To all people who talk about "screaming and vomiting": when I talk abour ferries, I mean models much bigger than current ones, think cruise ship size. No need to make them ultra-fast, like 3 hours between Oahu and Maui, 8 hours would be enough (to enable overnight trips). That would fix the whale problem too.

As for "Hawaiians don't like ships anyway", wait until oil gets above $200/bbl and we'll talk again. Running flights of 30 minutes on that scale is not sustainable in the long term. Unless you get electric planes indeed, but I believe we'll see those much much later than the big electric ferries I'm talking about. These are already doable from a technological standpoint, you just need to fund and build them.

Water transportation is not cheap. Kitsap Transit will have 2 out of 3 fast ferry routes operating by the end of the year. Distances are about 20 statute miles. I don't think it is all that 'off topic' to post a link to the costs of this water transit and the scope of subsidies required.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... y-service/

Some sort of plane is always going to be cheaper - even if you need a sh*t load of planes, parking them for hours to cool off.

77H wrote:

Unlike HA, USAF has an endless supply of capital at its disposal in the form of taxpayer revenue. The government, particularly the DoD couldn’t care less how many millions, if not billions they waste trying to keep a 60+ year old bomber fleet active. Rest assured, HA’s investors/shareholders would likely push to have any exec even contemplating buying multiple frames as “cold spares” to be shown the door with unparalleled expedience.

Actually, the idea of a large number of cold spares isn't that unworkable as long as the capital cost of those aircraft is reasonably low. For example, I can easily envision HA picking up used A319s and A320s with relatively low cycles; due to the shortness of the interisland flights, the efficiency gains of the neo just aren't there for HA. As for older military aircraft, sometimes the expense of keeping the old fleet in the air is lower than the expense of developing a replacement and then supporting that replacement. The military doesn't fly its bombers enough for the efficiency of new engines to be a factor, and the B-52 continues to have excellent range and speed for its mission.

77H wrote:

If I remember correctly Boeing was able to expend the useful life of the 717 (and some other MD80 series types) by increasing the number of cycles they can run before needing to be retired. This has bought HA some valuable time to ponder replacements.

I think the long-term issue for HA vis a vis the 717 will be similar to what has transpired with the MD-83/88 at AA/G4/DL and what DL faces with the MD-90: a small and shrinking worldwide fleet will lead to difficulty in securing parts at reasonable prices. MRO support for the engines might also be a challenge; although the BR700 is used on business jets, the BR715 is a higher thrust variant with a larger fan.

77H wrote:

As for the negative perceptions props often carry, I would remind everyone that Mokulele has carved out fairly successful niche for themselves operating slow C208s interisland.

I'm not sure I'd call an operation with 11 9-seat props (i.e. less capacity in total than a single 717) focusing in part on airports which cannot be served by jets indicative of consumers being willing to tolerate props. There may not be other economical options in the end, but ~80-seat props (Q400/ATR) aren't a great match for HA's heavier routes, either.

Southwest will start Hawaii soon, including interisland. They plan to have their planes do a couple of interisland hops then return to the mainland.
On a slightly related topic, I wonder how Hawaiian's A321s are doing with regard to shaft bowing?

Those suggesting t-props are doing so purely based on the fact that the inter-island market is filled with short hops and that's what t-props generally do. That's way too simplistic with regards to HAL's unique operation. What they're not considering is the sheer volume of people HAL carries throughout the day, the scope of the schedule, nor the infrastructure woes within the state. There are roughly 175 flights/day operated by 128 seat 717's. This is a very high frequency operation. In order to replace lets say, 75% of the current operation, it would require a massive fleet of t-props and all the challenges that would create.

Slightly off topic but is there a market for Hawaiian (or other carriers) to run inter-island flights between 12 midnight and 5 am especially on the weekends?

dfwjim1 wrote:

Slightly off topic but is there a market for Hawaiian (or other carriers) to run inter-island flights between 12 midnight and 5 am especially on the weekends?

Short answer, no. Just like there isn't a market for short hops on the mainland during the same time. In Hawaii, this is generally when the cargo moves between the islands.

chunhimlai wrote:

Build tunnels/bridge to connect them

The depth of the channel between the Big Island and Maui is over 2000 meters, so no, thank you very much. It is a bloody ocean out there.

azjubilee wrote:

Those suggesting t-props are doing so purely based on the fact that the inter-island market is filled with short hops and that's what t-props generally do. That's way too simplistic with regards to HAL's unique operation. What they're not considering is the sheer volume of people HAL carries throughout the day, the scope of the schedule, nor the infrastructure woes within the state. There are roughly 175 flights/day operated by 128 seat 717's. This is a very high frequency operation. In order to replace lets say, 75% of the current operation, it would require a massive fleet of t-props and all the challenges that would create.

Drop the state resident fares and see what happens. Twenty 717s could easily be replaced by 30 ATR/Q400 planes, increase the fares would drop some marginal travelers.

GF

IADFCO wrote:

If insufficient engine cool down time is the problem, develop a contraption that blows cold air into the engine during stops. Cheaper than developing a new engine.

I am amazed nobody else has brought this up. I am sure a modification could be developed that would sufficiently cool the engine within an acceptable time frame as to not damage the engine and still be able to run a short turn schedule. Everyone thinks new engines! When, we could be talking about "new engine modification!

For you ferry fans, try the Cook Strait ferry between Wellington and Picton in New Zealand. 3 relaxing hours or 3 hours of terror. Alternatively there is the 20 minute flight on a Sounds Air Cessna Caravan. Some exciting landings in Wellington but I'll take the flight any day if I don't need to take my car with me. . And there is a 1 in 11 or 12 chance you get to sit next to the pilot!

workhorse wrote:

To all people who talk about "screaming and vomiting": when I talk abour ferries, I mean models much bigger than current ones, think cruise ship size. No need to make them ultra-fast, like 3 hours between Oahu and Maui, 8 hours would be enough (to enable overnight trips). That would fix the whale problem too.

As for "Hawaiians don't like ships anyway", wait until oil gets above $200/bbl and we'll talk again. Running flights of 30 minutes on that scale is not sustainable in the long term. Unless you get electric planes indeed, but I believe we'll see those much much later than the big electric ferries I'm talking about. These are already doable from a technological standpoint, you just need to fund and build them.

Large ships with stabilizers are slow, heavy, and fuel-inefficient. Large ships are also extremely expensive to design, build, and maintain. Keeping the 717, even if it means doing it USAF-style by buying up all the frames they can get and keeping for 60 years, is more feasible.

TVNWZ wrote:

IADFCO wrote:

If insufficient engine cool down time is the problem, develop a contraption that blows cold air into the engine during stops. Cheaper than developing a new engine.

I am amazed nobody else has brought this up. I am sure a modification could be developed that would sufficiently cool the engine within an acceptable time frame as to not damage the engine and still be able to run a short turn schedule. Everyone thinks new engines! When, we could be talking about "new engine modification!

There could very well be a limitation on the rate you cool the engine. Cool it too fast and you could take it beyond the stress levels designed for. Forced air cooling is different to just ambient convection.

The Canaries are very similar to Hawaii both in geological history, latitude, climate and open ocean crossings ( with great depths ), between the Islands. Alongside Binter Canarias, which operates similar inter-island schedules to Hawaiian, but with ATR-72's instead of 717's, Fred Olsen runs a very popular ferry service between all the major islands using high-speed Catamarans.

https://www.fredolsen.es/en

I'm surprised Hawaii hasn't warmed up to this option.

Hawaiian's 717s are going to cycle out of take of and landings. They are also going to have a parts availability problem as they only have about twenty 717s. Delta may have more and put their 717s into storage. However, Delta will fly them until they are used up and need to be permanently parked. Another problem Hawaiian has is that their 717s live in a salt air environment and corrosion will be a problem. Hawaiian may be able to get another ten years out of these aircraft by possibly using stored aircraft as feed stock and maybe by acquiring still serviceable aircraft. Hawaiian is going to need to find a suitable replacement and they better be working on that now or in the near future.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

azjubilee wrote:

Those suggesting t-props are doing so purely based on the fact that the inter-island market is filled with short hops and that's what t-props generally do. That's way too simplistic with regards to HAL's unique operation. What they're not considering is the sheer volume of people HAL carries throughout the day, the scope of the schedule, nor the infrastructure woes within the state. There are roughly 175 flights/day operated by 128 seat 717's. This is a very high frequency operation. In order to replace lets say, 75% of the current operation, it would require a massive fleet of t-props and all the challenges that would create.

Drop the state resident fares and see what happens. Twenty 717s could easily be replaced by 30 ATR/Q400 planes, increase the fares would drop some marginal travelers.

