Loganair-2
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This *could* be a reason for the delay in announcing. Otherwise you would want to get on sale as early as possible to give yourself the longest lead time to sell.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If main production ended 17 years ago, would you really want to place a new order ? Yes I'm sure all the paperwork is in place, I would be wondering if the tooling, factory process and organisational knowledge / experience that sits in emoyees heads is really as good as it needs to be to produce aircraft which don't end up being hangar queens. If I was an airline CEO, the idea of manufacturer employees having to essentially relearn things they/their colleagues hadn't done for years to be a bit of a concern
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 30seater market simply is a non-starter and even the 50seat market is struggling, given the small number of orders for the only available 50 seater turborprop. The ATR42 more or less has become a niche application for those who cannot make use of ATR72s on short runways (like in the Bahamas, the Caribbean etc.) I understand that the operating costs for both ATRs are more or less the same so it appears to be a non-brainer to have an additional 25 seats to toy around with if acquisition costs for ATR72 are not much higher than for ATR42s.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ecosse
Age: 65
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems a bit like comparing apples with oranges so to speak....
When you were basing this how many ATR (42 and/or 72) against how many SAAB 340's? Hundreds against dozen(s)?
Just asking :-)
When you were basing this how many ATR (42 and/or 72) against how many SAAB 340's? Hundreds against dozen(s)?
Just asking :-)
According to their twitter feed their will be a announcement in the new year
https://twitter.com/FlyLoganair
https://twitter.com/FlyLoganair
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't find it now, but it was fatalities per one million take offs. The ATR's were at 0.44 and the Saab 340 was on 0.19. It was based on data of all incidents up to 2014.
Last edited by Rob Royston; 12th Dec 2018 at 22:25. Reason: Timespan covered
I’ve never known an airline evaluation of a new type to be conducted in internet search statistics, to be honest. But if they did - as A 42/72 would on average be carrying about double the number of passengers of a 340, you’d expect this metric to be about double if the accident rates themselves were the same, surely?
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is more complicated than that. How may of those ATR accidents came down to pilot error or being operated in inherently more dangerous areas? If you look at Saabs that have a serious failure leading to a loss of life vs ATR etc and came up with those numbers you can maybe have an argument to say they aren't as safe but there are a lot of cowboy outfits in ATR's that could really skew that number.
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: uk
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/...y-in-new-year/
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was an American Eagle ATR72 crash in 1994 (Roselawn), a combination of icing and pilot error. They modified the de-icing boots after that accident.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts