Completely hypothetically as it's been mentioned on a well known pilots forum and in another thread that -OJS/T and U are to remain on past 2018, rumoured until the A380 refurbs are completed.

Could these operate Asian destinations like a second daily BNE-SIN for example?

Keeping these 3 B744's in the network really does alter some of the equations being debated and discussed on here.

[twoid][/twoid]

zkncj wrote:

TN486 wrote:

A question without notice. Do you see JQ proposed ops in WA being A320? Maybe something smaller - rebadged F100,s perhaps!

With the down turn in the mining industry - it could make sense to send the F100s Jetstars way, might be useful for JQNZ as well e.g. AKL-NSN, WLG-CHC, WLG-CHC, WLG-DUD, DUD-CHC, CHC-ZQN etc.

They have aleady compensated for the slack in the F100 fleet by moving more 717s east. I would not be surprised if eventually all 717s were East and WA/NT was all F100.

Does anyone know if all the JQ 787's are MEL and SYD based? I know that the maintenance base is in MEL, but are the 787's based anywhere else?

kriskim wrote:

Does anyone know if all the JQ 787's are MEL and SYD based? I know that the maintenance base is in MEL, but are the 787's based anywhere else?

Thats where they are based, no plans for any other bases, but the crew in other bases are trained to fly the 787

QF744ER wrote:

Completely hypothetically as it's been mentioned on a well known pilots forum and in another thread that -OJS/T and U are to remain on past 2018, rumoured until the A380 refurbs are completed.

It's been clear for a while now that the 2018 deadline wasn't going to be happening. The current outlook is good enough to justify spending money on keeping the three older 744s going for a little while longer to free up the 789s for new routes instead.

QF744ER wrote:

Could these operate Asian destinations like a second daily BNE-SIN for example?

They could (and probably will) but I doubt it would be on BNE-SIN. For starters, BNE is likely to be a 744-free zone by the end of next year and BNE-HKG would make more sense anyway with your hypothetical second daily BNE-SIN using the HKG A330.

Today is 16 years since Ansett went into Administration - it doesn't seem that long ago that there were still parked AN 146's & 767's at Tullamarine.

A bit OT, but a music clip from local duo Client Liason, with a heavy AN theme. Looks like a few AN memorabilia collections were raided for this clip!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QHxcZjmk1Y

VA has taken delivery of another 738



https://twitter.com/AeroimagesChris/sta ... 9418908672

qf789 wrote:

Effective 2 Feb 18 to 24 Mar 18 JQ will increase MEL-DPS from 10 weekly to a double daily service

JQ043 MEL1005 – 1255DPS 788 D
JQ035 MEL1855 – 2145DPS 788 D

JQ044 DPS1425 – 2300MEL 788 D
JQ036 DPS2315 – 0750+1MEL 788 D

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... y-changes/

With the new Chinese route and SGN launched this year, are the 788 at max utilisation or can they squeeze a bit more out of them?

VA has taken delivery of another 738

I assume that, as VA have said that they are not currently planing to grow the mainline fleet, that this new arrival will be matched with another older VO* or VU* series 738 heading to Tiger.

A push to remove the 80 movements cap is well over due!

Sydney Airport in push to ease hourly cap on number of aircraft flights

Sydney Airport is pushing for a relaxation of the cap on the number of planes that can fly in and out of Kingsford Smith, arguing the government-imposed restrictions are two decades old and detrimental to the state's tourism industry.

Australia's largest airport also told investors on Thursday it will be a "deeply uneconomic investment decision" for it to build a new airport at Badgerys Creek in western Sydney without the federal government stumping up money for its construction.


In a call that puts it on a collision course with residents under flight paths in inner Sydney, the airport's chief executive, Kerrie Mather, said it was time for a "broad-based discussion" about easing restrictions in an era of quieter passenger aircraft.

"We think it is important to have a discussion about how we can modernise these 20-year-old [restrictions]," she said, highlighting that Kingsford Smith had more constraints than any other airport in Australia.

Read more: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.smh ... uelc8.html

EK413

JQ has a new logo jet





http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... -scrabble/

qf789 wrote:

JQ has a new logo jet





http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... -scrabble/

Hopefully they can workout away to keep VQH on the right of of the Tasman , VH-VGF is very good at ending up on New Zealand domestic services (Ironic when the promo it was painted for, wasn't used in New Zealand).

EK413 wrote:

A push to remove the 80 movements cap is well over due!

