juliuswong wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

juliuswong wrote:

Whose official statement are you looking at? The airline customer? If it is the case, I don't think it is a good idea to bad mouth about your vendor/ supplier tbh.

Very personal Julies. If the Atr was so bad everybody would be switching back to BMD.

Sorry if it sounds personal, it was done unintentionally. I was asking on the basis which statement are you looking at, I will find out if there is any directive from the airline mgt itself to Engineering dept to ground the fleet. Hopefully they can grab hold of one for us. Again, apology if it sounds personal. BMD doesn't sell well in South East Asia mainly due to lack of maintenance support around this region. ATR has a support centre in Singapore that can train crews, fix and supply parts if any need arise. BMD thus far has yet to do one near this region.

As well as one in NSN, in New Zealand. This covers the pacific

As any pilot with a quarter orf a brain will tell you, NEITHER the ATR -600 Series NOR the Q400 are suitable for the LIAT OR the Caribbean Airlines short-haul network. Turboprops, short flights and low altitude are not a good combination, and the "salt layer" is the death blow.

With so many short fields and some dicey crosswinds in LIAT's network, what existed - the Dash-8-100 and -300 - was not only adequate but finely suited for the purpose. Especially because of the crosswinds, the ATR narrow wheelbase cancelled many of LIAT's ATR flights, and in Arnos Vale the tail winds shut ATR flights down where the Dash-8 would have carried on flying - as they always had done for the last almost 30 years.

I know for a fact that when the Dash-8s left LIAT they were still in excellent condition due to a very high standard of manufacture - those are VERY sturdy aircraft, inside and out. After just three years, however, the pilots are complaining about the ATR cockpit interiors falling apart and the passengers are complaining shoddy ATR cabin panels coming off in flight and seats falling apart.

FACT: Whether anyone likes my opinion or not, the ATR has shown itself to be a cheaply made airplane that is more suited to First World commuters and First World runways, not Third World strips jammed in wherever they can fit.

FACT: Only one person was responsible for the purchase of the ATR by CAL, LIAT and BahamasAir - at wildly variable and excessive prices - and those who have had the airplane for more than a year are all complianing about them.

FACT: All of the Caribbean airlines which purchased them did so under questionable circumstances - the Bahamian Party who did that dirty deed are now OUT OF POWER, have still not explained where they planned to get the money, and both the LIAT and BahamasAir Boards were clearly lied to and their ignorance of aviation clealy taken advantage of,

FACT: The Dash-8s could have been reconditioned by Bombardier to new condition with zero cycles for 10% of the cost of new ATRs. But don't tell anyone, those ignorant Boards will pay fat prices - including fat commissions - out of the taxpayers wallets for new aircraft instead. Doubt it can be done? Google the word Ikhana, they are doing it to Twin Otters, which are FAR older and more abused than the Dash-8.

Perhaps my doubters can explain why a pilot and knowledgeable CEO who left CAL with "cash in the bank" (that's long gone and CAL is deep in debt - again) would have purchased ATRs when the existing Dash-8s were doing an outstanding job. The only pausible explanation is money (and not to the benefit of the airlines or taxpayer owners).

bimjim wrote:

As any pilot with a quarter orf a brain will tell you, NEITHER the ATR -600 Series NOT the Q400 are suitable for the LIAT OR Caribbean Airlines short-haul network.

With many short fields and some dicey crosswinds, what existed - the Dash-8-100 and -300 - was not only adequate but finely suited for the purpose. Especially because of the crosswinds, the ATR narrow wheelbase cancelled many of LIAT's ATR flights, and in Arnos Vale the tail winds shut ATR flights down where the Dash-8 would have carried on flying - as they always had done for the last 20+ years.

I know for a fact that when the Dash-8s left LIAT they were still in excellent condition due to a very high standard of manufacture - those are VERY sturdy aircraft, inside and out. After just three years, however, the pilots are complaining about the ATR cockpit interiors falling apart and the passengers are complaining shoddy ATR cabin panels coming off in flight and seats falling apart.

FACT: Whether anyone likes my opinion or not, the ATR has shown itself to be a cheaply made airplane that is more suited to First World commuters and First World runways, not Third World strips jammed in wherever they can fit.

FACT: Only one person was responsible for the purchase of the ATR by CAL, LIAT and BahamasAir - at wildly variable and excessive prices - and those who have had the airplane for more than a year are all complianing about them.

FACT: All of the Caribbean airlines which purchased them did so under questionable circumstances - the Bahamian Party who did that dirty deed are now OUT OF POWER, have still not explained where they planned to get the money, and both the LIAT and BahamasAir Boards were clearly lied to and their ignorance of aviation clealy taken advantage of,.

Perhaps my doubters can explain why a pilot and knowledgeable CEO who left CAL with "cash in the bank" (that's long gone and CAL is deep in debt - again) would have purchased ATRs when the existing Dash-8s were doing an outstanding job. The only pausible explanation is money (and not to the benefit of the airlines or taxpayer owners).

While most of what you said is true what is also true was LIAT's Dash 8's were getting up there in age indeed none of them were even equipped with the AVNS systems which debuted on Q300 in the late 90's. We all know LIAT was having severe delays with their aging Dash8 fleet. With the closure of ET Joshua in St.Vincent crosswind issues are less of a concern in SVD however, still a factor in Dominica. Based on the operations of Caribbean airlines the ATR was the only logical choice. The Q400 based on several comments online is also a plagued with reliability issues in addition, it is simply too big for many of the regional routes these carriers operate. The ATR is simply the only logical option for turboprop replacement in the region.

Yes bimjim, there is no other option for turboprop other then ATR so will have to do with the shoddy interiors and poor quality of the ATR as mentioned in your facts...


A388

bimjim wrote:

FACT: The Dash-8s could have been reconditioned by Bombardier to new condition with zero cycles for 10% of the cost of new ATRs. But don't tell anyone, those ignorant Boards will pay fat prices - including fat commissions - out of the taxpayers wallets for new aircraft instead. Doubt it can be done? Google the word Ikhana, they are doing it to Twin Otters, which are FAR older and more abused than the Dash-8.

