Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5643373/

Topic: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: 93Sierra
Posted 2012-12-24 14:45:11 and read 11453 times.

Why is there a seemingly worldwide demand or ATR 42/72 products worldwide there see s to be o inroads o the N A market. Many thanks and happy New Years and merry Christmas

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: EMBQA
Posted 2012-12-24 14:49:39 and read 11465 times.

Because you're talking 20 year old technology. At one time American Eagle and ASA had a very large combined fleet. It's very simple, their time has passed...

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: Jean Leloup
Posted 2012-12-24 14:55:07 and read 11417 times.

From what I've gleaned from previous discussions on here, the average stage length for regional prop routes in North America is considerably longer than in most other regions of the world. With a longer stage length, scheduling and economics favour faster props like the Dash-8, or regional jets, which of course have been quite prevalent for the last 15 years or so in North america.

I'm guessing that BBD may also be able to offer slightly better support to North American Carriers as well, due to its location. But that particular theory is speculative.

JL

P.S. By the way, ATR fans can always point to the exception of First Air, who operate the ATR in unthinkably hostile conditions along long routes in the Canadian arctic! Obviously they find it capable enough, and speed is perhaps less of a factor on their network, which is highly subsidized and monopolized on several routes.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: 93Sierra
Posted 2012-12-24 14:55:25 and read 11408 times.

What's the backlog for Atr's to Q400s?

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-24 14:59:42 and read 11381 times.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 1):
Because you're talking 20 year old technology.

They've been updated over the years.

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 2):
From what I've gleaned from previous discussions on here, the average stage length for regional prop routes in North America is considerably longer than in most other regions of the world.

Basically. Distances here are longer and as such North American airlines went whole hog into regional jets. The Q400 has found a niche, although I think that in many ways it combines the worst of jets (cost) and props (lack of speed, noise, "old" image).

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 2):
P.S. By the way, ATR fans can always point to the exception of First Air, who operate the ATR in unthinkably hostile conditions along long routes in the Canadian arctic!

The ATR is a very capable plane, although that did not keep American Eagle from moving them south after the crash in Indiana due to icing.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-24 15:09:15 and read 11317 times.

There is nothing wrong with the ATR for a cold weather ops aircraft. It is quite successful in several areas in ice and snow weather.

However, the ATR crash in Indiana and the reaction of American and Delta to move their aircraft south pretty much sealed the aircraft fate in the US.

But you cannot discount the impact the regional jet had on the ATR market penetration.

In the US, the regional prop competed head to head with the regional jet for many of the same routes.

Jets win such battles among customers when the price of a flight on both the turboprop and the jet are the same.

You can argue all you want about economics, but passengers preference for jets is clear.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: 93Sierra
Posted 2012-12-24 15:17:14 and read 11263 times.

True but the plane that crashed and one today are like night and day with technological improvements, better ice protection, different and higher operating speeds in known icing a d better fuel burn due to the better engines than those in use 15 years ago

Yes the difference in distance is great in parts of the us but back east out of " hubs " of clt, iAd? Pit, Mia, etc the distance is irevlavant.

Last note, I've only seen dash 8 variants over the years at DEN why hasn't the ATR been utilized out west? Also AE has the ATr and Saab combo going on in the past yet it seemed they never really utilized them at lax

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: cargolex
Posted 2012-12-24 15:23:47 and read 11226 times.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 1):
Because you're talking 20 year old technology. At one time American Eagle and ASA had a very large combined fleet. It's very simple, their time has passed...

I don't know that you can really say that. The ATR's have been gradually improved over the years just like the Dash-8. I think the difference is that customers who were fond of the ATR chose regional jets as replacements, while other carriers chose the Dash-8 or started early with them (Horizon, Piedmont - both Dash-8 customers since the mid-1980s). Remember that aside from the former Colgan, Horizon, and Piedmont, Republic, American Eagle, and Commutair, there aren't many American carriers with large fleets of props anyway.

Stages in the U.S. are long, and many passengers prefer a jet to a prop (though, IMO, many would be hard pressed to tell you exactly why), so it's little surprise that those who are serving these customers in the U.S. migrated to RJ's or have reliable, long-standing prop operations with very defined networks.

I think the lack of success the ATR has had in north America has more to do with the success of the CRJ, ERJ, and E-jets than the ATR itself.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: koruman
Posted 2012-12-24 15:24:52 and read 11214 times.

Here in Australia, with similar distances, Virgin has dumped its E-jets in favour of the ATR-72.

For reasons of simple economics.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: 93Sierra
Posted 2012-12-24 15:28:14 and read 11176 times.

Although not a large difference, island air has chosen o go ATR vs the Q FWIW

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: 93Sierra
Posted 2012-12-24 15:53:49 and read 11067 times.

Question... Does deltas new pilot agreement that capped the number of seats and size of its regional art ears address the turboprop arena at all ?

