Hawaiian 717 retirement ideas

Cardude2 · Thu Dec 16, 2021 8:35 pm

Since the other Hawaiian 717 retirement forums seem to have died (ie when I search them up I can't find them any longer). So I'm starting a new one since the only 2 other operators have announced retirements of their 717's with A220's.

Anyway, I was thinking hard about this issue long and hard due to the operational challenges and I figured out there was no good new option for them since they want to downsize a bit. However, as I was reading through the forum of Garuda's current demise, I stumbled on a plane I forgot. The CRJ-1000!

Now hear me out, it's perfect for their needs. It's a lightly smaller jet than the 717 (126 for the 717, 100 for the CRJ), Its engines can supposedly handle the turnarounds (at least to my knowledge from GO!), And there's A ton of semi-new ones reidaly available at the quantity they want from both Garuda and HOP!.

What do you guys think? is there something wrong with my idea? do you have a better one?

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Dec 16, 2021 9:16 pm

It’s an orphan plane, only 63 built, Mitsubishi is the type owner, not BBD. It’d be a very expensive proposition supporting a unique plane. No, there’s better solutions including rethinking the HI business case entirely.

Cardude2 · Thu Dec 16, 2021 9:41 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It’s an orphan plane, only 63 built, Mitsubishi is the type owner, not BBD. It’d be a very expensive proposition supporting a unique plane. No, there’s better solutions including rethinking the HI business case entirely.

I would slightly counter that with the fact that that the 717 is also pretty unique. For example, the engines on it are only on that plane and some other military aircraft I think. Also, I would think of it as an advantage that Mitsubishi owns it because of the massive amount of tourism in Hawaii from japan.

Kent350787 · Thu Dec 16, 2021 9:47 pm

Now QF has chosen the A220 as its 717 replacement, maybe HA would like the ex-QF frames for parts?

Cardude2 · Thu Dec 16, 2021 10:08 pm

Kent350787 wrote:
Now QF has chosen the A220 as its 717 replacement, maybe HA would like the ex-QF frames for parts?

that won't last long considering they have about 100 other 717's for parts and it's still going to cause issues due to hours on the frames and no other owners they can call for help.

Kent350787 · Thu Dec 16, 2021 10:27 pm

Cardude2 wrote:
Kent350787 wrote:
Now QF has chosen the A220 as its 717 replacement, maybe HA would like the ex-QF frames for parts?

that won't last long considering they have about 100 other 717's for parts and it's still going to cause issues due to hours on the frames and no other owners they can call for help.

It was a half joke. I hadn't expected QF to commit to a like for like replacement of what is partially the original JetStar (Impulse Airlines) fleet.

I'm hoping a Hawaiian holiday is on the cards before the HA birds are gone too.

N626AA · Thu Dec 16, 2021 11:07 pm

I think both the A220 and E195E2 would look good in Hawaiian colors but that's putting economics aside.

Do you think Hawaiian would consider the COMAC C919? Or would that be too many issues as compared to the A220 and E195? I mention those 2 specifically because I researched and found a good article regarding Hawaiian's 717 retirement with both considered but the link is extremely long. I can post it if anyone would like.

hongkongflyer · Fri Dec 17, 2021 2:24 am

Cardude2 wrote:
Kent350787 wrote:
Now QF has chosen the A220 as its 717 replacement, maybe HA would like the ex-QF frames for parts?

that won't last long considering they have about 100 other 717's for parts and it's still going to cause issues due to hours on the frames and no other owners they can call for help.

Having a large number of additional 717 on hand, Hawaiian will be able to rotate around the frames/ parts (lower the utilization of existing fleet i.e. longer life)

jrfspa320 · Fri Dec 17, 2021 2:54 am

CRJ 1000 is an orphan, but its largely just a stretch of the CRJ 700 / 900.

Probably a better option than the newer E jets or A220. Depends how long they can make the 717 last.

Cardude2 · Fri Dec 17, 2021 6:00 pm

jrfspa320 wrote:
CRJ 1000 is an orphan, but its largely just a stretch of the CRJ 700 / 900.

