There should be NO curfew on Sydney International Airport. Simple as that. Heathrow - no curfew. Los Angeles - no curfew. New York - no curfew. Sydney - curfew. It's ridiculous. Not only would it provide a much-needed boost for the economy, it would also lessen the noise impact of the morning rush hour of flights coming in overnight by spreading them out over a longer period of time. It's a win for everyone.

Poll added, self-explanatory.

Yeah, that should give about half a million activist types who live under the flight path something to look forward to.

Ever lived in Stanmore, Leichardt or Marrickville? You wake up at 6 with the planes. You have to stop talking for the planes. Something good comes on the tele and there’s a plane, the plane takes priority. You don’t realize how much they rule your life until you leave.

Let’s give the inner west no sleep at all. That should fix them.

Mr Abbott did say he would govern for all Australians. What a tall glass of water.

curfew should be enforced. It's easy for others to say lift the curfew, they don't live there ... for those that live there however it's a different story.

I don't understand why they fly over the suburbs anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to come in from the ocean ? Disturb no one that way.

John Smith wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 10:30am:

curfew should be enforced. It's easy for others to say lift the curfew, they don't live there ... for those that live there however it's a different story. I don't understand why they fly over the suburbs anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to come in from the ocean ? Disturb no one that way.

Redirect the flight path over the eastern and northern suburbs, problem solved for armpit.

Plenty of International airports have curfews so get a grip

skippy. wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 10:46am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 22nd, 2013 at 10:30am: curfew should be enforced. It's easy for others to say lift the curfew, they don't live there ... for those that live there however it's a different story. I don't understand why they fly over the suburbs anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to come in from the ocean ? Disturb no one that way. Redirect the flight path over the eastern and northern suburbs, problem solved for armpit.

I agree...open airports up for 24 hrs of constant flights but fly the planes over the rich pricks houses...I bet they change their tune then

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 7:45am:

There should be NO curfew on Sydney International Airport. Simple as that. Heathrow - no curfew. Los Angeles - no curfew. New York - no curfew. Sydney - curfew. It's ridiculous. Not only would it provide a much-needed boost for the economy, it would also lessen the noise impact of the morning rush hour of flights coming in overnight by spreading them out over a longer period of time. It's a win for everyone.

The facts on Heathrow.  My in-laws live directly under one of the major approach/take off flight paths.  All windows double glazed for noise reduction.  You hear virtually nothing when the restrictions are on, but when lifted, with a plane coming over every 30 seconds or so, you do hear it, but become so accustomed to it, it becomes back ground noise.   Entirely different when outside the house. 

Click here.

Its against the law for me to make an unreasonable disturbance to my neighbours - why should the airport be excluded?

adelcrow wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 10:52am:

Plenty of International airports have curfews so get a grip

But most of the main airports for those countries do not, for example England (Heathrow), USA (LA & New York), Singapore (Changi). The simple fact is that aircraft noise during peak periods today is NOTHING like what it was 20-30 years ago. Double glazing would've done next to nothing for you with a constant stream of Boeing 707's flying overhead. Today's modern aircraft such as an Airbus A380-800 makes a fraction of the noise on landing and take-off compared to the relatively modern Boeing 747-400. The fact is that modern aircraft/engines are becoming quieter (not noisier) and with the advent of GPS approaches, constant descents and later descents (i.e. the descent path is steeper), noise is becoming less and less of an issue. Take the steeper descents. This kind of approach will allow pilots to have the engines at idle virtually all the way to just prior to touchdown, dramatically reducing the noise generated. Departures are planned to overfly less populated areas where possible, not just for noise reasons but also for safety reasons (eg engine failure). Last but not least, my biggest gripe with these NIMBY's who move to live near an airport do so in the knowledge of the noise such a facility generates and I have little or no sympathy for them given the fact that the airport was there long before most of them were born. I'm not saying stuff 'em and not help them. By all means help provide sound proofing and so on. But that doesn't give them the right to complain about aircraft noise!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 7:45am:

There should be NO curfew on Sydney International Airport. Simple as that. Heathrow - no curfew. Los Angeles - no curfew. New York - no curfew. Sydney - curfew.

Cherrypicked list. Plenty of airports around the world have curfews.


Quote:

It's ridiculous.

So it's ridiculous that people need to sleep?


Quote:

Not only would it provide a much-needed boost for the economy,

Once again, price triumphs over other considerations for a conservative commentator.


Quote:

it would also lessen the noise impact of the morning rush hour of flights coming in overnight by spreading them out over a longer period of time.

Obviously you don't live within 10 km of Mascot.


Quote:

It's a win for everyone.

Not for the people who live under the flight path.

I have an idea. Why don't you go and tell this wonderful idea to the people that live under the flight paths and who would be affected by this and see what kind of reaction you get.

I also understand that the Federal Liberals are looking seriously at building a second airport in Sydney. If that airport does get built (it's been talked about for 30 years so we'll wait and see on this), the presence of a curfew at the current airport would be moot.

skippy. wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 10:46am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 22nd, 2013 at 10:30am: curfew should be enforced. It's easy for others to say lift the curfew, they don't live there ... for those that live there however it's a different story. I don't understand why they fly over the suburbs anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to come in from the ocean ? Disturb no one that way. Redirect the flight path over the eastern and northern suburbs, problem solved for armpit.

Mr Abbott did say he’d govern for all Australians. What a tall glass of water.

Thank heavens the grown-ups are back in charge.

Like waiting a few hrs to take off and landing at a reasonable time is going to make much difference to passengers.
Every airport across the globe should have curfews...locals should always come before blow ins.
Really..what sane person wants to land in any country at 3, 4 or 5 in the morning?

adelcrow wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 2:11pm:

Like waiting a few hrs to take off and landing at a reasonable time is going to make much difference to passengers. Every airport across the globe should have curfews...locals should always come before blow ins. Really..what sane person wants to land in any country at 3, 4 or 5 in the morning?

Just think how many more passengers we could have come here if the airport was open 24/7. Just think how big a boost that would be to the economy. Just think how many jobs that would create at the airport alone by being open past 10pm. As for residents near the airport or flightpaths, no one forced them to move there. The airport has been there since pre WWII.

Bam wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 1:05pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 22nd, 2013 at 7:45am: There should be NO curfew on Sydney International Airport. Simple as that. Heathrow - no curfew. Los Angeles - no curfew. New York - no curfew. Sydney - curfew. Cherrypicked list. Plenty of airports around the world have curfews. Quote: It's ridiculous. So it's ridiculous that people need to sleep? Noone forced them to live under or near the flight paths. [quote]Not only would it provide a much-needed boost for the economy,

Once again, price triumphs over other considerations for a conservative commentator.
Like it or not, the airport is a valuable source of income for the economy. When it's not working, it's not making money.


Quote:

it would also lessen the noise impact of the morning rush hour of flights coming in overnight by spreading them out over a longer period of time.

Obviously you don't live within 10 km of Mascot.
Do you? Noice at 10km from Mascot would be minimal for aircraft arriving and pretty low for aircraft departing, as jet aircraft would be at well above 6,000ft by that time, making it pretty hard to hear a jet engine.


Quote:

It's a win for everyone.

Not for the people who live under the flight path.
Again, no one forced them to live there.

I have an idea. Why don't you go and tell this wonderful idea to the people that live under the flight paths and who would be affected by this and see what kind of reaction you get.

I also understand that the Federal Liberals are looking seriously at building a second airport in Sydney. If that airport does get built (it's been talked about for 30 years so we'll wait and see on this), the presence of a curfew at the current airport would be moot.
[/quote]

Well what is an airport for after all?  People bought those houses and then wanted to complain.  What should have happened is that all were resumed and a clear site around central Sydney created for the airport....

Better offshore Mascot as well ...

"This is your Captain speaking - we are now landing at Nauru Airport and there will be a transfer bus waiting at the terminal, where you may avail yourselves of purified water and hard rations.  Hotel accommodation is available in tented majesty, but we recommend you board the transfer ferry as soon as possible for your five day journey to Australia.

Good day and thank you all for flying Abbott Airlines..."

" Hey - Joe - did they paint over that QANTAS tail and stuff or is it still on the back?"

"I think so.. let me check!  Yeah - done yesterday!  Maintenance log says we're now Abbott for sure!"

John Smith wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 10:30am:

curfew should be enforced. It's easy for others to say lift the curfew, they don't live there ... for those that live there however it's a different story. I don't understand why they fly over the suburbs anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to come in from the ocean ? Disturb no one that way.

They mostly do - it's mostly takeoffs over the city - depending on winds, but early Sunday flights coming in from the North come in over the city.  Used to be right over my house.  Go out one day and watch the long trail of landing lights head in over Botany Bay.

Also any emergency evasion will take the plane over built-up areas - no choice at full gun.... seen that one - 747 Longneck coming in as a 737 was on its takeoff run... pull up to port and gun it.... straight over the terminal at full throttle... yee-hah....

(shuffles toes in dust) I.. used to work at the airport.... airside....

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 12:21pm:

Last but not least, my biggest gripe with these NIMBY's who move to live near an airport do so in the knowledge of the noise such a facility generates and I have little or no sympathy for them

most of them also bought near the airport in the knowledge that a curfew existed and they would be able to at least get a decent nights sleep


Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 2:45pm:

Do you? Noice at 10km from Mascot would be minimal for aircraft arriving and pretty low for aircraft departing, as jet aircraft would be at well above 6,000ft by that time, making it pretty hard to hear a jet engine

minimal for you considering you don't sleep there....


Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 2:45pm:

Again, no one forced them to live there.

no one forces you to fly at 2am
'

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 2:38pm:

Just think how many more passengers we could have come here if the airport was open 24/7

I think the number of extra passengers would be nil. For that number to change you have to assume that people do not fly to Sydney because they cannot land after hours ... bullsh1t. I''ve never met a single person who has not flown to Sydney because they cannot land after hours. Sydney is a destination city, not a transit city. Extending the flight hours will change nothing

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 7:45am:

There should be NO curfew on Sydney International Airport. Simple as that. Heathrow - no curfew. Los Angeles - no curfew. New York - no curfew. Sydney - curfew. It's ridiculous. Not only would it provide a much-needed boost for the economy, it would also lessen the noise impact of the morning rush hour of flights coming in overnight by spreading them out over a longer period of time. It's a win for everyone.

Another mindless thread in the wrong board. ::) ::) ::) MODERATORS

Seriously.....who wants to land anywhere before 7am anyway?

John Smith wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 4:05pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 22nd, 2013 at 12:21pm: Last but not least, my biggest gripe with these NIMBY's who move to live near an airport do so in the knowledge of the noise such a facility generates and I have little or no sympathy for them most of them also bought near the airport in the knowledge that a curfew existed and they would be able to at least get a decent nights sleep They'd also know that at any time the curfew could be changed or lifted altogether. Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 22nd, 2013 at 2:45pm: Do you? Noice at 10km from Mascot would be minimal for aircraft arriving and pretty low for aircraft departing, as jet aircraft would be at well above 6,000ft by that time, making it pretty hard to hear a jet engine minimal for you considering you don't sleep there.... Minimal for everyone. Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 22nd, 2013 at 2:45pm: Again, no one forced them to live there. no one forces you to fly at 2am No one can land there at 2am at present. ' Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 22nd, 2013 at 2:38pm: Just think how many more passengers we could have come here if the airport was open 24/7 I think the number of extra passengers would be nil. For that number to change you have to assume that people do not fly to Sydney because they cannot land after hours ... bullsh1t. I''ve never met a single person who has not flown to Sydney because they cannot land after hours. Sydney is a destination city, not a transit city. Extending the flight hours will change nothing I disagree.

adelcrow wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 5:19pm:

Seriously.....who wants to land anywhere before 7am anyway?

When I flew Sydney-LA many years ago, we departed Sydney at 1:30pm or so and landed in LA around 7am in the morning (on the same day!). No problem. It provides more flexibility for airlines and they don't have to worry about cancelling a flight if they're late departing because they won't make the curfew. One interesting note: I wonder if the curfews at major airports around Australia are contributing to Qantas' financial woes. Think about it -  other airlines around the world fly largely free of curfew restrictions, but our national airline can't and that must be costing them money. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. I do think I recall Joyce mentioning this though.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 6:18am:

They'd also know that at any time the curfew could be changed or lifted altogether

how would they know that when the politicians are promising the opposite?


Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 6:18am:

Minimal for everyone.

ask those that live near the airport if its minimal


Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 6:18am:

No one can land there at 2am at present.

good, and they shouldn't.


Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 6:18am:

I disagree.

shock horror ... really?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 6:26am:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 22nd, 2013 at 5:19pm: Seriously.....who wants to land anywhere before 7am anyway? I dunno, maybe I'm wrong.

Given you usually are why would this be any different?

If a plane lands at 4am in Sydney what is the benefit, its dark, nothing is open and getting a taxi would be fun on a Tuesday morning.

I see little benefit.  They wont be putting additional flights one, merely scattering them out.  To me that sounds like more wages.

I like the idea.

Ive been frustrated in the past on scheduling.

If you can arrive 4am, get straight into city with no traffic and be in your hotel before day has begun then sounds good.

If its good for international business, then its good.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 24^th, 2013 at 1:47pm:

I like the idea.

sounds like another reason to keep the curfew