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-24 15:58:33 and read 11046 times.

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 6):
but the plane that crashed and one today are like night and day

Show me the physical differences for the average passenger to see and understand it is a completely different aircraft.

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 6):
I've only seen dash 8 variants over the years at DEN why hasn't the ATR been utilized out west?

ATR didn't provide the financial incentives which Bombardier provided.

Throughout the west the Dash-8 has been part of the Horizon fleet for a long, long time.

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 6):
Also AE has the ATr and Saab combo going on in the past yet it seemed they never really utilized them at lax

For most of the time the ATR fleet was flown by Executive Airlines for American Eagle. It was a complicated scope clause decision which did not make financial sense to try and use the ATR extensively except in a couple places. American Eagle let their prop fleet get horribly outdated and worn out.

I still believe any prop aircraft is going to have a very difficult time penetrating the US market. They have to be used on routes with either no jet competition, or the turboprop ticket prices are substantially lower than the same route on a jet.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: EddieDude
Posted 2012-12-24 18:56:17 and read 10723 times.

There is VW (Aeromar) hubbed at MEX's T2. Its fleet includes mostly ATR-42s and a few CRJ-200LRs; the former are the backbone.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: atct
Posted 2012-12-24 19:58:47 and read 10587 times.

Empire Airlines operates 10 ATR's (2-3 depending on the time based at ANC)
Mountain Air Cargo operates 19 ATR's
First Air operates 11
Cape Air operates 2 (not really NA but a US territory)
Morningstar Air Express (Canada) operates 1
Calm Air operates 8
Island Air has 1 and 7 on order
AeroMar operates 14.


Eagle (in the process), Delta Connection (ASA), and Northern Air Cargo ditched theirs.

There are a few in operation in NA just not alot compared to every other regional aircraft. In regards to icing, I work Empire Airlines (ATR 42 and 72) and they will not fly into FZDZ or FZRA conditions. Not sure if its the company op-spec's or aircraft limitation but I have had to place them into holding above the weather a few times while they wait for it to clear, or beat feet to their alternate.

atct

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-12-24 20:13:06 and read 10539 times.

Continental flew many ATRs - but we're going back to the 80s/90s.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: FI642
Posted 2012-12-24 20:55:21 and read 10448 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 5):
However, the ATR crash in Indiana and the reaction of American and Delta to move their aircraft south pretty much sealed the aircraft fate in the US.

My sentiments exactly. They were removed from service as soon as they could be. Even after the issue was addressed, U.S. carriers avoided using the plane.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: gigneil
Posted 2012-12-24 21:09:29 and read 10415 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 12):
Show me the physical differences for the average passenger to see and understand it is a completely different aircraft.

Who cares? The average passenger doesn't know what a plane is.

The interiors of a new ATR-72 and a new Q400 are nearly identical.


NS

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: JBo
Posted 2012-12-24 21:29:24 and read 10378 times.

Despite all of the technological improvements made to the ATR family over the past 19 years and the economic advantage of the turboprop over the regional jet, the biggest reason the ATR is not more common in the U.S. is more than likely the American Eagle crash in 1994.

That was the crash that cemented the public perception that turboprops are unsafe and unreliable and fueled the regional jet boom in the U.S. I think there is still a lot of negative perception towards the ATR even today and that is a likely reason why the aircraft is not more popular.

I also think another reason is configuration; the ATR traditionally has the passenger boarding door at the rear of the aircraft. This makes it difficult for the aircraft to use jetways (has to be parked a certain way and only certain bridges are maneuverable enough to mate to the aircraft) whereas all regional jets and most other turboprops have the pax boarding door in the front where the jetway can be easily mated to the aircraft. While the ATR can be ordered with a front boarding door, this configuraiton isn't very common.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-24 21:42:29 and read 10340 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 17):
The average passenger doesn't know what a plane is.

No they don't.

But a significant portion of the US passenger population thinks a high wing prop plane is likely to fall out of the sky if the weather is bad.

That crash was almost 20 years ago - but to much of the flying public over 35 or 40 - they remember just a few facts about the crash - mainly high wing, props and falling out of the sky.

My brother-in-law who barely knows a jet from a prop won't fly to his daughter's home in Charlottesville VA - because they use those 'death trap props'. He thinks the Piedmont/ US Airways Express Dash-8s are the same planes as the ATR. He will only fly Delta because they use only jets into CHO.

Last time I was in Seattle, sitting at the food court in the center of the terminal - I overheard at least a half-dozen conversations about why the airlines still fly those horrible props - two mentioned the AE ATR crash. All while looking at Horizon Q-400s.

Perception is important - more important than reality when it comes to marketing.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: COSPN
Posted 2012-12-24 22:54:58 and read 10123 times.