Probably a better option than the newer E jets or A220. Depends how long they can make the 717 last.

my assumption is 2030 at the latest. But if they want to do my 1000 idea and stay in line with other big-name airlines and WN competition, the 2025 deadline they set a while back needs to be hit.

also really just a stretch of the 900 (because nextgen)

Cardude2 · Fri Dec 17, 2021 6:09 pm

an intresting note from over in the qantas fleet replacement thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1465483&start=450

lightsaber wrote:
When Delta announced just over a year ago they were retiring the 717s, that doomed the type.
https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/delta-a ... 767-300er/

Delta is only keeping 54 of the 717s in service.
https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/delta-a ... 767-300er/

Delta used to have a fleet of 91 of the 717s:
https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/delta-t ... 717-fleet/

With a retirement date about 5 years after the announcement, that implies no more heavy maintenance visits for the type sometime shortly after the announcement; only C-checks should be expected as there are plenty of frames to cycle through to maintain approximately 54 flying. Considering there are only 39 other 717s flying, that leaves no economy of scale for parts and maintenance.
https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-b717.htm

Honestly, with only 156 built, the type was always limping along on parts support with AirTran and later Delta supporting the type through volume. THe 2nd and above link imply only 93 flying. That is brutal on parts support cost if you even just need to rebuild parts (forget the cost of buying new parts, that will be excessive).

Qantas really had no choice. I suspect the 'factory fresh aircraft' to be delivered starting end of 2023 will be to replace 717s in need of pricey service:
https://www.airfleets.net/exploit/production-b717.htm

Airlines expected to keep going off AA releasing MD-80 parts for their fleets, instead AA consumed quite a bit of its stores and so did DL forcing Allegiant to move on from the type. I suspect the same will happen with Qantas and Hawaiian. It is a great plane, until you look at fuel burn and engine over-haul costs. Not the cost per overhaul, but rather how frequently overhauls are required. The airframe maintenance and dispatch reliability is (and was) excellent, this link goes into the level of detail I love to discuss:
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... story.html

I suspect 717 operators were waiting for Pratt/Airbus (mostly, in my opinion Pratt) to improve A220 dispatch reliability. Now Pratt claims 99.98% dispatch reliability on the GTFs (1st link below). The A220 now has 99.85% dispatch reliability (2nd link below in thread discussion) versus many aircraft at 99.5% dispatch reliability. As discussed in that thread, it appears 99.8% dispatch reliability is the new expected level (AFAIK, both the MAX and NEO achieve that).

https://www.aero-mag.com/pratt-whitney- ... -23122020/
viewtopic.php?t=1427277

So Qantas will get a more reliable aircraft and I assume they crunched all the numbers to come to their purchase decision. Fuel burn will certainly be less. With predictive maintenance, I fully expect maintenance expenses for both the aircraft and airframe to be less (but I have no link to confirm that). I believe the range on the A220 will give Qantas a lot more flexibility in operations and thus I fully expect the A220s to fly many more hours per day/month/year than the 717s in part because their range enables more missions and in part the variable costs will be enough lower to make more routes profitable.

Lightsaber

hawaiian717 · Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:35 pm

What is the cargo carrying capacity of the CRJ-1000? I believe Hawaiian still moves quite a bit of stuff around in the belly of their passenger flights alongside dedicated cargo operations like Aloha and Transair.

Cardude2 · Sat Dec 18, 2021 11:31 pm

hawaiian717 wrote:
What is the cargo carrying capacity of the CRJ-1000? I believe Hawaiian still moves quite a bit of stuff around in the belly of their passenger flights alongside dedicated cargo operations like Aloha and Transair.

they no longer have their dedicated fleet

debonair · Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:47 pm

Cardude2 wrote:
Now hear me out, it's perfect for their needs. It's a lightly smaller jet than the 717 (126 for the 717, 100 for the CRJ), Its engines can supposedly handle the turnarounds (at least to my knowledge from GO!), And there's A ton of semi-new ones reidaly available at the quantity they want from both Garuda and HOP!.

