ATR72vsQ400
Hi andrasz,
Thanks for the response. Your comments make irrefutable sense. Let me enlighten you a little more on the particular sector i'm speaking of:
Basically I intend to operate a 350nm leg (600km) from an ATZ (controlled tower environment with non-coupled TMA above), which will make the landing fees and airport costs a lot lower than opareting out of the busy int'l airport nearby; which has a CTR with a coupled TMA. The only problem is during LVP conditions where both my dep/dest aerodromes are closed (no ILS), and I'd have to divert to the nearest ILS-equipped CTR with copuled-TMA aerodrome as stated above (15nm away).
I'm still gathering en-route fee data from THE COMPANY, but our weather here is generally good. I'm not a pilot, and I don't know how the crew would take to departing VFR in an ATR72 out of an ATZ, and climb IFR beyond the TMA to save ENR costs. Again, I'm not a pilot, but everyday we see PRM1/LJ45/BE20's often come out of dirt strips using VFR DEP, and IFR change enroute; so I think it's feasible to do that. Still investigating the insurance implication also.
The arrival into both airfields could also be executed VFR below controlled airspace. The ATR72 is big, but I think the crew would be able to fly a visual circuit into an ATZ. These are the ways in which I'd like to reduce ENR costs.
The cruise level for the ATR is about F220-F260. I dont think the savings in ENR costs of flying below class-C airspace. i.e. below F200 (uncotrolled airspace) would outweigh the benefits of cruising in the F220-F260 band. Either way, this sector is very uncongested upto F 290.
I hope this puts it into better perspective. I hope you have some valuable input again. Personally, mu gut feel is for the ATR, not the Q400.
Thanks, Zedelex