Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
william wrote:Looks like someone has been reading Embraer's New Gen Turboprop press releases.
Northwest1988 wrote:Here is the link:
https://www.facebook.com/47928534209795 ... 10878/?d=n
While not a “new” design, it is a step forward in propulsion. I personally like the ATR-42/72 design so I’m glad it’s sticking around!
alberchico wrote:So it's essentially an ATR NEO designed to keep existing customers from being lured away to a possible Embraer new turboprop. Smart move. Things just got a bit more complicated for that project. This also means that a new design that will replace the ATR will likely be pushed back into the late 2030's.
argentinevol98 wrote:I don't doubt that Embraer was ready for this. 20% is an impressive fuel burn reduction claim for a generational upgrade. SAF compatibility is also a good thing for ecological impact. That will matter in the European market in particular. It is no secret that the type of routes that ATR's are generally used for in Europe are going to increasingly be in the "cross-hairs" so to speak (rightly, imo), much like the new French rule banning non-connecting domestic flights.
Embraer will have their work cut out for them when competing with this product. The Embraer ought to be a more advanced (and comfortable) aircraft with greater room for growth and development since it is a clean-sheet, but the ATR is a very established product with many existing operators who doubtless will be interested in a further model with such promised fuel burn gains. The competition will be fascinating to watch.
2eng2efficient wrote:argentinevol98 wrote:I don't doubt that Embraer was ready for this. 20% is an impressive fuel burn reduction claim for a generational upgrade. SAF compatibility is also a good thing for ecological impact. That will matter in the European market in particular. It is no secret that the type of routes that ATR's are generally used for in Europe are going to increasingly be in the "cross-hairs" so to speak (rightly, imo), much like the new French rule banning non-connecting domestic flights.
Embraer will have their work cut out for them when competing with this product. The Embraer ought to be a more advanced (and comfortable) aircraft with greater room for growth and development since it is a clean-sheet, but the ATR is a very established product with many existing operators who doubtless will be interested in a further model with such promised fuel burn gains. The competition will be fascinating to watch.
Agree, this was a predictable and necessary response from ATR with Embraer poised to launch a clean sheet turboprop early next year. I’ve been looking around for Embraer’s proposed fuel burn reductions in next gen prop. It seems the 90-seater is targeted to beat the ATR-72 by 18% on a per seat basis. To this end, 20% savings from ATR seems aspirational... almost hard to believe.
argentinevol98 wrote:I don't doubt that Embraer was ready for this. 20% is an impressive fuel burn reduction claim for a generational upgrade. SAF compatibility is also a good thing for ecological impact. That will matter in the European market in particular. It is no secret that the type of routes that ATR's are generally used for in Europe are going to increasingly be in the "cross-hairs" so to speak (rightly, imo), much like the new French rule banning non-connecting domestic flights.
Embraer will have their work cut out for them when competing with this product. The Embraer ought to be a more advanced (and comfortable) aircraft with greater room for growth and development since it is a clean-sheet, but the ATR is a very established product with many existing operators who doubtless will be interested in a further model with such promised fuel burn gains. The competition will be fascinating to watch.
Kiwirob wrote:Northwest1988 wrote:Here is the link:
https://www.facebook.com/47928534209795 ... 10878/?d=n
While not a “new” design, it is a step forward in propulsion. I personally like the ATR-42/72 design so I’m glad it’s sticking around!
How can anyone like ATR’s the doors at the wrong end, they’re slow and the overhead bins are too small.
2eng2efficient wrote:Kiwirob wrote:Northwest1988 wrote:Here is the link:
https://www.facebook.com/47928534209795 ... 10878/?d=n
While not a “new” design, it is a step forward in propulsion. I personally like the ATR-42/72 design so I’m glad it’s sticking around!
How can anyone like ATR’s the doors at the wrong end, they’re slow and the overhead bins are too small.
The press release does mention an enhanced cabin design - Bin technology has come a long way and I would assume they’ll have enhanced bins in the new model.
Speed is a compromise for efficiency. It’s not like this plane will be competing with CRJs and Q400s. I’d be surprised if the Embraer has a meaningful speed advantage over the ATR.
The cabin door is a major question. Both the new ATR and Embraer will be EIS around a time when many CRJs and E-Jets are entering their replacement cycle. In the massive US market (not the only market, obviously, but an important one), jetway boarding has become the standard. If ATR is going to compete, they absolutely need to figure out the doors.
alberchico wrote:2eng2efficient wrote:Kiwirob wrote:Ever since the American Eagle accident in the 1990's, U.S. operators have largely stayed away from the ATR, so I think any major redesign of the main entrance to accommodate jetways will not happen. Also in the U.S. market there is a preference for speed which is why aircraft like the ERJ and CRJ series have been so wildly popular. The article below claims that there are only 43 ATR aircraft registered in the U.S. That is a pitifully small number. I just don't see any regionals here warming up to this aircraft.
