AirNovaBAe146 From Canada, joined Jun 2008, 348 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6409 times:
When they replace the ATR it will be a turboprop, either the Q400 or the new ATR.
A CR7 simply can not do the things an ATR does out of SJU. Pax + bags + numerous short island runway destinations. Plus, you really don't need jet speed (and cost) for some of that Caribbean flying.
Xdlx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 532 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6392 times:
Not so.... They just announced 22 new CR7 + 25 options. In addition to converting
the existing fleet with the new config F/Y.
True the caribbean does not require jet speeds on the shorter sectors, but MIA-CUN
or SJU-BGI could use shorter block times. I am just wondering if they will order the
new ATR soon! There are very few short... short runways in the AA/Eagle route system.
Short considered under 800m ??? NONE
Flymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 6284 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6328 times:
Anyway there is no reason to replace it. The ATR is a good plane for the short routes American Eagle has out of MIA and SJU. Also it is a great plane for the amount of cargo there are on those routes. If I am not mistaken ATR-72s have more cargo room than the Dash-8s. Cargo is a big money maker for Eagle out of MIA and SJU.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5894 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6228 times:
Major problem is that all turboprop OEM's are following their jet brothers and creating larger and larger a/c, there are many routes around that still need a/c that seat 50 or so pax. In the Caribbean for example, when such a/c are no longer available travel will have to revert to boats or much lower frequencies to accomodate the larger a/c.
Another market is probably being created for another OEM to produce smaller a/c.
YVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2084 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6180 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 6): Major problem is that all turboprop OEM's are following their jet brothers and creating larger and larger a/c, there are many routes around that still need a/c that seat 50 or so pax. In the Caribbean for example, when such a/c are no longer available travel will have to revert to boats or much lower frequencies to accomodate the larger a/c.
Another market is probably being created for another OEM to produce smaller a/c.
True at Bombardier, but ATR still make the 42... AC Jazz for example have somewhat of an issue with a large aging DH1 fleet, but the decision if and when it becomes necessary is pretty easy for Eagle as already operating ATR's.
MrSkyGuy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1203 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6127 times:
Let's also be very clear here.. even the ATR's operating out of Dallas (12 or 14 I beleive) are still operating under the Executive certificate. While the Dallas base doesn't like the ATR's very much, they are providing a suitable replacement for teh 340's recently parked, and they are giving Executive the opportunity to keep those birds flying despite the lower PLF's experienced industry-wide.
The ATR's are expected to remain for years to come. The *real* question is whether or not Eagle/Executive will consider the NG ATR.
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3667 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6063 times:
Perhaps the ATR's at American Eagle will last as long as the DC9s have at NW (DL).
DeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 8576 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6057 times:
Quoting Xdlx (Reply 3): Not so.... They just announced 22 new CR7 + 25 options. In addition to converting
the existing fleet with the new config F/Y.
MQs CR7 fleet is a large as it can be with out the APA giving up more scope.
"Oh look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky! Look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky!" LM 1922-2011 Go Dawgs! G.A.T.A.
NASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1254 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6052 times:
Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 8): The ATR's are expected to remain for years to come. The *real* question is whether or not Eagle/Executive will consider the NG ATR.
True. If it ain't broke, don't fix it (of course, I'm sure some folks over at MQ/Executive would be quick to blast the ATR's reliability). Keep in mind, that the AT7s aren't exactly ancient, and have quite a bit of life left in them.
If the time comes to replace them, it would be my guess that the NG ATRs would be the most suitable answer (perhaps even some -42-600s). I'm a huge fan of the Dash 8 family, but even I have to admit that the ATR has valuable cargo cababilities that most RJ's (and the dash family) can't handle. On the Caribbean/Bahamian routes, that's a huge deal for AA/MQ.
AAAL From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 121 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6021 times:
Talks are under way about possible replacements for the ATRs. I believe the plan is to replace them within 5 years. The ATR's that have leases are the first to go. We should see an annoucement about may 2010. MQ CEO's has stated that it is one of items in his list to care this year.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10188 posts, RR: 63 Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5995 times:
The ATRs will be in service with Eagle, barring some drastic change, for quite some time for several reasons.
Chief among these is that they are relatively cheap to operate because of their low ownership costs and the fact that they are less-fuel-guzzling props (versus jets).
Second is that, as another poster already said, the mission they fill really can't ever be handled by RJs - which are the only other things Eagle flies today since the SAABs were retired. Just about all of the flying in the Caribbean requires a prop because of short runway and/or shorter sectors and/or lower yields and/or cargo volume. One or all of the above requirements virtually guarantee that Eagle won't be doing anything with the ATR fleet until they can find a viable prop replacement that they can afford - which won't be happening soon.
In fact, rumor recently has been that Eagle is looking to buy more ATRs - 6 was the number I think I remember hearing from Mark - to put into service starting early next year.
Quoting JBo (Reply 1): I believe Eagle has all the CR7's they will ever be allowed to operate, if I'm not mistaken.
Per the current contract. However, at some point in the future, that contract will inevitably change, and with that change, I suspect you will see some sort of movement of some type on the issue of getting more sub-100-seat jets.
Quoting Xdlx (Reply 3): True the caribbean does not require jet speeds on the shorter sectors, but MIA-CUN or SJU-BGI could use shorter block times.
Again, the Caribbean sectors really can't handle jets because of the astronomical fuel costs involved in moving from a prop to a jet and because of the cargo volumes. For many of these islands, Eagle is the only air service they have or the largest aircraft that comes into their island each day, and thus the amount of cargo Eagle carries into some of these markets is substantial, and requires an airplane with a good amount of cargo capacity like an ATR72.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 6): Major problem is that all turboprop OEM's are following their jet brothers and creating larger and larger a/c, there are many routes around that still need a/c that seat 50 or so pax. In the Caribbean for example, when such a/c are no longer available travel will have to revert to boats or much lower frequencies to accomodate the larger a/c.
Another market is probably being created for another OEM to produce smaller a/c.
Yeah, but remember - a bit part of the reason we're seeing the world's remaining prop OEMs move towards larger props (Bombardier being the obvious heavy-hitter with the market-dominant Q400) is because that is what their customers, airlines, want. And the reason is simple: the economics of that aircraft are simply so good that airlines are recognizing that the marginal added operating cost of moving from a 50-seat prop to a 70-seat prop is extremely low. In other words: they pay almost no unit cost penalty for moving to the larger aircraft, so they might as well have those extra 20 seats to sell. It's virtually the same phenomenon that is going on with the 737NG line today and Boeing: more and more airlines are opting for the -800, despite it's having (depending on configuration) sometimes 40-50 more seats than a -700, because its economics are so good that it's just worth it for airlines to have those added seats to try and sell.
DeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 8576 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5850 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 13): Per the current contract. However, at some point in the future, that contract will inevitably change, and with that change, I suspect you will see some sort of movement of some type on the issue of getting more sub-100-seat jets.
What in the world would the APA get to add more to the MQ fleet? One would hope they aren't that stupid. I don't believe they are going to let AA add more because they are nice.
"Oh look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky! Look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky!" LM 1922-2011 Go Dawgs! G.A.T.A.
Shinton From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 56 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5846 times:
Note how Eagle has changed the flight numbers of ATR72 to 4000 series since consumers were figuring out 5000 series flight numbers meant the delay prone atr-72
Texan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4204 posts, RR: 54 Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5805 times:
Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 14): What in the world would the APA get to add more to the MQ fleet? One would hope they aren't that stupid. I don't believe they are going to let AA add more because they are nice.
