ATR 72 vs Bombardier Q400: Turboprop Titans

Speed vs Efficiency

The ATR 72-600 and De Havilland Canada Dash 8 Q400 (now rebranded as the Dash 8 Series 400 following Bombardier's sale to Longview Aviation) represent two distinct design philosophies within the same turboprop market segment.

The Q400 is the faster aircraft: a maximum cruise speed of 667 km/h (Mach 0.63) versus the ATR 72-600's 510 km/h. This gap is operationally meaningful on sectors over 400 km, where the Q400's higher speed reduces flight time by 20–30 minutes. For airlines replacing regional jet services with turboprops (for cost reasons), the Q400's speed is essential in maintaining schedule viability.

The ATR 72-600 is the more fuel-efficient aircraft per seat, burning approximately 5% less per seat-km than the Q400. Its lower cruise speed requires less power, and the lower cruise altitude (15,000–20,000 ft vs up to 25,000 ft for the Q400) reduces pressurization work. For short-haul routes under 300 km where speed is less critical, the ATR's economics are superior.

Cabin Comparison

Both aircraft seat passengers in a 2-2 configuration with no middle seat, similar to smaller Embraer E-Jets. The ATR 72 has a slightly wider cabin (2.57 m vs 2.51 m) and a cabin height of 1.91 m. The Q400 cabin height is slightly greater at 1.96 m. In practice, both aircraft have relatively similar passenger experiences — compact turboprop cabins that are functional for flights under 90 minutes.

The Q400 offers slightly more luggage space per passenger and wider overhead bins. The ATR 72-600 features the "New Generation" cabin interior with improved seat design, mood lighting, and quieter operation than previous ATR variants. Cabin noise is a key consideration: both aircraft use active noise and vibration suppression (ANVS), but the higher-powered Q400 engines generate more audible noise at cruise. Many passengers describe ATR flights as noisier than jet-powered regional aircraft.

Operating Costs

The ATR 72-600 has lower direct operating costs per seat on short sectors. Its simpler, lower-powered engines (PW127M at 2,750 shp each vs Q400's 5,071 shp) consume less fuel and have lower overhaul costs. ATR claims a fuel burn of approximately 375 kg/hour at cruise — substantially less than the Q400's approximately 720 kg/hour due to both the lower speed and lower power setting required.

The Q400's higher operating cost per hour is partially offset by its higher speed (more sectors per day possible) and higher passenger capacity (78–90 vs 70–78 seats). On a per-sector, per-passenger basis, the cost difference narrows considerably for airlines that fully utilize the Q400's capacity and speed advantages.

Route Suitability

ATR 72-600 is better suited for: Short sectors under 300 km, island hopping routes, operations in hot-and-high environments (the ATR has strong performance in challenging conditions), and markets where low trip cost per cycle is paramount. Air Corsica, Swiftair, and hundreds of regional operators use ATRs on island and thin-route networks across Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

Q400 is better suited for: Sectors of 400–600 km where jet-competitive speed is required, thin routes linking secondary cities to major hubs, and operations where payload (cargo + passengers) needs are high. Scandinavian operators (Widerøe with 40+ Q400s) use the Q400 extensively for Norway's demanding western fjord routes combining speed and STOL performance.

Operators

The ATR 72 has been ordered by over 200 operators worldwide, with total deliveries exceeding 1,000 aircraft. IndiGo, Air India (regional), and many African and Asian operators run large fleets. The Q400 has been delivered to approximately 500 aircraft across 50+ operators, with strong concentration in Nordic countries (Widerøe, SAS Scandinavia), Canada (Jazz Aviation), and Japan (ANA's subsidiary).

Verdict

Neither aircraft is universally superior. The ATR 72-600 wins on fuel efficiency, lower trip costs for short sectors, and worldwide spares availability. The Q400 wins on speed, range, and sectors where passenger time savings justify higher operating costs. Both aircraft will remain essential for regional connectivity — especially in markets where jet service is uneconomical — well into the 2030s, and both manufacturers are developing next-generation successors with advanced composite structures and hybrid-electric propulsion options.