ATR72vsQ400
Hello all,
I've seen that there's quite an intense rivalry btn the proponents of the ATR and Q400 respectively. The ATR is abviously a relatively old design (1989), and the general consesnus from what I've seen is that the ATR is a slower but more rugged. The Q400 is faster..As for the relative quietness..the opinions vary vastly re. the ATR; but most agree that the Q400 is quieter.
What i'd actually like to know is what the current TOC (total OPS cost/BLK Hr) for the ATR and or Q400 is. It's been a while since I last visited this site; so I don't know if i'm asking a redundant, tired old question. Pls forgive me if i am. I've actually been in the ATS field for 4 years here in sunny South Africa; however, I believe i may have identified a potential market for a 400nm sector. it's obviously dependant on what the TOC would be. What i am sure of beyond any doubt is that a T-prop is definitely the way to go.
I would appreciate any figures you can get me. CASA (Civil Avaiation Safety Authority) of Australia listed the 2007 TOC for the ATR at 2500 USD p/blk hr. Based on an 80% load factor (56 seats filled), the break-even would've been USD 44.00. I'd appreciate a break down is poss. esp for ANSP fees, Airport Tax, crew, insurance and monthly payment costs. I believe with our local airspace design, and aerodrome layout that there is a way to save bucks without compromising safety.
The most popular LCA's currently flying this sector are using MD82/3/7's (and seemingly profitably at that)..Last i checked according to ICAO, these birds burned up 780 (SEVEN-HUNDRED AND EIGHTY) gal of A1 p/blk hr. the ATR burns 214 (TWO-HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN). I'm not an airline analyst or an OPS whizz, but I strongly believe that based on the fuel burn figures alone that the ATR should be a viable choice for this sector.
Thanking you for your response in advance,
zedelex