Sorry Bombardier does not offer any sort of zero time airframe service. There is a big difference between the DHC-6 and DHC-8, and it is not 2. The DHC-8 is a pressurized retractable gear airliner certified to FAR 25, the DHC-6 is CAR 3 certified small aeroplane. The fatigue, damage tolerance, and safe life requirements between CAR 3 and FAR 25 are night and day in difference. You can verify the certification basis I have stated on the TCDS.

Bombardier does have an extended service program (ESP) for the DHC-8 that extends the service life 50% from the original 80,000 cycles to 120,000 cycles. The landing gear still needs replacement at 60,000 cycles. The ESP is a combination of increased maintenance tasks and service bulletins, it is done during normal periodic shop visits. ATR have also been offering a 50% life extension program since 2004.

I suspect none of your "facts" can be verified by any means.

LamboAston wrote:

Hasn't been many problems with them in New Zealand. They usually only do flights between half an hour and an hour and a half though, with a few exceptions.

Do remember that NZ was claiming they have the worlds best reliability rate with there ATR fleet, must have something to it with them going from 11 to 30 over the last few years.

fd122 wrote:

I heard from a senior/high ranking LIAT engineer/official that the ATRs have more corrosion on them compared to the Dash. He even said they are in maintenance more so than the older Dash that were in the fleet. All I know is I feel safer in the Dash than the ATR which LIAT now fly. And I've been enough on them to feel something is different compared to the Dash, Whatever that means.

bimjim wrote:

As any pilot with a quarter orf a brain will tell you, NEITHER the ATR -600 Series NOR the Q400 are suitable for the LIAT OR the Caribbean Airlines short-haul network. Turboprops, short flights and low altitude are not a good combination, and the "salt layer" is the death blow.

FACT: Whether anyone likes my opinion or not, the ATR has shown itself to be a cheaply made airplane that is more suited to First World commuters and First World runways, not Third World strips jammed in wherever they can fit.

FACT: Only one person was responsible for the purchase of the ATR by CAL, LIAT and BahamasAir - at wildly variable and excessive prices - and those who have had the airplane for more than a year are all complianing about them.

FACT: All of the Caribbean airlines which purchased them did so under questionable circumstances - the Bahamian Party who did that dirty deed are now OUT OF POWER, have still not explained where they planned to get the money, and both the LIAT and BahamasAir Boards were clearly lied to and their ignorance of aviation clealy taken advantage of,

Perhaps my doubters can explain why a pilot and knowledgeable CEO who left CAL with "cash in the bank" (that's long gone and CAL is deep in debt - again) would have purchased ATRs when the existing Dash-8s were doing an outstanding job. The only pausible explanation is money (and not to the benefit of the airlines or taxpayer owners).

Bimjim & FD122 know what they're talking about. The frequent over-water ops prove detrimental to the ATR airframe; moreso than the Dash 8. Doing anywhere between 12-20 cycles per day probably doesn't help either. It is also common knowledge re: the fiasco of the ATR purchase.
On another note, there's been a delay in the start of Cuba flights at CAL.

bimjim wrote:

As any pilot with a quarter orf a brain will tell you, NEITHER the ATR -600 Series NOR the Q400 are suitable for the LIAT OR the Caribbean Airlines short-haul network. Turboprops, short flights and low altitude are not a good combination, and the "salt layer" is the death blow.

With so many short fields and some dicey crosswinds in LIAT's network, what existed - the Dash-8-100 and -300 - was not only adequate but finely suited for the purpose. Especially because of the crosswinds, the ATR narrow wheelbase cancelled many of LIAT's ATR flights, and in Arnos Vale the tail winds shut ATR flights down where the Dash-8 would have carried on flying - as they always had done for the last almost 30 years.

I know for a fact that when the Dash-8s left LIAT they were still in excellent condition due to a very high standard of manufacture - those are VERY sturdy aircraft, inside and out. After just three years, however, the pilots are complaining about the ATR cockpit interiors falling apart and the passengers are complaining shoddy ATR cabin panels coming off in flight and seats falling apart.

FACT: Whether anyone likes my opinion or not, the ATR has shown itself to be a cheaply made airplane that is more suited to First World commuters and First World runways, not Third World strips jammed in wherever they can fit.

FACT: Only one person was responsible for the purchase of the ATR by CAL, LIAT and BahamasAir - at wildly variable and excessive prices - and those who have had the airplane for more than a year are all complianing about them.

FACT: All of the Caribbean airlines which purchased them did so under questionable circumstances - the Bahamian Party who did that dirty deed are now OUT OF POWER, have still not explained where they planned to get the money, and both the LIAT and BahamasAir Boards were clearly lied to and their ignorance of aviation clealy taken advantage of,

FACT: The Dash-8s could have been reconditioned by Bombardier to new condition with zero cycles for 10% of the cost of new ATRs. But don't tell anyone, those ignorant Boards will pay fat prices - including fat commissions - out of the taxpayers wallets for new aircraft instead. Doubt it can be done? Google the word Ikhana, they are doing it to Twin Otters, which are FAR older and more abused than the Dash-8.

Perhaps my doubters can explain why a pilot and knowledgeable CEO who left CAL with "cash in the bank" (that's long gone and CAL is deep in debt - again) would have purchased ATRs when the existing Dash-8s were doing an outstanding job. The only pausible explanation is money (and not to the benefit of the airlines or taxpayer owners).

What a load of crock. Crosswinds has never cancelled a single flight at LIAT. The ATR has a tailwind limit of 20kts just like the Dash. However the ECCAA has found it fit not to approve over 15kts for LI. You'd be surprised how helpful that extra 5kts would be. You can ask them why they did that. If refurbishing the Dash was such a great idea, why hasn't a single airline taken Bombardier up on that offer? The problems at LIAT, CAL and Bahamasair are incompetent management and politics, not the ATR.

TriniA340 wrote:

Bimjim & FD122 know what they're talking about. The frequent over-water ops prove detrimental to the ATR airframe; moreso than the Dash 8.

Good to know that it doesn't count when the over-water ops is over cold water.

ATR's of all versions - 42-200, 72-600, and anything in between - have done sterling service all way around the Baltic Sea during the last 31 years. There wouldn't be much regional traffic around here without the ATR.

According to viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1353639&start=250

LIAT are not flying the ATR72 as a result of industrial issues with the pilots pay, hardly anything to do with airframes serviceability then.