JBo wrote:alberchico wrote:2eng2efficient wrote:
It's been almost 30 years now since AA4184. Most adult travelers these days probably don't remember it. But operating carriers might still have reservations about it.
I personally don't see AA, UA, or DL wanting the ATR (or any other turboprops) flying under their brand, and independently branded regionals don't really ever gain much of a foothold in the market, except in some niche areas (Silver, Cape Air).
As much as I'd like to see more ATRs around here, I doubt it'll happen except for maybe more freighters.
avier wrote:Hope Embraer doesn't kill their new turboprop project seeing this, citing unviability of project and increased competition from ATR; which has a big existing customer base for this market category.
And then, once Embraer project is dead, ATR will scrap this and say we'll just wait for the hydrogen turboprop planes from parent Airbus to come in mid-2030's.
avier wrote:Hope Embraer doesn't kill their new turboprop project seeing this, citing unviability of project and increased competition from ATR; which has a big existing customer base for this market category.
And then, once Embraer project is dead, ATR will scrap this and say we'll just wait for the hydrogen turboprop planes from parent Airbus to come in mid-2030's.
Noshow wrote:It's a workhorse made for regional airlines and maintenance. Late engines and a rugged, simple setup are the sellers. Nobody in their market wants to have to repair CFRP wonders off base. What they get now is just the new technology overflowing from Airbus research (plus Leonardo).
keesje wrote:No doubt door configuration will be reveiewed, airlines being interviewed. Maybe back to the old configuration?
keesje wrote:Old school aeronautics says engines on the wings are more efficient than in a tail (concentrating (engine)weight where the lift is) [.....] Same thing for high wings for lower speeds (wheel bays not that bad).
keesje wrote:No doubt door configuration will be reveiewed, airlines being interviewed. Maybe back to the old configuration?
LifelinerOne wrote:And from the horse's mouth:
https://www.atr-aircraft.com/presspost/ ... -aircraft/
They are not saying it's a new design but a next generation of the ATR42/72, hence the "EVO" name.
Cheers!
2eng2efficient wrote:In the massive US market (not the only market, obviously, but an important one), jetway boarding has become the standard. If ATR is going to compete, they absolutely need to figure out the doors.
avier wrote:Hope Embraer doesn't kill their new turboprop project seeing this, citing unviability of project and increased competition from ATR; which has a big existing customer base for this market category.
And then, once Embraer project is dead, ATR will scrap this and say we'll just wait for the hydrogen turboprop planes from parent Airbus to come in mid-2030's.
EK770 wrote:2eng2efficient wrote:In the massive US market (not the only market, obviously, but an important one), jetway boarding has become the standard. If ATR is going to compete, they absolutely need to figure out the doors.
Havent they already figured this out? There was a "US Cabin" pitched a few years back with forward door boarding
https://youtu.be/EtUHW6l06zQ?t=15
Metchalus wrote:EK770 wrote:2eng2efficient wrote:In the massive US market (not the only market, obviously, but an important one), jetway boarding has become the standard. If ATR is going to compete, they absolutely need to figure out the doors.
Havent they already figured this out? There was a "US Cabin" pitched a few years back with forward door boarding
https://youtu.be/EtUHW6l06zQ?t=15
If this is an option why doesn't Silver use it?
Kiwirob wrote:
How can anyone like ATR’s the doors at the wrong end, they’re slow and the overhead bins are too small.
EIBPI wrote:This is a logical and realistic development.
When we talk about a 20% fuel burn improvement by 2030, it really puts all the big talk about zero emissions aircraft by the early 2030s into context.
It is hard to see where the miracle and certifiable solution will come from when one observes the massive difficulties getting fully conventional projects into service.
argentinevol98 wrote:With all the talk of “hybrid-electric” engines being a major part of ATR’s aggressive fuel burn reduction promises, would it be realistic for Embraer to try to do the same? I imagine they are aware of the concept, could they integrate something similar to their new TP proposal? The aircraft has yet to be officially launched and is far from finalized. Not knowledgable enough myself to know if this is feasible (or necessary).
Canuck600 wrote:Question about the American Eagle accident, how could a single accident turn American operators off from ATR? I could see it if a half dozen or more of the same model turned themselves into lawn darts. Is this just another case of airliners.net "wisdom"?
Kiwirob wrote:Northwest1988 wrote:Here is the link:
https://www.facebook.com/47928534209795 ... 10878/?d=n
While not a “new” design, it is a step forward in propulsion. I personally like the ATR-42/72 design so I’m glad it’s sticking around!
How can anyone like ATR’s the doors at the wrong end, they’re slow and the overhead bins are too small.
MIflyer12 wrote:Canuck600 wrote:Question about the American Eagle accident, how could a single accident turn American operators off from ATR? I could see it if a half dozen or more of the same model turned themselves into lawn darts. Is this just another case of airliners.net "wisdom"?
Delta, for one, had already started getting RJs by the time of the Roselawn accident in 1994, as Comair replaced Saabs. Very few ATR-42 or -72s ever found their way into major American (the nationality, not the airline) fleets.
