ExpressPhl
Topic Author
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:01 am

Piedmont And The Q400

Sat Sep 22, 2007 11:14 pm

I was just wondering with all the problems SAS has been having with with their Q400's does anyone think US might change their mind and consider ATR's if they decide to order any new props?




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Luc Willems
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carlos Aleman - SJU Aviation Photography

 
freshlove1
Posts: 1245
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:38 pm

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:43 am

The ATR is no better. They are an accident waiting to happen in even just the slightest icing conditions.
 
SkyexRamper
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:17 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:52 am

Quoting Freshlove1 (Reply 1):
They are an accident waiting to happen in even just the slightest icing conditions.

Yeah, that was so back in the 80s and 90s. Because of all those troubles, the de-ice boots were redesigned to give more coverage aft of the leading edge.
Good Luck to all Skyway Pilots! It's been great working with you!
 
Flying-Tiger
Posts: 3923
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 1999 5:35 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:54 am

Quoting Freshlove1 (Reply 1):
The ATR is no better. They are an accident waiting to happen in even just the slightest icing conditions.

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. The ATRs have been operating in Finnland and Russia for years not without any major incident.
Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11368
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:38 am

It's all about perception. There's a perception in this country that the ATR is unsafe in cold conditions. It's unfair. It's empirically false. However, it exists nevertheless. I doubt we will ever see a carrier in the U.S. place an order for new ATRs. ATR fans can moan all they want about how rotten that fact is, but it's a fact.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
thegreatchecko
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:34 pm

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:42 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 4):
It's all about perception. There's a perception in this country that the ATR is unsafe in cold conditions. It's unfair. It's empirically false. However, it exists nevertheless. I doubt we will ever see a carrier in the U.S. place an order for new ATRs. ATR fans can moan all they want about how rotten that fact is, but it's a fact.

Basically, its the same thing thats happening in Europe with the Q400. The US will be a Q400 market and Europe an ATR one. Its probably not going to change no matter how great the airplanes become.

Checko
"A pilot's plane she is. She will love you if you deserve it, and try to kill you if you don't...She is the Mighty Q400"
 
mu2
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:16 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:13 am

It will come down to what's on sale or what they can find used. That's just how PDT works. I put up with it every day.
 
doug_or
Posts: 3118
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 9:55 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:21 am

I doubt they'll get either, but if anything, this will increase the chance they'll get Q400s. Delivery slots should be easier to come by, prices should be lower, and aircraft will be easier to find for lease.

remember, this is the compant that replaced 200s with slower, less reliable, older, weight restricted -100s becuase they were able to get better lease rates.
When in doubt, one B pump off
 
DashTrash
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:44 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:21 am

Quoting Mu2 (Reply 6):
It will come down to what's on sale or what they can find used. That's just how PDT works. I put up with it every day.

You're not kidding on that one....
 
malaysia
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 3:26 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:02 am

EN needs the Q400, they do well in the US and I think maintenance in SBY is a bit more reliable, they can keep 100s flying safely though
There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
 
SkyexRamper
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:17 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:39 am

Quoting Mu2 (Reply 6):
It will come down to what's on sale or what they can find used. That's just how PDT works.

That is how all airlines operate. What airplanes they can get the cheapest and fast enough.
Good Luck to all Skyway Pilots! It's been great working with you!
 
mu2
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:16 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:44 pm

Quoting Skyexramper (Reply 10):
That is how all airlines operate. What airplanes they can get the cheapest and fast enough.

I don't think you understand Piedmont. If they had a choice between a Q400 for $10 or a old beat-up Beech 99 for $9 they would go with the 99 for sure. It doesn't take 10 years to get new airplanes. This place is a joke!!!
 
RW170
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:06 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:09 am

Since they are a wholly-owned of US, isn't it up to US whether or not they get new aircraft? I've seen Piedmont pilots on the US Crew News videos asking Doug Parker about new aircraft, and he always says they're "evaluating it."
319/320/321/712/733/734/735/73G/738/752/753/763/CR2/CR9/DH8/135/145/170/175/190/D9S/D94/D95/M82/M83/M88
 
ca2ohHP
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:14 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:11 am

Quoting RW170 (Reply 12):
Since they are a wholly-owned of US, isn't it up to US whether or not they get new aircraft? I've seen Piedmont pilots on the US Crew News videos asking Doug Parker about new aircraft, and he always says they're "evaluating it."

Yes this has been ongoing. Following the "new" Airbus order in Paris, they supposedly were looking at the ATR or Q400 for the wholly-owned. There are scope issues that would need to be sorted out as well, and it has probably been delayed by the seniority arbitration. From what I understand the ATR has a lower acquisition cost and burns quite a bit less fuel, so based on that I could see Parker going with the ATR.
 
RW170
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:06 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:12 am

Quoting Ca2ohHP (Reply 13):

I can already see the news headlines now if US were to put the ATR into service in the northeast/midwest... "US Airways Puts Passengers in Danger with Icy, Crash-Prone Turboprop."  banghead  The news media would jump all over the fact that American relegated the ATR's to warmer climates after the Roselawn crash.
319/320/321/712/733/734/735/73G/738/752/753/763/CR2/CR9/DH8/135/145/170/175/190/D9S/D94/D95/M82/M83/M88
 
toltommy
Posts: 2463
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:04 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:32 am

Quoting ExpressPhl (Thread starter):
I was just wondering with all the problems SAS has been having with with their Q400's does anyone think US might change their mind and consider ATR's if they decide to order any new props?



Quoting Freshlove1 (Reply 1):
The ATR is no better. They are an accident waiting to happen in even just the slightest icing conditions.



Quoting SkyexRamper (Reply 2):
Yeah, that was so back in the 80s and 90s. Because of all those troubles, the de-ice boots were redesigned to give more coverage aft of the leading edge.

So ATR can fix the problem that killed a planeload of people, but somehow Bombardier can't fix an equally serious problem? Is that what you are saying ExpressPHL? I still have more faith in Bombardier. For that matter, I have more faith in Piedmont's oldest Dash than I do in the newest ATR. Especially out of PHL!
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:22 am

Quoting Freshlove1 (Reply 1):
The ATR is no better. They are an accident waiting to happen in even just the slightest icing conditions.

ATR launch customer Cimber Air (established 1950) has now operated the ATR for 22 years (replacing VFW-614, F-28 and Nord 262). Presently they perform roughly 100 ATR ops per day year around in probably the most icing prone area in the world, Scandinavia, Britain and northern Germany. The same cold and wet climate which produced rust on the Q400 faster than anywhere else in the world.

They fly more today because these days SAS leases all their spare capacity to partially substitute their Q400 ops.

I never heard that Cimber Air should have had any problems. They tell us that regularity is 99%. I'm not sure that I have ever flow with them and seen the ground or a blue sky. 9 months a year their ATRs spend the bulk of the time flying short routes at fairly low altitude mostly through ice building clouds.

I tried to search for any Cimber Air problems during their 57 years. Airdisaster.com said: Your query, Cimber, produced no results. Please try again.

I did not try again. It is waste of time to search for Cimber Air on Airdisaster.com

I hear Cimber Air ATRs coming over my house all the time - 20 miles off CPH. But mostly I don't see them because they are working their way through ice building clouds.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11368
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:12 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 16):
I tried to search for any Cimber Air problems during their 57 years. Airdisaster.com said: Your query, Cimber, produced no results. Please try again.

Another decent crude measure of the reliability of the ATR is the production list. Of the first 30 ATRs delivered to carriers, 22 are still in service today. Of the first 30 320s delivered to carriers (in roughly the same timeframe), only 15 are still in service. If the 320 is a 'good airplane' (I'd say most everyone agrees that it is), the ATR is just as robust.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:04 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 17):
Another decent crude measure of the reliability of the ATR is the production list. Of the first 30 ATRs delivered to carriers, 22 are still in service today. Of the first 30 320s delivered to carriers (in roughly the same timeframe), only 15 are still in service. If the 320 is a 'good airplane' (I'd say most everyone agrees that it is), the ATR is just as robust.

Dear Cubsrule, I see your point, and it certainly doesn't disprove that the ATR is considered a dependable workhorse by many regional airlines around the world.

