Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Q400 Versus ATR-72  
User currently offlineLPSHobby From Brazil, joined May 2007, 191 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 21711 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I know the ATR-72-600 has a better fuel consumption and the Q400 is faster, but its price is higher. What do you think about a comparison between these 2 planes? the same for Q300 x ATR-42-600

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebj87 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 21676 times:

It all depends on what you want. If you want a turboprop to replace a regional jet then the Bombardier is your plane, fast, can fly longer distances in an acceptable time frame, silent and in my opinion not bad looking either.

If you want a plane to do some short trips with a light load and land on a short runway then you are better of with an ATR, cheaper to run and the fact that it gets overtaken in flight by a flock of geese is not an issue.

Other than that it is just a game of fleet commonality and getting the best deal. If you already own a fleet of CRJ's then the Q300/400 is probably the more attractive option. However if you just want a good price for a plane that doesn't have to fly very far then the ATR would be an attractive option.


User currently offlineMBJ2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 21550 times:

Quoting bj87 (Reply 1):
the fact that it gets overtaken in flight by a flock of geese is not an issue.

Thanks, you made my day!      



Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
User currently offlineLPSHobby From Brazil, joined May 2007, 191 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 21548 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

the Q400 is acceptable too be used instead of jets in flight of how much hours? 2 hours, 3 hours? the break-even of the Q400 is much higher than the one of the ATR-72?

User currently offline9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 20992 times:

Quoting LPSHobby (Thread starter):
What do you think about a comparison between these 2 planes? the same for Q300 x ATR-42-600

This comparison may be pointless as the DH Q300 is no longer in production.


User currently offlineNASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 20878 times:

Quoting LPSHobby (Reply 3):
the break-even of the Q400 is much higher than the one of the ATR-72?

Perhaps, but I feel that both aircraft serve similar and different missions. The Q400 can be used as an efficient feeder for the mainline carriers, operating between hub and spoke quickly, (relatively) quietly, and inexpensively. The key word here, however, is quickly. This is why the Q400 has been successful in replacing RJs on shorter routes (mainly segments of 500NM or less). After that, the cost advantage becomes smaller between the two types. An ATR (42 or 72) can also be an effective piece of equipment for the same mission. However, speed is often sacrificed. I'll admit that I haven't seen much of the performance specs of the ATR-600 series; I know that their powerplants have been upgraded. On a very short flight, I suppose the ATR might win that battle, but on longer legs where both airplanes' legs are stretched, the ATR would probably fall short on some airlines' expectations.

The ATR's strengths are chiefly its capacity and operational efficiency. The ATR is probably cheaper to operate, and can haul a whole lotta stuff - and do it all from a short field. The Q400, while powerful, needs a lot more runway (fully loaded) when compared to its older and smaller siblings - and of course, the ATR series. I feel uncertain about the -42 series, however. That has a lot to do with CASM, etc. The more seats that are available (at the same or similar cost), the more revenue one can bring in. This is why the ATR-72 (in its history) has been more popular in recent years than the -42.

I guess at the end of the day, it depends on what the customer is looking for in a regional aircraft. Sure, the Q400 could probably take off from Melville Hall, but it would probably take off with only 50 of its 76 seats taken. Sure, the ATR 72 can haul the kitchen sink along with the oversize bags, but on a flight from EWR to RDU, is that necessary? Both have great breakeven numbers...and as far as costs go, keep in mind that both EADS and Bombardier compete fiercely with a potential customer; I sincerely doubt any major operator pays list price for either aircraft   ...not to mention perks.



Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
User currently onlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5457 posts, RR: 30
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 20852 times:

The Q400 is 100 mph faster than the ATR-72 600, has 700 or 800 more range, 8500 ish pounds higher OEW and 20 some thousands pounds higher MTOW. The Q is also 5-7 million dollars more expensive.

Even though they seat the same, they really are aircraft for different applications. The Q is an RJ replacement for less than 1500 mile segments. According to Wiki, Hawaii claims that break even is 55% load factors, a significant improvement over the RJ's over the same routes...without a significant time penalty.

On head to head routes, the ATR will save money on purchase price and fuel consumption, but the range and speed limits its versatility.

Still, both are selling and are looking at further stretches.