Flew a Binter ATR 72-600 Gran Canaria to Tenerife North and back and loved it!! Beautiful modern cabin, very quiet and smooth. Days later flew a Sata Q400 on a long three hour stretch from Gran Canaria to Ponta Delgada, Azores, a very long trip in a Q400, noise level was much higher and ride seemed a little rougher but that could be because of the altitude and duration of the flight.

Binter seems to do a lot of short segments throughout the Canaria with their large ATR 72 fleet, wonder how their doing?

General question - it seems as if Bombardier have 'fine-tuned' all improvements on the Dash-8 towards the Q-400 (and even a HD seating concept).:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/dash8/

My question then stems from an issue that LIAT, Bahamasair and even Caribbean Airlines would have faced with, essentially, 'upgauging' to a -Q400...

...would Bombardier even be interested in making a Dash-8-100, or Dash-8-200, for these airlines, seeing that all obligations on said frames are fulfilled?

Perhaps, the airlines were left with little other choice, as gauge flexibility would have further favoured ATR (and their ability to purchase both the ATR 42 and ATR 72, and offer fleet commonality).

Rajahdhani wrote:

General question - it seems as if Bombardier have 'fine-tuned' all improvements on the Dash-8 towards the Q-400 (and even a HD seating concept).:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/dash8/

My question then stems from an issue that LIAT, Bahamasair and even Caribbean Airlines would have faced with, essentially, 'upgauging' to a -Q400...

...would Bombardier even be interested in making a Dash-8-100, or Dash-8-200, for these airlines, seeing that all obligations on said frames are fulfilled?

Perhaps, the airlines were left with little other choice, as gauge flexibility would have further favoured ATR (and their ability to purchase both the ATR 42 and ATR 72, and offer fleet commonality).

I don't think they have the tooling for them still available. They haven't made them for over 10 years.

prebennorholm wrote:

TriniA340 wrote:

Bimjim & FD122 know what they're talking about. The frequent over-water ops prove detrimental to the ATR airframe; moreso than the Dash 8.

Good to know that it doesn't count when the over-water ops is over cold water.

ATR's of all versions - 42-200, 72-600, and anything in between - have done sterling service all way around the Baltic Sea during the last 31 years. There wouldn't be much regional traffic around here without the ATR.

I do suspect that operating in hot and high humid marine environments might pose a challenge not found on flights over the Baltic. It would be better if an example was cited using a Caribbean, Indian or Pacific Ocean carrier operating in a similar climate as do BW and LI.

zeke wrote:

According to viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1353639&start=250

LIAT are not flying the ATR72 as a result of industrial issues with the pilots pay, hardly anything to do with airframes serviceability then.

In fact LI pilots have themselves said that the ATR is harder to fly than the Dash 8 in Caribbean aviation environments. That is behind the most recent tension with LI management.

Case in point. A 738 was busy on the TAB route all day. The result being that the BW 526 which flies POS GEO JFK left 2:30 hours late. No doubt one of the ATRs is down.

guyanam wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

TriniA340 wrote:

Bimjim & FD122 know what they're talking about. The frequent over-water ops prove detrimental to the ATR airframe; moreso than the Dash 8.

Good to know that it doesn't count when the over-water ops is over cold water.

ATR's of all versions - 42-200, 72-600, and anything in between - have done sterling service all way around the Baltic Sea during the last 31 years. There wouldn't be much regional traffic around here without the ATR.

I do suspect that operating in hot and high humid marine environments might pose a challenge not found on flights over the Baltic. It would be better if an example was cited using a Caribbean, Indian or Pacific Ocean carrier operating in a similar climate as do BW and LI.

Hmm, if the Baltic with a lower saline level and a colder climate isn't a good example, there are plenty of examples of ATR in warm climates.

Some examples:

Atlantic
If we look for archipelagoes we see Binter Canarias using it for all their island hopping around the Canaries. TACA used to fly it on some of their Caribbean routes as well as to neighboring countries. Cubana has used ATR for quite sometime, leased from Taca.
While mostly deploed in the country Azul flies a large fleet of ATR to wet destinations in the interior.
Bahamasair use the ATR.
Air Antilles and Air caraibes seem to handle the aircraft just fine in what we must assume are similar locations.

Indian Ocean - Air Mauritius and Air Austral both operate the aircraft on inter-island hopping.

Pacific
Its the propeller plane of choice in Indonesia for example, soon 75 ATR flies between smaller airfields often between more remote islands. Not with the best of will can I call Indonesia first world. Rather challenging both infrastructure and location that the airframe consistently flies into.
On Borneo, MasWings keeps hugging the coast with their ATR.
All filippino airlines use the ATR. Thats serious island hopping.
Add on the Polynesian and Melanesian airlines, Air Tahiti, Fiji Airways, Air Caledonie etc.

Its an airline flown all over the world, often island-hopping and in plenty of third world areas. It has 80% of the market for a reason.

if Caribbean pilots have issues with the air-frame, Id check what internal issues there are and how the airframe is used rather than the assumptions that there are issues with the airframe.

I´m wondering why nobody is looking into the fact that the latest models (no matter whether ATR or Bombardier) are simply more "sensitive" tech wise.
Despite the efforts by manufacturers to minimise related problems these aircraft require a higher level of maintenance than aircraft built 20 years ago ...
Most problems are not airframe related (e.g. corrosion / fatigue) but due to much more sensible electronics.

Cebgo (Cebu Pacific) has quite a few ATR 72-500 and now also the -600 in operation without any serious trouble. (climate in the Philippines may well be compared to the Carribbean)
Seems it´s has more to do with careful maintenance rather than who made the aircraft ...

... and finally: both the ATR (- 600 series) and Dash´s (- 400 series) are simply not made for continous high frequency 10-15 mins sectors.

MillwallSean wrote:

guyanam wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

Good to know that it doesn't count when the over-water ops is over cold water.

ATR's of all versions - 42-200, 72-600, and anything in between - have done sterling service all way around the Baltic Sea during the last 31 years. There wouldn't be much regional traffic around here without the ATR.

