God, can we please stop this infantile sniping on both sides?? Sorry, Malroy, the reference to 'sniping' does not apply to you.
Cost a bit to implement (extra frequency, extra consoles, extra staff, new airspace and procedures, plus extensive training to give enroute an approach rating, plus recurrent training, as traffic is too light to remain recent)
Malroy and no disrespect, because I appreciate you believe that your points are valid. But I would offer the following based on 36 years in the game:
Why would an extra frequency be needed, when controlling enroute is hardly a brain-busting task? The high-flyers are 'straight and level' and subject to a bit of management - speed control, holding etc, to get them in a line prior to TODC. I can't believe that an enroute controller could honestly tell me that the capacity is not there to do more on his/her freq.
If the capacity is there, then why the call for extra consoles? We are talking about minimal extra traffic being given an E service out of existing resources that, IMHO, could cope with standing on their heads.
New airspace yes, but that's a few lines on the charts. New procedures? No, nothing needs to change in respect of current standards and procedures.
'Extensive training?' 'Extensive' is a pretty broad, and potentially open-ended description of what may
actually be required. I could run a competent enroute controller through the sim in a couple of afternoon rides to get him/her up to speed with the traffic volumes we are talking about. You seem to suggest that a competent enroute controller is not capable of adapting to a
relatively minor increase in work-load.
I will qualify, again, that change needs to be predicated on cost/benefit. But let's not close our minds to benefits that
might accrue over costs incurred.