Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could HA Order BBD CSeries To Replace B717?'  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3598 times:

I understand that HA B717 fleet is not that old, but in the future, could you see HA ordering BBD CSeries to replace their B717s fleet?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3539 times:

They are committed to the 717s for at least a few years, but I'd think the replacement would probably be from Bombardier or Embraer. The 737 and A320 are not the best aircraft for those short inter-island routes. They are too large and not optimized for the shorter stage lengths.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6002 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3455 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):

Actually you ask a good question. It's not so much the 717 is getting old, but it's that they fly high cycles an are in a corrosive type of climate (salt air). I'll suspect that HAL has started looking at things. Is the BBD the future, who knows!



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently onlinepowercube From Australia, joined Jul 2007, 265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3423 times:

The thing that I always wonder about regarding the C-series relates back to the problem Aloha used to have with their 73Gs on the inter-island runs. Simply put, the CFM-56s did not cool down enough after landing due to the short turn times and very short, low-altitude flights.

There is nothing I have read that tells me the P&W GTF would be any better at cooling off quickly than any other modern turbine.

Because of this, I am inclined to assume that HA is going to play a wait and see game with the C-series; lest the operational reliability fairy club them with her wand.

Slightly O/T, I suppose- but do the BR715 on the 717s have a similar operational reliability to the JT-8 or are they wearing out like the CFMs?

[Edited 2011-12-21 10:08:37]

User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21417 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3423 times:

HA flew DC9s forever, and AQ flew old 732s forever. The 717 was designed for the market HA uses them on. They will last for another decade at least. So replacement talk is premature. By that time, who knows?


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1788 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3295 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
in the future, could you see HA ordering BBD CSeries to replace their B717s fleet?

A great question, I just wish I knew the answer. The CS100 specs seem to be in line with HA's requirements...but so does the E195.

Does anyone have any insight into HA's load factors? Because if there is any possibility of a down-gauge in equipment then we can guarantee BBD won't get that business.

Quoting powercube (Reply 3):
Because of this, I am inclined to assume that HA is going to play a wait and see game with the C-series; lest the operational reliability fairy club them with her wand.

We have yet to see a hot-climate customer make a firm order. If QR decides not to make a move then HA is probably going to have to wait a while if they want to analyze proof of service.



Flying refined.
User currently onlinepowercube From Australia, joined Jul 2007, 265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3277 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 5):
Does anyone have any insight into HA's load factors? Because if there is any possibility of a down-gauge in equipment then we can guarantee BBD won't get that business.

According to HA's last annual report, their seat factor is about 74% inter-island. That is, however, an average. I would estimate that any down-gauging is unlikely, especially since they just purchased the majority of their 717s off of their leases. That alone indicates to me we are a long, long, way away from real 717 replacement.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3265 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 4):
The 717 was designed for the market HA uses them on. They will last for another decade at least. So replacement talk is premature. By that time, who knows?

With only less than 20 frames it might even be 2 decades if WN manages to get out of the 717 leases, some of which run to 2024. Instead of parking them in the desert Boeing could cut HA a good deal. Perhaps as part of a package deal to try to get back in there with some 787s since the new WB orders are Airbus.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12427 posts, RR: 100
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3011 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 1):
They are committed to the 717s for at least a few years, but I'd think the replacement would probably be from Bombardier or Embraer.

HA is the most intense operator I'm aware of with up to 17 flights/day during the busy season. They need an aircraft that is very reliable and durable. So there is zero reason for them to change aircraft types in the near future. As long as Boeing suports 717 maintenance, it would be in HA's favor to keep buying used examples as no other operator puts on the cycles as they do. The next closest operator I'm aware of is FL with 14 cycles/day on their 717 fleet.

Quoting as739x (Reply 2):
it's that they fly high cycles an are in a corrosive type of climate (salt air).

The HA DC-9-30s were retired with over 100k cycles. There is no reason the 717s could not serve 20 years for Hawaii other than fuel burn and engine maintenance costs. With the DC-9, HA is the only operator I'm aware of that had to perform D-checks on cycles and not years.   

Quoting powercube (Reply 3):
There is nothing I have read that tells me the P&W GTF would be any better at cooling off quickly than any other modern turbine.
http://www.purepowerengine.com/technology.html

The supercharged low-pressure system allows the advanced PurePower engine core – optimized for high-cycle durability – to run cooler than the competition, with fewer stages, and without expensive, exotic materials.

