"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
[snip]
Very interesting. So what is the basis on which a controller accepts
or denies a request for a more direct route? Is it just avoiding
conflicts in his own airspace? When a controller issues an updated
clearance that substantially changes the routing is he just ensuring
there are no conflict in his own area???

1) Pretty much. Add in a bit of making life easier (for either himself, the
next controller, the aircraft, or some combination of the three - in that
order) and the experience based knowledge of what the next sector is likely
to want or accept.

2) He's *always* ensuring there are no conflicts (or at least none that turn
into "deals") in his airspace. Everything else is secondary.

If it's a major re-route that involves happenings far down the road it's
likely it came out of the ARTCC computer. The reasons behind that are many
and complex. All the controller knows for sure (or cares about) is to issue
it as written and get the aircraft to the (new?) fix at the boundary of his
airspace where he can handoff.

Major re-routes involving multiple airway or fix changes that remain within
a single sector would normally violate 1) above so I never saw much of that.
At least not at the terminal level.

Generally speaking controllers are fairly autonomous and insular. Within
the constraints of the local LOAs and SOPs they can do whatever they want
within their own airspace. Their prime concern is what's going on in their
airspace right now. At the operational level they don't normally know or
care what's going on in someone else's airspace (so long as it doesn't
affect their ops with bad or refused handoffs, excess coordination, a flood
of poorly spaced inbounds, etc).

The object of the exercise is to take the aircraft, do whatever needs doing
with it, get rid of it, take the next one, do what needs doing, get rid of
that one, take the next one, lather, rinse, repeat until relief plugs in and
says "I've got it."