New Sydney Airport Vision

[simongr]

You could still have thorough immigration procedures (note I didn't say necessary or effective) by pax on int'l flights going through one "gate" to departures and being immigrated and dom travellers going through another (let's not start on DOM pax on int'l flight numbers doing an F lounge run).

In bound is trickier maybe? I guess it works at LAX and other US ports - haven't landed at LHR T5 before.

 

[el_rooto]

You could still have thorough immigration procedures (note I didn't say necessary or effective) by pax on int'l flights going through one "gate" to departures and being immigrated and dom travellers going through another (let's not start on DOM pax on int'l flight numbers doing an F lounge run).

In bound is trickier maybe? I guess it works at LAX and other US ports - haven't landed at LHR T5 before.

Why do we even need outbound formalities? Aren't they the kind of thing that could be automated.....

 

[simongr]

Why do we even need outbound formalities? Aren't they the kind of thing that could be automated.....

I totally agree but I don't see this changing so long as we have this paranoia about the invasion fleets of boat people coming to take our jobs, women and eat our children.

 

[Timba-Jet]

Anything that gets rid of the ridiculous slow bus transfer between Dom & Int is a step in the right direction, but is this the best approach?

Putting aside cost, a quick and efficient light rail free transfer is much needed.

Boy do I feel for international tourists who arrive in Sydney for the first time, who naturally expect modern efficiency.

On a lighter note, the location may not be operationally efficient but the views are good either, especially from the F lounge

 

[el_rooto]

I totally agree but I don't see this changing so long as we have this paranoia about the invasion fleets of boat people coming to take our jobs, women and eat our children.

We're talking about people leaving here...

 

[simongr]

You're being rational and we are talking immigration the topics are sadly mutually exclusive...

 

[oz_mark]

I totally agree but I don't see this changing so long as we have this paranoia about the invasion fleets of boat people coming to take our jobs, women and eat our children.

I thought we were okay with people that arrived on planes?

 

[medhead]

I thought we were okay with people that arrived on planes?

Judging by the media noise about boats we are ok with planes.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[airbridge]

I'm horrified that so many have suggested lifting the curfew. Where do you people live??

Whilst people who live on the flight path accept aircraft noise is a part of life, the suggestion that planes should fly over people's homes early hours of morning is insensitive and unfair. Unless you are completely deaf you cannot sleep with planes flying overhead.

Thank god we have politicians (who fear us) making these decisions.

WOW!!

 

[docjames]

I'm horrified that so many have suggested lifting the curfew. Where do you people live??

Whilst people who live on the flight path accept aircraft noise is a part of life, the suggestion that planes should fly over people's homes early hours of morning is insensitive and unfair. Unless you are completely deaf you cannot sleep with planes flying overhead.

Thank god we have politicians (who fear us) making these decisions.

WOW!!

Under the flight path in Brisbane. I sleep fine.

I think a reasonable option would be to allow more late/early arrivals in the event of weather/major issues, but no scheduled flights.

 

[medhead]

I almost live under the flight path and not a problem here. But then I have slept in the back of a moving M113 and mum reckons I could sleep on a barbed wire fence.

What I find a joke is the curfew in ADL that allows cargo to land at any time. The Toll plane that landed at 4:50 last week sounds really loud. But apparently the noise was fine.

Maybe they should fit out some cargo planes for pax and then land those outside of curfew since the noise is good noise.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[simongr]

I'm horrified that so many have suggested lifting the curfew. Where do you people live??

Whilst people who live on the flight path accept aircraft noise is a part of life, the suggestion that planes should fly over people's homes early hours of morning is insensitive and unfair. Unless you are completely deaf you cannot sleep with planes flying overhead.

Thank god we have politicians (who fear us) making these decisions.

WOW!!

We're fine to schedule flights that have 1am departures from SIN though - not a problem for foreigners to make sure our flights depart at a convenient time....

 

[docjames]

I should add there's a big difference in no curfew in the 380/787 era vs the dc9/727 era.

 

[Noob]

I almost live under the flight path and not a problem here. But then I have slept in the back of a moving M113 and mum reckons I could sleep on a barbed wire fence.

What I find a joke is the curfew in ADL that allows cargo to land at any time. The Toll plane that landed at 4:50 last week sounds really loud. But apparently the noise was fine.

Maybe they should fit out some cargo planes for pax and then land those outside of curfew since the noise is good noise.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

I actually live right under the flight path in Adelaide also, I find the sound of a jet flying over at night soothing - or am I bias?

 

[anat0l]

I almost live under the flight path and not a problem here. What I find a joke is the curfew in ADL that allows cargo to land at any time. The Toll plane that landed at 4:50 last week sounds really loud. But apparently the noise was fine.

Maybe they should fit out some cargo planes of pax and then land those outside of curfew since the noise is good noise.

I believe small cargo or mail planes (usually turboprops, I think) are allowed to operate irrespective of the curfew in SYD.

I suppose we as seasoned flyers are a little unfair to qualify that we sleep alright under a flight path, though I suppose there are mitigating measures, e.g. thicker windows, noise insulation, ear plugs or just moving away. However, taking a page from how mining companies deal with communities (or lack thereof), it is perhaps commercially unfortunate but morally and socially irresponsible just to operate the airport and expect everyone to "put up with it", when it would be more appropriate to seek a mutual situation between communities and the airport. Unfortunately, the current curfew situation is not a mutual situation, but more just a Mexican standoff really.

I've argued against the curfew for this very reason that it is not a solution (and at best, is not an effective solution), as well as the very tight bounds it places on flight scheduling as well as catering for irregular operations (i.e. it doesn't). All of this is not conducive to allow for connections growth in SYD (whether that be actual or perceived - both are important). Also, I have little confidence that (just like in Brisbane) the community is suitably appeased that the noise is under control due to the curfew legislation, i.e. there are still a barrage of complaints related to noise at the airport. As well as this, I'd be surprised if any community member or representative affected by flight path noise actually would rationally propose a more robust solution to the problem.

At the moment, I see the only mutual solution is to move SYD out to a remote area far away from communities and ensure flight paths are similarly fixed. But no one wants to take the first step. For the complainant who supports the curfew and the supposed politicians who fear the likes of them, I'd be far from thinking that your local politician fears you rather than actually being a gutless coward on the issue.

 

[el_rooto]

I'd take a 380 over a 737 classic frieghter any day.

 

[anat0l]

We're fine to schedule flights that have 1am departures from SIN though - not a problem for foreigners to make sure our flights depart at a convenient time....

One should remember that Changi is practically in the sticks (in Singapore terms) and pretty much all flight paths (especially those during the wee hours and so on) easily circumvent residential areas of Singapore.

Apart from that, since when did corporate social responsibility exist in Asia?

 

[Meggsy]

At the moment, I see the only mutual solution is to move SYD out to a remote area far away from communities and ensure flight paths are similarly fixed. But no one wants to take the first step. For the complainant who supports the curfew and the supposed politicians who fear the likes of them, I'd be far from thinking that your local politician fears you rather than actually being a gutless coward on the issue.

But this is what they did in Melbourne when they built Tullamarine way out in the sticks and now there is housing and industry encroaching on all sides and people complaining about aircraft noise. If they relocate SYD then they also need to enforce a substantial exclusion zone for no development, say 5 kms out from the boundary fence at the new site. Unfortunately that takes a significant parcel of land of which there is a distinct lack of in Sydney without compulsory buy outs.

Also, I am not sure if the legislation has changed but jet aircraft (freighters) used to land regularly during curfew hours and I'm talking 747's, 737's, etc. You could barely hear them as they all but glided in and used minimal reverse thrust to pull up on 16R or 34L.

 

[dajop]

One should remember that Changi is practically in the sticks (in Singapore terms) and pretty much all flight paths (especially those during the wee hours and so on) easily circumvent residential areas of Singapore.

Yeh, flight paths mainly pass over Indonesia and Malaysia, in Singapore, it's really only small parts of beaches and golf courses under the flight path. Bit more difficult to force SYD traffic over NZ though ...

 

[wilco]

i.e. there are still a barrage of complaints related to noise at the airport.

Not specifically related to SYD, but I wouldnt be surprised if the figures were the same. Ay YMMB, 80-90% of the noise complaints come from the same 3 or 4 people. Now forgive my ignorance, but one can only presume they moved there because it was cheap, or was what they could afford. The airport existed prior to them moving there and now the noise is the airports fault?? If you dont like aircraft noise, and I accept it could become tiresome, DONT LIVE NEAR AN AIRPORT! To expect a multi BILLION dollar piece of infrastructure, that you would be hamstrung without, to just up and move because you cant sleep is absurd! It is far simpler for you and your household to sell up and move somewhere more to your liking.