Virgin Australia - Was the ATR 72 really the right replacement for the Embraer 170's? - Real World Aviation

#1
Guest_Stan84 of Virgin Australia_*

Posted 03 July 2012 - 09:30 AM

Guests

I had a thought last night, was the ATR 72 really the right replacement for their old E170's on regional destination? In wikipedia, when the ATR 72's came in, it 'allowed' them to replace the E170's.

http://en.wikipedia....irgin_Australia

In another article, it was stated that all Australian airlines are lousy on their legroom, in which mentions the ATR 72's.

http://www.news.com....r-1226358821234

The E170's, could have been reconfigured to have extra legroom on all seats. Perhaps even replace the E170's with the E175's, which perhaps can even have business class.

Being jet aircraft, the ride is much smoother and less turbulent unlike prop planes. They also have a longer range.

On the negative side, these aircraft have higher maintenance and fuel cost and are harsher on the environment. Also require a longer runway.

Pros of the E170's/175's:
- longer range
- more seats, which can be configured to have more leg room and make regional flying much more comfortable.
- smoother and less turbulent (more comfortable)

Cons:
- higher fuel/maintenance costs
- requires longer runway
- harsher on the environment

#2
TJ/TeeJay

Posted 03 July 2012 - 10:36 AM

The Flying Dutchman

Member
369 posts

The Embraer's have got more range and the runway lenght isn't much, so I choose the Embraer's. For regional flights in Europe are the aircrafts both good planes.

No signature.

#3
Kirkland

Posted 04 July 2012 - 12:51 PM

AE King

Member
1,504 posts

Hard choice

#4
ar157

Posted 22 July 2012 - 08:49 AM

Resident Australian Arnimal

Member
1,476 posts

User's Awards

Finished a game as an airline in the top 10 by reputation

Finished a game as an airline in the top 10 by valuation

AFAIK, aren't the ATR's wet leased from skywest? :huh:

i don't think that VA can dictate what fleet plans skywest has. Also, i don't think that VA used the E170s for their range, rather it was for their size, hence using the ATR-72, a similarly sized aircraft is fine.Also consider that they don't even need to maintain the ATR72s.

http://www.gcmap.com...ne-rok, mel-mql here are 2 typical routes that the e170s were on. Keep in mind that jets have a high seat per mile cost. Also, E170s are only a tiny bit bigger than the ATRs and by tiny, i mean you can basically do nothing with seat pitch unless you have the -175, however VA had the -170. if they really needed the range, then just deploy the -190 which i assume would have a lower seat cost per mile compared to the -170/175

#5
aidan11

Posted 03 February 2013 - 08:53 AM

I approve this message.

Member
143 posts

Skype Name:aidan.scotty16

*facepalm* Seriously, Virgin?

I wish I was surfing right now.

#6
Guest_Gareth_*

Posted 03 February 2013 - 09:19 AM

Guests

1. Was it really necessary to bump a thread that has been dead since July last year?
2. Was it necessary to be rude?

#7
Unky

Posted 03 February 2013 - 08:18 PM

Tinworkx, Redesigning Entertaining.

Member
210 posts

To be straight forward with you Gareth, I see no problem bumping a thread of this caliber. If he has an opinion on it, his right to post should be revoked due to the age of the thread.

"2. Was it necessary to be rude?" Not sure how it was rude.. Though his post was very unclear, it did imply he was upset with this decision of switching to the ATR-72's. Which is certainly not "rude" considering this thread is strictly to voice your opinion on the decision, thus he voiced his opinion as others did previously...

Regards,

Peter