The Sydney airport circus continues.......

I think it's a bit rough being delayed outbound by a Thunderstorm only to then be stuck at the airport for another 8 hours. This issue was brought to a head a few years ago when massive storms hit Sydney and nobody go out. Back then airlines were asking the government for some flexibility in relation to weather delays.

If the government (both Labor/Liberal) are so politically weak that they cannot sort out another airport then they need to build some flexibility into the SYD curfew.




Curfew breaches risk $1m fine

THE Emirates airline could face fines of more than $1 million for multiple breaches of the Sydney Airport curfew after it defied repeated warnings by air traffic control not to fly after 11pm.
The federal Department of Infrastructure and Transport is investigating three breaches by Emirates, and has strong hopes of a successful prosecution for two of the incidents.
The most glaring breach of the curfew - which is intended to prevent planes taking off or arriving at Sydney Airport between 11pm and 6am - occurred on January 8.
Advertisement: Story continues below
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.
The maximum fine for a breach of Sydney Airport's curfew is $550,000.
Emirates has provided a detailed response to the department about the breaches. The department will provide a brief to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will then have to decide whether to press charges.
If Emirates were charged, it would be the first time an airline has been prosecuted for a breach of the Sydney Airport curfew since Jetstar was prosecuted in 2007 over a flight that left Mascot at 11.28pm.
The federal Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, said: ''The curfew at Sydney Airport is not optional. It is a legal requirement, which the community expects to be enforced.''
Mr Albanese, whose inner-west electorate of Grayndler suffers heavily from aircraft noise, has long maintained that Sydney needs a second airport.
But a study commissioned by Mr Albanese two years ago, due to report in weeks, is unlikely to propose an imminent solution to Sydney's airport noise woes.
The study is likely to entrench the role of Mascot as Sydney's main airport, recommend improved transport links to Mascot and suggest alternatives for a possible future second site.
The study will state the most attractive site remains Badgerys Creek, which the government has ruled out. Wilton, in the south-west, is likely to be the second-most attractive site.
A spokeswoman for Emirates said the January 8 flight was delayed because of fuel delivery problems caused by a thunderstorm. She said the airline decided to continue the flight to limit any inconvenience to passengers.
"Only on rare occasions such as this does the airline seek dispensations, and when doing so follows the normal process,'' the spokeswoman said, adding the airline was discussing the regulations with authorities and could not comment further.


Read more: Curfew breaches risk $1m fine (http://www.smh.com.au/national/curfew-breaches-risk-1m-fine-20120204-1qyqu.html#ixzz1lVYuK3bn)

Somehow I don't think the bosses at Emirates are going to slash their wrists over a paltry million bucks. So a minute or so of noise is more critical than a couple of hundred people being stranded for 8hrs or more. This government really is fcuked up.

Emirates should pull their sponsorship of the Melbourne cup and other sporting events down there in protest if the government continues with this madness.

Australia really needs to get with the times. How can Sydney claim to be an International gateway on the world stage when the airport isn't even 24hrs? :ugh:

It's so sad to see us falling further behind each year as the government puts all it's eggs in the resource basket at the expense of everything else.

We had all better pray to everything holy that the Chinese don't stop buying our rocks. If they ever do, the jig will be well and truly up:sad:

a couple of hundred people being stranded

Try a smidge under 500- the 413 is operated by A380.

Having been on the wrong end of the Sydney curfew several times (on both large & small aircraft) it is not a fun experience to tell the pax that they are not going anywhere until the next morning- especially if they have been delayed earlier in the day.

The sooner they make exceptions for ULR flights the better. Not so bad for a Syd-Mel, but it still affects operations with crews & planes being in the wrong place and stuffing up the schedule for a day or two afterwards (in the case of QF or DJ)

What the Sydney Push wants, the Sydney Push gets...and fcuk the rest of the country.

I know this topic keeps coming around but I still find it strange that ATC will clear you for take-off knowing that you are about to break the law.

Could the controller concerned be potentially opening themselves up if someone like Emirates decide to throw some money at some lawyers?

The law is the law, whatever you think about it. Are EK so powerful now that they can give the finger to any country's laws they happen to disagree with?

Three flagrant breaches should mean out. I think their approval to operate in Australia, or at least Sydney, should be questioned if they think they can continually snub the law and do as they want. Perhaps a 3 month ban on operating here may give them cause to show a little more respect to our laws?

The the, couldn't agree more!:ok:

I'm with clarky_y ...................

How on earth does ATC give permission to go during "no-go" times ?

If you haven't declared an emergency, or have your dispensation slip in your back pocket there should be no issue...........

"Flight 123, request pushback from bay 45 "

"Flight 123, hold position for 4 hours 55 minutes"

Problem solved !

