Savoia noted above;
In my retrospection of the WG30 I am prepared to be one of the few who believed this project possessed the potential to reinvigorate Westland's balance sheets by serving as a catalyst for an effective civilian revenue stream.
The craft's Achilles Heel, as we know, was its underwhelming performance in practically all areas; range, power, operating cost and doubtless too Westland's technical support. However, the potentially 22 place accommodation, even if reduced, as well as the dimensions and layout of the passenger cabin, gave it, in my view, the potential to succeed - had the aforementioned flaws been avoided/overcome.
I think that your observations identify precisely why this product failed! It also identifies why Westland failed to garner any portion of the modern commercial marketplace; as they delivered a product that failed to perform in any aspect of value in commercial helicopter operation. Sadly, it can be considered a marker in the decline and ultimate end of this organisations viability to ever play in the sector, at a time when their competitors delivered machines with increasing capability and performance in a market that was enjoying immense global sales.
Poor management and the lack of understanding of the demands and realities of commercial helicopter operations drove their demise in this sector. This was a company that did not evolve with the times, nor develop their internal business strategies, products or product support capabilities. Companies succeed by developing and supporting products their customers want and can market - this one wildly missed the mark as a third rate product, that failed to perform in a single capability.
I don't think they were ever missed.