LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:50 pm

Flightglobal article suggests EIS of 2017 for a 90 seat turboprop.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...0-seater-development-plans-367122/

Quote:
The aircraft would be larger than the current ATR 72-600, he said, with a longer fuselage and the possibility of stowing luggage under the floor.

A number of new components - including the turbine and combustion chamber - are in development by P&WC's sister company Pratt & Whitney for its PW1000G geared turbofan, itself sharing a common core with the 1,000lb-thrust-rated PW800. These, and a separately-designed compressor, are likely to find their way onto any new P&WC turboprop, said Bagnato.

ATR forecasts a market over the next 20 years for around 3,100 regional turboprops: 500 in the 50-seat range, 1,000 90-seaters and 1,600 with 70 seats.
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 3302
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:57 pm

"A highly efficient, high-capacity aircraft for short-haul routes should be a very attractive prospect," he said.

Okay, another 5 yrs till launch, good luck will play a big part in coming to the market at the right time.
Could be a winner.
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11855
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:41 pm

This sounds like a completely new aircraft, not just a stretch.

The efficiency of the engines will be key. The PW127 is more for simplicity than efficiency. Oh, they're not bad engines, there is just quite a bit of technology missing from them.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:47 pm

Im actually looking forward to seeing how this new aircraft turns out, hopefully it will be successful

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
possibility of stowing luggage under the floor.

This is a good idea, I think they should have done this long ago
Please let me know... If you know this is the end of the world, Let me know... If you know the truth...
 
sandyb123
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:29 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:35 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 2):
This sounds like a completely new aircraft, not just a stretch.

Yes I read this as a clean sheet design also.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 3):
This is a good idea, I think they should have done this long ago

I don't like the way the cargo hold is at the front of the ATR. Seems somehow disconnected to the cockpit. Is their access from the cockpit to the cabin during flight?

Sandyb123
Member of the mile high club
 
User avatar
BasilFawlty
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:23 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:39 pm

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 4):
Is their access from the cockpit to the cabin during flight?

Yes there is.
'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
 
futureualpilot
Posts: 2404
Joined: Thu May 25, 2000 10:52 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:45 pm

Best of luck to them, I hope this ends up at mainline carriers and not regionals.
Life is better when you surf.
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:47 pm

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 4):
Is their access from the cockpit to the cabin during flight?

As BasilFawlty says there is access during flight, I think it amazing the ATR carries any cargo at all. I stil wonder how they carry any cargo with the front pax door option  
Please let me know... If you know this is the end of the world, Let me know... If you know the truth...
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7486
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:52 pm

If it happens NZ will order this I am sure. Eventually just ATR42s/72s and these for the domestic prop fleet. Ideal for a number of routes they currently operate which do not warrant a 737 but do need more than the 66 seat AT7.

Could even be used on routes such as AKL-NLK, AKL-NOU range/etops permitting
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
fpetrutiu
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:05 pm

Actually if they move the luggage and cargo under the floor, they don't really need to add that much to the fuselage at all and will give them a front pax door that can be used for jetways, like Dash8's can. I think it will be the real winner if the efficiency stays as good as it is now on ATR's, especially for European markets.

Personally I love the ATR's. It is a very robust product. Sure it's slower than the Dash, but it also burns quite a bit less fuel, and on short hops, the extra speed doesn't really matter all that much...
 
CRJ900
Posts: 1944
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:35 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
the possibility of stowing luggage under the floor.

There is absolutely nothing under the cabin floor now? Just vacant space or lots of wiring 'n stuff?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
fpetrutiu
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:39 pm

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 10):
There is absolutely nothing under the cabin floor now? Just vacant space or lots of wiring 'n stuff?

Yep, acctually if I rememeber correctly, all wiring is in the ceiling, but there are some hydraulic lines for the landing gear and some electrical cables that are landing gear related, but that's about it... But don't get me wrong, there isn't much room there... they will have to raise the floor or have a bigger fuselage cross section.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:19 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 2):
The efficiency of the engines will be key. The PW127 is more for simplicity than efficiency. Oh, they're not bad engines, there is just quite a bit of technology missing from them.

