Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CO Q400 Vs. ATR  
User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 2058 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9130 times:

I know CO Express used to operate the ATR 42 up until the very early 2000s and I know Cape Air uses them for CO Connection out of GUM. Why did CO (or Colgan) choose the Q400 instead of the ATR 72? Reading the article about AA ditching their ATRs made me wonder. I miss the ATRs in CO colors because they were the first aircraft I rode on that was CO and practically moved to Texas in it!


Go coogs! \n//
42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAeroBlogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9127 times:

The Q400 is faster than the ATR. BBD also claims that it is more fuel efficient and quieter. Not sure about the cost of ownership, but I'd think that the Q is a better aircraft to own.

Also, ATRs cannot be operated in areas with icing issues due to some safety issues with the de-icing mechanism. The Q gives more flexibility about operating area.



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9087 times:

Quoting AeroBlogger (Reply 1):
Not sure about the cost of ownership, but I'd think that the Q is a better aircraft to own.

Compared to the ATR? I would have my doubts about that. The ATR costs about $7 million (roughly 25%) less to buy and may be more fuel efficient as well. It seems to me that the Dash 8 has a small sweet spot where the flights are long enough for the speed advantage over the ATR to matter but short enough for the speed disadvantage to jets to not matter.

My guess is that the Q400 is best used in a fleet alongside the ATR-72 with an airline (like CO) that has a highly restrictive scope clause. It's a good way to get a rather high number of "almost jet" seats into a market at a reasonable cost. Airlines with less restrictive scope are probably better served by using 70 seat jets instead.

Quoting AeroBlogger (Reply 1):
Also, ATRs cannot be operated in areas with icing issues due to some safety issues with the de-icing mechanism. The Q gives more flexibility about operating area.

First Air seems to have no problems, and environments don't get much colder than that. The decision to move ATRs to Dallas and San Juan and go all jet at ORD was largely a knee-jerk reaction by AA. In reality, ATRs seem to have few issues operating in colder climates.

[Edited 2011-12-21 22:07:27]


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAcey559 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9058 times:

Quoting AeroBlogger (Reply 1):
Also, ATRs cannot be operated in areas with icing issues due to some safety issues with the de-icing mechanism. The Q gives more flexibility about operating area.

There were a number of reasons that flight ended up the way it did, and not many, if any, can be attributed to the aircraft itself.


User currently offlineSuperDash From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 574 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8996 times:

At Horizon when we looked at both planes we found the Q400 had a lower cost of operation above 200 miles. The speed advantage (and cost advantage) of the Q400 really kicked in against the ATR on sectors over 1:00. Shorter trips the ATR had a slight advantage. The Q400 has a larger mission envelope (length of haul in terms of pax comfort) and the plane has more seats. With its front door loading the Q400 can fit easier (less space requirement) into more airport environments (without swinging the airplane around to fit a jetway on the back). That's my take on the plane, and I have no idea if that's what made CO buy the plane. Both are good airplanes.

User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 547 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8936 times:

Quoting SuperDash (Reply 4):
With its front door loading the Q400 can fit easier (less space requirement) into more airport environments (without swinging the airplane around to fit a jetway on the back).

I can't imagine trying to use the ATR extensively at EWR for exactly that reason... and walking around outside at EWR in the winter... eek.


User currently offlineHOMSAr From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8935 times:

In the US, the Q400 seems to be the clear winner this last decade, but hasn't the new ATR series been pretty much kicking the Q400's butt in the rest of the world for orders in the past couple of years?


I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineEWRandMDW From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 416 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8625 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Thread starter):
Quoting TWA772LR (Thread starter):
I know CO Express used to operate the ATR 42 up until the very early 2000s and I know Cape Air uses them for CO Connection out of GUM. Why did CO (or Colgan) choose the Q400 instead of the ATR 72?

CO DID operate ATR 72s. I recall them flying out of EWR in the 1990s. So CO was able to do a direct comparison between the 72s and the Q400s and I guess for the planned missions the Qs were found superior.


User currently offlineflyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8573 times:

Quoting AeroBlogger (Reply 1):
Also, ATRs cannot be operated in areas with icing issues due to some safety issues with the de-icing mechanism. The Q gives more flexibility about operating area.

False. The aircraft is quite capable of operating in icing conditions, and many carriers outside of the US use it in cold climates. The Roselawn crash was the result of many factors, mainly entering a holding pattern in moderate-severe icing conditions with the flaps extended and failing to monitor the ice accretion.

I'd say the Q400 has been such a success in the USA because of its ability to replace 50seaters on short haul segments. The Q doesnt lose much in terms of speed compared to a 50seater, and the fuel burn is much less than a jet, especially on the short flights.

But the Q400 compared to the ATR are very different beasts. ATR is slower, but burns less fuel than the Q and hauls much more payload, and a fraction of the purchase price. It is better suited for improvised landing strips and un-supported operations. I would love to see a resurgence of the ATR in the USA, and I hope Eagle/Executive can get their plans in order to do it.