GF

I posted about T-Props being a potential replacement if no other T-fan engined aircraft could do the trick. By the time the 717s go, there may be a new T-Prop on the market. If memory serves, ATR was putting feelers out with airlines several years ago for a 100 seat ATR. It’s a long shot but if HA were to be the first mover on such a proposal they’d likely be afforded the opportunity to provide input on such a variant. Just benign speculating here.

That said, my guess is that is HA would opt for the E95/A220 or possibly some 319s on the upper end (for commonality’s sake with their 21Ns) . If the E95/220 or 319 can’t handle the rigors of the interisland market I’d imagine HA would just have to plan longer turn times to allow the engines to cool. Unfortunately this would likely come at the expense of frequency. One poster brought up the idea of an ground based, external cooling device could theoretically expedite the cooling process. Thought it was a unique idea.

Galaxy, not sure what state resident fares you’re talking about but if you know something I don’t, I’d love to get my hands on such a fare.

77H

konrad wrote:

chunhimlai wrote:

Build tunnels/bridge to connect them

The depth of the channel between the Big Island and Maui is over 2000 meters, so no, thank you very much. It is a bloody ocean out there.

What about a tunnel floating below the surface several hundred or thousand meters anchored to the bottom? We’ve got floating bridges here in Washington, but we don’t have the surface turbulence to deal with. How far below the ocean do you have to go to mitigate most of the surface turbulence.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You’d have to design a new engine or a very deep redesign of an existing engine; integrate into the A320 or B737, certify it and support the design for its life. Very unrealistic.

I’m curious, why is it always design a new engine? Why couldn’t HA get new copies of an old design? BR715 or JT8D or whatever. They’d have to build or purchase the infrastructure to maintain those engines, but I’d save money versus designing a completely new engine.

Yes the frames will cycle out of the 717s no matter how many HA buys, but I wonder if HA could get Embraer or Airbus to certify the E175 or A220 with the BR715 or whatever HA chooses? I’d cost a bunch of money, but might be cheaper than the operational headaches of doubling the fleet size and havingg to deal with that many more planes on the ground.

ACCS300 wrote:

The Canaries are very similar to Hawaii both in geological history, latitude, climate and open ocean crossings ( with great depths ), between the Islands. Alongside Binter Canarias, which operates similar inter-island schedules to Hawaiian, but with ATR-72's instead of 717's, Fred Olsen runs a very popular ferry service between all the major islands using high-speed Catamarans.

https://www.fredolsen.es/en

I'm surprised Hawaii hasn't warmed up to this option.

Not sure overly familiar with the intricacies of the Canaries but here in Hawaii there are really 3 main factors proventing a ferry from getting traction. 1) We have a large marine sanctuary that envelops most of the channels between the islands that make up Maui county. Going around the marine sanctuary would be cost and time prohibitive. Additionally, there were also concerns about the ferry being a vector for invasive species migration. For example, the Big Island has a problem with Coqui Frogs and fire ants that aren’t found on any other island. It would be pretty easy for a small invasive species like a frog or ant to get on board.

Now I know what you’re thinking, other boats traverse the channels between the islands all the time? What’s the difference..? The answer is... Lobbying power. While environmental concerns had the spotlight when deciding whether or not to allow the ferry to continue, there was a lot of lobbying that was done to try and stop the ferry too, mainly from transportation companies. A successful ferry system would have negative impacts on the interisland cargo market, the passenger airlines, rental car companies and taxis to name a few.

The last factor was NIMBYism. Many residents of the neighbor islands were concerned a ferry would bring more traffic, etc.

77H

77H,

I maybe out of date, but I thought residents got a subsidized intra-Island fare.

USAirKid,

Yes, they could buy replacement BR715 engines, assuming RR is still making the version for the 717. The frames might be a more urgent problem due to corrosion and cycles.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

azjubilee wrote:

Those suggesting t-props are doing so purely based on the fact that the inter-island market is filled with short hops and that's what t-props generally do. That's way too simplistic with regards to HAL's unique operation. What they're not considering is the sheer volume of people HAL carries throughout the day, the scope of the schedule, nor the infrastructure woes within the state. There are roughly 175 flights/day operated by 128 seat 717's. This is a very high frequency operation. In order to replace lets say, 75% of the current operation, it would require a massive fleet of t-props and all the challenges that would create.

