User avatar
CARST
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:37 pm

If (very, very big if) one of the newer engines will be realiable in high-frequency, short-distance, high-temperature ops I only see the E2 or C-Series being contenders here. But that totally depends on the engines. That was always the reason why it was said that the 737NG/A320 series aircraft were out of question of these ops...

Going to the big props is still an option. Even going from 170 to 290 ops per day is doable, but prices would probably go up with an extra 8 or so rotations per hour, more crews, more ground staff, etc. Of course fuel prices would go down, maintenance probably, too. So this is math, the pros at HA have to do.
 
User avatar
viasa
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:29 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:03 pm

When we talk about Hawaiian, what is the status of the three ATR72s, that should operate by Empire Airlines for Hawaiian Cargo?
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:19 pm

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.

.


As much as I love the Dutch bird, that is significantly older than the 717......
 
superjeff
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:30 pm

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.



Agreed. I'm afraid most of the people commenting on these threads have never been to Hawaii, nor do they have a clue as to the reality of inter-island airlines service in the islands.
 
embraer175e2
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:47 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:37 pm

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.

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
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:47 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:07 pm

[photoid][/photoid]
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.

But the market needs it. Does Airbus own atr ?
 
azjubilee
Posts: 3708
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2000 5:26 am

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:22 pm

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.


You said it yourself... you don't know the market. That means you have no idea what you're talking about. Inter-island jet flying has worked since the 1960s! The carrier just needs to find the right equipment. The DC9 and now 717 has worked for Hawaiian for decades. Until there is a viable replacement for the 717, they will live on in service. The fleet just grew to 20 frames. Yeah... must be a bad idea.
 
User avatar
nikeson13
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:35 am

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:40 pm

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.
Nikolas
 
embraer175e2
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:47 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:51 pm

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.

So how many years can the 717 still be operating efficiently from now?
 
embraer175e2
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:47 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:57 pm

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.

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.
 
User avatar
nikeson13
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:35 am

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:31 am

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.
Nikolas
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2359
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:42 am

The next generation Embraers might be suited to the operation. The E195-E2 version with the GTF engines.
 
Quint1
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:20 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:36 am

Que the Sukhoi 8-)
 
azjubilee
Posts: 3708
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2000 5:26 am

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:42 am

nikeson13 wrote:
[


Good stuff... and a well thought out explanation. I'd add that the cycles on the landing gear as as much of a consideration for the high traffic neighbor island flying. This is actually a big detriment to the narrowbody airbus product for this kind of flying. If the C series can prove itself with a robust gear and the GTF engines can deal with the extremes of the nature of the flying, this could very well be a realistic replacement for the 717. Until then... the 717 soldiers on as the perfect airplane for the mission.
 
User avatar
bluefltspecial
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:27 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:23 am

HA as far as I know, has no plans on getting rid of the B717. It's a workhorse. The only thing that will do it in, is the amount of cycles put on the aircraft, which is quite high given the number of short hops they are able to do each day. When HA does decide to retire them, they won't be of much interest to anyone but cargo operators who will want them for one or two flights a night. I'm sure HA will make good use of them until them, they are likely paid off by now if not being leased, and thus "printing money"

That being said, just an opinion, but for anyone who has taken a serious look at Canada's C-Series, that is a flexible bird. It should be soon certified for LCY on short runway ops. Between the ability of short field departures, and it's range that will allow it to easily reach the Western Mainland +500-1000 miles, it's well suited for a home at Hawaiian on both inter-island flying, and long thin markets.

The family and friends I have that live there, all are the same, and prefer to not fly turboprop if it can be avoided. While the bank account is usually the starting point, if the price difference isn't that much more, they *will* pay for jet, not so much for time, but because they feel safer, regardless of how many times I tell them that it's just as safe.

If HA does decide to take C-Series, in addition to the above, it would allow them to even step into the Micronesia Milk run Market - if they are interested - as it could easily do the HNL-MAJ, and continue onward... Again, just an opinion.
Save a horse, ride a Fly-boy....
 
vfw614
Posts: 3797
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:24 pm

So what is the selling point of Island Air's operation? While in the past they also operated some "thin" inter-island routes (I flew KOA-OGG with them in the early 00s), nowadays they are simply plying the trunk routes with a relatively - compared to HA - limited frequency. Are they targeting the cheapskates who do not need/want frequencies and jet comfort or what is their business model?
 
embraer175e2
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:47 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:59 pm

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.

so the a319 neo with geared turbofans and 100-120 seats would also be an option.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9478
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:16 pm

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.
 
jagraham
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:38 pm

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"
 
User avatar
LA704
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:04 am

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:11 pm

Quint1 wrote:
Que the Sukhoi 8-)


=D
The thing is, I agree it would be the most practical of the current airplanes. There is a stretch in development, the bypass on the Snecmas is low. It's cheap as well, fuel burn is less important on these hops.
A real pity I can't imagine HA ordering Russians, so hope for the GTF or they must get creative...
318 319 320 321 332 343 722 731 732 735 73G 742 744 752 762 763 77W M11
 
baje427
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:40 pm

Does anyone know how the Q400 is going for Island Air so far?
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:41 pm

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"

yes they're should def be ferry service on the shorter runs. So much more efficient, and cars can come too!
 