Nope, the problem with the CRJ1000 is the turnaround. Don't forget, the CRJ1000 has NO overhead compartments fitting trolleys. Working for HOP!, I can clearly say it is a nightmare - taking off 50 or even more handbags at the gate on a single flight is no fun at all and it takes time...
Also, one major concern, same as the B717, the CRJ1000 is fitted with just ONE door - boarding and de-boarding take ages. It can get very problematic as well; boarding the last rows first (for faster embarkation), plus rear mounted engines, plus rear aft cargo hold is not a good idea...

DiamondFlyer · Sun Dec 19, 2021 4:06 pm

debonair wrote:
Cardude2 wrote:
Now hear me out, it's perfect for their needs. It's a lightly smaller jet than the 717 (126 for the 717, 100 for the CRJ), Its engines can supposedly handle the turnarounds (at least to my knowledge from GO!), And there's A ton of semi-new ones reidaly available at the quantity they want from both Garuda and HOP!.

Nope, the problem with the CRJ1000 is the turnaround. Don't forget, the CRJ1000 has NO overhead compartments fitting trolleys. Working for HOP!, I can clearly say it is a nightmare - taking off 50 or even more handbags at the gate on a single flight is no fun at all and it takes time...
Also, one major concern, same as the B717, the CRJ1000 is fitted with just ONE door - boarding and de-boarding take ages. It can get very problematic as well; boarding the last rows first (for faster embarkation), plus rear mounted engines, plus rear aft cargo hold is not a good idea...

You would gate check roller bags, just like every other CRJ carrier in the US does. But there's no reason for HA to do the CRJ1000, it just doesn't make sense.

IADCA · Sun Dec 19, 2021 4:17 pm

debonair wrote:
Cardude2 wrote:
Now hear me out, it's perfect for their needs. It's a lightly smaller jet than the 717 (126 for the 717, 100 for the CRJ), Its engines can supposedly handle the turnarounds (at least to my knowledge from GO!), And there's A ton of semi-new ones reidaly available at the quantity they want from both Garuda and HOP!.

Nope, the problem with the CRJ1000 is the turnaround. Don't forget, the CRJ1000 has NO overhead compartments fitting trolleys. Working for HOP!, I can clearly say it is a nightmare - taking off 50 or even more handbags at the gate on a single flight is no fun at all and it takes time...
Also, one major concern, same as the B717, the CRJ1000 is fitted with just ONE door - boarding and de-boarding take ages. It can get very problematic as well; boarding the last rows first (for faster embarkation), plus rear mounted engines, plus rear aft cargo hold is not a good idea...

Maybe, but a fairly significant number of people on inter-island flights are on day trips with no bags that don't fit under the seat.

And the second concern is pretty much moot in US terms: almost everything in the US boards regularly boards from a single door, including 753s.

hawaiian717 · Sun Dec 19, 2021 5:59 pm

Cardude2 wrote:
hawaiian717 wrote:
What is the cargo carrying capacity of the CRJ-1000? I believe Hawaiian still moves quite a bit of stuff around in the belly of their passenger flights alongside dedicated cargo operations like Aloha and Transair.

they no longer have their dedicated fleet

Correct, I meant to say that Aloha and Transair run dedicated cargo operations, but Hawaiian’s passenger flights are also part of the movement of interisland cargo.

Phosphorus · Tue Dec 21, 2021 12:48 pm

How about the surfboards? Do they fit into CRJ-1000 hold?

Every 717 replacement discussion always mentions that interisland flying in Hawaii has a fair amount of folks with their surfboards along. And that Hawaiian's major advantage vs their (long list of dead) competition was that every interisland flight could take boards.

Mortyman · Wed Dec 22, 2021 7:37 am

Stay away from the CRJ's A crap design from a passenger perspective. Go with A220 or Embraer is my opinion.

Phosphorus · Wed Dec 22, 2021 8:37 am

Mortyman wrote:
Stay away from the CRJ's A crap design from a passenger perspective. Go with A220 or Embraer is my opinion.

