Island Air issues with the ATR

embraer175e2 · Sun May 28, 2017 1:29 am

Island air is saying that their ATR 72-200's are unreliable.
That's why they are switting to Q400's. This according to wikipidia.

Funny how they are using old Atr72-200 's and stating this without even considering to upgrade their ATR's to the 600 series which has been outperforming Bombardier in sales.

anshabhi · Sun May 28, 2017 4:01 am

I call this Irish lessor syndrome.

RyanairGuru · Sun May 28, 2017 4:27 am

The ATR-72 is the perfect aircraft for sub-300 mile sectors where the Q400s superior speed is irrelevant. The ATR-72-600 has lower trip costs over such short distances, so the ATR looks perfect for WP on paper. Flying 20+ year old ATR-72-200s and saying they're unreliable isn't relevant to current production models. And it's not like the Q400 has the best dispatch reliability either.

77H · Sun May 28, 2017 6:09 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
The ATR-72 is the perfect aircraft for sub-300 mile sectors where the Q400s superior speed is irrelevant. The ATR-72-600 has lower trip costs over such short distances, so the ATR looks perfect for WP on paper. Flying 20+ year old ATR-72-200s and saying they're unreliable isn't relevant to current production models. And it's not like the Q400 has the best dispatch reliability either.

Except in the interisland market where WP AT7s are competing against HA's 717s. On a route like HNL-OGG flight time on the ATR can be 15-20 minutes longer than the 717. Also, the Q400 allows WP to get more turns out of the Q400 than the AT7 due to the reduced flight times. Frequency is important in the interisland market

77H

RWA380 · Sun May 28, 2017 6:41 am

77H wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
The ATR-72 is the perfect aircraft for sub-300 mile sectors where the Q400s superior speed is irrelevant. The ATR-72-600 has lower trip costs over such short distances, so the ATR looks perfect for WP on paper. Flying 20+ year old ATR-72-200s and saying they're unreliable isn't relevant to current production models. And it's not like the Q400 has the best dispatch reliability either.

Except in the interisland market where WP AT7s are competing against HA's 717s. On a route like HNL-OGG flight time on the ATR can be 15-20 minutes longer than the 717. Also, the Q400 allows WP to get more turns out of the Q400 than the AT7 due to the reduced flight times. Frequency is important in the interisland market

77H

I agree, having been a corporate travel agent in Hawaii, my business travelers always flew HA, back then was AQ & Mahalo, I flew Mahalo as the coupons were cheap, but the flight to Kona was an extra 10-15 mins, no biggie I love flying & enjoy the lower altitude to see the beauty.

I flew on WP last November HNL-OGG just for fun, the fare was only $5 less than HA, the terminal was great, no lines or crowds, the modified jetbridge at OGG, not so great. The ATR was alright, it seemed about 2 decades old, but nice people & on time flight was great. We taxied to the reef runway, which was the first time, I've taken off from that runway for an Inter Island flight, except back to the days of AA, DL & UA flying HNL-OGG on DC-10's & L-1011's.

OA940 · Sun May 28, 2017 8:01 am

The Q400 is a beautiful aircraft, but it was designed for longer routes. For these flights the ATR fits like a glove.

debonair · Sun May 28, 2017 12:04 pm

embraer175e2 wrote:
Island air is saying that their ATR 72-200's are unreliable.

You just have to look at the previous owner and you know why. I saw reports by the leading (German) ATR specialist, that they never saw ATR's in a worse conditions before - as they did out of line maintenance. The planes were only kept in flying conditions - no taken care of it was done.
I was recently flying on IslandAir and believe me, I never ever saw an ATR in such poor condition just from the inside of the plane - and I just did a ride shortly before on the oldest ATR42 (msn 003!!) EC-IDG in the world!

embraer175e2 · Sun May 28, 2017 3:45 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
The ATR-72 is the perfect aircraft for sub-300 mile sectors where the Q400s superior speed is irrelevant. The ATR-72-600 has lower trip costs over such short distances, so the ATR looks perfect for WP on paper. Flying 20+ year old ATR-72-200s and saying they're unreliable isn't relevant to current production models. And it's not like the Q400 has the best dispatch reliability either.