Sydney Airport in push to ease hourly cap on number of aircraft flights

Sydney Airport is pushing for a relaxation of the cap on the number of planes that can fly in and out of Kingsford Smith, arguing the government-imposed restrictions are two decades old and detrimental to the state's tourism industry.

Australia's largest airport also told investors on Thursday it will be a "deeply uneconomic investment decision" for it to build a new airport at Badgerys Creek in western Sydney without the federal government stumping up money for its construction.


In a call that puts it on a collision course with residents under flight paths in inner Sydney, the airport's chief executive, Kerrie Mather, said it was time for a "broad-based discussion" about easing restrictions in an era of quieter passenger aircraft.

"We think it is important to have a discussion about how we can modernise these 20-year-old [restrictions]," she said, highlighting that Kingsford Smith had more constraints than any other airport in Australia.

Read more: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.smh ... uelc8.html

EK413

I would certainly back that idea as long as the runway capacity is there. Those man-made restrictions are just ridiculous IMO.

Michael

eamondzhang wrote:

EK413 wrote:

A push to remove the 80 movements cap is well over due!

Sydney Airport in push to ease hourly cap on number of aircraft flights

Sydney Airport is pushing for a relaxation of the cap on the number of planes that can fly in and out of Kingsford Smith, arguing the government-imposed restrictions are two decades old and detrimental to the state's tourism industry.

Australia's largest airport also told investors on Thursday it will be a "deeply uneconomic investment decision" for it to build a new airport at Badgerys Creek in western Sydney without the federal government stumping up money for its construction.


In a call that puts it on a collision course with residents under flight paths in inner Sydney, the airport's chief executive, Kerrie Mather, said it was time for a "broad-based discussion" about easing restrictions in an era of quieter passenger aircraft.

"We think it is important to have a discussion about how we can modernise these 20-year-old [restrictions]," she said, highlighting that Kingsford Smith had more constraints than any other airport in Australia.

Read more: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.smh ... uelc8.html

EK413

I would certainly back that idea as long as the runway capacity is there. Those man-made restrictions are just ridiculous IMO.

Michael

I'm sure the runway capacity can handle it considering LGW can handle over 40 million passengers on a single runway.

EK413

eamondzhang wrote:

I would certainly back that idea as long as the runway capacity is there. Those man-made restrictions are just ridiculous IMO.

Michael

They're not so ridiculous when you live right under the flightpath and you can vote.

luftaom wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

I would certainly back that idea as long as the runway capacity is there. Those man-made restrictions are just ridiculous IMO.

Michael

They're not so ridiculous when you live right under the flightpath and you can vote.

& I'm sure residents living under the flight paths knew there was an airport well before they purchased.

EK413

EK413 wrote:

luftaom wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

I would certainly back that idea as long as the runway capacity is there. Those man-made restrictions are just ridiculous IMO.

Michael

They're not so ridiculous when you live right under the flightpath and you can vote.

& I'm sure residents living under the flight paths knew there was an airport well before they purchased.

EK413

Exactly. I lived under the flight path for 10+ years overseas (and it is a busy airport I can assure you). However in most cases the airport is built before you bought the property. I found that ridiculous that people bought properties near airports like SYD & MEL well after it's built and complain about the noise afterwards. Man, you know an airport is only like 5-10 mins away so why do you buy that property in the first place? Seriously don't complain for something that you should have known already. In addition, modern jetliners are far quieter than their predecessors, which do reduce the noise level by quite a bit.

Michael

This conversation comes up every quarter or so and the 'the airport was there before people purchased' argument is always trotted out. The reality is that aircraft noise is disruptive and disproportionately impacts those closest to the airport. These people vote and are entitled to vote and to vote in their self interest. Blanket claims that 'there should be no restrictions' just don't reflect the political reality.

A much more realistic approach would be for some relaxation of the devil buried in the technicalities of the cap. Those in favour of the cap trot out the argument that it's 80 movements an hour. The catch is the way in which that is measured (rolling 15 minute increments) means that it is effectively a cap of 20 movements every 15 minutes. If the cap were changed to be 80 movements an hour over a rolling 20 or 30 minute increment, that would reduce the rigidity of the restrictions (particularly problematic on days like today) - without increasing overall flight numbers.

EK413 wrote:

luftaom wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

I would certainly back that idea as long as the runway capacity is there. Those man-made restrictions are just ridiculous IMO.

Michael

They're not so ridiculous when you live right under the flightpath and you can vote.

& I'm sure residents living under the flight paths knew there was an airport well before they purchased.

