With Hawaiian's 717s soon approaching 20 years old, is there any consideration for the replacement of its inter-island fleet? Would the E195-E2 be a viable replacement? How would the economics of it compare with that of its current 717s?

I think the GTF engines will die quickly if they have to work the schedule the BR715 engines are doing now with those short hops 15-18 times a day...

So, what engine on what frame of 100+-30 seats would be appropriate?

With the seal fixes (once fully implimented) the E2 jets, C-series, or MRJ would be excellent replacements. HA has talked about going slightly smaller if the economics are right.

MIflyer12 wrote:

So, what engine on what frame of 100+-30 seats would be appropriate?

ATR-72, but that lacks cargo payload. Other than that I can’t think of any aircraft capable of doing 18 30 minute sectors per day. The 717s are good for another 10+ years and I expect HA will fly them until the wings fall off.

Responding to RyanairGuru........"The 717s are good for another 10+ years and I expect HA will fly them until the wings fall off."[/quote]
Hawaiian Air 717s have a lot of cycles and are exposed to good amount of salt water air. Which may expedite corrosion on them. I question whether they can get another 10+ years out of them before the wings fall off. They may wind up as parts planes for Delta.

I think it will be tough for HA to keep their island birds for 25-30 years. It’s time for HA to start looking for a replacement such as the CS100.

I suspect that since HAL is on record multiple times saying there is NO viable replacement on the market at the moment and that the plans are to fly the 717 as long as possible, HA knows what they’re doing. I wouldn’t be shocked if the fleet grows further, before a replacement is found. The focus at the moment is the 321neo deliveries, the 789 planning and the JAL partnership. 717 replacement can and will wait.

Delta's B717s probably have a lot lower cycles on them, Hawaiian could buy some of the newest from that fleet as DL is introducing the CS100.

CRJ900 wrote:

Delta's B717s probably have a lot lower cycles on them, Hawaiian could buy some of the newest from that fleet as DL is introducing the CS100.

Honestly, something like that could be a good idea....have HA and DL sublease a few 717's off eachother for a few years, say in between heavy C or D checks. Would allow HA to extend the life of their fleet, by rotating 717's to DL to be used on less cycle intensive flying. Of course there's no reason for DL to want to do that, other than if HA were to offer a nice reason to ($$) but I see no reason they couldn't rotate frames through. The DL birds won't accumulate THAT many cycles over a 4-5 year lease, and it would help balance the cycles/hours on HA's birds.

diverted wrote:

CRJ900 wrote:

Delta's B717s probably have a lot lower cycles on them, Hawaiian could buy some of the newest from that fleet as DL is introducing the CS100.

Honestly, something like that could be a good idea....have HA and DL sublease a few 717's off eachother for a few years, say in between heavy C or D checks. Would allow HA to extend the life of their fleet, by rotating 717's to DL to be used on less cycle intensive flying. Of course there's no reason for DL to want to do that, other than if HA were to offer a nice reason to ($$) but I see no reason they couldn't rotate frames through. The DL birds won't accumulate THAT many cycles over a 4-5 year lease, and it would help balance the cycles/hours on HA's birds.

How many fewer cycles would DL have on their 717s? They’re not exactly sending them on transcons. With their high utilization and short routes, they’re probably also up there on cycles. I agree probably not as high utilization as HA, but I doubt it would be worth the trouble to swap 717s.

RyanairGuru wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

So, what engine on what frame of 100+-30 seats would be appropriate?

ATR-72, but that lacks cargo payload. Other than that I can’t think of any aircraft capable of doing 18 30 minute sectors per day. The 717s are good for another 10+ years and I expect HA will fly them until the wings fall off.

But its not that simple either.

What cruise altitude do they run at? If they topped out at say, FL100, then you wouldn't put a complete pressure cycle on the fuselage.

CRJ900 wrote:

Delta's B717s probably have a lot lower cycles on them, Hawaiian could buy some of the newest from that fleet as DL is introducing the CS100.

Why do that? DL+HA=Problem solved. Like fleets as well (717's, 330's, 321's & 767's).

Amiga500 wrote:

What cruise altitude do they run at? If they topped out at say, FL100, then you wouldn't put a complete pressure cycle on the fuselage.

Far as I know there's no procedure under pretty much any aviation jurisdiction in the world for the logging of partial or fractional cycles. You pressurise the cabin = you log a cycle. Only way around that is to fly unpressurised.

Amiga500 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

So, what engine on what frame of 100+-30 seats would be appropriate?

ATR-72, but that lacks cargo payload. Other than that I can’t think of any aircraft capable of doing 18 30 minute sectors per day. The 717s are good for another 10+ years and I expect HA will fly them until the wings fall off.

But its not that simple either.

What cruise altitude do they run at? If they topped out at say, FL100, then you wouldn't put a complete pressure cycle on the fuselage.

Agreed, but you still must service them off weight off wheels. A touch and go counts as a cycle. The LOV doesn't change based on the type of cycle.

Low altitude cruise has a known issue, it doesn't dry out the airframe (there is condensation during decent). So there can be more corrosion...

I think if HA goes turboprop, they will wait for the next generation. Or MRJ... Or C-series... or E2 (190 or 195, I'm not sure which, it could be both).

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

I think if HA goes turboprop, they will wait for the next generation.

There has been lots of talk recently about a new turboprop from Embraer, and an upgraded or entirely new ATR. Most estimates suggest that the next generation will feature a slightly higher capacity than that of current turboprops, making them more suited.

They could of course decide to do a partial short-term replacement with 72-600s for the shortest flights, reducing the pressure on the 717 fleet.

I feel "next HA aircraft must be capable of X amount of cycles, just like the B717" to be one of those A.net myths.

The number one fact is the 717 is going to be leaving the HA fleet at some point in the future. If the replacement aircraft they choose can't handle those sorts of cycles, then the schedule will need to be adjusted, or alternatives measures are taken. Whether that is reducing the frequency of the schedule, or more aircraft working the same schedule, who knows?

CRJ900 wrote:

Delta's B717s probably have a lot lower cycles on them, Hawaiian could buy some of the newest from that fleet as DL is introducing the CS100.

IINM, the DL 717s are actually leased from WN as part of WN's merger with FL. Depending on when the lease between DL/WN ends, I doubt that HA would be able to acquire the ex-FL 717s as easily.

TheDBCooper wrote:

I feel "next HA aircraft must be capable of X amount of cycles, just like the B717" to be one of those A.net myths.

The number one fact is the 717 is going to be leaving the HA fleet at some point in the future. If the replacement aircraft they choose can't handle those sorts of cycles, then the schedule will need to be adjusted, or alternatives measures are taken. Whether that is reducing the frequency of the schedule, or more aircraft working the same schedule, who knows?

That is a very pragmatic view. Like QF's ULH rfq, the tail is not going to wag the dog: Hawaiian's demand for a 717 replacement is not going to fund an all-new mission-specific aircraft. They will need to make due with whatever is on the market at the time.

What makes the BR engines on the 717 so much better for these short hops than a CFM ( or IAE) on a 737 or A320 etc

trex8 wrote:

What makes the BR engines on the 717 so much better for these short hops than a CFM ( or IAE) on a 737 or A320 etc

It has more compressor stages -> distributes wear & tear
It runs on lower temperatures -> less wear & tear
I'm sure there's more...

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Hawaiian Air 717s have a lot of cycles and are exposed to good amount of salt water air. Which may expedite corrosion on them. I question whether they can get another 10+ years out of them before the wings fall off. They may wind up as parts planes for Delta.

How old was the DC-9 fleet when HA retired them?

lightsaber wrote:

Agreed, but you still must service them off weight off wheels. A touch and go counts as a cycle. The LOV doesn't change based on the type of cycle.

Low altitude cruise has a known issue, it doesn't dry out the airframe (there is condensation during decent). So there can be more corrosion...

I think if HA goes turboprop, they will wait for the next generation. Or MRJ... Or C-series... or E2 (190 or 195, I'm not sure which, it could be both).

Lightsaber

Well, from FaDT stuff I've done in the past - new missions and deviations could be drawn up that are more "specific" to HA then the fatigue critical structure analysed. They should be able to sell that to the certifying authorities given the way they allow derivatives to be certified.

Its a reasonably big workload, say, prob ~£2m of work, but if the order were substantial enough (in terms of quantity and price), then one of the airframers might be keen enough to do it.

Airbus 318 neo ... ( Yes, I know there is no neo of the A318 at the moment )

msp747 wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

Hawaiian Air 717s have a lot of cycles and are exposed to good amount of salt water air. Which may expedite corrosion on them. I question whether they can get another 10+ years out of them before the wings fall off. They may wind up as parts planes for Delta.

How old was the DC-9 fleet when HA retired them?

HA was approaching cycle life limit on the DC-9s. They broke 20 years.
HA N669HA DC-9 95k,132 cycles.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1390723&p=20305383&hilit=cycle+737#p20305383

LOV for the DC-9 since upgraded to 110k cycles, but IIRC, that DC-9 was due for the final heavy C in a maintenance interval (expensive check) and for such a beat up plane, it was cheaper to buy new than keep the old plane flying (It isn't worth doing a heavy maintenance cycle that would require the LOV added maintenance for a mere 15k more cycles IMHO):
LOV for Boeing airframes (Limit of Validity, absolute maximum an airframe may be flown):
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... 2012_q4/2/

Please note the 717 shares the exact same LOV as the DC-9 (110k FC/110k FH)
MD-80 has 110k FC/150k FH (more hours allowed, same cycles)

Please see that prior thread on cycle & hour leaders for 737/A320.
To my knowledge, I am not aware of any frame being flown over 100k FC (flight cycles). There was at least one 737 flown over 100k FH (barely, but over...). However, this is a HA thread, their narrowbodies do not accumulate many FH.

All I found on the C-series is 8,500 between C-Checks which implies a 75k FH design life.
Any information on the others? HA will really care about cycles.

Lightsaber

In response to msp747 question above and some of Lightsaber comments. Lightsaber stated that Hawaiian Dc-9-51 N669HA had 95,132 cycles on it when it was retired in December, 2001. Just an added note Hawaiian had two DC-9-51 aircraft at different times with that same registration. At that time when I was working for Northwest Airlines, the FAA had a requirement that all DC-9s needed to have an aft pressure bulkhead repair completed at 100,000 cycles or the next C-Check depending on how close the aircraft was to 100,000 cycles plus or minus an acceptable amount of cycles. Some DC-9s were retired with about 95,000 cycles and some were operated up to about about 103,000 cycles depending when their next C-Check was due. I am sure this was acceptable with the FAA. Northwest kept their DC-9-30s and 40s until shortly after the merger with Delta was completed. Delta repainted Northwest's DC-9-51s and flew some until about 2014 and then retired them. Delta was the first airline to fly the DC-9, which was the DC-14 in June of 1966 and the last major US passenger airline to fly the DC-9. That was the DC-9-51 when the last one was retired in January of 2014.