What the...?
User currently offlineAirNovaBAe146 From Canada, joined Jun 2008, 362 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 20601 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 6):

Still, both are selling and are looking at further stretches.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the Q500, perhaps a 86- 90-seater with the speed characteristics and quietness of the Q400.

I'd be elated if the engineers from Bombardier came out with a 100-seat version, perhaps the Q600!


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 926 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 20446 times:

Quoting AirNovaBAe146 (Reply 7):
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the Q500, perhaps a 86- 90-seater with the speed characteristics and quietness of the Q400.

They could not sell Q200s and Q300s so they shut those lines down. They are now at best making 50-55 Q400s a year. What makes you think the Q500 is worth investing in? It is a bad idea like the CRJ1000



Only the paranoid survive
User currently onlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5457 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 20364 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 8):

They could not sell Q200s and Q300s so they shut those lines down. They are now at best making 50-55 Q400s a year. What makes you think the Q500 is worth investing in? It is a bad idea like the CRJ1000

I think we are in a transition phase from RJ's to T-Props on shorter ranges. The latter are more economical on head to head comparisons and will be more interesting to operators as props regain their acceptance. On flights up to 3 hours, they really can't be beaten. They just made their first sale to an Indian airline so that opens up another market.

At closer to 100 seats, their economics should be even better.

I suspect that as more RJ's get retired, a good proportion of them will be replaced by bit turbo props.



What the...?
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 20060 times:

Apart from the obvious differences in speed, the ATR is better at hauling cargo, while the Q400 is sized more to carry business people with carry-ons and such. This is one of the reasons why the ATR is so popular for island flights, as they tend to carry cargo as well as pax. Shorter takeoff length helps too if the island has a short runway.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 6):

Even though they seat the same, they really are aircraft for different applications.

That pretty much sums it up. The fact that they seat the same pax tends to make people compare them head-to-head, but they have somewhat different missions. Depending on the route network of your airline, one or the other will work out better for you.


User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 20029 times:

The Q400 is night and day faster, and has a quieter cabin, also no weight and balance issues. It is a true RJ replacement....


Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineNimish From India, joined Feb 2005, 3231 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 19982 times:

Given the details on this thread, I'm surprised that SpiceJet did not go for the ATR - as speed is not such an issue in India I would imagine (regional routes are typically less than an hour of flying where 50 vs. 60 mins is not much different). Cost is a significant factor in India, and if the ATR is say 30% more cost efficient for the same payload with higher noise and time taken, I would imagine ATR will always win. Sounds to me like SpiceJet probably got a price similar to ATR, just to break into the market - would that be a reasonable expectation?


Latest Trip Report - GoAir BLR-BOM-BLR
User currently offlinemiller22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 718 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 19640 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 6):
Even though they seat the same, they really are aircraft for different applications.

Just to clear up this misconception, the two aircraft certainly do not seat the same. The Q400 is about 8-10 seats larger which is north of 10%. Continental get's 74 seats in the Q400 at 31-32" while American Eagle gets 64 seats at 30" pitch.

10 seats is a big deal when you're only talking a total of 64.


User currently onlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5457 posts, RR: 30
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 19474 times:

Quoting miller22 (Reply 13):

Just to clear up this misconception, the two aircraft certainly do not seat the same. The Q400 is about 8-10 seats larger which is north of 10%. Continental get's 74 seats in the Q400 at 31-32" while American Eagle gets 64 seats at 30" pitch.

A quick search among various airline sites shows seating up to 70, ATR says up to 74. I have been on Bankok Air's ATR72-500's, where they seat 70 quite comfortably...at least I was comfortable and I ain't exactly teeny.



What the...?
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25300 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 19400 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14):
Quoting miller22 (Reply 13):

Just to clear up this misconception, the two aircraft certainly do not seat the same. The Q400 is about 8-10 seats larger which is north of 10%. Continental get's 74 seats in the Q400 at 31-32" while American Eagle gets 64 seats at 30" pitch.

A quick search among various airline sites shows seating up to 70, ATR says up to 74. I have been on Bankok Air's ATR72-500's, where they seat 70 quite comfortably...at least I was comfortable and I ain't exactly teeny.

Iberia's regional partner, Air Nostrum, has 74 seats on their ATR-72s. LH Regional has 68. Kingfisher Airlines has 66. Seating depends on the carrier's layout, galley equipment, seat pitch etc.