[Edited 2011-12-22 05:11:22]


These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
User currently offlineacelanzarote From Spain, joined Nov 2005, 831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8556 times:

But the ATR72´s from the 1900´s are nothing like the ones being built now!


from the Island with sun and great photo's.. Why not visit Lanzarote
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2191 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8502 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Doesn't the Q400 normally have 10 more seats than the ATR-72, 78 vs 68 or 74 vs 64 etc...? I assume an extra 10 seats comes in handy in the very competitive US aviation industry and thus makes the Q400 more attractive.


Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23021 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8482 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
The decision to move ATRs to Dallas and San Juan and go all jet at ORD was largely a knee-jerk reaction by AA.

It was largely - if not exclusively - a competitive move so they could hold "all jets" over UA's head, as UA didn't go all jet until ZK pulled out, which was a couple of years after MQ went all-jet. It had little or nothing to do with Roselawn. The AT7s flew at ORD for at least 4 years after Roselawn (the newest picture in the database of an AT7 at ORD is dated January, 1999 and Roselawn was October, 1994).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2790 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8481 times:

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 8):
I would love to see a resurgence of the ATR in the USA, and I hope Eagle/Executive can get their plans in order to do it.

In Spain the ATR72 is the only plane used in the flights in the Canary Islands archipelago. It seems a very reasonable and economical choice. I've always wondered why the large turboprops are not used in Hawai'i, which is so similar to the Canaries.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineflyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8347 times:

Quoting acelanzarote (Reply 9):
But the ATR72
[quote=CRJ900,reply=10]Doesn't the Q400 normally have 10 more seats than the ATR-72, 78 vs 68 or 74 vs 64 etc...? I assume an extra 10 seats comes in handy in the very competitive US aviation industry and thus makes the Q400 more attractive

You can get the ATR without the forward cargo area, which would add enough seats to match the Q400, trading some cargo capacity for pax



These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
User currently offlinerdh3e From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1676 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8237 times:

The newer Q400's are more advanced than the ATR's. The cabin comes with active noise suppression, you wouldn't believe how quiet those next-gen Q4's are unless you've flown in one. I don't know what a typical ATR config is, but at UA/CO the Q4's were 74 seats under CO and are being converted (first one went into service yesterday) to 71 seats, 7F 64Y.

User currently offlineacelanzarote From Spain, joined Nov 2005, 831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8196 times:

But which ATR´s? the ATR-600 has only just come out replacing the ATR72-212A. I have not flown a Dash 8-400 so cannot comment on them, but certainly think the new ATR´s are a lot quieter than any Dash 8-200/300 I ever flew on.
There is a big difference between the orginal ATR72 and the new builds now
Also the order book for the ATR72 and Dash8 says a lot......



from the Island with sun and great photo's.. Why not visit Lanzarote
User currently offlinebaje427 From Barbados, joined Jul 2011, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8170 times:

ATR has had a record sales year (137) the same cant be said for the Q400 (21) my guess is the Q400 is more of a niche aircraft unless you want the speed the ATR is the obvious choice.

User currently offlinekonrad From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8113 times:

From passengers perspective:

Dash Q400 - almost a jet, but more space inside compared to CRJ
ATR 72 - feels and rides like a school-bus, -600 possibly a bit better

From an airline perspective:

Dash Q400 - expensive to buy and operate (fuel&maintenance)
ATR 72 - cheap to acquire and operate (well, it's a school-bus, it's hard to break and it drives slow)


User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8006 times:

The ATR is more economical to operate but the Q400 is faster, so it depends on your requirements.
I dare say the ATR is more reliable too.

If you look at the sales to answer your question then the ATR wins.


User currently offlinerdh3e From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1676 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7970 times:

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 18):
If you look at the sales to answer your question then the ATR wins.

Hasn't the slow production of Q4's been a real drag on their sales? I didn't think there were many slots available within a recent timeframe, which would discourage new orders if someone can get an ATR sooner.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7961 times:

Quoting EWRandMDW (Reply 7):
CO DID operate ATR 72s. I recall them flying out of EWR in the 1990s



Used them at IAH as well, what a pig....loaded on a hot day, forget about a vertical speed unless it was in a descent!!  



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7949 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UALWN (Reply 12):
In Spain the ATR72 is the only plane used in the flights in the Canary Islands archipelago. It seems a very reasonable and economical choice. I've always wondered why the large turboprops are not used in Hawai'i, which is so similar to the Canaries.

The Cape Verde archipelago also.

And ATRs are flown as far east as DKR -- 644 km over open ocean.


User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7916 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 20):
Used them at IAH as well, what a pig....loaded on a hot day, forget about a vertical speed unless it was in a descent!!

