The 139 sounds like it is doing as expected on initial introduction, the stories of cracked exhausts and the like are somewhat "normal" and quite likely to be fully ironed out very quickly. I would also bet that stories from pilots that I respect about its good vibrations, good handling and such are all quite true.
The pilot preferences for a full Cat A capability are answered by the 139, it literally has no Dead Man's curve at normal altitudes, so it meets the ppruner's most basic wish (proven by lots of interesting threads!)
The real story behind the scenes is the "cost" of the super engine power that the design brings to the table. By "cost" I mean the fuel consumed, the extra purchase price and the extra maintenance expense incurred by a drive train that would normally go into a 20,000 lb helo, but is stuck in a 15,000 lb one. Similarly, is the fuel burn of 1000 lbs per hour acceptable when compared to the 550 to 700 pph for helos with the same pax load by more "normal" engine power? If the helo loads full pax and then flys 200 miles, does it leave 3 pax home to make it, due to the extra fuel consumed?
These questions are on the lips of every operator who faces the purchase decision. I am sure the questions about support are not about whether parts will be available, they ask how much per hour the machine costs, and if the manufacturer will provice a competitive "power by the hour" guarantee.
In short, when you have no HV curve in a 15,000 lb helo, what you actually have is a 20,000 lb helo in every way (purchase price, cost to operate, fuel burn, overhaul costs) except one - payload. And less payload means less revenue generation. The market will decide if the trade-off is worth it!