The cooler core is to partially speed the cycle time. The hotter the core during takeoff, the more time post takeoff to the next takeoff is required. It also has to do with the high turbine cooling scheme. Just as the BMR 715 is a modern turbine that was designed for fast turn times, so is the GTF.

The early JT8Ds, CF-34, and BMR-715 are all exceptional for cycle turn times. The GTF should be the next engine in that club.   

Note: *NOT* the GTF on the A320. The pressure ratio (core temperature) has been pushed up for long haul efficiency. In other words, the PW1100G will require more cool down time than the PW1500G (C-series) or PW1200G(MRJ). That is because the core is optimized far differently than the smaller GTFs. But it is also why the PW1100G will have a notably lower cruise fuel burn than the PW1500G. It is a question of where the costs are coming from (cycles or fuel and that is mission length dependent).

Quoting powercube (Reply 3):
Simply put, the CFM-56s did not cool down enough after landing due to the short turn times and very short, low-altitude flights.

A known issue with the CFM. Partially due to a single stage high turbine. Just one of the compromises forced by the design. For most operators, they do not need to take off every 45 minutes, so it isn't an issue. For HA or other hawaiian operators, it would be.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 5):
A great question, I just wish I knew the answer. The CS100 specs seem to be in line with HA's requirements...but so does the E195.

The CS100 should have lower maintenance costs than the 717. However, there is no reason for HA to rush. The cost of 'teething issues' would be unusually high for HA (due to their extreme number of cycles per day). I could see HA buying CS100s when the 717s approach 20 years. I see no reason for them to rush. The E195 would be a good fit too, but its lower rated cycles would force an increase in C and D checks (based on cycle limits). For HA, it will depend on what the next engine is on the E-jets.

Right now the E-195 would probably have lower costs than the 717 if both were bought new. Mostly as the CF-34-10 has a far longer cycle life than the BMR-715s of the 717. While the E-195 would impose higher airframe maintenance costs, the CF-34s would save quite a bit over the MBR-715 maintenance costs. However, HA isn't buying new. Since the resale value of 717s is... low, it pays for HA to fly the 717s.

However... A low purchase price also enables early retirement (due to low value left to amortize). Thus, if the CS100 or E-195 prove more economical, there is no reason HA couldn't retire the 717s as early as 2020. However, they will have no 'push' until 2024+. (With HA's high utilization, it is *not* worth putting a 717 through the 3rd D-check).

Another issue for the 717 will be parts. There are too few for economical part production. This will become a more critical issue as the MD-80s are retired. This is why I think in the 2020 to 2025 time frame HA will replace the 717. So HA has a few years to decide.  
Quoting planemaker (Reply 7):
Instead of parking them in the desert Boeing could cut HA a good deal.

If you are implying an Allergiant style strategy... that will work as long as enough are operated by other vendors. My concern is that post AA/DL MD-80 retirement, parts will become scarce. I realize DL hasn't set plans to retire the T-tails, but once they do, it will hurt 717 maintenance economics. Allergiant's strategy will fall apart, with the MD-80, by 2025. But since they buy so cheap...    By then they will be a 757 operator.   So HA could follow the same strategy, but their economics will fall apart at the same time as Allergiant's with the MD-80: 2025.

So in my opinion, HA has 10 to 14 years to figure out what replaces the 717.    I hope for the C-series (Pratts), but there is no reason for HA to order the C-series before the 'fleet leaders' have worked out the bugs. If I were on HA's board of directors, I would veto any narrowbody purchase, other than the 717, prior to 2018 due to the switching risk.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinePanAm788 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 2683 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 8):
Another issue for the 717 will be parts. There are too few for economical part production. This will become a more critical issue as the MD-80s are retired. This is why I think in the 2020 to 2025 time frame HA will replace the 717
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 8):
If you are implying an Allergiant style strategy... that will work as long as enough are operated by other vendors. My concern is that post AA/DL MD-80 retirement, parts will become scarce. I realize DL hasn't set plans to retire the T-tails, but once they do, it will hurt 717 maintenance economics. Allergiant's strategy will fall apart, with the MD-80, by 2025. But since they buy so cheap...

