Korean Air finally outlined CS300 operations:

Korean Air in this week’s schedule filed planned operation by its Bombardier CSeries CS300 operations, set to enter service on 20JAN18. Initially the CS300 will operate following domestic routes.

Seoul Gimpo – Jeju eff 22JAN18 Selected service
Seoul Gimpo – Jinju eff 21JAN18 Initially 1 weekly, increasing to 2 daily from 01FEB18
Seoul Gimpo – Pohang eff 20JAN18 2 daily
Seoul Gimpo – Ulsan eff 20JAN18 3-4 of 5 daily
Seoul Gimpo – Yeosu eff 02FEB18 Selected service

Source
https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -jan-2018/

Maybe it's just me, but flying low-density jet aircraft on routes that take half an hour at best seems like an inefficient use of assets. I know that it'd be assigned to some longer routings later, but KE might benefit from buying prop planes for domestic shuttle use and rerouting the CSs to expand their route map.

JustSomeDood wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but flying low-density jet aircraft on routes that take half an hour at best seems like an inefficient use of assets. I know that it'd be assigned to some longer routings later, but KE might benefit from buying prop planes for domestic shuttle use and rerouting the CSs to expand their route map.

You realized that those routes are flown by 738s right now, right?

If anything, CS300 would be actually a big improvement in terms of right sizing the plane and also operating cost. I believe secondary/3rd tier Japanese destinations are next in line for the C-Series?

Find me a turboprop that can sit 100 pax and we can go from there. Niche market like this (where RJ are too small but 738 is too big) is exactly where C-Series shined anyway. Only problem is that the niche is not very big.

JustSomeDood wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but flying low-density jet aircraft on routes that take half an hour at best seems like an inefficient use of assets. I know that it'd be assigned to some longer routings later, but KE might benefit from buying prop planes for domestic shuttle use and rerouting the CSs to expand their route map.

Those same flights are served with 737-800 or 737-900 now. Seoul Gimpo – Jeju is actually a route that regularly sees A330-300 and 747-400 service. I have flown KE's domestic service before as well, and the flight was pretty full.

That said, my guess is that KE is just test running CS300 with the domestic routes, for its crews to get used to the aircraft. I am hoping KE will be able to develop more Asia regional routes from secondary cities such as Daegu, Cheongju and Muan using the CS300. There is definitely a market for routes from those secondary Korean cities to Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and S.E. Asia, but the 737 may be a bit too large for some of those routes. The CS300 would be the right plane.

raylee67 wrote:

Seoul Gimpo – Jeju is actually a route that regularly sees A330-300 and 747-400 service..

Seoul to Jeju is the busiest airline route in the world, a CS300 is certainly not too much.

raylee67 wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but flying low-density jet aircraft on routes that take half an hour at best seems like an inefficient use of assets. I know that it'd be assigned to some longer routings later, but KE might benefit from buying prop planes for domestic shuttle use and rerouting the CSs to expand their route map.

Those same flights are served with 737-800 or 737-900 now. Seoul Gimpo – Jeju is actually a route that regularly sees A330-300 and 747-400 service. I have flown KE's domestic service before as well, and the flight was pretty full.

That said, my guess is that KE is just test running CS300 with the domestic routes, for its crews to get used to the aircraft. I am hoping KE will be able to develop more Asia regional routes from secondary cities such as Daegu, Cheongju and Muan using the CS300. There is definitely a market for routes from those secondary Korean cities to Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and S.E. Asia, but the 737 may be a bit too large for some of those routes. The CS300 would be the right plane.

I was actually just thinking the GMP-USN/KPO/HIN/RSU routes as being right-size for CS300 anyway. GMP-CJU? If not for how crowded CJU is, I would think KE and OZ would actually operated more widebodies on that route Right now I only see 3-4 B772 on KE and a few B763 on OZ; KE operated a fair amount of their non-ER 739 on that route while the rest of OZ's flight are pretty much all A321, though.

That's why I laughed at the original suggestion of operating props for Korean domestic routes. Yes, KTX is only gaining more and more shares on domestic travel, but it's not like KE/OZ are flying those B738 half empty, either.

Many folks here may recall KE put the 787-9 on Cheju-do (Jeju) service when breaking it in...no surprise the CS300 is doing the same.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... retirement

As expected CS300 is replacing domestic 738 routes and is expected to replace some Japan/China routes. KE is operating 5 738s exclusively for domestic along with 16 high density (30" pitch) 739. 4 738s are leaving for Jin air this year (as well as 1 or 2 772), and CS300 will fill the vacancy easily. Domestic 738 has only 147 seats, not much loss with 127 seater CS300. 127 seats might be too generous (SWISS and airBaltic CS300 has 145 seats) but KE needs to differentiate itself from LCCs.

Aviation scene has changed a lot since KE ordered CS300. Many airports suffer from slots, and blooming economy lets airlines fill any amount seats they offer. A need for CS300 has therefore gone down but KE will find the place well.

Seems like KE could easily use these planes on thin routes from other Korean cities, for instance Ulsan-Beijing, etc.

The CS300 has a range of 3,300 NM - this gives KE a unique opportunity for developing two markets, IMO:

1. The ICN hub, with greater ASEAN, CIS and Indian subcontinent connectivity



2. The various secondary Korean cities, with major cities across Asia-Pacific



Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

The CS300 has a range of 3,300 NM - this gives KE a unique opportunity for developing two markets, IMO:

1. The ICN hub, with greater ASEAN, CIS and Indian subcontinent connectivity



2. The various secondary Korean cities, with major cities across Asia-Pacific



Cheers,

C.

Are you sure the aircraft will be able to do ICN-TAS/ANC, after taken into account things like headwind for westbound flight?

c933103 wrote:

Are you sure the aircraft will be able to do ICN-TAS/ANC, after taken into account things like headwind for westbound flight?

No, sorry - though I imagine that routes such as ICN - ANC would be a stretch.

The 3,300 NM range is predicated on '85% Annual Wind / Enroute Temperature ISA.'

At 3,301 NM (!), any ICN - ANC - ICN service may face a minor payload restriction?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

The CS300 has a range of 3,300 NM - this gives KE a unique opportunity for developing two markets, IMO:

1. The ICN hub, with greater ASEAN, CIS and Indian subcontinent connectivity



2. The various secondary Korean cities, with major cities across Asia-Pacific

I like the work you put into this, gives some perspective.
Could be applied to all major airlines in Asia & elsewhere, but that is not happening.
So one must assume they are either risk averse or, in case of graph 2, that channelling through their hub is more efficient. BA comes to mind, they have reduced services from all other UK cities, to the great delight of the ME3 and others...

planemanofnz wrote:

The CS300 has a range of 3,300 NM - this gives KE a unique opportunity for developing two markets, IMO:

1. The ICN hub, with greater ASEAN, CIS and Indian subcontinent connectivity

2. The various secondary Korean cities, with major cities across Asia-Pacific

Cheers,

C.

Wow, didn't know CS300 goes that far. Well, KE isn't planning such long flights - KE didn't add AVOD on CS300 (whereas int'l config 738 and 739 have it). And ICN slot is basically full except 11pm-7am, so does PUS & CJU. Very little room for deploying the versatile CS300.

DWC wrote:

... they are either risk averse

That is one thing that KE is not - it flies to a number of 'out there' destinations, like NAN, TAS and ZAG (seasonal).

HeeseokKoo wrote:

KE isn't planning such long flights - KE didn't add AVOD on CS300

If anything, the lack of AVOD would mean a greater range than otherwise, given the reduced weight of the plane.

It is a shame that KE is not using this plane at its full potential - what was the point of adding an additional type?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

It is a shame that KE is not using this plane at its full potential - what was the point of adding an additional type?

Cheers,

C.

This is an airline which operates 737-800' 737-900, 737-900ER, has 737Max 8 and A321neo on order.
Has A330-300' A330-200 and 787-9.
777-200ER, , 777-300, 777-300ER, 747-400' 747-8, A380
So what's a CS300 going to do to make life more difficult for their operations people???At least they aren't like another Asian carrier who will also have different engine subtypes on the same model!

planemanofnz wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Are you sure the aircraft will be able to do ICN-TAS/ANC, after taken into account things like headwind for westbound flight?

No, sorry - though I imagine that routes such as ICN - ANC would be a stretch.

The 3,300 NM range is predicated on '85% Annual Wind / Enroute Temperature ISA.'

At 3,301 NM (!), any ICN - ANC - ICN service may face a minor payload restriction?

Cheers,

C.

You have to remember the CS300 range is with 130 pass @ 225 lb. per passenger. Boeing uses 210 lb. per pass on the 737 & Airbus 200 lb. per pass on theirs. Thats 1950 lb. for more fuel Boeing & 3250 lb. more fuel than Airbus list for their range specs. Also note the populations in Asia are not as Overweight as those in the US, Including myself being 24 lb. over what I should be. They also tend to be smaller stature so they would weigh less on most flights as well. That can allow quit a bit of reduction in fuel burn per flight just from weight alone. Adding that weight back as fuel increases range. Swiss has already noted fuel burn was quite a bit better than they expected as Bombardier used a higher weight per passengers for their figures.
Up to 480gal of additional fuel for that frame size could make a huge range difference. Just look at the A321neoLR with 790 gallon in an ACT tank adds 500nm range. CS300 burns a lot less fuel per nm.

planemanofnz wrote:

DWC wrote:

... they are either risk averse

That is one thing that KE is not - it flies to a number of 'out there' destinations, like NAN, TAS and ZAG (seasonal).

HeeseokKoo wrote:

KE isn't planning such long flights - KE didn't add AVOD on CS300

If anything, the lack of AVOD would mean a greater range than otherwise, given the reduced weight of the plane.

It is a shame that KE is not using this plane at its full potential - what was the point of adding an additional type?

Cheers,

C.

What law says KE must use the plane to its full potential? What if KE simply wanted to say, add a subtype in this seat category that is efficient enough? Why adding new plane types must translate into new routes, especially long thin routes? Remember KE didn't have the plane in that seat category before CS3 joined.

Following your logic, any airlines that are adding 787-9 and A350-900 must push the limit by flying to furthest point possible by flying 16-17 hours to nowhere, right? This is your logic, flawed.

Michael

HeeseokKoo wrote:

Well, KE isn't planning such long flights - KE didn't add AVOD on CS300 (whereas int'l config 738 and 739 have it).

Korean Air have wireless IFE and in-seat power installed on the CS300. Not as good as seat-back VOD, but they do offer entertainment on board.

eamondzhang wrote:

Remember KE didn't have the plane in that seat category before CS3 joined.

Actually, they did - the CS300 has 127 seats, while the 737-800 has 138 seats (just 11 more), both in a two-class layout.

Cheers,

C.

eamondzhang wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

DWC wrote:

... they are either risk averse

That is one thing that KE is not - it flies to a number of 'out there' destinations, like NAN, TAS and ZAG (seasonal).

HeeseokKoo wrote:

KE isn't planning such long flights - KE didn't add AVOD on CS300

If anything, the lack of AVOD would mean a greater range than otherwise, given the reduced weight of the plane.

It is a shame that KE is not using this plane at its full potential - what was the point of adding an additional type?

Cheers,

C.

What law says KE must use the plane to its full potential? What if KE simply wanted to say, add a subtype in this seat category that is efficient enough? Why adding new plane types must translate into new routes, especially long thin routes? Remember KE didn't have the plane in that seat category before CS3 joined.

Following your logic, any airlines that are adding 787-9 and A350-900 must push the limit by flying to furthest point possible by flying 16-17 hours to nowhere, right? This is your logic, flawed.

Michael

Because, all things equal, a plane with 3000nm range will be heavier and burn more fuel than a 1500nm range plane on ranges that the latter can reach. If that means flying smaller planes with equal/better CASM, airlines will in many cases be happy to protect yields and downsize. Hence, 787/350 replacing 777/747 routes left and right. The vast majority of 787/350s are also brought for their prowess on 5000+nm ranges, notwithstanding the fact that some airlines fly them on short hops between long hauls to bump up utilization time.

planemanofnz wrote:

DWC wrote:

... they are either risk averse

That is one thing that KE is not - it flies to a number of 'out there' destinations, like NAN, TAS and ZAG (seasonal).