Will ATR try to increase range and cruise speed and sacrifice some fuel efficiency?

Q400's higher range and speed hasn't helped it much against ATR. Could it help ATR against regional jets on sub-800nm missions.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:31 pm

Quote:

"ATR has already entered discussions with incumbent engine provider Pratt & Whitney Canada and rival GE over possible powerplant options for the 90-seater, said Bagnato."

I wonder why they haven't invited Europrop International as a powerplant source?   
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
sandyb123
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:29 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:31 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 12):
Q400's higher range and speed hasn't helped it much against ATR. Could it help ATR against regional jets on sub-800nm missions.

With the cost of fuel still rising I think that there are a lot of missions that a new 90 seat prop could take from the Q400 and RJs up to even the ERJ175. On most UK & European domestic segments the slower cruise speed wouldn't impact much on flight times.

BE opted for the Q400, but it burns almost twice (?) that of the current ATR family. Ok, the ATRs are a bit slower but there is some wriggle room for a new air frame that competes on speed whilst still offering a efficient fuel burn.

Sandyb123
Member of the mile high club
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3725
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:35 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 12):
Will ATR try to increase range and cruise speed and sacrifice some fuel efficiency?

I'm guessing both since they're going for a brand new engine and design, but the main focus is likely to be efficiency.

They've proven that speed isn't what sells these days.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:51 pm

My question is will they finally have the a/c go 6 across versus the current 4, if they can get that done the a/c does not have to be that long to accomodate the 90 pax, I honestly think the Q400 is too long and slender.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:09 pm

Reposting reply#31 by Wisdom from an older thread on the same topic that addresses speed and fuel burn.
ATR CEO: Will Invest In New 90 Seat Turboprop (by LAXDESI May 11 2011 in Civil Aviation)#menu27

Quote:
If you stretch the ATR72 3.5 meters for 5 more rows, with stronger keel beams and larger landing gear, the final product, let's call it the ATR-92, will be approximately 1.5 tons heavier.
If they hang the same PW150 engines as on the Q400 under its wings it will get another 0.5 tons heavier at most.

The ATR92 would then be 2 tons heavier than the ATR72, but still 1 ton lighter than the Q400.

This means essentially that weight wise, there's no reason to explain why the ATR92 shouldn't be able to fly at the same speeds as the Q400, given same shaft horsepower and less weight to push forward.

Now, this is where the wings can be a problem.
The Q400 wing is optimized to cruise at 350 knots. They have swept wings where ATR's are essentially straight wings.
The Q400 fuselage is not as efficient as the Q400's, because the landing gear stowage and the big vertical stabilizer cause a detectable amount of additional drag.

Considering that, the ATR92 may not be able to cruise at 350kts but perhaps it could make it to 325kts with 90 passengers, with the same fuel burn as the Q400.

The market exists and it's bigger than one can imagine at first thought.
The ATR92 wouldn't only compete against the regional jets in this seating capacity, it can open up to new markets that are not accessible with regional jets and where rail is inconvenient.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:43 am

Found an article which lays out a new turboprop by PW. Don't know if PW has made any progress since the announcement. The article suggests a focus on fuel efficiency, and not on cruise speed targeted at sub-500 nm missions.

As GTF is expected to provide 15% plus lower fuel burn, one would think that a 15% lower fuel over current turboprop is achievable.

Indian planning commission recently approved nearly $1 billion for development of a 90 seat regional aircraft. It will be nice if ATR and India can team up to jointly develop and manufacture a 90 seat regional aircraft. I don't see it happening though.
http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation...da-launches-new-regional-turboprop

Quote:
Pratt & Whitney Canada has launched an all-new turboprop engine for regional aircraft to replace the 1,800- to 5,000-shp PW100 series. It expects to run the core demonstrator in the second half of next year.

