No, I don't agree with that at all. C lost = C gone = replaced by E, not some quasi political union inspired argument you wish to put on it. There will be less C but more E and therefore overall safety should improve.
Andrew this is absolute rubbish; because Civil Air, AIPA and AFAP say something doesn't make me back it to the hilt.
Putting in 2000 feet of E instead of G over the GAFA does nothing to enhance safety, there is nothing to identify that this area of flight FL180 to FL200 has any risk now, or will have that improved under NAS.
A045 to A100 is where it counts, C is being replaced by E; there is masses of data available saying that this is a critical area of flight and that C is safer than E. Your self imposed safety scale doesn't add up.
On another thread you quoted some class A incidents and some class C incidents, how will NAS do anything about them; in fact because of the distracting nature of class E, these have been identified in the safety case as increasing.
Fact E is less safe than C. If I make a mistake controlling in C there is a collision risk, if I don't make a mistake in E there is a collision risk.
We will see when this all comes out in the wash, you will be bitching and moaning about the amount of extra controllers employed. I'll say, you wanted the NAS buddy.
Bottle of Rum