ST

Simple, fine EK. Not so much for it to be devastating but an amount they'll notice. They can decide if they need to cancel an A380 till morning or cop the ticket.

You may not like the law but obeying it isn't optional. So what other laws are Emirates ignoring due to commercial imperatives? An interesting insight into the organisational culture.

Perhaps if they also made the issue one of strict liability for the PIC- to the tune of say $500K- and prohibited them from operating in Australian airspace for 5 years they may get more success. Even if EK chooses to pay the fine for them, the restrictions on operating in/out of Australia may have an impact on the PIC's decision to 'go' just because his ops branch said 'go'.

Can an ATCO here comment on the goings on that lead to takeoff clearance post-11pm?

A full safety audit should do the trick. CASA should ask how Emirates calculate flight and duty times. Do they conform with ICAO if not ban them and their predatory capacity dumping third world antics.

Tower controllers advise the crew of the requirements to be airborne or taxi by the appropriate time, then in no uncertain terms inform them "Curfew restrictions exist, penalties may apply, advise intentions".

If they choose to depart, they are cleared for take off. ATC do not enforce the curfew, nor should we

To Emirates the $550,000 is only a surcharge for operating outside the "curfew" now and then.

The Aus Govt is quite happy to take the money and nothing else will be said about it.

"The Aus Govt is quite happy to take the money and nothing else will be said about it. "

This comment states it all. If the government was serious about the noise issue then surely they would prohibit the movement by most aircraft within curfew. Emirates would just have to wait. By prohibit I mean that ATC clearances would not be given and therefore the aircraft could not move. What if a controller just said "No I cannot let you takeoff as I will be knowingly allowing you to break the law"?. What happens then?

Also, Emirates is not the only airline to pay a curfew fee.

Perhaps if they also made the issue one of strict liability for the PIC- to the tune of say $500K

Keg thats a very greasy slope that you are climbing there.

all of you advocating banning ek for a period of time- would you do the same to jetstar? they busted it too remember...

oh wait no we can't ban an aussie company, only the rich foreign ones deserve punishing... :mad:

But then, perhaps Jetconnect/QF should be banned for breaking curfews elsewhere...

Qantas-owned jet breaches Wellington curfew - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10743893)

Sounds like they made a simple financial decision. Is the cost of going outside curfew going to be more than the cost of delaying the flight? If the answer is no then take the fine.

b_star, bit of a difference between $12K and $1M. However the principle of operating curfews at airports that have been around Moses played for the Angels' XI bugs me.

Wellington was built way before dormitory suburbs were established in the area; Christchurch is the same. I'm not familiar with Sydney, but suggest they are in a similar position, where the Johnny-come-lately residents are the ones insisting on curfews.

Perhaps, like the Rongotai vs Paraparaumu as Wellington's main airport argument of the 1960's, Sydney should bite the bullet and build a new airport way out there in the boonies. "Ring fence" it as an airport in zoning regs (i.e. "grandfathered" rights compared with newer residential developments).

Wouldn't it be great then, when the curfew insisters grumble about the ground travel times, complain back that "it was never like this when we operated out of Mascot."

Or is that too subtle or simplistic (to say nothing of expensive)?

Oh well..

Sorry for thread drift.

Le Vieux

Old Un, I'd suggest it's not so much a case of urban creep around the perimeter of the airport and associated arrival and departure tracks, rather a demographic shift to more cashed up middle classes who make up, as Sunfish referred to "The Sydney Push"

Is it possible that banning EK from Sydney for even a short time would be the cause of a few, maybe many, people losing their job?

EK would still be able to operate out of BNE and MEL... offer SYDMEL and SYDBNE at subsidised airfares... and still beat the fares of other airlines to Europe. Many posters on this forum believe that lower air fares win passengers.

Emirates has provided a detailed response to the department about the breaches. The department will provide a brief to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will then have to decide whether to press charges.

Steady on- Let's stay away from the Guilty til proven innocent regime.

I can assure you the EK crews take the curfew very seriously.

There would have to be mitigating circumstances to these breaches, I know first hand that it is not the crew just saying- "Look curfew is coming up, let's go anyways ---"

Personally- I think the curfew is bshit anyways. Yet another reason why Australia is an economic laughing stock for the rest of the world.
QF HQ based in Sydney - Curfew
EK HQ based in Dubai - 24 hr ops.

What if a controller just said "No I cannot let you takeoff as I will be knowingly allowing you to break the law"?

It's good that ATC are not policemen / women. Let ATC do traffic management, and let the govt or CASA do enforcement.

How about keeping the existing system with large fines, but applying the money to subsidise insulation in the airport suburbs. Probably impossible to administer though!

Usually past practices of other Airports around the globe that operate to similar curfews was to use a "common sense approach" in times of adverse weather and provide operators dispensations to depart during times of curfew to clear the backlog of flights.
Sadly though, Sydney Airport does not and will not contemplate operating with this flexibility. (Probably mainly due to misinformed Government numb nuts intervening and trying to kick political goals in their electorates.)

As mentioned before, all this just adds to Australia continuing down that slope of becoming more and more a Global Joke in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Sydney airport continues to consolidate these views. :ugh:

If I was in the same position I'd be getting the Company to
authorise me IN WRITING (as a get-out-of-jail-free card) to
bust Sinney's bullshit curfew restrictions. I'm sure the M-rat
capt would've done the same.

I thank fcuk I don't fly into that psychotic place anymore.

I do think SYD airport is a joke from crap controlling to low amount of slots compared to other sizable international airports and even charging for the use of a baggae cart.
However the law is the law and to answer someones question a few posts ago,yes EK do think they are above the law.
They persucute and intimidate pilots and F/As as they wish and have "amended" many work rules and standards as they see fit.
Ie: signing on way earlier then they actually count and not even counting bunk time as total flight time etc.
I could go on...
They are a law unto themselves in many less civilized places and I do count Dubai among that list.
They need a real wake up call at the moment but CASA and the government haven't got the balls.
Don't forget the australian government are going to/have signed a extradition treaty with a medieval state with racist laws so I think a curfew bust really doesn't worry them that much.

Is Sydney the only place in the world with a night curfew?

No, there are many others (like KHH for example) that have a
curfew, but have a commonsense approach esp in matters of
weather or other delays that aren't the fault of the airline nor
the crew.

london and a couple of others I cant think of right now.
Internationally speaking of course

Perhaps if they also made the issue one of strict liability for the PIC

That's a big negative Ghostrider.

I think someone has hijacked Keg's login because I'm sure he knows how slippery that slope is, just like ad-astra said.

YBCG and YPAD also have curfews.

Why do you say SY has 'crap controlling' LR3? Or are you just having an ignorant whinge?

Dubai sees Australia as an Economic laughing stock? Hmmm, can anyone say Burj Kalifa?

frankfurt has one now/getting one soon.

No one has said Australia is an "economic" laughing stock (we are very lucky thankfully to the mining sector),

Just a "political and over governed" laughing stock.

Mind you though as far as economics go I still wouldn't allow Wayne Swan to manage my kids savings account! :ouch:

Perhaps I should have added a ;)!

It's an interesting situation though. I recall QF telling me innumerable times over the years that you need to be both safe AND legal. Were EK legal in this circumstance? The PIC knows he isn't breaking any aviation laws but he's still breaking the law.

Again, I think it says an interesting thing about an organisation's culture when they're quite happy to break the law and cop the fine because that's the cheapest/ easiest thing to do.

Emirates are no more than Corporate Cowboys who obviously have scant respect for the Rule of Law, if they have heard of it. Like it or not, there is a curfew in force at Sydney, and while it's still in place, carriers have to work within its confines. If ANY carrier is unprepared to observe our laws, they should either move on or be moved on.

A fine against EK would be quite meaningless. A stiffer sanction such as suspension of landing rights would be a more sensible penalty - there would certainly not be breaches of the curfew were that penalty imposed for flagrant disregard of our laws. And, who knows waht else EK are failing to observe???

That's fine because atleast prima facie there is a breach of the law.

Should the same sanctions apply to Jetstar if it is proven that they have breached employment laws?

I am sure we will be having a very different conversation when one day somebody elects to rush a departure during inclement weather just to meet curfew requirements.

Those of you who have brought up "practical applications" of curfews abroad have hit the nail on the head. This is a professional pilots/aviation forum and the real issue being discussed here should be under which (if any) conditions there should be an automatic extension to the curfew granted. Is there anyone on this forum with practical experience of applying for an extension to operate outside the curfew? It'd be interesting to hear how the process evolved.

Some of the myopic/parochial comments about Emirates and making pilots liable make me cringe, no wonder my pom mates now refer to us as "whinging Aussie's..."

scandi

I agree very well said.

A few years back we taxi out for a 16R departure and while waiting at the hold we hear a conversation between an Etihad A340-600 on finals and SYD tower...
Tower - Etihad xxx....you're not going to land before curfew
Etihad - we have applied for a dispensation
Tower- it won't get here in time, say your intentions
Etihad (now at around 5-700ft) I guess we are going around

The question is, if it was about noise, whats worse? A TOGA go around from 500ft or an idle reverse landing?

Noise...? I don't think so.

The question is, if it was about noise, whats worse? A TOGA go around from 500ft or an idle reverse landing?

The general public (the ones who vote in our pollies) don't understand the subtle difference between idle reverse landings and TOGA go-arounds!

They just don't want aircraft landing or taking off during the curfew! The law is there to re-enforce that. No politician will risk their seat and go against that!

Use the fines to pay for double glazing and noise insulation for those who complain. Problem solved.;)

Those of you who have brought up "practical applications" of curfews abroad have hit the nail on the head. This is a professional pilots/aviation forum and the real issue being discussed here should be under which (if any) conditions there should be an automatic extension to the curfew granted. Is there anyone on this forum with practical experience of applying for an extension to operate outside the curfew? It'd be interesting to hear how the process evolved.

Curfews aren't a bad thing, it's just the way it's managed in Sydney is the issue. Give an example of a common sense policy. If an aircraft goes tech or the aircraft is delayed due operational reasons and can't make curfew, then no dispensation. However, if for environmental reasons traffic flow is hampered or the Airport is closed for a period of time then common sense would dictate that the airport would remain open to accomadate the quota of scheduled flight for that day. Quite simple really, and it's not like these events are daily so the Pollies save face as they have still maintained a curfew in Sydney.

As mentioned in another post about TOGA. I remember doing the 1 coming in from BKK and scheduled to land after 5am on 34L. Tower was giving 10kts tail so we made the approach, needless to say the tailwind was significantly more so around we went waking up the whole bloody neighbourhood.

Little things like this example make a mockery of Sydney's curfew policy as far as noise goes. :ugh:

"Curfew restrictions exist, penalties may apply, advise intentions".

correction "Curfew restrictions exist, penalties apply, advise intentions"

I understood that there were two operators who departed RWY 16R on the night of 8-Jan without a dispensation, CX and EK.

Spare me the accusations of parochialism. The curfew is the curfew. You either work within the bounds of it or you cop a fine. The fine obviously isn't enough because people are quite happy to wear it. I don't give two hoots who busts it- QF, DJ, J*, etc.

I've been in the same situation on a number of times. I've had to stand in front of a delayed bunch of passengers and tell them that they're now going to be delayed another 7+ hours. I've stood there and written out the cab charge dockets to get them home and back again. It's part of doing business.

Sure, the curfew is a horses ass. Sure, the minister should provide dispensations if the weather has been diabolical and a/c can take off south and/or land north, etc. What I find most interesting is that we keep diverting back into the actions of the minister (something we professional crew have little control over) or talking about how third world Sydney is in having a curfew and avoid actually looking at the issue that we DO have control over- whether or not you'd take off knowingly breaking the law. Why is that we're so reluctant to examine this issue?

I am surprised that you can take off....isnt the airport considered "closed"?

What law is it though Keg? The same one that prevented you from driving faster than the speed limit to catch your flight on time? If you take off after curfew are you endangering others like the fast diver?
75% of EK pax transit Dubai. So the 15+hr delay at SYD (min crew rest is 12hrs and there are no spare crews there) would have costed a mint. The aircraft being delayed and not used on the next sectors, and missed connections for Pax would have taken days to sort out (problem of having such high load factors and aircraft utilisation). The company would have weighed up all the costs and considered the fine the best option if it asked the crew to depart.
Fines of this magnitude do a good job of enforcing the curfew.
German airports are probably a very good example of how curfews can be administered practically. They consider every exemption request on its merits and consider the company history (they don't want you doing it all the time). The will give concession for weather and some tech issues as they also serve the traveling public. And they have good beer too!

The Don

I must confess that I'm amazed that people don't get this ...


Sydney Kingsford Smith is open 24 hrs a day.
Certain aircraft (most) have restrictions due noise between 2300-0600.
ATC are not there to judge which aircraft comply with the noise requirements, rather it is the OPERATOR to judge (it is pretty clear cut).
You know if your aircraft is subject to the restrictions, so if you don't get a taxy clearance by the appropriate time, you are in breach ... simple.

Which part of all that is hard to understand?


N

I must confess that I'm amazed that people don't get this ...
Sydney Kingsford Smith is open 24 hrs a day.

Classic- you know that in a practical sense that is BS. It is like saying-

"The airport is open 24hrs except for aircraft that have wings"

It actually is a bit more complicated than you make out.

It actually is a it more complicated than you make out.

Actually, it's not! Either read the Jeppesen noise blurb or company port information....

Keg, speaking of curfew and the culture of organizations (or Groups) that are happy to bust it:

Jetstar flies into storm over curfew (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/jetstar-flies-into-storm-over-curfew-20090415-a7kf.html)

I seem to recall that in the subsequent prosecution it emerged that the breach occurred with the blessing of J* flight ops management.

Yep. It's crap. J* should be sanctioned for the breach. It says a lot about their ops too that they're prepared to flaunt the law. Given what we've seen in the Senate Inquiry of late though I don't think that anyone should be surprised that J* management are without a moral compass- of the QF CEO either for that matter.

Don, laws exist for a multitude of reasons and most commonly exist for the 'greater good'. There are laws that say I can't pump music out at ridiculous levels after midnight on a Saturday night. Is that dangerous if I do? No. Is it illegal? Yes. If you think I may disrupt someone's sleep and thus be a danger then I offer you an aircraft departing after curfew as an equivalent issue.

"The airport is open 24hrs except for aircraft that have wings"

There are plenty of aircraft that can use SYD unrestricted during curfew hours, even some jet aircraft.

N

Which by sheer coincidence are operated by the wealthier individuals in society. Anyone actually compared the noise footprint of a 737 to a G IV? I wouldnt have thought there would be much in it.

air ambulance? I know I've landed there during curfew hours with a sick kid onboard...

The vast majority of ops during curfew are freighters and aeromedical flights.

As one who previously lived at Dolls Pt and still spends the odd overnight at Brighton, it is quite obvious that a number of the aircraft operating during the curfew make as much, if not more, noise than the jet aircraft that land just after 5:00am on 34L or depart just after 11:00pm on 16R.

Thankfully the old Fockers and Argosy's and those RR Darts that converted kerosene to noise, have long since departed!:)

Australia is obsessed with rules, as supported by these posts, the law is the law is the law. No application of its intent just it's letter... Two years ago I was on a layover in BNE, a policeman pulled me over along with several other commuters. We were not drivers, we were on bicycles on the bike path. My crime.... I didn't have a bell on the bike.... A frigg'n bell! fined AUD 50! But I don't live in Oz I explained. The answer, sorry that is the law. Same deal with the curfew, its the law.... Well what about the spirit of that law, is its intent to stop every single big jet from taking off or can there be excusable exceptions when a storm delays refueling and a 380 load of pax will be stuck for 15 hours (crew duty..) with no hotels to put them in. It's called humanity and compassion and a vote for common bloody sense. Ah but this is Australia and we have legislated against common sense, there's a rule for that.....

sorry that is the law.

Yep that's why Oz is a laughing stock alright - especially in
HOW most of its silly idiotic laws are formulated, and the
political machinations that get them gazetted in the first
place.

Well what about the spirit of that law, is its intent to stop every single big jet from taking off or can there be excusable exceptions when a storm delays refueling and a 380 load of pax will be stuck for 15 hours (crew duty..) with no hotels to put them in.

Yes. That is the intent. The intent is for NO aircraft to depart unless it's got a taxi clearance prior to 2300. The intent doesn't give a stuff about hotel rooms, crew tour of duty limits, etc. That is an operational issue that is the responsibility of the operator. They know the risks and choose to accept them

Do I think it's crap that the minister doesn't give more dispensations for weather related delays? Sure do but them's the rules. Do I think that we're over governed? Sure do but I have a choice in the matter. I can comply or I can seek a dispensation. Do I support a changing of the wording relating to Sydney departures so that weather related events don't require dispensation of the minister for (say) up to midnight local? Sure do and I've written that to the local member- I also live in a 'noise sensitive suburb' too.

Believe me, I'm the first person to look at the intent of a particular rule and try and work that rather than the letter- particularly if the letter of the law is an ass- but at the end of the day, I have to comply with the letter of the law even when it's stupid.

Which heavily featured Emirates. Seems most flights contain one or more members of the seven monarchies that make up the UAE. They don't care about delays or curfews because 90% of the time, a guy in the back, who is basically the king, and a controlling shareholder, says 'we're going' or 'we're waiting' and the guy at the front, if he knows what's good for him, does as he's told. Not saying it's accurate or that it applies in this case, but it shows why sometimes our little laws are given the finger.

Ex A380-800 driver,
I am not a pilot, but I thought this thread might be interested in the stated reasons for a recent post 2300 departure by EK from Sydney. We were passengers on EK413 (A380-800) on 5 January 2012 scheduled 2145 departure. The night was mild and there was some rain. We were held at various points before and during taxi by air traffic control. Then according to my memory of cabin PA from Captain, we had to wait for the brakes to cool down because the brake temperatures were too high from excessive taxiing at low speeds with a fully loaded aircraft. I assume the brakes were too hot to allow safe takeoff (presumably because they would be less effective in case of emergency stop.) I certainly would not want to be taking off if the brakes wouldn't have functioned effectively if required.

After waiting about another 20-30 minutes, we eventually took off at around 2315. As passengers, we were certainly saved a lot of grief by not having to 'deplane'. But I was surprised that taxiing an A380 in this situation could overheat the brakes. Does this happen often with A380s? Can it be avoided? How would this go as a justification for possibly breaching curfew?

eric - If the aircraft came in late from Auckland, then the residual brake temp will be high. The 380 does not have brake fans to cool the brakes. Taxying a 380 at 569 tonnes will cause a significant temp rise towards the max limit for take off off 300degC. So in answer to your question, it is not uncommon for a crew to have to delay the take off due high brake temps.

Fieldmouse- That documentary was utter b/s. We are never directed by the Sheiks to do anything to break any law, or compromise on safety. Very rarely is there a Sheik in back anyhow. They have their own fleet of private jets.

Noip - The reality is that most of the flights into Syd are JETS, and to say that syd is 24hrs, when you know full well, the curfew curtails 90 percent of operations, is pushing the bounds of ridiculousness.

Perhaps EK did get a dispensation. If Ek says they have put in a lengthy submission then they must have a defence or they would just pay the fine.

Keg - It is high time that the curfew rules get reviewed. An A380 is an extremely quiet aircraft. I doubt anyone on the boundaries of the airport would even hear one taking off or landing.

According to the original report the issue isn't just one event but a few of them. It also reports other dates.

So basically, to sum it up, is there anyone that does not agree that;

1) The YSSY curfew policy could benefit with a review, paying particular attention to extensions following periods of poor weather

2) There is no clear evidence under which circumstances Emirates operated during the curfew, and that it should be left to the courts to decide whether the breaches were intentional, and exactly which (if any) penalties should apply

If the Jan incident happened as posted by the pax, then as I understand it- no breach as they obviously got clearance and taxiied before the cutoff.

Back to dispensations- I recall one occasion a couple years back where due severe weather disruption we sat around for ages, going, not going, going, not going (thankfully we were on a/c and pax in terminal with access to facilities)

Eventually it was decided (by local authorities I guess) we could break the curfew and depart, due to no rooms available anywhere for pax or crew. Loaded everyone on, doors closed, ready to push back... oh wait permission revoked.

Long story short the "rescheduled" flight for the next morning ended up being further delayed because with the thousand or so pax dumped into Sydney, there was no transport (company transport stretched so private transport booked).

It failed to turn up for nearly 2 hours, by the time we got to the hotel we'd well and truly busted min rest (which in this case could be reduced to I believe 10hr for the CC) and ended up sharing rooms. I think the pax slept in the airport. So for the sake of a 737 not making too much noise we were delayed in total over 15hrs, the aircraft and crew were out of position in Sydney instead of Melbourne and the subsequent day's flying had 2 legs cancelled and the rest severely delayed. 2 of the crew were on legal days off so had to passenger home on the same flight rather than operate and we copped further delay waiting for replacements (as they were all in Melbourne due to not being allowed to land into Sydney the night before)

So yes I agree, flexibility needs to be there and more consideration given to the knock on effects of keeping a flight on the ground. (In this case it was firstly ATC delay in MEL then severe, hours long tx delays in Sydney)

Keg, can you tell me what happens if the said flight has received taxi clearance prior 2300 (as I believe was the case with another flight I was on delayed) and then a airport wide shutdown occurs for thunderstorms in the vicinity. In Sydney we all know this means nothing moves. Storm passes, oops it's past 11, sorry no go?

Or do they have enough sense to see that those aircraft were indeed ready to taxi prior to curfew? If not then a severe weather policy is definitely needed and all those NIMBYS can go buy some :mad: earplugs!!

Never read so many posts from people clearly suffering "Stockholm Syndrome" in my life. At some point in your life, accepting noise is part and parcel of living in any city.
Given how much this fiasco costs the country, it would have been cheaper to buy out every homeowner within the "noise sensitive" area and turn it in to parkland.
To have a system that is so inflexible as to not take into account wx delays etc is unbelievable.
Lucky Country indeed!
Please don't lecture me on the political process in this place, I've been around long enough to see it in practice, aided and abetted by a main stream media that seem to believe that pandering to the ignorant is something akin to a virtue.

There has been an airport on the Mascot site since the year dot, so every person who purchased property in the area knew full well that there would be aircraft noise - and probably got a discount on the purchase price as a result.

It's farcical to have Australasia's main hub shut up shop at 11pm.

Operators might want to consider AKL as an alternative to SYD. AKL would be open 30 hours a day if that were possible.

If an aircraft taxis prior to 2300 local they can depart whenever as long as they depart to the south.

A new airport was built at KSA in the mid 90s. 16L/34R significantly changed the distribution of aircraft noise in the inner west and eastern suburbs. It it a distortion of history to claim airport priority.

Re Emirates I'd suggest their lawyers are taking a close look at page 3-4 of DAP-E YSSY NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES 4.5d

Generally pruners if you want the best chance of success for a dispensation then make sure you restrict it as closely to 11pm as possible using the normal curfew nominated runway. Eg Arrive 34L no later than 11.10pm or Taxi for departure 16R no later than 11.30pm. And have a damn good excuse for it!

Bring on 24h RIC civil overflow

A new airport was built at KSA in the mid 90s. 16L/34R significantly changed the distribution of aircraft noise in the inner west and eastern suburbs. It it a distortion of history to claim airport priority.

Easy, don't use the newer runway during the curfew! 16-34 was built in '59.

who purchased property in the area knew full well that there would be aircraft noise

Same can be said about Essendon (or Essad'n if you're a
whinging bloody yobbo living under the TO path of 26)

16-34 was built in '59
It was a fair bit shorter than 07/25 until the 70s and the 747's arrival which brought it into Botany Bay to its current length. 1967 photo (http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/corporate/community-environment-and-planning/~/media/Images/Corporate/Aviation%20Community/Sydney%20Airport%20Aerial%20-%201967.jpg), 1977 photo (http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/corporate/community-environment-and-planning/~/media/Images/Corporate/Aviation%20Community/Sydney%20Airport%20Aerial%20-%201977.jpg)

Interestingly the current noise sharing and curfew arrangements were introduced in the mid 90s by new PM Howard under the auspices of the then head of Dept of PM and Cabinet, Max the Axe. The government's sale of SYD ensured Macquarie's hold on the privatised airport for 99 years, and pure serendipity got Max the airport CEO gig shortly afterwards.

Would be good to see a brave minority government review the noise arrangements as part of the soon to be released second airport joint study.
Bring on 24h RIC civil overflow
This would indeed change the route structure and airspace, most probably precipitating a review of SYD's noise abatement procedures.

Remove the bloody curfew - not likely as one pollie will ensure this never happens while he is transport minister. Ultimate was when unions were slow baking Qantas, you would board at 8.00pm for a nice run up to Brisbane. After countless tech problems, PF worried that there are not enough blankets aboard to cover an on board terrorist incident etc etc ad nauseum you would finally get roll back at 10.55pm and engine (1) started, which I understand allows a takeoff after 11.00pm but still pings the company the fine. But hey, what else do you expect? Wonder if a new fed govt will/would change things? Not bloody likely in my view.

An alternative to removing the bloody curfew is to turn SYD into a regional airport and build a new 24 hour a day international airport at Alice Springs, from where you can get to Heathrow in a Dreamliner without a stopover.

you would finally get roll back at 10.55pm and engine (1) started, which I understand allows a takeoff after 11.00pm but still pings the company the fine.

No. If departing off runway 16R the ground controller must utter the magic words "Clear to taxi" before 11:00pm; no fine even if you are airborne after 11:00.

On runway 34L you must be airborne by 10:45pm to avoid the fine.

Certain scheduled flights may land between 5:00am and 6:00am but only on 34L. If conditions dictate 16 is required then you'll have to wait until 6:00am.

Ridiculously, you're perfectly approved to make as noisy a go-round as you like just after 11:00 or just before 5:00/6:00, but don't dare land and trundle through with idle reverse even seconds after or before these times!:ouch:

What a fiasco - and here I was thinking it must have been the fault of the looney left, when in fact it was good old Johnny Howard, Aussie's best PM since Menzies.

Ridiculously, you're perfectly approved to make as noisy a go-round as you like just after 11:00 or just before 5:00/6:00
But you're required to submit a please-explain report.

The curfew has been in place for at least 30 years.

Neither major party has made any effort to relax the rules.

The previous Coalition Government were in power for 11 years and did nothing.

Have a look at the electorates around Sydney Airport - the close in electorates are held by Labour and ones on the flight paths are held by the Liberals - seats like Wenworth (Turnbull) Cook (Morrison) North Sydney (Hockey) Bradfield ( Abbott).

So if anyone thinks there will be a relaxation of the rules - "Tell them they are Dreaming"

When the aviation 'white paper' was being formulated after the 07 Election, one criterion "not for discussion" was curfews... say no more.

Why not just give all capital city airports military designation (like Darwin) then we can have movements at any time! Just imagine it, F15, 16, 18's (what a shame the pigs don't fly anymore:(!) and more taking off at 0100 with burners lit up then doing a low level pass over Sydney harbor:cool:! A planespotters wet dream:o!

A fine against EK would be quite meaningless. A stiffer sanction such as suspension of landing rights would be a more sensible penalty - there would certainly not be breaches of the curfew were that penalty imposed for flagrant disregard of our laws. And, who knows waht else EK are failing to observe???

These fines are small change for EK/EY/QR as they ramp up the pillaging of the Australian airline transport market. The only impact they take notice of is negative publicity, such as what happened in Melbourne a few years ago.

This Herald-Sun article (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/news/call-for-curfew-changes-at-sydney-airport-with-emirates-facing-1-million-fine/story-fn32891l-1226263677448)white-washing the entire event is a classic example of what the very shrewd marketing gurus need.

I wonder who paid for it...

If by"pillaging" you mean they fly to somewhere else besides London or LA yes you are correct. I can't see why the Australian traveling public should be limited in travel options just because QF management don't like the idea of running a truly international airline.

the Don

The Herald-Sun article is quite good. It highlights the absurdity of a curfew without any room for commonsense exceptions. It will,sadly, have zero effect.

If by"pillaging" you mean they fly to somewhere else besides London or LA yes you are correct. I can't see why the Australian traveling public should be limited in travel options just because QF management don't like the idea of running a truly international airline.

Don, there are two reasons why QF is contracting in both destinations and pax numbers:

1. As you said, an incompetent management who have no idea about how to run a premium international airline &

2. Capacity dumping by Middle Eastern carriers who have been unfettered by any government (except Canada). They have been offering fares for many years that are so low that even efficiently run airline can't compete with. Once they have run most of the competitors out of business, the airfares will rise significantly and they will return massive profits. Very similar to what Coles & Woolies are doing to the supermarket business. I believe that Australia should be following the Canadian government's lead in dealing with ME carriers.

A search using both carriers' websites, inputting the same dates for a fare Sydney to London and back, actually shows that QF are approximately $100-150 cheaper than EK. Not taking into acount FF programs, sales, special promotions etc. The next cheapest QF fare was a bit of a hike from the one I found (QF approx AUD1,900, EK approx AUD2, 100

Make of that what you will.

I know which one gives more 'value' in the ticket...

BTW, the QF fare is 1 stop, EK, 2 stops.

Ahh, but what if you don't want to go to London?

Government won't act on Badgery's Creek Albanese will block anything to improve YSSY.

Government rules out airport curfew extension | thetelegraph.com.au (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/government-rules-out-airport-curfew-extension/story-e6freuyi-1226271388090)

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 Limited reported today.

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 today.

"Of course, no one wants to fly at 3am from Sydney to Melbourne.

"The curfew does provide some respite for people who live around the airport."

Mr Albanese reiterated his belief that Sydney needs a second airport, but said it would not be at Badgerys Creek in Sydney's west.

"Sydney does need a second airport sooner rather than later because the consequences for the economy and jobs in NSW is dire if that does not occur," he said.

"The Government's position is that it should not be at Badgerys Creek."

Mr Albanese said the Government was not bound by any of the findings in the taskforce report, which is due to be handed to ministers later this year.

NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell has previously said he does not support having a second airport in the Sydney basin

It'll be Wilton! No - Holsworthy! Err - Galston! Yep, Galston. Umm hang on - Badgery's Creek! I know - I know - Richmond! Well, how about somewhere near Mittagong? Is Canberra very close? Isn't Williamtown more or less empty? High Speed Rail is the answer!!!!! ... errrr ...

Media Alert! The Mincer of Transport will announce a new study into likely locations for Sydney's Second Airport :ugh:

If nobody is serious about building another airport for SY - apparently nobody is - then fix the following at least:

1. Reduce the artificial cap on movements. Let ATC move traffic to the capacity of the airport. Not political capacity.

2. Remove LTOP when capacity demand dictates - not the time of day.

3. Remove LTOP when the meteorological conditions favour an alternative configuration - for both safety (remember that?) and capacity.

4. Make the rules sensible for curfew enforcement bearing in mind likely missed approaches, extreme weather conditions, and annual quotas for exemptions in unusual circumstances.

(And maybe even buy the bloody site back from MacAirports)

"Of course, no one wants to fly at 3am from Sydney to Melbourne.

Very small minded thinking Minister Albanese.

There is a whole world outside of Australia that people do want to travel too.

Q. Have EK actually been fined or did it just get overlooked??? Would have thought it would be front and page 2-3 spread if it was QF

Have EK actually been fined or did it just get overlooked???

I think Emirates will take it to court. Probably not what a government wants as it means that a judge can now 'interfere' with their laws.

I hope it goes to court Emirates wins and some sanity is put into the curfew laws.

Not sure legally how that can occur but who knows.

Have Ek been fined?

What for - the last 'incident' at least, it is fairly clear they operated within the provisions of the NAP.