How some managements fools the public

embraer175e2 · Sun May 28, 2017 3:47 pm

77H wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
The ATR-72 is the perfect aircraft for sub-300 mile sectors where the Q400s superior speed is irrelevant. The ATR-72-600 has lower trip costs over such short distances, so the ATR looks perfect for WP on paper. Flying 20+ year old ATR-72-200s and saying they're unreliable isn't relevant to current production models. And it's not like the Q400 has the best dispatch reliability either.

Except in the interisland market where WP AT7s are competing against HA's 717s. On a route like HNL-OGG flight time on the ATR can be 15-20 minutes longer than the 717. Also, the Q400 allows WP to get more turns out of the Q400 than the AT7 due to the reduced flight times. Frequency is important in the interisland market

77H

They get one more leg out of it. Against 30% more fuel burn off trip. Any accountants around? Let's do some serious math.

embraer175e2 · Sun May 28, 2017 3:48 pm

30% more fuelburn per trip

embraer175e2 · Sun May 28, 2017 3:49 pm

debonair wrote:
embraer175e2 wrote:
Island air is saying that their ATR 72-200's are unreliable.

You just have to look at the previous owner and you know why. I saw reports by the leading (German) ATR specialist, that they never saw ATR's in a worse conditions before - as they did out of line maintenance. The planes were only kept in flying conditions - no taken care of it was done.
I was recently flying on IslandAir and believe me, I never ever saw an ATR in such poor condition just from the inside of the plane - and I just did a ride shortly before on the oldest ATR42 (msn 003!!) EC-IDG in the world!

#recipeforfailure.dont Blame it on ATR

anshabhi · Sun May 28, 2017 4:16 pm

this is nothing different than what many startup regional carriers in India face. An Irish lessor who throws in a 20+ years old ATR very cheaply, at later sucks your blood out for maintenance. 3 Indian startups have failed so far for similar reasons.

Good to see them shopping around for aircraft and lessors.

WPvsMW · Sun May 28, 2017 5:26 pm

In a nutshell, performance-wise:

https://theflyingengineer.files.wordpre ... rmance.jpg

In a nutshell, fleet planning for WP, turning back the clock .... leases of used CR-7 and CR-9 instead of new Qs. Avoid the "prop-phobia" of pax, match the speed of HA's 712s, more turns per day. There's no shortage of blarney in Dublin.

embraer175e2 · Sun May 28, 2017 6:09 pm

WPvsMW wrote:
In a nutshell, performance-wise:

https://theflyingengineer.files.wordpre ... rmance.jpg

In a nutshell, fleet planning for WP, turning back the clock .... leases of used CR-7 and CR-9 instead of new Qs. Avoid the "prop-phobia" of pax, match the speed of HA's 712s, more turns per day. There's no shortage of blarney in Dublin.

What are the legssegments (nm) in Hawaii?

WPvsMW · Sun May 28, 2017 6:18 pm

Longest instate stage: LIH-ITO 277 nm. No scheduled carrier flies LIH-ITO non-stop.
Longest instate stage flown by sked carrier. LIH-KOA, 242 nm. HA, one nonstop per day
3d longest: HNL-ITO 188 nm. Only HA flies non-stop. ~16x daily.
4th longest: LIH-OGG 142 nm. Only HA flies non-stop. 4x daily.

XLA2008 · Sun May 28, 2017 6:22 pm

Not gonna lie... I've flown Islandair a couple times and the cabin was horrible, old, tattered, cramped, air conditioning barely worked, I would rather pay the extra and fly HA 717 when Island hopping, prices aren't to much different, the 717 is far more comfortable and it's quicker! My only experiences with the Q400 has been with FlyBe in the U.K. And they were not bad to fly on, would choose that over Island air ATR any day! That extra 15 mins of flight on one of their ATR's was an extra 15 mins of total discomfort! I avoid Islandair as much as possible! They need to invest in either some newer ATR's or change fleet entirely!

WPvsMW · Sun May 28, 2017 6:27 pm

The Qs on WP are better than the ATRs were, and WP's kapuna (senior) fares are better than HA. HA wins on all other points, and is the only Part 121 choice for most city pairs in Hawaii.

