Jetstar flies into storm over curfew

[docjames]

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. \.

Exactly...

 

[Dave Noble]

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.

Sydney is not the only major international airport to have curfew restrictions. Even LHR has curfew restrictions

Sydney airport has the benefit compared to some airports of being very close to the city; having an airport so close is a benefit but also has the drawbacks of being residential

JQ deliberately and intentionally decided to break the law and should be suitably penalised to ensure that they don't think of doing it again

Dave

 

[harvyk]

JQ deliberately and intentionally decided to break the law and should be suitably penalised to ensure that they don't think of doing it again

Dave

I agree,

What I don't agree with is the absolute nature of the SYD curfew.
LHR as the example you gave, I did a quick websearch inc on some ATC forums, yes there is a curfew, however from what I can gather each airline is issued a certain number of exceptions per year, for just in case senarios.

The thing I found strange is some of the cases where SYD decided to disallow an exception to the curfew, even though it was due to reasons outside the airlines control. (In some cases reasons which could not be predicted without access to a crystal ball)

 

[beardoc]

My understanding is that JQ (and all other airlines) are given a certain amount of dispensations each year and that is supposed to cover them - but JQ traditionally burns through ALL of theirs within the first month or so of each year and so runs with no more dispensations.

 

[pauly7]

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!

By my calculations that means it will be departing about 6:30AM the next morning

 

[oz_mark]

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 1 hour before curfew!

The problem is not just the immediate passengers but what happens the next day when an aircraft is not somewhere it should be. So in Jetstars case, what happens to the passengers on the return flight?

In the immediate case, Jetstar seems to have taken the position of breaking the curfew. One would imagine that, if proved, they will cop some sort of fine for it.

In Tigers case, if they are running late and can't turn the plane around in Sydney, perhaps they will need to look at whether to run the Melbourne - Sydney flight. If they can't turn it around in Sydney, then depending on what the plane needs to do next, it may not be in the right place the next morning.


One advantage of the downturn maybe that with lower aircraft utilisations it may be easier for airlines to swing spare aircraft around so they are not in such a fix if they get caught out by a curfew.

 

[Dave Noble]

The problem is not just the immediate passengers but what happens the next day when an aircraft is not somewhere it should be. So in Jetstars case, what happens to the passengers on the return flight?

they get delayed

The JQ flight was already delayed... it looks like it is scheduled to normally depart at 17:35 , so at 23:30 was already 6 hours late. The airline would have known that with a 22:30 arrival of the inbound flight that there was no chance of departing on time and could plan to either substitute another aircraft or delay until 06:00

Dave

 

[oz_mark]

they get delayed

The JQ flight was already delayed... it looks like it is scheduled to normally depart at 17:35 , so at 23:30 was already 6 hours late. The airline would have known that with a 22:30 arrival of the inbound flight that there was no chance of departing on time and could plan to either substitute another aircraft or delay until 06:00

Dave

That's the decision that should have been taken, but was not.

If an airline operates into Sydney, the they do so knowing the regulatory environment of that airport. The Qantas group code of conduct even says that everyone should "act in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the law".

For breaking the curfew, the should quite appropriately punished. I also thaink that there should also be some regulatory compliance training required in Jetstar as well.

I suspect that they did what they did to save on costs, to minimise the downstream effects on passengersm and perhaps because the media are more likely to hang Qantas on delays than on breaking a curfew. None of which justifies breaking the law.

 

[NM]

Note that it is not ATC's job to enforce the curfew. They will inform the pilots that the take-off or landing request is in breach of curfew requirements. But the role of ATC is to provide safe control of the air space, not to play the role of curfew police. ATC will only deny take-off or landing permission for reasons of safety, not of politics.

 

[Evan]

Note that it is not ATC's job to enforce the curfew. They will inform the pilots that the take-off or landing request is in breach of curfew requirements. But the role of ATC is to provide safe control of the air space, not to play the role of curfew police. ATC will only deny take-off or landing permission for reasons of safety, not of politics.

Which i think is good for them to simply stay out of it and advise the situation. Can't fault them in this situation can you.

 

[NM]

Which i think is good for them to simply stay out of it and advise the situation. Can't fault them in this situation can you.

Indeed! No fault on the part of ATC.

 

[simongr]

Given the lack of potential criminal proceedings that would result from a breach of the curfew I think JQ have every right to determine what makes best business sense for them. They should certainly pay the fine but I would expect them to do the same thing again if the circumstances were the same.

I remember in the UK in the early nineties supermarkets decided to breach the sunday trading laws - they just started to open when they wanted but didnt breach the liquor licensing laws (which were equally archaic) due to the criminal penalties and withdrawal of the liquor license.

Just because the government has decided something that is for comfort (their comfort retaining their cosy jobs that is) rather than for safety doesnt mean that it is right and it should be opposed if people want it opposed.

 

[oz_mark]

Given the lack of potential criminal proceedings that would result from a breach of the curfew I think JQ have every right to determine what makes best business sense for them. They should certainly pay the fine but I would expect them to do the same thing again if the circumstances were the same.

I understand that it was a commercial decision, but it seems to fly in the face of their published code of conduct

http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/corporateGovernance/CodeofConduct.pdf

Consider this:

Qantas, its subsidiaries and associated entities (Qantas Group),
Directors, employees, consultants and all other people when they
directly or indirectly represent the Qantas Group must comply, at all
times, with all laws governing its Australian and international
operations. They must also conduct the Qantas Group’s operations​

in keeping with the highest legal, moral and ethical standards.

and​

Qantas Employees must, at all times, act:
i. ethically, honestly, responsibly and diligently;
ii. in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the law and this
Code; and​

iii. in the best interest of the Qantas Group.

Any breach of applicable laws, prevailing business ethics or other
aspects of this Code will result in disciplinary action. Such
disciplinary action may include (depending on the severity of the
breach) reprimand, formal warning, demotion or termination of
employment.
2.5 Similar disciplinary action will be taken against any supervisor or
manager who directly approves (and/or condones) such breach or
has knowledge of the breach and does not immediately take
appropriate remedial action.
2.6 Breach of applicable laws or regulations may also result in​

prosecution by appropriate authorities. Qantas will

​

​

not pay, directly or indirectly, any penalties imposed on a Qantas Employee as a​

result of a breach of law or regulation. Qantas will also ​

not pay the legal costs of

I would suggest that by this action, Jetstar have gone against the Qantas group code of conduct, and in accordance with that code, I trust they deal with the people that signed it off.​

How do you justify Jetstar's actions against the Qantas groups Code of Conduct?​

 

[simongr]

I dont have to justify it - JQ and QF do. I just think that it would be acceptable for QF to make the decision that the curfew can be breached as they feel fit.

 

[SeaWolf]

I dont have to justify it - JQ and QF do. I just think that it would be acceptable for QF to make the decision that the curfew can be breached as they feel fit.

I'd be curious to know how far you'd be comfortable with QF breaking the law before you felt that they should be forced to comply like every other corporation under Australian law. What if it were some law other than the curfew? Say, part of the tax code? Or their previous breach related to price fixing with cargo?

 

[oz_mark]

I dont have to justify it - JQ and QF do. I just think that it would be acceptable for QF to make the decision that the curfew can be breached as they feel fit.

JQ as part of the Qantas group falls under the Conde of Conduct, and under that code Qantas state they will comply with the spirit and letter of the laws of the country.

If you condone this breach, what other breaches would you say are fine? Or are you suggesting anything goes if it makes economic sense?

 

[simongr]

I'd be curious to know how far you'd be comfortable with QF breaking the law before you felt that they should be forced to comply like every other corporation under Australian law. What if it were some law other than the curfew? Say, part of the tax code? Or their previous breach related to price fixing with cargo?

QF can breach any law it likes as long as it is willing and able to pay the consequences and those consequences make commercial sense. In terms of the Tax code a breach of that is too broad a description as companies routinely "breach" the tax code due to their interpretation of the code.

I think the curfew is a particularly good example of a law that is wrong and is motiivated by politicians protecting their own interests and it should be resisted wherever possible.

 

[harvyk]

SeaWolf It's not quite that black and white. In the black and white world, should they have broken the Curfew - absolutely not, the same as they have to follow tax law etc...

In the real world, should they have broken the Curfew - again probably not, but they felt at the time there where mitigating circumstances which justified their decision. I expect they would have a much harder time justifying ignoring the tax laws.

You'll find that most companies will stretch the spirit of their own policies if they feel the potential damage caused by following them.

Whilst I doubt the 200+ people who where on the flight would be overly happy with JQ, I expect they are far more happy that JQ decided to still fly the flight that night.

Furthermore you just know that there is a nonews ltd sensationalist just waiting for anything to do with QF to screw up so they can make it big news. I expect they'd have loved to get 200+ annoyed JQ passangers sprouting about how bad the airline is, coupled with the 100+ reply posts on news.com.au from people who's only knowledge of an airline is when they need to drive past the airport sprouting their uninformed opinion.


So putting things into light, they may feel that $500k is a good PR investment.

 

[SeaWolf]

QF can breach any law it likes as long as it is willing and able to pay the consequences and those consequences make commercial sense.

I've gotta say, I think that's an outrageous comment. QF should respect the rule of law like everyone else needs to. If a company started behaving like that I would expect the courts to force them to comply with the law or to shut them down for good. If that company feels the law is unjust then it should lobby the legislature for a change in the law like everyone else.

If everyone adopted an attitude of breaching whatever laws they felt like we'd descend into anarchy very quickly.

 

[simongr]

Disagreeing with a single law does not lead directly to anarchy. Every person has free wil to exercise how they wish. For some people that is speeding, taking drugs and theft but for the massive majority of people that means looking at laws and seeing that they are right and proper and adhering to them. That does not mean that they dont have the right to challenge laws however they want. People have to be willing to accept the consequences of that though.