...as it will take the real GS.
Did they change it to use GS?
I have had many a 'battle' with the flow changing the natural order (in Maestro) to better suit the TMA complexity or picking a winner who was number two; it was often easier to make the sequence work the way the flow wanted rather than applying 'natural justice' in every circumstance... Sometimes a phone call to the flow didn't help at all, sometimes it did!!!
What is slower and behind, at TOD, may not naturally be that way at the threshold, so being in front at TOD can mean naught; you can be number two and be in front (for now)... Hence the a bit of speed and turning makes it work better, i.e. separate as well as sequence...
I had a very grumpy individual complain about being made number two (number 25 in reality) When I turned him less than number one, who was actually number 24... I had to lose more with number 24 than number 25... I couldn't get the point across that when I started vectoring he was 25NM behind and now he was 15NM behind... There was no faith in the message as I turned him to "close" him up... point being I turn the one ahead harder...
As for visuals vs instruments to maximize runway capacity, it's a furphy, look at the worlds busiest high capacity aerodromes, very few 'visuals' and they still get the job done without missing slots.
Where the holding and delays are done needs to be examined again, on the ground is the most 'efficient' (in terms of costs and environmental impact) way, but getting a system that actually delivers in terms of compliance and not missing slots is the hard part and it still doesn't cater for 'anomalies'. Many airports absorb the majority of the delays low and close to the runway but get near perfect CDA from the holding point, all Australian airports push it out far and high and few have a chance of CDA, what is the most efficient/cost effective/environmental friendly way?
With better CDM, maybe low and close is more effective as 'bulk delays' (general holding), excluding PH and BN are becoming rarer.