MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4466 posts, RR: 33
Reply 1, posted (15 years 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1252 times:
I don't really LIKE the ATR's. I guess some chauvinism plays a role; the French were quite rude in pushing the ATR's to third-world countries which actually preferred the Fokker 50. They threatened to put up trade barriers if these carriers didn't buy ATR. Fokker ended up bankrupt while the ATR continues to be built. That's why my feelings about the ATR are lukewarm to say the least.... Yes, I'm Dutch (were Fokker comes from)
The ATR had two de-icing crashes, a problem which could have been solved if ATR didn't try so hard to make the cheapest prop-commuter. Better spend one million more on a better aircraft like ... eh... the Fokker 50.
But everything forgiven and forgotten; these problems are apparently solved, and now I consider it a normal airliner. It's used a lot, efficient but lacking the classy style and athmosphere of real propliners like the Convair, F-27 or the Viscount. Just something which suits airlines nice, does the work it has been bought for, but it's not to be loved, put ATR pictures above your bed etc. With that long thin fuselage it looks a bit like an insect, I must admit.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
Dash8 From New Zealand, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (15 years 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1242 times:
Well, looking at my Username you can see that I prefer the Dash8 model better. I find it sportier looking. I fly it for a living. It has more range and cruises faster also.
I flew the Dash8-400 simulator in Toronto, and I must say it quite fantastic.
You can check out the panel in the foto library.
But I can also see why one would prefer the ATR.
TWA717_200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (15 years 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1250 times:
There's a joke about the ATR: It stands for At Terrible Risk. I have flown on the ATR between STL and MSN and MLI. The seats are horrible. They recline in the MIDDLE of your back. When the gear doors open, it will scare the crap out of you. Sounds like an explosion. The gear is very short so you feel every groove and bump on the runway. However, a very good friend of mine flies the ATR for American Eagle and he seems to be very happy and confortable with the plane. He flew in Puerto Rico for a while and says that it is an outstanding performer on short fields. You can check out their webpage at: http://www.atraircraft.com/index1.htm
Nicolas From Argentina, joined Dec 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (15 years 9 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1228 times:
I flew a few legs on ATR ( AJAMRS / CDGLTN etc ),
as a pax I think it's quite fine; Seat configuration depends on the airlines and de-icing problems has been solved. No one should expect the same confort as you may have in a jet.( Don't say the French are pushing the 3rd world to buy them because the US do the same zith their planes and some american airlines baught some )
As what I heard from pilots, it's easy to pilot.
Stlbham From United States of America, joined May 1999, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (15 years 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1204 times:
I too have flown a few flights on the ATR-72. The flights were on TWE out of St Louis. Like mentioned above the seats are not that comfortable. TWE's are probably going to end their life for the airline soon. Believe it or not the 72s and their ATR-42's are the only aircraft that offer drink and snack service on TWE out of St Louis Overall I prefer them much more than their jetsream's.