Pure speculation, and not to detract from the main point of the thread, but the contract would likely include a clause stating that, in return for allowing more CR7s and the like into the fold, AA will either a) not replace any mainline markets with CR7s or b) guarantee that the number of mainline flights does not dip below a certain number and that if that does occur, a penalty of an increased number of CR7s may not be operated. That would be a (relatively) equitable solution. Either that or AA could promise that in return for allowing more CR7 flying for Eagle they will purchase 100-120 mainline aircraft
As for the issue at hand, do not look for AA to rid themselves of the ATR fleet anytime soon. Athe ATRs provide a very valuable tool for short-haul markets, and their economics, as stated by Commavia, cannot be matched or even put in the same ballpark as the RJs. Now, you won't see the ATRs flying 500 nm sectors out of DFW most likely (possibly the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, but that would be it), but for the shorter sectors (SPS, TYR, BPT, ILE, etc) they are more efficient, more effective, and provide better returns than an RJ could. Since AA has likely depreciated the ATRs' value and likely owe little to nothing on the planes now, and since the aircraft are still in (relatively) good condition, why pay money to replace such an airplane?
Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
Xdlx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 532 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5581 times:
I see a lot of "assumptions" in these replies. Please correct me if I am wrong;
1) the argument of the "cargo carrying capacity" ... fact; Eagle in SJU was forced in the
past to send 'Supplemental baggage flights" (contract Caravans) because the ATR
was unable to take the baggage load when full.
2)AA/Eagle long ago sold and leased back the entire fleet of ATR, so they do not own
them.
3) Yes it is a very difficult airplane to raplace ..outside of Scope, good for under 500m sectors,
etc.... but as mentioned before, current fleet is long on the tooth, could use replacements
announcements for sure.
If Cargo was SOOO.... important to AA in the region they would have replaced the A300
in the Carib/Lat in America markets with widebodies. Look at the stats of Cargo carried by
Eagle on ATR flights and it is NIL.
My intention was to air out the REAL Need ....to announce a fleet replacement for an aircraft
MQ has been using for over 20 years.....And is now driving customers away!
William From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5541 times:
AAEagle switched GRK -DFW equipment to ATRs from RJs because of the cargo (Ft Hood soldiers pack a lot of luggage). However, lately RJs have been subbing for the ATRs a lot to GRK. Its not a secrete the ATRs are having some reliability problems, AAEagle will have a make a move soon on the equipment front at DFW.
Texan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4204 posts, RR: 54 Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5475 times:
Quoting Xdlx (Reply 17): I see a lot of "assumptions" in these replies.
There are necessarily a lot of assumptions for those of us who do not work in planning for the airline in question Without knowing the airline's plans in advance, all we can do is assume and conjecture. It is the nature of forums
Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
DFWEagle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1064 posts, RR: 9 Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5439 times:
Quoting Xdlx (Reply 17): I see a lot of "assumptions" in these replies.
Well, it seems that there are a few assumptions in your replies too.
Quoting Xdlx (Reply 17): Look at the stats of Cargo carried by Eagle on ATR flights and it is NIL.
Yes, but cargo is not the problem on those intra-Caribbean flights, the issue is excess passenger baggage. The nature of those markets means that passengers tend to bring a lot of heavy luggage. Regional Jets are less capable at lifting it under those conditions than the ATR’s. Furthermore, at a number of Caribbean stations, the airfield facilities are not sufficient for jet operation.
Quoting Xdlx (Reply 17): If Cargo was SOOO.... important to AA in the region they would have replaced the A300 in the Carib/Lat in America markets with widebodies.
But, they have done exactly that, to the extent possible with the existing fleet. 18 757’s are being reconfigured for Atlantic routes and deployed on almost every TATL route for which they have the range (BOS-LHR/CDG, JFK-MAN/BRU/MAD/CDG/BCN, ORD-MAN/DUB). The wide-body equipment is being re-deployed to replace the A300’s on JFK-SDQ/STI/PAP, MIA-SJO/LIM/BOG/GYE/PAP/SDQ/MGA. New wide-bodies were out of the question at such short notice so they did the best they could with what they have.
Quoting Xdlx (Reply 17): My intention was to air out the REAL Need ....to announce a fleet replacement for an aircraft MQ has been using for over 20 years.....And is now driving customers away!
Almost all of the ATR’s are aged between 11 and 14 years, which is not really that old for an aircraft. American Eagle is actually considering increasing its ATR fleet over the next year by purchasing some second hand examples. It seems that they must be fairly satisfied with the equipment they have. I really don't think the need to replace them is as urgent as you are claim.
