Dani, re your …”you have to rotate faster, …”
Not quite correct; in order to reduce the rate of descent the wings have to generate more lift, normally by increasing alpha. An aircraft’s flare characteristics are a combination of lift change for change in alpha and the ability to generate a change in alpha, the attitude (amongst other things).
The 146/RJ wing has excellent lift-change characteristics and responsive controls, thus these increase the lift quickly and enable the 146/RJ to be flared from relatively low altitudes.
The 146-300/RJ100 has a longer tail arm and therefore more responsive control (but offset by inertia and other complexities such higher operating weights and control friction (longer control run)); thus in theory the longer aircraft could flare at a lower altitude, but in practice the combination of increased pitch rate and lower tail position for the same attitude result in less capability (you can rotate to far, too fast). Note that the long aircraft are only cleared to 5.5 deg, vs the short aircraft 6 deg approach (AFM limitations), and have a zero tailwind limit. Steep approaches enable reduced landing distance from the combined effect of the GS geometry and reduced time during the flare.
RE … “There are special installations and procedures in place to counteract those problems, but basically it is a tick … “
You should justify these points. I do not know of any special installations or tricks associated with the 146/RJ at LCY. The aircraft has full certification for steep operations (first jet certification) and had to be demonstrated as not requiring exceptional skill or effort (perhaps a bit more concentration than normal). The only special aspects at LCY are the quality of the ILS GS beam to safeguard the obstacle clearance over Canary Warf, and the need to use a precision GS (ILS or visual PAPI). There are also the very sensible ‘fixed-distance’ landing markers which can be used to judge the safety margins during landing; these can be used by all aircraft types.