User avatar
nikeson13
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:35 am

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:24 pm

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)
Nikolas
 
User avatar
nikeson13
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:35 am

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:33 pm

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 problems that the PW1100G has (NEO family) do not exist on the PW1500G (CSeries). The only issue that I'm aware of on both is the fan blades. But after that, yeah you're right. The GTF runs 70 degrees hotter than the CFM56, but it also utilizes more composites and alloys to cool the engine faster. [s]Does anyone recall the exact part that caused trouble for AQ in their CFMs?[/]
Found a quote from a previous topic:
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...

And another:
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.

So a high-bypass engine's core needs time to slowly cool and stabilize in cruise before the quick cooling when descending + landing. But would the GTF have that issue? The core of the GTF vs CFM56 is where everything differs: the low-pressure compressor and fan spins slower than the high-pressure compressor and turbine. I don't know all the aspects to why they need to stabilize and that sort of stuff, but I think we may just have to wait and see.
Last edited by nikeson13 on Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nikolas
 
WPvsMW
Posts: 2104
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:44 pm

baje427 wrote:
Does anyone know how the Q400 is going for Island Air so far?


WP's biggest attraction, from a pax POV, is the Kapuna (senior citizen) fare... generally $75 o/w on any flight that has a seat. That fare is a deal for last minute booking, when HA flights have sold into higher coach inventories, but is actually higher than HA's lowest fares (earliest and latest flights each day). So, in a broad stroke summary, WP bookings start when HA's lower fares sell out. Flights at peak times, e.g., 10 a.m. outbound from HNL, 4 p.m. inbound to HNL, often sold out on the ATRs, but much less common on the Qs (so far). Can the Kapuna fare and overflow booking save WP? IMO, doubtful. What could help WP? Coupons, name change, and better marketing. All long-time fliers here fondly recall being able to buy coupon books during the fare wars. "Coupons" is another way of saying lower fares for families traveling together, and for locals. Name change: Kamaaina Airlines. Marketing: promote cabin noise levels that are lower than those in a 717 (true, active sound reduction in the Q makes the Q about 3 db quieter than the 717). "Almost as fast", "not nearly as frequent", and "usually the same price" translates to red ink.

@nikeson13... GREAT summary. I felt the spirit of Stan Kennedy pass through the room.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3132
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:23 pm

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)


Except you're ignoring the fleet commonality of operating both the 319 and 321, which HA will begin taking deliveries of this year. The 319NEO could make more sense then, versus the CS300.
From my cold, dead hands
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6314
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:26 pm

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.


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?
 
User avatar
nikeson13
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:35 am

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:49 pm

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?

Yeah my mix up on turbojet vs turbofan, that was written very late.

As for the CVs, they did last into the 70's but not long I think. Pics on here have the last one in '71, and Wikipedia has '73, so has to be in there somewhere.
Nikolas
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 487
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:43 am

I think, and please forgive me if I'm wrong, that he meant low bypass turbofan vs. High bypass turbofan. Though, technically, the issue is the operating temperatures of the high pressure core/combust or hot section and it's tolerance for multiple, frequent, hot and cold cycles. What I've always wanted to know is, what makes the BR715 so special in this regard? Does it not run as hot of a core? Does it have larger designed in tolerances? Why can it tolerate this "abuse" when other contemporary engines can't?
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 487
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:52 am

One other question, would it be possible for Bombardier to integrate the BR715 with the CS100? It is in the same power class and is of similar dry weight. I don't know if it has a similar bleed system or how compatible it's electronic engine management system would be with the systems already on the C series, so that could be an issue. And, none of this covers the massive amount of certification expense that would be involved.

Just, is it possible, or even advisable?
 
WPvsMW
Posts: 2104
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:21 am

Putting the BR700-715 (A, B, and C variants thereof) on a CS100 would definitely require an amended TC for the CS family (or an STC if BBD refused to do the mod). As to the secret sauce for short turns in the 717... I wonder if Rolls-Royce Deutschland (the engine manufacturer) even knows for sure.

Since we're speculating, RR Deutschland is one of the four partners in Europrop Intl, which builds the TP400 open rotor engine used in the A400M. If the 717 is to be re-engined, RR Deutschland should do an open rotor version of the BR700... which I will be first to speculate would be the BR700-735. 8-)
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 487
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:02 am

I can't imagine that they would find it too difficult. They already use the br700 family on the Global Express. It should be a familiar system.
 
embraer175e2
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:47 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:31 pm

The a319 to a321 neo should be used by Hawaiian for both interisland as westcoast activity.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9478
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:35 pm

Nobody would be willing to go through the trouble of getting the BR700 on the C Series just for HA. Other than possibly being good at quick turnarounds after very short flights (a VERY niche market) it has no other commercial appeal.
 
embraer175e2
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:47 pm

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:43 pm

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.

http://m.aviationweek.com/shownews/atr- ... ing-atr-72
 
User avatar
Jawaiiansky66
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:03 am

Re: Hawaiian Airlines and Turboprops

Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:33 pm

What ever happened to the famed "Dash 7 - ISLANDS IN THE SKY' tours HA used to do? I think it still would be relevant today, but with perhaps a Q400 instead. I think many people would like to stop on each island during a day scenic flight tour.

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