No it's not but, it's strange how people treat it. Tend to see a lot of stuff with total disregard to winds aloft, the upsloping runway, and just not knowing the local landmarks.
The scariest seems to be when someone tries to fly a normal approach, not following the PAPI, and ends up nearly scraping tree tops, or when someone has to go around and the controller has to remind them to turn downwind. Plus same thing about the lack of balked or single engine procedures.
Contrary to what most believe, it seems, if you go missed after the missed approach point, the published missed does NOT provide terrain clearance. Moot with an ILS but with a LOC that has an MAP three to six miles from the runway it becomes kind of important. I think the charter outfits that fly in there a lot do a great job and don't mess around but for many it becomes pretty obvious that they have never been there before.

I sure hope so too, it's a good aircraft, very capable and fun to fly. The only downside it seems that an airline has to have a lot of spare parts for it. It's amazing how well we did do considering how long we went without a spare aircraft and parts.
As far as performance, I remember flying the CRJ and even with the 700 and 900 we had a lot of flights that had weight issues. Either a performance limit for takeoff or more commonly a landing weight limit. It just seemed rare that we had issues like that in the Q. Every once and a while in ASE while it was snowing maybe, but most of the time the FMS would take whatever we put into it. Very very capable aircraft.

The flight was usually blocked at 50 minutes but it was typically 25-30min wheels up to wheels down.

Exactly

We could too under most conditions, not sure if we had a waiver or not, don't think we did. Just a big difference in the performance requirements between part 91 and part 121.