People here need to get a grip. This issue isn't the same as running a red light. Or any other laws like an epa law. Whilst you may choose to draw a long bow and say the issue is about sound pollution. The takeoff from the information that i have read stated it was over the water so the noise impact to those residents that get affected by the airport was probably very limited.
I ask myself why does atc help out so much with crews to give taxi clearances before 2300 when they haven't been pushed back? I am sorry I don't think atc are that blind or stupid to not know what goes on. It is a wink wink sort of thing cause like most times ATC are their to help and exercise a usage of common sense rather that strict adherance to the a set or rules and procedures. Ask david iredale how a rigid set of procedures helped him!!
Maybe if we think outside the square a bit. Most people in this industry and know more than me would be accutely aware that the margins involved to remain profitable can be miniscule compared to the capital involved. So for an issue(passenger lost baggage, technical, pilot checking updated notams etc etc) that may have delayed the scheduled departure it was not a case of breaking a safety induced type of law. Most of if not all other laws have a safety, personal well being issue tied up in the reason for the law. Ok the well being of the public that are affected by noise is mitigated by the taking off over water, or an intersection departure low thrust noise abatement takeoff or whatever was most likely done. But then you have to look at the well being of the people that have paid for a service and have an expectation that it will be delivered. The company paid if they only had 200 people on board a premium to provide for that at aprox 800 per passenger. I imagine the costs involved with putting people up and delays further down the line would add up to probably more than that. So the manager involved made a decisive decision and would have prepared to take the hit for the issue. Whilst I understand that ultimately the pilots have an ultimate responsibilty for the safety and well being of the passengers when they are under their command. As long as the captain and first officer involved are backed up by the company for following the allowance to break the curfew. We should get of our high horses. Understand the reason for the scales that are apart of the courts crest.
Okay i think it is good to do some navel gazing to understand how and why it happened to allow for prevention for the future. But the artificial constraints on an industry that is expensive to have airplanes just parked sitting their doing nothing as long as their was no safety issues like taking off with a maintence breach issue, we should stop bagging the decision out. To think in any otherwise is idealised too much and is too black and white. Where the world really is shades of grey.
Each circumstance is different and too summise that this is a start of something more sinister or grandeous than the company accepting a curfew was broken and is going to pay the fine. The arguements about whether the curfew should be their in the first place or that it is broken is a seperate issue.
I personally don't think there should be a curfew I have lived at tempe/st peters 15 or 20 seconds directly under the threshold for 16R and occasionaly a 747 would make a phone call inaudible but i moved their i knew what i would have to put up with and I not being so self absorbed in my own self importance can accept that other people that are flying around are just entitled to go about their business as I am to have my house free of noise. They are planes, they arn't the lakemba street racers with their domp domp music being fully sic, who are actually going about being disrepectful to people.