Jump to content

Photo

Regional Aircraft


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1
HanTseng

HanTseng

    AE Luver

  • Member
  • 335 posts

User's Awards

21    7    6    3   

Which regional aircraft is the most profitable? Which one is the least?


post-80164-0-49508800-1518631495.png

 

BV6atB1.png

 

 

vxfPiWg.png


#2
Hake.

Hake.

    Too Old For All This Jazz

  • Member
  • 4,295 posts
  • Skype Name:billfoster123
  • Website:http://willsweg.com

User's Awards

   8      

Q400 NextGen is most profitable, then Q400, then ATR 72-5/600. The ATRs and Dash 8s are roughly equal, but the Q400 is marginally more efficient although with ATR you have a lower cost base if you need the 42 as well. There's no real consensus on least profitabe, although helicopters guzzle fuel - as do most smaller craft. The SN-601, Yaks and VFW 614 are fun aircraft to route though, in fairness to them.



#3
LuxAirport

LuxAirport

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 90 posts

User's Awards

2    2    3    2   

The Q400 NextGen



#4
Jezza.

Jezza.

    AE's resident Yooper.

  • Member
  • 438 posts

Please be more specific about what type of regional aircraft. There are the turboprop category and the jet category. In the jet category I'll go CRJ-200 until the CRJ700/EMB series come out. The BAC 1-11, F-28, F-70/100, and/or smaller versions of the DC-9 etc.. are good regional jets before the time of CRJ and ERJ. As for turboprops, you can't get much better then the DeHavilland Dash 8 series.


DWA_Sig_3_15.png


#5
sargester

sargester

    #BRINGBACKTHEOLDCOLORSAA

  • Member
  • 139 posts

User's Awards

   5   

EMB-175 or the 195 if your looking for smaller the CRJ-700


Cyprus_240-animated-flag-gifs.gifUSA_240-animated-flag-gifs.gifItaly_240-animated-flag-gifs.gif


#6
Tesla

Tesla

    Inactive

  • Member
  • 2,392 posts

CRJ1000EL. 

Range is deficient compared to other CRJ-1000 versions, but the plane is MUCH more fuel efficient in AE.



#7
TNT88

TNT88

    Hates Pedo

  • Member
  • 3,458 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

CRJ1000EL. 

Range is deficient compared to other CRJ-1000 versions, but the plane is MUCH more fuel efficient in AE.

+1



#8
Tesla

Tesla

    Inactive

  • Member
  • 2,392 posts

Oh. And the CS100 also.



#9
konj1

konj1

    whatever

  • Member
  • 562 posts

User's Awards

3       3    3      

+2 about CRJ-1000EL. It's not AE glitch, it is actually supposed to be efficient irw because its weight is much reduced.

 

Not to forget older planes, in late 80's and 90's I prefer Avro 146-300/RJ100 and ATR-72 for their economy, later 717, and also there's not very profitable but my favorite CRJ-200LR   :cloud9: , no one bothers me on routes where I put those so it can actually turn out to be very profitable in the long run; of course they are obsolete by 2010 when newer ATR and Dash8 get enough range.



#10
JimBob1

JimBob1

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 93 posts

For large, fast turboprops.......which are the most efficient regional aircraft, everyone has forgotten about the BAE ATP.

 

Starting in the late 80's the BAE ATP is your best bet for a 70+ seat turboprop till the ATR-72-500 comes out in the mid 90's.

Then that's the best turboprop till the Q-400 comes out and then till the Q-400 next gen.



#11
Hake.

Hake.

    Too Old For All This Jazz

  • Member
  • 4,295 posts
  • Skype Name:billfoster123
  • Website:http://willsweg.com

User's Awards

   8      
I'd say, given that a 1995 ATR 72-500 would need to be retired around 2015, it makes economic sense not to bother with Q400s, as difference in costs is miniscule.
Edit:
ATR 72-500 uses 10.24 lbs of fuel per pax per 100 miles on AE.
Q400 uses 13.94 lbs per 100 miles.

Same turnaround time in both, although the Q400 is quicker, so both work out pretty similar depending on route length (the shorter it is, the more economic the ATR is)

#12
TheGreatOP

TheGreatOP

    TheGreatOP

  • Member
  • 193 posts
  • Skype Name:TheGreatOP

I'd say, given that a 1995 ATR 72-500 would need to be retired around 2015, it makes economic sense not to bother with Q400s, as difference in costs is miniscule.
Edit:
ATR 72-500 uses 10.24 lbs of fuel per pax per 100 miles on AE.
Q400 uses 13.94 lbs per 100 miles.

Same turnaround time in both, although the Q400 is quicker, so both work out pretty similar depending on route length (the shorter it is, the more economic the ATR is)

The Q400 is worth it in worlds that run later, as you can get the Q400NextGen, which is way more efficient.



#13
Tesla

Tesla

    Inactive

  • Member
  • 2,392 posts

The Q400 is worth it in worlds that run later, as you can get the Q400NextGen, which is way more efficient.

+1



#14
Hans.

Hans.

    I just really like airplanes

  • Member
  • 188 posts

User's Awards

   3   

ATR 72/ATR 42 make sense over the long term since you can replace older models with newer versions and keep your maintenance costs low.


   uw_sig2.png

 

 


#15
zortan

zortan

    AE Winner

  • Member
  • 2,515 posts
  • Website:http://aeronauticsonline.com

For props: Dash7 and Dash8. Jets: CRJ or ERJ



#16
Thefireset

Thefireset

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 84 posts

User's Awards

   2    3         

In my gallery I have some screenshots of a comparison that I did between Bombardier Q400 and ATR 72-600 and Bombardier win. 



#17
Hans.

Hans.

    I just really like airplanes

  • Member
  • 188 posts

User's Awards

   3   

In my gallery I have some screenshots of a comparison that I did between Bombardier Q400 and ATR 72-600 and Bombardier win. 

I looked at those and the Q400 did come out on top, but were the route segments the same distance? Were you able to charge the same price for tickets on those routes? Also, it looked like the ATR 72 had to pay more than the Q400 in fees on the route it was operating. 

 

I've also done some comparisons myself with the Q400 and ATR 72-500, and the Q400 comes out on top by a small margin when flying the same route at the same frequencies as the ATR, but I didn't factor in the higher maintenance and leasing costs for the Q400 (which I something I am going to look at). 

 

The ATRs seem better for quickly expanding one's fleet because of their significantly lower costs and operating expenses over the Dash 8, although the Dash 8s offer more capacity and speed. Unfortunately, the Q300 is only produced until 2009, so there is no replacement after that date except for the ATR 42 or some of the Russian regional aircraft.

 

Overall, I think both types are about equal, but I am going to try and do some more experimentation. :)


   uw_sig2.png

 

 


#18
Hans.

Hans.

    I just really like airplanes

  • Member
  • 188 posts

User's Awards

   3   

BTW, did you use Q400 NextGen for your comparisons or the regular Q400? I haven't experimented with the NextGen.


   uw_sig2.png

 

 


#19
Thefireset

Thefireset

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 84 posts

User's Awards

   2    3         

BTW, did you use Q400 NextGen for your comparisons or the regular Q400? I haven't experimented with the NextGen.

 

I was using regular Q400. I did another comparison with the same route and the ATR was making 507 000$ of profit and 609 000$ with the Q400. I was using the maximum of frequencies of each aircraft. But both are great aircrafts, I use both of them






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users