OK, I am going to bite on this. I get tired of every few months someone giving the ATP a good kicking. Yes, it wasn't perfect, but nor was the 747 (and many other types) when it was first rolled out. As ever when people start to complain about something, they forget or misinterpret the reasons why the problems occurred. The airframe was of course based on the 748 and intended to compete with the ATR 72. It was a similar weight to the ATR 72, and although it should have had more powerful engines, none were available at the time. Rolls-Royce were no longer interested in producing turboprops and only P&W could provide an engine which would get it airborne, albeit that it could not provide the total power the airframe needed. Coupled with this was the innovative (at the time) propeller design. The Hamilton Standard propeller supplied for the ATP had a 13'9" diameter. That supplied to the ATR 72 by the same company was 12'!!" in diameter. The ATR is of course a high-wing machine, so the ground clearance for the propellers is an entirely different story.
What was not foreseen at the design stage was that the design of the propellers brought them too close to the ground. There was a concern with the prototype, that the propeller tips were just a couple of inches from the ground and therein lay the problem, but a solution was found and applied. The aircraft was always designed to connect with air bridges and the prototype was perfectly capable of this, because the prototype was taken to Manchester and checked.
So let's have a look at the in-service performance. Airlines of Britain (BMA, Loganair and Manx) kept them flying without too many problems. SATA likewise. British Airways were able to keep them flying, too. Name me an aircraft which never fails to work when it is supposed to. I won't got into the politics of the manufacturing move to Prestwick and the re-branding into J61 - that is largely irrelevant.
KnC and condor 17 - you do the engineers at Chadderton and Woodford who designed and built the Lancaster and the Vulcan, not to mention the 748 of which 381 were built and served all over the world, a great disservice, but then having read dozens of KnC's posts, I would expect nothing less from him. He of course, to suit his purpose, completely ignores the fact of the 65 built, 30 ATPs are still flying more than 30 years later, albeit as freighters, but isn't that the fate of most older aircraft?
Now, anyone fancy giving the VFW 614 a good kicking?