User avatar
TWA772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 3801
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:43 am

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!
Beauty is watching a 787 bank to make a short final. Bliss is watching that 787 with a good beer. Nirvana is all of that with a beautiful woman on your side.
 
aeroblogger
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:53 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:47 am

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
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:55 am

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 avatar
Acey559
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:30 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:03 am

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.
 
SuperDash
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 1:52 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:23 am

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.
 
nycdave
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:22 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:38 am

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 avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:38 am

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?
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word, and doesn't even make sense.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
 
EWRandMDW
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:28 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:40 pm

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.
 
flyby519
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:03 pm

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.
 
acelanzarote
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:52 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:10 pm

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
 
CRJ900
Posts: 1945
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:26 pm

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
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11516
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:30 pm

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
 
UALWN
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:31 pm

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/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
flyby519
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:23 pm

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.
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 2827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:55 pm

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.
 
acelanzarote
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:52 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:08 pm

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
 
baje427
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:42 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:23 pm

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.
 
konrad
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:33 pm

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)
 
Clydenairways
Posts: 1102
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:27 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:05 pm

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.
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 2827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:15 pm

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.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:16 pm

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 avatar
kgaiflyer
Posts: 2589
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:22 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:21 pm

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.
 
Clydenairways
Posts: 1102
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:27 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:28 pm

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.   
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:17 pm

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.
 
nycdave
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:22 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:00 pm

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!
 
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1031
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:05 pm

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 8):

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.

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 bleed air for deicing?   
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
flyby519
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:12 pm

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 25):

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 bleed air for deicing?

Boots, I am not aware of any turboprops that have a hot wing design

[Edited 2011-12-22 13:12:40]
These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
 
tsugambler
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:01 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:18 pm

Quoting konrad (Reply 17):
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

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 airsick that I threw up (although that's not the plane's fault, but it's still a negative association). If the Q400 is quieter and faster, then from a passenger's perspective, it's a better aircraft--PERIOD.

Quoting acelanzarote (Reply 15):
But which ATR´s? the ATR-600 has only just come out replacing the ATR72-212A

I have not been on a newer "ATR-600," but if it's quieter than the -72, then I would say that it lacks the -72's defining characteristic, thus making it a completely different plane.   
 
L1011
Posts: 2135
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:02 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:27 pm

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 comfortable planes to fly on. I think people would be more accepting of these small planes if they were roomier. The Convair 440 seated 52 passengers on most airlines, which is very close to the 50 on regionals.

Bob Bradley
Fly Eastern's Golden Falcon DC-7B
 
abrown532
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:17 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:35 pm

I've always preferred the DHC8 over any ATR, the cabin is so much nicer inside IMO
 
737-990
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2000 3:41 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:03 am

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 did not pay close attention to the noise level I'd say it was an unnoticeable difference, granted that I did fly in the front of the ATR so it could have been louder in the back. It also seemed like the ATR had bigger overhead bins compared to the Q400. The only thing unusual about it was the aft boarding although being a plane enthusiast it was great to go out on the tarmac at MNL airport. This was my first time on an ATR and I'd say I was pleasantly impressed with it given all the negative comments I've heard over the years.

Seat wise Cebu had their ATR configured with 72 seats versus 76 for Horizon, so size wise the Q does have a slight advantage.
Happiest is a man who has his vocation as a hobby
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:33 am

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 13):
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

Then where would you put the checked baggage? The ATR has no underfloor room for baggage.

Quoting L1011 (Reply 28):
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?

The modern prop planes all have 2 x 2 seating and are generally as roomy as CV 440 and Martin 404. The narrow RJs with 1 x 2 seating are in reality "stretched biz jets".

But as several posters have already indicated, comparing ATR-72 and Q400 is like comparing apples and... and... I don't know what. The ATR is the smaller, cheaper, slower bird with half the engine power and much shorter range.

And the ATR has a noisy cabin. But...
... when you board an ATR via the back door there will always be an FA up front shouting "welcome on board, please come up here, please continue, please". Don't listen. The ATR is definitely very noisy up front, but in the back of the cabin it is in fact quite good.

Those who designed the configuration of the ATR did never imagine free seating as most operators use (I think). For small, unserviced airports the back door is perfect since the pax don't run their head into the propeller in snow storms at night. But it creates a time consuming boarding process since experienced passengers know that they shall board first and occupy the backmost seats if they want to talk to each other during flight. So the boarding process comes to a stop for every seat row while those passengers are stowing their carry-ons, taking off jacket etc. The rather limited stowage volume doesn't help either.

Quoting AeroBlogger (Reply 1):
ATRs cannot be operated in areas with icing issues due to some safety issues with the de-icing mechanism.

Please don't tell that to the Scandinavian ATR operators since they fly their ATRs day and night through the worst icing conditions on planet Earth. Much worse than the somewhat dryer air on the North Pole.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:04 am

Quoting nycdave (Reply 24):
I'm wondering if part of The Q400's relatively regional popularity has anything to do with Bombardier's sales network?

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.

Quoting tsugambler (Reply 27):
If the Q400 is quieter and faster, then from a passenger's perspective, it's a better aircraft--PERIOD.

Passengers don't get to buy planes though.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 31):
The narrow RJs with 1 x 2 seating are in reality "stretched biz jets".

