Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
Kent350787 wrote:Now QF has chosen the A220 as its 717 replacement, maybe HA would like the ex-QF frames for parts?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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!.
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...
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...
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
Mortyman wrote:Stay away from the CRJ's A crap design from a passenger perspective. Go with A220 or Embraer is my opinion.
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.
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.
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.
Phosphorus wrote:How is the E-Jets' cargo hold working with surfboards, do you know?
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.
TWA772LR wrote:Since it seems like the Spacejet isn't happening, how about the 175E2?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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...
r6russian wrote:...
Americans will never look at turboprops as viable airliners, here in America, anything with a propeller is either a hobby airplane or air transport for poors, and people (that are actually poor) take great offense to being reminded theyre poor, so flying on a turboprop which is perfect for short interisland hops, is beneath people. ...
PITingres wrote:r6russian wrote:...
Americans will never look at turboprops as viable airliners, here in America, anything with a propeller is either a hobby airplane or air transport for poors, and people (that are actually poor) take great offense to being reminded theyre poor, so flying on a turboprop which is perfect for short interisland hops, is beneath people. ...
I keep hearing this and I don't believe a word of it. Convincing people that they need (or at least accept) what you have to offer is what marketing and sales departments are for. If an airline can't sell a turboprop fare then they need to fire their marketing people and get new ones who know how to do their jobs.
If Americans don't think of turboprops as real airplanes, it's because no US airline that I can think of over the last 40 years has made any serious attempt to market them, except perhaps very regionally. Quite the contrary.