EK413

And aircraft are getting quieter with more sophisticated navigation technology aiding efficient departure and approaches. This isn't the days of 707s....

EK413 wrote:

luftaom wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

I would certainly back that idea as long as the runway capacity is there. Those man-made restrictions are just ridiculous IMO.

Michael

They're not so ridiculous when you live right under the flightpath and you can vote.

& I'm sure residents living under the flight paths knew there was an airport well before they purchased.

EK413

What if they bought a house under the flight path of the parallel runway before it was built?

V/F

A "statement of fact" if I may. From Jun 1967 to Jun 1968 I lived and worked in a wooden shelter no more than 3 km from a major USAF airbase that operated 24 hrs a day. One of the landing paths came right across the top of my location. Ac movements included most of the ac in the USAF inventory at the time, and quiet engines were unheard of in those days. I can tell you in all honesty that after a short period of time, the noise became part of the environment, in other words I got so used to it, I didn't hear it. When did I start hearing it again? The minute I arrived back on Australian soil. The noise I started hearing though was the "silence". Everything was so quiet it took some time to get used to. I must point out my hearing is pretty spot on for a 70 year old. So, am I a one off, or is it a fact that if we hear a specific type of noise, our bodies adjust to it. It has always been my belief that the more vocal you become relative to an issue, then it becomes an issue and the politicians jump on the bandwagon. In regards to Mascot, take away the political point scoring, and you will have a much more efficient civil (as apart from military) airport (IMHO)

VirginFlyer wrote:

What if they bought a house under the flight path of the parallel runway before it was built?

V/F

Then you are most likely dead or bought a house at 15 years old, 16R/34L was built in 1949.

luftaom wrote:

This conversation comes up every quarter or so and the 'the airport was there before people purchased' argument is always trotted out. The reality is that aircraft noise is disruptive and disproportionately impacts those closest to the airport. These people vote and are entitled to vote and to vote in their self interest. Blanket claims that 'there should be no restrictions' just don't reflect the political reality.

A much more realistic approach would be for some relaxation of the devil buried in the technicalities of the cap. Those in favour of the cap trot out the argument that it's 80 movements an hour. The catch is the way in which that is measured (rolling 15 minute increments) means that it is effectively a cap of 20 movements every 15 minutes. If the cap were changed to be 80 movements an hour over a rolling 20 or 30 minute increment, that would reduce the rigidity of the restrictions (particularly problematic on days like today) - without increasing overall flight numbers.

Your right this conversation pops up every week, fortnight, month, quarter, year. What's so amusing about this debate is fact the very same people that vote to keep the movement cap at 80 are the very same people trying to get on a flight out of Sydney then b#tch when a reporter approach them whilst in the long queues days like yesterday, today & tomorrow.

EK413

Turkish Airlines says they will definitely fly to SYD in 2018, I will be believe this when it actually happens

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/sydney ... sCatID=396

AsiaTravel wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

What if they bought a house under the flight path of the parallel runway before it was built?

V/F

Then you are most likely dead or bought a house at 15 years old, 16R/34L was built in 1949.

Indeed it was. I was however referring to 16L/34R which was approved in 1989 and completed in 1994, and which provided the context for the curfew and the movement cap. I used to live on centreline for 16L, approximately 3nm from the threshold, which meant aircraft flying over on final at about 1000ft. Personally I loved it, but it did interrupt conversations sometimes, and to be honest if I wasn't a lover of all things aviation, I doubt I would have appreciated it. The suburb was Newtown, and that was a rather densely populated residential area before the airport existed.

EK413 wrote:

What's so amusing about this debate is fact the very same people that vote to keep the movement cap at 80 are the very same people trying to get on a flight out of Sydney then b#tch when a reporter approach them whilst in the long queues days like yesterday, today & tomorrow.

EK413

The movement cap is somewhat irrelevant to that situation; when the strong westerly winds (which are fairly common in Sydney around this time of year) reduce operations down to one runway (07/25) the constraint is runway capacity, not the 80 movements/hour cap. An argument could be made that once the winds reduce and more runway space is available, allowing more movements for a temporary period could help clear the backlog, although I don't know how possible such a surge would be in terms of available aircraft.

As I see it, there are only two solutions to this wind issue which crops up every year:

• Build a fourth runway parallel to 07/25 at the Sydney Airport
• Allow Badgery's Creek, with its runway alignment designed to minimise crosswind component for the prevailing winds in Sydney, and hopefully no overnight curfew, to be developed as Sydney's primary airport, and leave the current airport as one closer in to the city, with single runway ops, which would cater to business jet traffic and premium short haul services. One of the parallels could be decommissioned, leaving the airport's capacity planning to be based on a single operational runway (which might be 16/34 or 07/25 depending on the current wind conditions).

The former is not likely to happen; the latter would in my mind be ideal, but would likely meet near insurmountable opposition from Sydney Airport's private owners, whose lease runs through to 2101. What we're likely to be left with is a lot of diversions to Badgery's Creek each time this happens.

V/F

eamondzhang wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas press release regarding SYD-KIX

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... ear-round/

Wow! That was quick! Is this the missing 330?

I guess the KIX flight utilises the spare A330 from MEL-SIN rotation, but since SYD-KIX only operates 3x weekly, there's still one more daily frequencies that QF can utilise. They may use this opportunity to refurb -EBG and -EBL though.

Cheers
Michael

EBG & EBL are more than likely going to be reconfigured into the domestic config with the youngest 6 A330-200's ear marked for a modified International interior upgrade. These aircraft will have small mods done (not seating) to enhance the cabins for the longer sectors which the 332's that fly domestically don't need.

BZF

AJ hits the jackpot:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/qantas ... 0f6a6cb56b

"Qantas chief Alan Joyce pockets $25 million in a shares-laden package

QANTAS boss Alan Joyce has flown way above all other Australian CEOs — pocketing at least $25 million last year."

Good luck to him.

mariner

According to this article there is an airline looking Bali and beyond from TSV, though the person who has mentioned this is a politician so I will believe it when something is actually announced

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/ne ... 5dc5bd8984

Air China is launching PEK-BNE from December 11.

CA795 PEK/BNE
CA796 BNE/PEK

The flights will arrive from Beijing at 3.10pm and depart Brisbane at 7.30pm, on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/ ... 47c6bed8e1

This is BNE's 4th Chinese link after CAN, PVG and SZX which launches this Thursday.

log0008 wrote:

Air China is launching PEK-BNE from December 11.

CA795 PEK/BNE
CA796 BNE/PEK

The flights will arrive from Beijing at 3.10pm and depart Brisbane at 7.30pm, on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/ ... 47c6bed8e1

This is BNE's 4th Chinese link after CAN, PVG and SZX which launches this Thursday.

Behind subscription paywall. What aircraft?

LamboAston wrote:

log0008 wrote:

Air China is launching PEK-BNE from December 11.

CA795 PEK/BNE
CA796 BNE/PEK

The flights will arrive from Beijing at 3.10pm and depart Brisbane at 7.30pm, on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/ ... 47c6bed8e1

This is BNE's 4th Chinese link after CAN, PVG and SZX which launches this Thursday.

Behind subscription paywall. What aircraft?

Doesn't specifiy but assuming A332

There're still no update from Donghai AIr or Chinese aviation authority regarding the SZX-DRW route, but the airline's official site displayed promotion for its upcoming SZX-PQC route (PQC=Phu Quoc in Vietnam). That mean if it is really going to open SZX-DRW, that won't be the airlines' first international route. Seems like they might also open new route to Pattaya.

LamboAston wrote:

log0008 wrote:

Air China is launching PEK-BNE from December 11.

CA795 PEK/BNE
CA796 BNE/PEK

The flights will arrive from Beijing at 3.10pm and depart Brisbane at 7.30pm, on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/ ... 47c6bed8e1

This is BNE's 4th Chinese link after CAN, PVG and SZX which launches this Thursday.

Behind subscription paywall. What aircraft?

You can access the article if you google it, just google Air China to find it

So has the first Qantas 787 been painted? Are they keeping it quietly hidden like the first painted UPS 748?

decry wrote:

So has the first Qantas 787 been painted? Are they keeping it quietly hidden like the first painted UPS 748?

Who knows. It was stated on the 787 production thread that it was due to come out of paint on the 14th with first flight scheduled on the 22nd however I am a bit sceptical about that. The reason I say that is having watched other aircraft come out of paint at PAE they are usually flying a couple days later

qf789 wrote:

According to this article there is an airline looking Bali and beyond from TSV, though the person who has mentioned this is a politician so I will believe it when something is actually announced

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/ne ... 5dc5bd8984

The only carrier that has a "very slim" chance of making that particular route work is QZ (Indo AirAsia) as they have one of their hubs at DPS, and at least QZ would be able to fill up the plane with transfer traffic in both directions. Bali is a "Fly-Thru" transit point for Indo AirAsia, so travellers would collect their boarding passes at their origin and their bags tagged through, just like the full-service carriers.

It would open up opportunities for QZ in conjunction with TSV/Council/Tourism Bodies/etc to promote Townsville to other cities in Indonesia and surrounding Asian cities through connecting in Denpasar.

Having said that though, I can not see QZ making a move to replace JQ on the TSV-DPS route anytime soon.

Due to the fuel shortage some NZ flights have been cancelled, the ones of the next 24 hours are

NZ729 Auckland to Melbourne Sunday 17 September
NZ722 Melbourne to Auckland Monday 18 September
NZ718 Sydney to Auckland Tuesday 19 September 
NZ719 Auckland to Sydney Tuesday 19 September

https://www.airnewzealand.com.au/travel-alerts

log0008 wrote:

Air China is launching PEK-BNE from December 11.

CA795 PEK/BNE
CA796 BNE/PEK

The flights will arrive from Beijing at 3.10pm and depart Brisbane at 7.30pm, on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/ ... 47c6bed8e1

This is BNE's 4th Chinese link after CAN, PVG and SZX which launches this Thursday.

Depends how technical or political we want to get, but it would the 4th mainland China route we have in BNE. Politically, we can say HKG and TPE are part of China (we know how much the government there is trying to claim Taiwan), so it's either the 4th or 6th Chinese route we have, depending on how we count them.

QantasLink Q300 VH-SBV has been repainted and named 'Devonport'. Presumably QF plans using Q300s on MEL-DPO in the near future.

PA515

PA515 wrote:

QantasLink Q300 VH-SBV has been repainted and named 'Devonport'. Presumably QF plans using Q300s on MEL-DPO in the near future.

PA515

The next one being repainted is Q300 VH-TQE

Here is a photo of Q300 VH-SBV in Silveroo livery

QantasLink Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 | VH-SBV | BNE by Aaron Taylor, on Flickr

Air China 789 b-1591 operating CA784 from AKL has routed via Sydney on its way to Beijing to pick up fuel this evening.

CZ306 AKL-CAN is diverting to BNE for fuel

https://www.flightradar24.com/CSN306/ee421af

ABC article states it could be 10-14 days to fully restore fuel supply at AKL airport due to damaged infrastructure...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-17/f ... fmredir=sm

No doubt SYD, MEL & BNE will see further diversions from AKL over the coming days.

decry wrote:

China Airlines CI54 also stopped in @ BNE for fuel.

CI54 didn't stop in BNE for fuel, its how the normal schedule flight operates that being AKL-BNE-TPE

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ci54

Ahhh thanks for clarification thought they were direct these days.

log0008 wrote:

LamboAston wrote:

log0008 wrote:

Air China is launching PEK-BNE from December 11.

CA795 PEK/BNE
CA796 BNE/PEK

The flights will arrive from Beijing at 3.10pm and depart Brisbane at 7.30pm, on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/ ... 47c6bed8e1

This is BNE's 4th Chinese link after CAN, PVG and SZX which launches this Thursday.

Behind subscription paywall. What aircraft?

Doesn't specifiy but assuming A332

Yes it will be operated by A332

https://www.ausbt.com.au/air-china-to-f ... ember-2017

VirginFlyer wrote:

AsiaTravel wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

What if they bought a house under the flight path of the parallel runway before it was built?

V/F

Then you are most likely dead or bought a house at 15 years old, 16R/34L was built in 1949.

Indeed it was. I was however referring to 16L/34R which was approved in 1989 and completed in 1994, and which provided the context for the curfew and the movement cap. I used to live on centreline for 16L, approximately 3nm from the threshold, which meant aircraft flying over on final at about 1000ft. Personally I loved it, but it did interrupt conversations sometimes, and to be honest if I wasn't a lover of all things aviation, I doubt I would have appreciated it. The suburb was Newtown, and that was a rather densely populated residential area before the airport existed.

EK413 wrote:

What's so amusing about this debate is fact the very same people that vote to keep the movement cap at 80 are the very same people trying to get on a flight out of Sydney then b#tch when a reporter approach them whilst in the long queues days like yesterday, today & tomorrow.

EK413

The movement cap is somewhat irrelevant to that situation; when the strong westerly winds (which are fairly common in Sydney around this time of year) reduce operations down to one runway (07/25) the constraint is runway capacity, not the 80 movements/hour cap. An argument could be made that once the winds reduce and more runway space is available, allowing more movements for a temporary period could help clear the backlog, although I don't know how possible such a surge would be in terms of available aircraft.

As I see it, there are only two solutions to this wind issue which crops up every year:

• Build a fourth runway parallel to 07/25 at the Sydney Airport
• Allow Badgery's Creek, with its runway alignment designed to minimise crosswind component for the prevailing winds in Sydney, and hopefully no overnight curfew, to be developed as Sydney's primary airport, and leave the current airport as one closer in to the city, with single runway ops, which would cater to business jet traffic and premium short haul services. One of the parallels could be decommissioned, leaving the airport's capacity planning to be based on a single operational runway (which might be 16/34 or 07/25 depending on the current wind conditions).

The former is not likely to happen; the latter would in my mind be ideal, but would likely meet near insurmountable opposition from Sydney Airport's private owners, whose lease runs through to 2101. What we're likely to be left with is a lot of diversions to Badgery's Creek each time this happens.

V/F

There are three elements to SYD's current operations which need to be reviewed in parallel:

1. The movement cap - currently 80;
2. The curfew;
3. Noise spreading.

The first two are obvious. Noise spreading is part of the Long Term Operating Plan under which ATC spreads out the noise over affected Sydney communities.

Additional to the first is the issue of international aircraft being allowed to land during shoulder periods. ie 5am to 6am and 11pm to midnight.

Personally I'd do the following if I was Prince of the City:

1. Allow maximum use of the Shoulder period with flights allowed to land and takeoff to and from the South only. That way the aircraft are both approaching and taking off over Botany Bay and will spend the vast bulk of their time on both approach and descent over water. That minimises noise disturbance and allows for further spreading of international arrivals;
2. Allow domestic flights to land during the shoulder periods in the same way as point 1;
3. Stop the noise spreading policy and allow ATC to do their jobs properly. Given modern aircraft produce less noise the LTOP needs to be revised anyway and this document should reflect optimal approach and descent paths, which would actually create less noise, rather than politically motived policy that currently exists which was an instrument of John Howard to reduce noise of his electorate. (Look at the documents and note how aircraft avoided Bennelong when he was the member);
4. Develop Badgerys Creek as the replacement to SYD on expiry of the Airport Lease. So short term Badgerys should be acting as an LCC and Freight Hub with the associated infrastructure being built, ie freight rail lines, semi-trailer depo's etc. Medium to long term the airport should be developed to be at least a 4 runway, but preferable bigger, 24 hour facility. No restrictions, no curfew.

Long term you combine Badgerys Airport with High Speed Rail and you have a winning combination for Sydney in terms of transport.

Former QF A332 VH-EBH has returned back to Australia after conversion to MRTT configuration



http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... -amberley/

Sydscott wrote:

Personally I'd do the following if I was Prince of the City:

1. Allow maximum use of the Shoulder period with flights allowed to land and takeoff to and from the South only. That way the aircraft are both approaching and taking off over Botany Bay and will spend the vast bulk of their time on both approach and descent over water. That minimises noise disturbance and allows for further spreading of international arrivals;
2. Allow domestic flights to land during the shoulder periods in the same way as point 1;
3. Stop the noise spreading policy and allow ATC to do their jobs properly. Given modern aircraft produce less noise the LTOP needs to be revised anyway and this document should reflect optimal approach and descent paths, which would actually create less noise, rather than politically motived policy that currently exists which was an instrument of John Howard to reduce noise of his electorate. (Look at the documents and note how aircraft avoided Bennelong when he was the member);
4. Develop Badgerys Creek as the replacement to SYD on expiry of the Airport Lease. So short term Badgerys should be acting as an LCC and Freight Hub with the associated infrastructure being built, ie freight rail lines, semi-trailer depo's etc. Medium to long term the airport should be developed to be at least a 4 runway, but preferable bigger, 24 hour facility. No restrictions, no curfew.

Long term you combine Badgerys Airport with High Speed Rail and you have a winning combination for Sydney in terms of transport.

If I was the prince of the city, I would forcibly reclaim the existing land around SYD and build a few new runways. Since I live in the inner city, SYD is a perfect location compared with Badgery's Creek for me. As for the curfew and those living under the runway, who cares I'm the Prince and any dissenters will be beheaded

If you were to demolish/replace the existing airport at SYD and rezone it as residential, you'd get quite a windfall (given the way residential prices are going in SYD) which you could certainly use to develop Badgery's Creek into a proper world class airport and develop proper transport links.