Although we've drifted off topic a bit, the thrust and parry is still quiet entertaining.
One thing Mr WERBIL said was interesting ... and was, in fact, connected with the original topic ...
"If you read my arguments CAREFULLY, you will see that there are numerous points that we agree on. It was your argument that there should only be two classes of airspace (plus DRA's). My arguments are WHY I believe it wouldn't work and my reasons"
Fact is ... that system DID work ... up until it was dicked in the early 90's. That's 17 years now we have been fighting over airspace. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because there was never any really substantiated reason for changing. Was there any objective RISK ASSESSMENT made of the, then current, system ... before charging headlong into fantasyland?
As Scurvy implied ... the real driving factor was the "need" to get rid of Flight Service.
Do you think we would still be arguing the toss now if a risk assessment of the 1990 system had been done, shortcomings identified and appropriate corrective actions/changes initiated. Unlikely.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... where the end game is decided before the analysis takes place ... failure is certain. The last 17 years prooves that.