Sydney Airport Curfew Change Call - EK faces $1M fine

[kamchatsky]

Let's say the curfew goes and it operates 24/7. How many airlines will decide to fly at those times?

I would say most flights to Asia leaving midnight and arriving at Asia at say 6am.

But really looking at most other 24/7 airports, most would leave between 12am - 1am. After that there are very few flights left as most pax are too tired anyway.

Then there are LCCs who need to utilise their planes in the air. But usually they are the latest and greatest planes available.

I guess the question then, can all the planes take off and land over Botany Bay and not over Sydney itself? Even if it has to go over Sydney, surely with the new plane models they are so much quieter it would not be a problem?

But I would say unless Australia becomes a dictatorship state no parties will touch this subject.

 

[markis10]

So the Sydney curfew is redundant to someone who lives in the boondocks? How quaint.

Point being many customers and employees live close to the airport, so the noise is a small price to pay, I used to live at Earlwood, and never found the noise to be a problem, but loved the short trip home from the airport.

 

[dajop]

I love the delicious irony of the flights being delayed due to thunderstorms, meaning once curfew hits that planes can't take off because they are too noisy. Not that anyone was kept awake by the thunderstorm that delayed the planes in the first place.

If the airport is closed from 9pm-11pm, surely there should be some dispensation to allow aircraft scheduled to depart during the closure to actually depart. It's not as if that sort of things happens every week. There would be a handful of times it happens year.

 

[oliverd]

Probably a simple question (and answer ) for someone in the industry...

The department will allege Emirates flight EK413 from Sydney to Dubai departed well after 11pm despite being refused permission many times during the day to do so.

It is understood several airlines requested permission to breach the curfew that night, after flights were delayed for wet weather. But they were denied permission on the grounds the airlines were given plenty of warning they might not be able to depart.

The Emirates flight, however, departed some time after 11.15pm despite being denied permission.

Read more: Curfew breaches risk $1m fine
​

How can a flight depart if denied permission? Does the control tower operate independently of whichever authority grants/denies permission to depart within the curfew period.

I'm hoping the pilot didn't just wait until the control tower staff went home before sneaking onto the runway and taking off...

 

[anat0l]

How can a flight depart if denied permission? Does the control tower operate independently of whichever authority grants/denies permission to depart within the curfew period.

I'm hoping the pilot didn't just wait until the control tower staff went home before sneaking onto the runway and taking off...

The law (curfew) does not actively prohibit flights from taking off or landing in breach of the curfew. It only sets out that penalties will apply unless dispensation has been granted previously.

ATC does not stop airlines from taking off or not in cases like these; if an airline wants to go they can't do much, but the movement is recorded for the purposes of reporting to the authorities. I suppose an airline can also take off or land when it likes even without the direction of ATC if it really wants to; the consequences thereof would be more interesting.




To get back to the topic, I also support the abolition of the curfew (I don't have to repeat how much I've criticised it). It does surprise me, though, that an airline like EK was boldfaced enough to just take off in blatant disregard of the curfew. Perhaps the management from Dubai thought that the costs of having the aircraft delayed and out of position was not worth the possible fine (even at $1 million).


Just to add context to some of the replies, weather is not typically a good enough reason for dispensation to be granted. History consistently tells us this one. In fact, it would probably take a medical or operational emergency for dispensation to be granted, if even then (I'm waiting for the first such incident to result in a death or so due to delay or denial of dispensation).


Does anyone remember / know if dispensation was granted / curfews were temporarily lifted in Europe (particularly London) to clear backlogged flights that were affected by snow storms when they happened last year?

 

[dajop]

if an airline wants to go they can't do much, but the movement is recorded for the purposes of reporting to the authorities.

I guess for EK it would be a commercial decision. If you have 490 passengers to deal with, crew issues, onward connection issues, dealing with the next sector of that aircraft, it may be not too much more expensive to just take off and pay the $1m than face an 8hr delay.

