Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did Nobody Buy The ATP?  
User currently offlineApplepie81 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 68 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4257 times:

The ATP never really sold well. It was updated in the early 90's as the Jetstream 61 but by that time the company had merged with ATR so the ATR-72 was the prefered option.
Why did the ATP fail in so many ways?

4 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineHAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2636 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4136 times:

I only rode as a passenger on the ATP, but from what I understand from my friends that flew it, it was a maintenance nightmare. Needlessly complicated and prone to breakdowns. It quickly got a reputation as a hangar queen, and airlines bought other planes to fit the niche.

It was kind of like the L1011 - a great plane to fly, once you got it out of the gate.


One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4101 times:

The market for big turboprops hasn't been good for a long time, and really suffered in the RJ craze. The ATP suffered against the Dash-8 and ATR-72 in that it didn't have a "smaller" child (I know, it was derived from the HS 748, but that's a significantly earlier "generation").

Performance was also, well, shall we be polite and say "stately?" I seem to recall an article in the last couple of years talking about a flight experience with Manx in the UK, and something telling was that, with a full load, they were only getting 500fpm climb at 8000 feet! Operating turboprops at sub-14000' really hurts on fuel burn, in my experience (remember that half the atmosphere of the planet is below the 14,000' level).


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16525 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4093 times:

2 reasons:
1. The PW powerplants had early reliability problems which caused bad press.
2. The ATP was not part of family of ATP airliners...hecne it appeared as an orphan.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30408 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3996 times:

Came out the same time the first RJ's arrived on scene.
ATR basicly has treated all of the Bae regional props as bastard stepchildren, since they mergered the two lines.

Unfortunatly the ATP also was not designed as a replacement for the HS.748, which is a wonderful rought field turboprop. This made it a harder sell with satisfied 748 customers who might be looking to replace that 30 year old aircraft.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Did American Buy The A300-600R? posted Fri Nov 23 2001 20:21:11 by TranStar
Why Did Nobody Notice The Planes Were Off Course? posted Wed Sep 12 2001 22:37:55 by Asgeirs
Why Did GSO Expand The Airport posted Thu Aug 10 2006 09:12:37 by Gsoflyer
Why Did NW Choose The A319 & 320? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 06:20:10 by MSPGUY
Why Did Airbus Make The A350 Wider? posted Sat Jul 15 2006 02:22:34 by 787KQ
Why Did Boeing Skip The 717? posted Mon May 1 2006 23:45:05 by RootsAir
Why Did AA Abandon The Denver Hub posted Tue Apr 18 2006 06:35:24 by AAden
Why Did Boeing Build The 720? posted Mon Apr 17 2006 15:34:57 by Swissgabe
Why Did United Choose The A320 Family? posted Thu Apr 6 2006 19:31:57 by United787
Why Didn't FedEx Buy The 737-900F? posted Sun Jan 8 2006 19:48:52 by OyKIE