I understand your viewpoint - probably agree , buts its a really simple concept:
You charge me for a service that you dont provide, and then present me with a bill - I ain't paying!
Hey if you want to run the airspace like a third world African state and not charge us, fine! Just don't pretend your the worlds greatest ATS providor with your glossy website and magazine ad's and then charge us for a service that you can't deliver. If I have to take my chances with the competence of my fellow pilots TIBA skills, don't send me a bill for the dubious privelege! (I am probably going to need the money to pay the eventual and consequent increase in my aircraft insurance policies!)
If you work for an airline, especially some of these skin of the teeth profit margin LCC's, you should be telling whoever pays the bill at the end of the sector as well - I reckon Nav Charges would make up a fair whack of operating costs in a LCC. No?
Ergon, Sydney Rail, Telstra etc. have all been forced (after appeal to ACCC by consumers) to refund monies when services could not be provided - the precedent is there - get on board!
The statement about profitable enroute and unprofitable towers is interesting - surely that is just down to accounting practices within the ONE organisation. How easy would it be to reverse the internal beancounting and all of a sudden towers are the profitable ones? It is a total nonsense!
Letters have already gone to AirServices and CC'd to ACCC, DOTARS and that Oxygen thief Anderson. Lets see what the responses are - should be entertaining.