Drop the state resident fares and see what happens. Twenty 717s could easily be replaced by 30 ATR/Q400 planes, increase the fares would drop some marginal travelers.

GF

There is no such thing as "resident fares." And 30 t-props with 78 seats will hardly come close to being able to replace the capacity the 717s provide. Not to mention, where the heck will HAL park this new massive fleet of airplanes? It's just not realistic.

I have a question about the 747-400 and DC-10. This video is about the 747 and dc-10 at the Camp fire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW0XQI525UE
How are the engines on these very large airplanes able to do 15 minute turns for the DC-10 and 30 Minute turns for the 747? These are short runs to the fire and back 30 minutes or less at low altitude. How are they able to do this and a 737 can't do inter island?
PS good video to watch.

It’s going from 20 planes to 30-32 tails—hardly going to crowd the ramps. 20 717s Times 128 seats equal 2560 seats; divide 2560 by 78 seats equals 32 turboprops. Block-to-block times will only increase a small increment, but perhaps a few more tails. This isn’t insurmountable IF technology doesn’t come up with an answer in the next decade. It’s a unique operation making it very hard to build a small fleet.

Sorry, but I was once led to believe their was a resident fare system.


Very different engines, lower compression ratios, relative shorter spools.

GF

Question for those in the know. My understanding is that most airlines use Flex/De-Rated thrust settings on take off. Could lower thrust settings during climb to cruise help remedy the heating issues with newer high bypass turbofans? Or is it similar to car engines where it doesn’t matter if one floors it or slowly accelerates, the engine will reach the same temperature eventually?

77H

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Sorry, but I was once led to believe their was a resident fare system.

GF

There was in the past; you had to show a Hawaii state-issued ID such as your D.L at time of ticket purchase. I remember it because as travel agents, we couldn't see or price/ticket those fares in the GDS, you had to purchase directly with the airline from a human agent who could see/verify your Hawaii ID. There may also have been (not sure of this) a coupon-booklet system too, that I think you could purchase at Bank of Hawaii.

The fare must have been discontinued since everyone is saying there's no such thing.

travaz wrote:

I have a question about the 747-400 and DC-10. This video is about the 747 and dc-10 at the Camp fire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW0XQI525UE
How are the engines on these very large airplanes able to do 15 minute turns for the DC-10 and 30 Minute turns for the 747? These are short runs to the fire and back 30 minutes or less at low altitude. How are they able to do this and a 737 can't do inter island?
PS good video to watch.

Yeah, good question! And a great vid, learned a lot. Amazingly short turn times for those VLAT's!!

Maybe it's something to do with those big widebody t-fans having such larger fan stages and greater bypass ratio's?

cathay747 wrote:

There may also have been (not sure of this) a coupon-booklet system too, that I think you could purchase at Bank of Hawaii.

It used to be that you could buy flight coupons from travel agents, they were blank and you’d hand write your name and circle your origin and destination airports. They were good for any interisland flight (not sure about connecting routes) anytime, in theory you could just walk up and get an open seat but you could also call and make a reservation and tell them you were using a coupon instead of paying with a credit card. Bank of Hawaii ATMs also sold them for a while. Both Hawaiian and Aloha used them.

travaz wrote:

I have a question about the 747-400 and DC-10. This video is about the 747 and dc-10 at the Camp fire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW0XQI525UE
How are the engines on these very large airplanes able to do 15 minute turns for the DC-10 and 30 Minute turns for the 747? These are short runs to the fire and back 30 minutes or less at low altitude. How are they able to do this and a 737 can't do inter island?
PS good video to watch.

It has to do with repeated quick turns over an extended period of time.

The problems don't surface right away - it takes many cycles. Also, we're really only talking about increased wear and tear - keep throwing enough money and parts at it, and the NG's would certainly work on short turns. But that gets expensive.

barney captain wrote:

travaz wrote:

I have a question about the 747-400 and DC-10. This video is about the 747 and dc-10 at the Camp fire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW0XQI525UE
How are the engines on these very large airplanes able to do 15 minute turns for the DC-10 and 30 Minute turns for the 747? These are short runs to the fire and back 30 minutes or less at low altitude. How are they able to do this and a 737 can't do inter island?
PS good video to watch.

It has to do with repeated quick turns over an extended period of time.

