Nilfurther - I couldn't agree with you more, and apologies if I misinterpreted your post.
MOR - I beg to differ. The jet versus prop argument simply makes very little difference now. The first priority in most cases is simply the price. Consumers simply want to get from 'a to b' at the lowest possible fare. Flybe know that they would struggle to compete directly with the likes of EZY or FR and so they introduce a differentiator, (ie) BHD iso BFS. Some people are prepared to pay a little more for the convenience of BHD, this is clear.
I have by no means attributed the recent financial results solely to the Q400 and agree that the routes into Spain have contributed to the cause, however without the Q400 many of the new routes would not be operating simply due the high costs of the 146 in comparison. You would never have seen Flybe competing with EZY on BHD-EDI/GLA/NCL/BRS and now LPL if it wasn't for the Q400.
The EMB170 is a very nice aircraft, (I flew on the demonstration flight when it came to EXT,) and it would be possible that an order may be placed, but that is unlikely in the short term. The 146 and AVRO RJ are likely to be in the fleet for the foreseeable future with some routes like SOU/EXT - AGP/ALC/MJV being handed over to larger jets. Far more likely would be an order for Bombardier's C Series if/when released for service in 2008. As for CVT I would envisage that the largest tour operator in Europe would be seen to be significant enough as a serious operator - do you seriously expect them to open their doors to other airlines when TUI own the airport aswell???
On sectors up to and around an hour, the difference in flight duration between 146 and Q400 is negligible. It comes in as minutes. The main fact is that some routes will only be viable on the 146 and others will only be viable on the Q400.
Many of Flybe's new routes are ones where the passenger has no other option - few people out there will travel from Hampshire to STN simply to fly on a jet to LRH/EGC.