Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ScottB
Posts: 7116
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Wed Sep 30, 2020 5:08 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
Well, it's not only capital cost, it's -- at the very least -- crewing cost, too.
With 717, a crew flies in on a short hop, and flies out, and on and on.
With pretty much anything else, a crew flies in, and sits and waits, till their engines are cool enough for the next hop.


Thing is, apart from overhead costs like health insurance the cost ends up being the same for crews -- because crews are paid based on block hours, not total duty time. It's a minus for the flight crews just because the trips aren't as efficient for building hours. They'd probably have to work an extra day or two a month to get the same number of hours.

VSMUT wrote:
Those A318s are only about 2 years younger than the Hawaiian 717s. FWIW, Air France is replacing the A318 and A319 with the A220 from September next year.


Age isn't the problem for the 717s. The issue is that support will become uneconomic once DL retires their fleet. If HA could get the AF A318s for cheap, and if they have plenty of cycles left, it could work. It's not ideal, but HA is unlikely to get something ideal for their interisland route structure.
 
FlyingViking
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:16 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Wed Sep 30, 2020 5:36 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
ScottB wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Leasors are reporting that the value of new aircraft is down 20% to 25%. Lease rates for new down 30% and less popular aircraft even more.

https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... met-530864

A319s were as low as $7 million using valuation that misses most if the crisis:


And this is why I think HA would probably be best-served by purchasing second-hand A319s & A320s with relatively few cycles. They won't get the same level of utilization, but that's OK if the capital cost of the fleet is low enough. Parts are plentiful worldwide and there will be support for decades to come. Trip costs are slightly higher but we know that a key reason why WN got rid of the FL 717s was that the trip cost advantage vs. the 73G was not enough to justify a separate fleet. As the A319 is comparable to the 73G, the calculus should be similar for HA.

Heck, it might even make sense to go with A320s if they can find them cheap enough with low cycles. Maybe A318s if AF wants to dump their fleet.

Well, it's not only capital cost, it's -- at the very least -- crewing cost, too.
With 717, a crew flies in on a short hop, and flies out, and on and on.
With pretty much anything else, a crew flies in, and sits and waits, till their engines are cool enough for the next hop.
Or the crew moves to the next plane -- but it takes time. Also, isn't it an SOP for the crew to do a walk-around, when they take the plane? Is there a difference in check-lists between hops, vs. when crew just boards a "fresh" plane?


Few things happens when a crew arrives at a plane. Cockpit Flows are done by one pilot and a walkaround/preflight done by the other, usually. Then the flying pilot do a flight briefing to the non flying pilot then the checklist is run. All these are mandatory of course, and doesn't really take that long. Maybe 20-25 minutes from walking into the cockpit to ready to pushback all depending on the type of plane involved.

I regard to the Hawaiian question, I had something like that in mind few years back (with MD-90's of course). The airline would need more airframes to cover the same schedule and right now it doesn't sound like a problem to procure those extra frames at huge discount. However 5-10 years from now when Hawaiian truly needs a replacement for their 717's prices might just have gone up (hopefully actually). Then what? That would lead to an increase in cost and that has be passed on the the ticket buyers. So it is a solution of course, but probably not a prefect one.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2292
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Wed Sep 30, 2020 6:53 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
ScottB wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Leasors are reporting that the value of new aircraft is down 20% to 25%. Lease rates for new down 30% and less popular aircraft even more.

https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... met-530864

A319s were as low as $7 million using valuation that misses most if the crisis:


And this is why I think HA would probably be best-served by purchasing second-hand A319s & A320s with relatively few cycles. They won't get the same level of utilization, but that's OK if the capital cost of the fleet is low enough. Parts are plentiful worldwide and there will be support for decades to come. Trip costs are slightly higher but we know that a key reason why WN got rid of the FL 717s was that the trip cost advantage vs. the 73G was not enough to justify a separate fleet. As the A319 is comparable to the 73G, the calculus should be similar for HA.

Heck, it might even make sense to go with A320s if they can find them cheap enough with low cycles. Maybe A318s if AF wants to dump their fleet.



Well, it's not only capital cost, it's -- at the very least -- crewing cost, too.
With 717, a crew flies in on a short hop, and flies out, and on and on.
With pretty much anything else, a crew flies in, and sits and waits, till their engines are cool enough for the next hop.
Or the crew moves to the next plane -- but it takes time. Also, isn't it an SOP for the crew to do a walk-around, when they take the plane? Is there a difference in check-lists between hops, vs. when crew just boards a "fresh" plane?


I wonder the same thing. Can plane A fly in, while A is unloading, plane B is loading, crew walk over to B, check out B and fly out using B, leaving A to cool down. Next plane C that arrives, does the swap to the now cooled A. That works as long as the check out of the plane to fly out takes relatively few minutes. Back at HNL the swaps would be to any plane that has already cooled. Extra planes for sure but could get a crew to get any extra RT each day with the reduced turn time. How long does it take a crew to check out a plane the first time they are flying it for the day.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4682
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:01 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
How long does it take a crew to check out a plane the first time they are flying it for the day.


I've never seen a schedule that gave me under an hour prior to the first flight of the day. A full preflight is required every time you got into a new plane.
 
BettaFish7
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:43 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:07 pm

Gulfstream500 wrote:
I see a few possible scenarios that could play out with the 717 fleet:

1. The 717 is first retired by Delta. Hawaiian takes in some of the DL 717s to replace higher-cycle 717s, and the prices of the 717s become extremely cheap for the age of the fleet - a few of the remaining aircraft get bought/leased by current DC-9 cargo operators, or a new ULCC looking for some cheap aircraft.
2. Hawaiian finds a cheap replacement for their 717s, so they replace them earlier than DL. The 717, in this case, would have a slow retirement with DL, who would control the majority of the remaining fleet.
3. The entire 717 fleet gets retired, all at once (by DL and HA). The value of the fleet drops very quickly, and DC-9 cargo operators (or a new ULCC) pick up some of the remaining fleet.


I am pointlessly hopeful that FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc. will look at the 717 but due to the spare parts market, i doubt it. It's not a maintenance dog like it's MD90 sibling, and more efficient than the MD80. Sad because the 717 has the same cycle limits as the tough DC9 and could remain in service for another 20+ years if parts isn't an issue.
Aviation history proves the importance of R&D over profit-based complacency.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20573
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:17 pm

ScottB wrote:
Age isn't the problem for the 717s. The issue is that support will become uneconomic once DL retires their fleet. If HA could get the AF A318s for cheap, and if they have plenty of cycles left, it could work. It's not ideal, but HA is unlikely to get something ideal for their interisland route structure.

I 100% agree.

Right now the 717 is cheap on a per cycle basis to maintain. Manufacturing is becoming more and more a volume business and that will kill maintenance costs post Delta.

HA needs more aircraft than the available A318 fleet. Since even young A319s are going at scrap, that should be the starting point. Due to HA's cycle needs, a 737 might be better.

I would like to see the A220 (I think A223) would be great if the cycle life were increased.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
BettaFish7
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:43 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:19 pm

lightsaber wrote:

These contracts are typical at US vendors. For whom it doesn't matter, except the military will do cost+ for batches, but they have learned to buy the minimum economic lot.

Boeing paid vendors to keep the 717 running. The issue is, certain vendors won't take a payment. It doesn't matter who you are, a seal vendor does a minimum lot of 1000 seals for say windows.

All pressurized planes are tough.

It isn't just the 717. All JT8D support is done at the vendor level. That impacts the 737-200, 727, as well as MD-80s. Everything comes to an end.

Lightsaber


I'm guessing that the 717 doesn't have enough commonality with the DC9 and MD80/90 for their spare parts, considering its very similar to the DC9-30. When DL dumped the MD90 quickly due to it's economic performance, i thought that there would be an influx of spare parts that it shares with the 717. But even with the rapid MD retirements lately, i guess that already hinted that spare parts are scarce.
Aviation history proves the importance of R&D over profit-based complacency.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:28 pm

VSMUT wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
How long does it take a crew to check out a plane the first time they are flying it for the day.


I've never seen a schedule that gave me under an hour prior to the first flight of the day. A full preflight is required every time you got into a new plane.


Thank you, that makes sense.
So, there you have it -- either at least an hour between turns, if crews change planes, or crews sit and weight till their engines cool down. In Hawaii conditions -- what time would it take for an CFM56 or a V2500 to cool down, from a short interisland hop? An hour?
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
nws2002
Posts: 921
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:30 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
ScottB wrote:

And this is why I think HA would probably be best-served by purchasing second-hand A319s & A320s with relatively few cycles. They won't get the same level of utilization, but that's OK if the capital cost of the fleet is low enough. Parts are plentiful worldwide and there will be support for decades to come. Trip costs are slightly higher but we know that a key reason why WN got rid of the FL 717s was that the trip cost advantage vs. the 73G was not enough to justify a separate fleet. As the A319 is comparable to the 73G, the calculus should be similar for HA.

