being a SLF and only IPR PPL in the past I guess I should stay off, but maybe a frequent SAS SLF perspective could add something?
In the beginning I was a bit hesitant to go on routes with the Q400 due to bad regularity mainly. Then there where incidents also influencing. When the Kalmar incident was reported last spring I made the conclusion that I do not trust the Q400, at least with SAS. According to the incident report, the overspeed of the engine initiating the event was a frequent problem being reported as a minor problem. SAS did not recognize the pattern as they only monitored problems being reported with higher severity. this combined with jet pilots being transferred to turboprop and not being trained properly on flight idle for turboprops created a very dangerous situation. I then (without professional expertize) for myself decided that the frequency of "minor" faults in the Q400 is dangerous, and I should stay away from the aircraft.
Then the first two landing gear accidents came this autumn, the first one was again considered as a stand alone event by SAS for two more days before it showed up again. From outside it seems that SAS again missed the opportunity to analyse what has happened before deciding to continue to fly. After the second incident this autumn I thought SAS would make the same conclusion as I did, it does not work. After the third incident the conclusion came- ironically it might be a SAS maintenance issue this time. It seems that the aircraft had an issue with the landing gear some days before, this was taken care of and the plane was again declared ok- but it wasn't.
Sorry for this lengthy and non professional reflection on how I experinence the situation.
From my perspective it is a combination of issues with the Q400 and SAS flying commuters that is the problem. I would expect that after this turbulence, other companies in Scandinavia like Cimber air and Skyways will take care of the thinner routes and SAS has to exit this segment.