digin, thanks for your measured response, and Jim thanks for your points. I apologize for the snarky tone up there, it was not needed.
But making cabin spacious and easy to evacuate for this scenario may decrease risk in this rare case - but the overall risk to pax may increase if we double the fleet and pilots and movements - and landings on offshore platforms - and for the bears more delays!
The airframes themselves don't seem to be the problem.
Configuration and cabin layout (which depending upon airframe can be customizeable, as usual if one will pay for a certain configuration).
Point in quotes is something similar to the helicopter design process: each problem you think you've solved raises another problem. It is thus a matter of tradeoffs, which appears where the seating capacity/sardine syndrome seems to fit. This gets to the heart of the matter: a company hires another company to use its fleet of helicopters to move persons from place to place. There was a time, a long while back I guess, that some oil companies had their own fleed of helicopters. In such a situation, customizing a design for a specific purpose may result in an in internal cabin configuration that might address some of these sore points better.
But that isn't the world we live in anymore, is it?
The broad statement that the airframes are not fit for purpose still makes no sense to me. As to window count and size, there are design considerations for the airframe itself which may limit how big a hole one can fill with a window. Not familiar enough with the type in question at that level of structural detail to comment further.