"Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" writes:

Of course RNAV departures or Q-routes or whatnot are good new option.
But that hardly is evidence of a serious congestion problem with
airways for spam cans.

If not for congestion, why are they are good alternate? Because of
CONGESTGION around the navaid used for routing. [...]

Let's stay on topic, shall we?

It's relevant.

Paul asked about en-route routing via
airways for his /G spam-can. You claimed that airway congestion was a
relevant reason to file direct, but do you have any evidence for
*that*?

Compared to RNAV? You're going to tell me open nav is no more congested that
airways?

Why do you think RNAV was developed and accepted?