I do suspect that operating in hot and high humid marine environments might pose a challenge not found on flights over the Baltic. It would be better if an example was cited using a Caribbean, Indian or Pacific Ocean carrier operating in a similar climate as do BW and LI.

Hmm, if the Baltic with a lower saline level and a colder climate isn't a good example, there are plenty of examples of ATR in warm climates.

Some examples:

Atlantic
If we look for archipelagoes we see Binter Canarias using it for all their island hopping around the Canaries. TACA used to fly it on some of their Caribbean routes as well as to neighboring countries. Cubana has used ATR for quite sometime, leased from Taca.
While mostly deploed in the country Azul flies a large fleet of ATR to wet destinations in the interior.
Bahamasair use the ATR.
Air Antilles and Air caraibes seem to handle the aircraft just fine in what we must assume are similar locations.

Indian Ocean - Air Mauritius and Air Austral both operate the aircraft on inter-island hopping.

Pacific
Its the propeller plane of choice in Indonesia for example, soon 75 ATR flies between smaller airfields often between more remote islands. Not with the best of will can I call Indonesia first world. Rather challenging both infrastructure and location that the airframe consistently flies into.
On Borneo, MasWings keeps hugging the coast with their ATR.
All filippino airlines use the ATR. Thats serious island hopping.
Add on the Polynesian and Melanesian airlines, Air Tahiti, Fiji Airways, Air Caledonie etc.

Its an airline flown all over the world, often island-hopping and in plenty of third world areas. It has 80% of the market for a reason.

if Caribbean pilots have issues with the air-frame, Id check what internal issues there are and how the airframe is used rather than the assumptions that there are issues with the airframe.

THANK YOU buddy. Awesome message for some folks over here.

guyanam wrote:

In fact LI pilots have themselves said that the ATR is harder to fly than the Dash 8 in Caribbean aviation environments. That is behind the most recent tension with LI management.

That is like saying and Airbus is harder to fly than a Boeing, or a Tesla is harder to drive than a Chevrolet. None of it stands to any form of reason. I was half waiting for the card that European aircraft are harder to fly than North American aircraft because of the higher melanin in contact with the aircraft controls makes it harder to fly an ATR......really people, what are you thinking ???????

They both meet the same certification standards .... i.e. are both certified to handle like an airliner should handle without any quirks, so that pilots green as the licence was printed yesterday or just before they retire can still fly them safely....nothing special is required. This might be an industrial angle, but call it for what it is.

MillWallSean and zeke have excellent points on the ATR performance. This is why I asked how other airlines operating the ATR think of the ATR. I also think there's more happening on the Caribbean than the aircraft itself because as far as I know the ATR is a good aircraft for the island hopping.

A388

A388 wrote:

I also think there's more happening on the Caribbean than the aircraft itself because as far as I know the ATR is a good aircraft for the island hopping.

The Bermuda Triangle moved down to the Caribbean and jinxed their operations!

[quote="A388"]MillWallSean and zeke have excellent points on the ATR performance. This is why I asked how other airlines operating the ATR think of the ATR. I also think there's more happening on the Caribbean than the aircraft itself because as far as I know the ATR is a good aircraft for the island hopping.

very good answer Rogier .I fully agree with you

Devilfish wrote:

A388 wrote:

I also think there's more happening on the Caribbean than the aircraft itself because as far as I know the ATR is a good aircraft for the island hopping.

The Bermuda Triangle moved down to the Caribbean and jinxed their operations!

Well sometimes airlines excecutives receive extra picket money for buying a new aircraft. Happened many times in the Caribbean. F.e. to Bahamas air while purchasing the dash8s

There is an investigation in curacao for bad maintenance practices at a local airline in curacao.and much more...

Pocket money

MHG wrote:

I...

... and finally: both the ATR (- 600 series) and Dash´s (- 400 series) are simply not made for continous high frequency 10-15 mins sectors.

This being key. BW has its ATRs on constant 15 minute rotations all day. They were the first operator of the 600 series in the Caribbean and so have received ample attention from ATR over the years. And yet this problem was unresolved as of earlier this year. Apparently even ATR cannot fix this problem.

Combine humidity, marine issues and this frequent rotations and it looks like a very different proposition. In fact 3S and TX have longer flight sectors. FDF and PTP are 30 minutes apart. That being the closest sector, aside from FDF SLU which isn't a high frequency route. I am not even sure if these are directly comparable to BW.

zeke wrote:

guyanam wrote:

In fact LI pilots have themselves said that the ATR is harder to fly than the Dash 8 in Caribbean aviation environments. That is behind the most recent tension with LI management.

That is like saying and Airbus is harder ..

Firstly I will NOT DISRESPECT LIAT pilots who fly under very challenging conditions with an EXCELLENT safety record. I will submit that they know more about flying into the various airports in the Caribbean then you do, so if they say that the ATR is harder to fly under Caribbean conditions then I will defer to them. No doubt operating under these conditions leads ro higher maintenance issues.

Devilfish wrote:

A388 wrote:

I also think there's more happening on the Caribbean than the aircraft itself because as far as I know the ATR is a good aircraft for the island hopping.

The Bermuda Triangle moved down to the Caribbean and jinxed their operations!

Oh yes, we incompetent Caribbean people who spend all day smoking weed and lying down under coconut trees. What the hell do we know!

I suggest that you chat with ATR, which has spent ample time with BW, attempting to fix the problem. Also had to do the same with LI in the early stages, and yet BW still has this problem.

guyanam wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

A388 wrote:

I also think there's more happening on the Caribbean than the aircraft itself because as far as I know the ATR is a good aircraft for the island hopping.

The Bermuda Triangle moved down to the Caribbean and jinxed their operations!

Oh yes, we incompetent Caribbean people who spend all day smoking weed and lying down under coconut trees. What the hell do we know!

I suggest that you chat with ATR, which has spent ample time with BW, attempting to fix the problem. Also had to do the same with LI in the early stages, and yet BW still has this problem.

Where did you get that liat pilots info? ?????
And also all this othet info.

guyanam wrote:

MHG wrote:

I...

... and finally: both the ATR (- 600 series) and Dash´s (- 400 series) are simply not made for continous high frequency 10-15 mins sectors.

