Ouf, I must have touched the chip on Lon More's shoulder. But in his statement that politics are part of the reason why we are saddled up with lower and upper airspace LM is absolutely right. I was even moderate to only mention administrative reasons. All in all it underlines my view that there is nothing operational in the artificial division of the air in an upper and lower airspace.
A few factual corrections though.
1. the formal and administrative division between upper and lower airspace in the Netherlands Amsterdam FIR is FL195. It has never been 300 nor 245 in the last 20 years. The levels 300 and 245 were division levels between control by Amsterdam ACC and Maastricht UAC, but they were not division levels between lower airways and upper ATS routes, that division has always been at 195. I can't help it's complicated and for those who think this idiosyncresie can't be true I copy/paste from the Netherlands AIP :
Amsterdam upper control area
Lateral limits: as for the Amsterdam FIR.
FL 660
FL 195
2. Lon More puts much of the blame on poor Belgium. Wrong. Airspace organisation in Western Europe has been a source for power struggles since the years 1960. The struggle went through different phases.
The first and very good plans were to create one single upper airspace for most of Western Europe above FL245 under the control of Eurocontrol. These plans were torpedoed by the UK and France in the mid-sixties. They refused to handover souvereignty. Key-word again for those who think this can't be true: Moroni report.
Belgium and west-West Germany did handover their airspace in the early 70ties but the Netherlands hesitated, to say it mildly. Since France and the UK refused to handover souvereignty over their airspace, why should the Netherlands? Yet, the Netherlands handed over their airspace to Eurocontrol in the mid eighties after a political decision which was loyally executed. In this period Belgium offered to Eurocontrol the handover of its entire airspace, but it was Eurocontrol who refused to accept on the pretext that the international organisation had no experience in terminal areas and approach control. Lack of courage on the side of Eurocontrol one might say, and the agency paid a high price until it was saved by the creation of the CFMU in the nineties.
Today we are in the next stage of European airspace struggles, engendered by the European Union. They have invented so-called Airspace Blocks but nobody knew what they were when the notion of Airspace Block was launched. Although ATC people try their best to put some operational sense in it, the bottom line is that it's again an administrative item. It gets connected to privatisation or semi-privatisation and the hidden agenda is that the bigger ATC organisations in Europe extend their power by taking over the smaller ones. And mind you Lon More, it may also endanger the Eurocontrol Centre at Maastricht which may not escape the covetous eyes of those who see a chance of profiting most from the administrive/political discussions of how to organise an operational airspace.
And I can't believe I'm actually sticking up for ATC management
Hurray!