2 words

Roselawn, Indiana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_Flight_4184

Most Americans think anything with props are from a Government surplus Auction after WW2

[Edited 2012-12-24 22:58:15]

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-24 23:01:24 and read 10085 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 19):
But a significant portion of the US passenger population thinks a high wing prop plane is likely to fall out of the sky if the weather is bad

I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure the public has much recollection of that accident anymore. It just wasn't the same magnitude as Pan Am 103 or TWA 800 for example. It was a big deal at the time, but I doubt that it would stop anyone from operating ATRs successfully today. I believe now the problem lies more in the image that propeller planes are old, slow, and noisy than the Roselawn crash.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: multimark
Posted 2012-12-25 00:07:04 and read 9774 times.

Are Americans really as scarred by the Eagle crash as a-netters think? After all, travellers in the Pacific NW have been happily flying Horizon for years.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: WDLEISER
Posted 2012-12-25 00:07:20 and read 9775 times.

While many are talking about the 94 crash in Indiana I personally believe the fact that the ATR is slower than the Q400 and that the United States has a much lower population density vs much of world to be the major contributing factors to the lack of the ATR in the United States.

If there was an ATR that could fly close to the same speed as an ERJ while keeping the economics of a prop, it would be a killer AC here in the states. On short flights, the top speed of an aircraft really has no factor... I am thinking IAH-DAL/DFW for example. I use to fly that a lot and the flight time on the Q400 vs ERJ vs 737 was the same.

When you start flying IAH-BNA though, the flight time on an ATR becomes significantly longer than that of a flight on an ERJ. The ATR is a perfect AC for the North East and California where the population density is far greater vs the South and Midwest United States.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-25 00:17:43 and read 9707 times.

Quoting multimark (Reply 22):
Are Americans really as scarred by the Eagle crash as a-netters think?

I tend to think not. I would characterize the crash as having a significant role in why ATRs in service, particularly American Eagle at ORD, have largely left. However, I doubt that the accident is high on the list of reasons why ATR is not making many sales here now.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: thegoldenargosy
Posted 2012-12-25 01:06:48 and read 9836 times.

I find it interesting AE pulled their ATR's from ORD. While down in STL TWE (AX) was still flying ATR's.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2012-12-25 01:49:05 and read 9719 times.

The question shouldn't be why so few ATRs but why so few turboprops. Q400s really haven't made much of an inroad either with only 2 airlines operating them. Despite the good economics, The answer can be in something called. game Theory. At least as far as the USA goes. I don't think pax are as turboprop avoident as USA airline think they are. Canada, Australia and Europe show they aren't.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: RWA380
Posted 2012-12-25 03:16:47 and read 9462 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 19):
Last time I was in Seattle, sitting at the food court in the center of the terminal - I overheard at least a half-dozen conversations about why the airlines still fly those horrible props - two mentioned the AE ATR crash. All while looking at Horizon Q-400s

I hear this often times too, when flying QX, it is just a prop thing, heck I heard the same comments when flying QX in the early 80's in the days of SWM's and F27's. People have a misconception that props are all unsafe and rattle boxes, they rumble more than jets, and they are smaller so they bounce around more, flying at lower altitudes. Most people who fly regularly in and out of smaller airports are used to the props and tend to complain less, in my humble opinion.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: PW100
Posted 2012-12-25 03:35:45 and read 9400 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 12):
Show me the physical differences for the average passenger to see and understand it is a completely different aircraft

Your average passenger would not see and understand the difference between an ATR72 and a Q400.
Nor the differences between an A320 and a 738, or an A330 and a 767 for that matter . . .

PW100

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: timpdx
Posted 2012-12-25 04:03:52 and read 9254 times.

I am now in Burma( where there was a crash landing today) In this part of the world I am quite happy to see a turboprop. Its known and proven technology, I would trust that the mechanics would know more about a prop than a jet. That said, I cant wait till my last ATR leg is done in this country and I am on SQ metal headed home.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: yenne09
Posted 2012-12-25 05:18:13 and read 8842 times.

Pascan (Montréal-St-Hubert) has two aircrafts at the moment but they are based in Quebec city.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: EMBQA
Posted 2012-12-25 08:21:42 and read 7715 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
Quoting cargolex (Reply 7):

Not in the eyes of the traveling public

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-12-25 08:51:23 and read 7528 times.

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 2):
ATR fans can always point to the exception of First Air, who operate the ATR in unthinkably hostile conditions along long routes in the Canadian arctic! Obviously they find it capable enough, and speed is perhaps less of a factor on their network, which is highly subsidized and monopolized on several routes.

There are 27 ATRs currently registered in Canada, 23 -42s and 4 -72s. The largest operators are First Air with 9 -42s and 2 -72s, and YWG-based Calm Air with 6 -42s and 2 -72s. As already mentioned, they serve many very remote points, mostly with gravel runways.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: Aesma
Posted 2012-12-25 11:50:49 and read 6450 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 5):
Jets win such battles among customers when the price of a flight on both the turboprop and the jet are the same.

Concorde would win such battles easily too, the whole point is that the price should not be the same since the costs certainly aren't.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: 93Sierra
Posted 2012-12-25 11:57:47 and read 6414 times.

YV had old 200s flying out of PHX and some of Piedmonts 300s are very long in the tooth. In an era of risig fuel costs and sub par performance of the smaller CRJ ERJ ( economics wise ) why hasn't any other carrier attempted to use props. Horizon is a good example, why wouldnt Skywest ever give the Atr a shot or the Q a shot to stick with their Bombardier ties.

Firestone tires had issues. A decade later they are still selling tires.1994Roselawn can't be the driving factor for lack of aircaft.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-25 12:16:41 and read 6265 times.

I would say another major reason is scope and the fact that most regionals in the USA are not true independent carriers but creations of legacy carriers, their a/c are mandated by the contract signed with the mainline carrier.
Includes everything from pay rates for crew, lease rates for a/c, service, maintenance, and on and on it goes, so the savings that one may gain by operating a prop a/c versus a jet are lost, the flip side is that the additonal cost of operating jets are offset elsewhere with lower pay rates, service etc.

True regional carriers, a carrier with no aflliation to a mainline carrier offering service within one or two states are few and far between if any do exist in the USA.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: q120
Posted 2012-12-25 12:21:04 and read 6225 times.

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 2):
P.S. By the way, ATR fans can always point to the exception of First Air, who operate the ATR in unthinkably hostile conditions along long routes in the Canadian arctic! Obviously they find it capable enough, and speed is perhaps less of a factor on their network, which is highly subsidized and monopolized on several routes.

No routes are subsidized and there is no monopoly in the north - it has been like this for a couple of years now.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: 93Sierra
Posted 2012-12-25 12:23:58 and read 6226 times.

And, remember the teething problems and bad rap the DC 10 had yet people continued to fly on them for decades.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: IADCA
Posted 2012-12-25 12:56:13 and read 6008 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 19):
My brother-in-law who barely knows a jet from a prop won't fly to his daughter's home in Charlottesville VA - because they use those 'death trap props'. He thinks the Piedmont/ US Airways Express Dash-8s are the same planes as the ATR. He will only fly Delta because they use only jets into CHO.

Your brother in law should probably also update his thinking about the airlines a bit, too. American flies E135s in and some of the US Express flights are CR2, as well. That said, the rest of your post is dead-on.

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 37):

And, remember the teething problems and bad rap the DC 10 had yet people continued to fly on them for decades.

Yeah, but the average flier couldn't look out on the ramp and tell a DC-10 from a 737, much less from an L1011. Those little spinnie thingies on the wings of a turboprop are a little harder to hide.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-25 13:27:34 and read 5803 times.

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 34):
1994Roselawn can't be the driving factor for lack of aircaft.
Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 37):
remember the teething problems and bad rap the DC 10 had yet people continued to fly on them for decades.

You asked in the original post why the aircraft hasn't gained a strong presence in North America.

We have given you those reasons. You can argue why they should not have had such a negative impact on ATR sales/ usage in the US - but they are the reality. Again - preception is critical, even when it is not based on facts.

1994 Roselawn and the response of the major airlines stopped the ATR cold - dead - in the US. While the ATR gained market share around the world - the US remained for near two decades as an unbreakable market. Not just with the flying public. But also with airline management. An aircraft will not sell if airline management sees the aircraft as a liability and a major risk. No matter how untrue or irrational.

For the public, the Colgan Air Dash 8 at Buffalo also hurt the chances of the ATR and other turboprops. 1) Another example the high wing turboprop isn't safe in winter weather, and 2) More proof that only the worst quality pilots fly prop planes.

The regional jet growth also really hurt any change for the ATR to redeem its reputation.

The DC-10 was a major investement for the airlines. They had to make it work enough to recoup their investment, where the ATR was not such an investment by the airline and they were able to dump much of the public blame on the aircraft and not the aircrew or their training. But the US airlines dumped the DC-10 as quickly as the economically could replace the aircraft.

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 34):
why hasn't any other carrier attempted to use props.

Outside Horizon, the aircraft used by the US regionals are decided by the major airlines. If Skywest invests in dozens of ATR aircraft, they risk having a fleet sitting around which they cannot sell the aircraft to any major airline operation. As mentioned - the scope clauses of the majors have a lot of the small aircraft choices set and are extremely hard to change.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 38):
Your brother in law should probably also update his thinking about the airlines a bit, too.

From Little Rock to CHO AE isn't a contender for price. He won't fly any US routing because he's been booked on the CRJ, and had a Dash 8 substituted in the past.