Heck, it might even make sense to go with A320s if they can find them cheap enough with low cycles. Maybe A318s if AF wants to dump their fleet.



Well, it's not only capital cost, it's -- at the very least -- crewing cost, too.
With 717, a crew flies in on a short hop, and flies out, and on and on.
With pretty much anything else, a crew flies in, and sits and waits, till their engines are cool enough for the next hop.
Or the crew moves to the next plane -- but it takes time. Also, isn't it an SOP for the crew to do a walk-around, when they take the plane? Is there a difference in check-lists between hops, vs. when crew just boards a "fresh" plane?


I wonder the same thing. Can plane A fly in, while A is unloading, plane B is loading, crew walk over to B, check out B and fly out using B, leaving A to cool down. Next plane C that arrives, does the swap to the now cooled A. That works as long as the check out of the plane to fly out takes relatively few minutes. Back at HNL the swaps would be to any plane that has already cooled. Extra planes for sure but could get a crew to get any extra RT each day with the reduced turn time. How long does it take a crew to check out a plane the first time they are flying it for the day.


You'd need two sets of flight attendants in your scenario. A minimum crew is required to be onboard while passengers are boarding.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20573
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:42 pm

BettaFish7 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

These contracts are typical at US vendors. For whom it doesn't matter, except the military will do cost+ for batches, but they have learned to buy the minimum economic lot.

Boeing paid vendors to keep the 717 running. The issue is, certain vendors won't take a payment. It doesn't matter who you are, a seal vendor does a minimum lot of 1000 seals for say windows.

All pressurized planes are tough.

It isn't just the 717. All JT8D support is done at the vendor level. That impacts the 737-200, 727, as well as MD-80s. Everything comes to an end.

Lightsaber


I'm guessing that the 717 doesn't have enough commonality with the DC9 and MD80/90 for their spare parts, considering its very similar to the DC9-30. When DL dumped the MD90 quickly due to it's economic performance, i thought that there would be an influx of spare parts that it shares with the 717. But even with the rapid MD retirements lately, i guess that already hinted that spare parts are scarce.

They share some parts. I'm talking post 2025.

To replace a fleet by then means a decision by March 2021.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
marcogr12
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:47 pm

Would the E2-190/195s be a good replacement for HA 717s, since DL chose the A220s?
Flying is breathing..no planes no life..
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3157
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Thu Oct 01, 2020 12:03 am

BettaFish7 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

These contracts are typical at US vendors. For whom it doesn't matter, except the military will do cost+ for batches, but they have learned to buy the minimum economic lot.

Boeing paid vendors to keep the 717 running. The issue is, certain vendors won't take a payment. It doesn't matter who you are, a seal vendor does a minimum lot of 1000 seals for say windows.

All pressurized planes are tough.

It isn't just the 717. All JT8D support is done at the vendor level. That impacts the 737-200, 727, as well as MD-80s. Everything comes to an end.

Lightsaber


I'm guessing that the 717 doesn't have enough commonality with the DC9 and MD80/90 for their spare parts, considering its very similar to the DC9-30. When DL dumped the MD90 quickly due to it's economic performance, i thought that there would be an influx of spare parts that it shares with the 717. But even with the rapid MD retirements lately, i guess that already hinted that spare parts are scarce.

Yes they share parts with all of the Dc-9 family. The problem lies with consumable parts and items that need to be rebuilt. There just are not enough aircraft in the world fleet for suppliers to keep making or servicing those parts.

Take aircraft brakes for instance. I think the MD80, MD90 and the 717 all had similar but not the same brake assemblies. Brakes wear out and then the assembly needs to be rebuilt with new parts. HA likely rebuilds their own assemblies, but they have to buy the parts from a company like Bf Goodrich. There isn't enough market for Bf Goodrich to keep making the parts.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8499
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:01 am

lightsaber wrote:
They share some parts. I'm talking post 2025.

To replace a fleet by then means a decision by March 2021.

Lightsaber


Could you walk us through that critical path timeline?

Getting a couple of dozen anything (direct, a lessor, or multiple lessors) ought to be easy enough - for a carrier with $, anyway. Is pilot training necessarily a long lead item? Rather than buy a sim, just rent sim time? Spare parts?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20573
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:57 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
They share some parts. I'm talking post 2025.

To replace a fleet by then means a decision by March 2021.

Lightsaber


Could you walk us through that critical path timeline?

Getting a couple of dozen anything (direct, a lessor, or multiple lessors) ought to be easy enough - for a carrier with $, anyway. Is pilot training necessarily a long lead item? Rather than buy a sim, just rent sim time? Spare parts?

For a carrier with money, anything is possible. What is economical? No one who currently opperates the 717 was an airline to waste money.

For replacement:
Step1:
They need to figure out by then what parts to buy to support the 717 fleet. It will be a last chance offer to buy. The parts will arrive 6 to 9 months later. This is a large upfront expense where the timeline for replacement is set. It is the last time to get engine overhauls at the prior low rates.

Considering Hawaiian flies so much they need to overhaul one engine per 717 per year, they'll be looking to buy spare engines.

The more money spent on the 717, the less to spend on the replacement or keep employees paid.

Then the airline starts negotiations for new aircraft. If they can buy a large batch of identically equipped A320s or 738s, they sign a letter of intent by August 2021, a transfer contract by March 2022. In general, aircraft coming off lease start marketing 2 years before availability.

But if they decide to buy new, they'll need to sign a contract by September of 2021 to receive the first planes in 2023 (maybe earlier) to receive replacements over 3 to 5 years. Faster is better, but more costly. Delta has proven again and again being a disinterested buyer nets huge discounts.

Order a flight simulator 3 years before entry into service. Leasing time at Flight safety, Delta, United, Lufthansa or another center accelerates the transition.

Ideally a year before inducting a new aircraft, but it can be done faster, the maintenance plans are decided upon.

I could see rapid 717 retirement of aircraft needing a heavy maintenance with the engines, if owned, being used to keep other aircraft flying.

Really the main critical path is the decision on how long to fly the 717. As Volotea has discovered, they save money flying the A319CEO, even while transitioning.

The current used aircraft market plummeted in price, but there are few transactions.

It depends on the airline. Only Hawaiian cannot transition quickly.

Delta is holding on due to lease commitments, in my opinion. They have so many A220s and A321s on order, they can go on cruise control and not worry about lift due to the planned downsizing.

Volotea would hand their 717s over yesterday, but Boeing will hold them to lease terms. They will gleefully buy used A319 or A320 cheaply when demand returns. They need to shrink today.

Cobham/Qantas could start flying used A319s in months, but better deals will be negotiated in 2021, so they will buy enough parts to be patient. They might buy A223s for the range and economics.

Hawaiian is the tough case. Their high frequency opperations beat up most airframes while the DC-9-717 just takes it (while chewing up engines for rapid overhauls). They must be deciding on how many used engines they buy (used airframe attached or not) right now. As the extreame high frequency opperator (I know of no other airline that puts on cycles like HA on jets), their demands are an outlier condition. But how does a small airline come up with $100+ million for 717 parts? The proposals that Boeing does it adds 20% to the costs.

I would bet Airbus, Boeing, Mitsubishi, and Embraer have representatives going to Hawaiian already. I would bet all of them are deciding if they should offer a limit of Validity increase for a new sale (except Boeing, 110k flight cycles on the 737 matches the DC-9/717). Pratt will be running case studies on the PW1200/1500/1900 to see what can be done to speed turn times. But all know HA will benchmark used (e.g., 737NG values are going to slide with MAX return to service as will used A320s, A319s set scrap pricing already and have for years).

I wish I knew the A220 and MRJ fatigue analysis numbers. CFRP wings/wingbox take cycles and hours, so the A220 will be limited by stress in the tail. I'm certain both the MRJ and A220 could go to 80k cycles, but I don't know if they have enough margin to attempt 100k. We know (see prior link) that Airbus tried to go to 90k cycles on the A320 family and instead found structural weak points that receive added inspections now.

Lets put it in perspective, HA puts on 95k cycles in under 20 years (time to wear out a 717). LH, DL and others take 24 to 27 years to put on about 57k cycles (time to wear out an A320). Only Cebu Pacific really comes close. Well, AirTran used to, hence why they liked the 717s that went to WN and then DL, but 85% of HA and those were parked for a bit too.

