Jetstar flies into storm over curfew

[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.

My understanding of the curfew legislation is that it does indeed define breach of curfew as a criminal offence.

 

[SeaWolf]

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.

This isn't a person we're talking about, it's a corporation. It doesn't live and it has no free will. It's purely a legal mechanic that allows a business structure to operate. Suggesting that this is some kind of civil disobedience or a lobbying tactic doesn't make sense. If the company wants the law changed then it should lobby the legislature like everyone else. Any company that made a habit of ignoring something like the curfew should obviously bear the brunt of having the law enforced. No court is going to just keep fining a company that shows a pattern of wilfully flouting the law. Sooner or later the court is going to take more direct measures to make sure the rule of law is enforced.

 

[browski]

Sooner or later the court is going to take more direct measures to make sure the rule of law is enforced.

And when they do Jetstar will obey the curfew. Until then however, we all know that laws only really have to be obeyed if you cannot afford to pay the fine. It's a business decision; welcome to the world.

 

[oz_mark]

And when they do Jetstar will obey the curfew. Until then however, we all know that laws only really have to be obeyed if you cannot afford to pay the fine. It's a business decision; welcome to the world.

Jetstar should obey the curfew because it is the law. The corporate governance standards at Qantas state they will obey the law.

The business decision to break the curfew was wrong.

 

[SeaWolf]

And when they do Jetstar will obey the curfew. Until then however, we all know that laws only really have to be obeyed if you cannot afford to pay the fine. It's a business decision; welcome to the world.

It still stuns me that people seem to see the justice system as some sort of retailer. The business pays up and gets to break the law of its choice. The real world doesn't work like that and any business that thinks it can act that way is going to find itself being broken up by the government.

If the airlines really thought that way, then they'd just ignore the anti-trust law and get together and fix the price for seat at double or triple what it currently is (excellent value for the shareholders!) and reason that they won't get fined more than their profit gains. Of course they don't do this, because that kind of impunity for the law would be their end very, very quickly.

 

[browski]

So Seawolf.........if you don't believe that breaking the curfew (and the law) was based upon an affordable business decision by the airline.......then what reason are you submitting that the curfew was broken?

 

[SeaWolf]

Incompetence and stupidity probably. It would surprise me if those responsible didn't get their coughs kicked.

 

[simongr]

It still stuns me that people seem to see the justice system as some sort of retailer. The business pays up and gets to break the law of its choice. The real world doesn't work like that and any business that thinks it can act that way is going to find itself being broken up by the government.

We obviously have very different views and experiences of the real world. Businesses frequently make decisions on whether to comply with or ignore the law. Those that make decisions like that of significance and and concern to the government do get put out of business.

 

[browski]

Incompetence and stupidity probably. It would surprise me if those responsible didn't get their coughs kicked.

Personally, I've always found it hard to kick someone's ar$e when they just saved me a bucket load of money.

Did you even read the article:

"The Crown submits that the offender's conduct was the result of a deliberate choice for a corporate identity to engage in criminal conduct and flagrantly disobey the curfew period. The Crown submits this deliberate breach, on 'company instructions', elevates the objective seriousness of the offence."

 

[SeaWolf]

The airline has pleaded guilty to knowingly allowing an Airbus A330-202 to take off during the curfew period without permission at 11.28pm on December 3, 2007.

Therefore there will be no trial and the Crown's claims will never be tested in court, or defended against.

 

[oz_mark]

Therefore there will be no trial and the Crown's claims will never be tested in court, or defended against.

One would surmise, then, that Jetstar know they don't have an adequate defense.

 

[straitman]

It is time for a few people posting on this thread to go back and re read the thread :!: There are a few quite intelligent people here shooting from the hip and totally lacking perception in this debate.

It is correct that JQ, QF DJ and others should not break the law but let us get a little perspective on this. Every aviation situation is a balance between safety and economics and the laws (regulations) that encompass them.

The Sydney curfew is outdated and is long overdue for a serious review without political interference. Just because it is a current law does not mean it should be a law into the future.

ATC have no roll in this just as people who have moved into the area after the airport have no reasonable right of complaint.

 

[harvyk]

just as people who have moved into the area after the airport have no reasonable right of complaint.

