Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Beechcraft Twin Turboprop or Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: SoCal Approach (SCT) had issued a last minute 're-sequence' instruction to me for Aircraft X. I was unable to miss their airspace as the aircraft was on a descend via clearance and too close to avoid with any turn. This is a commonly occurring systemic problem with SCT's last minute 're-sequence' instructions. Unable to turn Left and avoid the other LAX arrivals I turned Aircraft X right anticipating his turn to take long enough that the climb clearance to FL200 would not be a factor for Aircraft Y. Upon noticing that the two aircraft would not remain separated and now clear of SCT's airspace I descended Aircraft X to FL190 approximately 12 seconds too late. A loss of separation subsequently occurred. I believe traffic complexity along with SCT's obstinate refusal to re-sequence aircraft in their own airspace when we are almost overwhelmed and complying with our own TBM [Time Based Metering] initiatives are the largest contributing factor to this sequence of events.SCT's use of the word 're-sequence' is a deliberate way to cover up and avoid going in to holding when they cannot handle the traffic load. If we held then they would have to answer for why. The term 're-sequence' is an all to convenient way for them to put the workload directly on us without them having to answer for their own controllers performance or lack thereof. Time and again we ask 'why' that just happened and we're told 'nothing was wrong; it was an East Feeder controller performance issue'.SCT needs to follow the LOA's procedure for holding (which they don't and never have) and the should be responsible for at minimum the 'first' re-sequence in their own airspace. If they spin then I have no problem going in to holding or providing extra spacing but their 'tail wagging the dog' mentality is downright lazy and costs the airlines thousands of dollars every time they do it. Why should they work hard when they can just push it off on us to do the dirty work.I challenge you to review the workload of Sector 37 and 39 who directly feed Sector 19 & 20 and justify that East Feeder has more on their plate than us. More needs to be done for them to share the burden when it's directly their call the disrupt the flow most often times against the TBM initiative.




Synopsis: ZLA Center Controller reported that SoCal TRACON East Feeder sector told ZLA to re-sequence traffic leading to a loss of separation.