When did KE ever fly to ZAG? I can't find any data on that.

NAN is not really THAT "out there" (Fiji has tourism, you know...). TAS is definitely not all that "out there" for South Korea, either (OZ also fly ICN-TAS). TONS of South Korean investment in Uzbekistan. South Korea didn't become 3rd largest importer to Uzbekistan (after China and Russia) for nothing.

planemanofnz wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

Remember KE didn't have the plane in that seat category before CS3 joined.

Actually, they did - the CS300 has 127 seats, while the 737-800 has 138 seats (just 11 more), both in a two-class layout. .

Not close. 738 has 12 Business Class seats (Similar to US Domestic First) along with 126 standard Economy seats (That have fairly generous legroom at ~33''-34''), while CS300 has 25 Y+ seats (36'' legroom) along with 102 standard Y seats with 31''-32''. Imagine if the CS300 has the same exact product, you would be talking closer to 100 seats than 130 seats.

And BTW, it's definitely a LOT more economical to operate a CS300 than 738. KE decided that they need something smaller than a 738, but doesn't want to go the A319/73G route. Boom, CS300 arrived and save the day

planemanofnz wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

Remember KE didn't have the plane in that seat category before CS3 joined.

Actually, they did - the CS300 has 127 seats, while the 737-800 has 138 seats (just 11 more), both in a two-class layout.

Cheers,

C.

Firstly CS300 doesn't have C class, 738 did. Secondly, precisely because of the fact that both planes' seat count is similar, CS300 is far more efficient than 738 for the short haul. They don't HAVE to push the plane to the limit as you tried to imply.

JustSomeDood wrote:

Because, all things equal, a plane with 3000nm range will be heavier and burn more fuel than a 1500nm range plane on ranges that the latter can reach. If that means flying smaller planes with equal/better CASM, airlines will in many cases be happy to protect yields and downsize. Hence, 787/350 replacing 777/747 routes left and right. The vast majority of 787/350s are also brought for their prowess on 5000+nm ranges, notwithstanding the fact that some airlines fly them on short hops between long hauls to bump up utilization time.

That's exactly my argument.

Michael

eamondzhang wrote:

They don't HAVE to push the plane to the limit as you tried to imply.

I guess that I am surprised that it is not being used outside of South Korea. Perhaps, after some training, it will be?

Even if not at the full range of the CS3, KE has a lot of gaps in closer to home, which are within the range of the CS3:



Cheers,

C.

eamondzhang wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

Remember KE didn't have the plane in that seat category before CS3 joined.

Actually, they did - the CS300 has 127 seats, while the 737-800 has 138 seats (just 11 more), both in a two-class layout.

Cheers,

C.

Firstly CS300 doesn't have C class, 738 did. Secondly, precisely because of the fact that both planes' seat count is similar, CS300 is far more efficient than 738 for the short haul. They don't HAVE to push the plane to the limit as you tried to imply.

JustSomeDood wrote:

Because, all things equal, a plane with 3000nm range will be heavier and burn more fuel than a 1500nm range plane on ranges that the latter can reach. If that means flying smaller planes with equal/better CASM, airlines will in many cases be happy to protect yields and downsize. Hence, 787/350 replacing 777/747 routes left and right. The vast majority of 787/350s are also brought for their prowess on 5000+nm ranges, notwithstanding the fact that some airlines fly them on short hops between long hauls to bump up utilization time.

That's exactly my argument.

Michael

No, your argument was that it doesn't matter that KE is using 3000nm+ capable planes (which the CS300 is) on 1000nm hops.

My argument is that using such planes on short hops is a waste of capability because it is inefficient and there are better alternatives available for such short routes, (Embraer E2/Mitsubishi MRJ/turboprops), heck KE already operates a billion types of planes so what's another subfleet if it came down to it?

Your argument is that it's already more efficient than the 738s KE was using on these routes, which I don't disagree with.

My argument is that KE could optimize their efficiency even further with other fleet choices given their projected CS300 route maps.

planemanofnz wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

They don't HAVE to push the plane to the limit as you tried to imply.

I guess that I am surprised that it is not being used outside of South Korea. Perhaps, after some training, it will be?

Just give it some time .

