WPvsMW
Topic Author
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:58 pm

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?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 13150
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:14 am

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.
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
WPvsMW
Topic Author
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:52 am

The smaller MRJ-70 maxes at 80 seats (all Y), and the larger MRJ-90 maxes at 92 seats (all Y). Too small for HA interisland.

A total of 155 B712s were delivered, all with RR BR715 engines, which were TMK unique to that frame. Until the PW 1500G proves itself in high frequency, short stage profiles, I think we'll see the price of B712 frames, and BR715 parts, continue to climb.
 
MO11
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:06 am

WPvsMW wrote:
Which brings up... were UA's expansion of HI service to include interisland, what frame would UA use?


Not an issue, never going to happen.
 
c933103
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:49 am

How about for example E195 E2?
 
lostsound
Posts: 540
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 1:43 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:50 am

A dual team of CS100s working on inter island and CS300s working on low density trans-pacific routes could be something to look at for them.
 
User avatar
csturdiv
Posts: 1828
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:33 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:51 am

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).
An American expat from the ORD area living and working in SYD
 
Varsity1
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:17 am

Rotating 321's on a few hops before running the mainland TPAC seems likely.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
rbavfan
Posts: 1883
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:22 am

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?


The CS300 does not enter A321 range in HA layout. I maxes out at 160 seats. the A321 maxes out at 230+ seats. Hawaiians own A321 is expected to be 190 seats in their layout.
 
WPvsMW
Topic Author
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:25 am

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.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 1883
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:27 am

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
Posts: 1883
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:33 am

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.
 
User avatar
Roadcruiser1
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:05 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:46 am

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.
Roadcruiser1
 
User avatar
csturdiv
Posts: 1828
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:33 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:52 am

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.


The HNL-OGG leg was in the early afternoon, which was fuller. The OGG-HNL leg was in the early morning. Still enjoyed flying them and the B712, even though it was a short flight.
An American expat from the ORD area living and working in SYD
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2335
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:53 am

Given the issue of the engine cores needing to cool down. (which I guess rules out the leap56 straight away because it is designed to
run even hotter than ever) Do we think that HA may be forced to go down the path of Turbo Props?

I know the Q400 has a new high density config on offer which cuts out most of the galley and cargo space and really squeezes
everybody in. And while such short hops might not need much galley space, islanders can at times be large people and
I'm guessing the cargo space would be important, both in terms of connecting luggage for long haul or US flights and Islands obviously
need cargo. Though this probably could be got around by with the 737-300 conversions as they could afford to sit on the ground longer
and take more at once.

Lightsaber or anybody else out there who may be in a better position to know, with the geared turbofan, Can the PW engine cool down quick
enough?
 
WPvsMW
Topic Author
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:35 pm

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.
 
User avatar
kelvin933
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:20 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:44 pm

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.

I do not think there is a lot difference in the core of the Pratt & Whitney PW1900 engines on the Embraer E2 and the PW1500 on the Bombardier Cseries.
If anything the PW1500 has significantly more time in the air and should receive fixes for problems ahead of the PW1900.
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”
 
Pacific
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:03 pm

How would a Sukhoi Superjet do in such conditions?
 
WPvsMW
Topic Author
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:35 pm

The SSJ 130 uses a PW 1000G.... or if you want to roll the dice, the untested Aviadvigatel PD-10. No US certification. Zero chance for US EIS.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 13150
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 12:19 am

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.

Oh no! What will the increased seats do to the range?!? ;)

HA needs to keep customer expectations and costs in line. It will be very interesting to see what the highest frequency operator replaces the 717 with. But I happen to think the A321s will supplement inter-island flying:

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.

I too expect A321's to rotate though the other islands. Perhaps one out station to another to the mainland. The A321s will never become the dominant island hopping aircraft, but I expect some of the airframes to make island hopes. Perhaps one or two legs per day per aircraft. That only makes sense from an aircraft utilization perspective. The A321s will add peak season capacity between islands, not the bulk of the capacity. So a few extra longer turns won't kill HA's economics.

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 13150
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 12:43 am

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.

The PW1200G on the MRJ is designed for the duty. The issue, as noted above, is the seat limit. Mitsubishi would be happy to create a longer version for HA.

Of course, they must get the first one into service... That said the PW1500G is doing well and the PW1200G is not going to be stressed. It will run cool (lower pressure ratio).