RyanairGuru · Sun May 28, 2017 8:59 pm

77H wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
The ATR-72 is the perfect aircraft for sub-300 mile sectors where the Q400s superior speed is irrelevant. The ATR-72-600 has lower trip costs over such short distances, so the ATR looks perfect for WP on paper. Flying 20+ year old ATR-72-200s and saying they're unreliable isn't relevant to current production models. And it's not like the Q400 has the best dispatch reliability either.

Except in the interisland market where WP AT7s are competing against HA's 717s. On a route like HNL-OGG flight time on the ATR can be 15-20 minutes longer than the 717. Also, the Q400 allows WP to get more turns out of the Q400 than the AT7 due to the reduced flight times. Frequency is important in the interisland market

77H

Didn't forget that the ATR-72-600 is faster than the 200. The flight time between a 717 and a ATR-72-600 shouldn't be more than 10 minutes on sectors as shorts as those WP fly.

77H · Sun May 28, 2017 9:11 pm

embraer175e2 wrote:
77H wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
The ATR-72 is the perfect aircraft for sub-300 mile sectors where the Q400s superior speed is irrelevant. The ATR-72-600 has lower trip costs over such short distances, so the ATR looks perfect for WP on paper. Flying 20+ year old ATR-72-200s and saying they're unreliable isn't relevant to current production models. And it's not like the Q400 has the best dispatch reliability either.

Except in the interisland market where WP AT7s are competing against HA's 717s. On a route like HNL-OGG flight time on the ATR can be 15-20 minutes longer than the 717. Also, the Q400 allows WP to get more turns out of the Q400 than the AT7 due to the reduced flight times. Frequency is important in the interisland market

77H

They get one more leg out of it. Against 30% more fuel burn off trip. Any accountants around? Let's do some serious math.

I do not work at WP so I don't know why
they chose the Q400 over the AT76. I was posting an educated guess based on what I know about the interisland market and WPs primary competition. I know a few people who work at WP management. Next time I talk to them I'll ask and report back their answer.

77H

Rufusisgod · Sun May 28, 2017 11:23 pm

anshabhi wrote:
I call this Irish lessor syndrome.

And why is that? What does the lessor have to do with anything?

If I call a lessor and say I want a brand new ATR72-600 they'll source it . If I call and say I want the cheapest you've got - you're going to get an old bird. If island air want a new fleet , investment must be made. And I don't believe the Q400 is the right fit for island hopping. But ATR have a huge back log for -600s and bombardier don't have the same. Maybe it was a simple time frame issue.

However it has nothing to do with the lessor, Irish or not.

juliuswong · Sun May 28, 2017 11:58 pm

Well anyone who is looking for young ATR 72-600, you may give Malaysia Airlines a call. They have grounded their 11 ATR 72-600 (8 with FY, 3 with Maswings). Oldest being four years old. Much costlier to operate compared to their 23 strong ATR 72-500.

rbavfan · Mon May 29, 2017 2:35 am

Q400 burns more fuel, but that can be mitigated by fuel savings procedures that you can follow. Between the ATR & the Q400 in Hawaii I would do the Q400. They have anti vibration system to mitigate the constant feeling of being inside a giant vibrator. They also have one other very good thing. An APU that keeps the AC running on the ground. They do not have to keep the second engine at idle to get the AC to stay on in the aircraft as they do with the ATR. That idling engine for AC adds to the fuel burn as well, but is not included in the we burn 30% less fuel add from ATR. You ever walk into a plane without any AC on in Hawaii?.
The APU also means they do not need ground service units for engine starts, AC & on ground power. The cost of which also eats into that 30% more fuel burn figure.

rbavfan · Mon May 29, 2017 2:42 am

WPvsMW wrote:
In a nutshell, performance-wise:

https://theflyingengineer.files.wordpre ... rmance.jpg

In a nutshell, fleet planning for WP, turning back the clock .... leases of used CR-7 and CR-9 instead of new Qs. Avoid the "prop-phobia" of pax, match the speed of HA's 712s, more turns per day. There's no shortage of blarney in Dublin.

