Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Q 400 And ATR 72 Why Not More Orders In The US?  
User currently offlineCumulonimbus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 10273 times:

Just was wondering with Oil going up even more if these Fine Props will be ordered by Us Carriers? Well tell me waht you think.

Mike

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 10255 times:

ASA has returned some of their ATR-72s to their lessors. There have been rumors (on and of for a few years now) that they may replace the rest of the ATR-72s with Dash 8s. When I worked for EV, I really liked working ATR flights, as you could easily load one by yourself.

In hindsight, I bet EV (and probably OH as well) wishes that they wouldn't have retired their Brasilias when they did.

Unfortunately, any a/c with a prop is seen by the (uneducated) flying public as being old. If I were to start up a regional airline in the US right now, I'd have myself a fleet of turboprops since they are more economical to the regional jet, consumer opinion be damned.

Turboprops like the ATR-72 and the Dash 8 Q400 have more cargo space than the 50 pax regional jets they compete with.


User currently offlineFlypdx From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 636 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 10255 times:

I think it has to do with the flying public in the US Not wanting to fly on props, airlines not having money for new fleet orders, and I Am sure there are even more!

User currently offlineBa97 From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 10230 times:

If the carriers made the interiors more functional, they could become very popular throught the right marketing (the right marketing will sell anything). I suspect there are many routes that the percentage of high paying last minute customers is significant and adding the few more minutes (even 30 minutes) due to loss of speed would over looked if the plane seats were less cramped, had power in the seats and some other toys. I have always loved flying the D8 series and wondered why everyone keeps the interiors no better than school bus like.


there is economy class, business class, first class...then Concorde..pure class
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2726 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 10195 times:

Quoting Cumulonimbus (Thread starter):
Just was wondering with Oil going up even more if these Fine Props will be ordered by Us Carriers? Well tell me what you think.

I have wondered about this to.

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 1):
Unfortunately, any a/c with a prop is seen by the (uneducated) flying public as being old. If I were to start up a regional airline in the US right now, I'd have myself a fleet of turboprops since they are more economical to the regional jet, consumer opinion be damned.



Quoting Flypdx (Reply 2):
I think it has to do with the flying public in the US Not wanting to fly on props, airlines not having money for new fleet orders, and I Am sure there are even more!

I think they don't care that much if they can get a better price on a propeller plane. Of course there are allot of advantages with jets when one compare ecomonics, and I am aware of all the accidents in the US with propeller planes. But at the end of the day, I think it is the airliners who are more afraid than the flying public. It takes a brave company to start flying more Turboprops



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 10167 times:

I think this is a great question, and I really feel that ultimately, to be competetive, the small jet carriers will have to morph back to flying turbo props b/c the fuel burn advantage is that significant.

When the airlines were making money in 98-2001, "all jet" was a marketing ploy, and it was reflected in capacity purchase agreements. Post 9-11 economics dictate that smaller outstations get turboprops or nothing. With the noise cancellation features and increased speeds of the new ATRs and Dash 400 series, that should be where the next major US regional purchase should be.


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 10078 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 4):

I think they don't care that much if they can get a better price on a propeller plane.

There have been cities here in the US begging airlines to start regional jet service into their cities instead of continuing turboprop flights. Some city leaders seem to buy into the whole propeller=outdated concept.


User currently offlineBravoGolf From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 538 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 10046 times:

The icing problems of the ATRs, resulting in the October 31, 1994 fatal crash of American Eagle flight 4184, with the loss of 68 people, killed turboprops as far as the American public is concerened.

User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13039 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 9998 times:

The problem with the ATR series aircraft and icing, is a bladder that can be inflated on the leading edge of the wings to help break up and deice the wings may not be sufficient to do that job. AA's regional subs transferred the ATR's to their SJU hub to connect to the various small islands they serve there. The ATR's are fine there as no icing problems, less fussiness by pax as to regional jets, some shorter runways, short flights, freight capacity, efficiency for the needs there.

User currently offlineN723GW From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 9963 times:

Quoting BravoGolf (Reply 7):
BravoGolf From United States, joined Apr 2005, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted Sun Apr 23 2006 02:09:05 UTC+2 and read 78 times:


The icing problems of the ATRs, resulting in the October 31, 1994 fatal crash of American Eagle flight 4184, with the loss of 68 people, killed turboprops as far as the American public is concerened.

That is exactly right, the ATR doesn't have a very well saftey record, which could be like you said a big damper on airlines/people wanting to deal with them....



Probable Cause
12/18/1986
6/7/1989
DETROIT, MI
ATR ATR-42
N423MQ
Incident
SCHD Part 121: Air Carrier SIMMONS AIRLINES

Probable Cause
Factual ,
Probable Cause
11/26/1990
12/30/1992
ST. THOMAS
ATR ATR-42-300
N971NA
Incident
SCHD Part 121: Air Carrier EXECUTIVE AIR CHARTER, INC. (D.B.A. AMERICAN EAGLE )

Probable Cause
Factual ,
Probable Cause
9/14/1991
1/25/1993
MUSKEGON, MI
ATR ATR 42-300
N243AT
Nonfatal
SCHD Part 121: Air Carrier SIMMONS AIRLINES

Probable Cause
Factual ,
Probable Cause
3/8/1993
12/2/1994
CHICAGO, IL
ATR ATR 72
N248AT
Incident
SCHD Part 121: Air Carrier SIMMONS

Probable Cause
Factual ,
Probable Cause
3/13/1993
9/30/1994
CHICAGO, IL
ATR ATR 42
N426MQ
Incident
SCHD Part 121: Air Carrier SIMMONS

Probable Cause
Factual ,
Probable Cause
10/31/1994
10/22/1996
ROSELAWN, IN
ATR ATR-72-212
N401AM
Fatal(68)
SCHD Part 121: Air Carrier AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES

Probable Cause
Factual ,
Probable Cause
1/17/1995
9/24/1995
DFW AIRPORT, TX
ATR 72-212
N408AT
Incident
SCHD Part 121: Air Carrier SIMMONS AIRLINES, INC. (D.B.A. AMERICAN EAGLE )

Probable Cause
Factual ,
Probable Cause
3/4/1995
9/24/1995
LAS VEGAS, NV
ATR 42
N266AT
Incident
SCHD Part 121: Air Carrier (D.B.A. AMERICAN EAGLE )

Probable Cause
Factual ,
Probable Cause
7/9/1995
3/21/1996
CHICAGO, IL
ATR 72-212
N440AM
Incident
SCHD Part 121: Air Carrier SIMMONS AIRLINES (D.B.A. AMERICAN EAGLE )

Probable Cause
Factual ,
Probable Cause
12/30/1995
6/6/1996
HONOLULU, HI
ATR ATR 42-300
N4202G
Nonfatal
SCHD Part 121: Air Carrier MAHALO AIR

Probable Cause
Factual ,
Probable Cause
4/3/1996
12/15/1997
TRAVERSE CITY, MI
ATR 42
N421MQ
Incident
SCHD Part 121: Air Carrier (D.B.A. SIMMONS AIRLINES )

Probable Cause
Factual ,
Probable Cause
11/20/1996
12/15/1997
COVINGTON, KY
ATR 42
N47AE
Incident
SCHD Part 121: Air Carrier SIMMONS AIRLINES

Factual
Factual
1/12/2002

Caratagena, Colombia
ATR 42-500
VP-BVE
Nonfatal
SCHD Non-U.S., Commercial ACES (D.B.A. ACES Columbia)

Probable Cause
Factual ,
Probable Cause
5/9/2004
12/8/2005
San Juan, PR
ATR 72
N438AT
Nonfatal
SCHD Part 121: Air Carrier Executive Airlines (D.B.A. American Eagle)

Factual
Factual
8/6/2005

Palermo, Italy
ATR ATR-72-202
TS-LBB
Fatal(16)
SCHD Non-U.S., Commercial Tuninter



The dude abides
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9895 times:

The major icing incidents involving the ATR were a watershed for the entire industry, as it brought about the concept of the SLD, or super cooled large droplet of h20. This is water in liquid phase at a temp well below freezing; when it hits an object in runs and freezes...

The result is that holding in icing conditions was largely prohibited by most ops manuals for every turboprop a/c, and for jets...new parameters such as a prohibiting holding with flaps other than up...


User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 36
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 9752 times:

Quoting N723GW (Reply 9):
That is exactly right, the ATR doesn't have a very well saftey record, which could be like you said a big damper on airlines/people wanting to deal with them....

What is the point you want to make with that list? It misses any analysis; how many ATRs vs the number of incidents, what incidents, were they the airframes fault? Most of these incidents you copy pasted, except for the Roselawn 1994 and the Tuninter crash, don't seem so bad.
With more then 700 around, the ATR had some accidents but not alarmingly many. That list ignores for instance some fatal crashes like a first icing accident with ATI in Italy in 1987, a Taiwanese cargo crash, a crash in Yugoslavia and the Moroccan suicide accident.



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2726 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 9664 times:

Quoting N723GW (Reply 9):
That is exactly right, the ATR doesn't have a very well safety record, which could be like you said a big damper on airlines/people wanting to deal with them....

According to Aviation safety network there has been 6 ATR-42 accidents wished has killed a total of 107 people. 90 people have been killed in 4 accidents in the ATR 72.

If you take the 737 planes in the same time frame you have 2804 people killed in 48 accidents.

I know there are allot more 737 in the air, and they have a greater passenger capacity, but my point is that one accident is probably not enough to make people feel less safe in turboprops, when the Jets crashes to. But in general I to think that people feel more safe in a jet plane especially in larger ones.

The A319/A320/A321 has had 5 accidents and caused 327 deaths



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineAvConsultant From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 9634 times:

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 5):
I think this is a great question, and I really feel that ultimately, to be competetive, the small jet carriers will have to morph back to flying turbo props b/c the fuel burn advantage is that significant.

Good point. The advantage of the RJ's were they extended a farther reach for smaller communities increasing revenue to carriers; however, should oil hit $100/barrell airlines will revisit the revenue stream offered by smaller communities. A Bombardier subsidary is a financing unit, I predict carriers will start purchasing the Q400. It's a FAST turboprop.

Also, I read a DL report a few years back siting the ATR's first 45 minute in flight had the same fuel burn as the 737-200 average taxi to takeoff and after landing to the gate. I hope I communicated this correctly.


User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 9625 times:

While everyone here makes good points about the turboprop vs. jet thing, the simplest answer is:

They can't afford it.

I do think that the public is gradually starting to "get it" with props vs. jets. Eagle 4184 was over 11 years ago, alot has changed then.

However, any major return of the ATR-72 in the US market could still be met with some hesitation.

The Q400, on the other hand, could be popular. Joe Q. Public may even be inclined to look at it and say "that's a new airplane." I mean, a plane with six prop blades has to be new, right?  Wink

I don't think many people these days care much anymore about props or jets. Props are a little louder, but as long as they get to their destination in one piece, they're happy.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9497 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 9625 times:

Quoting Flypdx (Reply 2):
I think it has to do with the flying public in the US Not wanting to fly on props, airlines not having money for new fleet orders, and I Am sure there are even more!

I don't believe that with the massive numbers of CR7s and EMB 170s that have been entering fleets of US carriers. For regional planes, airlines are expanding. I don't think money is the reason why we don't see more large turboprops. An airline like United has had over half of its regional flying change hands with many new aircraft orders in the past few years. I think there are other reasons.

And to be honest, I am with the flying public. I highly prefer a regional jet to a large turboprop. Sure there might be noise cancelling on the plane, but that doesn't stop your head from vibrating and your ears from ringing after you get off the plane. Also the less time I spend in one of those small planes, the better. It doesn't make a big difference on flights under an hour, but many flihgts are over an hour.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineB6sea From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 9599 times:

I think that QX is really a good example of the economics of prop planes. I mean they fly those things all up and down the west coast. The longest flight is SEA-FAT or something of that length. They operate most of those flights with little or no feed from AS and do great. Didn't they just order more Q400s? I was on one from SUN-SEA and it was a nice plane, VERY quiet I thought. Only thing I would change is the seat pitch, and seats. Seats are too crampt for the stage lengths they are flying, I could have flown a md80 to BOI and then taken a Dash 8-200 to SUN if I had really wanted comfort. Although QX offers so much more than AS on much shorter flights. Food...etc. Now, if AS and QX would just follow AC and B6's lead and install PTVs on all their planes, then I might consider taking them everywhere they fly.

-Chans

[Edited 2006-04-23 17:29:57]

User currently offlineAvConsultant From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 9564 times:

Quoting JBo (Reply 14):
The Q400, on the other hand, could be popular. Joe Q. Public may even be inclined to look at it and say "that's a new airplane." I mean, a plane with six prop blades has to be new, right? Wink

That was FUNNY!! There is not enough of humor in these forum, some times it horrible how anal people become.

Quoting JBo (Reply 14):
I don't think many people these days care much anymore about props or jets. Props are a little louder, but as long as they get to their destination in one piece, they're happy.

The public wants the lowest fare. As long as the media does not manipulate the masses by creating a false sense of security, which they're good at doing, the turbo-prop will be succesful. The Q400 operates all over Europe. Unfortunately, the data on the ATR is painted in a less than flattering way, but what were the details and would the reporter establish credibility with me their expertise.

Quoting B6sea (Reply 16):
The longest flight is SEA-FNT (Code for Fresno?) or something like that.

HOLY COW!! Then you said Fresno - FAT. FNT is Flint, Michigan. At first I thought that distance on an turbo-prop or CRJ was screwing the traveling public.

Quoting B6sea (Reply 16):
Now, if AS and QX would just follow AC and B6's lead and install PTVs on all their planes, then I might consider taking them everywhere they fly.

Excellent point, the Legacy carriers are missing the point of what the market wants. I flew DL and my return was cancelled and I was reacommadated on FL. Business class in the DL 757 is nothing compared to Business Class in FL 717. Hand down, FL dominates this area. The service was nicer, the equipment interior was newer and more trendy with XM radio. DL had a drop down panel airing a repeat of "King of Queens"?!?!? Ugh!!

Then there is B6 with individual entertainment!?!?!

What do the legacy have?? Yeah, they can connect me to Europe, but good luck attemting to redeem those well earned points. You can travel here on this date only at this time..... you had a choice to make and thank you for your loyalty. Whatever.

I would recommend the management of the legacies carriers get out and ride their competition and I'm not talking about the legacy carreris.


User currently offlineATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2272 posts, RR: 38
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 9510 times:

We have recently bought some Saab's at Regions, and plan on buying more. On 2-300 mile runs, you cant beat a turboprop. The time frame for the flight is on par with jets, with better fuel economy.

Those ATR's above.
note that almost all were "Incidents" which means Non-fatal and did not include any major aircraft damage.

I personally love turboprops. Ive flown a C90 Kingair and love that aircraft. For the Pittsburgh-IAD run we did, it'll match any jet. Almost every turboprop ive been on isnt that loud, and the sound level is reasonable. I'll take a turboprop anyday over a jet on a less than 500milr run.

ATCT



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineB6sea From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 9498 times:

Quoting AvConsultant (Reply 17):
HOLY COW!! Then you said Fresno - FAT. FNT is Flint, Michigan. At first I thought that distance on an turbo-prop or CRJ was screwing the traveling public.

Yeah, I went back and edited it after looking up Fresno's code, I knew that FNT rang a bell but I meant FAT. Anywho... I completely agree in that, one of these days one of the people managing the legacies is going to wake up and be like "wow, those other airlines that arent loosing money have IFE... wow in-seat TV, now thats revolutionary" and then spend more on advertising the fact than they did on installing the equipment.

But I really think that props are going to see a major comeback and really hope they do. It harkens back to the glory days of flying. That's one reason I like flying QX, those airstairs give me that much needed hit of nostalgia and then hearing the engines start up... nothing like it... too bad the flying public could care less.

Thought: If the airlines like QX would start advertising the fuel-saving aspects of the props (especially airlines operating in CA,OR, and WA with the whole environmental crowd being as large as it is) maybe we would see public opinion start to grow for props again. A prop-plane renaissance if you will.

-Chans


User currently offlineAvConsultant From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 9424 times:

Quoting B6sea (Reply 19):
Thought: If the airlines like QX would start advertising the fuel-saving aspects of the props (especially airlines operating in CA,OR, and WA with the whole environmental crowd being as large as it is) maybe we would see public opinion start to grow for props again. A prop-plane renaissance if you will.

That is true, the CA coridor and the NE for that matter. Unfortunately, I do not think care anymore as long as travel is safe, cheap and reliable.


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...
Idea: Why Not More Space In Econ. Class? posted Mon May 5 2003 05:04:02 by GotAirbus
More CRJ900 Orders In The Pipeline posted Wed Oct 4 2006 17:09:11 by Flying-Tiger
Why Didn't DL Order More T7's In The Good Old Days posted Tue Mar 28 2006 10:27:20 by Gokmengs
Why Is The Dash8 More Popular In The Caribbean posted Wed Aug 17 2005 20:41:36 by 8B775ZQ
Why Not More US Carriers In India? posted Thu Dec 2 2004 20:10:21 by Jacobin777
Why Not More 744's/High Density Aircraft In US? posted Fri Oct 15 2004 22:16:22 by Ual747
Boeing Sees More 717's In The US And Europe posted Wed Jun 18 2003 19:55:15 by 717fan
WSJ: $10bil In New BCA Orders In The Next Weeks posted Wed Nov 15 2006 06:42:28 by N328KF
Why Not More Widebodies @ EWR? posted Sat Jul 29 2006 02:27:44 by B727fan
SAS: Why Not More Q400? posted Fri Jul 14 2006 12:41:01 by CRJ900