We on this forum know a lot more about aviation than the general public. But they aren't as dumb as some assume. They don't know specifics, but they know generalities.

The flying public in the US does not like prop planes. Period.
They prefer to avoid small jets if possible.
And price is the overriding factor at all times.

Only when airlines price tickets to reflect the actual cheaper operation of a turbo prop over an RJ will more and more of the public be exposed to quality turboprop aircraft.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 27):
Most people who fly regularly in and out of smaller airports are used to the props and tend to complain less, in my humble opinion.

Familarity with quality turbo props helps overcome the negative stereo typing. Not completely, but it does help.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: 93Sierra
Posted 2012-12-25 13:57:25 and read 5594 times.

Thanks for the replies.

Is there data available see what the revenue was generated on flights where a carrier flew both props and rjs on the same route under the same express/connection banner?

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: teme82
Posted 2012-12-25 14:55:01 and read 5279 times.

Quoting JBo (Reply 18):
While the ATR can be ordered with a front boarding door, this configuraiton isn't very common.

I think that AY was the only one that has ever ordered ATR's with that configuration. And the planes went to KarAir.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: maxpower1954
Posted 2012-12-25 18:33:44 and read 5039 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 39):
But the US airlines dumped the DC-10 as quickly as the economically could replace the aircraft.

Apparently "as quickly the economically could replace the aircraft" was over 30 years for UA, 35 years for NW and 29 years for AA. I wouldn't call that dumping the DC-10 quickly.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2012-12-25 19:52:41 and read 4911 times.

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 42):
I wouldn't call that dumping the DC-10 quickly.

How many more aircraft did those airlines order after 1980?

Those three airlines invested heavily in the DC-10 - AA - 66 airframes; UA - 50 airframes, NW - 46 airframes - a total of 162 of the entire production run of 386 - or 42% of the DC-10s ever made.

AA alone spent or committed close to 3 billion dollars on the DC-10 before the Chicago crash.

UA over 2 billion, NW close to 2 billion.

It takes a while to amortize the investment and to dispose of the aircraft.

[Edited 2012-12-25 19:55:42]

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: ghYHZ
Posted 2012-12-26 05:16:38 and read 4608 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 33):
There are 27 ATRs currently registered in Canada, 23 -42s and 4 -72s. The largest operators are First Air with 9 -42s and 2 -72s, and YWG-based Calm Air with 6 -42s and 2 -72s. As already mentioned, they serve many very remote points, mostly with gravel runways.

Though not registered in Canada......Air St Pierre flies scheduled ATR flights between “France” and Halifax, St. Johns, Sydney and also to Montreal.

The winter weather in the Atlantic Provinces can be pretty hostile at times!

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: N1120A
Posted 2012-12-26 05:38:12 and read 4546 times.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 1):
Because you're talking 20 year old technology.

20 year old technology that has been continuously updated, is incredibly rugged and an economic juggernaut.

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 2):

From what I've gleaned from previous discussions on here, the average stage length for regional prop routes in North America is considerably longer than in most other regions of the world

Stage length is a big issue. This is why a Brasilia is nicer to fly on than a SAAB 340. That the ATR is slow hurts it.

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 2):
I'm guessing that BBD may also be able to offer slightly better support to North American Carriers as well, due to its location. But that particular theory is speculative.

That is purely speculative and not true. Any large aircraft maker can support anywhere in the world.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
The ATR is a very capable plane, although that did not keep American Eagle from moving them south after the crash in Indiana due to icing.

They did move them because of a fear of icing, but First Air's planes are certainly not falling out of the sky.

The main reason Eagle moved the ATRs out of ORD is because American wanted to say they were "all-jet" at ORD, and because the ATR is slow enough to really gum up the works at O'Hare.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
The Q400 has found a niche, although I think that in many ways it combines the worst of jets (cost) and props (lack of speed, noise, "old" image).

Um, what?

1) The Q400 has amazingly low costs. Might not be quite as efficient as the ATR, but it is very, very thrifty compared to an RJ.

2) On routes up to 500-600 nm, the Q400 is as fast as a fan/turbojet. They also have advanced noise canceling.

3) The added advantage is that the Q400 can shoot much faster approaches and not screw things up for the mainline aircraft.

Quoting koruman (Reply 8):
Here in Australia, with similar distances, Virgin has dumped its E-jets in favour of the ATR-72.

For reasons of simple economics.

Lower density and competition as well.

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 9):

Although not a large difference, island air has chosen o go ATR vs the Q FWIW

Which makes total sense on the microscopically short sectors flown in Hawaii. They save gas and get one of the most rugged aircraft around for one of the most demanding schedules.

Quoting multimark (Reply 22):
Are Americans really as scarred by the Eagle crash as a-netters think?

