Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EU Court Confirms German Flight Restrictions To ZRH  
User currently offlineglidepath73 From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 1020 posts, RR: 45
Posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7271 times:

A EU-Court has confirmed the flight restrictions Germany has set 2003 for flights over German territory between 9.00pm - and 7.00 am.

Sorry, so far only in German:

http://www.aero.de/news-11050/Urteil...gverbot-fuer-Zuerich-erwartet.html

So what might Switzerland do now?

Greetz,
Patrick


Aviation! That rocks...
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineQuokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7156 times:

Quoting glidepath73 (Thread starter):
So what might Switzerland do now?

Option 1: Live with the decision.
Option 2: Appeal the ruling, or
Option 3: play silly and impose a similar ban on German flights using Swiss airspace on route to Italy, etc.
They could do this using the argument out forward by the court that "it doesn't ban flights per se, but only requires a route deviation."

Which option is most likely? That depends on how mature the decision makers are. My guess is that they may appeal.


User currently onlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9342 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7085 times:

If I were a Swiss, I'd opt for # 2. The court ruling is based on EU law. Under international law, and here, the Chicago convention might be helpful, it would be interesting to find out if overflight rights are regulated.

Plaiyng silly could also mean banning german taxis from picking up passengers at Kloten and I think they did that already. Step number 2 would be to ban german taxis from bringoing pax to Kloten.

However, this is more a local feud with the southern counties of Baden Wuerttemberg. The Swiss Air Force can still train over water rescue and flying in German airspace and German fighter jets train canyon flying in Switzerland.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineaviationmaster From Switzerland, joined Oct 1999, 2481 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6699 times:

A big one finger salute to the EU for this.

Switzerland should just threaten to close the Gotthard for all EU trucks heading South. Unfortunately, with the politicians we have at the moment, they will just get on their knees (like they do all the time) and accept this decision.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 2):
However, this is more a local feud with the southern counties of Baden Wuerttemberg.

  

I wonder what the reaction on behalf of LX, and especially LH, will be regarding this decision.


User currently onlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9342 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6601 times:

Quoting aviationmaster (Reply 3):
Switzerland should just threaten to close the Gotthard for all EU trucks heading South.

You can't. Switzerland made a deal with the EU to allow the trucks with certain limitations and got in return access to the single European air market. Which may have been a blessing or not, last time I waited for my LX connecting flight home to FRA, I saw a real lot of AB metal flying in and out of ZRH. .

Having worked for a Swiss company in the 70s, I remember that thze Swiss made better deals back then. What happened?



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineAirMale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 377 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6603 times:

Well, I would charge passengers from southern germany using Zurich (which is their nearest airport) as their departure/arrival airport, a special tax. Cargo trucked to Zurich from those same southern german regions should also pay more. They want all the advantage of an international airport but don't want to share the burden. This tax can then be used to install soundproof windows in their homes/offices....

If the few villages in the southern german border region can not live with all that noise from aircrafts landing/taking off in Zurich, shouldn't a similar rule be put in place for all german people living near airports (e.g. Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg)??? Why only protect those german citizens near the swiss border and not also those other poor germans living around their own hubs? Then maybe I would understand this rule......



.....up there with the best!
User currently offlineexFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6513 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 4):
Quoting aviationmaster (Reply 3):
Switzerland should just threaten to close the Gotthard for all EU trucks heading South.

You can't. Switzerland made a deal with the EU to allow the trucks with certain limitations and got in return access to the single European air market.

Was the German airspace restriction in the agreement? If not, then it would seem equitable that Switzerland should be able to restrict - not close, but restrict - the EU trucks in retaliation...perhaps a similar time restriction?


User currently onlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9342 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6513 times:

Quoting AirMale (Reply 5):
Well, I would charge passengers from southern germany using Zur

can't do that, everybody has to be treated equal

Quoting AirMale (Reply 5):
Cargo trucked to Zurich from those same southern german regions

you cannot punish shippers. freight forwarders would simply route the frreight to other gateways and bellies remain empty at ZRH which is not so good.

Quoting AirMale (Reply 5):
houldn't a similar rule be put in place for all german people living near airports (e.g. Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg)??? Why only protect those german citizens near the swiss border and not a

such programs are available at all airports where people live in areas with permannent noise levels exceding a certain degree.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineAirMale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 377 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6482 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 7):
Quoting AirMale (Reply 5):
Well, I would charge passengers from southern germany using Zur

can't do that, everybody has to be treated equal

Treat everyone equal? no problem, start with the same restrictions for Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, Berlin..... then all germans are equally protected from aircraft noise.....



.....up there with the best!
User currently offlineglidepath73 From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 1020 posts, RR: 45
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6268 times:

Quoting AirMale (Reply 5):
If the few villages in the southern german border region can not live with all that noise from aircrafts landing/taking off in Zurich, shouldn't a similar rule be put in place for all german people living near airports (e.g. Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg)??? Why only protect those german citizens near the swiss border and not also those other poor germans living around their own hubs? Then maybe I would understand this rule......

This question should be raised to the EU-Court which made this decision. This counts in for all people living close to airports within the whole EU and worldwide.



Aviation! That rocks...
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12438 posts, RR: 37
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6138 times:

Realistically, Switzerland will have to live with the decision. This will probably mean adjusting SIDs and STARs to avoid flying into (or through) German airspace at night.

What runways/approaches are affected by this decision? How much of a problem would it be for the airport to change the SIDs/STARs to accommodate the new rules?


User currently offlineacabgd From Serbia, joined Jul 2005, 663 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6116 times:

As a Swiss (although living in Belgrade, Serbia so no direct concern) I feel really sickened by what the Germans are doing.

Even Serbia and Croatia managed to renegotiate use of each other's airspace around Osijek (OSI) airport in Croatia! And the two countries were at war not 15 years ago!

I would be all for banning (no, actually "restricting") German flights to Italy through Swiss airspace.



CSud,D9,MD8x,D10,Trid,BAC1,A30,31,319,320,321,33,346,B71,72,73,74,75,76,77,L10,S20,A42,A72,T13,T15,F50,F70,F100,B146
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25205 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6101 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 10):
Realistically, Switzerland will have to live with the decision. This will probably mean adjusting SIDs and STARs to avoid flying into (or through) German airspace at night.

They've already done that. As I understand it, the EU is only confirming German government restrictions that have been in effect for several years. It's nothikng new.

When they did change early morning arrival routes (after the strict night curfew ends at 0600 or thereabouts) there were major protests from ZRH residents especailly because the new routes required overflying areas near the lake where many of the wealthiest ZRH residents live.


User currently onlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9342 posts, RR: 29
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5813 times:

Quoting AirMale (Reply 8):
Treat everyone equal? no problem, start with the same restrictions for Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, Berlin..

there are restrictions in place at many airports. You have to understand that people can sue the government or authorities here and courts rule against governments and authorities which have to comply with the ruling.

Quoting exFATboy (Reply 6):
Was the German airspace restriction in the agreement? If no

No, I mentioned before, that is a local feud, where the county managers of the counties which receive overflights for ZRH have sued and won the court cases. That was taken to the highest EU court and the result is discussed here.

Switzerland has to live with that and the wealthy people living at the "Gold Coast" of Lake Zurich as well. After all, they fly a lot.
 



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5438 times:

It is a pure joke....

The biggest joke is that alternative approaches over densely populated Swiss territory affects more Germans (who migrated to Switzerland) than the original approaches over those thinly populated German areas. This is fact. To relieve a max number of German citizens from aircraft noise Germany should indeed take over all the LSZH traffic....!

There was an autorized study recently that clarified how many people on both sides are affected. Tens of thousands Swiss peoples stood against some hundred Germans. The whole topic is a complete overreaction from the German side.

My parent in-laws live effectively in Waldshut but think exactly the same. In Waldshut and the surrounding foothills of the black forrest aircrafts are really not disturbing. And the praised touristic activities are close to zero (where the planes fly, in Höchenschwandt on the hand side hardly ever an aircraft appears on the sky).


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7153 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5095 times:

Quoting Quokka (Reply 1):
Option 3: play silly and impose a similar ban on German flights using Swiss airspace on route to Italy, etc.
They could do this using the argument out forward by the court that "it doesn't ban flights per se, but only requires a route deviation."
Quoting Quokka (Reply 1):
Which option is most likely? That depends on how mature the decision makers are. My guess is that they may appeal.

Not knowing the full story but taking this as a NIMBY issue about noise, reality is that fair is far and what is good for the goose is also good for the gander, Swiss citizens are affected by noise just as Germans. My suggestion would be to allow
the ruling to stand while the Swiss investigate how noise affects their citizens, withina year they should jave enough data to implement rules to protect their citizens.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 7):
can't do that, everybody has to be treated equal
Quoting AirMale (Reply 8):
Treat everyone equal? no problem, start with the same restrictions for Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, Berlin..... then all germans are equally protected from aircraft noise.....

In the long run now that the EU has a unified air traffic "body" night curfews across all of the EU airspace at a given altitude should be considered, individual rulings have already been made where peace and quiet has taken precedence over jobs and profits, such would ensure that petty politics, tit for tat and bigger "countries" not take unfair advantage of smaller less vocal countries.


User currently offlineSteman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1382 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4997 times:

Honestly I don´t understand night curfews at all.
Modern airplanes are so quiet that you really need to be a couple of KM from the runway to be somewhat affected by the noise.
I find road traffic much worst, especially dumb people with their hifi car pumping huge amount of Bass


User currently onlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9342 posts, RR: 29
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4993 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 14):
he biggest joke is that alternative approaches over densely populated Swiss territory affects more Germans (who migrated to Switzerland) than the original approaches over those thinly populated German areas. This is fact

I agree with you, but the Germans living and working in Switzerland do not vote in the counties that initiated the whole matter.



Quoting par13del (Reply 15):
n the long run now that the EU has a unified air traffic "body" night curfews across all of the EU airspace at a given altitude should be considered, individual rulings have already been made where peace and quiet has taken precedence over jobs and profits

In the long run aircraft will become even quieter than they are already today.

OIn the short to loing run, people will realise that they cannot live from peace and quite alone. The German word "Grabesruhe" translates into "deathly hush of silence",. People need jobs to make a living and profits are needed to create jobs. Without profits there are no jobs, there are no taxes, there is Grabesruhe. Before profit BTW come costs and it makes a whole difference whether a 60 Million € piece of equipment can make 2 or 3 rotations to the mediterranean a day. With three, one is compoetetive with two one is out fo business.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7153 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4924 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17):
In the long run aircraft will become even quieter than they are already today.

Taking bets on which will happen first, more green taxes to reduce air travel or better engine technology to reduce noise? My take on NIMBY's is that unless the a/c makes absolutely no noise they will complain, its their reason for living next to an airport  
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17):
OIn the short to loing run, people will realise that they cannot live from peace and quite alone.

Hence my initial comment, economic factors have already been given second rift over noise concerns, maybe that's because those who drive the "noise" debate are least affected by the economic declines / adjustments?
Wonder how many persons who own property around airports actually work at the airport, based on the appreciation of property values I would say a huge minority.


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2621 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4897 times:

I wonder how much additional CO2 is emitted by the rerouting to satisfy these couple hundred people...

User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5566 posts, RR: 36
Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4829 times:

The most ridiculous thing: not long ago a study from independant experts, which was ordered by the German and Swiss Governements stated that NOBODY in southern Germany suffers under any flight noise which is higher than any German or Swiss law allows. The reasons: low dense population, only landing aircrafts, relatively high and fare away from the airport whereas in the southern part of the airport in Switzerland ten thousends of people are affected and the whole take-off noise stays more or less in Switzerland.

User currently offlineglidepath73 From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 1020 posts, RR: 45
Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4540 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 14):
My parent in-laws live effectively in Waldshut but think exactly the same. In Waldshut and the surrounding foothills of the black forrest aircrafts are really not disturbing. And the praised touristic activities are close to zero (where the planes fly, in Höchenschwandt on the hand side hardly ever an aircraft appears on the sky).

I grew up in Lauchringen, where most of the approaching traffic for RWY 14 lines up for final approach.
You are right. Up in Höchenschwand is hardly any aircraft overflying.
The noise in the affected area in south Germany is really nothing compared to road and rail traffic.
But well. If ZRH would have been located in German territory, nobody would complain about the noise. At least not in this dimensions.



Aviation! That rocks...
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5566 posts, RR: 36
Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4319 times:

For those who are interested, here you find this report by the Federal Republic of Germany and the Swiss Federation (in German):
http://www.bazl.admin.ch/aktuell/dokumente/index.html?lang=de

The conclusion in there is that there is no relevant flight noise in Southern Germany. Now Germany ignors it. That's not honest .


User currently onlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9342 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4248 times:

"Germany" does nothing here. This was a court case and the judges have come to a decision based on the current law. Nothing more and nothing less.

Judges are independent and do not take orders. Switzerland can start negotiating with the relevant authorities in germany, that would be the transport ministries of both countries, taking the fact that there is no aircraft noise as a base. But I can tell you that this would make sense ponly after the state elections in Baden Wuerttemberg next year.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineflyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 701 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4229 times:

I don't completely understand what is the argument here. The Swiss built an airport that requires overflying the German territory and now they're angry that they actually have to approach over their own country during the night time. The Swiss complained to the EU court (not the same as German court!) and lost, as the EU court ruled that it is legal for Germany to decide about the usage of their airspace during night. I think the Germans did not specifically restrict the Swiss planes flying over that territory, but everyone - including the German planes, no?

Of course what is behind all this is another story. Probably a lot of ugly politics unfortunately. As it seems there's no real problem from the noise, it would be probably better for everyone if Switzerland and Germany reached an agreement, but I guess after a long lawsuit they participants in this fight might be hesitant to start negoting...


25 PanHAM : No, it is a local feud, nothing else. The county managers have started a legal process several years ago. Switzerland can appeal the decision of the E
26 sandroZRH : That's the funny thing. Several thousand tons of CO2 are emitted annually due reroutings and inefficient approach procedured into ZRH that had to be
27 PanHAM : As I said, Switzerland can appeal and put all the arguments on the table. Switzerland and Germany had negotiated a treaty in 2002 which was turned dow
28 AustrianZRH : The funny part is that most people in the affected area actually are against this stupid ruling. A friend of mine grew up in Lauchringen and what he t
29 Quokka : It seems to prove the old adage, "the law should not only be an ass, but seen to be an ass." OK, I've changed that somewhat. But someone once said th
30 frmrCapCadet : I think what you write is likely the case. But more than opinions it would be useful to have some data. The airport appears to be about 10 miles from
31 GBan : The report is based on the flight statistics of 2007 with the directive of 2003 in place, doesn't it? It does not answer the question how the noise p
32 PanHAM : No politician, regardless where, will start something like "alllowing more noise" prior to elections. §29b of the relevant law should have been rewr
33 ZRH : I don't understand. Zurich actually has a night ban between 2300 and 0600.
34 PanHAM : ZRH does not need the connctivity between cargo and passenger aircraft. That's a different story. I referred to §29b because that might help in solvi
35 sandroZRH : They are neither "petty" nor "minor". Due the current regulations, ZRH is almost at capacity. landings and takeoffs especially during peak hours had
36 Post contains links and images rheinwaldner : You can not build an Airport close to Zurich that has not Approach or Departure airspace outside Switzerland. The country is too small to do that. At
37 PanHAM : you guys have my full sympathy in this matter, but you should say "no german in the southern counties of Baden-Wuerttemberg has ever seen....) Having
38 rheinwaldner : Correct! I forgot the departures. B.t.w. a flight Berlin-Zurich is for 95% (or so) of the route a domestic German flight. And the percentage of inbou
39 PITrules : I'm not really familiar with the situation, but this does not make sense to me. I assume peak hours are outside the 9pm-7am curfew (???), so if that'
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
TAM Might Extend CDG Flight To ZRH posted Fri Jan 25 2002 16:37:51 by Avion
Strange Experience On A SR Flight From JFK To ZRH posted Wed Aug 16 2000 17:13:50 by ZRH
DL JFK-SFO Flight Diverted To STL. posted Tue Mar 30 2010 16:53:44 by jetjack74
Flight BA52RF To FCO In 1999. posted Sat Mar 13 2010 05:04:31 by Bennett123
UA Pilots Late To Flight Due To Super Bowl Parade posted Wed Feb 10 2010 06:53:18 by MSYtristar
SIA Flight Diverted To Batam posted Tue Feb 2 2010 22:16:23 by Olympic472
A380 And It's "finale Approach" Flight Path To LHR posted Sun Dec 6 2009 03:17:58 by Maddog888
LX 092 ZRH-GRU Returned To ZRH posted Sat Nov 28 2009 10:16:26 by Hardiwv
Delta Flight 1016 To PHL Evacuated At ATL posted Sat Nov 7 2009 13:46:29 by RW170
UA Flight Returns To Gate At SAN posted Sun Nov 1 2009 17:57:05 by DL767captain