Frank,
The weeks readings thereafter affirm the noisest have resorted to the usual vitriol to deflect their inevitable loss
The thread, I think, has been quite well behaved (maybe it's just you who stirs us up
). What has been made abundantly clear is that, apart from Leadsled's safety studies (which he refuses to either provide or give us a link to, rather childish IMO), there is NO justification for E over D, and the reducing attempts to justify US NAS for us have been comprehensively beaten down by ARFOR. The lingering question, that of cost benefit, has not been addressed by either yourself or the other Nastronauts.
The only sane and logical conclusion is that E over D is indeed unjustified.
As to your comment
They would really hate class G airspace.
Of course they would. But equally, I sincerely hope that you are not implying that such as situation applies here in Oz. If you are, you have no idea about the characteristics of airspace we have. Label it what you like, our "class G" is nothing of the ICAO sort. I have maintained for years it is Class F, and all you Nastronauts can trot out in defiance is "Class F is a transient airspace to a higher class"; clutching at straws....