The -600 modernised the ATR 72 rather than redesigning it — a new glass cockpit, improved engines and a refreshed cabin on the same proven airframe. Here is what is different, and what stayed the same.
The ATR 72 is the backbone of regional turboprop flying, and two variants dominate the conversation: the -500 and the current-production -600. They look almost identical on the ramp, and buyers often ask what really separates them. The short answer: the -600 is a thorough modernisation of the -500, not a new aeroplane — the airframe and the economics carry over, while the cockpit, systems and cabin move on a generation.
Glass cockpit and avionics
This is the most visible change. The -600 replaced the older flight deck with a modern glass cockpit built around large multifunction LCD displays and an updated avionics suite, adding capability and easing crew workload. For an operator, it means a more current, more supportable cockpit — and a training and commonality consideration if you run a mixed -500/-600 fleet.
Engines and performance
The -600 uses an improved variant of the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW127 engine family, including a boost capability that helps preserve take-off performance in hot-and-high conditions. Combined with weight and systems updates, the -600 offers modest gains in payload and operational flexibility over the -500. The differences are incremental rather than transformational — both variants share the same efficient, short-field-friendly character the ATR 72 is known for.
Cabin
The -600 introduced a refreshed cabin with a more modern look, larger overhead bins and updated seating — a meaningful passenger-experience upgrade on regional sectors, again on the same fuselage cross-section as the -500.
What stayed the same
The core airframe, the roughly 68–78-seat capacity, and the fuel-efficient, low-cost regional economics that make the ATR 72 popular all carry across. For many missions the two variants fly the same routes with very similar block times and trip costs; the -600's advantages are in modern systems, supportability and cabin, not a step change in range or speed.
Which should you choose?
Why the change happened
The move from the ATR 72-500 to the 72-600 was a systems and cabin modernisation of a proven airframe rather than a new aeroplane. The basic aerodynamics, dimensions and mission remained; what changed was the flight deck, the avionics generation, the cabin and a series of incremental improvements aimed at reliability, maintenance and passenger experience. That is why the two look alike on a ramp and why the operating differences show up mostly in the cockpit and the cabin.
The flight deck is the headline difference
The most significant change is the modernised glass flight deck, replacing the earlier generation of instrumentation with multifunction displays and an updated avionics suite. For operators the practical consequences are improved situational awareness, easier compliance with evolving navigation and surveillance requirements, and a cockpit that is more familiar to pilots coming from other modern types. It also affects training, since crews moving between the variants need differences instruction.
Cabin and passenger experience
The 72-600 introduced a redesigned cabin with new seating, larger overhead bins and a lighter, more contemporary interior. On a regional turboprop, where passengers frequently compare the experience unfavourably with jets, this matters commercially more than the specification sheet suggests, and it was a substantial part of the type's appeal to airlines refreshing their fleets.
Operational and maintenance considerations
The -600 brought incremental improvements in systems and equipment intended to support dispatch reliability and maintenance, along with the benefit of being the current production standard with the manufacturer's ongoing support focus. Performance and payload-range remain broadly comparable between the variants, so an operator choosing between them is generally weighing avionics generation, cabin, support horizon and price rather than capability.
Fleet commonality and crew
The variants share a common type rating, so airlines can operate both, but differences training is required and mixed fleets carry some additional complexity in rostering, spares and procedures. Many operators have therefore migrated deliberately rather than running the two side by side indefinitely.
Which one an operator should buy
The -600 is the stronger choice for operators who want the current production standard, the modern flight deck, easier long-term compliance with airspace requirements, and the cabin that passengers notice. The -500 remains attractive on acquisition cost and is a capable, widely supported aircraft with a large installed base and an established pre-owned market — often the pragmatic option for operators building capacity where capital efficiency outweighs cockpit generation. As always, verify the individual aircraft's maintenance status, records and equipment compliance, since the condition of the specific airframe will affect your economics more than the variant designation.
If you want the current production standard, the newest avionics and the best supportability going forward, the -600 is the clear choice. If value is the priority and you are comfortable operating an earlier-generation cockpit, a well-maintained -500 can be very cost-effective on the used market. Compare the two side by side on verified specifications in our ATR 72-500 vs 72-600 comparison, or open the full pages for the ATR 72-500 and ATR 72-600.
Still have questions?
Reading up before a decision? Our advisors give independent, no-obligation guidance on buying, operating or chartering — grounded in verified data.