I think you will find today's version a lot more capable than a variant from 20 years ago.   


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7670 times:

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 22):
I think you will find today's version a lot more capable than a variant from 20 years ago.



It would appear the quote was referring to the 1990's, thus the reply.   

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 8):
I'd say the Q400 has been such a success in the USA because of its ability to replace 50seaters on short haul segments. The Q doesnt lose much in terms of speed compared to a 50seater, and the fuel burn is much less than a jet, especially on the short flights.



Block times are very similar on legs of about 500 NM or less for the Q400 when compared to an RJ.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 547 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7534 times:

The Q400 is an excellent plane to fly on, and ridiculously quiet for a turboprop of that size. Just fly PQ sometime to see how nice it can be.

I'm wondering if part of The Q400's relatively regional popularity has anything to do with Bombardier's sales network? They're a Canadian company with much wider distribution in the anglo world than ATR...

But regardless, I'd hardly call the Q400 a flop -- over 400 orders to date. That's barely behind the ATR-72, and in half the amount of time in production!


25 Post contains images NWAROOSTER : What type of anti-icing system is used on the ATR-72 and the Q-400? Do they both use rubber boots on the wings leading edge or do they use engine ble
26 flyby519 : Boots, I am not aware of any turboprops that have a hot wing design[Edited 2011-12-22 13:12:40]
27 Post contains images tsugambler : THIS!! I've never flown on a Q400, but I HATE flying on American Eagle's ATR-72s out of DFW. It's the only aircraft on which I've ever gotten so airs
28 L1011 : Why can't today's small props and regional jets that have 2 x 2 seating have a cabin the size of the Convair 440 and Martin 4-0-4? They were very comf
29 abrown532 : I've always preferred the DHC8 over any ATR, the cabin is so much nicer inside IMO
30 737-990 : This year I flew both the ATR-72-500 on Cebu Pacific and the Q400 on Horizon AIr. From a passenger comfort level they were both about equal. Though I
31 prebennorholm : Then where would you put the checked baggage? The ATR has no underfloor room for baggage. The modern prop planes all have 2 x 2 seating and are gener
32 Post contains images BMI727 : Probably more to do with scope clauses. The Q400 is really a plane that is best used when you'd rather use a jet but can't. Passengers don't get to b
33 baje427 : Has the reliability of the Q400 improved? and does anyone know how has the aircraft has worked for CO?
34 N766UA : And the ATR's get plenty of ice down in DFW! It's not an issue.
35 atct : Ive worked both old and new ATR's and Q400's. As a controller, the Q400 is a better aircraft hands down. The new ATR's are still pigs. A pig to me is
36 Metrojet732 : Personally, I would rather fly the Q400 than any version of the CRJ and even the ERJ. (unless I got the single seat) When flying, I never fly Delta ca
37 Post contains images TWA772LR : Ditto! I hate the CRJ-200! Whenever I go home to IAH from DFW I ALMOST ALWAYS choose the Q400, not only because of timing, but comfort. If I need to
38 Post contains images migair54 : Do you think airlines care about that?? for a Short sector(1 hour flight) at the end of the leg the difference could be not even 10 mins... An ATR ca
39 Post contains links flyby519 : Rear C4 baggage area: (hard to see, but you can get the idea- http://www.atraircraft.com/media/atr...ema72-500_couleur_avion-small.jpg)
40 rdh3e : It's improved. Yes, or BBD wouldn't be marketing that you can "dispatch the Q4 as a jet and avoid the prop routings." (my paraphrasing them).
41 Larshjort : It's not very big, I would say it's about half the size of a CRJ-200 cargo compartment, so you would be leaving a lot of baggage. /Lars
42 atct : Actually with American, they do. Ever wonder why the Saab 340 is a large for wake purposes and a small for weight classification? Thank American Airl
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...
The Q400 Versus ATR-72 posted Tue Dec 14 2010 04:53:38 by LPSHobby
Any Update On CO Q400 Destinations From IAH posted Sun Nov 14 2010 13:46:19 by dsuairptman
Holding Co. One Vs Multiple Brands. posted Tue Oct 5 2010 18:07:51 by WROORD
CO Q400's Back To CLE posted Sun Jul 25 2010 21:21:35 by MasseyBrown
FireTrucks Around CO Q400 At IAD 7/29? posted Wed Jul 30 2008 10:03:56 by Bingo
CO Q400 Ship Numbers posted Fri May 9 2008 19:13:03 by JBLUA320
CO And VS posted Sat Mar 8 2008 18:09:08 by ContinentalEWR
CO Q400 In Timetable posted Sun Dec 30 2007 18:49:24 by RocANDtpa
CO Q400 Status? posted Mon Nov 26 2007 08:47:10 by RL757PVD
ERJ-135 Vs. DASH-Q300 Vs. ATR-42-500 posted Thu Oct 20 2005 06:20:44 by MD90fan