User currently offlineCEO@AFG From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 245 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 19382 times:

One issue the ATR 72 has is cargo space. It's a lot smaller than what you get on the Q400. The Q400 has a small compartment at the front next to the lav. and a very large compartment at the rear. The ATR has a medium sized compartment aft of the cockpit and infront of the passenger cabin, and a small compartment at the rear next to the lav.

The cargo area was never enlarged when the ATR 72 was developed as a stretch version of the ATR 42, and must be its achilles heel in some sales campaigns where the ATR has lost to the Q400.



"Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue." Steven McCroskey, Airplane!
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 926 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 19063 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
I think we are in a transition phase from RJ's to T-Props on shorter ranges.

Are there any studies that indicate that? Quite a bit of turboprops have been removed from service in the US. Including Q400s

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
They just made their first sale to an Indian airline so that opens up another market.

Sure. But as I have always said, turboprops are great for markets where surface transportation can not better compete. India is building its infrastructures such as highways and intercity rail, so in the meantime they will use turboprops. Just like a while back in Europe and US where those markets are now mature for turboprops and in fact the fleet size are shrinking.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
At closer to 100 seats, their economics should be even better.

ATR and Bombardier are stuck at about 100 or so units a year, what makes you think that there is a large enough market out there to warrant the development of a bigger plane and a bigger engine by PW? You are right that the cost per seat mile of a 90 or 100 seat turboprop would be better, but is there a market out there large enough to justify the engineering resources that will be required to build the engine and airframe?



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offline9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 19023 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 17):
India is building its infrastructures such as highways and intercity rail

Don't know if you've been there,but they have a very established and impressive intercity rail service. Their highways are a bit chaotic though. Turboprops are likely seen as a luxury on routes that wouldn't otherwise see air service.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1884 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 18971 times:

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 11):
The Q400 is night and day faster, and has a quieter cabin,

I flew on both ATR-72-200s and Q400. Q400 is not any quieter, at least I did not notice any difference in noise level while sitting behind the propeller.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 17):
Are there any studies that indicate that? Quite a bit of turboprops have been removed from service in the US.

US does not equal "the world", where majority of 50-seat RJs are replaced by either 70-seat turboprops on shorter segments or 90-100 seat jets on longer ones. An example from my home turf: if LO survives, their long term plan is to get rid of all E-170s and fly 82-seat E-175s and 115-seat E-195s, alongside 70 - seat turboprops (the replacement for their ATRs is yet to be decided on).

In US alone, most notable examples is Alaska/Horizon Air and Continental/Colgan Air. North of the border you have Air Canada, which is following the footsteps of Porter Airways.

The only reason why 50 and 70-seat RJs are alive and well in United States are the union scope clauses.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently onlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5457 posts, RR: 30
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 18936 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 17):
Are there any studies that indicate that? Quite a bit of turboprops have been removed from service in the US. Including Q400s

It is my opinion...that's why I said "I think".

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 17):

Sure. But as I have always said, turboprops are great for markets where surface transportation can not better compete. India is building its infrastructures such as highways and intercity rail, so in the meantime they will use turboprops. Just like a while back in Europe and US where those markets are now mature for turboprops and in fact the fleet size are shrinking.

The same can be said for any RJ as well. The 1500 mile range of the Q400 covers most of Europe from LHR, and large swaths of any other continent, in just over 3 hours. Paris to Rome by train is a 15 hour trip. India doesn't have the infrastructure for high speed trains...yet, their current trains are packed...including the roofs...and their roads are a mess at the best of times. India definitely has room for more domestic airline routes and frequencies. There will always be advantages for one form of transport over another.

Trains are primarily competition to cars on shorter routes, and are only competition for longer routes where time isn't a factor. There will always be people who want to go somewhere fast.

Smaller turbo props are fading from use but the larger ones are doing fine...just like what happened to the smaller RJ's.

Frontier is dropping the Q's, (they inherited the few they had from Lynx), but Horizon keeps getting more. In fact they will soon have an all Q400 fleet. Colgan is adding more Q's as well.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 17):
ATR and Bombardier are stuck at about 100 or so units a year, what makes you think that there is a large enough market out there to warrant the development of a bigger plane and a bigger engine by PW? You are right that the cost per seat mile of a 90 or 100 seat turboprop would be better, but is there a market out there large enough to justify the engineering resources that will be required to build the engine and airframe?

What makes me think it is that both BBD and ATR are currently studying the concept. They wouldn't waste their time and resources if they didn't think there was at least the possibility of a market.

If there's a market for 100 seat jets, there is probably a market for 100 seat T-props with near jet speeds, range and 30% operational savings, as well as a cheaper purchase price.



What the...?
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 18303 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 17):

ATR and Bombardier are stuck at about 100 or so units a year, what makes you think that there is a large enough market out there to warrant the development of a bigger plane and a bigger engine by PW?

The market is clearly shifted towards the 70-seats range, with the Q300 out of production and the ATR-42 selling just a handful per year. If only by statistical distribution, this means that if a hypothetical 90-seater existed within these a/c families, there would be a demand for it.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 17):
You are right that the cost per seat mile of a 90 or 100 seat turboprop would be better, but is there a market out there large enough to justify the engineering resources that will be required to build the engine and airframe?

The Q400X would be a "simple" stretch, therefore I believe the relatively modest investment needed would certainly pay off. Now that the CRK is delivered, BBD should go for a Q400X next, IMO.
But ATR is going even further and talking about an all-new turboprop around 90-100 seats for around 2015-16. So they certainly believe there is a market if they are willling to commit to a full new a/c program.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 19):
I flew on both ATR-72-200s and Q400. Q400 is not any quieter, at least I did not notice any difference in noise level while sitting behind the propeller.

Careful with noise comparisons. The difference between the old ATR -200 series and the newer -500 series is immense. Also, I believe the NextGen Qseries is quieter than the Dash8-400 "classic". Between Q400NG and ATR-500, I wouldn't know which is quieter, but if only by engine power it should be the ATR.


User currently offlineTrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 931 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 17976 times:

I dont have any information from a technical stand point but I can sure say from a controllers stand point I have seen a significant jump in turbo prop flights. I work east bound departure sectors out of Chicago and before we would see a few Porter flights going to Toronto. Now we see more of those, even inbounds coming our way, Colgan now flies to CLE out of ORD.
For a turbo prop those Q400's are very respectable as well. They climb quickly and actually keep up pretty nicely for a little while with the ERJ145 and CRJ2's until about FL180.


User currently onlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5457 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 17794 times:

Quoting TrnsWrld (Reply 22):

That's a perspective I hadn't considered. It certainly give a different view of things. Thanks.



What the...?
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 926 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 17709 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 19):
US does not equal "the world", where majority of 50-seat RJs are replaced by either 70-seat turboprops on shorter segments or 90-100 seat jets on longer ones. An example from my home turf: if LO survives, their long term plan is to get rid of all E-170s and fly 82-seat E-175s and 115-seat E-195s, alongside 70 - seat turboprops (the replacement for their ATRs is yet to be decided on).

In US alone, most notable examples is Alaska/Horizon Air and Continental/Colgan Air. North of the border you have Air Canada, which is following the footsteps of Porter Airways.

All of what you say still confirms to me a market at best 100 large turboprops a year.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 19):
The only reason why 50 and 70-seat RJs are alive and well in United States are the union scope clauses.

You mean the relaxation to allow their regionals to fly them....like 70 seat turboprops? And what is wrong with a non-mainline pilot flying regionals at a lower rate? Sounds fair to me.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 20):
Smaller turbo props are fading from use but the larger ones are doing fine...just like what happened to the smaller RJ's.

The reason turboprops are getting bigger is because they need to get lower seat mile costs. It is the only way they can exist as the markets for smaller props get threatened and they will also need retirement. With the lower seat-mile costs, airlines can have a competitive alternative to the growing surface transportation systems. That is the only reason they are being stretched.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 20):
They wouldn't waste their time and resources if they didn't think there was at least the possibility of a market.
Quoting r2rho (Reply 21):
Now that the CRK is delivered, BBD should go for a Q400X next,

The CRJ1000 range is at best 1400nm ("still air range in nautical miles"). If BBD makes a Q400X with 100 seats at typical 1200nm range, how do you position and place the two products? Enlighten me.



