Talk:ATR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Various comments 2 ATR rear door use 3 Multiple things 4 Restored

[edit] Various comments

If the "ATR is Number 1 in Turboprops" paragraph sounds like marketspeak, that's because it is: it's taken verbatim from ATR's webpage.

I don't know how much copying is allowed, but the old version (13 Feb 2005 revision) sounded better (and more informative) to me, anyway.

[edit] ATR rear door use

I have flown on two different Aero Airlines (a subsidiary of Finnair) ATR-72s in September 2005, embarking the plane through the front door. I think that the use of rear door for passangers in ATR-72 is not universal.--138.23.181.10 22:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right; a versions of the ATR42 had a front pax door (originally ordered by Alitalia Express) instead of a cargo door, and some ATR72 have this too. It is quite rare, though. Fernando K 02:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple things

I am sitting at the airport with the AT42 parked in front of me and they are not using a pogo stick to support the aircraft. In fact I have never seen them use one. Is it for the 72 only?

This is the tail support and it is for ATR72 only. This led to a joke that the ATR72 is the "male" version and the ATR42 is the "female". Fernando K 03:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It claims that "Passengers are boarded using the rear door (which is rare for a passenger plane) as the front door is used to load cargo." There are several aircraft that board through the rear, B737, B727, A748 and multiple others. It's not rare.

The primary user is stated as American Eagle Airlines but that article says that Executive Air (and Eagle subsiduary) actually runs the ATR. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored

I have restored the articles about the planes themselves. Other prop planes like the Dash 8 have their own articles. I see no problem about having an article on the ATR-42/72. Mrld 01:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, there already is an artilce on the aircraft, the ATR 42/72. Any info related to the aircraft should go there. - BillCJ 19:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what he's referring to. Frankly, I don't think there's enough material to have ATR-the-company separate from ATR-the-aircraft, but if a bunch of people feel otherwise, I'm more than happy to concentrate my cleanup efforts on the aircraft article.

Changed my mind. I also support a split, and I'd prefer a three-way split: ATR for the company, ATR 42 for the 42, and ATR 72 for the 72. The aircraft are different enough to warrant different articles, especially in light of the complexity of all the specs tables now. I'm OK with the ATR article basically remaining a stub for the time being until people more knowledgeable about the corporate side of things can expand it.--chris.lawson 17:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just figured that out. I've undone his and my changes. I support a split, but we need to go through the process first. - BillCJ 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I also support a split. Just because we currently don't know enough about the company or aircraft to fill two articles doesn't mean that we won't eventually. For crying out loud, DeLorean doesn't include the car in the article about the company. Split them and research to suit. ericg ✈ 17:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

One could give good arguments for keeping the 42 and 72 together or splitting them. In the end, I think it comes down to personal preference. Given the fact that ATR 42/72 is not going to be the name that people search for, but rather ATR 42 or ATR 72, I'd lean toward keeping the planes separate. There is an edit history at ATR 42, while ATR 72 was moved to ATR 42/72. ATR 42/72 would probably have to be moved back to ATR 72 by an admin so that we retain some edit history, but we can just restore ATR 42, and paste in what we need from ATR. Given we all seem to support restoring at lest the ATR 42/72 page, I'll do that, and we can decide on the split/moves there. - BillCJ 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)