There is indeed, or was once, a distinction to be made between ATMs and other flights that happen to operate under an AOC. In past times the whole concept of UK controlled airspace centred on the perceived need to protect the fare paying public. There were benchmarks that an airport had to meet in terms of of annual totals of ATMs and terminal passenger numbers before it could be considered as eligible for the establishment of CAS. There is no way that Farnborough could have met those requirements.
There were always exceptions of course. Brize Norton and Lyneham traffic was considered to be sufficiently similar to CAT to warrant Class D or Rule 36 as it was. Bournemouth was allowed to keep its CAS on the basis of its particular traffic mix whereas other airports whose traffic had fallen below the benchmarks lost theirs, Prestwick Blackpool and Southend being examples. However, these rules were relaxed, I think on the grounds that Airspace Policy determined a more flexible approach was necessary when issues of safety were deemed to be overriding.
Here perhaps is the crux of the matter. Traditionally UK airspace policy has attempted to balance the requirements of competing interests. A compromise satisfactory to GA has not always been possible given the political imperatives of protecting the country’s air transport infrastructure or the defence of the realm. But expediting the passage of one group of
private operators at the expense of other private groups surely does not fall in the same category. Is the safety case for the whole Farnborough area so strong as to merit such a major proposal ?
The issue of Class D as most GA pilots in the UK (unlike the USA) will be aware is that in effect it can amount to airspace closure. Not because of the rules as written but because of issues such as frequency loading, control capacity or occasionally one suspects plain disinterest.And of course keeping aircraft out of the air is a time honoured way of achieving aviation“safety”
.