Note the graphic shows 900kg vs 1200kg and it used to claim 30% more burn. Do the math it comes out around 25%.

rbavfan · Mon May 29, 2017 3:38 am

Just a rough figure based on the graphic showing 900kg for ATR-72 & 1200kg for Q400.
The Q400 can do 14 flights/day vs 11 for the ATR.
Figuring the price of fuel at 3.00/gal for 11 flights on the ATR-72 is $9772 in fuel.
Figuring the price of fuel at 3.00/gal for 14 flights on the Q400 is $16584 in fuel.

The ATR has 70 seats @ 30" for $55440 in fares at $72/pass for the 11 flights.
TheQ400 has 78 seats @ 30" for $78624 in fares at $72/pass for the 14 flights.

Just minus the fuel cost from the fare allows for $16372 more income per day on the Q400.
-This does not include extra revenue for the larger cargo volume for adding small freight.
-This also does not take into account the cost for ground AC units & engine start equipment as the ATR-72has no APU.

So how is the ATR-72 the better plane if thay can gain that much more in fares during a 16 hour flying day?

There is a reason Alaska make money with them.

seahawk · Mon May 29, 2017 6:42 am

Because you only achieve this is you have a demand that is big enough over the whole 16 hours. Would you simply offer a connection every 2 hours the ground time eats up the speed advantage of the Q400.

RyanairGuru · Mon May 29, 2017 7:18 am

rbavfan wrote:
Just a rough figure based on the graphic showing 900kg for ATR-72 & 1200kg for Q400.
The Q400 can do 14 flights/day vs 11 for the ATR.
Figuring the price of fuel at 3.00/gal for 11 flights on the ATR-72 is $9772 in fuel.
Figuring the price of fuel at 3.00/gal for 14 flights on the Q400 is $16584 in fuel.

The ATR has 70 seats @ 30" for $55440 in fares at $72/pass for the 11 flights.
TheQ400 has 78 seats @ 30" for $78624 in fares at $72/pass for the 14 flights.

Just minus the fuel cost from the fare allows for $16372 more income per day on the Q400.
-This does not include extra revenue for the larger cargo volume for adding small freight.
-This also does not take into account the cost for ground AC units & engine start equipment as the ATR-72has no APU.

So how is the ATR-72 the better plane if thay can gain that much more in fares during a 16 hour flying day?

There is a reason Alaska make money with them.

The difference isn't going to be three flights. Assuming a 15 hour day (06:00-21:00), 45 minute block time and 30 minute ground time you get (15x60 = 900) / 75 = 12 flights per day. Trip time difference between an ATR and Q400 will only be about 5 minutes on such short sectors, 900 / 80 = 11.25.

Keeping your other assumptions, the Q400 will generate $67,392 in revenue over 12 sectors. Keeping your assumptions for the fuel bill is $14,215 for the Q400, $4,443 more.

Moreover you assume that you can sell those extra 8 seats on every flight which isn't realistic.

The market has spoken loud and clear in favour of the ATR. If you look at large Q400 operators, most such as AC, AS, QF, ET, WS etc use them on relatively long sectors, including 500mi+ sectors. That's because that is where the Q400 really pulls away from the ATR. On short flights the ATR will always win.

Dardania · Mon May 29, 2017 9:22 am

Rufusisgod wrote:
anshabhi wrote:
I call this Irish lessor syndrome.

And why is that? What does the lessor have to do with anything?

If I call a lessor and say I want a brand new ATR72-600 they'll source it . If I call and say I want the cheapest you've got - you're going to get an old bird. If island air want a new fleet , investment must be made. And I don't believe the Q400 is the right fit for island hopping. But ATR have a huge back log for -600s and bombardier don't have the same. Maybe it was a simple time frame issue.

However it has nothing to do with the lessor, Irish or not.

I wonder do Irish lessors have a reputation of talking airlines into deals which may not be the best long term?

