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"
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! 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 white-washing the entire event is a classic example of what the very shrewd marketing gurus need.
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 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...
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
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)
!) and more taking off at 0100 with burners lit up then doing a low level pass over Sydney harbor
! A planespotters wet dream:o!
