Jasper2009

True, though IME it's not such a big issue on the E75/E90, particularly

1) if the FA does their job and ensures Y pax don't fill up the J bins
2) since usually 1-2 pieces of J hand baggage can be accommodated in the J closet

That's not to say there aren't any issues on the E75/E90, but IMO the overhead bin space situation is much, much worse on the Q400.

Stranger

The FAs are not always able to take care of 1. Corridor gets full, and they may not see what's going on.

As to the J closet, isn't that were the crew's luggage usually goes?

Jasper2009

Sure, I don't expect a FA to notice everything that happens, but there's certainly a difference between a FA chatting with the other FA/the captain etc. and a FA that will do their best to hang coats and ensure the overhead bins are only used by J pax.

Regarding 2: Flying the E90 on a regular basis I would say it really depends. Sometimes the FAs have their baggage in the back (and only 1 equipment bag in the closet), other times the closet is stuffed with 5-6 crew bags. It obviously also depends on whether the FAs expect pax to bring onboard coats etc., but it's not uncommon IME for 1-2 pieces of J carry-on luggage ending up in the closet.

Tangoer

Thanks for that Andrew.

I fly AC out of YTZ.
Luckily, Porter Points have no expiry, yet....

B1

In VIPorter points expire after four years. I never accumulated enough for a flight and each year I lose some. The VIPorter FAQ says "All points expire after 4 years from their earning date" And even if you get enough to use them, you're only going to go on Porter.

kwflyer

I would also add the ATR has shown to be ineffective in Icing conditions that forced AA to move them to their southern/Caribbean hubs.

I would take a Q400 over an ATR. Throw in a IFE system along with oven galleys and I would even fly them on medium hauls.

FlyerAl

I just took a Porter flight and didn't notice any difference in seat pitch. I will have to count the number of rows on my flight home. My Porter flight was full but the AC flight leaving around the same time was cancelled due to "operational reasons".

Gus2013

At YTZ the ATR would also probably require greater (proportionally) restrictions on its MTOW than the Q400 due to its weaker engines.

It's not that one plane is better than the other... they are the results of completely different design decisions, but the ATR appears based on volumes to be finding more customers.

CloudsBelow

Issue has been addressed of course. Don't see ATRs falling out of the sky 7 months a year in Denmark and Finland

Stranger

Ditto. It's all about design decisions, routes, and saving pennies.

Kind of like AC picking up 737max instead of A320neo.

PLeblond

ATR's icing issues have been partially addressed. They extended the coverage of the de-icing boots, but it still doesn't cover the area that is susceptible to form ice on that wing design.

From wiki: "While the ATR 42 and ATR 72 aircraft are now compliant with all icing condition requirements imposed by those 18 ADs, the de-icing boots still only reach back to 12.5% of the chord. Prior to the accident, they had extended only to 5% and 7%, respectively. They still fail to deal with the findings of the Boscombe Down tests, conducted by British regulators, which demonstrated that ice could form as far back on the wing as 23% of the chord, and on the tail at 30% of chord. Both percentages remain well beyond the limits of the extended deicing boots, installed in compliance with those FAA ADs.

Those tests limited the size of the droplets to 40 micrometres, near the maximum limit of the FAA design certification rules for Transport Category aircraft (Part 25, Appendix C), still in effect at that time of the Roselawn crash. Extensive airborne testing, following that accident, revealed it is possible for airliners to encounter water droplets exceeding 200 micrometers in average diameter.[6]

It is likely that the lack of further ATR icing accidents is attributable to the changes in pilot operating procedures, as well as the moving of those aircraft to operating areas where severe icing is not a problem, rather than to the modest extension of the de-icer boots to 12.5% of the chord.[7]"

N1120A

One thing I noticed is that the AC Q400 bins seem a touch bigger than the ones Republic flies for UA. On UAX, they always gate check on the Q, which surprised me at YXU when AC didn't.

Still, I see the whole refusal to do SkyCheck on the Q400 stupid.

Its a lot more effective now in icing. AA's move of the ATR had significantly more to do with both AA and UA going all "jet" at ORD.

CloudsBelow

ATR actually takes less runway than Q4 to get up when each are at their MTOW
I'm not sure how you judge an aircraft better or worse than another but An aircraft that meets needs of more customers than a competitor should account for something IMO.

winnipegrev

Right the ATR uses around 450ft less, but it also is able to carry 3-4,000lbs more payload than the ATR with that extra runway.

PLeblond

Without wanting to get seriously off topic (too late?) ATR has a supply agreement with India and a large chunk of their sales are in the Indian market. Kind of what BBD was doing to build a plant in Russia in return for a 100+ order from Russian airlines until that hit the fan somewhere over the Ukraine.

In essence, the Q is much faster, much more powerful and climbs to cruising altitude much more quickly. In the NA market where Turbo prop routes are longer, the Q is a better choice, especially in the Western market where you need to hop over those pesky Rocky Mountains quickly. More than likely why AC, WS, UAX, F9 & AS have chosen the Q. At its cursing speed on routes up to 2.5 hours, you can almost swap out an RJ for a Q without changing your schedule.

The ATR is more economical to operate, and if most of your flights are under 1.5 hours the longer flight times don't effect your scheduling as much. Fits better in intra-European regional market where regional cities to hubs are often less that 1 hour flights.