You'd be surprised, though its not just the Eagle crash. Its the overall mentality toward "puddle jumpers"

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: Beeski
Posted 2012-12-26 05:45:38 and read 4544 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 39):

Great reply rfields.
1994 Roselawn was blamed on the ATR, rightly or wrongly.
Having flown many American Eagle ATR flights out of San Juan....I go out of my way to avoid them. They are loud, uncomfortable, and slow. Regional Jets are a major upgrade.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: IADCA
Posted 2012-12-26 08:06:58 and read 4397 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 39):
From Little Rock to CHO AE isn't a contender for price. He won't fly any US routing because he's been booked on the CRJ, and had a Dash 8 substituted in the past.

We on this forum know a lot more about aviation than the general public. But they aren't as dumb as some assume. They don't know specifics, but they know generalities.

The flying public in the US does not like prop planes. Period.
They prefer to avoid small jets if possible.
And price is the overriding factor at all times.

Only when airlines price tickets to reflect the actual cheaper operation of a turbo prop over an RJ will more and more of the public be exposed to quality turboprop aircraft.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that your relative is dumb, just that there are more options from CHO than there were just a few years ago. That's pretty unfortunate that he got a DH8 subbed for a CRJ, for exactly the reason you note, that the public doesn't like props, period. I wonder if or how much carriers take this into account when making aircraft swaps.

As for the last part of your post, it's a good idea, but it merely reflects the eternal struggle of producer versus consumer surpluses. One of the reasons the airline industry has such difficult customer relations is the perception that they're consistently passing on increased costs to customers and never rebating savings. I don't think that it's a correct impression, but it is there. (I also think airlines might be hesitant to discount for props because they'd see that as admitting that they're an inferior product. It's a perception gap: airlines see the product as equal to an RJ, so they price the same, while consumers perceive an inferior product and want a discount. With none forthcoming, they book away when they are aware of the issue.)

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-26 10:22:29 and read 4250 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 45):
1) The Q400 has amazingly low costs.

Check the price tag.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 45):
2) On routes up to 500-600 nm, the Q400 is as fast as a fan/turbojet.

There are many regional jet routes well in excess of that.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-12-26 10:51:07 and read 4184 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 39):
the high wing turboprop isn't safe in winter weather

Tell that to the over 20 operators of close to 200 Dash 8s in Canada (about 14 airlines and 7 or 8 corporate and government operators). Most of those aircraft operate in extreme winter conditions for months every year.

Dash 8s also operate reliably with carriers in Greenland and northern Norway where severe winter conditions are common.

And, as already mentioned, 27 ATRs operate in some of Canada's most extreme winter conditions without problems.

Also shouldn't overlook the dozens of DHC-6 Twin Otters, another high wing turboprop that's been operating reliably in extreme winter weather for almost half a century. Roughly 115 DHC-6s currently registered in Canada.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: Polot
Posted 2012-12-26 10:53:57 and read 4173 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 49):
Tell that to the over 20 operators of close to 200 Dash 8s in Canada (about 14 airlines and 7 or 8 corporate and government operators). Most of those aircraft operate in extreme winter conditions for months every year.

He is not saying that high wing turboprops are unsafe in winter weather, he is saying that there is a perception that high wing turboprops are unsafe in winter weather by the American public.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: JBo
Posted 2012-12-26 11:04:01 and read 4156 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 26):
The question shouldn't be why so few ATRs but why so few turboprops. Q400s really haven't made much of an inroad either with only 2 airlines operating them. Despite the good economics, The answer can be in something called. game Theory. At least as far as the USA goes. I don't think pax are as turboprop avoident as USA airline think they are. Canada, Australia and Europe show they aren't.

Part of the reason for this is that the existing generation of turboprop aircraft (Saab 340s, Dash 8-100/200/300s, EMB-120s, Beech 1900s, et. al) are increasing in age with nothing on the market to replace them.

The Q400 and the ATR are the only regional turboprops in full production right now, any smaller aircraft are long out of production and becoming increasingly expensive to maintain. If there were new-build turboprops on the market in the 30-50 seat range, we might see demand for them, but the manufacturers aren't developing any such aircraft and the airlines aren't demanding it.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: RDH3E
Posted 2012-12-26 11:31:21 and read 4099 times.

Quoting JBo (Reply 18):
While the ATR can be ordered with a front boarding door, this configuraiton isn't very common.
Quoting teme82 (Reply 41):
I think that AY was the only one that has ever ordered ATR's with that configuration. And the planes went to KarAir.

This is definitely a serious reason. Airlines in the US are moving away from ground loading, (see UA adding more jetbridges at ORD) it's not practical to have an aircraft that requires ground loading. When you're paying for a jetbridge in MCI/LIT/XNA or wherever, why force yourself to ground load because you bought an aircraft that has rear door boarding?

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-12-26 11:43:28 and read 4045 times.

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 52):
Airlines in the US are moving away from ground loading, (see UA adding more jetbridges at ORD)

That's a pretty significant generalization, no? Airports like CLT and PHL have new-ish regional facilities with ground boarding, and there's no serious plan to eliminate ground boarding at places like IAD or DCA either.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: RDH3E
Posted 2012-12-26 12:14:07 and read 3936 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 53):
That's a pretty significant generalization, no? Airports like CLT and PHL have new-ish regional facilities with ground boarding, and there's no serious plan to eliminate ground boarding at places like IAD or DCA either.

Is it false? I agree it's a generalization, but not necessarily an incorrect one. Holding all else equal, there is ZERO reason you would choose a plane that physically cannot use a jetbridge, over an airplane that can use a jetbridge.

[Edited 2012-12-26 12:14:29]

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-12-26 12:23:20 and read 3914 times.

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 54):
Holding all else equal, there is ZERO reason you would choose a plane that physically cannot use a jetbridge, over an airplane that can use a jetbridge.

That's plainly true, but all else isn't equal. I'd argue that it is not a significant concern. IIRC, many or most of the AT7s that went to DFW after the SF3 retirements used jet bridges.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: 93Sierra
Posted 2012-12-26 12:54:06 and read 3839 times.

I can see the point of using a jet bridge is places where weather can be a factor, however if you can ground load and it's cheaper for a ramp spot vs a bridge why pay more for the same outcome. US ground loads rjs here at phx and from jetways and nobody seems to mind except when it's a billion degrees outside in July and those underpowered ac jetways are only a million degrees inside.

Could the ATR be shrunk even more to offer a replacement for the Brasilia/Saabs ?

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: william
Posted 2012-12-26 13:05:37 and read 3828 times.

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 56):
Could the ATR be shrunk even more to offer a replacement for the Brasilia/Saabs ?

Why? There is a 42 seat version of the ATR for that.

I don't see why Embraer couldn't relase an EMB 120 2nd Gen if the market asked for it.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: srbmod
Posted 2012-12-26 14:17:38 and read 3722 times.

Quoting JBo (Reply 51):

Part of the reason for this is that the existing generation of turboprop aircraft (Saab 340s, Dash 8-100/200/300s, EMB-120s, Beech 1900s, et. al) are increasing in age with nothing on the market to replace them.

The reason why there isn't anything to replace them is the public perception of turboprops as well as cities desiring jet service over prop/tubroprop service, which goes right back into milking the public perception about such a/c. What's the incentive to produce a suitable replacement for these a/c when airlines typically are shying away from them? There are markets that if an airline had to operate them at risk without any $$$ from the airline(s) they're operating on behalf of or from the gov't via the EAS program, would lose air service. Then again, some of those markets really are not viable markets even with an EAS subsidy, and that's a discussion for a separate thread.

Quoting william (Reply 57):
Why? There is a 42 seat version of the ATR for that.

I don't see why Embraer couldn't relase an EMB 120 2nd Gen if the market asked for it.

Technically, one can still order the EMB-120, as Embraer has not closed the line since the ERJ family of a/c are based on the EMB-120. Look at SkyWest for a moment, they are the biggest EMB-120 operator in the world and still operate the type because there are markets they fly into or routes they fly on in which the route would lose money using a regional jet. They should be an airline ATR really ought to focus on to replace their EMB-120s with the ATR-42 as it is not a huge leap in capacity for them.

I remember a few years ago, there was a newer ATR-72 that showed up at ATL and speculation here was that it was there in an attempt to get ASA to replace their older ATR-72 fleet with the newest version (This was right before ASA retied their ATRs.).

As a ramper, I preferred working ATR flights over the CRJ-200 and EMB-120 because it was much easier to load since it sits lower to the ground. The only thing I didn't like about working them was marshaling them into a parking space because they required a lot more space than the CRJ-200s and EMB-120s. I didn't work too many ATR-72 flights as the zone I typically worked in at ASA didn't get the ATRs and the area wasn't set up for parking them. The times I did work them would be if I got assigned to a different zone for that shift or one came in late into the shift and those of us that worked the late lines had to handle it.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-12-26 17:53:14 and read 3548 times.

Quoting william (Reply 56):
Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 56):
Could the ATR be shrunk even more to offer a replacement for the Brasilia/Saabs ?

Why? There is a 42 seat version of the ATR for that.

And the ATR-42 has been selling very poorly. The trend is to larger capacity aircraft for both props and jets.

Can't find 2012 data, but of the 157 firm ATR orders for the year 2011, only 13 were -42s.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: nycdave
Posted 2012-12-26 19:25:03 and read 3459 times.

Two main elements:

1. Perception -- as noted, there's an unfortunate tendency in the US for people not used to flying to think that props are antiquated, dangerous, and "cheap" (in the bad sense of the word). This isn't exactly helped by many regional carriers flying under contract having older, dilapidated Dash-8's running around (I'm looking at you, Piedmont). If everyone's experience with turboprops was on a carrier like Horizon, or especially Porter, I think perceptions would be quite different. The Q400, like the ATR, has a far more comfortable cabin than the 50-seat RJs.

Of course, no matter what, you'll have a certain number of flyers who are convinced, against the evidence of their own senses, that it's somehow "older", noisier, bumpier, smaller, slower, etc etc etc. What can I say? We're a nation full of people who aren't about to believe -- or try to acquire -- facts, when they can just listen to their gut!


2. Performance -- What turboprop penetration there's been in N.A. has been Bombadier probably in part from the ATR publicity in the 90's, but also because, well, the Q-series is 20% faster and can fly almost double the range of the ATR. That makes it much more effective and versatile for regional service here, especially with the focus on utilization. 20% faster speed in the air means you can crank out 1-2 more runs per day unless you're working at the short end of the range.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-12-26 19:46:55 and read 3437 times.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 59):
If everyone's experience with turboprops was on a carrier like Horizon, or especially Porter, I think perceptions would be quite different.

Maybe. But there are quality turboprop operators in the States. C5, while small, does a good job. Of the 4 operators of Dashes in the States (9L/YX, EN, C5, QX), only one has "dilapidated" aircraft.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 59):
The Q400, like the ATR, has a far more comfortable cabin than the 50-seat RJs.

I find the seats on most Dashes - Qs and not - inferior to the seats on most 50 seaters. About all the Dashes have going for them as far as cabin comfort is window positioning, but the ERJs are not bad in that regard either.

It's important to remember too that Dashes and ATRs are qualitatively different from jets. The sound and a lot of the sensations are different, and turbulence can often be worse because of the lower cruising altitude. In that regard, the Dash is better for passengers than the ATR, as the Dash can cruise at FL250 all day long while the ATR really struggles to get there if it is at all heavily laden.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: nycdave
Posted 2012-12-26 20:47:52 and read 3384 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 60):
I find the seats on most Dashes - Qs and not - inferior to the seats on most 50 seaters. About all the Dashes have going for them as far as cabin comfort is window positioning, but the ERJs are not bad in that regard either.

Definitely have to disagree with you there. The equipment PD uses is as plush as anything I've ever sat in short-haul that wasn't a biz/first seat. Besides, the Q400 has more storage space, a roomier cabin with a higher ceiling, etc. Now, compared to a CRJ-700/900, or an E-Jet, that's a different story... but there, the economics are better for short-haul with a turboprop.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: kgaiflyer
Posted 2012-12-26 21:13:28 and read 3356 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 18):
Last time I was in Seattle, sitting at the food court in the center of the terminal - I overheard at least a half-dozen conversations about why the airlines still fly those horrible props - two mentioned the AE ATR crash. All while looking at Horizon Q-400s.

Then again, if you want to fly SEA nonstop to BIL, BOI, BZN, YEG, YLW, YYC, or YYJ, it's the Q400 or nothing.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-12-27 05:56:14 and read 3168 times.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 61):
The equipment PD uses is as plush as anything I've ever sat in short-haul that wasn't a biz/first seat.

Of course, if PD were flying CRJs, they'd be configured with about 42 seats, so it's not an apples to apples comparison, is it?

The seats that DH had in the CRJ, which IIRC stayed when the aircraft went to OO, were really nice.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: RWA380
Posted 2012-12-28 04:01:59 and read 2828 times.

Quoting JBo (Reply 50):
If there were new-build turboprops on the market in the 30-50 seat range, we might see demand for them, but the manufacturers aren't developing any such aircraft and the airlines aren't demanding it.

It is a shame, as smaller communities have or will loose air service because there won't be an adequate replacement for EMB-120's that OO fly,I think there will finally be a critical need, and some manufacturer will hopefully step to the plate.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: william
Posted 2012-12-28 04:47:05 and read 2801 times.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 64):
It is a shame, as smaller communities have or will loose air service because there won't be an adequate replacement for EMB-120's that OO fly,I think there will finally be a critical need, and some manufacturer will hopefully step to the plate.

It may be Embraer, nothing to prevent them from making a EMB-120 Next Gen. As stated in another post, the ATR42 is not selling that well.

Topic: RE: Why Lack Of ATR Carriers In North America
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-12-28 08:20:17 and read 2665 times.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 59):

All of these perceptions can be negated by one thing; ticket price. Give passengers a few bucks off, and they'll fill any turboprop...they may whine...but they'll fly.

As for the comments on jetbridges, there are ground loading gates at every airport in Canada...and it's just not an issue. In fact, t-props of any ilk just aren't an issue.

Many smaller locations have AC Dash's and WS 737's flying into the same airports...and load factors are about the same on all flights.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/