If you fly the ATP with 16 more seats (standard config over An-140) at $150/seat 4.5 routes (9 flights) per day that is $151,200/week in additional revenue over what the An-140 can produce, which will more than cover a $30-50k/week increase in leasing costs.
Very compelling argument - however how much of it is a "wishful thinking", especially if we keep in mind that we talk about regional airlines, not running turbo prop on CDG-LHR.
1) # of routes
- 250nm routes takes ±4h40min to complete for BAe ATP. Thus you can only make 4 routes during normal hours (5-24), anything else would be either during the night (with very low pax) or impossible as many small airports have curfew.
- 350nm routes takes 6h - thus limiting you to just 3 "normal" routes
- lets take an average mid-size airport - something that you know - like Dayton, Ohio:) There are less than 10 destinations around 250nm with any decent traffic, everything else has 15-20pax - so one will have to fly longer routes and it would not be possible to make 4-4.5 routes per day
2) ability to fill the plane
- ATP seats 68 - but will you have demand to fill them?
- again, we are not talking about flying LHR to AMS, but flying from Dayton, Bucharest, Odessa, Stuttgart, etc Lots, if not majority of those routes are thin, 20-30-40 pax - so having extra capacity is a fairly theoretical benefit.
- within 500miles radius of Dayton, there is less than 15 destinations with 70+ pax traffic. Everything else is 30-40 and below, some of it also has competitions. And this is US with heavy air traffic, other parts of the world would have even less pax
Thus having those extra seats on a short route turbo-prop is a very theoretical advantage, could be applicable to just few destinations - where most likely you will have competition from larger jets
Point 1 + Point 2 = that 150k extra revenue of BAe ATP is never going to materialize in the conditions of regional airlines operating from small-mid size airports. The reality would be that ATP will be a large and expensive turbo-prop flying half empty.
As for maintenance - An-140 is more expensive, but difference (A+B+C checks) would be <3k per week, easily offset by... - right, lower leasing costs!:)
PS: and don't forget that Antonov is not a russian plane:)