But fortunately it does not tell the story that 8 of the first ATR have crashed as well as 15 320s.

When so many more early 320s have been retired, then there are more reasons than just plane reliability.

The first couple of hundred 320 were dilivered with CFM56-5A engines, a minimum modification of the CFM56-2 which was used on KC-135R and DC-8-7x.

From around 1994/1995 the 320 was delivered with CFM56-5B which is a much improved engine. Also engine / plane interface was completely changed making re-engining very costly or almost impossible.

That has made those early 320 an oddball in many fleets. Only few planes, and fuel thirsty, shorter range, and different maintenance procedures compared to modern 320s with CFM56-5B.

On the other hand those old 320s were/are a valueable spare parts store. Engines or at least most engine part can be used on a DC-8-7x which swallows a goose or whatever with an engine long time out of production. And of course the rest of the plane is an almost complete spare parts pile for the rest of the 320.

Therefore, when those old, first generation 320 reach time for a D check, then they are in great danger for being retired by the bean counters for parting out, and being replaceed by new or newer 320s which can be sheduled together with the rest of the fleet and be maintaned by the same people. And as an extra bonus a little fuel is saved.

I'm pretty sure that the bulk of the retired, early 320 not flying today died that way.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11368
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:54 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 18):
But fortunately it does not tell the story that 8 of the first ATR have crashed as well as 15 320s.

Indeed not. I count 2 320s that crashed in that group (F-GFKC, which crashed on climbout from BSL in 1988 and F-GGED, which crashed in 1992 on approach to SXB) and 2 crashed ATRs (F-OHFV, which crashed IIRC in Serbia while en route CIA-PRN and PT-MTS, which crashed under somewhat murky circumstances while on a ferry flight in Brazil in 2002).

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 18):
When so many more early 320s have been retired, then there are more reasons than just plane reliability.

It's an imperfect comparison for more obvious reasons as well. Other things being equal, ATRs are going to have far more cycles than a similarly-aged 320.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
ca2ohHP
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:14 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:04 am

Quoting RW170 (Reply 14):
The news media would jump all over the fact that American relegated the ATR's to warmer climates after the Roselawn crash.

So I guess you wouldn't trust a DC-10 then either? Or a Q400's landing gear? Or a loose leading edge bolt on a 737-800?
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:47 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 19):
Other things being equal, ATRs are going to have far more cycles than a similarly-aged 320.

That's right. At least for some of them.

But at least here in Europe many 320 family planes fly surprisingly short routes all the time. Twice this year I have been on a roundtrip CPH-ARN on 321 - that's a 50-55 minutes jump. I have flown 321 domestic in Finland, and 319 CPH-ZRH, also only a tiny fraction of the range capability of those planes.

In fact, if we exclude one 757 roundtrip, then my longest distance flight so far this year was on an ERJ-170.

There are thousands of sub-90 minutes 32x flights in Europe each day.

The ATRs accumulate more cycles, yes. But comparing to many 32x planes, then the ATRs do not accumulate FAR more cycles.

Also because when the day is over, then the ATRs are parked until next morning. While a 320 or 321 plane, which has done several small trips during the day, may take on a quite long charter flight during nighttime.

Many 32x planes will accumulate almost as many cycles as a typical ATR, and many more hours.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
RW170
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:06 am

RE: Piedmont And The Q400

Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:56 am

Quoting Ca2ohHP (Reply 20):
Quoting RW170 (Reply 14):
The news media would jump all over the fact that American relegated the ATR's to warmer climates after the Roselawn crash.

So I guess you wouldn't trust a DC-10 then either? Or a Q400's landing gear? Or a loose leading edge bolt on a 737-800?

I was being cynical and making fun of the press and their lack of aviation knowledge. I didn't say that I'm afraid of the ATR.
319/320/321/712/733/734/735/73G/738/752/753/763/CR2/CR9/DH8/135/145/170/175/190/D9S/D94/D95/M82/M83/M88

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AirbusOnly, AsiaTravel, Baidu [Spider], CCFA, coolian2, factsonly, GCT64, KarelXWB, nitepilot79, Pie11e, reltney, sailsman1, SCQ83, UAL777UK, User001, Yahoo [Bot] and 202 guests