Basically, it's not only pax experience.
You need engines that can sustain interisland operation tempo
Lacking that, you need low ownership cost, so that you can have a surplus of frames. Instead of a frame taking off, it sits on the ground cooling, while another takes off.
You probably will need crews to staff those spare frames; unless you figure out a legal and operationally sound/safe way for crews to quickly change planes in the interim.

I don't see A220 and "low ownership costs" in the same sentence, at least for now.

MLIAA · Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:16 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
Mortyman wrote:
Stay away from the CRJ's A crap design from a passenger perspective. Go with A220 or Embraer is my opinion.

Basically, it's not only pax experience.
You need engines that can sustain interisland operation tempo
Lacking that, you need low ownership cost, so that you can have a surplus of frames. Instead of a frame taking off, it sits on the ground cooling, while another takes off.
You probably will need crews to staff those spare frames; unless you figure out a legal and operationally sound/safe way for crews to quickly change planes in the interim.

I don't see A220 and "low ownership costs" in the same sentence, at least for now.

I can’t speak for the PW GTF and short hops all day, but the CF-34 on the E190/195 can do this. It’s the same engine as the CRJ, maybe they get cheap E190s/195s until the PW1000G develops a reputation for being reliable at constant short hops.

Or maybe Embraer/PW offers them a sweetheart deal to finally move some E2s.

Phosphorus · Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:44 pm

MLIAA wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
Mortyman wrote:
Stay away from the CRJ's A crap design from a passenger perspective. Go with A220 or Embraer is my opinion.

Basically, it's not only pax experience.
You need engines that can sustain interisland operation tempo
Lacking that, you need low ownership cost, so that you can have a surplus of frames. Instead of a frame taking off, it sits on the ground cooling, while another takes off.
You probably will need crews to staff those spare frames; unless you figure out a legal and operationally sound/safe way for crews to quickly change planes in the interim.

I don't see A220 and "low ownership costs" in the same sentence, at least for now.

I can’t speak for the PW GTF and short hops all day, but the CF-34 on the E190/195 can do this. It’s the same engine as the CRJ, maybe they get cheap E190s/195s until the PW1000G develops a reputation for being reliable at constant short hops.

Or maybe Embraer/PW offers them a sweetheart deal to finally move some E2s.

From what transpired in countless "717 replacement" threads, Hawaiian tempo appears unique. Basically, the engine NEVER gets a chance to cool down -- it doesn't spend enough time on the ground -- nor is the air cool enough there. Nor does it reach "up there", where air is really cold, for long enough, to cool down, too.
Experts might chime in (though in Travel Polls section, chance of that is limited), but basically it's a conundrum with no good answer for Hawaiian.

717 is just too optimal for the mission in all senses -- and as a result, anything else is a downgrade, in some sense.

hawaiian717 · Wed Dec 22, 2021 4:30 pm

I think the new turboprop that Embraer is working on could be promising for Hawaiian. IIRC it uses the basic E-Jet fuselage so it ought to be big enough to provide decent cabin and cargo space. Props typically perform well on short flights compared to turbofans. Downside is the general public’s perception of props might put them at a competitive disadvantage versus Southwest’s 737s, and it’s looking like it will be a bit smaller than the 717 (which in turn was a bit smaller than the DC-9-51s they replaced), so Hawaiian would need more of them and operate more frequencies to provide the same number of seats.

Phosphorus · Wed Dec 22, 2021 6:14 pm

hawaiian717 wrote:
I think the new turboprop that Embraer is working on could be promising for Hawaiian. IIRC it uses the basic E-Jet fuselage so it ought to be big enough to provide decent cabin and cargo space. Props typically perform well on short flights compared to turbofans. Downside is the general public’s perception of props might put them at a competitive disadvantage versus Southwest’s 737s, and it’s looking like it will be a bit smaller than the 717 (which in turn was a bit smaller than the DC-9-51s they replaced), so Hawaiian would need more of them and operate more frequencies to provide the same number of seats.

How is the E-Jets' cargo hold working with surfboards, do you know?

hawaiian717 · Wed Dec 22, 2021 7:22 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
How is the E-Jets' cargo hold working with surfboards, do you know?

I’m afraid I don’t. There was a period of time when Mokulele was flying 170s around the islands, so perhaps someone has knowledge if they had any issues with surfboards.

