Why do we still have approach controllers in Sydney anyway? Is it not operationally realistic that the function be performed out of ML/BN?
The numbers didn't stack-up. Redundancy costs, relocation costs, training costs etc were higher than 15 years of savings generated by closing the TCU in Sydney; same is true of AD, PH and CS. Also having 30 APP (or so) rated controllers in Melbourne won't solve the staffing issues anymore than having 30 in Sydney does... having 34 or 36 would be a start...
It would be different (cost wise) if starting from 'green fields' but you're not...
another question is, why don't Sydney have runway aligned star? all these director / circuit just make things busier and waste more time and fuel.
You won't find too many airports anywhere in the world with parallel approaches with an aligned STAR... Whilst you feel like it costs you money/time/fuel, try flying a full STAR every time if they do come in... I recall seeing a draft solution which was submitted to industry some time back, and extra 5 minutes from the Feeder point on average to 'minimise the risks'... Mostly due to establishing on the LOCs at different heights etc on the parallels... Then there's that pesky political/noise can of worms... try getting any real change through that process....
I believe the reason not to have an aligned STAR for 07/25 is due to all the different "noise modes", there is no 'one solution' option due to the different DEP SID combinations... again a parallel runway issue...
There is a STAR which ends mid-downwind RWY34L is there not?