The airlines just cannot wing it. If they mis-spend $1 million usd, they have to lay off 5 or so full time employees in this economy.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2292
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Thu Oct 01, 2020 2:02 am

WayexTDI wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
TonyClifton wrote:
How long is “longer turn time” GTF engine v BR715? A220 capacity wise matches the 717, but might be “too much” airplane for hops. E295 maybe better suited?

Short answer: " I don't know"

Long answer, look at the certification data, the PW1500G can be started if the engine is at at its maximum turbine inlet temperature. :wideeyed:

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... Issue7.pdf

But I'm not privy to all details. The issue was rotor bowing (which is really tighter bearing and seal tolerances required for higher bearing and seal speeds, but why go against the PR?). Since the starter could spin the engine on landing and the aircraft have a 5 minute maximum continuous thrust *and* HA has low maximum thrust needs (due to light fuel loads), a new plug could be created. In particular the A221.

Maximum thrust is really only needed for 2 minutes in an engine out. As long as HA has procedures in place to not fly over the tallest volcanoes in an engine out scenario, a single page that is probably already in their pilot training might be all that is needed.

Although, as much as I want a 1:1 replacement, I see an A223 order, unless I missed something.

What I propose would take some additional testing. It would cap the altitude the A220 could initially climb to... not a problem for HA as they fly fairly low between islands. ;)

The only issue is really the A220 limit of Validity, in cycles at 60,000 flight cycles (FC), is way too low for HA (fleet leader 717 over 70,000 FC of 110,000 certified capability, HA flew a DC-9 to just over 95,000, so the basic airframe is great).

Side note, the 717 airframe has a great maintenance reputation. The BR720 engines are an issue due to overhaul costs. HA gets 17 cycles a day, on average, from their 717s during busy season. No problem aircraft flies that intensely. Go ahead and look up HA's 717 maintenance histories, the planes seem extra rugged to me:
FAA site, just put in registration number without the N, for example 477HA had on 5/19/2020 70,665 flight cycles and was the highest cycle 717 in HA's fleet and looks to be the highest cycle in the world Note: I only spot checked vs. DL's, but as HA was routinely flying about 4 cycles more per day than AirTran and those were parked for a bit, it passes the does it make sense test. I have no source for Cobham or Volotea, but as they both fly a more low utilization model, I cannot consider them contenders for peak cycles.

https://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/Query.aspx

List of HA717 registrations:

https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Haw ... e-b717.htm

On the A319/320, the certified flight cycles at 60,000 is to low. We discussed why the attempt to get to 90,000 certified cycles failed: viewtopic.php?t=775787

Note: That type of failure is a cycle, not hour, related failure. Airbus still has plans to extend flight cycles for the A320 and the limit of Validity hours (all public sources indicate that 180k flight hours are still feasible). So I expect a future 66k to 75k future cycle LOV, but that is just the limit on the A32x family. :(

If Airbus will not pay the $100 million + to increase the A220 limit if Validity (certified life), than the -7 MAX becomes the best choice. With a CFRP wing and knowing details of the A220 design, it seems built for 100k+ cycles and 150k+ hours (my best SWAG).

Oh, Embraer and Mitsubishi have the same issue as both of those choices are also at a mere 60k cycle limit of Validity.

Hawaiian is a facinating corner case for aircraft design. For 20 aircraft, no one will do a custom design. But I could see some airframer extending the limit of Validity (to 80k FC/120k FH first to match A320 Flight hours and then to 100k/150k, I personally would not authorize more based on risk of finding something bad and imposing inspection costs on all operators, see the A320 thread earlier in this post).

Lightsaber

You keep talking about the BR720 engine; what is that engine?
The RR BR700 Family includes
    - the BR710 (actually, BR700-710A) for the Gulstream GV, G550 & Bombardier Global Express (including the Pearl 15 / BR700-710D);
    - the BR715 (actually, BR700-715) for the MD95/B717-200;
    - the BR725 (actually, BR700-725) for the Gulfstream G650, and potentially the B-52;
    - and the Pear 700 for the new Gulfstream G700
There is no BR720 or BR700-720. Please enlighten me here.


Wayex-
I read a response from Lightsaber noting that the correct engine is the BR700-715 and coming clean he was incorrect. Can't find it now.


On either the A319 or B738 is there a way to use the electric starter to rotate the engine sufficient to get cooling. Even 1 or 2 RPM should provide a nice breeze thru the engine and minimize differential cooling and shaft bow. Alternatively, a big prop fan could rotate it but would likely not have proper lubrication. Any other way to reduce the 40 minute turn time down to 20 minute in terms of cooling.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1863
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Fri Oct 02, 2020 4:09 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Short answer: " I don't know"

Long answer, look at the certification data, the PW1500G can be started if the engine is at at its maximum turbine inlet temperature. :wideeyed:

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... Issue7.pdf

But I'm not privy to all details. The issue was rotor bowing (which is really tighter bearing and seal tolerances required for higher bearing and seal speeds, but why go against the PR?). Since the starter could spin the engine on landing and the aircraft have a 5 minute maximum continuous thrust *and* HA has low maximum thrust needs (due to light fuel loads), a new plug could be created. In particular the A221.

Maximum thrust is really only needed for 2 minutes in an engine out. As long as HA has procedures in place to not fly over the tallest volcanoes in an engine out scenario, a single page that is probably already in their pilot training might be all that is needed.

Although, as much as I want a 1:1 replacement, I see an A223 order, unless I missed something.

What I propose would take some additional testing. It would cap the altitude the A220 could initially climb to... not a problem for HA as they fly fairly low between islands. ;)

The only issue is really the A220 limit of Validity, in cycles at 60,000 flight cycles (FC), is way too low for HA (fleet leader 717 over 70,000 FC of 110,000 certified capability, HA flew a DC-9 to just over 95,000, so the basic airframe is great).

Side note, the 717 airframe has a great maintenance reputation. The BR720 engines are an issue due to overhaul costs. HA gets 17 cycles a day, on average, from their 717s during busy season. No problem aircraft flies that intensely. Go ahead and look up HA's 717 maintenance histories, the planes seem extra rugged to me:
FAA site, just put in registration number without the N, for example 477HA had on 5/19/2020 70,665 flight cycles and was the highest cycle 717 in HA's fleet and looks to be the highest cycle in the world Note: I only spot checked vs. DL's, but as HA was routinely flying about 4 cycles more per day than AirTran and those were parked for a bit, it passes the does it make sense test. I have no source for Cobham or Volotea, but as they both fly a more low utilization model, I cannot consider them contenders for peak cycles.

https://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/Query.aspx

List of HA717 registrations:

https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Haw ... e-b717.htm

On the A319/320, the certified flight cycles at 60,000 is to low. We discussed why the attempt to get to 90,000 certified cycles failed: viewtopic.php?t=775787

Note: That type of failure is a cycle, not hour, related failure. Airbus still has plans to extend flight cycles for the A320 and the limit of Validity hours (all public sources indicate that 180k flight hours are still feasible). So I expect a future 66k to 75k future cycle LOV, but that is just the limit on the A32x family. :(

If Airbus will not pay the $100 million + to increase the A220 limit if Validity (certified life), than the -7 MAX becomes the best choice. With a CFRP wing and knowing details of the A220 design, it seems built for 100k+ cycles and 150k+ hours (my best SWAG).

Oh, Embraer and Mitsubishi have the same issue as both of those choices are also at a mere 60k cycle limit of Validity.

Hawaiian is a facinating corner case for aircraft design. For 20 aircraft, no one will do a custom design. But I could see some airframer extending the limit of Validity (to 80k FC/120k FH first to match A320 Flight hours and then to 100k/150k, I personally would not authorize more based on risk of finding something bad and imposing inspection costs on all operators, see the A320 thread earlier in this post).

Lightsaber

You keep talking about the BR720 engine; what is that engine?
The RR BR700 Family includes
    - the BR710 (actually, BR700-710A) for the Gulstream GV, G550 & Bombardier Global Express (including the Pearl 15 / BR700-710D);
    - the BR715 (actually, BR700-715) for the MD95/B717-200;
    - the BR725 (actually, BR700-725) for the Gulfstream G650, and potentially the B-52;
    - and the Pear 700 for the new Gulfstream G700
There is no BR720 or BR700-720. Please enlighten me here.


Wayex-
I read a response from Lightsaber noting that the correct engine is the BR700-715 and coming clean he was incorrect. Can't find it now.


On either the A319 or B738 is there a way to use the electric starter to rotate the engine sufficient to get cooling. Even 1 or 2 RPM should provide a nice breeze thru the engine and minimize differential cooling and shaft bow. Alternatively, a big prop fan could rotate it but would likely not have proper lubrication. Any other way to reduce the 40 minute turn time down to 20 minute in terms of cooling.

He responded 2 posts after mine; you didn't really research...

Electric starter? Aren't big jets started by a pneumatic starter?
Regardless, you'd have to regulate the power (be it electrical or pneumatic) going to the starter for it to rotate so slowly. And, in case of electric starter, you'd most likely drastically reduce their lives by running them 20 minutes.
 
User avatar
N1011
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 2:22 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:37 pm

I am huge 717 fan BUT bottom line, HA does not have a big enough fleet to justify some of the parts remaining in production. I fear this is the end once Delta retires it. Consumables are going to be the issue........as well as the economies of scale that will be gone once the Delta birds are gone. And Boeing has no incentive to remarket this aircraft when they can fire sale 737max slots.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Fri Oct 02, 2020 6:29 pm

lightsaber wrote:
jagraham wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Once installed, seals start aging. So HA and Cobham will have to keep a stockpile. Tires can be stored indoors until too many are worn to limits. But it is more the consumables (breaks & pads, filters, and if there are any custom batteries ir odd items).

One big issue will be engine and airframe overhauls. Now HA does their own airframes, so they can stretch that out. There is a reason HA has a 717 with over 70,000 flight cycles, they fly intensely. Every two years the engines require an overhaul at their insane 14+ average cycles per day. (This speaks well of the 717).

They can keep opperating, but HA must buy at least 5 more spare engines just because aircraft would otherwise be waiting on parts. Not that there will be a shortage, but as Boeing owns so many, they will know there is the value and price accordingly.

In this market, there is no way to find a home for another 60 of the 717s. There will be more A319CEOs sold cheap next year alone. With the return if the MAX, 736NGs will flood the secondary market. I estimate 2,000 surplus (used and scaringly hundreds if new) aircraft will be available in 2021 in the aircraft production chicken thread (link above).

No new airline will take on the type. It is unlikely Cobham could pass up on a great deal either.

The economics of scale will be torched.

Lightsaber


There is another scenario - the lessor (Boeing) fronts the cost

Boeing is not in a great cash position, but they are not dead yet. They could buy the parts for up to 40 aircraft for up to 10 years, and then convince HA and whatever QantasLink is now to fly somewhat increased fleets.

Since Boeing owns over 100 717s, and is going to get most of them back in a few years, they have an incentive to buy and stock the parts over the next 2 to 3 years. Plus they can cycle ex-DL frames for others that need too much TLC. Then build it into a somewhat increased lease cost to Hawaiian and QantasLink.

Of course it depends on Hawaiian and QantasLink making a 7 to 10 year commitment to the plane, and agreeing with Boeing on a cost that they are willing to pay that gives Boeing a reasonable profit for that upfront money. and squeeze in taking care of that seat AD . . .

I cannot create a scenario where Boeing paying the costs is to their advantage.

Boeing it turns out is selling 717s to Delta.

No one would make a 10 year commitment to an old worn plane where none have less than 30k cycles with an expensive to overhaul engine.

Boeing makes most of their profit selling new planes. I come from the engine side of the house where maintenance, in particular overhauls provide most of the revenue.

We are talking a mere 38 aircraft. Most will be paid for. Boeing will scrap the engines (or sell the 717s for scrap) as the parts common to the BR710 or BR725 are worth over half the aircraft value and will be sold into those markets.

Qantas was already entertaining replacement.


I see Boeing making a MAX offer, but will CFM make the engine overhaul offer that is required by Delta?

The 717 has the advantage the RR Deutschland will be able to overhaul them, but expect increasing turn times (it will make the V2500D5 look good).

Every bit of information convinces me my prior estimate of end of economic operation in 2027 to 2030.

Used aircraft are cheap. There is no way to price a 717 to compete with the A319CEOs being sold or the horde of 737NGs being returned. There are 2,000 used aircraft looking for a new good home in 2021 (actually, 2,300, but I assume wise scrapping occurs). Versus that flood of availability, only us enthusiasts care about the 717. The 717 was a facinating bit player from a storied family.

The more I think about it, if Qantas/Cobham doesn't replace the 717 by mid-2025 they left money on the table. Between the A220 or used A320CEO or 737NG, my back of the envelope spreadsheet makes it clear they must switch aircraft.

The outlier is Hawaiian. They need to bid more than scrappers for green time engines even mid-term. They need a promise of more durable aircraft as they run about 5000 cycles per year.

Lightsaber


737-700 can do the job. It did the job for Aloha. It's lighter and not susceptible to the turn time issues of the NEO (CEOs can be turned as quickly, but they are still heavier). It may be where HA has to go if they can't cut a deal with Boeing regarding the 717s.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20573
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Fri Oct 02, 2020 6:38 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
You keep talking about the BR720 engine; what is that engine?
The RR BR700 Family includes
    - the BR710 (actually, BR700-710A) for the Gulstream GV, G550 & Bombardier Global Express (including the Pearl 15 / BR700-710D);
    - the BR715 (actually, BR700-715) for the MD95/B717-200;
    - the BR725 (actually, BR700-725) for the Gulfstream G650, and potentially the B-52;
    - and the Pear 700 for the new Gulfstream G700
There is no BR720 or BR700-720. Please enlighten me here.


Wayex-
I read a response from Lightsaber noting that the correct engine is the BR700-715 and coming clean he was incorrect. Can't find it now.


On either the A319 or B738 is there a way to use the electric starter to rotate the engine sufficient to get cooling. Even 1 or 2 RPM should provide a nice breeze thru the engine and minimize differential cooling and shaft bow. Alternatively, a big prop fan could rotate it but would likely not have proper lubrication. Any other way to reduce the 40 minute turn time down to 20 minute in terms of cooling.

He responded 2 posts after mine; you didn't really research...

Electric starter? Aren't big jets started by a pneumatic starter?
Regardless, you'd have to regulate the power (be it electrical or pneumatic) going to the starter for it to rotate so slowly. And, in case of electric starter, you'd most likely drastically reduce their lives by running them 20 minutes.

Big jets always have both electric and pneumatic starters. The electric starters are routinely used to spin engines to ensure the cool down doesn't bind the rotors (CFM-56, all PW GTFs, going from memory).


This has been a standard option for decades. Some engines only do this if you immediately shutdown the aircraft after takeoff thrust (usually only after an aborted takeoff).

Usually the RPM is higher, just so ground crews see the engine is powered (at least turning) so they don't stick in any soon to be lost fingers into the engine.

It can reduce the time below 20 minutes on some engines as the asymmetrical heating is lessened.

The really hot parts are cool enough in minutes. The real cost is certification.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3264
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Fri Oct 02, 2020 6:54 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Big jets always have both electric and pneumatic starters. The electric starters are routinely used to spin engines to ensure the cool down doesn't bind the rotors (CFM-56, all PW GTFs, going from memory).


This has been a standard option for decades. Some engines only do this if you immediately shutdown the aircraft after takeoff thrust (usually only after an aborted takeoff).

Usually the RPM is higher, just so ground crews see the engine is powered (at least turning) so they don't stick in any soon to be lost fingers into the engine.

It can reduce the time below 20 minutes on some engines as the asymmetrical heating is lessened.

The really hot parts are cool enough in minutes. The real cost is certification.

Lightsaber


I've wrenched on CFM56 engines for 10 years now and this is the first I've ever heard of this. It very well might be an option but I doubt is a very common one and it wasn't discussed in any of our engine training.
HS-748, like a 747 but better!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20573
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:59 pm

[threeid][/threeid]
CanadianNorth wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Big jets always have both electric and pneumatic starters. The electric starters are routinely used to spin engines to ensure the cool down doesn't bind the rotors (CFM-56, all PW GTFs, going from memory).


This has been a standard option for decades. Some engines only do this if you immediately shutdown the aircraft after takeoff thrust (usually only after an aborted takeoff).

Usually the RPM is higher, just so ground crews see the engine is powered (at least turning) so they don't stick in any soon to be lost fingers into the engine.

It can reduce the time below 20 minutes on some engines as the asymmetrical heating is lessened.

The really hot parts are cool enough in minutes. The real cost is certification.

Lightsaber


I've wrenched on CFM56 engines for 10 years now and this is the first I've ever heard of this. It very well might be an option but I doubt is a very common one and it wasn't discussed in any of our engine training.

It is an option. Is is rare as it has little benefit outside of certain climates. I've only hear of it being used by a few airlines as for most the cost exceeds the benefit.

The point is this us a proven solution that isn't too hard to add to modern FADACs.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3157
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Fri Oct 02, 2020 8:09 pm

lightsaber wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:

Wayex-
I read a response from Lightsaber noting that the correct engine is the BR700-715 and coming clean he was incorrect. Can't find it now.


On either the A319 or B738 is there a way to use the electric starter to rotate the engine sufficient to get cooling. Even 1 or 2 RPM should provide a nice breeze thru the engine and minimize differential cooling and shaft bow. Alternatively, a big prop fan could rotate it but would likely not have proper lubrication. Any other way to reduce the 40 minute turn time down to 20 minute in terms of cooling.

He responded 2 posts after mine; you didn't really research...

Electric starter? Aren't big jets started by a pneumatic starter?
Regardless, you'd have to regulate the power (be it electrical or pneumatic) going to the starter for it to rotate so slowly. And, in case of electric starter, you'd most likely drastically reduce their lives by running them 20 minutes.

Big jets always have both electric and pneumatic starters. The electric starters are routinely used to spin engines to ensure the cool down doesn't bind the rotors (CFM-56, all PW GTFs, going from memory).


This has been a standard option for decades. Some engines only do this if you immediately shutdown the aircraft after takeoff thrust (usually only after an aborted takeoff).

Usually the RPM is higher, just so ground crews see the engine is powered (at least turning) so they don't stick in any soon to be lost fingers into the engine.

It can reduce the time below 20 minutes on some engines as the asymmetrical heating is lessened.

The really hot parts are cool enough in minutes. The real cost is certification.

Lightsaber

No on the electric starter. The only big jet I know of that has any type of electric starter is the 787. Everything else has a Pneumatic and that's it. No back up electric. The only way to turn the engine without air is a hand operated turning pad that is used for boroscope inspections.

There is no reason the engines could not be spun with the pneumatic starter after shutdown. It's called a dry motor. The fuel shutoffs are not opened no igniters fire.We commonly did this on the Garrett 337( electric starter) to prevent the shaft bow. It obviously doesn't cool the CFM enough or it would be common for these types of operations.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20573
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:10 pm

jagraham wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
jagraham wrote:

There is another scenario - the lessor (Boeing) fronts the cost

Boeing is not in a great cash position, but they are not dead yet. They could buy the parts for up to 40 aircraft for up to 10 years, and then convince HA and whatever QantasLink is now to fly somewhat increased fleets.

Since Boeing owns over 100 717s, and is going to get most of them back in a few years, they have an incentive to buy and stock the parts over the next 2 to 3 years. Plus they can cycle ex-DL frames for others that need too much TLC. Then build it into a somewhat increased lease cost to Hawaiian and QantasLink.

Of course it depends on Hawaiian and QantasLink making a 7 to 10 year commitment to the plane, and agreeing with Boeing on a cost that they are willing to pay that gives Boeing a reasonable profit for that upfront money. and squeeze in taking care of that seat AD . . .

I cannot create a scenario where Boeing paying the costs is to their advantage.

Boeing it turns out is selling 717s to Delta.

No one would make a 10 year commitment to an old worn plane where none have less than 30k cycles with an expensive to overhaul engine.

Boeing makes most of their profit selling new planes. I come from the engine side of the house where maintenance, in particular overhauls provide most of the revenue.

We are talking a mere 38 aircraft. Most will be paid for. Boeing will scrap the engines (or sell the 717s for scrap) as the parts common to the BR710 or BR725 are worth over half the aircraft value and will be sold into those markets.

Qantas was already entertaining replacement.


I see Boeing making a MAX offer, but will CFM make the engine overhaul offer that is required by Delta?

The 717 has the advantage the RR Deutschland will be able to overhaul them, but expect increasing turn times (it will make the V2500D5 look good).

Every bit of information convinces me my prior estimate of end of economic operation in 2027 to 2030.

Used aircraft are cheap. There is no way to price a 717 to compete with the A319CEOs being sold or the horde of 737NGs being returned. There are 2,000 used aircraft looking for a new good home in 2021 (actually, 2,300, but I assume wise scrapping occurs). Versus that flood of availability, only us enthusiasts care about the 717. The 717 was a facinating bit player from a storied family.

The more I think about it, if Qantas/Cobham doesn't replace the 717 by mid-2025 they left money on the table. Between the A220 or used A320CEO or 737NG, my back of the envelope spreadsheet makes it clear they must switch aircraft.

The outlier is Hawaiian. They need to bid more than scrappers for green time engines even mid-term. They need a promise of more durable aircraft as they run about 5000 cycles per year.

Lightsaber


737-700 can do the job. It did the job for Aloha. It's lighter and not susceptible to the turn time issues of the NEO (CEOs can be turned as quickly, but they are still heavier). It may be where HA has to go if they can't cut a deal with Boeing regarding the 717s.

The generator on the auxillary gearbox on almost all engines doubles as the electric starter. To actually start the engine puts brutal wear on the auxillary gearbox, so if your airline pulled that page out if the operations manual, I understand. It is not a start to be encouraged. But to turn the engine for cooling it is not an issue and lack of the feature means certain military opperators will not buy that engine (it is an engine, not airframe specific feature).

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
hawaiian717
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:50 pm

jagraham wrote:
737-700 can do the job. It did the job for Aloha. It's lighter and not susceptible to the turn time issues of the NEO (CEOs can be turned as quickly, but they are still heavier). It may be where HA has to go if they can't cut a deal with Boeing regarding the 717s.


737-700 cannot do the job. Aloha used theirs for flights to the west coast. They weren’t normally scheduled on interisland flights but it would not surprise me if they occasionally subbed for a -200. They also operated -300s and -400s between 1988 and 1996, ultimately deciding to dispose of the CFM56-powered variants and stick with the JT8D-powered -200.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5649
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:55 pm

There are going to be a lot of surplus aircraft floating around for several years until demand recovers. That means replacing a relatively small fleet will be comparatively cheap. It also means that maintenance costs for a rapidly dwindling type like the 717 (and the MD-11 as well) are going to skyrocket. I think the handwriting is on the wall for both types.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5649
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Fri Oct 02, 2020 10:04 pm

hawaiian717 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
737-700 can do the job. It did the job for Aloha. It's lighter and not susceptible to the turn time issues of the NEO (CEOs can be turned as quickly, but they are still heavier). It may be where HA has to go if they can't cut a deal with Boeing regarding the 717s.


737-700 cannot do the job. Aloha used theirs for flights to the west coast. They weren’t normally scheduled on interisland flights but it would not surprise me if they occasionally subbed for a -200. They also operated -300s and -400s between 1988 and 1996, ultimately deciding to dispose of the CFM56-powered variants and stick with the JT8D-powered -200.

So what is it that the 737-700 cannot do? I get it that the -200 may be preferable for extremely short routes with many cycles per day, but why can’t the CFM-56 do the job even if it is less efficient? Nobody is going to be able to assemble a fleet of -200s at this point. And they will likely be even worse than the 717s on maintenance.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
hawaiian717
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:10 pm

SEPilot wrote:
So what is it that the 737-700 cannot do? I get it that the -200 may be preferable for extremely short routes with many cycles per day, but why can’t the CFM-56 do the job even if it is less efficient? Nobody is going to be able to assemble a fleet of -200s at this point. And they will likely be even worse than the 717s on maintenance.


Short flights combined with short turns. Not enough time for the engine core to cool down. The JT8D (737-200, DC-9, MD-80) and BR715 (717) can handle it but the CFM56 and many of the other recent high bypass turbofans can’t.

Southwest does use the 737-800 for interisland flights. But they have a much lighter interisland schedule so they can allow longer turns for the engine to cool. An individual aircraft will also only island hop for a couple of days before turning to a west coast flight, so that reduces the wear compared to an aircraft that island hops all day every day like Hawaiian’s 717 fleet. People will also point to some of the short legs Southwest operates on the mainland, but few are really as short as Hawaii (HNL-ITO is typically the longest and is around 40 minutes) and the planes flow around the network operating both the short hops and longer sectors.

Aloha Air Cargo has moved to the 737-300 but I suspect they don’t operate as many segments per day and have longer turns. Looking at FlightAware for N303KH I see some days with only a couple flights and others with more (FR24 seemed hopelessly confused with the same aircraft appearing to operate different flights minutes apart).

Nobody is talking about building up a fleet of 737-200s. The remaining 717 operators seem to have a few options open to them, other than Hawaiian which has such a uniquely extreme operation that it’s difficult to make educated predictions about what they might do as none of the options seem like a good fit. It means that “What will Hawaiian replace the 717 with?” has been a recurring topic on this forum for the past few years.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20573
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:22 am

hawaiian717 wrote:
The remaining 717 operators seem to have a few options open to them, other than Hawaiian which has such a uniquely extreme operation that it’s difficult to make educated predictions about what they might do as none of the options seem like a good fit. It means that “What will Hawaiian replace the 717 with?” has been a recurring topic on this forum for the past few years.

The "what will Hawaiian replace the 717 with" will be a common topic, until they decide. They are the extreme case of frequency per day. A challenge. But too few to compromise a design for that extreme.

The closest I come is the MRJ if it has more cycle life in reserve than I know of. That is because the PW1700G/PW1200G should have a shorter down time than the PW1500G as it runs cooler (lower pressure ration). But is it enough? I don't know. Perhaps a last E-190 (E1) order? I don't know. There is no obvious good candidate to replace the 717s.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
2175301
Posts: 1909
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sat Oct 03, 2020 1:49 am

My opinion is that Hawaiian can easily stretch their 717 to 2030; and they could also stretch them to about 2035 by investing wisely into parts and support within the next 3-5 years. The latter option might be the best one for now...

We will have to see what they do. It's certainly an issue they have to face... and there really is no great solution on the market to replace the 717.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20573
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:51 am

2175301 wrote:
My opinion is that Hawaiian can easily stretch their 717 to 2030; and they could also stretch them to about 2035 by investing wisely into parts and support within the next 3-5 years. The latter option might be the best one for now...

We will have to see what they do. It's certainly an issue they have to face... and there really is no great solution on the market to replace the 717.

Have a great day,

How will they economically perform heavy maintenance visits? Also, due to how often they need engine overhauls, that will only go up a bit in price (as so much of the BR715 is common to the other variants), but not all.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
DeltaMD95
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:04 am

Mark my words, the FedEx/UPS MD-11 freighters will be the final Long Beach Douglas design to remain operationally active in the western world. I’ve said it before and been challenged. But now, with the DL 2025 717 retirement, it’s more likely than ever.
Did you know that a Boeing 717-200 is really a McDonnell Douglas MD95-30? ;-)
 
jagraham
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sat Oct 03, 2020 8:15 am

hawaiian717 wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
So what is it that the 737-700 cannot do? I get it that the -200 may be preferable for extremely short routes with many cycles per day, but why can’t the CFM-56 do the job even if it is less efficient? Nobody is going to be able to assemble a fleet of -200s at this point. And they will likely be even worse than the 717s on maintenance.


Short flights combined with short turns. Not enough time for the engine core to cool down. The JT8D (737-200, DC-9, MD-80) and BR715 (717) can handle it but the CFM56 and many of the other recent high bypass turbofans can’t.

Southwest does use the 737-800 for interisland flights. But they have a much lighter interisland schedule so they can allow longer turns for the engine to cool. An individual aircraft will also only island hop for a couple of days before turning to a west coast flight, so that reduces the wear compared to an aircraft that island hops all day every day like Hawaiian’s 717 fleet. People will also point to some of the short legs Southwest operates on the mainland, but few are really as short as Hawaii (HNL-ITO is typically the longest and is around 40 minutes) and the planes flow around the network operating both the short hops and longer sectors.

Aloha Air Cargo has moved to the 737-300 but I suspect they don’t operate as many segments per day and have longer turns. Looking at FlightAware for N303KH I see some days with only a couple flights and others with more (FR24 seemed hopelessly confused with the same aircraft appearing to operate different flights minutes apart).

Nobody is talking about building up a fleet of 737-200s. The remaining 717 operators seem to have a few options open to them, other than Hawaiian which has such a uniquely extreme operation that it’s difficult to make educated predictions about what they might do as none of the options seem like a good fit. It means that “What will Hawaiian replace the 717 with?” has been a recurring topic on this forum for the past few years.


Aloha Air Cargo moved to the 737-300 because after the bankruptcy that was all they were left with. And as a cargo operation did not

Southwest comes close to what the Hawaiian situation is with their intra-Texas operations. The 737-500s definitely did not go much of anywhere else during their last years. Can't say regarding the 737-700s since there were so many of them.

Also the main reason for Southwest scheduling is their dispatch programs. They still can't do redeyes. So there is a certain time they need to depart for the West Coast. There is a thread on it somewhere.
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3157
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sat Oct 03, 2020 1:59 pm

lightsaber wrote:
jagraham wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
I cannot create a scenario where Boeing paying the costs is to their advantage.

Boeing it turns out is selling 717s to Delta.

No one would make a 10 year commitment to an old worn plane where none have less than 30k cycles with an expensive to overhaul engine.

Boeing makes most of their profit selling new planes. I come from the engine side of the house where maintenance, in particular overhauls provide most of the revenue.

We are talking a mere 38 aircraft. Most will be paid for. Boeing will scrap the engines (or sell the 717s for scrap) as the parts common to the BR710 or BR725 are worth over half the aircraft value and will be sold into those markets.

Qantas was already entertaining replacement.


I see Boeing making a MAX offer, but will CFM make the engine overhaul offer that is required by Delta?

The 717 has the advantage the RR Deutschland will be able to overhaul them, but expect increasing turn times (it will make the V2500D5 look good).

Every bit of information convinces me my prior estimate of end of economic operation in 2027 to 2030.

Used aircraft are cheap. There is no way to price a 717 to compete with the A319CEOs being sold or the horde of 737NGs being returned. There are 2,000 used aircraft looking for a new good home in 2021 (actually, 2,300, but I assume wise scrapping occurs). Versus that flood of availability, only us enthusiasts care about the 717. The 717 was a facinating bit player from a storied family.

The more I think about it, if Qantas/Cobham doesn't replace the 717 by mid-2025 they left money on the table. Between the A220 or used A320CEO or 737NG, my back of the envelope spreadsheet makes it clear they must switch aircraft.

The outlier is Hawaiian. They need to bid more than scrappers for green time engines even mid-term. They need a promise of more durable aircraft as they run about 5000 cycles per year.

Lightsaber


737-700 can do the job. It did the job for Aloha. It's lighter and not susceptible to the turn time issues of the NEO (CEOs can be turned as quickly, but they are still heavier). It may be where HA has to go if they can't cut a deal with Boeing regarding the 717s.

The generator on the auxillary gearbox on almost all engines doubles as the electric starter. To actually start the engine puts brutal wear on the auxillary gearbox, so if your airline pulled that page out if the operations manual, I understand. It is not a start to be encouraged. But to turn the engine for cooling it is not an issue and lack of the feature means certain military opperators will not buy that engine (it is an engine, not airframe specific feature).

Lightsaber

I've been an aircraft mechanic for over 30 years on various turboprops, small and large jets. The only time I've seen the capability of the electrical generator to rotate the motor is when it is a starter/Gen config used on turboprops where it is the sole way to rotate and start the motor. For the larger motors that use pneumatic starters the IDG or Gen/CSD is not wired to be back driven by the aircraft electrical system. It has never been covered in any of the aircraft specific schools I've been to. This kind of gee wiz, you will never use this factoid is the stuff instructors love to bring up.

When the APU is inop and you can't get the ground start cart to work, the plane is not going anywhere. That's true for the DC-9 family, 737,757,767, and I'm pretty sure for all of the Airbus family. I never did the school for any of the Airbus or get run qualified on any of the Airbus so I don't know for sure, but I've never heard of it being done.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2133
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:52 pm

Concerning Hawaii:
Does the Q400 also have cooling time issues?
How much time does a B717 save because of it per start, let's say compared to A319/ B 737-700/ A220?

What is the correct view:
a) 14 cycles a day is a lot. A fuel efficient engine is important.
b) better to use a plane with oversized engine to save maintenance cost. Who would use a truck with small engine for mountainous areas?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8499
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:05 pm

lightsaber wrote:
hawaiian717 wrote:
The remaining 717 operators seem to have a few options open to them, other than Hawaiian which has such a uniquely extreme operation that it’s difficult to make educated predictions about what they might do as none of the options seem like a good fit. It means that “What will Hawaiian replace the 717 with?” has been a recurring topic on this forum for the past few years.

The "what will Hawaiian replace the 717 with" will be a common topic, until they decide. They are the extreme case of frequency per day. A challenge. But too few to compromise a design for that extreme.

The closest I come is the MRJ if it has more cycle life in reserve than I know of. That is because the PW1700G/PW1200G should have a shorter down time than the PW1500G as it runs cooler (lower pressure ration). But is it enough? I don't know. Perhaps a last E-190 (E1) order? I don't know. There is no obvious good candidate to replace the 717s.

Lightsaber


So, are they going to burn up engines with frequent cycles (it wouldn't compromise safety, would it?), or kill utilization by scheduling longer stops? No engine or airframe maker is going to spend $ Billions for HA's nineteen frames. HA does not make a market. An HA-specific design isn't going to be like leveraging ANA's order for fifty 787s into deliveries of 1,000.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2133
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:13 pm

Let's see if I understand. Please correct where wrong/ incomplete.

a) To maintain knowledge how to produce spare parts around 25 million $/ year is required.
Roughly same for B717 and A380?

b) The 25 mio doesn't include engines. If the engine is unique to the model the minimum number of in service planes have to be many more.

c) A model requires a sim, maintenance and sufficient spare orders every year.
It is best if at the end of service life of a model all remaining planes are operated by one big airline. They can have their own sim and maintenance.
That reduces the risk of blackmail pricing.
Too many cooks spoil the dish.

d) end of service life models are naturally fuel inefficient. They are used maybe at the peak time of the day or seasonal.
That makes spare parts demand even worse.

e) depending on oil price, interest rate, fuel efficiency, prize level of old planes, uniqueness of engine and maintenance needs an end of life model is retired sooner or later.

The CRJ 900 wasn't mentioned yet. As a plane that is sparsely used, what's wrong with it?
I suppose the replacement has to be either E Jet or CRJ 900.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
diverted
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:22 pm

lightsaber wrote:
hawaiian717 wrote:
The remaining 717 operators seem to have a few options open to them, other than Hawaiian which has such a uniquely extreme operation that it’s difficult to make educated predictions about what they might do as none of the options seem like a good fit. It means that “What will Hawaiian replace the 717 with?” has been a recurring topic on this forum for the past few years.

The "what will Hawaiian replace the 717 with" will be a common topic, until they decide. They are the extreme case of frequency per day. A challenge. But too few to compromise a design for that extreme.

The closest I come is the MRJ if it has more cycle life in reserve than I know of. That is because the PW1700G/PW1200G should have a shorter down time than the PW1500G as it runs cooler (lower pressure ration). But is it enough? I don't know. Perhaps a last E-190 (E1) order? I don't know. There is no obvious good candidate to replace the 717s.

Lightsaber


Maybe an ATR, and depending on their pilots collective agreements, if they did that, could they outsource the flying to Empire like they do with the Ohana cargo ATR's?
 
jagraham
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:05 pm

The perception of prop vs jet makes it hard for HA to go for either the ATR or the Q400.
 
PhilMcCrackin
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:54 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sat Oct 03, 2020 11:48 pm

DeltaMD95 wrote:
Mark my words, the FedEx/UPS MD-11 freighters will be the final Long Beach Douglas design to remain operationally active in the western world. I’ve said it before and been challenged. But now, with the DL 2025 717 retirement, it’s more likely than ever.


It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. FX is still operating DC10/MD10s that are nearly 50 years old.
 
DeltaMD95
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:05 am

PhilMcCrackin wrote:
DeltaMD95 wrote:
Mark my words, the FedEx/UPS MD-11 freighters will be the final Long Beach Douglas design to remain operationally active in the western world. I’ve said it before and been challenged. But now, with the DL 2025 717 retirement, it’s more likely than ever.


It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. FX is still operating DC10/MD10s that are nearly 50 years old.


“It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out”? Yikes. The toxicity in this websites’ tone, summed up quite nicely. Solid contribution.

FWIW, the general consensus has not been that this is a given, on these forums from prior topics.
Did you know that a Boeing 717-200 is really a McDonnell Douglas MD95-30? ;-)
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4682
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:29 am

jagraham wrote:
The perception of prop vs jet makes it hard for HA to go for either the ATR or the Q400.


Are there any competitors to Hawaiian Airlines on intra-island services? What types do they fly?

If Hawaiian goes all turboprop on shorter flights and have a monopoly on them, customers will just have to accept what is available.


Sokes wrote:
The CRJ 900 wasn't mentioned yet. As a plane that is sparsely used, what's wrong with it?
I suppose the replacement has to be either E Jet or CRJ 900.


The CRJ is just about going out of production (last fuselage was delivered to the assembly line in the start of September), but used examples can be found. I understand that the CRJ-1000 had some issues in the US regarding common type rating with the other CRJs, but for Hawaiian that wouldn't be an issue if they just use the -1000. Wasn't Garuda phasing out its CRJ-1000s?
 
bennett123
Posts: 10061
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:01 am

Perhaps best plan for HA is to buy a big pack of spares, (same as DL did) then buy the B717 as they ae retired at scrap prices.

By that time, Airbus and Boeing will have delivered lots of A320NEO and B737MAX and there will be lots of cheap A320CEO and B737NG available. With lots of island hopping, fuel efficiency is less important than CAPEX.

Also if they get them cheap, could they buy more and reduce utilisation. This would also prolong their life.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:11 am

VSMUT wrote:
jagraham wrote:
The perception of prop vs jet makes it hard for HA to go for either the ATR or the Q400.


Are there any competitors to Hawaiian Airlines on intra-island services? What types do they fly?

If Hawaiian goes all turboprop on shorter flights and have a monopoly on them, customers will just have to accept what is available.


Sokes wrote:
The CRJ 900 wasn't mentioned yet. As a plane that is sparsely used, what's wrong with it?
I suppose the replacement has to be either E Jet or CRJ 900.


The CRJ is just about going out of production (last fuselage was delivered to the assembly line in the start of September), but used examples can be found. I understand that the CRJ-1000 had some issues in the US regarding common type rating with the other CRJs, but for Hawaiian that wouldn't be an issue if they just use the -1000. Wasn't Garuda phasing out its CRJ-1000s?

While nothing is set in stone, some of the reasons RJ's and small turboprops were not a good replacement for 717's (all this is pre-COVID analysis, mind you) is that 717's were also hauling stuff between islands, and RJ's and ATR/Dash-8 are not great in that department. Another point were surfboards -- HA accepted those for interisland flying. Again, neither RJ's nor turboprops work well here. So, small mainline planes were an appropriate answer.
Now, with JT8D flying almost gone, BR700 is pretty much all that is left in the Western aviation (Ukraine would gladly offer D-436 to power anything, including An-148, but HA would not necessarily bite) that can cope with HA's operation mode of quick turns after short flights. And 717 is the only commercial jet using BR700.

Basically, if they choose anything smaller than 717, they'll have to increase the number of flights, if only to haul stuff separately from pax. If they choose anything bigger than 717, they'll need to accept long turns, to allow engine cooling. A vicious version of "Goldilocks" fairy-tale, except the porridge that's "not too hot and not too cold" is about to be taken away, with no replacement in sight.
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:18 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
jagraham wrote:
The perception of prop vs jet makes it hard for HA to go for either the ATR or the Q400.


Are there any competitors to Hawaiian Airlines on intra-island services? What types do they fly?

If Hawaiian goes all turboprop on shorter flights and have a monopoly on them, customers will just have to accept what is available.


Sokes wrote:
The CRJ 900 wasn't mentioned yet. As a plane that is sparsely used, what's wrong with it?
I suppose the replacement has to be either E Jet or CRJ 900.


The CRJ is just about going out of production (last fuselage was delivered to the assembly line in the start of September), but used examples can be found. I understand that the CRJ-1000 had some issues in the US regarding common type rating with the other CRJs, but for Hawaiian that wouldn't be an issue if they just use the -1000. Wasn't Garuda phasing out its CRJ-1000s?

While nothing is set in stone, some of the reasons RJ's and small turboprops were not a good replacement for 717's (all this is pre-COVID analysis, mind you) is that 717's were also hauling stuff between islands, and RJ's and ATR/Dash-8 are not great in that department. Another point were surfboards -- HA accepted those for interisland flying. Again, neither RJ's nor turboprops work well here. So, small mainline planes were an appropriate answer.
Now, with JT8D flying almost gone, BR700 is pretty much all that is left in the Western aviation (Ukraine would gladly offer D-436 to power anything, including An-148, but HA would not necessarily bite) that can cope with HA's operation mode of quick turns after short flights. And 717 is the only commercial jet using BR700.

Basically, if they choose anything smaller than 717, they'll have to increase the number of flights, if only to haul stuff separately from pax. If they choose anything bigger than 717, they'll need to accept long turns, to allow engine cooling. A vicious version of "Goldilocks" fairy-tale, except the porridge that's "not too hot and not too cold" is about to be taken away, with no replacement in sight.

Not that all the following make sense, but from an engine standpoint I would think they could use 737NG, airbus CEOs, or E175/190/195s E1 and quick turn with those just as effectively as 717. I was thinking an order of E175 E1s for bulk frequency interisland stuff, then mix in A321NEOs on a few higher demand routes/times, though I have no idea how that would affect their west coast a321NEO scheduling if they used some for interisland duty. Or maybe grab some of the many E190/195s hitting the used market for a song...low acquisition costs but higher maintenance costs. Or maybe some A319s since it’s an existing type for them...those could in theory also be rotated through to the west coast for some flights. I’m also curious about the 175-E2, seems like that engine may be able to handle quicker turns from some of the stuff I’ve read. But I wouldn’t want to be buy/use a new engine in a salty environment without a lot of existing data. Or maybe some of delta’s, but that seems to be a shorter term solution.
 
baje427
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:48 pm

Does anyone know how the Q400's worked for Island Air?
 
diverted
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:04 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
jagraham wrote:
The perception of prop vs jet makes it hard for HA to go for either the ATR or the Q400.


Are there any competitors to Hawaiian Airlines on intra-island services? What types do they fly?

If Hawaiian goes all turboprop on shorter flights and have a monopoly on them, customers will just have to accept what is available.


Sokes wrote:
The CRJ 900 wasn't mentioned yet. As a plane that is sparsely used, what's wrong with it?
I suppose the replacement has to be either E Jet or CRJ 900.


The CRJ is just about going out of production (last fuselage was delivered to the assembly line in the start of September), but used examples can be found. I understand that the CRJ-1000 had some issues in the US regarding common type rating with the other CRJs, but for Hawaiian that wouldn't be an issue if they just use the -1000. Wasn't Garuda phasing out its CRJ-1000s?

While nothing is set in stone, some of the reasons RJ's and small turboprops were not a good replacement for 717's (all this is pre-COVID analysis, mind you) is that 717's were also hauling stuff between islands, and RJ's and ATR/Dash-8 are not great in that department. Another point were surfboards -- HA accepted those for interisland flying. Again, neither RJ's nor turboprops work well here. So, small mainline planes were an appropriate answer.
Now, with JT8D flying almost gone, BR700 is pretty much all that is left in the Western aviation (Ukraine would gladly offer D-436 to power anything, including An-148, but HA would not necessarily bite) that can cope with HA's operation mode of quick turns after short flights. And 717 is the only commercial jet using BR700.

Basically, if they choose anything smaller than 717, they'll have to increase the number of flights, if only to haul stuff separately from pax. If they choose anything bigger than 717, they'll need to accept long turns, to allow engine cooling. A vicious version of "Goldilocks" fairy-tale, except the porridge that's "not too hot and not too cold" is about to be taken away, with no replacement in sight.


Both the ATR and Dash have combi models available. Dash 8 400 is available as a factory combi, and there are STC's for ATR combi mods
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1863
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:31 pm

jagraham wrote:
The perception of prop vs jet makes it hard for HA to go for either the ATR or the Q400.

Well, for the flying public, the "prop vs jet" perception might end up to be the same as "air service vs no air service"...
 
RB211trent
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 11:35 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:00 pm

Dalmd88 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
jagraham wrote:

737-700 can do the job. It did the job for Aloha. It's lighter and not susceptible to the turn time issues of the NEO (CEOs can be turned as quickly, but they are still heavier). It may be where HA has to go if they can't cut a deal with Boeing regarding the 717s.

The generator on the auxillary gearbox on almost all engines doubles as the electric starter. To actually start the engine puts brutal wear on the auxillary gearbox, so if your airline pulled that page out if the operations manual, I understand. It is not a start to be encouraged. But to turn the engine for cooling it is not an issue and lack of the feature means certain military opperators will not buy that engine (it is an engine, not airframe specific feature).

Lightsaber

I've been an aircraft mechanic for over 30 years on various turboprops, small and large jets. The only time I've seen the capability of the electrical generator to rotate the motor is when it is a starter/Gen config used on turboprops where it is the sole way to rotate and start the motor. For the larger motors that use pneumatic starters the IDG or Gen/CSD is not wired to be back driven by the aircraft electrical system. It has never been covered in any of the aircraft specific schools I've been to. This kind of gee wiz, you will never use this factoid is the stuff instructors love to bring up.

When the APU is inop and you can't get the ground start cart to work, the plane is not going anywhere. That's true for the DC-9 family, 737,757,767, and I'm pretty sure for all of the Airbus family. I never did the school for any of the Airbus or get run qualified on any of the Airbus so I don't know for sure, but I've never heard of it being done.

You’re correct. IDGs cannot start or crank engines. The 787 however is electric crank or starting.
 
r6russian
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:12 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sun Oct 04, 2020 7:47 pm

another concern for HA 717 replacement is surfboards. A long time ago i read a article or watched something where they said 717 is a perfect plane for HA for the engine reasons, but its cargo bays are big enough to hold surfboards, and over there you have a lot of people that like to surf and that business would be lost to ferries if the replacement plane cant fit a board. A turboprop or RJ cargo bays might not be big enough for surfboards. That leaves fullsize mainlike jets. A320 series offer commonality with the 330s, but need alot more GSE with how high they sit. 737 is low like the 717 so no extra GSE compared to 717 and both will carry surfboards
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Fate of 717 post Delta

Sun Oct 04, 2020 8:00 pm

JoseSalazar wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

Are there any competitors to Hawaiian Airlines on intra-island services? What types do they fly?

If Hawaiian goes all turboprop on shorter flights and have a monopoly on them, customers will just have to accept what is available.




The CRJ is just about going out of production (last fuselage was delivered to the assembly line in the start of September), but used examples can be found. I understand that the CRJ-1000 had some issues in the US regarding common type rating with the other CRJs, but for Hawaiian that wouldn't be an issue if they just use the -1000. Wasn't Garuda phasing out its CRJ-1000s?

While nothing is set in stone, some of the reasons RJ's and small turboprops were not a good replacement for 717's (all this is pre-COVID analysis, mind you) is that 717's were also hauling stuff between islands, and RJ's and ATR/Dash-8 are not great in that department. Another point were surfboards -- HA accepted those for interisland flying. Again, neither RJ's nor turboprops work well here. So, small mainline planes were an appropriate answer.
Now, with JT8D flying almost gone, BR700 is pretty much all that is left in the Western aviation (Ukraine would gladly offer D-436 to power anything, including An-148, but HA would not necessarily bite) that can cope with HA's operation mode of quick turns after short flights. And 717 is the only commercial jet using BR700.

Basically, if they choose anything smaller than 717, they'll have to increase the number of flights, if only to haul stuff separately from pax. If they choose anything bigger than 717, they'll need to accept long turns, to allow engine cooling. A vicious version of "Goldilocks" fairy-tale, except the porridge that's "not too hot and not too cold" is about to be taken away, with no replacement in sight.

Not that all the following make sense, but from an engine standpoint I would think they could use 737NG, airbus CEOs, or E175/190/195s E1 and quick turn with those just as effectively as 717. I was thinking an order of E175 E1s for bulk frequency interisland stuff, then mix in A321NEOs on a few higher demand routes/times, though I have no idea how that would affect their west coast a321NEO scheduling if they used some for interisland duty. Or maybe grab some of the many E190/195s hitting the used market for a song...low acquisition costs but higher maintenance costs. Or maybe some A319s since it’s an existing type for them...those could in theory also be rotated through to the west coast for some flights. I’m also curious about the 175-E2, seems like that engine may be able to handle quicker turns from some of the stuff I’ve read. But I wouldn’t want to be buy/use a new engine in a salty environment without a lot of existing data. Or maybe some of delta’s, but that seems to be a shorter term solution.


Maybe it was not worded clearly. HA's engine issue is not only that the ground turns are short. It's also that the hops are short. You are in a take-off mode, you are climbing, and then you are immediately descending, and then you are on the ground, preparing for the next takeoff. These engines don't have a luxury of a couple of hours in cold air at 38 000 feet at cruise speed. They are basically run like racecar engines, as HA interisland mode of operation is an almost continuous abuse. BR700 series takes this abuse relatively well, while 717 body carries Douglas DNA -- which means it can take a lot of cycles. Nobody builds planes like that anymore, and no-one else is keen to design another engine, tailored for these requirements.
It doesn't mean 717 is irreplaceable. It just means that any replacement, as of now, is inferior to status quo. In chess, you call this zugzwang -- any move you make leads to a deterioration, vs. your current situation.
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam

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