This being key. BW has its ATRs on constant 15 minute rotations all day. They were the first operator of the 600 series in the Caribbean and so have received ample attention from ATR over the years. And yet this problem was unresolved as of earlier this year. Apparently even ATR cannot fix this problem.

Combine humidity, marine issues and this frequent rotations and it looks like a very different proposition. In fact 3S and TX have longer flight sectors. FDF and PTP are 30 minutes apart. That being the closest sector, aside from FDF SLU which isn't a high frequency route. I am not even sure if these are directly comparable to BW.

Thank you for that Guyanam! This is the main difference between BW and everyone else; the high accumulation of short-sector cycles, coupled with low altitude flights over the Caribbean Sea. Ppl on the outside looking on are quick to point fingers without knowing what is going on within. Incompetent management and politics do not cause premature corrosion as some may like to allude to. The fact is BW's maintenance operations are quite stringent and safety is not something taken lightly there. The ATR maintenance spec is followed by the book, as well as additional checks and tasks as req'd by BW themselves.

Average dispatch reliability of the worldwide ATR72-500/600 fleet is 99,7% which is equal to a 737 or A320. And BW is not special in flying many 10-15 minutes vectors over the sea, that is exactly what Binter has been doing for decades. So the better question is what does Binter differently. My guess would be different flight profiles (in FR24 it seems Binter climbs to higher cruise altitudes even on those short hops) and better maintenance procedures which might include a wash down of the aircraft more often.

And if you believe Dash8 Q400s would do better you might be mistaken. The Q400s have proven a challenge maintenance wise even on longer sectors within central Europe.

guyanam wrote:

Firstly I will NOT DISRESPECT LIAT pilots who fly under very challenging conditions with an EXCELLENT safety record. I will submit that they know more about flying into the various airports in the Caribbean then you do, so if they say that the ATR is harder to fly under Caribbean conditions then I will defer to them. No doubt operating under these conditions leads ro higher maintenance issues.

What are these so called "very challenging conditions" ?

Lol. Please come with links about what you said guyanam .prove it . Dont just talk.

I flew the atr myself in the caribs as a pilot. Lack of good maintenance will shut any aircraft down no matter in what kind of operations. By the way All turboprops are maintenance sensitive aircraft.

embraer175e2 wrote:

guyanam wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

The Bermuda Triangle moved down to the Caribbean and jinxed their operations!

Oh yes, we incompetent Caribbean people who spend all day smoking weed and lying down under coconut trees. What the hell do we know!

I suggest that you chat with ATR, which has spent ample time with BW, attempting to fix the problem. Also had to do the same with LI in the early stages, and yet BW still has this problem.

Where did you get that liat pilots info? ?????
And also all this othet info.

There is extensive LIAT press coverage. I suggest that you do your research. Caribbeanavenue has ample articles for you tp peruse. The pilots have been quite vocal.

Ditto about ATR which even leased, at its own expense an ATR plane to substitute for one of BWs ATRs while they figured out why that plane had ongoing problems. This was early this year. This after virtually parking technicians at POS after BW reported issues.

seahawk wrote:

Average dispatch reliability of the worldwide ATR72-500/600 fleet is 99,7% which is equal to a 737 or A320. And BW is not special in flying many 10-15 minutes vectors over the sea, that is exactly what Binter has been doing for decades. So the better question is what does Binter differently. My guess would be different flight profiles (in FR24 it seems Binter climbs to higher cruise altitudes even on those short hops) and better maintenance procedures which might include a wash down of the aircraft more often.

And if you believe Dash8 Q400s would do better you might be mistaken. The Q400s have proven a challenge maintenance wise even on longer sectors within central Europe.

If the answers for BW were that simple ATR would have stated so long ago. Instead since BW has had their ATRs they have had technicians based there, and assumed AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, the lease of a substitute ATR earlier this year after one of the ATRs, which had repeated break downs.

BW is a small ATR operator with a scant 5. It isn't going to buy anymore. So why would ATR invest so much in this problem if the remedy was so easy?

I suggest that you chat with Bimjim on the Q400 issue. I haven't an opinion on that one

embraer175e2 wrote:

I flew the atr myself in the caribs as a pilot. Lack of good maintenance will shut any aircraft down no matter in what kind of operations. By the way All turboprops are maintenance sensitive aircraft.

Given that you are a pilot why don't you pick up the phone and call a LIAT or Caribbean AIrlines pilot and ask them. In the meantime you can do your own research. I am NOT the only person making this comment so clearly there is a body of opinion that has this view. I merely repeat what they say.

If BW was at fault ATR would have said so, but instead leased AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE an ATR to substitute for one that had repeated breakdowns.

Now ask why is it that a small airline which isn't in the market for more planes would receive so much attention from a major manufacturer.

zeke wrote:

guyanam wrote:

Firstly I will NOT DISRESPECT LIAT pilots who fly under very challenging conditions with an EXCELLENT safety record. I will submit that they know more about flying into the various airports in the Caribbean then you do, so if they say that the ATR is harder to fly under Caribbean conditions then I will defer to them. No doubt operating under these conditions leads ro higher maintenance issues.

What are these so called "very challenging conditions" ?

You aren't really interested in finding out so don't ask!

TriniA340 wrote:

The fact is BW's maintenance operations are quite stringent and safety is not something taken lightly there. The ATR maintenance spec is followed by the book, as well as additional checks and tasks as req'd by BW themselves.

Just a bunch of folks who refuse to admit that there might be a problem. If there wasn't a problem ATR wouldn't be sending technicians and leasing planes AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE to attempt to remedy the BW situation. BW isn't a large operator, and isn't going to acquire more ATRs so its not as if ATR does this to protect business opportunities.


In fact LI has even reconfigured its routes to minimize the number of extremely short sectors because of the additional wear and tear on planes, given the marine hot and humid environment. Only SVD SLU, and ANU SKB SXM are left and these are operated at most 2-3x daily. BW doesn't have that option on its POS TAB route. That is one of the busiest intra Caribbean routes, in fact I am tempted to say the busiest. I think up to one million are on that route.

Then there is some one who isn't even aware of the issues surrounding DOM and ET Joshua in SVD.

guyanam wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Average dispatch reliability of the worldwide ATR72-500/600 fleet is 99,7% which is equal to a 737 or A320. And BW is not special in flying many 10-15 minutes vectors over the sea, that is exactly what Binter has been doing for decades. So the better question is what does Binter differently. My guess would be different flight profiles (in FR24 it seems Binter climbs to higher cruise altitudes even on those short hops) and better maintenance procedures which might include a wash down of the aircraft more often.

