Preferred the wider cabin and slower speed of the 42 (or 72), and the smoother landings of the trailing arm undercarriage, - to the 360 knot speed and three abreast tube of the Saab 2000 with its stiff oleos, on long Pacific routes over a dozen years ago. With the increased capability of the 72-600 s to deliver a smoother ride with better navigation and weather avoidance displays, the pax will get to love them. Just have the girls fuss over them a little more.
The SAAB 2000 has a seat pitch of 32 inch compared to a maximum of 31 inch in the 68 seater ATR 72, the 72-74 seat version is 29 inch. Although the cabin is slightly narrower on the 2000 it is only 3 abreast so the actual seat width on the 2000 is 60cm compared to 52cm on the ATR. With more leg room and arm room and a cruise speed 90kts faster (360kt S2000 and 270kt ATR 72) I know which is more comfortable. Additionally the 2000 climbs to FL300 in no time, the ATR takes forever to achieve FL200, this alone without fancy computers will ensure most weather is avoided much like a jet.
I assume the pacific routes were with Air Marshal Island when they had the sole 2000?
With regard to vs Q400 the only real advantage is fuel burn and possibly a little quieter. The seat width difference is small, seat pitch is 31 inch on the QF Q400. Again the Q400 quickly gets to FL200 plus which gets you clear of most of the weather in Eastern Australia. It will be interesting to see if
VB opt for the IFE or maybe a business type seat up front.