Edit: Maybe suggestions that Irish lessors are more "repo-happy":
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1362653#p19534465

embraer175e2 · Mon May 29, 2017 11:14 am

77H wrote:
embraer175e2 wrote:
77H wrote:

Except in the interisland market where WP AT7s are competing against HA's 717s. On a route like HNL-OGG flight time on the ATR can be 15-20 minutes longer than the 717. Also, the Q400 allows WP to get more turns out of the Q400 than the AT7 due to the reduced flight times. Frequency is important in the interisland market

77H

They get one more leg out of it. Against 30% more fuel burn off trip. Any accountants around? Let's do some serious math.

I do not work at WP so I don't know why
they chose the Q400 over the AT76. I was posting an educated guess based on what I know about the interisland market and WPs primary competition. I know a few people who work at WP management. Next time I talk to them I'll ask and report back their answer.

77H

Ok

embraer175e2 · Mon May 29, 2017 11:19 am

rbavfan wrote:
Just a rough figure based on the graphic showing 900kg for ATR-72 & 1200kg for Q400.
The Q400 can do 14 flights/day vs 11 for the ATR.
Figuring the price of fuel at 3.00/gal for 11 flights on the ATR-72 is $9772 in fuel.
Figuring the price of fuel at 3.00/gal for 14 flights on the Q400 is $16584 in fuel.

The ATR has 70 seats @ 30" for $55440 in fares at $72/pass for the 11 flights.
TheQ400 has 78 seats @ 30" for $78624 in fares at $72/pass for the 14 flights.

Just minus the fuel cost from the fare allows for $16372 more income per day on the Q400.
-This does not include extra revenue for the larger cargo volume for adding small freight.
-This also does not take into account the cost for ground AC units & engine start equipment as the ATR-72has no APU.

So how is the ATR-72 the better plane if thay can gain that much more in fares during a 16 hour flying day?

There is a reason Alaska make money with them.

14 vs 11??? Where did you get that from?

Apus break down amigo. Especially on turboprops

baje427 · Mon May 29, 2017 12:20 pm

Perhaps WP was able to get a good deal on the Q400. The Hawaiian environment and island hopping must be pretty similar to the Caribbean where all the major airlines use the ATR. On the fuel burn issue I have read that the Q can be flown slower which brings its fuel consumption closer to the ATR it will be interesting to see how it goes for WP.

PW100 · Mon May 29, 2017 3:38 pm

rbavfan wrote:
Q400 burns more fuel, but that can be mitigated by fuel savings procedures that you can follow. Between the ATR & the Q400 in Hawaii I would do the Q400. They have anti vibration system to mitigate the constant feeling of being inside a giant vibrator. They also have one other very good thing. An APU that keeps the AC running on the ground. They do not have to keep the second engine at idle to get the AC to stay on in the aircraft as they do with the ATR. That idling engine for AC adds to the fuel burn as well, but is not included in the we burn 30% less fuel add from ATR. You ever walk into a plane without any AC on in Hawaii?.
The APU also means they do not need ground service units for engine starts, AC & on ground power. The cost of which also eats into that 30% more fuel burn figure.

Some/many of those fuel saving procedures can also be applied to ATR72;
Todays ATR72-600 is no longer feeling like "giant vibrator";
ATR72 can also be had with APU (optional).

Rufusisgod · Mon May 29, 2017 4:15 pm

Dardania wrote:
Rufusisgod wrote:
anshabhi wrote:
I call this Irish lessor syndrome.

And why is that? What does the lessor have to do with anything?

If I call a lessor and say I want a brand new ATR72-600 they'll source it . If I call and say I want the cheapest you've got - you're going to get an old bird. If island air want a new fleet , investment must be made. And I don't believe the Q400 is the right fit for island hopping. But ATR have a huge back log for -600s and bombardier don't have the same. Maybe it was a simple time frame issue.

However it has nothing to do with the lessor, Irish or not.

I wonder do Irish lessors have a reputation of talking airlines into deals which may not be the best long term?

Edit: Maybe suggestions that Irish lessors are more "repo-happy":
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1362653#p19534465

If airlines aren't happy with the contract then they shouldn't sign it. I think most lessors are repo-happy especially when not being paid. And I'm not for one moment saying this is the case. My point is you can't blame a lessor on old planes. If I go into ford tomorrow with $1000 for a car, I can't blame them because I haven't received a 2017 model.

usxguy · Mon May 29, 2017 4:42 pm

I can assure you no one is paying $3.00 / gal for Jet A - at least scheduled airline. Its about $1.80 - $1.90 in Hawaii right now.

