TTMIAR 
Once again you may be surprised to hear that I absolutely agree.
Like most pilots you seem make the mistake of believing that this business is about flying aircraft and how far, fast, difficult "pilot" stuff, about how can I run a service that will give me a job.
It's actually exactly around the other way.
You see the notion was
never about the "aircraft", Metro, Jetstream (we actually placed an order for some of those in the late sixties when they were powered by Aztazous,
weren't we lucky they went broke), Beech 99 yet, Cessna 404, B1900 etc.
It is about a pragmatic certification status that was born out of expediency at the time.
Noting (sic) on the drawing board either
you can bet your bippy on that and why do you think that is so.
By the time you meet all the current requirements in this modern world (or the past for that matter) the economics demand that you wind up with either the Dash 8/ATR42 types or small regional jets breaking out all over.
That is an equation the manufacturers have
never been able to satisfactorily resolve. Swearingen/Fairchild may have come as close as any to it.
They even studied a "stand-up body" but the inexorable and immutable laws of certification economics said if ya gunna do that you need to start from scratch and if ya gunna do that the ultimate market is not there in that seat range at the sort of dollars required.
You dont need to be a rocket scientist or do the numbers to know that it doesn't cost all that much more to build a 30 pax airframe as a 19 pax one.
And if we were talking in the world of real costs the modern efficient 30 paxer can happily service routes down to break evens of maybe 10 pax.
Now it aint gunna happen over night, but it will happen, who's gunna pay for it remains moot.
The next five years will pass in a blink.
I really dont care what they use in freight as long as they aren't sacrificing young pilots.
Neither do I care if you choose to ignore my advice.
If you are a big time Metro operator (any sort really) and have your "profit"
predicated on the low capital costs of any of these types, IMHO you've got maybe 5 years at the best to get your revenue up to the point where you can afford to replace them with the new types or you plan your exit strategy on very high operating profits for the period, there wont be any realisable capital assets.
I would also be talking carefully and quietly to the Government about the return of subsidy to those areas that cannot hope to support modern equipment.
It used to be the way and remote areas recieved relatively equitable and state of the art services, but somewhere along the way some really clever operators
convinced the Government that by using written down, no longer economically viable or surplus equipment they could do without subsidy.
Really clever businessmen these guys?
Well that bird is coming home to roost.