Whenever they make statements like:

These include improved fuel efficiency, short landing and take-off capability, and the ability to transport cargo.

This will give the aircraft 25% lower acquisition costs, 25% lower operating costs and 50% lower maintenance costs than existing turboprop regional aircraft, says NAL.

“Many towns and cities remain unconnected due to the cost of operations. Short take-off and landing abilities, capability to land on ill-equipped airfields, including all weather operations, can be of very high benefit,”

You wonder how seriously they are going to be taken…

Rough field and STOL capabilities do not come for free.

It it arrogant bordering on stupidity to assert you can include the compromises necessary for rough-field and cargo loading, and yet still demolish the competitors (Q400 and ATR-72) in the 3 key competitive yardsticks.

It is a pattern I have seen before though with… shall we say… “offshore” engineering firms promising the world and delivering nothing but problems… which then costs the OEM more money to fix before getting the work back on track.

[The problem is not confined to “offshore” firms either… even crowds like Atkins are good at talking the talk and stumbling the walk]