Folks,
Time after time, over the years, at various consultative meetings in Can'tberra or wherever, reps. from Airservices have derided what happens at EGLL as the "bedpost" system of the feeder fixes, in favour of Airservices "preferred" "far out" sequencing.
It really does meet Albert Einstein's definition of insanity.
Indeed, in my experience, all the high traffic density airports (far more traffic than YSSY) use some form of close in metering to get remarkably consistent "over the fence" spacing.
In my view, conditioned by politically imposed inefficiency at YSSY, Airservices have never been forced to become efficient, and have had the "luxury", at the paying passenger's cost, of being able to indulge themselves, and to heck with the consequences.
And the results are there for all to see;
As the United bloke, years ago, on his last departure from YSSY said, on his last call, " ------ and congratulations of having the world's second best ATC".,
to which the controller replies:" ---- and who is the best",
to which the reply was (in a very Texas accent) "------ everybody else".
Sorry, guys ( I am told that "guys" is accepted as gender non-specific) , but like it of not, that is the general reputation of ATC in Australia, if you are an international operator in and out of Australia. No comfort for the good guys who undoubtedly do their best, but they are let down by many of their colleagues and the system.
As the then head of ATC once said to me: " But, XXXX, we have to allow for the lowest common denominator performance among controllers" .
My reply was: "My airline doesn't hire "lowest common denominator performance " pilots, why do you hire such controllers?? , or words to that effect.
Tootle pip!!