   The ERJs have a similar cabin as the EMB-120, which, like the jets, was always intended as a commuter aircraft. It's the CRJs, with 2-2 seating, that are stretched versions of the Challenger business jet.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
baje427
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:42 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:52 am

Has the reliability of the Q400 improved? and does anyone know how has the aircraft has worked for CO?
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:24 am

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.
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. In reality, ATRs seem to have few issues operating in colder climates.

And the ATR's get plenty of ice down in DFW! It's not an issue.
This Website Censors Me
 
atct
Posts: 2472
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:42 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:00 am

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

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 something that climbs slow both in terms of vertical speed and forward airspeed. The Q400 cant do both, but can do one or the other. The ATR (even new) does neither.

atct
Trikes are for kids!
 
Metrojet732
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:51 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:18 am

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 cause most of the time I can only fly a CRJ (To me it doesn’t matter if it’s a CR2/7/9… All the same) The CRJ is the most uncomfortable ride in the sky’s. Well besides the Beech. (I would rather fly a Dash 8 100…. I am surprised that not more airlines choose the Q for flight within a 500 mile radius. I would think it would be the perfect aircraft in congested (RJ filled) hubs like ORD, PHL, LAX, and any of the NYC airports to name a few. The Q is a under utilized aircraft. I would love to see UAL order 150+ more Q’s to replace the 70 seat RJ’s that shouldn’t be flying cause of the Continental contract!
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 3801
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:32 am

Quoting Metrojet732 (Reply 36):
I would rather fly the Q400 than any version of the CRJ and even the ERJ.

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 get home fast, that is when I choose a worn out 737, CR7 or ERJ. I cringe when I fly on a CR2, the tall persons worst nightmare!!!   
Beauty is watching a 787 bank to make a short final. Bliss is watching that 787 with a good beer. Nirvana is all of that with a beautiful woman on your side.
 
migair54
Posts: 2154
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:24 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:08 am

Quoting atct (Reply 35):
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 something that climbs slow both in terms of vertical speed and forward airspeed. The Q400 cant do both, but can do one or the other. The ATR (even new) does neither.

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 can fly 240kts up to 10 NM on final easily, try to do that with a jet...  ))

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.

That´s not true... plenty of airlines use them in very cold countries during winter, UTair (Russia), Farnair (Switzerland), Finncom (Finland)....

Quoting abrown532 (Reply 29):
I've always preferred the DHC8 over any ATR, the cabin is so much nicer inside IMO

New ATR´s has a much nicer, comfortable and quiet cabin, with nice leather seat, much quieter and even Screens to watch movies... we are not talking about the old ATR42-300 and the ATR72-200...

One of the main advantages of the ATR is that you can operate that plane everywhere, it´s a very strong plane, can be operate in very short runways, high elevation, even in unpaved runways.
We all know that the Q400 is faster but they are not build for the same mission.
 
flyby519
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:18 pm

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 31):
Then where would you put the checked baggage? The ATR has no underfloor room for baggage.

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)
These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 2827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:10 pm

Quoting baje427 (Reply 33):
Has the reliability of the Q400 improved? and does anyone know how has the aircraft has worked for CO?

It's improved.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 38):
Do you think airlines care about that?

Yes, or BBD wouldn't be marketing that you can "dispatch the Q4 as a jet and avoid the prop routings." (my paraphrasing them).
 
User avatar
larshjort
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Fri Dec 23, 2011 9:32 pm

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 39):

Rear C4 baggage area:

(hard to see, but you can get the idea- http://www.atraircraft.com/media/atr....jpg)

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
139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
 
atct
Posts: 2472
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:42 am

RE: CO Q400 Vs. ATR

Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:51 am

Quoting migair54 (Reply 38):
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 can fly 240kts up to 10 NM on final easily, try to do that with a jet... ))

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 Airlines for that one. American was very concerned about the "Small +" affecting spacing on final that they got congressional influence to change the classification. They didnt want the turboprop messing with their DFW flow. That being said, ive never had a Saab pilot complain about being 3 in trail of a 737 instead of 4.

I can start naming the jets if youd like that can do 240 to 10 miles and still land. All the 737 classics, A319/320, Dc-9's, Md-80's, some RJ's. As with 90% of turboprops, ATR's can come down. The ATR as with 90% of turboprops can maintain speed in the descent, but once leveling on downwind and extended finals, 250 is not an option. I have never seen an ATR do 250 in level flight sustained, I have seen a Q400 do 245. This is IAS as reported by the crews, not true airspeed which isnt used in the ATC environment.


As people have said above I prefer the Q to the RJ on shorter routes. I have flown the Q400 on many routes. IAH-OKC, EWR-ORF-EWR, EWR-BUF-EWR, and PIT-EWR. It may be 10-15 min's longer on the IAH-OKC run than the E-145 but it is vastly superior aircraft as far as passenger comfort is concerned. I would dread flying an ATR-72 on IAH-OKC. I know this is apples to oranges as the ATR is a fine aircraft for flights block less than 1 hour at or below 15,000ft. The Q400 competes indirectly with the ATR's. The Q's competition and niche is not the ATR but replacing RJ's on flights of the 500nm and less range.

atct
Trikes are for kids!