The ATR has been through more icing certification since Roselawn, than any other aircraft to date. There are no more major problems with the aircraft in icing conditions, if you follow the FCOM and operational procedures which ATR have devised. Of course if you don't follow those procedures, then like every other aircraft you do have a problem!

As Frigatebird has stated, the ATR42 is happy around FL200 to FL220 in the tropics (although with the -500 an the extra power FL250 is achievable with a good load) so you are in the middle of the severe icing level in the tropics. The ATR72 with a full load won't get anywhere near FL200 though - so flying it in the tropics won't actually see too much of the severe icing.

Anyway from an economic point of the view - the ATR 72 is a bean counter's dream, with a breakeven point for the 72 at 23 pax at mid-range fares (according to a well established ATR72 operator) it would be an ideal aircraft for shorter regional routes for an LCC.

And the Beancounters will go for LCC wages to boot!

Another reason why it will fail.:suspect:

Bring on the 42 and 72 600's.
They sound like they will have the goods to hit the sweet spot. :cool:

Yeah, the 127M on the -600 will have the same Horsepower as the 127E/F currently installed for the ATR - performance wise they're going to the same as the -500s (the 127M has been installed on all ATRs from late 2008 anyway).

Certainly the 42 is a real rocket in comparison to the 72!

Read recently that the new 127M engines on the 600 72 get a 'boost function' of 5 percent, that can be used for additional power as needed when called for at takeoff. And they get a single engine ceiling increase of 1,000 ft. Max t.o.w. of 23,000 kg. Is this new then, or hype ? With the Cat 111A autopilot it all sounds good at this point in time..

I hadn't heard of the 5% boost as required for take off, but to me I'm wondering if that is just a spin on the up-trim from the ATPCS.

The extra 1000' on the single engine ceiling is correct, the 72-500s that have been released with the 127M already have that in place. The new 127M does have the same output as the 127E or F, but must have some clever French electrickeriery going on in the EEC/PEC to get the higher Single Engine Ceiling.

The ATR 72-500 MTOW is already at 22,800kg. So a 200kg increase of MTOW could be in regards to the cabin fittings (drop down LCD screens as standard) in order to keep the same payload? I'm not sure on that.

Certainly the CatIIIA and autothrottle for approach only will be interesting to use. But last I heard from ATR, they are still negotiating with the JAA over what sort of CCQ can be used for the -600. Also that no one has ordered the 42-600 as of yet so the special prices for it still stand (operating economics make the 72 a better bet).

MTOW increase
 

More likely to compensate for the increase in US FAA 'standard' passenger weights than anything else, I think.
Quite a number of regional airframes have had a 'paper-only' increase to allow carrying about the same number of fatter standard pax as the old thinner ones.:hmm:

So we're abandoning the thread title and realising that VB has no intention of operating props.

Duh.

Don't stop expounding on the virtues of ATRs just because of the thread title.

'So will we see ATRs or Q400s in DJ's colours? ATR have their new -600 aircraft on the market and would be very keen to have it operating in Australia.'

I would be so bold to say that it makes more sense to discuss the positives of the new generation aircraft as a fit for the regional networks, by people in the know, than a lot of the wishful thinking and speculation that gets touted on these boards.. or the spin rammed down the throat of those who have to make them work, by people in a company who select an aircraft for the wrong reasons..
Rant over.. its just that I have seen it happen several times before where a more suitable aircraft was shelved in favour of a less perfect fit by management because they mishandled the political and economic aspects and had to save face and prolong their tenure with something else..
Stand up and be counted early, if it is important enough to get right.

Lads - get over yourself - its not going to happen .....

Yeah, well said littlehurcules.

It has been entertaining, and I must say informative (from a technical point of view), reading the enthusiasm of some of the ATR exponents.:ok:

Personally I don't see Virgin Blue operating Turboprops either.

But it would make more sense for Pacific Blue to operate them in NZ. Sooner or later one of the competitors to Air NZ has to wake up to the fact there is a massive untapped market in such cities as Dunedin, Hamilton, Palmerston North, Tauranga, Invercargill. These markets are sick of the monopoly of Air NZ and the excessive fares they pay in comparison to flying out of the major centres.

Certainly the long term survival of Pacific Blue or Jetstar will depend on the regional markets. Certainly for Air NZ the amount of profit made out of the regional routes in NZ, allow them to compete direct with PacBlue or Jetstar and not affect their profits! If PacBlue or Jetstar want to hurt NZ in the domestic market - bring the lower fares to the regions, because I know that if better services were provided to Dunedin (not necessarily jet services either), the Air NZ flights will be almost empty!

Having said all that there would have to be a few cash cow turbo prop routes they'd like to get there hands on.

Maybe all this talk of Virgin Blue getting props is a way of getting REX to the table to talk about a full codeshare arrangement?

Virginblue would get their code on prop services & REX gets their code on jet services.

REX would remain independant but would operate as a "VirginLink service" via codeshare, this would benefit both airlines, but REX doesn't want a bar of it for some reason. :hmm:

I think the big problem with REX is it's owners who think they can do it all on their own with second hand Saabs that are 10+ years old while everyone else is using newer larger equipment.

Will DJ operate turboprops, you really can't rule anything out. Three years ago they were an all 737 operator and now they have 20+ Ejets, plus 50+ 737's. Not one of us 3 years ago thought they would ever operate anything other than 1 type.

There are a lot of pros and cons for them operating turboprops. A big con I can thing of is slots and gates at Sydney. The current terminal cannot take any further jet movements with 3 of the gates now shared with Tiger and if the new finger is added Tiger will most likely be given access to half the gates. With a turboprop they will be able to park in the 'Foxtrot' bays or up at Domestic 4. With regard to slots they number of slots available for jet RPT is rapidly running out.

As already mentioned they a many routes that Q'link have to themselves which could do with some real competition, which the E-jet isn't or wouldn't work.

DJ could phase out the 170's and replace the shorter routes currently operated by them with a turboprop and use the 190's (add a few more) on the longer routes currently operated by the 170's such as CBR-OOL, CBR-TSV, SYD-MKY etc. This would then give them a fleet operating the high density trunk routes (737's), a fleet oprating the long thin routes (190's) and anything under 250 miles operated by a turboprop which is far more efficient than any jet on short legs.

REX'a Debt/Equity ratio currently stands at less than 5%! Something DJ could learn from.

The cost of equiping a comparable regional operation would be what, $200 mil?

Not to mention the training, logistics, the lack of monopoly, and did I mention the sucess of which would not be dependant on the collapse of a competitor!

I'm sorry GAFA, but REX have been doing it on their own for some years now, and quite sucessfuly.

IMHO, if DJ were to go down this path, they'd be just throwing good money after bad. :confused:

Krusty, I don't pretend to know much about corporate finance but my understanding is that if REX has a D/E ratio of 5% then that means that they are missing out on some tax benefits - I believe that 45% is about optimum between keeping the debt at a manageable level versus getting good taxation advantages.

If DJ were to get Turboprops, that would be an admission that they got it wrong when they purchased Embraers in response to QF Link's purchase of Dash 8-Q400's. A number of PPRuNers claimed at the time that the DJ Embraers would dominate the market because of the pax preference for jets. From what has happened over the last few years, it appears that pax are still very price sensitive and that Turboprops are significantly cheaper to operate than Jets.

BG has said in interviews that the Embraers are better for routes that are at least one and a half hours or two hours long. That hardly makes the Embraers a wrong decision. No jet is better than a TP on a short stage like SYD-CBR. Of course DJ could go back to the bad old days of cross subsidising Canberra flights from profits made on other routes, but they would need a protected Two Airline Agreement to make that work.

Depending on cost of fuel, some people say a jet starts to win on routes of longer than 350 miles, so the Embraers would be better choices for BNE to Mackay and Rocky than Q400s. Are the slots available at SYD if DJ wants to match the frequency that Qantas offers between SYD and CBR with TPs?

Gidday GB.

I mentioned REX's low level of debt to highlight the diferences between them and a previous airline that DJ went up against 10 years ago. Assuming of course DJ went after the entire regional market. They may simply choose to pick the eyes out of the prime routes. That would be interesting.

If the overall size of the operation remained with just the major regional markets, then DJ may suffer from the economies of scale of operating a relatively small fleet.

If DJ chooses to compete across the board with either REX, Qlink, or both, then all the associated problems I mentioned in my previous post would have to be taken into account.

Either way, I still don't buy it!

Which was??