...to call residents who will have to bear the brunt of that decision "squeaky wheels" is insulting.
...
No doubt there are sad plane-spotters out there who love that sort of thing, but I am not a weirdo and do not aspire to be one.
...
There - a logical and reasonable position without insulting anyone. And it wasn't hard to do!
Hypocrisy, much?
In reality there is denigration of parties on
both sides. Residents who are opposed to the abolition of the curfew and/or opposed to the loosening of conditions around the curfew and/or support tighter conditions around the curfew and/or are opposed to the expansion of operations at SYD within the current curfew timing (not necessarily movement conditions) are just as denigrating and critical of the proponents and their supporters as the other way around. You might argue that there is a spot concentration of one side of such arguments on this forum. So I would not go on the "holier than thou" argument.
To loosen the curfew conditions to allow for weather delays etc. is tantamount really to removing the curfew. No reasonable supporter of the curfew would allow the loosening (even temporarily) of the curfew just to allow some airlines to fix up their cooked schedules; that would imply they are prepared to take the temporary "pain" for a greater good, where the "good" here is commercial / economical,
not environmental / social / amenity (which is the purpose of the curfew). Nah, I don't see that happening. Besides, there is simply no precedent for the number of times this has happened at SYD (or for flights with delays going to SYD), so I don't expect that to change now unless there has been a dramatic demographic shift. Can you imagine the tremendous outrage that would've resulted if the Minister decided to grant dispensation to many airlines in order to account for the weather delays? Don't be mistaken - it definitely would've happened. Hey - people gotta sleep even if there's a thunderstorm out there, so now you're prepared to give up your sleep for 1-2 nights for the good of the airport?
I also don't buy the argument of all fines collected through curfew breaches to be offered as compensation to the residents. If the residents required compensation by means of glazing on windows or better hearing protection, then that should be demanded as a matter of course
now, not when the curfew is broken. Also, if the residents are demanding this kind of compensation then that should be a step towards
abolishing the curfew (i.e. from non-acceptance to tolerance), but that's not happening either. The fine for breaking curfew is intended to be purely punitive (i.e. a punishment for airlines breaking the law), not compensatory or contributing to some noise-reducing slush fund.
I think this was the general thrust of what the original article was about. Not that the curfew be abolished, but that there be more leeway in cases such as this where thunderstorms had prevented the refueling of aircraft etc. I've never tried but I imagine finding accomodation in Sydney for 500+ passengers may have been a difficult task at that time of night.
As mentioned, I think it's a case of have it or remove it. At best, to relax the curfew would force a slippery-slope argument from those supporting the curfew, as well as a severe debate and backlash against the regulator as to a more loose system of granting/denial of dispensation.
If the status quo "works", then the curfew should stay and weather conditions should continue
not to be a reason to grant dispensation. AFAICT (from guessing) this is similar to most other jurisdictions around the world where the airports have movement restrictions / curfews.
And you're right - finding accommodation for 500+ people in Sydney late at night is no easy feat. Let alone these properties would not be near the airport (this is bad enough as it is). Luckily SYD has some capacity to deal with these. In another international airport in Australia, the problem might just be exponentially more difficult (to put it conservatively).
:shock: 