P&WC president John Saabas said the new engine will be “at least” 10 percent more fuel efficient than the PW100 series, which he claims is “still the most economical turboprop in its class.” There is, however, a demand for a “double-digit” fuel burn improvement, which can be met, he said, by using technology developed for the company’s latest small turbofans, in particular the new PW1000G geared turbofan powering the Mitsubishi MRJ and Bombardier C Series regional jets.
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1256
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:45 am

From the article: the reliability of the PW100 is 99,97%... Well... If that ain't good... !!!
"When I find out I was wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" -attributed to John Maynard Keynes
 
alangirvan
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 2:13 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:19 am

"However, Bagnato said that it will not neglect its core market. "We have to be competitive over the next 20 years with the 50- and 70-seaters," he said." - from the Flightglobal story, so the 50 and 70 seater markets will still be important. Will ATR create a 90 seater that will have lower costs per airframe to operate than their own ATR72? So an ATR92 would break even with the same number of seats filled?

If the 50 seater and 70 seater markets are addressed by putting ATR92 technology onto the smaller planes - the
ATR72 NG would be an impressive hot and high aircraft.

I would expect the ATR92 will use London City Airport - I wonder if it will get into Toronto Island Airport? Right under Bombardier's nose.
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:48 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 12):
Will ATR try to increase range and cruise speed and sacrifice some fuel efficiency?

I hope not. The point for them against CRJ900, E175, E190 is efiiciency. There they cannot sacrifice one percent. speed only is important at longer distance, so you have to increase speed and range and both cost efficiency.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3951
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:01 am

ATR and BBD have both been making noises about a 90 seat turbo prop...I wonder when one of these companies will actually pull the trigger.
What the...?
 
doug_or
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 9:55 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:15 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 18):
As GTF is expected to provide 15% plus lower fuel burn, one would think that a 15% lower fuel over current turboprop is achievable.

Not really sure how this would be related. TPs have been geared for a while.
When in doubt, one B pump off
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:08 am

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 20):
Will ATR create a 90 seater that will have lower costs per airframe to operate than their own ATR72? So an ATR92 would break even with the same number of seats filled?

If one goes by Wilson's numbers, ATR92 will be about 18-20% heavier than ATR72. Will new engines and wings of ATR92 make it possible to nearly match the trip fuel burn of ATR? I doubt ATR92 will end up with lower trip fuel burn than ATR72.

Quoting doug_Or (Reply 23):
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 18):As GTF is expected to provide 15% plus lower fuel burn, one would think that a 15% lower fuel over current turboprop is achievable.
Not really sure how this would be related. TPs have been geared for a while.

I see your point. Perhaps achieving 15% lower sfc with a new engine is going to be difficult.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3951
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:41 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 24):

I don't think ATR is going to have a free lunch with the weight. To get even close to the speeds of the Q, they will have to increase the strength, which increases the weight, more weight proportionally than with just a stretch. Their wing is optimized for their cruise speeds and MTOW. It will need beefing up.

If they want to keep, more or less, the current speeds of the -600, then they can definitely save some weight, and expense by staying with a smaller engine family.

I reckon if they want the advantages of a Q, they will also end up with the handicaps. Those -150 engines are a large part of why the Q is more expensive. They only fly on the Q400 and their exclusivity adds to their expense, as does their power rating, double the ATR's.

Once they go up a power level, their main advantages, (fuel burn and purchase price), will definitely be reduced, largely leveling the playing field.

Both ATR and BBD will have access to the new engines being developed by GE and P&WC, though I'm having trouble with the concept of BBD going GE.

I think with the 90 seaters, we're going to end up with a turbo prop version of the 737/320 battle.
What the...?
 
r2rho
Posts: 2440
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:39 pm

If ATR gets it right, this can only be a winner. There is definitely a market for an all-new, efficient, new generation 90-seat prop. RJ's beware!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 17):
If you stretch the ATR72 3.5 meters for 5 more rows

This is not a stretch. It's all-new, ATR have said it several times. Unfortunately it is still a common misconception on a-net.
I would bet on a 5-abreast cabin, which gives you luggage space underneath the floor and leaves the possibility of a 110-seat stretch open   Higher use of composites (but keeping it simple and cheap), new wing, ...

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 2):
The efficiency of the engines will be key.

Indeed, it will be almost everything. As with the NEO, the engines will be the deciding factor and will also determine the EIS date. For a short-haul prop, not a huge amount of efficiency gains shouild be expected from fuselage & systems (though will be some gains for sure), the big efficiency jump will come from the engines.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 12):
Will ATR try to increase range and cruise speed and sacrifice some fuel efficiency?

Previous articles have stated that ATR wanted it to be somewhat faster than the current models, while maintaining the same fuel efficiency advantage versus jets (see also the older linked thread). This means that the engine must be improved in all aspects: more powerful while at the same time more fuel efficient. Which means new engine generation with double-digit improvement. That is a challenge, but certainly possible by 2016, and current generation prop engines could sure use an update!

Quoting mffoda (Reply 13):
I wonder why they haven't invited Europrop International as a powerplant source?

EPI was a political decision to have a European engine on the A400M. Four companies with little history of cooperation and prop experience were artificially put together with a politically-decided worksharing and told to build an engine. We all know the results.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:26 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 25):
To get even close to the speeds of the Q, they will have to increase the strength, which increases the weight, more weight proportionally than with just a stretch

They don't need to be worried too much about speed anyway. Just don't let the new plane be slower than the 72 and they'll be fine. Speed isn't stopping ATR from eating much of Bombardier's lunch as it is now.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 26):
There is definitely a market for an all-new, efficient, new generation 90-seat prop. RJ's beware!

I don't think that RJs will see that large of a dent in the 90 seat segment regardless. 90 seaters have far better economics than their smaller siblings and many of the routes they fly are long enough for the speed advantage to make a significant difference. I'm sure Embraer isn't happy about the news, but I doubt they're losing sleep over it either.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
zkncj
Posts: 1987
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:40 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 8):

Could even be used on routes such as AKL-NLK, AKL-NOU range/etops permitting

I would say we could see this happening on the AKL-NLK route soon as the -600 arrive. The friendships back in the day operated AKL-NLK. I'm pretty sure the -500 have got etops 120.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10008
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:43 pm

It's good to see they won't be neglecting the 50-70 seat market, but I wonder if that will mean sticking with the current offerings for that range and not downsizing the new 90 seater.

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 14):
BE opted for the Q400, but it burns almost twice (?) that of the current ATR family. Ok, the ATRs are a bit slower but there is some wriggle room for a new air frame that competes on speed whilst still offering a efficient fuel burn.

On missions over a certain length, BE's Q400s burn more fuel than the ERJ 175s which will be replacing many of them.

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 20):
ATR72 NG would be an impressive hot and high aircraft.

The -600 already is,

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 20):
I would expect the ATR92 will use London City Airport - I wonder if it will get into Toronto Island Airport? Right under Bombardier's nose.

I expect ATR will do their best to ensure this new aircraft can lift off with a full or very reasonable load from ICAO Cat. 2 runways Quoting r2rho (Reply 26):
I would bet on a 5-abreast cabin, which gives you luggage space underneath the floor and leaves the possibility of a 110-seat stretch open   Higher use of composites (but keeping it simple and cheap), new wing, ...


That would make sense.


Dan  

[Edited 2012-01-25 11:36:30]
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:46 pm

Quoting r2rho (Reply 26):
I would bet on a 5-abreast cabin, which gives you luggage space underneath the floor and leaves the possibility of a 110-seat stretch open

Link in OP suggests that the fuselage will be longer than that of ATR72. I don't think you need a longer fuselage if ATR92 is built on a 5-abreast platform.

The article also suggests that ATR wants to transfer technological advancement from ATR92 program to ATR72/ATR42, which to me strongly hints at re-engined NG versions of ATR72/ATR42 in the future. My inference is that cruise speed is not going to be a major factor in designing the ATR92 engine.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11855
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:14 pm

I do not see the concern for speed in the sub 500nm market. This will be about cost per butt-mile.  
Quoting mffoda (Reply 13):
I wonder why they haven't invited Europrop International as a powerplant source?