And I'd suggest you run those numbers down to 8-10 legs a day - that's all WP will do on an airframe. Average fare also should be knocked down to $60ish - don't forget we're looking at base fares. U S government gets a nice chunk out of each ticket.

VSMUT · Mon May 29, 2017 5:37 pm

PW100 wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
Q400 burns more fuel, but that can be mitigated by fuel savings procedures that you can follow. Between the ATR & the Q400 in Hawaii I would do the Q400. They have anti vibration system to mitigate the constant feeling of being inside a giant vibrator. They also have one other very good thing. An APU that keeps the AC running on the ground. They do not have to keep the second engine at idle to get the AC to stay on in the aircraft as they do with the ATR. That idling engine for AC adds to the fuel burn as well, but is not included in the we burn 30% less fuel add from ATR. You ever walk into a plane without any AC on in Hawaii?.
The APU also means they do not need ground service units for engine starts, AC & on ground power. The cost of which also eats into that 30% more fuel burn figure.

Some/many of those fuel saving procedures can also be applied to ATR72;
Todays ATR72-600 is no longer feeling like "giant vibrator";
ATR72 can also be had with APU (optional).

Just to add to that,

The ATR actually burns less fuel in hotel than the Q400s APU does.

Alternatively, connecting a GPU takes mere seconds, and will cost even less than hotel mode.

The ATR has a much more convenient cargo compartment up front, in addition to the one in the aft.

Even when flown economically/slowly, the Q400 still burns roughly 200 kg more per hour than an ATR.

The perceived speed advantage of the Q400 is nowhere near as great as claimed by Bombardier. The Q has a maximum operating speed of 260 kts, and 245 kts below FL100. This compares to 250 kts for the ATR at all levels. That gives a Q400 a speed advantage of practically nothing.

baje427 · Mon May 29, 2017 5:49 pm

VSMUT wrote:
PW100 wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
Q400 burns more fuel, but that can be mitigated by fuel savings procedures that you can follow. Between the ATR & the Q400 in Hawaii I would do the Q400. They have anti vibration system to mitigate the constant feeling of being inside a giant vibrator. They also have one other very good thing. An APU that keeps the AC running on the ground. They do not have to keep the second engine at idle to get the AC to stay on in the aircraft as they do with the ATR. That idling engine for AC adds to the fuel burn as well, but is not included in the we burn 30% less fuel add from ATR. You ever walk into a plane without any AC on in Hawaii?.
The APU also means they do not need ground service units for engine starts, AC & on ground power. The cost of which also eats into that 30% more fuel burn figure.

Some/many of those fuel saving procedures can also be applied to ATR72;
Todays ATR72-600 is no longer feeling like "giant vibrator";
ATR72 can also be had with APU (optional).

Just to add to that,

The ATR actually burns less fuel in hotel than the Q400s APU does.

Alternatively, connecting a GPU takes mere seconds, and will cost even less than hotel mode.

The ATR has a much more convenient cargo compartment up front, in addition to the one in the aft.

Even when flown economically/slowly, the Q400 still burns roughly 200 kg more per hour than an ATR.

The perceived speed advantage of the Q400 is nowhere near as great as claimed by Bombardier. The Q has a maximum operating speed of 260 kts, and 245 kts below FL100. This compares to 250 kts for the ATR at all levels. That gives a Q400 a speed advantage of practically nothing.

I think you are mistaken the Q does over 350 kts in the cruise.

novarupta · Mon May 29, 2017 5:55 pm

baje427 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
PW100 wrote:
Some/many of those fuel saving procedures can also be applied to ATR72;
Todays ATR72-600 is no longer feeling like "giant vibrator";
ATR72 can also be had with APU (optional).

Just to add to that,

The ATR actually burns less fuel in hotel than the Q400s APU does.

Alternatively, connecting a GPU takes mere seconds, and will cost even less than hotel mode.

The ATR has a much more convenient cargo compartment up front, in addition to the one in the aft.