Actually that's not quite true anymore (it's a pandora's box thing).

Before the curfew was introduced, fair enough. You chose to move in next to an airport, one would have thought you'd realise that they are not the most peaceful neighbour. Problem is that in the last 10 to 15 years or so, new people have moved into the area knowing that "yes, it'll be the neighbour from hell, up until 11pm". You start allowing 24 access and the people who moved in since the curfew was put in place would have a legitimate reason to complain.

 

[anat0l]

Actually that's not quite true anymore (it's a pandora's box thing).

Perhaps. I would probably call it more a paradox - and you're right. The government shot itself in the foot by setting the curfew ages ago. It would need a ridiculous amount of business and practical case to repeal the curfew and deal with the community complaints.

It behooves me how a non-residential entity can exist before residents move into the area, and the ultimate right of complaint lies with the resident who moved in fully aware that they were going to be near a facility (in this case, an airport; and no I do not want to hear any lame arguments about retrospective noise etc. levels, e.g. the argument "well, we didn't think that SYD would expand this much!").

I wonder what all those people in Mascot propose would be a solution to the current problem without necessarily repealing the curfew? Reclaim some of the bay for more land? Environmentally damaging and costly. Use another site? Where - Badgery's Creek was a furphy, and let's not entertain the (non-)option of Newcastle or - goodness help us - Canberra. And there are some that say SYD is big enough - we don't need to expand, or accept more flights.......

 

[straitman]

Actually that's not quite true anymore (it's a pandora's box thing).

Before the curfew was introduced, fair enough. You chose to move in next to an airport, one would have thought you'd realise that they are not the most peaceful neighbour. Problem is that in the last 10 to 15 years or so, new people have moved into the area knowing that "yes, it'll be the neighbour from hell, up until 11pm". You start allowing 24 access and the people who moved in since the curfew was put in place would have a legitimate reason to complain.

harvyk,

Whilst I understand your logic I do not agree :!:

Anyone who moved into the area in the last 10 - 15 years and expected the noise levels to remain the same was deluding themselves. The expectation would have to be that the curfew might disappear one day, but as compensation the newer generation of aircraft would be quieter, and they are. These new generation aircraft do not create 'the neighbour from hell' situation to which you refer.

As a minor side line I have lived on a variety of different airfields over the years and it is not as bad as people make out.

 

[oz_mark]

The Sydney curfew is outdated and is long overdue for a serious review without political interference. Just because it is a current law does not mean it should be a law into the future.

I don't dispute that the curfew is outdated, but airlines fly utilise Sydney Airport in full knowledge that the curfew exists. That being so, they need to comply with the curfew. The risks asscoiated with that, and the costs that will sometimes be incurred in dealing with the curfew should be built in to the price of a ticket for anyone who chooses to fly through Sydney.

 

[Flashback]

I don't dispute that the curfew is outdated, but airlines fly utilise Sydney Airport in full knowledge that the curfew exists. That being so, they need to comply with the curfew. The risks asscoiated with that, and the costs that will sometimes be incurred in dealing with the curfew should be built in to the price of a ticket for anyone who chooses to fly through Sydney.

Great, more reasons for tickets to/from SYD to rise :evil:

 

[serfty]

Great, more reasons for tickets to/from SYD to rise :evil:

That's what the $3.74 ($3.40 pre GST) "Noise Abatement" levy was all about. By adding the third runway, traffic levels increased and this was to allow for remediation.

 

[2muchplastic]

......As a minor side line I have lived on a variety of different airfields over the years and it is not as bad as people make out.

I lived for a good chunk of my life on military bases where any number of various jet fighters/bombers would take off at all hours. Having a couple of pairs of Phantoms (showing my age) or Tornados taking off on afterburner at 3am is enough to make an Airbus A380 seem like your wife whispering in your ear by comparison.
And you get used to it....

 

[NM]

Having a couple of pairs of Phantoms (showing my age) or Tornados taking off on afterburner at 3am is enough to make an Airbus A380 seem like your wife whispering in your ear by comparison.
And you get used to it....

Get used to the Phantoms/Tornadoes? Or get used to the wife's whispering?