The ATR 72 is the larger variant
A longer fuselage gives it more passenger capacity and often better unit economics when demand is strong enough to fill the seats.
The ATR 42 serves smaller markets more precisely
On routes with lower demand, the shorter aircraft can reduce the cost of flying empty capacity while preserving the same basic turboprop operating model.
Both are designed around short regional flying
The aircraft perform best where stage lengths are modest and airport access matters. On much longer routes, jet speed may become more valuable.
Runway requirements can influence the choice
Smaller regional airports may have performance constraints that favor one variant over the other depending on temperature, elevation and payload.
Commonality reduces the cost of operating both
Airlines can benefit from related cockpits, maintenance practices and training. That lets planners vary capacity without creating a completely separate fleet.
Bigger is valuable only when the market supports it
The ATR 72 can spread costs across more seats, but a lightly loaded aircraft may perform worse financially than a fuller ATR 42. Route demand remains the deciding factor.
More aviation guides
Explore more aircraft, pilot, airport and aviation guides on SY.com.
Explore aviation