Cardude2 · Sat Dec 25, 2021 11:08 pm

MLIAA wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
Mortyman wrote:
Stay away from the CRJ's A crap design from a passenger perspective. Go with A220 or Embraer is my opinion.

Basically, it's not only pax experience.
You need engines that can sustain interisland operation tempo
Lacking that, you need low ownership cost, so that you can have a surplus of frames. Instead of a frame taking off, it sits on the ground cooling, while another takes off.
You probably will need crews to staff those spare frames; unless you figure out a legal and operationally sound/safe way for crews to quickly change planes in the interim.

I don't see A220 and "low ownership costs" in the same sentence, at least for now.

I can’t speak for the PW GTF and short hops all day, but the CF-34 on the E190/195 can do this. It’s the same engine as the CRJ, maybe they get cheap E190s/195s until the PW1000G develops a reputation for being reliable at constant short hops.

Or maybe Embraer/PW offers them a sweetheart deal to finally move some E2s.

No it would be used e190-e1’s or brand new e175-e1’s

jaybird · Thu Dec 30, 2021 2:02 am

The same issues that have been brought up in all the other gone threads still remain - engines, cargo and it's gotta be a jet .. if those 3 don't exist the replacement isn't going to work. There have been enough dead airlines out here over the years that failed for multiple reasons .. go! left cargo behind all the time in their CRJs, propjets is a dead subject unless you're talking about flying into small airports with light traffic (Princeville if the airport is still even open, MKK, LNY, JHM), and the aircraft and engines have to be able to take a beating - salt water, short flights, high temperatures - not good for interisland, high-frequency aircraft.

N415XJ · Sat Jan 01, 2022 12:45 am

Once the 717's go I'd assume Hawaiian will simply order a slightly larger aircraft with engines that can't take short turnarounds as well as the 717, and adjust schedules for fewer frequencies. IIRC, Southwest avoids the issue of short turnarounds and quick hops by rotating aircraft out of Hawaii service relatively quickly. I wonder if something similar can be worked out with more A321neos i.e. Mainland->Hawaii, an interisland turnaround, then Hawaii-Mainland. Fewer frequencies could be offset by the larger capacity of the A321 and commonality across the fleet. Of course, I'm talking off the top of my head here as I'm not a professional so my idea may be totally untenable.

TWA772LR · Sat Jan 01, 2022 2:12 am

Since it seems like the Spacejet isn't happening, how about the 175E2?

hawaiian717 · Sat Jan 01, 2022 8:25 am

TWA772LR wrote:
Since it seems like the Spacejet isn't happening, how about the 175E2?

The unknown here is if the engines can handle the interisland environment, very high frequency very short flight operations, all day, every day.

That said, I don’t see them going for the 175E2. This would be a mainline operated aircraft so there’s no scope issue preventing them from going for one of the bigger variants. A 190E2 would get them close to a 1:1 replacement for the 717.

Cardude2 · Sat Jan 01, 2022 8:54 am

hawaiian717 wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Since it seems like the Spacejet isn't happening, how about the 175E2?

The unknown here is if the engines can handle the interisland environment, very high frequency very short flight operations, all day, every day.

That said, I don’t see them going for the 175E2. This would be a mainline operated aircraft so there’s no scope issue preventing them from going for one of the bigger variants. A 190E2 would get them close to a 1:1 replacement for the 717.

it doesn't work the engines have the heating issue

DaCubbyBearBar · Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:47 am

N415XJ wrote:
Once the 717's go I'd assume Hawaiian will simply order a slightly larger aircraft with engines that can't take short turnarounds as well as the 717, and adjust schedules for fewer frequencies. IIRC, Southwest avoids the issue of short turnarounds and quick hops by rotating aircraft out of Hawaii service relatively quickly. I wonder if something similar can be worked out with more A321neos i.e. Mainland->Hawaii, an interisland turnaround, then Hawaii-Mainland. Fewer frequencies could be offset by the larger capacity of the A321 and commonality across the fleet. Of course, I'm talking off the top of my head here as I'm not a professional so my idea may be totally untenable.

SWA has aircraft that only do inter island all day as I have tracked this before. The planes get 8 inter island flights in. I think HA will put the A321 in to their inter island rotation and just offer a flight or 2 less in each market.

seat1a · Sun Jan 02, 2022 5:40 pm

Sincere question, but is the ATR72 a non-starter? Are props that stigmatized that few would fly them? Perhaps an assertive marketing campaign to showcase key features and asset to inter-island flying.

hawaiian717 · Sun Jan 02, 2022 6:27 pm

DaCubbyBearBar wrote:
SWA has aircraft that only do inter island all day as I have tracked this before. The planes get 8 inter island flights in.

Can you provide specific examples (tail numbers)? My understanding was that Southwest’s plan was to fly an aircraft from the mainland, have it fly interisland hops for a day or two, then fly another trip back to the mainland. I’d be interested to see if that’s changed.

Also, 8 segments per day does sound a little low. Anyone have pre-pandemic figures for Hawaiian (I don’t know if they’re back yet to operating a full interisland schedule or not)? If they’re scheduling fewer flights per day, that gives them more ground time between flights for the engines to cool.

seat1a wrote:
Sincere question, but is the ATR72 a non-starter? Are props that stigmatized that few would fly them? Perhaps an assertive marketing campaign to showcase key features and asset to inter-island flying.

I think jets have an advantage in the market. Cargo carrying capacity as mentioned upthread is an issue. ATR 72 has been used before such as by Island Air. Typically, turboprop operations have had to price lower than jets to overcome the negative perception. I feel like a marketing campaign promoting turboprops would be more successful with a new design where they can promote the latest generation lower emissions/more fuel efficient engines and a wider, more spacious cabin.

Cardude2 · Sun Jan 02, 2022 10:38 pm

hawaiian717 wrote:

seat1a wrote:
Sincere question, but is the ATR72 a non-starter? Are props that stigmatized that few would fly them? Perhaps an assertive marketing campaign to showcase key features and asset to inter-island flying.

I think jets have an advantage in the market. Cargo carrying capacity as mentioned upthread is an issue. ATR 72 has been used before such as by Island Air. Typically, turboprop operations have had to price lower than jets to overcome the negative perception. I feel like a marketing campaign promoting turboprops would be more successful with a new design where they can promote the latest generation lower emissions/more fuel efficient engines and a wider, more spacious cabin.

To solve most of these issues and go with a turboprop, Hawaiian can look to the q400. Hear me out

The q400 already has good cargo carrying capability and if you really want you can also get a combi version.

For the negative perception you can counter that with the climate change argument on how this aircraft in its current form is way more fuel saving than a 717 while going the same speed with the same turnaroud also there are multiple projects being executed on this bird to make it more climate freindly like Alaska airlines hydrogen conversion https://mentourpilot.com/alaska-donates ... n-project/ and hybrid electric conversion over at de haviland https://skiesmag.com/news/de-havilland- ... ash-8-100/

But if those points still don’t work there’s embrears new turboprop.

seat1a · Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:30 pm

Cardude2 wrote:
hawaiian717 wrote:

seat1a wrote:
Sincere question, but is the ATR72 a non-starter? Are props that stigmatized that few would fly them? Perhaps an assertive marketing campaign to showcase key features and asset to inter-island flying.

I think jets have an advantage in the market. Cargo carrying capacity as mentioned upthread is an issue. ATR 72 has been used before such as by Island Air. Typically, turboprop operations have had to price lower than jets to overcome the negative perception. I feel like a marketing campaign promoting turboprops would be more successful with a new design where they can promote the latest generation lower emissions/more fuel efficient engines and a wider, more spacious cabin.

To solve most of these issues and go with a turboprop, Hawaiian can look to the q400. Hear me out

The q400 already has good cargo carrying capability and if you really want you can also get a combi version.

