I’ve also gotten “join T125” in Switzerland recently. The airway names can be selected in my FMS based on a waypoint that is part of the airway.
A quick PIREP on the original topic here: Belgian and German ATC recently (and for the first time ever) changed my filed and cleared IFR routing while I was enroute and told me the new route/clearance only by refering to the airway names and interstections; the controller kindly offered to give me the waypoints on the airways, but I have pulled my 6-month-old Jeppessen IFR chart and did not have to accept that kind offer. I will keep buying and carrying those charts, albeit not in the monthly cycle.
Almost the exact same applies for Belgium, at least for the lower airspace that I frequent. It is quite normal for a pilot, immediately after departure, to contact the FIS (“Brussels Information”), and, after the initial exchange of information, inquire “is EBBL active?” (or another military field). In the weekends, the answer may well be “the military are not active” which means not a single military bit of airspace is active, and all those areas ominously marked on the maps can be freely used.
Peter wrote:
But the military guards it tightly because they know if they stop guarding it they will lose it.
That’s not case in Croatia. Military zones are forbiden only when really active (flying and/or shooting) and even then ATC coordinates this very tightly enabling traffic immediately when zone is not atcive any more. And btw whole this mess happens very rarely 
Peter wrote:
But the military guards it tightly because they know if they stop guarding it they will lose it.
Well, the Swedish case shows this is not true.
Most military airspace is unused most of the time. There is nobody in it. But the military guards it tightly because they know if they stop guarding it they will lose it. I’ve had loads of cases where one is avoiding big wx and ends up in a military area, and ATC put on a lot of pressure to make you fly into some CB. The worst one I had was in France a while ago, near Bordeaux, FL190. It was obvious nobody was going to be flying where I was but they made a huge fuss – “the military commander is getting very upset”. In the end I just told them I was not going to get killed to please him.
The lack of co-operation between civilian and military airspace planners is what drives this situation.
Guillaume wrote:
Maastricht has software that are much more advanced than the one we have.
I’ve a friend who works there and they have military areas as well. So it cannot be a fully free route airspace.
Sweden has military areas as well and so does Hungary for sure, yet they have free flight airspace (Sweden above FL 285, Hungary all levels). This can be handled with a properly set up ATC system. Sweden has had an integrated civil-military ATC system for more than 40 years. Airspace is reserved for military use on a tactical basis as military aircraft are actually using it and civil aircraft are separated from military aircraft tactically.
I would have thought that by now all countries in Europe operate the same way.
tomjnx wrote:
Guillaume wrote:
This 10 nm limit is FIR dependant. I think some FIR already set this limit to 0.
This is pretty unlikely.
I just checked and I do confirm that the max direct lenght is FIR dependant.
LFEE FIR (Reims) is 0 nm (restriction LFEE1A).
LFFF FIR (Paris) is 10 nm (restriction LFFF1A).
LFRR FIR (Brest) is 50 nm (restriction LFRR1A).
I’m not an en-route controller, but I guess that the main factor which prevents free route airspace is the military activity.
Airways are designed in such a way that they avoid as possible military areas.
Maastricht has software that are much more advanced than the one we have.
I’ve a friend who works there and they have military areas as well. So it cannot be a fully free route airspace.
tomjnx wrote:
But in practice the opposite is happening, there’s some pressure to move to free route airspace. Hungary has done it radically and abolished all airways, but many other FIRs have already implemented it partially, be it night time only, upper airspace only…
Maastricht seems to use almost-free route airspace in the upper airspace now. Even Eurocontrol routes are accepted with very long east-west legs.
Peter wrote:
I believe waypoints specified using lat/long are not checked either.
They are fully checked (converted to lat/lon, then tested for airspace insideness etc, i.e. all RAD rules evaluated on them). It’s just that France (unlike for example the UK) can’t seem to be bothered to feed the prohibited areas into CACD.
Guillaume wrote:
This 10 nm limit is FIR dependant. I think some FIR already set this limit to 0.
This is pretty unlikely. There is political pressure to reduce CO_2 emissions by reducing flight distance. Eurocontrol periodically publishes the RAD KPI. If it went up due to the knee jerk reaction of an ANSP, it would have political implications.
But in practice the opposite is happening, there’s some pressure to move to free route airspace. Hungary has done it radically and abolished all airways, but many other FIRs have already implemented it partially, be it night time only, upper airspace only…