Even when flown economically/slowly, the Q400 still burns roughly 200 kg more per hour than an ATR.

The perceived speed advantage of the Q400 is nowhere near as great as claimed by Bombardier. The Q has a maximum operating speed of 260 kts, and 245 kts below FL100. This compares to 250 kts for the ATR at all levels. That gives a Q400 a speed advantage of practically nothing.

I think you are mistaken the Q does over 350 kts in the cruise.

The posted speeds are indicated airspeeds.

VSMUT · Mon May 29, 2017 5:55 pm

baje427 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
PW100 wrote:
Some/many of those fuel saving procedures can also be applied to ATR72;
Todays ATR72-600 is no longer feeling like "giant vibrator";
ATR72 can also be had with APU (optional).

Just to add to that,

The ATR actually burns less fuel in hotel than the Q400s APU does.

Alternatively, connecting a GPU takes mere seconds, and will cost even less than hotel mode.

The ATR has a much more convenient cargo compartment up front, in addition to the one in the aft.

Even when flown economically/slowly, the Q400 still burns roughly 200 kg more per hour than an ATR.

The perceived speed advantage of the Q400 is nowhere near as great as claimed by Bombardier. The Q has a maximum operating speed of 260 kts, and 245 kts below FL100. This compares to 250 kts for the ATR at all levels. That gives a Q400 a speed advantage of practically nothing.

I think you are mistaken the Q does over 350 kts in the cruise.

Nope. The VMO is 260 kts IAS due to bird strike reasons. That would amount to slighty more in terms of ground speed when you get up to altitude, but nowhere near 350 kts. Bombardier keeps parading the 360 kt figure around, but fact is that it was only achieved during testing, and can't actually be done in operational service.

TripleDelta · Mon May 29, 2017 6:02 pm

VSMUT wrote:
The perceived speed advantage of the Q400 is nowhere near as great as claimed by Bombardier. The Q has a maximum operating speed of 260 kts, and 245 kts below FL100. This compares to 250 kts for the ATR at all levels. That gives a Q400 a speed advantage of practically nothing.

286, not 260. And while it'll struggle to do that on a hot & humid day, I dare you to find an ATR that can reach and maintain its Vmo in level flight at a sensible cruising altitude and weight...

VSMUT · Mon May 29, 2017 6:05 pm

TripleDelta wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
The perceived speed advantage of the Q400 is nowhere near as great as claimed by Bombardier. The Q has a maximum operating speed of 260 kts, and 245 kts below FL100. This compares to 250 kts for the ATR at all levels. That gives a Q400 a speed advantage of practically nothing.

286, not 260. And while it'll struggle to do that on a hot & humid day, I dare you to find an ATR that can reach and maintain its Vmo in level flight at a sensible cruising altitude and weight...

Did that last week, in an ancient -202 at near MTOW.

TripleDelta · Mon May 29, 2017 6:06 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Nope. The VMO is 260 kts IAS due to bird strike reasons.

245 below 8,000 ft is the birdstrike limit. Above it Vmo increases linearly until 286 at 18,000 ft and then drops to 248 at 25,000 ft due to compressibility reasons.

EDIT: to be more precise, after 8,000 it increases linearly (but rapidly) to 282 at 10,000 and then to 286.

TripleDelta · Mon May 29, 2017 6:11 pm

VSMUT wrote:
. That would amount to slighty more in terms of ground speed when you get up to altitude, but nowhere near 350 kts. Bombardier keeps parading the 360 kt figure around, but fact is that it was only achieved during testing, and can't actually be done in operational service.