Great post, but I'm not sure I understand these points you make. As AA/DL retire MD-80s and gut them for parts, wouldn't the cost of parts for the related 717 go down as the parts from retired MD-80s enter the market? (simple supply and demand)



heroes get remembered but legends never die
User currently offlineHOMSAr From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 2656 times:

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 9):

Great post, but I'm not sure I understand these points you make. As AA/DL retire MD-80s and gut them for parts, wouldn't the cost of parts for the related 717 go down as the parts from retired MD-80s enter the market? (simple supply and demand)

If certain parts can be cannibalized from old planes, then yes, a glut of retired planes will drive down the cost of those parts. However, if there are some parts that need to be acquired new, then having fewer planes out there of that type (or family) would mean it wouldn't be worth it for suppliers to continue to make those parts, so it would be more expensive to get them.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3597 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 15 hours ago) and read 2547 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 8):
The HA DC-9-30s were retired with over 100k cycles.

Actually, none of HA's DC-9s flew over 100,000 cycles. They actually replaced the DC-9-30s fairly quickly with the DC-9-50s. The DC-9 that had the most cycles was N699HA, a DC-9-51, which accumulated 95,132 cycles over 23 years.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 8):
Quoting powercube (Reply 3):
Simply put, the CFM-56s did not cool down enough after landing due to the short turn times and very short, low-altitude flights.

A known issue with the CFM. Partially due to a single stage high turbine. Just one of the compromises forced by the design. For most operators, they do not need to take off every 45 minutes, so it isn't an issue. For HA or other hawaiian operators, it would be.

IIRC, it wasn't the lack of cooling time after landing, but lack of cruise time during flight. The majority of interisland sectors are only 15-20 minutes long and basically do not have any cruise time. The longest interisland flight is 45-50 minutes. WN also does short turns, but does not have the same problems because their average flight time is around 1 hour 55 minutes, which allows for cruise time during the flight.


User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2885 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 10 hours ago) and read 2384 times:

I think HA could pick up as many 717's that are in good shape now, park 'em and when this first batch wears out, bring in the back ups, would cost less overall than buying new planes after the many cycles they put on their planes. Seems like not many carriers are scrambling for slightly used 717's, and they are a nice plane to fly in, as well as a good fit for HA's short hops. Could HA ever use them for "other" flying? Like the occasional run to thee Marshall Islands or even Midway for the Govt, or Christmas Island? Or is the range too short for that kind of stuff?


Rule number One, NEVER underestimate the other guys greed
User currently offlineiceberg210 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 2281 times:

HA has the most wonderful of advantages in fleet replacement right now, time. They don't have any pressing need to replace the 717 and even better they have a variety of options at that seating capacity (or at least relatively close to) coming down the pipe here in the next decade. Between the C Series, MRJ, E195 (re engine as well), Superjet, F100 NG, they have a variety of options that they can watch pan out. If I'm HA I'm sitting back and keeping an eye on the various 100 seater aircraft as they come into service. The 100 seater market is arguably the most crowded in civil aviation at the moment (for whatever reason, doesn't seem to be the reason of recent demand...) 8-10 years from now you'll have some really good data on those frames, that will give you a good feeling on which one is best optimized for HA's unique demands., If any airline is sitting in a really good place right now for fleet plans, ie plenty of time and tons of options, it's HA and their 717's...


Erik Berg (Foster's is over but never forgotten)
User currently offlinejetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 7 hours ago) and read 2251 times:

Their 717 fleet is all around 10-12 years of age. There are a few 717 that are only about 5 years old. The corrosive environment in which they operate would probably mean about 20 years is an expected age at end of life. Based on this I would say that no replacement will enter fleet for another 10 years. By 2020 they will likely be a number of possible contenders


Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12427 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 2153 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ha763 (Reply 11):
Actually, none of HA's DC-9s flew over 100,000 cycles.

My bad, the highest I found was 95k cycles. Oops... I believe you were discussing this aircraft:
http://investor.hawaiianairlines.com...l-newsArticle&ID=348995&highlight=

But my argument stands. There are many years left on HA's 717s. They are not pressed on 717 time or cycles for a decade or so.

Quoting HOMSAr (Reply 10):
However, if there are some parts that need to be acquired new, then having fewer planes out there of that type (or family) would mean it wouldn't be worth it for suppliers to continue to make those parts, so it would be more expensive to get them.

That will be the main issue. With the mass AA MD-80 retirement, there will be no need to make new parts for 3 to 5 years; note, I'm only talking certain parts. It will throw a wrench into the Douglas T-tail parts business that many vendors will have to exit the business.

However, everyone should note the stack on times. The AA MD-80s will take a few years to retire. After they retire, cheap used parts should be available for 5+ years. So I'm talking a time after 2020 (I said 2025 above, but please understand there is much uncertainty). HA is being wise buying used 717s. At the prices they are paying, they could be used for one D-check cycle and then thrown away! (Well, err... scrapped) So HA is indeed in a 'good position' for fleet replacement.

Quoting ha763 (Reply 11):
IIRC, it wasn't the lack of cooling time after landing, but lack of cruise time during flight.

IIRC it is 45 minutes between takeoffs for the CFM-56. So it can be be expressed multiple ways, but there is a delay between takeoffs.

Quoting iceberg210 (Reply 13):
HA has the most wonderful of advantages in fleet replacement right now, time. They don't have any pressing need to replace the 717 and even better they have a variety of options at that seating capacity (or at least relatively close to) coming down the pipe here in the next decade.

Well said. We can debate by a year or two when HA must replace the 717s, but it is far out. By the time it is 'economically prudent' to replace the 717s, HA will have many choices:
1. CS100/CS300
2. E-jets (used or re-engined)
3. They probably could find 'less worn' 717 examples on the secondary market if so required.
4. It might be prudant to down-gauge to the MRJ (90 seater, not the 70 seater)
5. Heaven forbid the A32XNEO or 737MAX meets their requirements. (Unlikely, but if I was on HA's BOD, I would insist they consider the option and find good reasons to reject the types.)

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 14):
The corrosive environment in which they operate would probably mean about 20 years is an expected age at end of life.

Coatings have improved since the DC-9-30 and my link had a 23 year old example. Due to HA having busy times and slack times, one can expect their narrowbodies to spend a year or two parked in the desert (a month to three at a time over 20 years). Not to mention HA is acquiring 717s that spent time in less corrosive environments.

As I noted before:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 8):
If I were on HA's board of directors, I would veto any narrowbody purchase, other than the 717, prior to 2018 due to the switching risk.

There is no reason to make a decision today. As iceberg210 noted, HA has time. For HA to make a decision before evaluating in-service performance of the CS100/CS300, E-jets (with new engine), 737MAX, A320NEO, and MRJ would be silly. There is no airframe available today to replace the 717 (for HA) and they will have a selection of 5 (or we could argue more) by 2018.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 2081 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 8):
The CS100 should have lower maintenance costs than the 717.

Thanks for an informative post. It seems to me that CS300(same length as B717) would be the right aircraft to replace B717, unless the load factors/yields are low on the current B717s.

The current HA B717s are configured 8F and 115Y, and the CS300 is at 120 seats in two class whereas the CS100 is at 100 seats in two class.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Could HA Bring 717's To Mainland? posted Tue Aug 24 2010 22:37:13 by F9Animal
KF Acquires B717 Planes To Replace Current Fleet posted Wed May 26 2010 05:54:05 by flyingAY
BBD Close To Securing More Orders For The Cseries posted Mon Nov 16 2009 02:38:28 by OyKIE
737-900ER Who Will Order Them To Replace 757? posted Fri Aug 17 2007 21:10:20 by DAYflyer
So Now, Will NW Order A340 To Replace 747? posted Sat Aug 9 2003 17:07:08 by 727LOVER
Could WN Order Heath Tecna Project Amber? posted Wed Nov 9 2011 09:25:47 by 1337Delta764
R.Aboulafia:A321NEO To Replace The B752 In The US? posted Tue Nov 30 2010 11:47:04 by 328JET
CLT Latest Airport To Replace TSA? posted Mon Nov 22 2010 02:55:31 by PiedmontINT
BI To Switch Order From 77L To 77W posted Tue Oct 19 2010 17:50:25 by KFlyer
Trains To Replace Planes To London/Europe posted Tue Oct 19 2010 03:44:50 by parapente