And if you believe Dash8 Q400s would do better you might be mistaken. The Q400s have proven a challenge maintenance wise even on longer sectors within central Europe.

If the answers for BW were that simple ATR would have stated so long ago. Instead since BW has had their ATRs they have had technicians based there, and assumed AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, the lease of a substitute ATR earlier this year after one of the ATRs, which had repeated break downs.

BW is a small ATR operator with a scant 5. It isn't going to buy anymore. So why would ATR invest so much in this problem if the remedy was so easy?

I suggest that you chat with Bimjim on the Q400 issue. I haven't an opinion on that one

I am not saying there are no problems, it is just not a general problem of the ATR. It is normal for any manufacturer to lend technical support in case one operator is facing unusual technical problems. There will be something hidden within the triangle of plane, operator and missions that is causing trouble, the reason just needs to be found. One of the things that are an engineer´s nightmare and dream at the same time.

guyanam wrote:

You aren't really interested in finding out so don't ask!

I am very interested to know given the wide geographic dispersal of the worldwide fleet I want to know what you claim to be "very challenging conditions".

Both the DHC-8 ant ATR use Pratt and Whitney of Canada PW120 series engines with Hamilton Standard propellers, however the ATR has a greater percentage of composite construction.

Sounds like LIAT should look at the DC-3.

guyanam wrote:

embraer175e2 wrote:

I flew the atr myself in the caribs as a pilot. Lack of good maintenance will shut any aircraft down no matter in what kind of operations. By the way All turboprops are maintenance sensitive aircraft.

Given that you are a pilot why don't you pick up the phone and call a LIAT or Caribbean AIrlines pilot and ask them. In the meantime you can do your own research. I am NOT the only person making this comment so clearly there is a body of opinion that has this view. I merely repeat what they say.

If BW was at fault ATR would have said so, but instead leased AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE an ATR to substitute for one that had repeated breakdowns.

Now ask why is it that a small airline which isn't in the market for more planes would receive so much attention from a major manufacturer.

Do you know what happened to SAS and its Q400's?

guyanam wrote:

And if you believe Dash8 Q400s would do better you might be mistaken. The Q400s have proven a challenge maintenance wise even on longer sectors within central Europe.

If the answers for BW were that simple ATR would have stated so long ago. Instead since BW has had their ATRs they have had technicians based there, and assumed AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, the lease of a substitute ATR earlier this year after one of the ATRs, which had repeated break downs.

I suggest that you chat with Bimjim on the Q400 issue. I haven't an opinion on that one

Ya'll need to take go relax! In Myanmar we have 11 domestic airlines plying the trade. All 11 of em have ATRs. Mostly replacing the venerable F-27s and 28s.

And YES we do have island hopper routes that are 15-20min max that we deploy in Sittwe, Thandwé, and Mergui Archipelago (mostly between Myeik, Dawei, and Kawthaung). In fact, my airlines UB, has them cycle through upwards of 6-7 times a day! These warriors go through salt-baths every single day.
NO MX ISSUES!! We also have ATR team regularly fly in from SIN for check ups.

Our rougher terrains also calls for ATR's short lg as it can absorb more than Q400's flamingo stalks.

Funny side note: A few years back we had an ex-LH (CityLine) CR2 given as a gift from BBD and the gov of Canada. We make at run the ghost capital to people capital jig on 20min sectors!! What?!

Good day guys so where do I start?

I have flown both the DHC8 100 & 300 and ATR 72 &42 600 for LIAT, and from my Experience; the ATR is a flying disaster that has only a glass coockpit over the dash. The ATR has a wing that is too stiff and too fat a leading edge that causes no increase in lift but induces a lot of turbulence transfer to the fuselage making the ride a very bumpy one when it needs to be smooth. It's power to weight ratio ( more so the 76 than the 46) makes it a horrible climber and when loaded with 68( 76) or 48(46) big boned caribbean people and their heavy check and hand luggage peices the damn thing begins struggling from about 8000 feet.. poor poor performance and rarely get above 15000 feet in our hot mumid conditions. The ATR however has a wicked jolt of take off power that is very comparable to a Honda Civic with a wicked first gear but when shifted to second gear bobs down and that impressive power jolt goes out the window. We called the ATR the "level accelerate plane" simply because when the climb power was sent, the props came back to the climb position resulting in a huge loss of takeoff power the plane then needs to nose over (in some cases when very heavy sometimes descends) to attain flap retraction speed and then climb speed of 170 kits then starts its slow climb out. It's a very dissapointing feeling when compared to the old faithful dash that had a positive climb till 15000 feet if going beyond that.

The ATR however sports a comfortable cabin for the passengers with bigger storage bins and longer seat belts for the bigger people amount us to not be embarrassingly requesting extension belts... however the the materials that make up this cabin are cheap, easily worn and broke easily when used by the Caribbean people. The cockpit is significantly smaller than that of the dash8 very ergonomically horrible with small windscreens that reduced visibility even on a clear day. The flight controls mainly the yoke is badly designed with a black rubber grip that is suppose to add grip between pilot and yoke which doesn't but wears out and caused blackening of the hands with soft sappy rubber. Which has caused the yoke to slip out of its user's had in strong cross wind lands due to the cable and pulley (no advanced power surfaces) that controls the ailerons, elevators and rudders. The rudder pedals have no direct linkage to the nose wheel which means there is a transfer of controls from captain to FO at 70kts when the FO is taking off and a transfer back to the captain after the landing is completed and slowed to 70ts... what happens in and incapacitation of the captain and the FO lands? Directional Control below 70 kts is very hard.

For Liat the dash was the perfect plane it was a start and go plane where presector set up was simple and the plane was ready to go in a matter of minutes. The ATR on the other hand had this airbus kinda set up which is great if doing a sector that over an hour but totally stressful for 15 and half and hour sectors.. too many checklist and too much talking. Not suited from at they do. Corrosion is a huge problem with them also where the 4 year old planes had more rust than a 30 year old dash8 airframe that was decommissioned and left sitting on the ramp for some 20 odd years. Something not wrong?