Justplanenutz From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 428 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5405 times:
Quoting Xdlx (Reply 17): If Cargo was SOOO.... important to AA in the region they would have replaced the A300
in the Carib/Lat in America markets with widebodies. Look at the stats of Cargo carried by
Eagle on ATR flights and it is NIL
Bingo. It was said that the A300's would last forever becuase nothing could replace their cargo-carrying ability, In fact, once they got past 20, they went away real fast and were replaced by nothing similar.
Pliersinsight From United States of America, joined May 2008, 446 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5336 times:
I've really learned something from this thread because I thought all along that the ATRs were sent by AA to the southern latitudes because of problems with icing. Guess that was just a media hyped memory from the early 90s....or would you all like to chime in on such a bald allegation?
Turk223 From Barbados, joined Aug 2003, 369 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5261 times:
Quoting Xdlx (Reply 3): True the caribbean does not require jet speeds on the shorter sectors, but MIA-CUN
or SJU-BGI could use shorter block times.
Just have to say, nearly three hours on an ATR from SJU to BGI is a little tortuous. I don't know if the -72s are more comfortable, but I did it back in 1998 on a -42 and it was pretty miserable.
Maybe I was spoiled by the days when the route was flown by A300s?
Cmb320 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 402 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5242 times:
We had the ATR's flying into HOU for several months and let me tell you, they destroyed the market. We are still trying to recover even though the jets are back on the HOU-DFW route. Delays and cancellations were OUT OF CONTROL! We lost so many passengers to IAH and to WN it's not even funny. In fact, it hurt us so much they are actually taking away two of our flights because our reputation is still keeping people away.
I don't wish the ATRs on anybody. A 40 minute HOU-DFW jet flight turned into a 1hr 10mns to 1hr 30mns on an ATR at a whopping 13,000 feet. Loud, shaky, turbulent, hot, and uncomfortable. That's if they weren't cancelled for MX.
I still get nightmares of the long lines and pissed off people at the gate because of those pieces of junk!
25 MAH4546: Really? Explain the 22 CRJ-700s that start delivery in June.
26 LAXdude1023: I hate flying them. I flew one from DFW to ACT the other day and it was awful. But considering its only an 89 mile flight, it was tolerable. However,
27 Xdlx: I wonder if MQ could fly the same # of CR7 in their certificate, without violating present scope.
28 N62NA: This is kind of funny (if it weren't so sad). AA seems to have a propensity for acquiring aircraft known for fairly frequent mx delays - or, to put i
29 Cmb320: BINGO!!!!!!! Perhaps further investigation or auditing of MX practices at AA/AE is in order.[Edited 2009-10-23 10:46:17 by CMB320]
30 ElmoTheHobo: Yes. The cut San Juan and retired the Saabs flying out of DFW and LAX. They moved ERJ-135s to LAX, and a dozen or so AT7s to DFW. You're thinking Mia
31 Captaink: See the post that was right above yours. Nop I have only done such flights (SJU/GND) on the 72 and it is bad. I mean honestly that is along flight on
32 Flymia: Exactly cargo has priority over baggaage that is why that would happen.
33 SXDFC: If they do plan on keeping the ATR's will they plan to make any interior upgrades? Such as new seats,bins,etc? Is it even possible to fit an older ATR
34 Flyby519: Id love to see the ATR-72-600 at MQ- 2011 looks like when it enters service http://atr.fr/public/atr/html/press/releases-details.php?aid=1051
35 DeltaL1011man: 25+22=47 CR7s MQ can have......Not sure what you didn't get. He said AMR has 25 options which they can NOT use unless the APA has or will sign a LOA
36 MAH4546: 22 more CRJ-700s start delivery in June. Not sure what you don't get about that.
37 DeltaL1011man: How aren't you understanding. AA scope is for 47 aircraft, They have 25 now.......they are taking 22 in june........Which is/was/always has been part
38 RFields5421: But MQ is not flying those planes today. The ATR aircraft fly under the OW certificate. The ATR aircraft were moved from MQ to OW because of the scop
39 RFields5421: That is definitely the key. Neither MQ nor OW are going to grow or change significantly until mainline changes, or the mainline pilots union is broke
40 Commavia: Close. When Eagle merged all of the former Eagle operating companies (Simmons, Flagship, Wings West and Executive) under AMR Eagle back in 1998, they
41 Xdlx: So the question remains... at the time to replace the ATR ! Would it be another turboprop, or can it be a 66 seat JET with the overwater equipment. S
42 N62NA: I would think that it would be a turboprop. With the price of fuel where it is, and likely to be even higher in the years go come, jets are just too
43 Commavia: When, some day in the (distant, in my opinion) future, Eagle replaces the ATRs, I feel confident that it will not be with a jet. Most of the sectors
44 William: Does anyone know what routes the new CR7s are to be assigned? AAEagle has been substituting RJs on the DFW-GRK (an all ATR route) run alot. Either the
45 JustPlaneNutz: I would add that what AE ultimately does with SJU would play a big role in the replacement equation. There are by my count only 3 ATR destinations wi
46 RFields5421: Thank you Everyone seems to think the SCOPE does not apply to the turboprop aircraft operators. The SCOPE clause controls the number of jets. Even if
47 JustPlaneNutz: Speaking only for myself, I am certainly aware of the scope issues. I just happen to believe that when AA and APA make their peace, it will reflect t
48 Rikkus67: IIRC, Bombardier has announced an extended-cycle revitalization plan for the -100 through -300's, which will include updated interiors, and instrumen
49 HausAufLennon: It would be nice if Eagle would replace the ATRs on the SJU-BGI run, at least with a CRJ 700, that might help to make SJU a more attractive hub for Ba
50 Tommy767: ATRs are economical props but from a customer standpoint, they downright suck. I flew ATRs several times on CO express out of EWR during the 90s and e
51 Commavia: They'll almost all end up in Chicago. When the big schedule sort-out happens in the spring and summer next year, a few CRJs will remain at DFW, plus
52 Tommy767: Hey commavia, how likely is it that eagle will order Q400s? Are they any smoother than the ATR?
53 Commavia: In my personal opinion - and this is nothing more than that - I think that it's inevitable eventually. Long-term, barring some radical change in tech
54 Tommy767: .....oh god....another decade ....well can't say that I'm at all surprised. At least the CR7s are coming in.
55 DeltaL1011man: Does the APA have rates(100 seater) built into the contract?
56 N62NA: Yeah, another decade of ATR flying for me on the MIA-NAS hop... though I suppose I could take UP and their good old 732s...
57 Flyby519: They do(and you already knew this), the F-100 was the 100 seater before the regional carriers exploded in growth. Unfortunately, when you are in a co
58 AirNovaBAe146: How so? Anything the ATR 42 or 72 can do, the Q400 can do better. The only thing the ATRs beat the Q400 on is they are leased at much more affordable
59 JustPlaneNutz: The Q would certainly allow AE to add several sectors out of MIA that the ATR does not have the legs to do. But how would it do on 3,000 ft. runways?
60 DeltaL1011man: forgot about the F100s. I meant a "new" 100 seater aka the E90. Does this contract still have 717 rates and are they better than the F100s or the sam
61 D328: What them getting the proposed Q400x (I think thats it.) Supposed to seat up to around 88-90? They could just put in 72-76 and use the rest for cargo?
62 Flyby519: Ding ding! Usually the almighty dollar is what influences decisions the most at AMR.
63 Justlump: I don't mean any offense here, but I just don't understand why everyone hates ATRs/props so much. Sure they are slower and usually fly at lower altit
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 532 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2278 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2008, 348 posts, 
From South Korea, joined May 2004, 2314 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5894 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4204 posts, 
Without knowing the airline's plans in advance, all we can do is assume and conjecture. It is the nature of forums 
From Barbados, joined Aug 2003, 369 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