The problems don't surface right away - it takes many cycles. Also, we're really only talking about increased wear and tear - keep throwing enough money and parts at it, and the NG's would certainly work on short turns. But that gets expensive.

I wonder whether there’s a balance. If a WN NG does intra-island for two or three days, then goes back to the mainland and flies a typical WN schedule there, would that appreciably affect reliability or lifespan? Historically no one has had the right fleet and network to answer the question, but perhaps WN will play with that sort of concept. If it works, that might solve the problem but not for HA.

USAirKid wrote:

konrad wrote:

chunhimlai wrote:

Build tunnels/bridge to connect them

The depth of the channel between the Big Island and Maui is over 2000 meters, so no, thank you very much. It is a bloody ocean out there.

What about a tunnel floating below the surface several hundred or thousand meters anchored to the bottom? We’ve got floating bridges here in Washington, but we don’t have the surface turbulence to deal with. How far below the ocean do you have to go to mitigate most of the surface turbulence.

An intriguing proposal but consider that Honolulu’s 22 mile light rail project is years behind schedule and ~$6B over budget. As a taxpayer, I don’t even want to think what the price tag on this would be.

77H

Cubsrule wrote:

barney captain wrote:

travaz wrote:

I have a question about the 747-400 and DC-10. This video is about the 747 and dc-10 at the Camp fire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW0XQI525UE
How are the engines on these very large airplanes able to do 15 minute turns for the DC-10 and 30 Minute turns for the 747? These are short runs to the fire and back 30 minutes or less at low altitude. How are they able to do this and a 737 can't do inter island?
PS good video to watch.

It has to do with repeated quick turns over an extended period of time.

The problems don't surface right away - it takes many cycles. Also, we're really only talking about increased wear and tear - keep throwing enough money and parts at it, and the NG's would certainly work on short turns. But that gets expensive.

I wonder whether there’s a balance. If a WN NG does intra-island for two or three days, then goes back to the mainland and flies a typical WN schedule there, would that appreciably affect reliability or lifespan? Historically no one has had the right fleet and network to answer the question, but perhaps WN will play with that sort of concept. If it works, that might solve the problem but not for HA.

Would WN have enough ETOPS aircraft for this? Will all of the WN fleet be ETOPS or just a certain sub fleet?

The Hawaiian skies are gonna be FULL of "Luv" …. and it doesn't get much further "southwest" in the US than Hawaii

travaz wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

barney captain wrote:

It has to do with repeated quick turns over an extended period of time.

The problems don't surface right away - it takes many cycles. Also, we're really only talking about increased wear and tear - keep throwing enough money and parts at it, and the NG's would certainly work on short turns. But that gets expensive.

I wonder whether there’s a balance. If a WN NG does intra-island for two or three days, then goes back to the mainland and flies a typical WN schedule there, would that appreciably affect reliability or lifespan? Historically no one has had the right fleet and network to answer the question, but perhaps WN will play with that sort of concept. If it works, that might solve the problem but not for HA.

Would WN have enough ETOPS aircraft for this? Will all of the WN fleet be ETOPS or just a certain sub fleet?

I think that is correct. The a/c will likely do one leg over, then one or two interisland. It will reverse the cycle the next day - hopefully eliminating any of the engine issues by limiting the short cycles.

There are 29 ETOPS -800's ready to go. There will be a gradual transition to MAX 8's as they come online.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Water transportation is not cheap. Kitsap Transit will have 2 out of 3 fast ferry routes operating by the end of the year. Distances are about 20 statute miles. I don't think it is all that 'off topic' to post a link to the costs of this water transit and the scope of subsidies required.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... y-service/

Some sort of plane is always going to be cheaper - even if you need a sh*t load of planes, parking them for hours to cool off.

I am in Bremerton a couple times a week, this ferry is nice but I need my car when I go to Seattle.

The Superferry noted above is a much bigger boat, about 10x the passengers and nearly 300 cars and it got tossed around open ocean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Guam_(T-HST-1)

In comparison, this is a Washington State Ferry that operates within Puget Sound, never noticed any significant tossing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic-class_ferry

cathay747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Sorry, but I was once led to believe their was a resident fare system.

GF

There was in the past; you had to show a Hawaii state-issued ID such as your D.L at time of ticket purchase. I remember it because as travel agents, we couldn't see or price/ticket those fares in the GDS, you had to purchase directly with the airline from a human agent who could see/verify your Hawaii ID. There may also have been (not sure of this) a coupon-booklet system too, that I think you could purchase at Bank of Hawaii.

