I have bad news for you. If the FAA were contemplating adjusting the requirements for certain classes of airport or the rules applicable under certain conditions at certain classes of airport, that perhaps airport operators and airlines whose costs and operations might be impacted by such a change can take part in a process called lobbying where they apply pressure to the regulator to make sure those changes don’t adversely affect them.

Lobbying can be good, of course! Airports and airlines likely have good knowledge about how regulations impact their operations!

But it’s the job of Congress in theory to represent their constituents’ interests - not merely their constituents who own airline stock or work for airport ground handling companies but all their constituents - to make sure that the framework the FAA correctly takes into account the competing interests of ensuring an efficient and high capacity aviation industry, as well as making sure that passenger safety is maintained.

As you say, the FAA has a good record of doing this.

But individuals saying ‘well I’m sure the industry knows best’ is precisely what leads to regulatory capture and that leads to the situation where airports are permitted to accept heavy automated landings under conditions where maybe they really ought not to without additional ground safety equipment in place.

You've got it backwards.

Airlines are generally the ones asking for these safety upgrades before anyone else. They would love if every airport had Cat. III approaches on every runway, and there were designated parallel runways at every airport.

Airlines like higher classed airports since it frequently means the ability to handle more traffic safely, and better service from ATC.

Opposition to airspace changes are ALWAYS nimby's. ALWAYS. Go look at the public comments for any proposed change.