ATR 72-200: history, airline routes, safety and specs

The ATR 72-200 sits at the start of the ATR 72 story: a late 1980s response to regional airlines that needed more seats than the ATR 42 could offer, without giving up the short field, fuel efficiency, and high frequency economics that made turboprops attractive on short sectors. ATR developed the ATR 72 as a stretched derivative of the ATR 42, keeping high commonality in cross section and general architecture while increasing capacity and fuel for longer, higher payload regional missions.

In terms of industrial background, ATR itself was created as a Franco Italian manufacturer, and the ATR 72 programme was the logical “next size up” within its product family. ATR has documented that the ATR 72 programme was officially launched in January 1986, with first delivery in October 1989, and that the programme began with the ATR 72-200. ATR’s own programme milestone note is a useful reference for those headline dates and for positioning the -200 as the first commercial step before the later -500 and -600 evolutions.

From a certification and service timeline perspective, the ATR 72 prototype made its first flight on 27 October 1988, and the type entered airline service on 27 October 1989 with Finnair, one year later. These early dates frame the ATR 72-200 era as “first generation” ATR 72, before the power and systems updates that later arrived with the -210 family and the commercialised -500 and -600 lines.

As is common with successful regional aircraft, the first in service standard did not remain static. ATR introduced incremental sub variants under the marketing label “200 series”, and these are the most important details to understand when discussing the ATR 72-200 precisely rather than the broader ATR 72 family.

What makes the ATR 72-200 distinct within the early ATR 72 line

“ATR 72-200” is a commercial designation that groups two certified models: ATR 72-201 and ATR 72-202. In EASA documentation for the ATR 42 and ATR 72 type certificate (Type Certificate Data Sheet number EASA.A.084), the relevant certified models are listed explicitly as ATR 72-201 and ATR 72-202, under the ATR 72 series. A publicly accessible copy of that EASA TCDS listing can be found via EASA.A.084 (ATR 42 and ATR 72) TCDS extract.

Within the broader first generation ATR 72 population, the simplest differentiator is propulsion: the ATR 72-200 is PW124B powered, representing the original engine fit for early production. This matters historically because subsequent family steps were largely driven by performance needs in hot and high conditions and by the continuous push for better operating economics, leading to later engine versions and updated aircraft standards. ATR’s programme history summary also helps anchor the -200 as the first marketed standard before the -500 introduction in 1997 and the -600 launch in 2009.

Chronologically, the early certified variants are commonly described in two marketing groupings. The “100 series” corresponds to initial production standards, while the “200 series” groups higher maximum take off weight versions of the same door arrangements. In practice, this is where the ATR 72-200 becomes a more specific aircraft than the generic “early ATR 72”: it is the higher weight branch of the initial PW124B powered configuration. For readers comparing early airframes in fleets, this also helps avoid confusion when an aircraft is described by operators as “-200” while certification paperwork references “-201” or “-202”.

For a long form aircraft variant article, it is also worth recognising that the ATR 72 evolved into several later commercial standards with major upgrades. ATR states that after the initial ATR 72-200, it introduced the ATR 72-500 in 1997 and the ATR 72-600 later, with the -600 entering service in 2011. That arc matters because it shows how the initial ATR 72-200 baseline was later improved through higher power engine variants and more modern avionics and cabin changes, even though those later upgrades do not belong to the ATR 72-200 itself.

Variant identifiers that help pin down an ATR 72-200 in records and in technical discussions include the following.

• Commercial designation: ATR 72-200 (marketed), covering the certified models ATR 72-201 and ATR 72-202
• Certified model names in EASA type certificate listing: ATR 72-201 and ATR 72-202 (under EASA.A.084)
• Engine fit: Pratt and Whitney Canada PW124B family on the ATR 72-200 generation
• Programme position: first marketed ATR 72 variant family, with first delivery in October 1989 according to ATR programme history

For pilots, engineers, and enthusiasts looking for type specific training context, simulator and training ecosystems often preserve these early variant labels long after newer aircraft enter fleets. That is one reason professional communities still discuss “-200” differences and legacy configurations when comparing recurrent training paths, operator conversions, and fleet harmonisation decisions. For broader career and training context, a relevant internal reference is airline pilot forums and how to use them effectively, which can be helpful when tracking real world operator experiences with older turboprop variants and their training pipelines.

The ATR 72-200 is a short haul regional turboprop built around a straightforward trade: excellent fuel efficiency and runway flexibility at regional stage lengths, in exchange for lower cruise speed compared with regional jets. Technically, it inherits the ATR family’s high wing, rugged regional airliner philosophy, and it is most at home on frequent sectors where block time is dominated by climb, descent, and turnaround efficiency rather than high cruise Mach.

