Jetstar flies into storm over curfew

[anat0l]

From The Age:

JETSTAR faces a fine of up to $550,000 after becoming the first Australian airline prosecuted for breaching the Sydney Airport curfew.

The Department of Infrastructure has accused the airline of taking off almost half an hour after the curfew, even though it had applied for dispensation and been refused, and despite two warnings from air traffic controllers that it was risking a fine if it went ahead with the flight.

 

[Flashback]

The optimist in me hopes that this will in turn wind up being bigger than Ben Hurr and as a result something may be done about extending the curfew..... or some sort of changes made.

 

[docjames]

Well, the curfew is a joke. Maybe this will lend some weight to addressing the issue.


I cant see why a compromise of

- no SCHEDULED flights outside hours

- flights allowed outside curfew if major delays

It really should be that simple. You could add a caveat of certain dB readings (ie limit which aircraft may operate so 727s etc arent operating).

Sydney airport is a joke, the curfew is only one reason. Add the insane price gouging by MacBank, interminable delays and the fact is it's a rubbish airport.

 

[Mal]

I suppose Jetstar not cancelling the flight (and the residual effects on their network from a plane being out of position) probably saved them nearly as much as the fine that's being proposed ...

 

[Flashback]

I suppose Jetstar not cancelling the flight (and the residual effects on their network from a plane being out of position) probably saved them nearly as much as the fine that's being proposed ...

That was my thoughts, also. Will be interesting to see the outcome of this.

 

[bambbbam2]

don't forget adelaide also has a curfew.. I wonder what the fine is there?

 

[SeaWolf]

I was surprised to hear that the controller couldn't simply tell the plane, "No, you're staying put, I can't allow you to break the law."
Also, I'm staggered it's taken almost a year and half for this to come before the courts.
But I doubt this will spark some sort of debate over the curfew, I think it's well and truly entrenched now, no matter how silly it is with modern, quieter jets.

 

[munitalP]

It also annoys me as the advocates and most loudly spoken for the curfew all seem to be in a generation who would have purchased homes in Brighton or the immediate surrounding areas well after the airport was built. :shock:

Sydney could take the FRA model and have planes clear the residental areas at lower thrust then power up to altitude.

Mr!

 

[UP4014]

It also annoys me as the advocates and most loudly spoken for the curfew all seem to be in a generation who would have purchased homes in Brighton or the immediate surrounding areas well after the airport was built. :shock:

Sydney could take the FRA model and have planes clear the residental areas at lower thrust then power up to altitude.

Mr!

I don't think it so much Brighton people as the inner west, Petersham etc. I've stood at Wolli Creek plenty of times and although the planes are all around they aren't overhead and you can't hear them.

The noise abatement rules work most of the time being for take offs when the planes reaches a certain altitude they turn left or right to spread it around (previously when they got a certain distance from the aerodrome marker) but the landings that come in over the inner west I think are the issue. With both runways there is a constant stream of planes during peak hour/s.

Can't see why landings and take offs can't happen out of hours over Botany Bay if needed, just make it a hefty fee to keep the numbers down.

 

[Batesy]

Most of you folks know me and that I am a regular contributor to AFF so I am not a whinger jumping on this forum to complain about the flightpaths.

I live in Annandale in Sydney's inner west. Directly below the flightpath for the smaller north-south runway (34R). As the crow flies we are only 3 kilometres from the airport.

We do get all varieties of B737 A320's, cargo aircraft, some B767's as well. Some of these aircraft are still particularly noisy as well as the smaller prop planes from REX and Qantaslink. If they were landing at all hours this would definitely disturb my rest.

At 6am most days I am woken by the landing aircraft. Note that not all aircraft landing into the airport are modern, quiet aircraft. We don't get any wide body 4 engine aircraft (B747, A340/350/380).

 

[Flashback]

Batesy, can we throw in a bottle of Xanax/Valium as a deal sweetener then? :mrgreen:

 

[Batesy]

No thanks. Drug free for me. On the flip side its hard to oversleep as I know I have slept in if a plane wakes me.

 

[docjames]

Most of you folks know me and that I am a regular contributor to AFF so I am not a whinger jumping on this forum to complain about the flightpaths.

I live in Annandale in Sydney's inner west. Directly below the flightpath for the smaller north-south runway (34R). As the crow flies we are only 3 kilometres from the airport.

We do get all varieties of B737 A320's, cargo aircraft, some B767's as well. Some of these aircraft are still particularly noisy as well as the smaller prop planes from REX and Qantaslink. If they were landing at all hours this would definitely disturb my rest.

At 6am most days I am woken by the landing aircraft. Note that not all aircraft landing into the airport are modern, quiet aircraft. We don't get any wide body 4 engine aircraft (B747, A340/350/380).

This would be why restricting to certain (quiet) types would be appropriate.

Out of interest, which is worse, aircraft landing or those on takeoffs? As that would be another solution (allow only one or the other / water only apporach / takeoff).

I'd have thought landing is lower but less power so ? noisier b/c of low height?

 

[farstar]

I was born in Annandale and I must say it never bothered me even when I was little in the early 70s and remember one day when the Concorde came over head and everyone was outside waiting for it to come over. I am amazed how many people move in knowing there is a flight path over head and then suddenly complain that it is there. That being said even if there is a curfew there should be more flexibility if there are extraordinary things like the storms we had last year when a lot of flights were delayed and hundreds or may be even thousands of people had to sleep in the airport over night. It would have been a minor inconvenience for the residents but the passengers would not have been put through hell.

 

[Dave Noble]

I don't see that JQ has any excuse whatsoever and deliberately breaching the rules like this should be penalised at the maximum

There is quite reasonable a curfew and JQ are fully aware of this; I am surprised that the control tower are not allowed to refuse the departure where the flight has no dispensation to depart

Dave

 

[Saab34]

Popping people up in the Local Hotel might cost alot cheaper than the 500k fine!

Just wait until Tiger Starts up and their last departure 1hour before curfew!

 

[anat0l]

Popping people up in the Local Hotel might cost alot cheaper than the 500k fine!

As mentioned, JQ have been caught up on curfew before, and the results weren't pretty. Perhaps they didn't want to appear like they had "done it again", so to speak.

 

[Mal]

There were 247 passengers on-board and 9 crew.

Jetstar's request (and denial) for the curfew exemption is tabled on P29 of this report: https://secure.infrastructure.gov.au/webforms/infopages/tabled_report_1.pdf

Basically plane had mechanical issues the day before, and ATC delays and arrived into DPS late. It then turned around and landed into SYD late (at 10:45PM). They were refused the exemption due to it not meeting the requirements for exemption.

 

[harvyk]

Just been reading over that PDF posted by Mal. P36 is a corker. Somehow United needed to predict before takeoff the exact nature of the weather over the pacific (a possible 14 hours later).

Yeah, more proof that Syd is the biggest joke ever when it comes to international airports. Thank god "Curfew 4 Canberra" has so far been laughed at, otherwise it'd make CBR an even bigger backwater.

 

[anat0l]

On paper and by all legal intents and purposes, it seems that the decision not to grant dispensation was fully justified, so JQ have broken the law and deserve to be fined.

To avoid all of this trouble, JQ would have had to delay the flight until the next day and either (a) fly everyone on the said flight in accordance with best schedule, or (b) seek alternative carriers to get to DPS. Of course this cooks the rest of JQ's schedule using VH-EBB. They would have also needed to (a) leave "everyone out in the cold" (a la the last such incident where people actually slept outside the closed SYD terminals) or (b) locate suitable accommodation (plus ancillary expenses) for all pax.

In any case, JQ were royally screwed socially and economically had they not proceeded with the flight. Whether or not the decision to go against the disallowing of dispensation was wise in economic terms is highly debatable.

The three criteria used to judge whether dispensation is granted are a bit flaky. For example, it is highly arguable as to what could/can or otherwise constitute "reasonable knowledge" that would require landing or departing in the curfew period. Moreover, this "knowledge" cannot be argued when it is needed, as there is not enough time. This probably doesn't apply to the JQ case (as they should know that the rolling effects of a delay would affect their getting out of SYD on time), but many of the other ones based on weather are a bit more ropy.

Still, all of this curfew **** is just that, ****.