Sydney Airport wants movement cap changes and possibly curfew abolition

[Melburnian1]

In discussions with investors on Thursday 16 February, Sydney Airport CEO Kerrie Mather said it was time to have a discussion about easing the movement caps (80 per hour, and additionally 20 per quarter hour maximum - the second one can at times be especially difficult for airlines or ATC) at SYD.

From the media report I saw she may not have explicitly mentioned the nightly 2300 hours to 0600 hours next morning curfew (which exempts some freight flights, air ambulances and each morning about three or four European long distance arrivals, the latter only being exempted during the northern (hemisphere) winter timetable for half the year) although the CEO of the Transport and Tourism Forum, Margy Osmond, took up those cudgels.

Ms Mather said that it was an 'era of quieter passenger aircraft' and referred to how the restrictions were '20 years old.'

I have read elsewhere that at Heathrow at times there have been resident complaints because allegedly aircraft like the A380 fly 'lower' and hence noise emissions have (if one believes the contention) not reduced.

For the last few years in Sydney my perception is that the former No Aircraft Noise group has been pretty quiet (apologies for the unintended, poor pun.)

However I don't live there.

There are already some noise attenuation measures in place such as how during curfew hours planes are normally to depart towards Kurnell (south) to minimise flights over residential areas.

Strangely, the NSW Government is calling on the Federal Transport Minister Darren Chester to reduce restrictions on 'regional' (by which he means 'country') aircraft - such as ZL, QF and VA flights to and from locations like ABX/ ARM/ CFS/ TWM and so on. I don't know whether this means a lifting of the movement per hour and quarter hour caps to allow more of these smaller aircraft to have a slot, or lifting as well of the night curfew. The latter (for just aircraft to and from NSW country centres) would be illogical as there's little demand for a midnight departure from TMW.

The TTF group went further than SYD airport management with the former claiming that the cap on aircraft movements had 'sabotaged decades of global campaigns to attract tourists.'

My guess is there could eventually be some 'tweaking' of the 20/80 movements rule - perhaps lifting it to '25/100', or abolishing the 'quarter hour movement cap' entirely. However I reckon the overnight curfew will stay: there are just too many Sydney residents potentially affected for it not to become a (rerun of) a political hot potato. Interestingly, TTF conceded the latter (bearing in mind some or all domestic airlines are members of it.)

Am I on the money or do others disagree?

For information, if there were no hourly or quarter hour movement caps, in good weather what would be the theoretical maximum capacity in number of movements at SYD? I am assuming that a similar mix of larger planes on international and some domestic flights, A320s/B738s on many domestic flights and some smaller country flights with SAAB340Bs, Q300s/Q400s, ATR 72s and the like continued to be the case.

 

[Spongbob]

Of course Sydney Airport management want to narrow the curfew arrangements, as it means more income for them. But as someone who lives in a flight path suburb I would oppose any change. When aircraft fly overhead it is impossible to have a conversation, hear the TV etc for 1-2 minutes; and this can happen every 10 minutes.

 

[Melburnian1]

But as someone who lives in a flight path suburb I would oppose any change. When aircraft fly overhead it is impossible to have a conversation, hear the TV etc for 1-2 minutes; and this can happen every 10 minutes.

This is the political difficulty. You won't be alone.

If Sydney Airport management wants change, they should appoint independent consultants to investigate whether noise along all the flight paths has in fact reduced. The whole process including setting of the terms of reference should be very open, the complete report published and most importantly, peer reviewed.

Spongbob, you are implying that aircraft interrupt your acrivities just as much as 10 or 20 years ago (if not more, because of the increase in plane movements.) Interesting.

 

[Mrmaxwell]

I agree that plane activity is as noisy as it was 20yrs ago. As someone that has lived under the flight path (and now lives somewhat to side of it) during peak times I cannot tell how many movements there are as it is just a constant onslaught of noise so personally I don't think moving caps would matter as it is already distracting to say the least.

I know the second airport won't be ready for several years but it's my view that it should be 24/7 and take a lot of the burden away from SYD...I don't see a curfew change happening at SYD anytime soon.

 

[Melburnian1]

Is anyone able to advise on the maximum aircraft movement capacity that SYD would have with the assumptions I oulined at the bottom of my above post?

 

[Cool Cat Phil]

This is the political difficulty. You won't be alone.

Absolutely. Due to massive demographic change , All the Federal electorates that neighbour SYD are no longer safe Seats.

Any idea that the curfew at SYD will be lifted automatically become a toxic and dominant political issue without question that neither side of politics would be game to introduce I would suggest.

 

[Melburnian1]

...Any idea that the curfew at SYD will be lifted automatically become a toxic and dominant political issue without question that neither side of politics would be game to introduce I would suggest.

Mrmaxwell and Cool Cat Phil, the curfew is one thing.

Do you share my view that it may be a bit easier to change the maximum number of permitted movements between 0600 and 2300 daily up from the present 80 per hour including 20 in each quarter hour, or is that likely to be 'impossible' as trying to alter the curfew (or 'difficult'/)

 

[docjames]

I agree that plane activity is as noisy as it was 20yrs ago. As someone that has lived under the flight path (and now lives somewhat to side of it) during peak times I cannot tell how many movements there are as it is just a constant onslaught of noise so personally I don't think moving caps would matter as it is already distracting to say the least.

I know the second airport won't be ready for several years but it's my view that it should be 24/7 and take a lot of the burden away from SYD...I don't see a curfew change happening at SYD anytime soon.

I think i'd summarise it as

"where they have improved in noise peak (think 727 v 787), they've lost in frequency of noise (think movements per hour.....)"

 

[iRobbo]

Is anyone able to advise on the maximum aircraft movement capacity that SYD would have with the assumptions I oulined at the bottom of my above post?

Somewhere between 90-100, maybe more. One of the limiting factors is wake turbulence separation, the more 'Heavies' you have, the more spacing required. I think we will all agree that Sydney gets the most Heavies....

 

[Dr Ralph]

SYD should be a 24 hour airport.

 

[kevrosmith]

Isn't it a bit hypocritical for people who don't want SYD curfew to be lifted to expect West Sydney not to have a curfew for noise reasons? People live out in west Sydney too.

 

[Cool Cat Phil]

Mrmaxwell and Cool Cat Phil, the curfew is one thing.

Do you share my view that it may be a bit easier to change the maximum number of permitted movements between 0600 and 2300 daily up from the present 80 per hour including 20 in each quarter hour, or is that likely to be 'impossible' as trying to alter the curfew (or 'difficult'/)

Absolutely, increasing the number of movements per hour would be far more favourable politically, than changing the curfew hours.

 

[whatmeworry]

SYD should be a 24 hour airport.

Not like you can do anything after 9pm in NSW.

 

[wandering_fred]

Allow landings 2300-0100 and 0500-0600. A lot less noise than take-offs.
Increase the number of movements in selected peak time intervals - select two 2 hour sets.

Review. Rinse and repeat with slightly "better" options.

Happy wandering

Fred

 

[clazman]

If the routes have changed no changes should be allowed. If the routes remain unchanged then increase should be allowed, as the home owner bought with full knowledge of the airport

 

[ButFli]

If the routes have changed no changes should be allowed. If the routes remain unchanged then increase should be allowed, as the home owner bought with full knowledge of the airport

The home owner bought knowing there was an airport *with a statutory curfew and movement limit*.

 

[Melburnian1]

Due to the storms in Sydney that hit at around 1530 hours on Friday 17 February, about half a dozen flights including QF3 from SYD to HNL and MH140 from SYD to KUL (which was the last at 2314 to become airborne) took off after the 'official' 2300 hours curfew commencement. Presumably each had a dispensation from 'the delegate' to the Minister for Transport Darren Chester.

There are two schools of thought: on the one hand, hundreds or more travellers are affected if these flights are made to sit on the ground, and this includes passengers the next day who suddenly find flights cancelled or badly delayed but on the other hand, what's the point of a passenger flight curfew if whenever there are 'special circumstances' and three criteria are allegedly fulfilled, such flights routinely receive dispensation to take off or to land.

Other companies are fined or in some cases executives jailed if statutes are contravened, but Sydney Airport and its airlines appear at times to have almost carte blanche to do as they wish just after 2300 hours. On the other hand stopping these flights inhibits economic activity.

As I have previously pointed out in other threads, a report re dispensations or disallowal of such is required to be presented to Federal Parliament and can make interesting reading. There is a few months' lag for each incident before it is written up in the report.

 

[moa999]

Allow landings 2300-0100 and 0500-0600. A lot less noise than take-offs.

And where do you put all the aircraft??

In any event not many of the foreign airlines like to park an aircraft overnight

 

[wandering_fred]

And where do you put all the aircraft??
In any event not many of the foreign airlines like to park an aircraft overnight

0030 to 0615 is not that much longer than many airlines now use for a turnaround.

Happy wandering

Fred

 

[Captain Halliday]

Balancing the competing arguments on this issue is particularly challenging.

As has been pointed out, people have bought properties knowing the airport is there, but also that the curfew exists. Equally the arguments for tourism, economic benefit etc are valid.

The politics of making substantial change to the curfew is not something either side of politics is prepared to tackle. So my suggestion is to make a very small change:

What if the curfew was extended by just two minutes at each end, per year? For example, in 2018 the curfew could become 2302 to 0558 and so on.

My thinking here is that two minutes is a very small difference for residents. So small they may barely notice the difference. It would also prevent a property price crash if the curfew were completely removed.

New people buying in the area would do so knowing the span of hours would increase over time.

SYD would get a few additional movements per year.

At this rate SYD would be 0500 to 2400 in 15 years; 0400-0100 in 30 years; and the curfew gone completely in 52.5 years.

It's a very long time, but gradual change, that may be more acceptable to both residents and the airport.