End of the day, you get what you pay for. Continuous climbs/descents, direct routings, low delay figures, high safety standards. We are also not the most expensive European provider, nor do we get the state funding much of Europe do. You're not really helping the point merge debate. Your comments aren't especially constructive or helpful
But declaring even more Class A airspace as "the highest safety and efficient standard" with the deliberate intention of removing all non IFR/airline traffic *IS A COMPLETE NON-STARTER* in any debate. Why should GA sacrifice their own safety and efficiency just because some airline can BUY the airspace for themselves?
Because someone is employed by NATS (National Air Traffic Services Ltd in your book) doesn't mean they are either responsible for or supportive of what they are tasked and paid to do by the company
Everyone is entitled to their own view here as I do with mine.
The bottom line is that it concerns me deeply about the ATTITUDE of some employees within the organization they work for. If I run into trouble I would never want to be talking to Nimmer and some others here. He has essentially told me to f-off already and would probably never ever want to exercise his "duty of care"....
If you want lots of money and hate GA air traffic, go somewhere else to control the airlines - like the Atlantic Ocean. Leave London alone or pro-actively work to integrate all its air traffic.