Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:01 am
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:01 amPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:02 pmI thought with a fleet of Dash08 300's already in the air it'd be the 400's being bought.
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:37 pmPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:22 pmNow this is the interesting part...
QUOTE
"It is likely that the new fleet will be Auckland-based, providing us with an excellent spread of regional aircraft including bases in Christchurch, Nelson and Hamilton. This will give us a solid platform for regional growth particularly into and out of Auckland."[/quote]
So, will Mt Cook open an Auckland base or will these go to Air Nelson, of in which case will the crew be on the Air Nelson Q300 contract or a new one to match the current ATR contract?
Nice to see more new a/c for regional centers though, I prefer the Q series for looks and as a punter but given its performance in Australia I think the ATR will serve Air NZ better, plus by all accounts the Q400 isn't all that similar to the Q300 (different type ratings to begin with) so I imagine any possible synergies would be minimal.
So, will Mt Cook open an Auckland base or will these go to Air Nelson, of in which case will the crew be on the Air Nelson Q300 contract or a new one to match the current ATR contract?
Nice to see more new a/c for regional centers though, I prefer the Q series for looks and as a punter but given its performance in Australia I think the ATR will serve Air NZ better, plus by all accounts the Q400 isn't all that similar to the Q300 (different type ratings to begin with) so I imagine any possible synergies would be minimal.
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:03 pmPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:48 pmExciting stuff, hopefully this means a few more new job openings in AirNZs regional partner airlines 
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:23 pm
Talk is they may use the ATR on some of the fuller flights out of New Plymouth instead of the Q300 (currently all Q300 flights, with a B19D thrown in here and there). The Dash definitely wins on looks, and I think, speed - but I guess efficiency won out, although the Q400 would carry (a few) more passengers. I've never liked the look of the ATR, the engines look like they're gonna fall off and the stumpy crab-like landing gear, and what's up with the entrance at the rear?
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:24 pmI hate flying on ATRs. The seats in them are terrible, if your over 5ft then your in trouble.
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:08 pmQUOTE
I hate flying on ATRs. The seats in them are terrible, if your over 5ft then your in trouble.[/quote]
That's why I've no problems with them
- apart from the fact their French (just kidding - my partner's a frog so - I can give them some murde
)
That's why I've no problems with them
- apart from the fact their French (just kidding - my partner's a frog so - I can give them some murde
)Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:56 amBut most important of all. is there a decent ATR-72-600 out there for FSX? 
I wonder if Flight 1 will do an update of their 500?
I wonder if Flight 1 will do an update of their 500?Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:17 amconnor wrote:QUOTE (connor @ Oct 20 2011,9:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>But most important of all. is there a decent ATR-72-600 out there for FSX?
Realisticly , no real difference between the 500/600 other than cosmetic changes and flightdeck changes and few other bits and pieces , think you still be happy with your F1 .
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:24 amchopper_nut wrote:QUOTE (chopper_nut @ Oct 19 2011,5:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I hate flying on ATRs. The seats in them are terrible, if your over 5ft then your in trouble.
Yeah I agree, the seats are odd, very upright. Hopefully the new models have a better seat.