I had a problem with ATR, they have a way of instead of fixing a problem or making it better they would leave it as it is and percribe a "new procedure" bombarding the pilot with lots of "memory items" which could be easily confused or forgotten because of their complexity or "unnatural way" they wanted you to think from the basics of flight.

Liat had a number dispatch issues with these brand new planes ranging from flight controls, navigation, pressurization and electrical issues which plagued this new crafts.. in my experience with the dash more often than not it was a hydraulic issue that the 3000 psi system sprung a leak... old man with high blood pressure.. not a good thing but it was part of the dash which were normally easily fixed. Yes some of you will say the dash had problems when they first came out, but that was just it when they came out. These ATRs are still in manufacturing and nothing is being done to drastically improve them.. The 600 is an old airframe with a glass cockpit and nothing much on the side of drastic improvements over the years. It's systems are very basic and simple compared to the dash and get the job done but not much avenues of back up compared to the dash.

I have flown on dash 8's 100 to the Q400 and the ATR is quieter, but in the case of the 400 the ATR has half its power and truth be told the 400 is relatively quite for its 10000 shaft hp.. I rather deal with noise than can't fly high or fast.

Remember you can fly a fast plane slow not a slow plane fast.

The ATR however cost Liat a lease of 180 grand usd monthly compared to the 300 of 60 grand.. the planes are 3 times the lease of the "old" dash 8 not doing 3 times the work nor burning a third the fuel of a dash.. bad deal all over, which benefited only a few pockets... welcome to the Caribbean.

According to this thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1345101 the latest market lease rates based on the oldest to newest airframes for the Q400 $95-195,000 and ATR-72 $60-175,000 per month.

The main reason the Q400 needs 100% more thrust than the ATR72 is due to its empty weight being 30% heavier. An ATR72 with 40 pax onboard weighs about the same as an empty Q400, that is why the ATR has lower fuel burn.

tmoney wrote:

guyanam wrote:

And if you believe Dash8 Q400s would do better you might be mistaken. The Q400s have proven a challenge maintenance wise even on longer sectors within central Europe.

If the answers for BW were that simple ATR would have stated so long ago. Instead since BW has had their ATRs they have had technicians based there, and assumed AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, the lease of a substitute ATR earlier this year after one of the ATRs, which had repeated break downs.

I suggest that you chat with Bimjim on the Q400 issue. I haven't an opinion on that one

Ya'll need to take go relax! In Myanmar we have 11 domestic airlines plying the trade. All 11 of em have ATRs. Mostly replacing the venerable F-27s and 28s.

And YES we do have island hopper routes that are 15-20min max that we deploy in Sittwe, Thandwé, and Mergui Archipelago (mostly between Myeik, Dawei, and Kawthaung). In fact, my airlines UB, has them cycle through upwards of 6-7 times a day! These warriors go through salt-baths every single day.
NO MX ISSUES!! We also have ATR team regularly fly in from SIN for check ups.

Our rougher terrains also calls for ATR's short lg as it can absorb more than Q400's flamingo stalks.

Funny side note: A few years back we had an ex-LH (CityLine) CR2 given as a gift from BBD and the gov of Canada. We make at run the ghost capital to people capital jig on 20min sectors!! What?!

Thx for your input myanmar

Eatfoodpilot wrote:

Good day guys so where do I start?

I have flown both the DHC8 100 & 300 and ATR 72 &42 600 for LIAT, and from my Experience; the ATR is a flying disaster that has only a glass coockpit over the dash. The ATR has a wing that is too stiff and too fat a leading edge that causes no increase in lift but induces a lot of turbulence transfer to the fuselage making the ride a very bumpy one when it needs to be smooth. It's power to weight ratio ( more so the 76 than the 46) makes it a horrible climber and when loaded with 68( 76) or 48(46) big boned caribbean people and their heavy check and hand luggage peices the damn thing begins struggling from about 8000 feet.. poor poor performance and rarely get above 15000 feet in our hot mumid conditions. The ATR however has a wicked jolt of take off power that is very comparable to a Honda Civic with a wicked first gear but when shifted to second gear bobs down and that impressive power jolt goes out the window. We called the ATR the "level accelerate plane" simply because when the climb power was sent, the props came back to the climb position resulting in a huge loss of takeoff power the plane then needs to nose over (in some cases when very heavy sometimes descends) to attain flap retraction speed and then climb speed of 170 kits then starts its slow climb out. It's a very dissapointing feeling when compared to the old faithful dash that had a positive climb till 15000 feet if going beyond that.

The ATR however sports a comfortable cabin for the passengers with bigger storage bins and longer seat belts for the bigger people amount us to not be embarrassingly requesting extension belts... however the the materials that make up this cabin are cheap, easily worn and broke easily when used by the Caribbean people. The cockpit is significantly smaller than that of the dash8 very ergonomically horrible with small windscreens that reduced visibility even on a clear day. The flight controls mainly the yoke is badly designed with a black rubber grip that is suppose to add grip between pilot and yoke which doesn't but wears out and caused blackening of the hands with soft sappy rubber. Which has caused the yoke to slip out of its user's had in strong cross wind lands due to the cable and pulley (no advanced power surfaces) that controls the ailerons, elevators and rudders. The rudder pedals have no direct linkage to the nose wheel which means there is a transfer of controls from captain to FO at 70kts when the FO is taking off and a transfer back to the captain after the landing is completed and slowed to 70ts... what happens in and incapacitation of the captain and the FO lands? Directional Control below 70 kts is very hard.

For Liat the dash was the perfect plane it was a start and go plane where presector set up was simple and the plane was ready to go in a matter of minutes. The ATR on the other hand had this airbus kinda set up which is great if doing a sector that over an hour but totally stressful for 15 and half and hour sectors.. too many checklist and too much talking. Not suited from at they do. Corrosion is a huge problem with them also where the 4 year old planes had more rust than a 30 year old dash8 airframe that was decommissioned and left sitting on the ramp for some 20 odd years. Something not wrong?

I had a problem with ATR, they have a way of instead of fixing a problem or making it better they would leave it as it is and percribe a "new procedure" bombarding the pilot with lots of "memory items" which could be easily confused or forgotten because of their complexity or "unnatural way" they wanted you to think from the basics of flight.

Liat had a number dispatch issues with these brand new planes ranging from flight controls, navigation, pressurization and electrical issues which plagued this new crafts.. in my experience with the dash more often than not it was a hydraulic issue that the 3000 psi system sprung a leak... old man with high blood pressure.. not a good thing but it was part of the dash which were normally easily fixed. Yes some of you will say the dash had problems when they first came out, but that was just it when they came out. These ATRs are still in manufacturing and nothing is being done to drastically improve them.. The 600 is an old airframe with a glass cockpit and nothing much on the side of drastic improvements over the years. It's systems are very basic and simple compared to the dash and get the job done but not much avenues of back up compared to the dash.

I have flown on dash 8's 100 to the Q400 and the ATR is quieter, but in the case of the 400 the ATR has half its power and truth be told the 400 is relatively quite for its 10000 shaft hp.. I rather deal with noise than can't fly high or fast.

Remember you can fly a fast plane slow not a slow plane fast.

The ATR however cost Liat a lease of 180 grand usd monthly compared to the 300 of 60 grand.. the planes are 3 times the lease of the "old" dash 8 not doing 3 times the work nor burning a third the fuel of a dash.. bad deal all over, which benefited only a few pockets... welcome to the Caribbean.

Dude : "what happens in and incapacitation of the captain and the FO lands? Directional Control below 70 kts is very hard"
Are you are real pilot? I have doubts. Ever heard of using directional braking? Don't tell me your first multi engine twin training aircraft at flightschool had a steering joke. Big aircraft don't have nosewheel attached to rudders . What are you talking about????

Eatfoodpilot wrote:

Good day guys so where do I start?

I have flown both the DHC8 100 & 300 and ATR 72 &42 600 for LIAT, and from my Experience; the ATR is a flying disaster that has only a glass coockpit over the dash. The ATR has a wing that is too stiff and too fat a leading edge that causes no increase in lift but induces a lot of turbulence transfer to the fuselage making the ride a very bumpy one when it needs to be smooth. It's power to weight ratio ( more so the 76 than the 46) makes it a horrible climber and when loaded with 68( 76) or 48(46) big boned caribbean people and their heavy check and hand luggage peices the damn thing begins struggling from about 8000 feet.. poor poor performance and rarely get above 15000 feet in our hot mumid conditions. The ATR however has a wicked jolt of take off power that is very comparable to a Honda Civic with a wicked first gear but when shifted to second gear bobs down and that impressive power jolt goes out the window. We called the ATR the "level accelerate plane" simply because when the climb power was sent, the props came back to the climb position resulting in a huge loss of takeoff power the plane then needs to nose over (in some cases when very heavy sometimes descends) to attain flap retraction speed and then climb speed of 170 kits then starts its slow climb out. It's a very dissapointing feeling when compared to the old faithful dash that had a positive climb till 15000 feet if going beyond that.

The ATR however sports a comfortable cabin for the passengers with bigger storage bins and longer seat belts for the bigger people amount us to not be embarrassingly requesting extension belts... however the the materials that make up this cabin are cheap, easily worn and broke easily when used by the Caribbean people. The cockpit is significantly smaller than that of the dash8 very ergonomically horrible with small windscreens that reduced visibility even on a clear day. The flight controls mainly the yoke is badly designed with a black rubber grip that is suppose to add grip between pilot and yoke which doesn't but wears out and caused blackening of the hands with soft sappy rubber. Which has caused the yoke to slip out of its user's had in strong cross wind lands due to the cable and pulley (no advanced power surfaces) that controls the ailerons, elevators and rudders. The rudder pedals have no direct linkage to the nose wheel which means there is a transfer of controls from captain to FO at 70kts when the FO is taking off and a transfer back to the captain after the landing is completed and slowed to 70ts... what happens in and incapacitation of the captain and the FO lands? Directional Control below 70 kts is very hard.

For Liat the dash was the perfect plane it was a start and go plane where presector set up was simple and the plane was ready to go in a matter of minutes. The ATR on the other hand had this airbus kinda set up which is great if doing a sector that over an hour but totally stressful for 15 and half and hour sectors.. too many checklist and too much talking. Not suited from at they do. Corrosion is a huge problem with them also where the 4 year old planes had more rust than a 30 year old dash8 airframe that was decommissioned and left sitting on the ramp for some 20 odd years. Something not wrong?

I had a problem with ATR, they have a way of instead of fixing a problem or making it better they would leave it as it is and percribe a "new procedure" bombarding the pilot with lots of "memory items" which could be easily confused or forgotten because of their complexity or "unnatural way" they wanted you to think from the basics of flight.

Liat had a number dispatch issues with these brand new planes ranging from flight controls, navigation, pressurization and electrical issues which plagued this new crafts.. in my experience with the dash more often than not it was a hydraulic issue that the 3000 psi system sprung a leak... old man with high blood pressure.. not a good thing but it was part of the dash which were normally easily fixed. Yes some of you will say the dash had problems when they first came out, but that was just it when they came out. These ATRs are still in manufacturing and nothing is being done to drastically improve them.. The 600 is an old airframe with a glass cockpit and nothing much on the side of drastic improvements over the years. It's systems are very basic and simple compared to the dash and get the job done but not much avenues of back up compared to the dash.

I have flown on dash 8's 100 to the Q400 and the ATR is quieter, but in the case of the 400 the ATR has half its power and truth be told the 400 is relatively quite for its 10000 shaft hp.. I rather deal with noise than can't fly high or fast.

Remember you can fly a fast plane slow not a slow plane fast.

The ATR however cost Liat a lease of 180 grand usd monthly compared to the 300 of 60 grand.. the planes are 3 times the lease of the "old" dash 8 not doing 3 times the work nor burning a third the fuel of a dash.. bad deal all over, which benefited only a few pockets... welcome to the Caribbean.

"I have flown on dash 8's 100 to the Q400 and the ATR is quieter, but in the case of the 400 the ATR has half its power and truth be told the 400 is relatively quite for its 10000 shaft hp.. I rather deal with noise than can't fly high or fast. """

Your management thinks different about it. Q400 is 30% more on the fuelbills