HarveyGee,
I think we all know what's in production, and what's not.
The Air North exercise was all about the bottom line, it has to be, aviation isn't a charity. The bottom line was that the rates of return, on the basis of reasonable revenue estimates and airframe productivity, was that the Caravan was a non starter compared to a remanufactured C402B or similar. In the area/market considered.
In fact, the only case where a Caravan could make the commercial hourly rates and the utilization suggested by you ( as I recall, the Air North figures were not significantly different) without subsidy, was skydiving.
Down the southeast, what surveys have been done all show that the travelling public just don't want to know about a single engine aircraft, you can't see sell the statistics of singles versus twins to the travelling public, who have had multi engine services since New England Airways/ East West had Ansons, and Butler had DH Dragons, or DC-3 and Heron A's, or who ever operated what.
"Twin safety" might be a myth, but it is a very powerful myth, just like the CASA myth of achieving absolute safety by regulation, compliance and enforcement.
The Caravan is a great aircraft where it fits a market or operation, FedEx and Missionary Aviation Fellowship, to mention just two, prove that.
But it doesn't fit where it doesn't fit.
Back to the thread ---- The regualtory reform is/was hardly a CASA initiative, and with all due respect, it's a bit tough to blame the industry now, CASA having throroughly hi jacked what was a joint CASA/Industry effort, and entirely redirected the exercise to ensure "CASA is satisfied".
Tootle pip!!