What's the Chance of New ATRs at Piedmont?

[FM2436]

What's the chance US Airways would become the US launch customer for a fleet of newly certificated ATR 42-600 and/or 72-600s to replace the aging fleet of dash-8s at Piedmont? Would be nice to provide Piedmont with some direction. US Airways/Piedmont could dominate the short haul and feeder markets in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast with such a nhew fleet. With the demise of Colgan and their Continental Connection Q-400s and no real plans by Delta in introduce a regional feed at LGA/JFK, it seems opportunities would exist for US Airways/Piedmont.

http://atwonline.com...&YM_MID=1325802

 

[hp-csr-phx]

Looks like a nice ac. Eventually we will have to do something about Piedmonts fleet.

 

[Hope777]

Doubt EN is ever going to replace their aging fleet. Piedmont will end up just a Ground Handling Company.

 

[dash8roa]

Doubt EN is ever going to replace their aging fleet. Piedmont will end up just a Ground Handling Company.

I agree.Several years ago an atr was in SBY for demo flights,nothing ever happened. Over the years,they returned a 300,about 8 200's and some 100's. Three 100's are coming up on cycle limits and the cost to extend these are very high. Hard to justify the cost on planes 25 years old. Years ago the piedmont dash fleet was larger than the combined piedmont-allegheny dash fleet today. Piedmont seems to be winding down with the closing of JAX and ORF maintenance bases over the past few years,shrinking fleet and the dropping of some small cities that cannot support RJ's. Too bad,some nice people doing the dirty work at times with some bad managers with no people skills.

 

[FWAAA]

Sometime in the past few months, I saw an article that claimed that ATR had garnered nearly all the industry's turboprop orders for the previous year, which surprised me, as I thought that the Q400 was the new turboprop darling. I've looked for that article but I can't find it.

 

[gizmo_sc]

Piedmont will never take the ATR......it loads from the rear and there are other issues with this aircraft that management does not like.

 

[Art at ISP]

ATR's from what I recall don't handle ice well, and as such, their US service has been limited to warmer climates...whether or not they have corrected their anti-icing system performance I believe the thought remains.....

 

[FWAAA]

ATR's from what I recall don't handle ice well, and as such, their US service has been limited to warmer climates...whether or not they have corrected their anti-icing system performance I believe the thought remains.....

After flight 4184, ATR corrected the icing problem (modified the wing boot), and Eagle once again flew them from ORD around the midwest, but only for a couple of years until the ERJs came online in 1998-99. At that time, the remaining Eagle ATRs were moved to DFW and MIA.

 

[Art at ISP]

I thought they had fixed the problem, but public perception probably caused the shift south. The Q400 is an amazing airplane, one would think its operating costs are lower than an ATR, but this may not be the case. I know its cruise speed is considerably faster but this would only matter on longer segments of 300-500 miles I guess...either the Q400 or the ATR's are in my opinion more comfortable than a CRJ in any case

 

[700UW]

Arent they too big for what the pilot's CBA restricts them too?

The Q400 violates the pilot's CBA.

 

[robbedagain]

i believe the atr 72 seats aroun 70 andthe atr 42 around 40 to 45 i dont remember the specifics though but do recall that 4184 killed all 68 aboard the plane so one plane would violate the pilot scope i believe

 

[BoeingBoy]

The Q400 violates the pilot's CBA.

Only in the standard configuration. Put three full rows of F/C in (like the CRJ-700) and it meets scope. The same goes for the ATR-72...one version of all coach only has 68 seats anyway.

Jim

 

[cynic]

I thought they had fixed the problem, but public perception probably caused the shift south. The Q400 is an amazing airplane, one would think its operating costs are lower than an ATR, but this may not be the case. I know its cruise speed is considerably faster but this would only matter on longer segments of 300-500 miles I guess...either the Q400 or the ATR's are in my opinion more comfortable than a CRJ in any case

The increased speed comes at a cost of increased fuel burn. ATRs are far more economical to operate and significantly cheaper to purchase as well.

 

[algflyr]

The increased speed comes at a cost of increased fuel burn. ATRs are far more economical to operate and significantly cheaper to purchase as well.

The Q-400 does burn a little more fuel. But it is also about 100 mph faster and holds more passengers. So more economical overall to opertate? Not sure about that... I'm sure a bean counter will figure it out to the penny and that's what would happen if they did get new aircraft...

Here is a good article comparing the two aircraft:

http://theflyingengi...-q400-vs-atr72/

 

[Art at ISP]

100 MPH is significant, although I'd imagine it would become more economical over longer stage lengths. I still think perhaps the Q400 compares favorably to CRJ100/200 series and ERJ135/145 series at longer stage lengths, as they can provide similar block times to the pure jets while burning alot less fuel. The ATR's may in fact be more fuel efficient, but perhaps the added speed makes up for that.