Just the wrong thrust, no other reason.     

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 17):
Considering that, the ATR92 may not be able to cruise at 350kts but perhaps it could make it to 325kts with 90 passengers, with the same fuel burn as the Q400.

As you noted, a new wing will be key. Since it is new build, I wonder if they will sweep? I wouldn't . I would cut the speed a little to save on fuel burn.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 18):
Found an article which lays out a new turboprop by PW. Don't know if PW has made any progress since the announcement. The article suggests a focus on fuel efficiency, and not on cruise speed targeted at sub-500 nm missions.

The main advantage is going from low cost to high efficiency compressors and turbines. The PW100 made quite a few intentional compromises to keep cost down.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 18):
P&WC president John Saabas said the new engine will be “at least” 10 percent more fuel efficient than the PW100 series, which he claims is “still the most economical turboprop in its class.” There is, however, a demand for a “double-digit” fuel burn improvement, which can be met, he said, by using technology developed for the company’s latest small turbofans, in particular the new PW1000G geared turbofan powering the Mitsubishi MRJ and Bombardier C Series regional jets.

Ignoring that turboprops are already geared, I see no reason for a better than 10% fuel burn drop. The PW100 has numerous design details that were needed in the 1980s to make an economical turboprop. That to component efficiency improvements and cost reductions, it is now possible to make the much more efficient turboprop.

For example, BLISK inline compressors with advanced blade design should be a given. I also expect the turbine to jump in technological level. The combustor too. Now the combustor doesn't drive efficiency, but it does drive current packaging and new combustors will be much more 'packagable.'

Quoting r2rho (Reply 26):
This is not a stretch. It's all-new, ATR have said it several times.

Thank you.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:22 pm

Very cool. Will be interesting to see how it turns out and how well it does. Best of luck to ATR!
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
queb
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:51 am

Is ATR has the money to launch a brand new airplane ($ 1.5-2.0 B minimum)? With annual sales of $1.3 B, I don't think so and it's probably the reason why they are reluctant to launch it.
 
joelyboy911
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:45 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:11 pm

Quoting queb (Reply 33):
Is ATR has the money to launch a brand new airplane ($ 1.5-2.0 B minimum)? With annual sales of $1.3 B, I don't think so and it's probably the reason why they are reluctant to launch it.

The half of ATR that was Aerospatiale is now owned by EADS - I doubt they will have too much trouble sourcing extra financing.

I expect they've been reluctant to launch it as there has been a focus on getting the -600 series of the AT4 and AT7 to market. Not to mention the somewhat depressed economy.

I hope this new ATR will stick to ATR's core strengths - efficiency, ruggedness/reliability and cheapness. I don't think they should chase the sex appeal of speed - airlines are not after it, as has been proved by the sluggish Q400 sales. This aircraft will probably still be used on fairly short routes, where speed won't be a big deal anyway. Longer routes will always need a jet, IMO.
Flown: NZ, NY, SJ, QF, UA, AC, EI, BE, TP, AF
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 29):
I expect ATR will do their best to ensure this new aircraft can lift off with a full or very reasonable load from ICAO Cat. 2 runways

IIRC the -600s have glass cockpits that can handle all navaids. I would love to see a ATR32 or 36 as they would own that market to replace all the 120s and 340s. Yeah I know the economics but I can dream.
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10008
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:48 pm

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 35):
IIRC the -600s have glass cockpits that can handle all navaids. I would love to see a ATR32 or 36 as they would own that market to replace all the 120s and 340s. Yeah I know the economics but I can dream.

Yes they have glass cockpits, but I think they already have that EMB-120/SF340 replacement market cornered without needing a shortened aircraft. The ATR 72 has equal if not better short field performance than the SF340 and EMB and the ATR 42 rivals the Dash 8 Q200.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
queb
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:53 pm

Quoting joelyboy911 (Reply 34):
The half of ATR that was Aerospatiale is now owned by EADS - I doubt they will have too much trouble sourcing extra financing.

Sure, but EADS (or Finmeccanica) will not fund a project if it is not profitable. In addition, ATR has just introduced the -600 series which must have cost a few hundreds millions dollars. A stretched ATR72 (with a new wing) is a lot more possible than a brand new a/c.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10008
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:00 pm

Quoting queb (Reply 37):
In addition, ATR has just introduced the -600 series which must have cost a few hundreds millions dollars. A stretched ATR72 (with a new wing) is a lot more possible than a brand new a/c.

That depends where ATR are heading with this. Are they looking at a 90 seater clean sheet design with the intention to create a 120 seat stretch, whilst keeping the ATR 42/72 production lines open, or are they ultimately creating an aircraft which will be downsized to 50 and 70 versions to replace the 42/72. I think it will be the former personally.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
parapente
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:10 pm

Quoting r2rho (Reply 26):
This is not a stretch. It's all-new, ATR have said it several times.

Thank you.

Lightsaber


Well lets see it then.This article does not say it indeed detailed comments in the article imply just the reverse.The 737MAX is a 'new' airplane.But not a 10bn 'all new' aircraft.
I know this forum loves inventing new paper planes but the real world is different. So this is a vast new market for 100 seater prop planes that everyine somehow missed? I don't think so.

But of course now that the forum has its all new aircraft they want it to go fast.Totallt ignoring the article and why they have been selling the present 70 seater. Hmmmm

Lets see.I bet we won't be seeing a 10bn all new aircraft.Indeed why would they? They appear to be doing just fine with what they have got! (hence the stretch)
 
r2rho
Posts: 2440
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:01 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 29):
It's good to see they won't be neglecting the 50-70 seat market, but I wonder if that will mean sticking with the current offerings for that range and not downsizing the new 90 seater.

A 70-seat shrink of the 90-seater would work, but a 50-seat shrink would be too far. So it's either two separate families, or sacrifice the 50-seat market, which is tiny anyway.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 38):
Are they looking at a 90 seater clean sheet design with the intention to create a 120 seat stretch, whilst keeping the ATR 42/72 production lines open, or are they ultimately creating an aircraft which will be downsized to 50 and 70 versions to replace the 42/72.

Ideally, if we are allowed to dream, ATR would keep the current product line (likely with reengine & upgrades to stay competitive) and develop a parallel 90-110 seat family. But the investment & risk would be significant for such a small company.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 30):
Link in OP suggests that the fuselage will be longer than that of ATR72. I don't think you need a longer fuselage if ATR92 is built on a 5-abreast platform.

OK, so another idea: stretch the current ATR fuselage to 90-seats, give it an all-new wing & engines (and probably landing gear), and you have your ATR92 while maintaining fuselage commonality and keeping production costs low.

Quoting joelyboy911 (Reply 34):
The half of ATR that was Aerospatiale is now owned by EADS - I doubt they will have too much trouble sourcing extra financing.

Actually, next to the lack of suitable engine, the 50-50 split between Alenia and EADS may be the other showstopper for a new ATR. Alenia seems keen on developing ATR, while EADS just wants to milk the cow and doesn't seem to consider ATR a priority. An all-new 90-seater will have better chances IMO if Alenia buys out part of the EADS stake.
 
parapente
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:05 pm

Re this all 'new design'.for the sake of clarity......

ATR boss: ‘We will invest’ in 90-seat turboprop

By AviationBrief
Published: May 11, 2011

Alenia Aeronautica is committed to developing a 90-seat stretch of its regional turboprop family, with or without its ATR partner EADS.

“We will invest,” chief executive Giuseppe Giordo told Flight International , adding that he believed there was a market for 1,500 turboprops in the 90-seat segment, which is not served by either ATR or its rival Bombardier.

Giordo said the Finmeccanica subsidiary had the capabilities in Italy to build its own large turboprop if EADS decided not to go ahead with the project.

Earlier this year, Filippo Bagnato, chief executive of Toulouse-based ATR – in which EADS and Alenia are co-shareholders – appeared to dampen speculation about a larger sister to the ATR 72, saying the business’s focus this year was on certification and delivery of the upgraded 72-600 variant.

ATR has acknowledged that it is studying a stretch of its 70-seater, although a larger aircraft would require a more powerful engine to replace the Pratt & Whitney PW127.
 
alangirvan
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 2:13 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:53 am

Part of the discussion might be where is the sweet spot where a Jet takes over as more efficienct than a TP? Some years ago when Dornier was producing the 328 and the 328JET, I saw their comment that the jet was better on routes of over 300 miles.

The economics of the 328JET may not have been validated, and it was a very small jet. But the comparison that the FlyBe E-175s burn less fuel than their Q400s on some routes is interesting. In Australia, Virgin thought that their E-170s (which they no longer use) had to be in the air for 90 minutes at least, so about 600 miles for them.

In Australia, NZ, there may be some routes like MEL-CBR, which is about 300 miles - a new tech ATR-92 may be more fuel efficient than an E-175 on this sector length. However, on routes like Canberra to Adelaide or Brisbane, which are about 600 miles, the jet should win. The economics will be affected by the price of fuel. Any way, there will be some short routes, where the jet is needed at peak times of the day.

One consideration on the economics might be number of Flight Attendants needed. In some countries, going up to 90 might require 3 FAs.
 
zkncj
Posts: 1987
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:34 am

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 42):

One consideration on the economics might be number of Flight Attendants needed. In some countries, going up to 90 might require 3 FAs.

Not if you ZK- register them =), and ZK registered aircraft can operate domestically within Australia.

Australia's 1-36 ratio is a bit over the top, when you compare it to New Zealands 1-50 (pretty much world standard)

NZ A320 4FA
JQ A320 5FA
QF 738 5FA
DJ 738 5FA (VH) 4FA (ZK)
 
joelyboy911
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:45 am

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:28 am

Off topic, but how many FA's on JetConnect 738s? Do they operate to the minimum standard - or have the same service levels as mainline QF?
Flown: NZ, NY, SJ, QF, UA, AC, EI, BE, TP, AF
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4348
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:01 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 28):
The friendships back in the day operated AKL-NLK.

Who's Friendships did this and when?

gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
zkncj
Posts: 1987
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:09 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 45):

Who's Friendships did this and when?

Some stage in the 1980s, I have only seen photo's don't have dates.

Quoting joelyboy911 (Reply 44):
Off topic, but how many FA's on JetConnect 738s? Do they operate to the minimum standard - or have the same service levels as mainline QF?

They only have 4
 
alangirvan
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 2:13 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:39 pm

The F-27s were used between Auckland and Norfolk Island until about 1983. Then AirNZ introduced 737-200s, about the time East West started using F-28s between Sydney and Norfolk Island. I think some people in Norfolk Island were a bit afraid that the noisy jets would cause vibration damage to the windows of their churches.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4348
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:04 pm

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 47):
The F-27s were used between Auckland and Norfolk Island until about 1983

From about when? Any idea?

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
alangirvan
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 2:13 pm

RE: ATR Outlines 90 Seater Plan

Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:37 pm

Sorry, someone else will have to say when the F-27s started to NLK.

But I had a quick look at Great Circle Mapper:
AKL (37°00'29"S 174°47'30"E) NLK (29°02'30"S 167°56'19"E) 322.1° (NW) 678 mi
BNE (27°23'03"S 153°07'03"E) CBR (35°18'25"S 149°11'42"E) 202.0° (S) 593 mi

I used BNE-CBR because it is a similar distance to AKL-NLK, as you see 85 miles shorter. Qantas timetables show that a Q400 takes about 20 minutes longer to do the distance than a jet. You can imagine an F-27 would have taken rather longer than that.

We do not know yet how fast an ATR-92 will cruise compared with a Q400. 678 miles does seem like a distance where a jet would be nice.

Who is online