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

[missafternoondelight]

Someone's got an axe to grind.. if you're not a plane nerd, what are you doing here? Plane nerds are awesome - just ask us.
My attitude shows more empathy than your own - I want the best outcomes for the most people. You want the best outcome for yourself. Those outside the picture can see this more objectively.

With regards to why I believe lifting the curfew would be good for Sydney and Australia, I think we need to be more progressive. Sydney is our major international hub - it needs the flexibility to serve more passengers from more locations into the future. Ultimately the airport will be outgrown, but expansion of landings in curfew hours will provide more air bridge capacity in the short term, when it is needed for the city to grow and develop. More for business than for tourism.. but yes, there would be benefits to tourism. LCCs would thrive on these extra hours, and it might create more competition in the Aussie sector which would benefit many. Speculation of course.. but that's my view.

 

[anat0l]

Yes - it has been covered ... by more dishonest quoting out of context as usual. Some people would call that lying but I couldn't possibly agree.

I said that people who like to not hear themselves think for 30 seconds and instead listen to their windows rattling as planes go overhead, were in my opinion weirdos. Do you know of any such people and what would you call them?

I don't know what I would call them, but you must concede that the term 'weirdos' when applied to another human being is by nature denigrating.

My point is that you wanted to have an argument / discussion that was free from insult or name-calling as it were. The fact you decided to use such denigrating terms even to describe people who may not be on this forum or as an indirect label goes against your set terms. So please stop attacking people for their character in this argument because you are not doing much better yourself. Do us all a favour and argue on your set terms. If you want to have labels at an opinion level - fine, but do not lash the "insult accusation" on others if you do not like how they describe you.

Frankly I don't see how I dishonestly quoted you. I simply redacted the irrelevant parts which helped me explain my point.

And if someone from outside Sydney wants to offer the opinion that the curfew is irrelevant, then in my opinion they are living in the mental if not literal boondocks, as their empathy for fellow human beings is not from my neck of the woods.

That may be true, and I apologise if I cannot share that empathy, because I'm not one from that neck of the woods, and never have been. But the plain fact is that there does exist people on the outside who have an opinion on this curfew. It may very well be in direct opposition to your opinion. As you mentioned before, their holding that opinion is a right of theirs. So it does not make sense for you to accuse them per se of being "mental" as it were. Again, this is against your argumentative principles of not insulting people.


As it stands, it probably stands to reason that the curfew will never be abolished in the foreseeable future for reasons as articulated through people who share the same passion and opinion as Moody. Be it measured by numbers of people affected or dollars influenced, the fact is the representation against the curfew is small in comparison to the interests for the curfew's abolition. But as it stands in our political climate, that is enough to stop the abolition of the curfew (or even a lessening of the conditions) and that is that.

Whilst I know this reality, it doesn't stop me from contending that it would be much more advantageous to abolish the curfew.

Of course the whole curfew issue could be solved if there was a very fast railway put through to CBR and then the planes could take off and land at anytime they wanted to and the pax could catch a clean and efficient train to the centre of SYD.

That might alleviate the traffic on the CBR-SYD corridor a bit, but CBR is not immune to noise complaints, even if it is currently curfew-free. I believe the possibility in increased noise was one main reason the opponents of CBR expanding to international ops made a huge noise (no puns intended), limiting the real expansion of CBR for now.

 

[simongr]

I am half wondering if EK did this on purpose to force the issue...

 

[medhead]

I said that people who like to not hear themselves think for 30 seconds and instead listen to their windows rattling as planes go overhead, were in my opinion weirdos.

So calling someone a sad weirdo because they like something that you don't like is not an insult? There is a reason that everyone is not a clone of you.

Do you know of any such people and what would you call them?

Passionate and dedicated to their interests.

And if someone from outside Sydney wants to offer the opinion that the curfew is irrelevant, then in my opinion they are living in the mental if not literal boondocks, as their empathy for fellow human beings is not from my neck of the woods.

Right, because there is no aircraft noise outside of Sydney; no one else in Australia has experienced aircraft noise. It is only you.

BTW you were quoted sufficiently to focus on the issues at hand and fully in that context. It is pointless to quote an entire post containing many ideas when only wanting to address one of those ideas. This forum would benefit from selective, targeted quoting at times.


Sent from the Throne (80% chance) using Aust Freq Fly app

 

[harvyk]

I just want to quickly get this in before this thread is locked (the inevitable end the way these posts are going )

Yes - it has been covered ... by more dishonest quoting out of context as usual. Some people would call that lying but I couldn't possibly agree.

I said that people who like to not hear themselves think for 30 seconds and instead listen to their windows rattling as planes go overhead, were in my opinion weirdos. Do you know of any such people and what would you call them?

And if someone from outside Sydney wants to offer the opinion that the curfew is irrelevant, then in my opinion they are living in the mental if not literal boondocks, as their empathy for fellow human beings is not from my neck of the woods.

Please quote me directly and fully in future and we will get along much better.

10 ...9....8...7....

First of all, I have quoted you in full as per requested.

Sydney does not have the monopoly on aircraft noise. Anyone who lives near an airport has the potential for planes flying overhead.
Sydney does not have the monopoly on noise in a city full stop, anyone who lives in a city or even major urban area has risk of that.
Sydney doesn't even have the monopoly on airport curfews in Australia, although I will concede it is probably the airport which is most affected by them.

Just because someone is from outside Sydney does not mean that they can't have an opinion on the matter, they themselves may be dealing with issues in relation to aircraft noise or potential aircraft noise. (Just look at the Tralee development proposal vs Canberra Airport or the "Curfew4Canberra" groups).

 

[anat0l]

I am half wondering if EK did this on purpose to force the issue...

My money isn't on this one, though if they did it's a dubious spend of $1 million. Withdrawal or downgauge of services threats may be more appropriate.

I simply think the management said, "Just fly and pay the damn fine - we can't afford to have this aircraft and crew out of position," and so they did.

 

[harvyk]

After reading up on the fact sheet for the SYD curfew (Curfew at Sydney Airport) , corporations face a maximum fine of $550,000 for a breach. Which means that to get a fine of $1M they have had 2 planes take off during the curfew.

Considering EK only fly large wide bodies to \ from AU (I don't think they have any narrow bodies in their fleet full stop), assuming each flight had say 400 odd people on it, that basically breaks down to $1,250 per person they where fined.
When putting it like that, for a long haul flight, where the flow on affects could be quite a problem (aka more pax delayed) it's easy to understand why they made a decision to ignore the curfew.

 

[markis10]

Please quote me directly and fully in future and we will get along much better.

Selective quoting is encouraged as it makes the thread more readable (as is multiquote), one does not want to see a diatribe or verbose answer clutter a thread over and over. Quoting is also never out of context, all quotes can be referenced back to the original post by clicking the view post button in the quote.

 

[Moody]

Only a matter of time before the curfew goes I think - all the old dears who used to complain must be getting on by now (if not gone already).

I do not appreciate being called an "old dear" who will hopefully die soon.

Only problem is they are replaced by those who buy near a airport, and then complain about the noise.

No - this is about breaking the long established curfew at Sydney Airport. Residents accept the status quo but the airlines don't. They fit the profile of turning up knowing how the airport operates and then wanting it to change to suit them.

There will always be complaints, last year during the brisbane floods there were numerous complaints about low flying helicopters!.

Why did you try to draw a link between these two situations? It seems to infer that both groups are idiots.

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... !.

Things really went downhill from here so there's no point continuing .....

We have various laws about noise pollution in this country, and they balance the needs of various groups. If a pub in the suburbs said that they wanted to pump out death-metal 24x7 would you call the residents "complaining old dears" and tell them to "toughen up or leave"?

John Howard was the architect of the current curfew, but of course Mr Magoo can do no wrong so it is re-written as an ALP hoax. Pathetic.

I am happy to have a debate about the curfew, but throw insults into the mix and they may come back.

 

[serfty]

...

John Howard was the architect of the current curfew, but of course Mr Magoo can do no wrong so it is re-written as an ALP hoax. Pathetic. ...

Are you sure about that?

"The Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995" was enacted shortly after the third runway was opened early in late 1994.

The prime minister of Australia was not John Howard at that time.

However the curfew (which is the main topic of this thread) was already in place when the Howard government won office and maintained it as well as continued the use noise abatement techniques (reduced power settings, etc.) for departures.

The main thing that was changed by the Howard government was to fan flight paths out rather that have them concentrated, using flight paths over water as much as possible and to rotate runway operation - thereby leaning to a fairer distribution of aircraft noise pollution around the aerodrome.

 

[MarkD]

Yes - it has been covered ... by more dishonest quoting out of context as usual. Some people would call that lying but I couldn't possibly agree.

I said that people who like to not hear themselves think for 30 seconds and instead listen to their windows rattling as planes go overhead, were in my opinion weirdos. Do you know of any such people and what would you call them?

And if someone from outside Sydney wants to offer the opinion that the curfew is irrelevant, then in my opinion they are living in the mental if not literal boondocks, as their empathy for fellow human beings is not from my neck of the woods.

Please quote me directly and fully in future and we will get along much better.

10 ...9....8...7....

DYKWIA........ Bloody hell

 

[Moody]

DYKWIA........ Bloody hell

A DYKWIA on this forum??? Surely not!

"The Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995" was enacted shortly after the third runway was opened early in late 1994.

The prime minister of Australia was not John Howard at that time.

Well it seemed like he had been there since the 50's so it was an easy mistake to make. I blame the anti-depressants I was on at the time.

So Keating limited the number of movements and hours of operation, and Howard spread the noise around. An imperfect solution and, as no government has had the guts to commit to a second airport, it is creaking at the seams. But let's blame the victims for the problem anyway - it usually works that way.

 

[straitman]

Well it seemed like he had been there since the 50's so it was an easy mistake to make.

.... and John Howard was certainly not the PM in the 50's :!:

 

[JohnK]

John Howard was the architect of the current curfew, but of course Mr Magoo can do no wrong so it is re-written as an ALP hoax. Pathetic.

Not quite.

Actually one of the major achievements of John Howard's 10+ years in government, apart from GST, was shifting the flight paths from the 3 liberal electorates north of the harbour to the 3 labour electorates directly to the south of the harbour.

Oh and the brilliant plan of selling Sydney airport to Macquarie should not be considered a success for the government, or the people of Sydney, either.

 

[The Rok]

Push for more Sydney airport flights

Sydney Airport should be able to have flights coming in later at night and increase its aircraft movements, a new report is set to recommend.

The report for the federal and state governments is also expected to argue that a second airport must be urgently developed in Sydney's greater west to meet rising demand, News Limited reported on Wednesday.
It is believed the preferred location is Badgerys Creek.

With a population of 4.1Million it really could do with a second airport.

 

[Nigelinoz]

Push for more Sydney airport flights





With a population of 4.1Million it really could do with a second airport.

And the federal government has already said no to any curfew changes.

The federal government has dismissed claims the night curfew on flights at Sydney Airport could be lifted.
A yet-to-be tabled report, commissioned by the federal government in 2009, is set to recommend the airport's 11pm to 6am curfew be extended, News Ltd reported on Wednesday.
The joint federal-state taskforce will also call for an increase in aircraft movements, lifting the current permitted rate of 70 take-offs and landings per hour to 80.
But Transport Minister Anthony Albanese, whose electorate of Grayndler lies under the flight path, ruled out any change to the curfew.
"We'll say no," he told ABC radio on Wednesday.

Govt rules out airport curfew extension - Yahoo!7

Cheers
N'oz

 

[kamchatsky]

Given that the cost estimate for second Sydney Airport is going higher and higher as years come by, there will never be a second Sydney Airport. I am sure in 2015 the estimate for the second airport would be like 1 trillion dollars.


I think lifting curfew is the only "cheap" option left.


Sometimes I wonder why BNE and MEL does not have curfew even though there are now suburbs around them anyway?

 

[markis10]

Given that the cost estimate for second Sydney Airport is going higher and higher as years come by, there will never be a second Sydney Airport. I am sure in 2015 the estimate for the second airport would be like 1 trillion dollars.


I think lifting curfew is the only "cheap" option left.


Sometimes I wonder why BNE and MEL does not have curfew even though there are now suburbs around them anyway?

I think Richmond will get a gong one day, despite it's prevalence to fog.The cost of converting it would be minimal by comparison to a greenfield site.

 

[simongr]

With a population of 4.1Million it really could do with a second airport.

Hong Kong has 7 million people and one airport. Seems to work fine...

 

[straitman]

Hong Kong has 7 million people and one airport. Seems to work fine...

Yes but they did move to a new airport a few years ago :!: