Yes, but who says that companies always do the right thing? Mother wants jets, so we give mother jets, after all mother pays for it. And ATC complained the Saabs were to slow in approach....
Funny enough the same ATC afterwards complained that the Jets were too fast...
The only thing one really should believe is the P&L, the rest is nonsense. And if there is one manufacturer who has shown in the past that they can produce a superior product for less money than the rest, then it is Saab.
Everything that has been said about a lot of the operators of the present is true, but the reasoning behind maybe not. There definitely is a market. There are reasons why people fly even in small quantities from one place to another and pay quite a substantial amount for it. Otherwise all those aircraft would simply not be operated. Is it not more due to the fact that these are the only aircraft available that they are used by the so-called third tier airlines? And is it not more because they are aging, requiring a whole lot of maintenance that the barely manage to make a profit?
Lease rates and financing terms are not the real problem today, it is the cost of fuel and maintenance, and at least in Europe, the absurd amounts for 'security' and other passenger related rip-offs that make the aircraft having a problem to operate making money. However, a lot of these restrictions do not apply in the rest of the world.
As always, KISS is the real determining factor. Anything else is making things complex and expensive. If anything speed is not the imperative, it is simplification, easiness of maintenance and fuel efficiency. The last one is entirely on the engine manufacturers and that may be the real stumbling block.