For the negative perception you can counter that with the climate change argument on how this aircraft in its current form is way more fuel saving than a 717 while going the same speed with the same turnaroud also there are multiple projects being executed on this bird to make it more climate freindly like Alaska airlines hydrogen conversion https://mentourpilot.com/alaska-donates ... n-project/ and hybrid electric conversion over at de haviland https://skiesmag.com/news/de-havilland- ... ash-8-100/

But if those points still don’t work there’s embrears new turboprop.

Agree on your points, and forgot to mention the Q400. I read somewhere on this forum the ATR was the better prop compared to Q400 for inter-island, but I could be wrong. The Q400 is faster, is that correct?

I think marketing around better for island environment/climate argument is sound. Perhaps highlight some interior features and something about the safety record of props (or will that be a problem)? So something around faster, fuel-efficient, and more comfortable than our 717 fleet. Internal to the company, perhaps they schedule combi's when they expect more cargo? Does data like this exist at HA?

Marketing frequency like the old Eastern shuttle did in the 1960s/70s could work too. Something around "HNL-OGG every 30 minutes thanks to this our new ATR's or Q400s". Hard to beat. So simple. Thoughts welcome.

Cardude2 · Mon Jan 03, 2022 12:05 am

seat1a wrote:
Agree on your points, and forgot to mention the Q400. I read somewhere on this forum the ATR was the better prop compared to Q400 for inter-island, but I could be wrong. The Q400 is faster, is that correct?

precisely. the atr is a better turboprop technically as it's even better on fuel and leaps and bounds cheaper to operate, but the 72 is a fair bit slower and the 42 is too small. Island air operated the Q400 and ATR 72's I think it was bad management that killed that airline. Hawaiian also had the 42's and cargo 72's before the pandemic, but retired them.

there's a weird story I don't understand behind island air here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_Air_(Hawaii)#Hawaii_Island_Air

seat1a wrote:
I think marketing around better for island environment/climate argument is sound. Perhaps highlight some interior features and something about the safety record of props (or will that be a problem)? So something around faster, fuel-efficient, and more comfortable than our 717 fleet. Internal to the company, perhaps they schedule combi's when they expect more cargo? Does data like this exist at HA?

yep, they previously had cargo 72's, so I bet they have the numbers.

Cardude2 · Mon Jan 03, 2022 2:00 am

Also to add onto that here’s an old ad from them: https://youtu.be/GDogpGKxAIA

CarlosSi · Mon Jan 03, 2022 9:25 pm

You could also just have a larger fleet than you need and have some parked and cooling while another airplane takes the “return flight”, but that costs you because you need more airplane.

Phosphorus · Mon Jan 03, 2022 9:41 pm

CarlosSi wrote:
You could also just have a larger fleet than you need and have some parked and cooling while another airplane takes the “return flight”, but that costs you because you need more airplane.

You also need more crews. Switching between planes requires procedures to be followed, and these take time. A crew cannot just hop off to another airplane and blast off...

Cardude2 · Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:59 am

You could also do a fleet of 15 Q400's and 5 Q400 Combis for extra cargo. They don't heat up, have a ton of extended life programs on their engines (mentioned in the previous post), the regular Q400 seats about 72 people (they mentioned they want to downsize), and with a few upgrades, they will only need 1 well-paid pilot (controversial but would probably happen).

combi

CarlosSi · Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:23 am

Phosphorus wrote:
CarlosSi wrote:
You could also just have a larger fleet than you need and have some parked and cooling while another airplane takes the “return flight”, but that costs you because you need more airplane.

You also need more crews. Switching between planes requires procedures to be followed, and these take time. A crew cannot just hop off to another airplane and blast off...

Oh yes that too.

The 717 is a perfect solution. Anything else is going to have tradeoffs.

Cardude2 · Tue Apr 12, 2022 2:38 am

was just reading this interesting article: https://www.jeffsetter.com/article/the- ... conundrum/

looks like a serious possible choice for Hawaiian it the e175 or e190 e1 as it has a turnaround time of 15 min but at most 50 min.

N1120A · Tue May 03, 2022 6:53 pm

The Embraer pusher turboprop might be the solution, and might also do a lot of alleviate the stigma. The configuration looks different and those kind of optics mean something to non-aviation types. The Avanti is a good indicator of that.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net