 

[Sprucegoose]

The curfew is cough. The airport was around a lot longer than those that decided to settle there in its environs.

Its an ALP hoax and should be dealt with as such.

Toughen up you lot or leave...

 

[straitman]

So the Sydney curfew is redundant to someone who lives in the boondocks? How quaint.

Moody,

MarkD hails from Ipswich from Ipswich where they have real aircraft noise :!:

The F111 may have retired but the Super Hornets are not quiet like an airliner either.

 

[JohnK]

The curfew is in place and mainly fair to all. I get aircraft noise occasionally and the airline has to pay fines occasionally. Win win situation for all.

Now who is whinging again?

 

[Awesom Andy]

The only thing that hasn't happened in this story is that somebody crashes something trying to beat the curfew. With increased movements at the airport, it seems to be something that will happen eventually, as much as none of us would ever want to see it happening.

 

[Blackadder]

I bought near the airport well aware and accepting of the fact that there was going to be airplane noise. The airlines schedule flights there well aware and accepting of the fact that there is a curfew. So who is whinging exactly????

If there was no curfew would you be whinging?
For most part it is just the minorioty who despite knowing what they are getting themselves into will whinge, just like those that purchased units next to Luna Park in Sydney then compalined about the nosie, causing the roller coaster to be moved off site etc orthose who have bought near a rail line/station and then complain of the noise from trains and/or station announcements.

 

[Moody]

If there was no curfew would you be whinging?
For most part it is just the minorioty who despite knowing what they are getting themselves into will whinge, just like those that purchased units next to Luna Park in Sydney then compalined about the nosie, causing the roller coaster to be moved off site etc orthose who have bought near a rail line/station and then complain of the noise from trains and/or station announcements.

My last post was deleted so obviously supporting the status quo (curfew) is political poison on AFF, but I will try to explain it one more time for the masses.

Sydney airport has been there for as long as I can remember, and certainly was there when I bought my first house in the inner-west. There was aircraft noise then (funnily enough) but as I was also on a busy road that ran beside the train line, aircraft noise was the least of my problems. Also my particular location meant that the worst noise only occurred when they were operating the East/West runway which wasn't too often.

Then the third runway and politics intervened. People who were previously unaffected by aircraft noise now had screaming jets right over their houses. They were given some relief with noise abatement (double-glazing etc.) but were probably still a little miffed. The impact on me was that jets taking off from the North/South runways now turned left so that they could "share" the noise around. I was given no relief and unfortunately the Labour party has lost its sense of social justice, and making them turn right instead has not eventuated. OK - as Tony the Idiot would say "**** happens."

Now the airlines are trying to bully the government into lying to the public and removing the curfew. You would think that changing the laws would be done to benefit the majority, not the minority, but not when the arrogant and powerful want to have their way.

Anybody got a logical argument for me before this post disappears?

 

[Jane-Doe]

Call for curfew changes at Sydney Airport with Emirates facing $1 million fine | Herald Sun

Woohoo! A few more fines and we'll get more flights out of Melbourne.

 

[harvyk]

I guess for EK it would be a commercial decision. If you have 490 passengers to deal with, crew issues, onward connection issues, dealing with the next sector of that aircraft, it may be not too much more expensive to just take off and pay the $1m than face an 8hr delay.

I agree, $1m might seem a lot, but when you look at the disruption that is caused when an aircraft is not where it's meant to be, an 8 hour delay could easily cause big problems for an airline. Considering the cost of operating a single long haul flight is already in the 6 (or even 7) figure range, it's not hard to imagine them looking at the $1m fine and thinking "pocket change", esp for an airline like EK who is actually doing very well for themselves.

 

[simongr]

My last post was deleted so obviously supporting the status quo (curfew) is political poison on AFF, but I will try to explain it one more time for the masses.

Sydney airport has been there for as long as I can remember, and certainly was there when I bought my first house in the inner-west. There was aircraft noise then (funnily enough) but as I was also on a busy road that ran beside the train line, aircraft noise was the least of my problems. Also my particular location meant that the worst noise only occurred when they were operating the East/West runway which wasn't too often.

Then the third runway and politics intervened. People who were previously unaffected by aircraft noise now had screaming jets right over their houses. They were given some relief with noise abatement (double-glazing etc.) but were probably still a little miffed. The impact on me was that jets taking off from the North/South runways now turned left so that they could "share" the noise around. I was given no relief and unfortunately the Labour party has lost its sense of social justice, and making them turn right instead has not eventuated. OK - as Tony the Idiot would say "**** happens."

Now the airlines are trying to bully the government into lying to the public and removing the curfew. You would think that changing the laws would be done to benefit the majority, not the minority, but not when the arrogant and powerful want to have their way.

Anybody got a logical argument for me before this post disappears?

I am not sure what your argument actually is. Things changed and you experienced more noise. Something else could change and you could experience more noise.

You say that the laws should change to benefit the majority rather than the minority - who is the majority in this case?

 

[MarkD]

Majority in this case would be air TRAVELLERS, not residents. So you just shot yourself in the foot. Also if you take a look at the noise footprint of a modern jet you will find the cars driving past your door are one hell of a lot louder. Maybe I'm a bit deaf , but current jets, ie a330 etc, even the 767, and especially the a380 are barely noticeable when flying overhead. As strait man quoted earlier, a super hornet is 10 x louder than an a380 yet we live with it ok in our backyard, we also get galaxys 707s and lots of other noisy overseas military aircraft at all hours in fact it doesnt bother me in the slightest. tolerance moody, can't recall being woken up at night by an aircraft for years, and that was a whole squadron of F111s going out at full noise

 

[serfty]

Majority in this case would be air TRAVELLERS, not residents. ...

Actually, residents are generally more important to local politicians than "air TRAVELLERS".

This is because local residents have the ability to put local politicians out of their role.

 

[MarkD]

True, after all it is all political isn't it, just like the sunshine motorway tolls in qld. Any wonder we are sending so much industry off shore, Australians and their government are just too hard to deal with

 

[straitman]

My last post was deleted so obviously supporting the status quo (curfew) is political poison on AFF, but I will try to explain it one more time for the masses.

Moody,

Whilst it is not normal to comment any further on deletions I will do so on this occasion. The post in question was deleted because it was was completely off topic with no reference to Sydney Airport or curfews and this has been explained to you via PM.

Now let us move back to the topic.

 

[harvyk]

My last post was deleted so obviously supporting the status quo (curfew) is political poison on AFF, but I will try to explain it one more time for the masses.

Sydney airport has been there for as long as I can remember, and certainly was there when I bought my first house in the inner-west. There was aircraft noise then (funnily enough) but as I was also on a busy road that ran beside the train line, aircraft noise was the least of my problems. Also my particular location meant that the worst noise only occurred when they were operating the East/West runway which wasn't too often.

Then the third runway and politics intervened. People who were previously unaffected by aircraft noise now had screaming jets right over their houses. They were given some relief with noise abatement (double-glazing etc.) but were probably still a little miffed. The impact on me was that jets taking off from the North/South runways now turned left so that they could "share" the noise around. I was given no relief and unfortunately the Labour party has lost its sense of social justice, and making them turn right instead has not eventuated. OK - as Tony the Idiot would say "**** happens."

Now the airlines are trying to bully the government into lying to the public and removing the curfew. You would think that changing the laws would be done to benefit the majority, not the minority, but not when the arrogant and powerful want to have their way.

Anybody got a logical argument for me before this post disappears?

If someone moves into an area near major infrastructure, they have to expect that the infrastructure will not remain static. Things will change over time, some of those changes will be good, others may be detrimental. It is the price that us city slickers pay to live in a place with every mod con available to us, some of those mod cons will have a price associated with it, such as noise.

Whilst I can certainly feel for your situation, basically living anywhere near an airport has the potential to be noisy, even if it's wasn't noisy at the time of first moving there.