#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
He probably doesn't even know the differences between a 767 and a A380.
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But I still don't support 34L/R departures outside current operating hours.... Kent |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah Kent, it was funny reading the letter. If you are going to make a point, backing up with facts that are correct helps
The letter writers keep bringing up the second airport (even Goulburn mentioned ) as a way to divert noise. YSSY is not busy at all by world standards in terms of movements. Imagine if Sydney actually operated to the capacity it was built for. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Kent |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Easy in theory, get the governments to subsidise fuel used in aircraft with a certain number of seats filled per departure.
Would stimulate the airlines to use larger aircraft. Now, there's only the small matter of how to make it happen in real life... |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sydney Curfew is an Act of Parliament. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I wasn't saying it was a practical suggestion, just a logical suggestion....
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with the fact that late arrivals should be able to land after curfew. After all, delays are not planned by the airlines and are not normally inside of their control to solve either.
Would there be an issue with late arrivals being made to use 34L for arrivals AND 16L for departures. Both are over the water. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Errrr, unless all those engines stop working at the same time Nick, then no.
|
|
|