Sorry Voice of Reason, but as an ATC I can't stomach the whole idea of crunching numbers (involving hull losses and peoples lives being lost) and deciding based on economics if a change to procedures/airspace is acceptable or not.
It reminds me of the big US car companies who on finding a defect in their cars, don't automatically recall the car, but first do an analysis of how many people the defect will kill, and then based on the litigation costs from those peoples families versus the cost of a total recall, it is decided whether or not those faulty cars are left on the road or not. That whole process makes me sick.
As a controller, my decider on whether a change to airspace/procedures is acceptable is the same as used when deciding whether or not to validate a new controller, that being "would I be happy to have my family fly with this controller" (in this case in this airspace). I know economic rationalism has taken over the world and my "voice" may be old fashioned and out of date, but I still feel that one hull loss and one life (who may be my son, or mother, or father) lost is one too many, and in Australia at least we have always achieved a perfect record when it comes to RPT jets getting safely around the country, so lets keep that.
Let the economists crunch the numbers all day long, but I know without the figures, that E airspace is less safe than C and it does not reduce controller workload (hence doesn't reduce controller numbers, hence where is the saving coming from???), so the changes have and always will be unwarranted.