Agree with the traffic management though. Inbound on an earlier flight (Dec) we appeared to do some high level holding. Wondered why as we had been over Oz quite some time - about 4 + hours since Port Headland or thereabouts. I think a reduction of about M 0.02 coasting in would have saved about 80 track miles or 10 + mins in the hold.
So how did you know you weren't cruising at M.05 slower from 2 hours out and still had to hold?
LTOP is too blame for 'inefficiencies' not ATC.
Don't get me started on staffing of FLOW and configuring MAESTRO before the morning push starts. The push actually starts before the traffic gets to 45NM Sydney.
Most internationals that arrive at YSSY before 7am "require" the long runway, ie not 34R or 16L. Thus the airport appears to be quite inefficient, but runway 34L/16R is running at full capacity. No body complains when it's 07/25 only yet effectively the same landing rates are available on parallels because of the traffic mix.
ATC comply with LTOP, or we get a nice holiday. In the same way that pilot would if disregarding SOPs and getting caught out.
ALOFT - Is being used in Sydney (long range Flow); this runs about 4am or so; works out the landing times of the sequence inbound through to about 7am; when LTOP changes to peak mode.
The allocation of ALOFT slots is about informing the crews about what they are in for; often it's a 10 minute reduction needed and at other times it nothing or more. Some crews choose to slow down, others motor in hoping their slot will change, but it won't.
As for the speed-up slow down flow; well some-days you're the statue and other days the pigeon. FLOW is a black art, picking a winner is easy unless the pilot of either doesn't do what you thought they would do.
Maximum speed, Cancel Speed Restrictions, Profile Speed, 280K, 270K and 250K are generally the tools used by enroute; it's amazing to see the differences in ground speed that these produce when 'matched' with different aircraft, sometimes same type, same company same speed gives you very large differences.
Asymmetric flow, or flow from different directions with different track miles is very difficult science to get right.
MAESTRO flows gaps of precise seconds, yet ATC will enroute will use whole minutes for system simplification. So Maestro will have you landing at 0202UTC+43 seconds; which converts back to a feeder fix (for arguments sake) of 0148UTC+33. This displays on their screen as between 0148 and 0149; they will flow you to the feeder fix at either 48 or 49, either way there is work to do to fix the flow after you cross the Feeder Fix, you're either late or early and that's assuming the system is working beautifully.
As for my faith in MAESTRO, well it's only using the information available, it doesn't cater well for all the different approach permutations, doesn't have 'real' winds to use except for close to the runway based on what the FLOW sets.
However having seen years of general holding then better sequencing identification / slot allocation MEASTRO is far more efficient everywhere in sharing information, not sure it has increased the landing rate at all though; but with the sharing of information it must have led to fuel burn efficiencies.
There is an article or two on this blog about FLOW
http://everyminutecountsblog.*******...1_archive.html
The SID/STAR design is incredibly complex and worth it's own topic.
As for Sydney Airport, topic of the thread. I've always been impressed by the cosmetic design, ie it looks good. But it's not exactly user friendly and hope you never get caught in a baggage/customs/immigration queue. And getting from Domestic to International and back is amongst the worst I have experienced anywhere in the world.