Have anyone looked at having one service for BOTH "customers", it seems a bit odd when the airspace available is so limited, and traffic levels are as high as you say?
Well, this is effectively what our military controllers are being asked to do, and what they are finding so difficult. Generally, a military controller will have only 3 or 4 aircraft on his frequency, but they might all be fast jets operating in completely different areas. If the controller is providing a RAS to all these a/c, he has to have eyes everywhere to prevent a loss of separation and a potential airprox.
So, as if his life isn't interesting enough, you add a couple of F50's doing 250kts, cutting a swathe through his airspace, wanting continuous descent into Newcastle. Of course, this civil traffic demands a RAS, so now he's watching a slow aircraft outside controlled airspace. There could be anything out there, and indeed there frequently is. Trying to maintain 5m/5000' against all that must be no mean feat.
The controllers at MASOR shouldn't be being asked to handle all this traffic (in the summer months, it's an awful LOT of traffic), but for one reason or another, it happens. Suffice to say it's all political.
It is not a matter of airlines "saving a few bucks". Without the use of advisory routes, of Class G airspace or whatever, there simply would not be a service. Lots of controllers and pilots would then be out of jobs, lots of the travelling public would be unable to fly from the regional airport of their choice.
An interesting statement, but generally a work of fiction. My previous post (6th Aug, 11:42) explains where I stand on this subject, but just to re-iterate:
If these routes are as popular as their frequency indicates, then the airlines can afford to fly along the airways and charge their passengers a bit more. If the passengers really value having an airport on their doorstep, they'll pay a bit more for the privilege of using it, instead of having to go to Manchester. Even if, horror of horrors, the route had to be suspended, I don't think any of us "would be out of jobs". The controllers would be positively delighted, especially the military ones, who would be able to get back to controlling military traffic.
It has to be accepted that we need to share airspace responsibly. We also need airspace that works for all of its users. What we have at present does not meet that criterion.
I'm sure the people in power who decided on the current airspace arrangement around Newcastle, which was the result of radical changes in March of this year, would be delighted to hear you say that. The airspace as it stands is fine. It just needs certain civilian carriers to use it properly. The military need places to fly their aircraft with quite a lot of freedom, just as the airlines (should) need airways on which to fly theirs. Another airway into Newcastle would be nice for a small proportion of civilian flights, but far too restrictive for the military.
savechip55, keep up the good work. I hope the airlines appreciate it.
LTP