The fare must have been discontinued since everyone is saying there's no such thing.

Yep, Ka'amaina rates were common with HA & AQ, They believed you if you booked the rate, but a Hawaii ID card or Drivers License was required at check in. We used to book them, but as a resident, one could go to your local Regal Travel with offices on 4 Islands, with over a dozen locations & buy a r/t air & 1 day car voucher for $99.00 r/t.

I worked for them in the mid 90's servicing their their corporate contracts, including Bank of Hawaii. We sold the coupons to them on HA, 1000's at a time. At some point we were selling more seats on AQ than any other company.

As was suggested earlier, they were blank coupons, you wrote your name on, circled your starting destination & ending destination, connections included, ITO-OGG-LIH was 1 coupon. It was last minute or in advance, flights did sell out at peak times, days in advance, but then, you'd go to the airport & get on the next available flight, filling out the coupon in the boarding line.

Kind of interesting to compare Hawaii to the Canary Islands, where almost all inter-island flights are operated with AT7s.

I'm not sure about engines, but on these flights the duration is exactly the same either you do it in an ATR or a 737. I don't know if it's the same since the flights are slightly longer, but there are tons of domestic flights in Greece in the summer operated by 737s and A320s.

Also this makes you wonder how Southwest plans to handle its inter-island flights.

barney captain wrote:

travaz wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

I wonder whether there’s a balance. If a WN NG does intra-island for two or three days, then goes back to the mainland and flies a typical WN schedule there, would that appreciably affect reliability or lifespan? Historically no one has had the right fleet and network to answer the question, but perhaps WN will play with that sort of concept. If it works, that might solve the problem but not for HA.

Would WN have enough ETOPS aircraft for this? Will all of the WN fleet be ETOPS or just a certain sub fleet?

I think that is correct. The a/c will likely do one leg over, then one or two interisland. It will reverse the cycle the next day - hopefully eliminating any of the engine issues by limiting the short cycles.

There are 29 ETOPS -800's ready to go. There will be a gradual transition to MAX 8's as they come online.

Agreed. It’s also important to remember that the short turns and resultant cycle counts will be less of an issue for WN because they will be using larger aircraft. WN is the best in the business at turning aircraft but 20 minute turns don’t happen on 175-seat aircraft that are anywhere near full.

WN already has some aircraft that spend a day or two “stuck” in pretty high frequency operations from time to time. It’s not uncommon to see single aircraft doing stuff like SAN-OAK-BUR-SJC-LAX-OAK-SNA.

I've always found it curious how fervently opposed some Americans are to turboprops. All the Canadian airlines should thank Porter for making the Q400 be perceived by many as not just equal, but as a "premium" option compared to the standard 737s/320s. I know many people who, if fares were equal, would choose to fly a Porter Q400 from Toronto even to Florida over an AC/WS jet.

If no suitable jet is available for interisland ops, Hawaiians will adapt pretty quickly to turboprops, which in their modern form are perfectly fine and comfortable aircraft, especially for short hops. Ultimately what matters to most people flying is fare. In every survey, people will massively prefer jets over props. But will most pay an extra $100 for it? I very much doubt it.

Used Embraer 170/190s will work, you just can't run them hard like HA/AQ do with their fleet. You can maybe get 8 useful turns a day before the motors get cranky, and some slightly longer turn times than 25 minutes

OA940 wrote:

Also this makes you wonder how Southwest plans to handle its inter-island flights.

No issue. From what I've read, WN is only going to be operating a handful of inter-island flights which will in essence all be tags off of Mainland-Hawaii flights; they're not setting up an inter-island operation to rival HA. They're probably going to have aircraft do round-robin's such as SNA-HNL-OGG-SNA and with I'd guess about 45mins. to 1hr. ground time between legs, or however much time is needed for the engines to cool.

YYZLGA wrote:

I've always found it curious how fervently opposed some Americans are to turboprops. All the Canadian airlines should thank Porter for making the Q400 be perceived by many as not just equal, but as a "premium" option compared to the standard 737s/320s. I know many people who, if fares were equal, would choose to fly a Porter Q400 from Toronto even to Florida over an AC/WS jet.

Most rational consumers will choose PD because of the vast superiority of YTZ, but that has nothing to do with the aircraft (also PD’s DH4’s are less dense than the Encore birds).

