Downunder111. .There is another issue that you fail to mention. One of the prime reasons for low-level airspace reform was to use TAAATS for where it is Class A, C, E and blow the rest - Gee!. .When the system was first introduced it was expected that about 60 workstations would be used, however as you would now know almost every consol at ML and BN is in use one way or the other. Many will blame this on the fact that ATC had to absorb FS and look after the LL airspace. Hence the push to introduce LLAMP. As already mentioned the resectorization that just had to happen has not yet past first base. AD and his men were waiting for LLAMP to come about. It was never going to happen. The along comes DS with a north American plan and together with some change of policy from CASA, LLAMP is in the bin. I feel sorry for PC and his men because they put a lot of effort into it and even stood up to the policy makers. The energy wasted there cost quite a bit I can assure you. The NAS some say will cost more, however as nobody trusts Airservices estimates maybe we will never know. Would LLAMP have cost less? Again we don't know. The push for the NA model is partly on the basis that the VFRs are not in the system therefore the sectors and their sizes can be larger which the proponents say will over time reduce the number of controllers required. Certainly COCO would not be doing its job if it did not protect its workers, but at what cost to industry.. .Certainly this debate will have a political conclusion, but which politician will have the guts to make it remains to be seen. The whole problem goes back to the Government (and previous ones) policy on cost recovery and location specific charges. At the end of the day the fuel tax that we used to pay was without a doubt a better option. I think it was 1985 when the Bosch report came out. The rot set in then well and truly.. .Certainly reform should be considered, but do we NEED it? Certainly those that support the NA model and free in Gee might say yes, but at what cost and at what risk. If such a change can be made so that everyone understands it and why, then maybe there is a chance, but it will certainly take time. Years in fact. At the end of the day this is all about "risk management". Work out what the risk is then put procedures in place to 'minimize' the risk. We do that every day with almost everything we do. ETOPS is a form of risk management and we support it. What is really the risk of a mid air in Gee? I can tell you it is more likely that your wing will fall off and that is ten to the power lots! Where the risk is, is in the non-controlled terminal area such as CTAF and MBZ area. I guess that is why they are there. Educate our pilot to realise this and we might get somewhere. I support reform, but it must be objective and we must know why and understand the benefits that will come from it. When the salesman shows me that the wheels might turn?