Narrative:

Aircraft X populated our (I was providing OJT) acl display list on the scope direct randl.MIZAR3 and we were 20 miles in trail to dtw. I quick looked the dtw arrivals and brought up aircraft X's data block. The aircraft was in sector 84's airspace (mccook) with .79+ in the 4th line. Direct randl from that location would transit logan (34) and fwa (36) before entering olk; where we would hand off to ZOB. This course enters ZOB basically eastbound; 25 miles north of fwa and almost perpendicular to our normal dtw arrivals onthe mizar arrival. There was another dtw arrival; another air carrier; immediately below aircraft X. The other air carrier remained on the proper route to dtw; via lfd. MIZAR3. Direct randl did not allow for the proper spacing behind (or infront for that matter; but that comes later) our other dtw arrivals; so logan and fwa were required to vector aircraft X into the face of the watsn.WATSN2.ord arrivals. And since tmu hadn't planned aircraft X to be blended with the fwa.mizar stream; there was no hole for aircraft X; which resulted in excessive vectoring to subsequent dtw arrivals.I have no idea 'why' it happened. I have no idea what made a controller in our southwest area think direct randl was a good idea. I have no idea why the controller at mccook didn't put this aircraft over lfd or work with joliet sector (jot had the other carrier which was direct lfd.MIZAR3) to sequence 2 aircraft as opposed to taking aircraft X out of the stream he was designed to fit in; and transitioning him to a stream he didn't. I have no idea why two previous areas shirked their responsibility and shat on another area. I'd prefer they didn't.I think traffic management unit (tmu) should have been more aggressive in instructing previous controllers to route aircraft X back over lfd. Guidance that when we have significant mile-in-trail requirements; rerouting aircraft to avoid that requirement; only to meet another requirement should be a) apreqed and b) discouraged.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZAU Controller reports of another sector taking an aircraft off a specific route and questions why the Controller would do that. The aircraft has to be sequenced in a flow to handoff to another center with certain miles in trail.

Narrative: Aircraft X populated our (I was providing OJT) ACL display list on the scope direct RANDL.MIZAR3 and we were 20 miles in trail to DTW. I quick looked the DTW arrivals and brought up Aircraft X's data block. The aircraft was in sector 84's airspace (McCook) with .79+ in the 4th line. Direct RANDL from that location would transit LOGAN (34) and FWA (36) before entering OLK; where we would hand off to ZOB. This course enters ZOB basically eastbound; 25 miles north of FWA and almost perpendicular to our normal DTW arrivals onthe MIZAR arrival. There was another DTW arrival; another air carrier; immediately below Aircraft X. The other air carrier remained on the proper route to DTW; via LFD. MIZAR3. Direct RANDL did not allow for the proper spacing behind (or infront for that matter; but that comes later) our other DTW arrivals; so LOGAN and FWA were required to vector Aircraft X into the face of the WATSN.WATSN2.ORD arrivals. And since TMU hadn't planned Aircraft X to be blended with the FWA.MIZAR stream; there was no hole for Aircraft X; which resulted in excessive vectoring to subsequent DTW arrivals.I have no idea 'Why' it happened. I have no idea what made a controller in our Southwest area think direct RANDL was a good idea. I have no idea why the controller at McCook didn't put this aircraft over LFD or work with Joliet sector (JOT had the other carrier which was direct LFD.MIZAR3) to sequence 2 aircraft as opposed to taking Aircraft X out of the stream he was designed to fit in; and transitioning him to a stream he didn't. I have no idea why two previous areas shirked their responsibility and shat on another area. I'd prefer they didn't.I think Traffic Management Unit (TMU) should have been more aggressive in instructing previous controllers to route Aircraft X back over LFD. Guidance that when we have significant mile-in-trail requirements; rerouting aircraft to avoid that requirement; only to meet another requirement should be a) APREQed and b) discouraged.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.