Blimey, I'm getting confused now,
I cant be ar5ed to read the license document but have downloaded a copy, it might come in useful when winter traffic levels begin again.
One thing I did spot in the quotes that were extracted,
2.1.a -
the Core Services so as to be capable of meeting on a continuing basis any reasonable level of overall demand for such services;
I would say that the slot booking system does meet a reasonable demand on a continuing basis. The airway is restricted to the number of movements booked as per beacons, to stop overloading in any one area at any one time.
IRO of section 5, the requests shall be met, but maybe not at an 'ideal' time for the training school involved.
IRO section 7
after taking into account the need to maintain the most expeditious flow of air traffic
I think there is a reasonable argument to be maintained that the amount of slower aircraft in the system would affect expedition.
I may even be playing devils advocat a little here, however, I know how these low slow flights affect the operation.
Maybe for a change these aircraft could file to route Compton, lambourne, Bovingdon, hold at LON followed by 1 x Radar vectored ILS to fly an asymetric missed approach at EGLL and then a hold and NDB approach at EGKK, asymetric for the approach and climb out, then operate the block between FL45 and FL65 in the EGSS overhead? If they cannot do this, why not?
Some common sense is needed and, although I dread to say it, I think Cardiff ATC has provided this.
Sorry to Chilli et al who believe that FF ATC are breaking rules, its better than breaking planes
Oh yeah, and why should we be busting our pans for people who are using the airway on a freebie anyway?
edit:
Sorry Chilli, I only just saw ure question on the bottom. I do not know if an exemption was saught, if indeed required.