wrote:Okay this topic got me doing some research. I just looked at HNL OGG and HNL LIH. Both are only about 160 km according to the GC map. I knew where short but I didn't that short. I was thinking more in line with LGA-BOS or SYD-CBA. Both Get to 19000 Flt or so. But this is only about half of those distances, you could easily do this not exceeding 8000 ft and thus no need to pressurise the frame. I've sceen repositioning flights between Brisbane and its Two neighbouring cities on flightradar24 not exceeding 5000 Feet for a distance of about 100km. (60 miles in Imperial). Which begs the question. Why are these flights done at this frequency? I can see the need for connections justifying SOME flights, but High Speed Cats seem the logical choice for
these kind of services. They may actually work out faster by the time you go through security, boarding etc. These are literally similar distances to Mykonos to Santorini which the greeks obviously have no issue doing by Ferries and hydrofoil?
JoeCanuck wrote:This would be a good place to try out a 100 seat Q400.
rbavfan wrote:Varsity1 wrote:Rotating 321's on a few hops before running the mainland TPAC seems likely.
Short flight, high humidity takes longer for engines to cool. Unless the heat issues are fixed with the new engine cores they would need to much time after each flight to cool the engines for the next flight. were and tear on parts is not worth it. They fly average of 15 min flights between islands and never really get to cruise altitude. That operation is the problem Aloha had with the CFM56's on the 737's. Without time at cruise they would have to let the planes sit to long between flights.
DeSpringbokke wrote:...hunting for used 717s and parts ...
WPvsMW wrote:DeSpringbokke wrote:...hunting for used 717s and parts ...
has been happening for some time. DL and HA look at every 712 and BR715 that comes on the market.
kitplane01 wrote:Why would they need the engines to cool? It would seem not having them cool too much might help with thermal fatigue.
WPvsMW wrote:Re: Turboprops. Consumer perception, jets preferred, significantly faster HNL/ITO or LIH/ITO, and faster to cruise. Hawaiian skies are blue and bumpy. Try finding a picture of a Q400 on the WP website. https://www.islandair.com/
aerolimani wrote:Challenge accepted: https://www.islandair.com/aircraft
Ironic that customers would prefer a jet that's 12-19 years old, versus a turboprop that's 0-7 years old.
Wayfarer515 wrote:The current version of the SSJ100 is fit for the job, Interjet has 20-30 minute turnaround times with them and they haven't had any issues so far, that´s because the Sam146 engine was designed with this in mind plus its excellent hot and high performance. FAA certification shouldn't be much of a problem if the order number is big enough, plus the motivation of entering the USA market and it can even be adjusted to fit the scope clause regulation for the US regionals(do something similar to what they did in order to fly out of Bromma for Cityjet). I also recall Sky Aviation from Indonesia doing some inter-island hopping with theirs.
CaptnSnow71 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the A319, 737-700 and MAX 7 basically fit the bill?
WPvsMW wrote:aerolimani wrote:Challenge accepted: https://www.islandair.com/aircraft
Ironic that customers would prefer a jet that's 12-19 years old, versus a turboprop that's 0-7 years old.
Very good. You found one page, and there is one other page on the website, down menus, that shows the Q400. Most airlines feature the a/c or a/c interiors on the home page. But... props are a turnoff to Joe and Joan Pax. The Q400 cabin is actually quieter than the B712 cabin based on average noise figures.
flyingclrs727 wrote:Lufthansa wrote:Okay this topic got me doing some research. I just looked at HNL OGG and HNL LIH. Both are only about 160 km according to the GC map. I knew where short but I didn't that short. I was thinking more in line with LGA-BOS or SYD-CBA. Both Get to 19000 Flt or so. But this is only about half of those distances, you could easily do this not exceeding 8000 ft and thus no need to pressurise the frame. I've sceen repositioning flights between Brisbane and its Two neighbouring cities on flightradar24 not exceeding 5000 Feet for a distance of about 100km. (60 miles in Imperial). Which begs the question. Why are these flights done at this frequency? I can see the need for connections justifying SOME flights, but High Speed Cats seem the logical choice for
these kind of services. They may actually work out faster by the time you go through security, boarding etc. These are literally similar distances to Mykonos to Santorini which the greeks obviously have no issue doing by Ferries and hydrofoil?
Environmentalists are concerned about their affect on the whales.
kitplane01 wrote:rbavfan wrote:Varsity1 wrote:Rotating 321's on a few hops before running the mainland TPAC seems likely.
Short flight, high humidity takes longer for engines to cool. Unless the heat issues are fixed with the new engine cores they would need to much time after each flight to cool the engines for the next flight. were and tear on parts is not worth it. They fly average of 15 min flights between islands and never really get to cruise altitude. That operation is the problem Aloha had with the CFM56's on the 737's. Without time at cruise they would have to let the planes sit to long between flights.
Why would they need the engines to cool? It would seem not having them cool too much might help with thermal fatigue.
SWADawg wrote:All you have to do with the CFM 56 is motor it for a minute or two during the next start to bring the EGT down to within start limits and you're good to go. WN has been doing them on hot quick turn short stage length flights for years now. Not a big deal.
Wayfarer515 wrote:The current version of the SSJ100 is fit for the job, Interjet has 20-30 minute turnaround times with them and they haven't had any issues so far, that´s because the Sam146 engine was designed with this in mind plus its excellent hot and high performance. FAA certification shouldn't be much of a problem if the order number is big enough, plus the motivation of entering the USA market and it can even be adjusted to fit the scope clause regulation for the US regionals(do something similar to what they did in order to fly out of Bromma for Cityjet). I also recall Sky Aviation from Indonesia doing some inter-island hopping with theirs.
rbavfan wrote:
The Hydrofoil they tried made people sick because the seas are a lot rougher between islands in the pacific than islands around Greece. They found on the few trips they managed before being shut down there was a very large number of people getting sea sickness. Also animals native to one island that are not on another island was the other environmentalist issue.
Lufthansa wrote:Okay this topic got me doing some research. I just looked at HNL OGG and HNL LIH. Both are only about 160 km according to the GC map. I knew where short but I didn't that short. I was thinking more in line with LGA-BOS or SYD-CBA. Both Get to 19000 Flt or so. But this is only about half of those distances, you could easily do this not exceeding 8000 ft and thus no need to pressurise the frame.
Which begs the question. Why are these flights done at this frequency? I can see the need for connections justifying SOME flights, but High Speed Cats seem the logical choice for these kind of services.
They may actually work out faster by the time you go through security, boarding etc. These are literally similar distances to Mykonos to Santorini which the greeks obviously have no issue doing by Ferries and hydrofoil?