Sydscott wrote:Aesma wrote:I don't see what's regressive about a curfew. Aren't people more important than flights at night ?
There shouldn't be, under any circumstances, a curfew at Western Sydney Airport and there are two primary reasons for that:
1. Western Sydney Airport will handle significant volumes of freight which can arrive, and leave, late at night;
2. In terms of International flights, if you have a look at MEL's schedule post 11pm and midnight you can gain an insight into the airlines who would potentially be interested in operating flights out of Western Sydney Airport rather than having their aircraft trapped at SYD by the curfew.
Along with that I imagine that Western Sydney Airport will start off with a schedule looking a lot like the Gold Coasts with a fair bit of Jetstar and Tiger along with a smattering of Qantas, Virgin and Air New Zealand. I'd be very surprised if the likes of Air Asia and SQ didn't operate pax flights out of there as well.
Yes, this.
When you look at the growth of air travel and demand for freight movement right now, and in the future, a curfew, it's just not a real option?
b6sea wrote:Aesma wrote:I don't see what's regressive about a curfew. Aren't people more important than flights at night ?
Now of course in the context of a new airport, the idea is to build it in the middle of nowhere, and to make a lot of that nowhere part of the airport's grounds, ensuring nobody will move in and later complain about the noise.
I mean... It depends. If you buy a house near an airport in a major metropolitan area that is growing rapidly and you don't expect the noise to get worse, let alone the fact that the reason you're getting your home for a discount is due to the noise to begin with, then you're the unreasonable one.
Further, doesn't conveniently and cost-effectively serving the economic and transportation needs of a major city of millions of people supercede the needs of a few dozen or hundred people who are inconvenienced by the effects? I would say yes, absolutely, it does. And if these people want to be bought out of their homes for the fair market value, so that they can move elsewhere, then that avenue should be provided to them. But the needs of a very select few (many of whom understood the noise problem would exist beforehand, or at the very least had enough information to have been able to make that conclusion on their own) should not impede the progress of an entire metropolitan region or cost billions of dollars to remedy. I think that's a reasonable thing to assert.
I agree. I live in an ANEF (Australian Noise Exposure Forecast) zone, and a curfew-free airport, and if that aspect of buying property (anywhere) means an entry into the property market in these times of housing affordability being an issue, then getting onto the property ladder to start with is a good thing in itself IMHO, and hey, look how close you are to the airport for your business and holiday travel.
From my experience, ground-based noises at any time of day can be much more disruptive.
The aircraft nowadays are also much quieter than the old 727, 767. Trucks and trains not so much. Most motor vehicles yes. Barking dogs, no.
Insulating the home, if not already can help also, but there are many other reasons for doing that anyway.
I agree, there are certain groups that lobby for aircraft noise issues, and deviated flight paths around residential areas has been one that has been a two-way positive outcome for this. You can't have the airport completely miles away from nowhere, there is always going to be residential housing somewhere around the airport, but more often that not, industrial estates and recreational clubs are, that are a more productive use of the land and make people a lot less grumpy?
I both stayed at and visited places that were under the flight path from LHR many years ago, and that is the most saturated aircraft noise experience I've had, and while it was only brief, about a week, here and there, and for the most part was the daytime I am referring to here anyway - every thirty to forty seconds frequency kind of thing, at least it gives an idea of what it would be like to live in an area like that.
You brain can zone out from it, as noticed after a period away and return, but as said, the airport is a bigger entity. IMHO if you are planning an airport from scratch it is a chance to try and make it right, rather than the way SYD has become.
), can someone explain to me what the second airport is for? Like an Avalon where it is mostly LCC traffic, or an eventual Kingsford Smith replacement? 
Or, the Essendon and Tullamarine kind of scenario.
