Emirates busts Sydney curfew 3 times
Thread Starter
Emirates busts Sydney curfew 3 times
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
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
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 
up.
up.
a couple of hundred people being stranded
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)
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?
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 74
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Nunc est bibendum
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'.
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'.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
"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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Perff
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
oh wait no we can't ban an aussie company, only the rich foreign ones deserve punishing...
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But then, perhaps Jetconnect/QF should be banned for breaking curfews elsewhere...
Qantas-owned jet breaches Wellington curfew - National - NZ Herald News
Qantas-owned jet breaches Wellington curfew - National - NZ Herald News
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Otautahi (awright, NZCH)
Age: 74
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
