Why the curfews at Sydney and Adelaide airports should be axed

Axe and abolish Curfews at Sydney and Adelaide Airports.

Curfews are old-fashioned and based from a time with what we now know as antiquated aircraft. Surely now with quieter aircraft and air-travel far more common, its time to axe and abolish curfews? What other major cities are so narrow-minded to place limitations on air-travel; imagine curfews at LAX, LHR, SIN, JFK etc.

There are huge benefits in removing airport curfews: a) boost economy for the state and nation, b) carriers flying at convenient times = lower cost of airfares c)... d)... e)... What are your thoughts and pros/cons of having curfews removed?

Hi, just to make you aware, LHR has a curfew from about 11pm or midnight until 5am. I think JFK might also have. curfew, but I'm not sure of the exact hours. 

LHR has a quota system rather than a blanket curfew; there are indeed some pre-5:00am arrivals such as BA16 which is currently scheduled to arrive at some ungodly hour like 4:20am.

Yes I arrived on MH4 around 4:20am once, I was expecting to circle until the curfew was over, but didnt know about the quota system....

While personally I dont oppose removing curfews, I think the vast majority of the population around the flight path would.

I live directly under the flightpath for planes coming into ADL from the west, which is the most common landing. I know when CX started coming in at 06:00 with their A330 it has woken me up a few times. Not that I mind, but im sure you can imagine that most people would not like it at all hours.

For ADL, and I assume SYD as well, because of their close proximity to the city and they are in dense population areas it simply couldnt work.

The airport would need to be relocated to open it up for 24 hour operation. One option here in ADL was to move the airport to the Edinburgh RAF base. Only issue being it is a 70km one way drive for people in the outer southern suburbs. Not only that, it would not be financially viable given that our brand new airport terminal is just turning 10 years old and all of the other works they have done around the area.

From the East rather. West is over the ocean. My bad

Agree that curfews are antiquated but I understand the perspective of residents living within the flight path but only in so far as an airport had been built subsequent to their settlement.

To that end, I think airports should be built in somewhat isolated locations but within potential growth areas. Then as the city expands, the value proposition to the area around the airport would spur expansion of residential and commercial settlement.

But expansion is conditional on residents and businesses accepting unchallenged the growth of the airport, which includes the right to purchase land for new runways/ terminals in the future. Once these conditions are endowed on the land prior to residential and commercial settlement, there can never be reasons for protesting expansion, since you know the score before signing up and settling in the area. 

As airports get built along those lines, the mindset of the public will also change going forward. You thus obtain the circuit breaker that you need to end this nonsensical arguments such as you have in west London.

>I understand the perspective of residents living within the flight path but only in so far as an airport had been built subsequent to their settlement.

Yes and no. If they've bought in during the curfew then they shouldn't complain about noise during the day but they're entitled to be annoyed if the curfew is lifted. 

>To that end, I think airports should be built in somewhat isolated locations but within potential growth areas

SYD and ADL are already where they are, and if you ask me that's a great thing. I love getting off a plane at ADL and bein in the city ten minutes later. 

>Once these conditions are endowed on the land prior to residential and commercial settlement, there can never be reasons for protesting expansion, since you know the score before signing up and settling in the area.

This doesn't help much. If people only protested about things that they had a rational reason to protest about, the newspaper would be a whole lot thinner.

Already there's people whining about the possibilty of Badgery's Creek airport even though (a) the land has been set aside for an airport since long before their houses were built and (b) the closest houses are about as far from the site as Drummoyne is from SYD, meaning the planes will be barely audible.

Yes and no. If they've bought in during the curfew then they shouldn't complain about noise during the day but they're entitled to be annoyed if the curfew is lifted. 

My point here is that curfews should not exist in any new airports built. So anyone buying around the area should expect noise night and day and factor that into their pricing and decision making process.

SYD and ADL are already where they are, and if you ask me that's a great thing. I love getting off a plane at ADL and bein in the city ten minutes later. 

I have mates who live under the flight path near Mascot. I do not know how they live with it, and they are not the worse affected. If the curfew were lifted many thousands of homes would become unviable and those people would see their property values plummet.

I would let that sleeping dog lie.

I would suggest that a better scheme is to introduce some sort of 'shoulder' system to allow limited departures after 2300 that must take off over water, i.e. on the north-south or third runways heading out to Botany Bay. This would be useful for redeyes departing for East and Southeast Asia as well as New Zealand.

Such a scheme would see, for example, a limited overwater departure-only 'shoulder' window extending from the current 2300 to perhaps 0030. This would tie in nicely with the existing arrivals 'shoulder' from 0500 to 0600; there is no need to extend this or open it to departures as 0600 is already early enough.

There is otherwise little need for very late arrivals and very early departures outside the existing window.

Sounds like a fair idea, just hard to make winds directions conform to curfews. 

Living a 25 minute door to door walk from the International Terminal in Sydney. I agree that this could be an option with certain aircraft type.  The Boeing 787 is dramatically quieter and whilst I have not heard the A350, I assume it is just as quiet.

Overwater departures will still fly over Kurnell. I wouldn't be surprised if they were audible from Botany & Brighton also.

Perhaps lift the curfew for a certain number of flights and types of aircraft. New planes tend to be quieter than older aircraft. 

It is also worth people living right under the flight path to consider some forms of sound proofing. Many homes already have this. 

At the end of the day the greater good needs to be considered. Upsetting the inner city crowd is a small price to pay in my view (and I say this as someone who lived under the Sydney flight path for several years).