The AA historians will jump in, but IIRC, AA's ATRs got concentrated at the SJU hub, and when B6 showed you could go from NYC to the Caribbean without a connection at MIA or SJU, AA's SJU hub was dismantled.
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... kets-71302
Northwest1988 wrote:Here is the link:
https://www.facebook.com/47928534209795 ... 10878/?d=n
While not a “new” design, it is a step forward in propulsion. I personally like the ATR-42/72 design so I’m glad it’s sticking around!
TWA772LR wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:Canuck600 wrote:Question about the American Eagle accident, how could a single accident turn American operators off from ATR? I could see it if a half dozen or more of the same model turned themselves into lawn darts. Is this just another case of airliners.net "wisdom"?
Delta, for one, had already started getting RJs by the time of the Roselawn accident in 1994, as Comair replaced Saabs. Very few ATR-42 or -72s ever found their way into major American (the nationality, not the airline) fleets.
The AA historians will jump in, but IIRC, AA's ATRs got concentrated at the SJU hub, and when B6 showed you could go from NYC to the Caribbean without a connection at MIA or SJU, AA's SJU hub was dismantled.
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... kets-71302
Apples and oranges, but FedEx has a huge fleet of ATRs. Continental also had a pretty good sized fleet of ATRs (many also based in EWR before they were drawn down), and AAs did a decently long stint at DFW into the 2010s.
For prop jobs in general, the ATRs main competition, the Dash 8, was operated by most legacies regional divisions in the US for a very long time, with Horizon still flying the Q400 for AS, and Silver still flying the ATR.
MIflyer12 wrote:Canuck600 wrote:Question about the American Eagle accident, how could a single accident turn American operators off from ATR? I could see it if a half dozen or more of the same model turned themselves into lawn darts. Is this just another case of airliners.net "wisdom"?
Delta, for one, had already started getting RJs by the time of the Roselawn accident in 1994, as Comair replaced Saabs. Very few ATR-42 or -72s ever found their way into major American (the nationality, not the airline) fleets.
The AA historians will jump in, but IIRC, AA's ATRs got concentrated at the SJU hub, and when B6 showed you could go from NYC to the Caribbean without a connection at MIA or SJU, AA's SJU hub was dismantled.
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... kets-71302
tomcat wrote:Kiwirob wrote:Northwest1988 wrote:Here is the link:
https://www.facebook.com/47928534209795 ... 10878/?d=n
While not a “new” design, it is a step forward in propulsion. I personally like the ATR-42/72 design so I’m glad it’s sticking around!
How can anyone like ATR’s the doors at the wrong end, they’re slow and the overhead bins are too small.
I had one of my most enjoyable flight on an ATR. I flew from Palu to Ampana (Central Sulawesi, Indonesia) and it was great to feel the strong acceleration during the takeoff roll, to circle climb out of the narrow bay a Palu surrounded by mountains and eventually getting over the mountains and flying over the Gulf of Tomini to go land at the small airport of Ampana. I didn't find anything wrong with the location of the door, the speed of the aircraft or the size of the overhead bins. They rather contributed positively to the experience.
WkndWanderer wrote:TWA772LR wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:
Delta, for one, had already started getting RJs by the time of the Roselawn accident in 1994, as Comair replaced Saabs. Very few ATR-42 or -72s ever found their way into major American (the nationality, not the airline) fleets.
The AA historians will jump in, but IIRC, AA's ATRs got concentrated at the SJU hub, and when B6 showed you could go from NYC to the Caribbean without a connection at MIA or SJU, AA's SJU hub was dismantled.
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... kets-71302
Apples and oranges, but FedEx has a huge fleet of ATRs. Continental also had a pretty good sized fleet of ATRs (many also based in EWR before they were drawn down), and AAs did a decently long stint at DFW into the 2010s.
For prop jobs in general, the ATRs main competition, the Dash 8, was operated by most legacies regional divisions in the US for a very long time, with Horizon still flying the Q400 for AS, and Silver still flying the ATR.
The AA ATR’s last stand was at MIA I believe, you still saw a decent showing outside of D60 ten years ago around their end. DL (ASA) parked their’s ~ 2008.
Kiwirob wrote:tomcat wrote:Kiwirob wrote:
How can anyone like ATR’s the doors at the wrong end, they’re slow and the overhead bins are too small.
I had one of my most enjoyable flight on an ATR. I flew from Palu to Ampana (Central Sulawesi, Indonesia) and it was great to feel the strong acceleration during the takeoff roll, to circle climb out of the narrow bay a Palu surrounded by mountains and eventually getting over the mountains and flying over the Gulf of Tomini to go land at the small airport of Ampana. I didn't find anything wrong with the location of the door, the speed of the aircraft or the size of the overhead bins. They rather contributed positively to the experience.
Have you ever been in a Q400, the acceleration and climb are much faster, the doors are at the right end and the overhead bins are that little bit larger, making the Q400 a better turboprop experience.