It'll be used for both secondary Japan and China (and possibly some SE Asia destinations as well). Granted, it's still "wasting" the CS potential, but I would say KE get the CS b/c there's simply nothing else in the market that can fit 120-130 pax while having operating cost more comparable to large RJ rather than NBs.

JustSomeDood wrote:

No, your argument was that it doesn't matter that KE is using 3000nm+ capable planes (which the CS300 is) on 1000nm hops.

My argument is that using such planes on short hops is a waste of capability because it is inefficient and there are better alternatives available for such short routes, (Embraer E2/Mitsubishi MRJ/turboprops), heck KE already operates a billion types of planes so what's another subfleet if it came down to it?

Your argument is that it's already more efficient than the 738s KE was using on these routes, which I don't disagree with.

My argument is that KE could optimize their efficiency even further with other fleet choices given their projected CS300 route maps.

First you don't have 130 seater turbopops in the market. Second yes E2 and MRJ may be optimised for shorter haul, but they might not still be as efficient as CS300 goes. We don't have the figure so I can't elaborate too much, but being one of the starting customers must also grab them a good deal that KE can't refuse. Heck LX operated numerous of <1hr CS3 flights (ZRH-FRA/GVA/CDG/DUS comes straight into mind), so why KE can't be the same?

Although I do agree KE operates a billion a/c types, and we never know if they wanna grab more.

planemanofnz wrote:

They might, but I won't go that far as say they'll use it to CIS countries (other than KHV and forth). They already flies to KWE, got LJ to take care of MFM and CI to KHH. Others, well at least there are competitions flying direct (mostly from OZ). I would rather say CS3 could enable them to fly more PUS/CJU-Asia, although Korean carriers don't have too much interest in the latter one (especially CJU-China).

Michael

on this flight report at 5:52 we hear the captain 'ladies and gentlemen this is captain Daniel Dionne speaking'. He is a Bombardier test pilot which means BBD has its own pilots manning flight for KE. How normal / frequent is this? I would think KE had their pilots trained in a sim and at Mirabel so they'd man their own flight?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk-ZRktw4z8

Dash9 wrote:

on this flight report at 5:52 we hear the captain 'ladies and gentlemen this is captain Daniel Dionne speaking'. He is a Bombardier test pilot which means BBD has its own pilots manning flight for KE. How normal / frequent is this? I would think KE had their pilots trained in a sim and at Mirabel so they'd man their own flight? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk-ZRktw4z8

I could see BBD CSeries pilots being "on loan" for early operations. They would be used as instructors for the final qualification "checks" of Korean pilots - until the local pilot pool (CS qualified) achieves a "critical mass".

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Dash9 wrote:

on this flight report at 5:52 we hear the captain 'ladies and gentlemen this is captain Daniel Dionne speaking'. He is a Bombardier test pilot which means BBD has its own pilots manning flight for KE. How normal / frequent is this? I would think KE had their pilots trained in a sim and at Mirabel so they'd man their own flight? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk-ZRktw4z8

I could see BBD CSeries pilots being "on loan" for early operations. They would be used as instructors for the final qualification "checks" of Korean pilots - until the local pilot pool (CS qualified) achieves a "critical mass".

make sense until KE has its own pilot certified as check instructor on CS300

Is that common practice at all airlines whenever a completely new aircraft type rating is brought onboard? Or is it something specific to a brand new type such as the Cseries where the pool of available instructors is very small so the manufacturer as to provide for it?

Source: http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... et-upgrade

Some later CS300s are likely to be flown on international routes after they have proved their reliability in the domestic network, says Korean Air Executive Vice President Keehong Woo. The first overseas flights could be on existing secondary routes to Japan, and then later on flights to Southeast Asia or China.

Dash9 wrote:

on this flight report at 5:52 we hear the captain 'ladies and gentlemen this is captain Daniel Dionne speaking'. He is a Bombardier test pilot which means BBD has its own pilots manning flight for KE. How normal / frequent is this? I would think KE had their pilots trained in a sim and at Mirabel so they'd man their own flight?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk-ZRktw4z8

Not uncommon: I believe Airbus had test pilots assisting Singapore Airlines when the A380 went into service.