Only the paranoid survive
25 JoeCanuck : No need to get snarky. Ask the manufacturers...they are the ones spending the cash on research and development. Maybe they are complete morons and ha
26 Tangowhisky : No need to get snarky Joe Because they are for different uses. That is why the 50 and 70 seat RJs have over 800 nm range difference over their sister
27 JoeCanuck : I don't have the answers you seek. The ones who have to justify the investment in the CRJ1000, work for BBD. I assume they did the background and res
28 fuffla : What do you think about ATR42s as a SF230B replacement. Yes, it is a capacity increase of 8 seats however I am quite certain that the performance figu
29 Tangowhisky : The discussion is about should they launch a 90-100 seat turboprop in light of the fact that they have a short range 100 seat CRJ1000. I am not quest
30 9252fly : If that's a question,I would say yes. What remains unknown is will they stretch the current fuselage,or could they as an idea use the same fuselage t
31 Flighty : I would suggest that the 70 seat RJ is an ideal size airplane in the USA for many, many markets. The fuel savings of a Q400 are interesting, but not
32 JoeCanuck : There are advantages to both...that's why jets and props of similar capacities co-exist. One could also wonder why more than one jet of 100 seats exi
33 Tangowhisky : I understand Joe, you have repeated your points over and over. Read my posts, and take particular note of the word "range". Try to put that very impo
34 JoeCanuck : Then prepare for more disappointment. These generalities help explain why someone might choose a T-prop over a jet. If your airline requires 100 seats
35 mrskyguy : The former JetBlue CEO put it smartly and simple: the Dash-8 carries more PAX, but is heavier. The ATR carries less but is lighter.
36 Tangowhisky : Bombardier claimed that the CRJ1000 development cost was going to be around $300M when they announced the launch back in 2007. They have only 2 custom
37 silentbob : I think you will see a lot of CRJ200s replaced by Q400s. You gain potential revenue in the added seats with similar, if not lower, trip costs. So the
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...
Q 400 And ATR 72 Why Not More Orders In The US? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 22:15:15 by Cumulonimbus
Air Tahiti: ATR 42 Or ATR 72 On Tahiti - Moorea? posted Tue Jan 12 2010 14:47:27 by Mortyman
Why The CR7 Over The Q400 For United? posted Sat Dec 5 2009 17:41:31 by PI731
Cockpit Video Onboard DAT ATR-72, SRP-OSL-SRP. posted Wed Nov 18 2009 07:45:39 by Thom@s
Why Don't More US Carriers Fly The Q400? posted Tue Sep 29 2009 13:53:48 by LHCVG
ATR 72 Vs. Fokker 100: Fuselage Width posted Sun May 3 2009 20:56:05 by Brenintw
The Difference In ATR's posted Wed Apr 8 2009 21:45:24 by BrickyardPHL
Air Dolomiti ATR-72 Gear Catches Fire During Taxi posted Mon Aug 25 2008 12:49:04 by Qantas744ER
AA/FL And The Q400 posted Tue Jul 8 2008 06:59:32 by SaabFA71
Has Delta Looked At The Q400? posted Thu Jul 3 2008 23:33:34 by DeltaL1011man
Q 400 And ATR 72 Why Not More Orders In The US? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 22:15:15 by Cumulonimbus
CO Q400 Vs. ATR posted Wed Dec 21 2011 21:43:37 by TWA772LR
Virgin Blue : Q400 Or ATR? posted Mon Jan 10 2011 09:09:01 by titus95
Will The Q400 PF EIS This Month (Oct 10)? posted Sun Oct 24 2010 22:51:23 by OyKIE
Air Tahiti: ATR 42 Or ATR 72 On Tahiti - Moorea? posted Tue Jan 12 2010 14:47:27 by Mortyman
Why The CR7 Over The Q400 For United? posted Sat Dec 5 2009 17:41:31 by PI731
Cockpit Video Onboard DAT ATR-72, SRP-OSL-SRP. posted Wed Nov 18 2009 07:45:39 by Thom@s
Why Don't More US Carriers Fly The Q400? posted Tue Sep 29 2009 13:53:48 by LHCVG
ATR 72 Vs. Fokker 100: Fuselage Width posted Sun May 3 2009 20:56:05 by Brenintw
Air Tahiti: ATR 42 Or ATR 72 On Tahiti - Moorea? posted Tue Jan 12 2010 14:47:27 by Mortyman
Why The CR7 Over The Q400 For United? posted Sat Dec 5 2009 17:41:31 by PI731
Cockpit Video Onboard DAT ATR-72, SRP-OSL-SRP. posted Wed Nov 18 2009 07:45:39 by Thom@s