Airlines renew push on curfew overhaul

[Greg McDonald]

Airlines are renewing their push for an overhaul of the Sydney airport curfew as the federal government prepares to release its aviation green paper.

The paper is expected in the coming weeks following release of an issues paper in April this year by Transport Minister Anthony Albanese.

While there is plenty the major airlines disagree on, one area of agreement is on the need for a serious review of the curfew on the nation's busiest airport.

"The jet curfew was first introduced at Sydney in 1963. So while science and technology has moved, the regulations haven't," Singapore Airlines spokeswoman Diana Stainlay said.

One of the main arguments promoted by the airlines is the drop in noise that is part of the latest generation of passenger planes.

"The noise footprint of one of our A380s on takeoff and landing is about half that of the Boeing 747-400 series and generally each new generation of aircraft is about 50 per cent quieter than the previous one," Ms Stainlay said.

Qantas, in its submission to the green paper, described curfews as "artificial capacity constraints".

The flying kangaroo recommended the government "review alternative mechanisms to curfews for those airports in Australia that currently have curfew restrictions".

It also said the government should "not introduce any new or additional curfews or artificial airport constraints".

For Mr Albanese, any change to the curfew risks a very direct electoral backlash.

His inner-Sydney seat of Grayndler sits under flight paths.

Curfews operate at four airports: Sydney, Essendon, Adelaide and Coolangatta.

Sydney's curfew operates from 11pm to 6am.

Virgin Blue, in its submission, called for greater detail about airport noise to be given to those considering buying a house under a flight path.

"We believe the government needs to also send a clear message to potential purchasers of land and houses in the vicinity of airports, that the government will not intervene or impose restrictions on airports or airport users because of noise generated through the normal operation and growth activities of the airport."

[NickN]

The curfew really does need to be abolished, or at least moved until 12pm - 5am. As mentioned in the previous post in which the curfew discussion was raised, those who purchased homes in and around the airport did so in the full knowledge of what buying there meant in terms of aircraft noise. They would have also had a reasonable expectation that over time aircraft movements would increase as Australia and Sydney became more accesible to the global community.

[Philip Argy]

Having lived under the flight path since 1958 I've never complained about a/c noise, and it's a plane spotter's haven, but I would object strongly to abolition of the curfew. I'm entitled to my 7 hours of respite each night.

An increase on the current shoulder relaxation for new technology a/c might be OK, but that's all. A few hundred thousand sleep-deprived voters would not be a pretty sight, even for Carmel Tebutt's husband!

SQ should stop talking rubbish, too:


"The noise footprint of one of our A380s on takeoff and landing is about half that of the Boeing 747-400 series and generally each new generation of aircraft is about 50 per cent quieter than the previous one," Ms Stainlay said.


Based on what I heard on Sunday morning with QF6008 and what I hear with SQ's own RWY 16R approaches, the new Airbus is perhaps 25% quieter, but not half as quiet as a 744 - at least not when passing over my place at around 1700ft.

[Andrew McLaughlin]

The curfew really does need to be abolished, or at least moved until 12pm - 5am.

Nick - from what level of expertise or experience are you making this statement?:mad:

[Andrew McLaughlin]

SQ should stop talking rubbish, too:

""The noise footprint of one of our A380s on takeoff and landing is about half that of the Boeing 747-400 series and generally each new generation of aircraft is about 50 per cent quieter than the previous one," Ms Stainlay said."

Based on what I heard on Sunday morning with QF6008 and what I hear with SQ's own RWY 16R approaches, the new Airbus is perhaps 25% quieter, but not half as quiet as a 744 - at least not when passing over my place at around 1700ft.

Read carefully Philip, it doesn't say it's half as quiet, it says the noise footprint is half the size, a fact that has been proven in tests by Airservices and its UK equivalent since A380 ops into YSSY and LHR started.

As you move away from the airport or flight path horizontally to a standard distance radius, roughly half the number of people are 'affected' by ~70db noise levels (considered mildly intrusive) with the A380 compared to a 744. This is a standard international airport noise measurement.

If you're right under it, you probably won't notice a huge amount of difference, although at Castle Hill where I am, I'm amazed at how quiet the 380 is when RWY34L ops are in effect and they come right overhead on Richmond departures.

[NickN]

Andrew, the comment was made from the viewpoint that in order for Sydney to compete with other national airports where there is no curfew then something has to give.

When our flight was cancelled from the Gold Coast to Sydney, all it would have needed was a 30 minute exception to the curfew and we would have been able to fly home. Yet because of the curfew it cost Jetstar a fortune to accommodate all the travelers for the night, then ship them to Brisbane and then fly them back on Qantas.

It would seem better off for all concerned, including the airline financially if the curfew was amended or at least some exceptions made to delayed aircraft. I am not just making this comment because this happened to me, but because it probably happens regularly and could be avoided.

[Philip Argy]

I have no problem with exceptions to accommodate abnormal situations an hour either side of the curfew (before midnight or after 5 am); what I object to is the erroneous argument that people who live under the flight path should have expected total abandonment of the curfew.

There's no logical basis whatever for that argument since people's reasonable expectations were that curfew hours were sacrosanct and "enshrined in legislation" as the politicians have re-inforced for 45 years.

If we started talking about relaxing flying hours constraints, since crews running out of hours causes more problems than the curfew, I'm sure all hell would break loose. It simply shows that one's personal perspective needs to be broadened to accommodate and understand all views.

[Andrew McLaughlin]

Andrew, the comment was made from the viewpoint that in order for Sydney to compete with other national airports where there is no curfew then something has to give.

Many "other national airports" don't have homes built almost right up to the boundary on two sides, and about a million people within a 10k radius of them Nick, so on that point Sydney will NEVER compete.

When our flight was cancelled from the Gold Coast to Sydney, all it would have needed was a 30 minute exception to the curfew and we would have been able to fly home. Yet because of the curfew it cost Jetstar a fortune to accommodate all the travelers for the night, then ship them to Brisbane and then fly them back on Qantas.

It would seem better off for all concerned, including the airline financially if the curfew was amended or at least some exceptions made to delayed aircraft. I am not just making this comment because this happened to me, but because it probably happens regularly and could be avoided.

On this point, I agree with you, but if this is what you meant in your post above, then why instead post the sweeping "abolished" statement instead?:rolleyes:

There does seem to be a need to be more flexible with Sydney's curfew, especially for those airliners that conform to QC1/2 standards (A380, 77W/L, 787, 748 etc), and for when RWY34 approach and RWY16 departure ops are simultaneously available.

Some have suggested a curfew trading scheme of some kind where airlines are able to break the curfew for occasions such as weather related delays etc X times per month, in exchange for perhaps not operating an early or late flight the next day. I'm not sure how workable that is but it seems to be more economical than what happens now.

[NickN]

Andrew, the curfew trading scheme sounds good on the outside but on the inside the late arriving flight today would mean passengers will suffer tomorrow when the flight the airline had to trade is rescheduled.

I am sure there is a suitable system that can be established in the future. Even landing passengers at Newcastle and busing them to Sydney would at least get them home alot quicker and at far less expense than having to pay for passengers accommodation and booking them on other airlines. Passengers would at least arrive at Sydney within 3-4 hours of their original arrival time.

[Nigel C]

Andrew, the curfew trading scheme sounds good on the outside but on the inside the late arriving flight today would mean passengers will suffer tomorrow when the flight the airline had to trade is rescheduled.

Then that's the motivation for the airlines to keep their schedule within the limits that are currently set.
Someone (pax or the airline) would eventually have to cop the inconvenience as punishment, so I really don't think it makes a difference if it's the flight for today or tomorrow.

[Adam P.]

the curfew trading scheme sounds good on the outside but on the inside the late arriving flight today would mean passengers will suffer tomorrow when the flight the airline had to trade is rescheduled.


A big difference between affecting flights TODAY or affecting flights TOMORROW is simply time. Time for the airline to contact affected passengers before they've left home for the airport. Time to reschedule or combine flights so creating the gap in the system that would be required under a trading scheme.

Having time up your sleeve can make a BIG difference to an airline's ability to sort out some wriggle room to handle disruptions.

[Nigel C]

Because when the steak hits the floor...

...well, you know what I mean!

[Andrew M]

The airport has been there longer than anyone else, so ditch the curfew and free the airport up.

If you don't like the noise, move!

[Kent Broadhead]

The airport has been there longer than anyone else, so ditch the curfew and free the airport up.

If you don't like the noise, move!

But what about those of us John Howard screwed. My wife and I specifically bought where we are having suffered between the flight paths in Stanmore after the commencement of parallel runway operations. It had never regularly been under flight paths, especially for jet operations.

Then, lo and behold "noise sharing" came into play.

I agree with a pp's statement - the curfew has been in place for many decades and is enshrined in legislation. There is a reasonable expectation on the part of the community that it will remain.

That said, some greater flexibility around the edges does seem reasonable.

Kent