What matters most in practice for the ATR 72-200 is how its baseline airframe and PW124B powered propulsion package combine with airline weight and seating choices. The same basic platform can be operated at different weights and cabin densities, which is why engineering comparisons should always specify the variant and the basis for performance figures rather than treating “ATR 72” numbers as universal.

Specs that matter for the ATR 72-200 include the following publicly available figures.

• Length: 27.17 m
• Wingspan: 27.05 m
• Height: 7.65 m
• Maximum take off weight (MTOW): 22,000 kg (ATR 72-200 figure as commonly published for the -200 generation)
• Engines: 2 × Pratt and Whitney Canada PW124B turboprops
• Engine rating class: 2,400 shp per engine (PW124B figure commonly cited for early ATR 72s)
• Typical cruise speed reference: around 278 kt (published “high speed cruise” style figures are commonly cited for the -200, and should be treated as condition dependent)
• Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
• Range reference: around 862 nmi in “max pax” style published tables, noting that range depends strongly on payload, reserves, and assumptions

Systems and handling relevant technology on the ATR 72-200

From a pilot and maintenance perspective, the ATR 72-200 is “classic ATR” in that it uses proven regional transport systems rather than the later glass cockpit and more integrated avionics suites found on the ATR 72-600. Handling and line operation are shaped by turboprop power management, propeller drag characteristics, and the need to think in terms of torque and temperature margins rather than thrust alone.

For airworthiness and configuration discipline, the most authoritative public anchor is the type certification framework. The EASA type certificate data sheet for the ATR 42 and ATR 72 family lists the certified ATR 72 models including the ATR 72-201 and ATR 72-202, which correspond to the marketed ATR 72-200. A convenient public access route to that listing is EASA.A.084 TCDS extract. For operational and flight crew standardisation in the United States context, the FAA has published flight standardisation materials for ATR 42 and ATR 72 aircraft families; a widely referenced FAA document is the ATR 42/72 Flight Standardization Board report, which is indexed publicly via the FAA ecosystem and is commonly redistributed by training repositories.

Published performance numbers should also be read carefully. Two ATR 72-200 aircraft can show different runway requirements and climb capability due to differences in certified weight options, installed equipment, propeller and engine configuration standards, bleed and anti icing use, and airline payload and fuel policies. In addition, performance charts are sensitive to temperature, pressure altitude, runway slope, runway condition, and dispatch margins. For this reason, “book numbers” in summaries should be treated as indicative, while real dispatch performance should be taken from the approved AFM performance data for the specific aircraft configuration and operator policy.

ATR 72-200 engine: version, manufacturer, and what it implies

The ATR 72-200 is powered by the Pratt and Whitney Canada PW124B, part of the PW100 turboprop family. This engine family has a long service history across regional turboprop aircraft, and Pratt and Whitney Canada has publicly highlighted the breadth and maturity of the PW100 line, including the scale of its in service fleet and accumulated flight hours. A useful manufacturer overview is Pratt and Whitney’s PW100 family milestone note, which summarises PW100 family service history.

For the ATR product line specifically, later ATR 72 variants moved to higher power engine versions within the same manufacturer ecosystem, aiming at improved hot and high performance and evolving maintenance economics. That historical context helps explain why the ATR 72-200 is typically recognised as the early, lower power baseline compared with later PW127 equipped ATR 72 sub variants. For readers researching operational costs and ownership questions around aircraft and aviation related purchases, a relevant internal reference is tax considerations for aviation related purchases, which can be useful when structuring legitimate educational or professional expenses.

The ATR 72-200 is an early production member of the ATR 72 family, designed around short haul, high frequency regional flying. In airline service it is typically scheduled on sectors where turboprop economics, short runway capability and robust dispatch reliability matter more than jet speed. Performance figures commonly cited for the ATR 72-200 include a high speed cruise around 278 kt and a published range (max passengers) around 862 nmi, which helps explain why operators often use it on sub 500 nmi missions rather than pushing the theoretical maximum. More detail on the family baseline can be found via the ATR 72 overview at Wikipedia (useful as a starting point for variant context and key figures).

In practice, typical ATR 72-200 routes tend to be 200 to 500 nmi (roughly 45 to 90 minutes block time depending on winds, procedures and taxi), with some airlines stretching longer legs where schedules and payload allow. The aircraft is well suited to dense regional trunk flying and to feeder operations into larger hubs, especially where runway length, apron space, noise footprint or airport charges favour turboprops. When deployed in hub and spoke patterns, the ATR 72-200 often supports morning and evening banks to connect with long haul or mainline departures, while midday utilisation is driven by multi sector regional rotations.

Daily utilisation patterns vary by operator and network, but the aircraft is commonly flown in a multi sector rhythm rather than a small number of long legs. A typical day can involve repeated short turnarounds and several cycles, which is operationally efficient for regional schedules but increases maintenance planning complexity because cycle driven tasks accrue quickly. Turboprop operations also tend to place more emphasis on propeller and engine condition monitoring, careful ground handling, and strict adherence to icing and contamination procedures in winter climates.

Operationally, the ATR 72-200 is seen in a mix of environments.

• Hub feeders where the aircraft links smaller communities to a major hub, supporting network carrier connectivity and regional public service obligations.
• Point to point regional networks where demand is consistent but does not justify jets, often connecting secondary cities or islands.
• Short field and constrained airports where runway performance and turboprop handling characteristics are advantageous.
• Mixed passenger cargo roles where cabin baggage volumes, mail, or light freight are part of the commercial model, and where rapid turns are crucial.

Key challenges for operators are rarely about the airframe itself and more about mission fit and operating conditions. The ATR 72-200 flies below typical jet cruise levels, so it can spend more time in weather and turbulence layers. Winter operations require disciplined de icing decision making and strict compliance with severe icing recognition and exit procedures, reflecting long standing industry learning on turboprop icing exposure. On the commercial side, passenger perception can be a challenge on competitive routes where customers prioritise jet speed, even if total door to door time is similar for many regional sectors.

For training and career pathways, airlines operating classic turboprops often recruit pilots who build strong manual handling and procedural discipline early. Programmes such as an MPL pathway can be relevant where operators or partner airlines structure cadet pipelines aimed at multi crew airline operations, including regional turboprop fleets.

Where the ATR 72-200 operates

Globally, the ATR 72-200 has appeared across Europe, North and South America, Asia and Africa, typically in roles that match its strengths: short haul, high frequency regional transport and connectivity to larger hubs. Over time, many airlines have migrated from the oldest ATR 72 variants to later versions, but the ATR 72-200 still appears in some fleets and in specialist roles, while its operational footprint remains visible through historical use by numerous carriers and through freighter conversions in the wider 72 200 series ecosystem.

In Europe, classic ATR 72 flying has long been associated with dense regional links and feeder services into major hubs, as well as connectivity to smaller regional airports and island routes. In North and South America, the type has been used on short to medium regional sectors where turboprops provide good economics and where airports may be weather exposed. In Asia, many operators have used ATR 72 variants for domestic trunk and secondary city links, including high frequency schedules where aircraft size and operating cost are key. In Africa, ATR 72 operations often focus on connecting capital cities with secondary destinations and on linking regional commercial centres where infrastructure constraints can be significant.

• Europe airlines with documented ATR 72-200 operations include Air Serbia, which has published ATR 72 200 seat maps and uses the aircraft on short haul European services, reflecting a classic regional feeder and point to point role. A practical reference for the cabin layout commonly shown for this operator is available at SeatGuru.
• North & South America saw extensive historical ATR 72 family use on regional routes, with the wider ATR 72 operator landscape summarised in the global operator list at List of ATR 72 operators, which includes variant breakdowns where available. The region has also supported dedicated cargo use of the 72 200 series, including freighter variants in feeder cargo networks.
• Asia includes carriers such as Nok Air, which has operated the ATR 72-200 in high frequency domestic service with a typical all economy layout, reflecting the aircraft’s suitability for dense short haul sectors. A commonly referenced seat map entry is available at SeatGuru.
• Africa includes examples such as Overland Airways, which has listed an ATR 72-200 in its fleet information, indicating continued niche use on regional services where turboprop economics and airport compatibility are important. Fleet context can be found at Overland Airways.

Typical seating on the ATR 72-200

Most ATR 72-200 passenger aircraft are configured as single class regional cabins with a 2 by 2 seating arrangement. Published examples show common layouts around 66 seats, reflecting a balance between comfort and revenue density in the classic ATR 72 cabin. Seat pitch figures commonly published for airline layouts are around 31 inches in standard economy configurations, with variations by operator and by interior refurbishment standard.

Typical seating trends by operator type are as follows.

• Network and flag carriers often keep the ATR 72-200 at approximately 66 seats with mainstream economy pitch, aiming to protect connection quality and meet baggage handling needs for hub traffic. Operator examples such as Air Serbia show 66 seat layouts with 31 inch pitch in published seat map references.
• Low cost and high frequency domestic operators may also use 66 seat layouts but focus on fast turns and simplified service, sometimes standardising seats and cabin features to reduce maintenance and turnaround variability. Nok Air is an example with a commonly referenced 66 seat single class configuration.
• Charter, ACMI and regional specialists may operate slightly different seat counts depending on certification and interior choices, with published third party seat map entries showing both 66 and 68 seat configurations for the 72 200 series. For example, Swiftair is shown in some seat map references with a 68 seat all economy arrangement, reflecting operator specific interior decisions and mission profile.

Cabin comfort features on the ATR 72-200 are generally defined by operator choice rather than by the airframe. Many aircraft in this variant are older, so passenger experience depends heavily on refurbishment, seat design and maintenance standard. For variant context and baseline technical characteristics of the ATR 72 family, an accessible reference is the ATR 72 aircraft page at Wikipedia, which summarises major configuration differences across the 72 200, 72 210, 72 500 and 72 600 lines.

The ATR 72-200 is part of a turboprop family that has been in commercial service since 1989, and its safety record needs to be understood in that context: decades of operations, millions of sectors, and a broad range of operators and operating environments. Like other widely used regional aircraft, the ATR 72 family has experienced accidents and serious incidents over its long service life, including a small number of high profile events that shaped modern icing awareness, certification assumptions and operating procedures. At the same time, the long term trend in commercial aviation safety is one of continuous improvement, supported by better weather data, more robust SOPs, improved training, and stronger regulatory oversight.

When discussing the safety history, it is also important to separate the ATR 72-200 designation from closely related sub variants such as the ATR 72-202 and ATR 72-212, because many notable events involved those closely related aircraft. From an operational safety perspective, these sub variants share key characteristics relevant to crews and regulators, especially in areas such as icing exposure, flight handling and procedural compliance.

Major accidents and serious incidents: what happened and what changed

• Simmons Airlines d.b.a. American Eagle Flight 4184 (ATR 72-212), 1994 involved loss of control after an in flight icing encounter near Roselawn, Indiana. The NTSB concluded that ice accreted beyond the de icing boot protected area could lead to a roll upset via aileron hinge moment effects, with the event occurring in conditions outside the classic certification envelope. The official NTSB investigation summary provides the factual baseline at NTSB DCA95MA001. After the accident, the FAA and industry took actions including new severe icing recognition and exit procedures, restrictions and AFM changes, and hardware modifications to improve ice protection coverage and mitigate ice ridge effects. Regulatory discussion around the severe icing mechanism and procedural mitigations is documented in FAA rulemaking text such as the Federal Register notice FR 1995 02 21.
• Aero Caribbean Flight 883 (ATR 72-212), 2010 was a fatal accident in Cuba associated with loss of control in icing conditions. While public summaries exist, the key operational takeaway for crews is the continued emphasis on conservative decision making in forecast or observed icing, strict adherence to speed, configuration and automation guidance in icing, and rapid exit strategies when conditions exceed expectations. A widely cited overview of the event and basic facts is available at Aero Caribbean Flight 883, but primary investigation material should be used for technical study where available.
• Severe icing operational risk and regulatory response, mid 1990s onward is not a single accident, but a major safety theme that directly affected ATR 72 operations. FAA documentation and subsequent actions highlighted that large droplet icing could produce ice accretion aft of protected surfaces and lead to roll control anomalies, especially with specific flap configurations and subsequent retraction. This mechanism and the rationale for procedural and design changes is described in FAA material such as the Federal Register discussion on the issue and required AFM procedure updates at FR 1995 10 18.

How safe is the ATR 72-200 today

The ATR 72-200 is generally considered safe when operated under modern regulations, maintenance standards and airline SOPs, as with any commercial transport aircraft. The most important safety factors are not unique to the type: rigorous maintenance, crew training, conservative weather decision making, disciplined adherence to icing procedures, stabilised approach criteria, and effective oversight by regulators and operators. Where older airframes remain in service, continued airworthiness management and compliance with applicable airworthiness directives are central to keeping risk low.

On a global scale, accident rates in commercial aviation are extremely low compared with the number of flights operated every day. For example, IATA’s published safety statistics show that in 2024 there were 40.6 million flights and seven fatal accidents, with a long term trend of improving accident rates over decades. This provides useful context for travellers evaluating turboprop safety, including the ATR 72-200. An authoritative reference for those figures is the IATA release IATA Releases 2024 Safety Report.

Pilot training pipelines also matter for safety outcomes, particularly in high cycle regional operations where standardisation and procedural discipline are critical. For readers exploring how airline training pathways are structured, including multi crew programmes aimed at airline operations, a relevant overview is available via Ryanair Future Flyer Programme.

Overall, the ATR 72-200 benefits from decades of operational learning across the wider ATR 72 family, and from the continuous tightening of procedures and certification understanding in areas such as icing. With modern airline operations, robust SOPs and regulatory oversight, commercial air travel remains one of the safest ways to travel.