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2335
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 1:35 am

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?
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 1:41 am

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.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1643
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:31 am

New boats in our neck of the woods have an unsubsidized cost of about $1/passenger mile, and that is for a boat carrying about 125 passengers and a 17 mile trip.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2335
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:39 am

I just reread my post.... I left a few words out " knew where short but I didn't that short." Obviously think was suppose to be put in there. Sorry for the bad English guys, you can tell I just woke up and my mind was going faster than my hands typing. lol. I didn't even need predictive text to stuff this one up for me. But very interesting about the whales. If that's the reasons they'll be no hope but very slow moving vessels which obviously will then take hrs to do the job. Okay for cruise ships not needing to get anywhere in a hurry but not practical for every needs.
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 2098
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:06 am

Just curious...since we're talking about HA and their issues with engines cooling on the island hops...why not put pressure on BBD or ATR (or the big 2) to develop a higher pax turboprop?
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4266
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:13 am

This would be a good place to try out a 100 seat Q400.
What the...?
 
WPvsMW
Topic Author
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:19 am

Re: High Speed Catamarans... google "Hawaiian Superferry"

Re: Operating altitude, above the weather, pressurized, even HNL/OGG, flight plan of 26 min aloft, usually shorter.

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/
Last edited by WPvsMW on Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
WPvsMW
Topic Author
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:21 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
This would be a good place to try out a 100 seat Q400.


Ask Island Air about competing with 712s using Q400s.
https://www.islandair.com/
 
DeSpringbokke
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:27 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:41 am

Ok, so dumb question, is there any aircraft, including those in development, that could replace HAL's 717s or will HAL be hunting for used 717s and parts until they are cycled out and hopefully by then one of the major aircraft/engine manufacturers will have come up with a viable aircraft/engine that could perform HAL's inter-island routes?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 618
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:52 am

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.
 
WPvsMW
Topic Author
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:05 am

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.
 
DeSpringbokke
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:27 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:11 am

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.


Well that can't last forever, especially after Turkmenistan Airlines eventually dumps their 717 fleet. At least Delta is, albeit in the very long term, replacement for the 717 in the CSeries, but HAL......
 
WPvsMW
Topic Author
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:15 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Why would they need the engines to cool? It would seem not having them cool too much might help with thermal fatigue.


viewtopic.php?t=739359, post 6
"Once a turbine engine has been shut down, usually it needs to cool down before restarting, depending on power levels prior to shut down. Cooling down can be done at ground idle power setting. Turbine engines generally don't like to be shut down straight from take-off power. They also require warming up before slamming to take-off power."

If the engine is running, even at idle, ramp workers can't go near the engine, so engines are shut down.

Turbofan engines are now designed for fuel efficiency on long stages, and use high pressure ratios, all of which raises the core (combustor) temps. Turbines no NOT like rapid temperature change, and will fail from thermal shock (read the linked thread). Turboprop turbines are designed for short stages, with lower pressure ratios.

That's my understanding... i'm sure an AMT could add more.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:40 am

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/

;) 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.

Image
 
SWADawg
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:43 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:34 am

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.
My posts are my opinion only and do not reflect the views of Southwest Airlines
 
Wayfarer515
Posts: 596
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:44 am

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.
 
User avatar
CaptnSnow71
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:52 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:53 am

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the A319, 737-700 and MAX 7 basically fit the bill?

For routes where all 130-something seats on the Boeing or Airbus can't be filled, there's always the CRJ and ERJ series.
 
User avatar
CaptnSnow71
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:52 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:56 am

I guess what I'm saying is, is there really a need for that 100 seat market anymore?
 
WPvsMW
Topic Author
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:16 am

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.
 
WPvsMW
Topic Author
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:23 am

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.


The SaM146 engine certainly fits the stage profiles, but the SSJ 100, in standard 2-class config, is 87 pax. Too small for HA. HA recently went to 8F/120Y on its B712s.

The SaM146 is based on the CFM56, and doesn't have the fuel efficiency needed for a modern fleet.
Last edited by WPvsMW on Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
WPvsMW
Topic Author
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:29 am

CaptnSnow71 wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the A319, 737-700 and MAX 7 basically fit the bill?


If they can do hot turns... they have the right range of pax capacity. Fuel efficiency wise, the MAX 7 is best of the three.

I think DL will use the BBD C-series to replace its 712s, but unlike HA, DL doesn't average 17 cycles a day (peak) on frames in its feeder fleet.
 
csavel
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 9:38 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:27 am

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.


Remember 4 engines 4 longhaul? The public quickly accepted two engines for longhaul over ocean flights. Virgin now operates A330s and 787s. My point? While Joe and Joan Pax may have an aversion to turboprops, that aversion is diminishing and if HA does go that route J&J won't really have much choice inter island. Horizon seems to be doing just fine with their Q400s

PS not relevant but I love this page
https://www.islandair.com/for-law-enforcement First time I ever saw a page for cops on an airline Website. For Hawaii 50, literally!
I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 1883
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:36 am

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.


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.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 1883
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:44 am

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.


Because when at the gate they have to shut down the engines. I believe safety of ground crew is the salad reason. Also sitting at the gate running engines while the plane is loaded, unloaded & refueled would waste a lot of fuel per year in a market where all fuel has to be shipped in. Another thought is your told to turn off your car engine when refueling as a static electricity can cause a spark & insight your gas at the pump. I would think on something with the fuel load of a 717 you would not want to rick blowing the terminal off its foundation.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 1883
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:53 am

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.


Most of WN markets do not have the humidity levels & heat mix that Hawaii has. Humidity in a car engine causes more wear and tear & longer time to cool. Ask anyone in Phoenix during rainy season in late jul/aug. cars take longer to cool down. Combine that with the need of engines to cool after climb to altitude. WN flights average at least an hour. A good amount of that at cruse altitude & lower thrust than climb. Hawaiians average flight is about 1/4 of that time & they do not get to cruise altitude. They climb to climb to around 19000 ft & then pivot back down for the decent into the airport. No time to cool down during the flights.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 1883
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 12:00 pm

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.



Also they tend to fly much longer routes that allow engines to cool down from T-O & Climb thrust settings before they land and sit for 20-30 min.
 
cathay747
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 8:47 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:33 pm

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.


Oh yes...the service you refer to was called SeaFlite, utilizing Boeing 929 JetFoils (same used by Far East Jetfoils between HKG & Macau). I took it roundtrip between HNL & Kauai back in Nov. 76; it was rather short-lived. And I was one who got quite sea sick. On the trip over, twice, a water bubble got caught in the ram water intake for the propulsion system (which is at the bottom of the center-aft strut), which causes the system to shut down, bringing the boat down from "foil-borne" to "hull-borne". And let me tell you, in 20ft. swells in the Kauai Channel, sea sickness for all but the most hardy was nearly guaranteed. Quite a bit different from the comparatively calm waters between HKG & Macau!!

Ultimately, SeaFlite just didn't prove to be a competitive option vs. flying on HA or AQ (still TS at the time!), given that the HNL-->Kauai run took at least 1.5hrs as I recall, if not longer...vs. a 29min. flight. I can't speak to any environmental issues except to say that the Boeing 929 JetFoil is, as I recall, very environmentally friendly.
Try a Little VC-10derness
 
c933103
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:50 pm

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.

Randomly picked a flight from Flightaware http://origin.flightaware.com/live/flig ... L/tracklog they do fly up to 22000 ft.
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.

Speed of high speed ships are only arouond like 40-50 kts at most and it would mean 2 or 3 hours one trip time one way instead of half hour. The cost of riding such super fast ships would not be very cheap either. [Cheaper but not by that much]
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?

Demand and supply that's it.
 
WPvsMW
Topic Author
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: CS100/300 as the only replacement for B717?

Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:33 am

The issue with any type of ferry in Hawaii is not economics. It's hard to explain... but it's something like ... each county in the state is a major island (except Maui County includes Maui, Lanai, and Molokai, and Kauai County includes Kauai and Niihau). Each Island wants to stay as insular as possible, culturally, politically, economically. Think of a parameter, the answer is "stay insular". Ferries decrease insularity. Ferries are opposed at the risk of being sucked under a ferry while protesting the ferry on your surfboard. Ferries that bring cars from Oahu are especially unwelcome. Airline service is accepted ... probably as a necessity for access to professionals and to state and federal governmental agencies. Most of the doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, etc., and governmental agencies in the state are on Oahu. So, the line in the sand is air service, OK; sea service, kapu.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos