Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

ATC Taxi Delays SYD - Politics?

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

ATC Taxi Delays SYD - Politics?

Old 5th Aug 2011, 05:30
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 477
ATC Taxi Delays SYD - Politics?

What is with the ATC taxi delays at the moment? Some days, it is taking 40 minutes to takeoff from push back

So much for saving the environment, have been using up to 2.5x the normal taxi fuel
angryrat is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 06:28
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,282
Whatever the official response is, remember it's bullshit & spin emanating from bullshit castle in Canberra.

Now, let me guess.............would it be staffing?
Jack Ranga is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 06:34
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 477
The worst bit about it is, there are times when they are deliberately delaying the departures, perfectly good runway, no arrivals and a massive departures que... now don't take this as a go at ATC, I know you are doing what you are told. All I know is that the excuse of number of movements/hr is being trotted out
angryrat is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 06:58
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: under a rock
Posts: 144
You have the minister of transport to blame for the extensive delay.
bubble.head is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 07:24
  #5 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,784
Actually, if you are referring to the 80 movements per hour, you need to look further back than the Min. for Transport. Think a PM whose electorate was in North Sydney.

The Sydney Olympics showed what ATC were capable of doing at Mascot but political pressure has ensured that it won't happen outside of something very special happening.
PLovett is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 07:26
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 477
Hi bubblehead, is there any info out there that points to their decision being the reason. At least if I can find that information, an email can be sent in the right direction.
angryrat is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 07:30
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 477
Hi PLovett,

Why has it become an issue now though? Haven't seen delays being put into departures, where the runway is available, but aircraft are held at the holding point until it is time for another movement.

Just maximum stupidity
angryrat is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 07:34
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,784
Dunno' angry........perhaps the noise complaints have been going up lately......perhaps someone wants the 80 movements spread out over the whole hour........perhaps someone being bloody minded...........
PLovett is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 07:55
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: under a rock
Posts: 144

Sorry no references. I have only heard it on tower as explained by the controller. The ATC is working too efficiently, and has busted the 80 movements an hour limit a few times. As a result, a letter was sent from MoT to instruct the ATC to impose a 4 minute delayed on each departure if there is a chance of busting that limit again.

But don't quote me though, it has been an extremely long day and this was said a few sunrises ago.
bubble.head is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 08:13
  #10 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 7
Unbelievable! Create the traffic problem at Sydney, then telling the public that the airport is operating at its maximum capacity thus we need a second airport in SYD.

The Aussie taxpayer will pay for the carbon, a new airport or maybe a high speed rail network???

Legislation needs to be updated considering the fact that jets are a whole lot quieter than they were when it was first written and that the government (taxpayers) insulated a load of houses years ago.
Cancel Speed is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 09:01
  #11 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 404
nb. please don't try to apply any logic to this thread. Think politcial football...
missy is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 10:11
  #12 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,501
Ah Australia. Don't you just love it.
Maximum inconvenience for the maximum number of people... For as long as possible!
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 10:44
  #13 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GodsOwn
Posts: 7
Sydney Airport Politically Caused Delays

Another thread was started about delays at Sydney with up to 40 minute departure delays. It is not just departures that are being delayed but arrivals also during the morning peak period.

A political direction has come down from Canberra, to Sydney controllers to reduce the arrival and departurte rate to avoid the 80 cap being busted during peak periods. They call it the Cap Threat period.

Every weekday morning the max arrival rate used to be 48/hour during good weather conditions (IVA's) on rwy 34. This has now been reduced to 42/hour. The departure rate has also been altered to 4 mins between departures on 34R and 3 mins on 34L, a rate of only 35/hour. This keeps the cap at 76/hour. So 4 movements per hour are being wasted at a minimum.

So at about 0930 each morning the cap thread period finishes and the tower controllers are not restricted to the 3 and 4 min departure gap. That is why there is a rush of departures then.

Rwy 16 has similar restrictions during the morning peak with the 3 and 4 mins between departures still required till about 0930am.

The idiocy is that even if there is absolutely no chance of the cap being broken during the quieter periods of the day , ATC has been ordered to permanently reduce the arrival rate below what used to be achieved .

ATC are very frustrated and most are disgusted with management and morale is sinking even lower than it has ever been in Sydney.

They can't work out why the airlines are not screaming bloody murder about all the wasted fuel , time and money caused by these excessive and unneccesary delays due to political interference.

ATC can't be bothered to fight the battles anymore that the airlines should be doing.

Why are airline management so timid?

So come on guys , maybe when you make your PA's , mention what the real reason is you are being delayed into and out of Sydney. It's about time the public became aware of why their flight is being delayed. Then maybe the politicians will squirm a little. Not that they will tell the truth.

BTW the 80 cap was only broken on about 3 days in the last year and only by a few movements.

I know I am asking a lot but don't let this degenerate this into a pilot V atc slanging match. The common enemy lies in the national capital.
Borram is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 11:48
  #14 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 141
We are NEVER going to have SYD operating efficiently while the minister responsible for aviation is also the Member for Grayndler Heck, he had something like a 9% swing against him at the last election - you want him to lose his job outright the next time around?
Ushuaia is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 12:16
  #15 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Asleep on a bench
Posts: 40
I was one of those in the queue today. We counted 16 aircraft lined up awaiting departure at one stage. I did a rough sum of how much fuel that equated to and I reckon it was in the vicinity of 4.5 tonnes of additional fuel burned for all the aircraft there.

Noise versus carbon dioxide. For all the hoopla about the seriousness of global warming coming from our politicians there seems to be some seriously misplaced priorities here...
Gen. Anaesthetic is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 12:23
  #16 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: earth
Posts: 44
Perhaps someone (don't bother rupert, really) needs to inform the public of the irony that, despite the cap on per hour movements, the same number of aircraft arrive and depart (i.e. same noise footprint ) eventually, it's just that they spend more time (e.g. flying around in circles or sitting twiddling thumbs at the takeoff runway) and, therefore, fuel doing it.

The other concern is the increasing use of stupid-PROPS , er i mean SODPROPS . For a moment let's disregard the safety concerns of an aircraft taking off towards a landing one and concentrate on the fact that it's not uncommon to arrive in the middle of the day on a Sunday (i.e. well outside a 'peak' time) and hold for close to the '20 minutes ATC holding requirement', for no other reason than because SODPROPS are in operation to spare the nearby airport residents from aircraft noise.

Whilst no-one likes a noisy aircraft flying over their house, it's a fact that the airport's been there longer than most of us have been alive, so as residents people should have little to complain about. If you don't like the noise, don't move there. I am sure real estate prices of noise affected suburbs reflect the noise problem, so get over it. Jet aircraft are also a lot quieter than they used to be. Does anyone remember what a B727 sounds like?

If I were Alan or John I would be, fuel bills in hand, bashing down the door in Canberra, particularly now they are going to be taxed on energy usage. Although (*now channelling my "inner" Sir Humphrey Appleby*) given that a certain noise sensitive electorate in a large metropolitan area near a large Australian airport is marginally held by a serving minister in a portfolio connected to transport, it seems unlikely much will change. Perhaps enquiries/complaints would be better directed to Senator Brown.
Gin Jockey is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 13:06
  #17 (permalink)  

Nunc est bibendum
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,201
...concentrate on the fact that it's not uncommon to arrive in the middle of the day on a Sunday (i.e. well outside a 'peak' time) and hold for close to the '20 minutes ATC holding requirement', for no other reason than because SODPROPS are in operation to spare the nearby airport residents from aircraft noise.
I submitted a query to my fleet manager about this point asking whether QF were doing anything about it as it was stupid if global warming/ fuel prices were the drama that everyone made them out to be. The response was very under whelming.

So now I no longer give a stuff. I do however tend to make a remark about it being due to the concept of noise sharing and that this is what the Government of the day wants.
Keg is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 13:12
  #18 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,444
Meanwhile these idiots are entertaining the idea of spending tens of billions on a railway carving up the evironment whilst trying to strangle aviation through taxes and self imposed inefficiency. I am getting the impression there is move to delibrately destroy the aviation industry. How can they possibly build a railway but not sort out aviation in this country?
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 14:12
  #19 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 135
Ok, so that I'm on the right track:
The gov is introducing this CT so that all the taxes collected from the top 500 polluters are going to pay for carbon reducing programs for the future. I am assuming that major airlines will be a rather large contributer to this money grab, so what should they be demanding in return for paying this ransom:

- At least 2 more runways in SY, with no restraints on usage, so as to alleviate the need to create an excess of carbon due holding etc
- At least 1 more runway in BNE, ML, PH so that there is no holding, therefore reducing the carbon produced by prolonged holding periods
- ASA actually get a system that works, again to alleviate ridiculous RTA and holding periods, thereby reducing carbon
-ensure that my employer provides me with crew meals that alleviate the need for me to drop ass regulary, therefore reducing carbon(ok methane..)
- I am sure there are plenty more, go for it...

Is gov going to provide a credit system so that, when they fail to provide the promised carbon reducing programs, the "500" can claim the cash grab back??
yowieII is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2011, 15:25
  #20 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,784
The truly wealthy will travel by ship - because they are time rich!
Nah........the G650 is on order, meanwhile they will just have to slum it in the 500.

Political interference with flight numbers and paths at Sydney has a long and inglorious history that pre-dates the present Canberra incumbents by many years. While there are no votes in airspace/airport reform you will get sod all done about it.
PLovett is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.