Yes it can. A 350 knot TAS is achievable in most cases without much fuss at maximum cruise.

aerolimani · Mon May 29, 2017 6:45 pm

Just go on FR24, filter for aircraft type DH8D, and you'll see plenty of them speeding around. Unfortunately, I don't see true airspeed on any of them. But, there's aircraft showing groundspeeds up to 371 knots, and most seem to be around 350. The fastest ATR72-600 (AT76 if you're filtering on FR24) I could find, was doing 285 knots, and most were around 250. While this quick survey is hardly accurate, it looks like the Q400 are being flown around at speeds almost 30% faster than the ATR72-600.

zeke · Mon May 29, 2017 7:05 pm

The most efficient profile from a minimum fuel burn point of view for the Q400 is climb at 160 KIAS, cruise at 180-210 KIAS @ FL250 (depending on payload), and then descend at 200 KIAS. Sure is can be flown like it was stolen at the expense of 25% more fuel burn.

http://commercialaircraft.bombardier.co ... manual.pdf

jpetekyxmd80 · Mon May 29, 2017 7:15 pm

Basically on an average Hawaiian route like HNL-LIH or HNL-OGG, the Q400 takes 4 minutes longer than a 717 and the ATR takes 4 minutes longer than the Q400

TripleDelta · Mon May 29, 2017 7:18 pm

zeke wrote:
The most efficient profile from a minimum fuel burn point of view for the Q400 is climb at 160 KIAS, cruise at 180-210 KIAS @ FL250 (depending on payload), and then descend at 200 KIAS. Sure is can be flown like it was stolen at the expense of 25% more fuel burn.

http://commercialaircraft.bombardier.co ... manual.pdf

Sure, it can be flown like this - but what would then be the point of all that expensive power advantage? In such a regime, the 72 would wipe the floor with it in terms of overall cost (especially acquisition and maintenance) for a negligible or no performance disadvantage. The Q400 works best AS AN ASSET specifically when being flown like it was stolen - and on sectors 1+ hour in length.

zeke · Mon May 29, 2017 7:42 pm

So why does the manufacturer even bother putting together fuel efficiency documents if operators are just fly it like it was stolen ?

Could it be that airlines do care about their DOCs ? Could that also be why the ATR is popular as when flown to minimise DOC the Q400 does not have a real advantage ?

A 25% increase in DOC can wipe out any profit in a ticket sold, margins in this industry are tight.

TripleDelta · Mon May 29, 2017 7:56 pm

zeke wrote:
So why does the manufacturer even bother putting together fuel efficiency documents if operators are just fly it like it was stolen ?

The answer to that question can only be found at Mirabel...

zeke wrote:
Could it be that airlines do care about their DOCs ? Could that also be why the ATR is popular as when flown to minimise DOC the Q400 does not have a real advantage ?

ATR's orderbook would certainly suggest so. If the Q400 was not built to be flown fast at 20,000+ ft, it would not have twice the power of the 72 for only ~20% more weight at MTOW. You don't put 10,000 HP on a 75-ish seater just to prove a point.

EDIT: another way to look at it is why has ATR kept the power pretty much constant throughout three versions of the 72? Obviously they have a "loyal user base" despite the presence of the Q400.

TripleDelta · Mon May 29, 2017 8:17 pm

zeke wrote:
A 25% increase in DOC can wipe out any profit in a ticket sold, margins in this industry are tight.

True, but the Q400 was not intended to compete just against other turboprops - but in some segements and on some flights light regional jets as well... whose operational costs are higher, despite their outright better performance.

jed747 · Mon May 29, 2017 8:26 pm

I hope I don't get slammed by this suggestion, but how about looking at the RJ85 family. I know that Discovery tried a short-lived experiment in Hawaii with the BAe-146 however, the failure wasn't because of the airplane, but other factors, and the RJ is much more economical and reliable than the BAe-146.

There are a number of relatively low time RJ's coming off lease in Europe now, and from carriers that have a solid reputation for maintenance. The RJ was designed for short hops from difficult airfields and high cycles per day. It also eliminates the anti-prop basis some have since it is a jet and can more than likely match the economics of the 717. Also there is the possibility of conversion to a QC model, so there is the added economics of running island freight at night. Something that really hasn't been tried since the demise of Aloha's 737-QC's, and something that can't be easily done to the 717. An STC for the QC already exists, a handful were made and BAe has been talking about conversion of some of the RJ's now coming off lease.

If I were FALKO the main lease holder of RJ's in the world, I think it would be worth sending a dales team over to Hawaii with the proposal.

Thank you have a nice day, John

xdlx · Mon May 29, 2017 11:11 pm

250kts in a 72? going downhill ONLY

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net