Cubsrule wrote:

Most rational consumers will choose PD because of the vast superiority of YTZ, but that has nothing to do with the aircraft (also PD’s DH4’s are less dense than the Encore birds).

Certainly nobody chooses PD because they desperately want to fly a Q400. I'm just saying that nobody has a problem flying props because of PD's other positives (YTZ, seat comfort, its "premium" image). It manages to have that premium image in spite of its all-prop fleet.

IADFCO wrote:

If insufficient engine cool down time is the problem, develop a contraption that blows cold air into the engine during stops. Cheaper than developing a new engine.

I would think just motoring the engines on the starter would do that. They could use ground air to give both cooling and motor air (I don't think the APU has that volume).

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s going from 20 planes to 30-32 tails—hardly going to crowd the ramps. 20 717s Times 128 seats equal 2560 seats; divide 2560 by 78 seats equals 32 turboprops. Block-to-block times will only increase a small increment, but perhaps a few more tails. This isn’t insurmountable IF technology doesn’t come up with an answer in the next decade. It’s a unique operation making it very hard to build a small fleet.

Would running a T-prop even add to the cycle time? All of the flights are very short. An ATR probably could tie the 717 for cycle time, and with twin doors and the fast climb capability, a Q400 probably could beat the 717. The 78 seat capacity still remains a detriment, but cycle time shouldn't be one.

If cooling is an issue, would running the smaller aircraft of a family help? I get that the 737-300 had trouble, but is just assuming all newer aircraft really a problem? The 737-300 was the largest of 737-3/4/5 so the engine was working the hardest of the three.

For example, a 737-6/7/8/9 all use the same engine, with the larger aircraft working the same engine harder. The 737-600 has a passenger capacity comparable to a 737-300 and greater than the 717, but a MTW 25% lower than the 737-900. Would judicious use of limited power on a 737-600 avoid the short life limits that were experienced with the 737-300? There is a similar situation with the 737MAX and the A319.

Could this go even further? the A321 uses a different variant of the IAE V2500. What would be involved in using the larger engine on the A319? Is it possible, and how much?

MatthewDB wrote:

If cooling is an issue, would running the smaller aircraft of a family help?

It definitely would. The lower thrust ratings reduce the maintenance costs significantly. Even taking off with reduced thrust levels makes a difference.

I think they will just use Max8's and rotate them with the mainland route. 2-3 island hops followed by mainland flight. Getting a full 8 hours out of the crew. The island hops will take off derated thrust as the aircraft will be very light. Having everything ETOP certified.



Here is a graphic that shows the reduced engine costs with reduced weight/thrusts

MatthewDB wrote:

If cooling is an issue, would running the smaller aircraft of a family help? I get that the 737-300 had trouble, but is just assuming all newer aircraft really a problem? The 737-300 was the largest of 737-3/4/5 so the engine was working the hardest of the three.

For example, a 737-6/7/8/9 all use the same engine, with the larger aircraft working the same engine harder. The 737-600 has a passenger capacity comparable to a 737-300 and greater than the 717, but a MTW 25% lower than the 737-900. Would judicious use of limited power on a 737-600 avoid the short life limits that were experienced with the 737-300? There is a similar situation with the 737MAX and the A319.

Could this go even further? the A321 uses a different variant of the IAE V2500. What would be involved in using the larger engine on the A319? Is it possible, and how much?

The 737-300 was the middle size of the 737-300/400/500 series. The smallest was the -500, the largest the -400. And the -600 is more similar to -500, the -700 is comparable to -300 in size. Or maybe I'm wrong. Interesting hypothesis about the size, maybe it could help. But I think the core issue is the engine design itself.

There was talk about the Pratt GTF engines being able to handle the short hops and short cooldown times. I've not heard anything else about this lately. Does anyone know if Bombardier / Airbus have had the A220 series trying these short inter-island hops?

About the electric ferries solution - we already have electric ferries in Norway. And they're doing really great. CO2 emissions down by 95% and operating costs down 80%. More than 50 ferries now in backlog for the manufacturer Fjellstrand. These are mainly doing fjord crossings though - the water can get pretty rough, but it's hardly the same as the Pacific Ocean.

MatthewDB wrote:

The 737-300 was the largest of 737-3/4/5 so the engine was working the hardest of the three.

The -400 was larger than the -300.