Jetstar curfew fine makes history!

[NickN]

JETSTAR has become the first Australian airline to be prosecuted and fined for breaching Sydney Airport's curfew.

The airline was fined $148,500 in Sydney's Downing Centre Local Court yesterday for breaching the curfew on December 3, 2007, federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said.

Jetstar pleaded guilty to the breach in January 2009.

Mr Albanese said a Jetstar flight breached the curfew when it departed Sydney airport about 30 minutes after the 11pm curfew, even though an application for dispensation was rejected.

The court decision sent a strong message to other airlines, Mr Albanese said.

"Compliance with curfew legislation must be observed," he said.

"The government remains committed to the retention of the existing curfew and cap on movements at Sydney Airport."

The maximum penalty for a curfew breach is $500,000

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...013605,00.html

[NigelP]

The one thing that i want to know?

Did they take off without ATC clearance?

I presume not.

So why not use that in defence?

[Gerard M]

Was this the same Jetstar flight?
http://yssyforum.net/board/showthrea...jetstar+curfew

[Michael Mak]

Originally Posted by NigelP

The one thing that i want to know?

Did they take off without ATC clearance?

I presume not.

So why not use that in defence?

They did and Sydney Tower warned them repeatedly that if they took off they risked getting fine but the Captain stated that it was JQ intention to take off despite the warning.

[Owen H]

Nigel, ATC have no authority in this case to withhold a clearance, as the airport is open.

Having a clearance is no defence to taking off when not permitted by curfew, as ATC did their job and told them that curfew was in operation.

I'm surprised that a larger penalty wasn't handed down, given the fact they had requested, and been specifically denied, a dispensation.

The dispensation requests, and reasons for approval or rejection are all available on the internet if you are interested in the reasons why they would be rejected. In general, dispensations are approved if the airline has no notice (IE pushback at 9:30 and have a failure), and there is very limited accomodation in Sydney. I believe in this case the airline had many hours knowledge that this could be an issue, which often results in rejection.

[Adrian B]

I had a look at some of the reports for dispensation being granted or denied. I find some are a little puzzling and possibly unfair. It seems to be ok to depart within 30 mins (subject to approval of course) but international arrival dispensation, especially due to excess hold times around YSSY due to thunderstorms seems to be denied. Such cases included aircraft that diverted sue to fuel reserve issues, but were not permittedto arrive at their final destination.

Another thing I noiticed was that there was no consistency in domestic arrival approval due to defects found at preflight. I noted on Jetstar flight found a nail in the tyre, which was immeidately replaced, yet this was denied. Other requests where the airlines had gone to great lengths to complete a passengers journey, but these were allowed. The windscreen crack divert to Adelaide was an example, where another aircraft was sourced at the last minute, but this was denied.

I understand and agree with the importance of the curfew, but at the same time I thnk there needs to be fair and reasonable tests applied, with consistant approval or denial. This is certainly not something I saw in the reports I read.

Happy to be educated.

[Owen H]

I completely agree with you with the fact that the inflexible nature of the curfew is becoming silly, and if Rudd wants to seriously fix emissions, it'd be a great way to start.

One part of the dispensation requirements they often don't go into is availability of accomodation, and foreseeability of the issue. A lot of the dispensations granted seem to be based on the fact that there is very little accomodation available, and if there is, then the dispensation is not approved.

It is all definately "secret mens business", and as you say, often similar requests get different answers.

The whole thing could be solved by modifying the curfew to allow certain exemptions. A start would be how aircraft that have been given permission to schedule in the shoulder between 5am and 6am, can only land on 34. If a simple exemption was given to say that the aircraft must land on 34, unless the wind was outside the AFM limitations, when they can land on 16. This only applies to those aircraft with scheduling approval to do so. Alone this would result in the saving of hundreds of thousands of litres of fuel a year, both in potential holding, actual holding, and flow on effects to the domestic flights that end up holding for 40mins to allow all those aircraft in at 6.

If there is foul weather in the area, the airport should also remain open. During Low Vis ops, Heathrow's curfew is lifted, and the same should apply for thunderstors that cause the airport to have its ramp staff leave the apron for thunderies. This should not need ministerial approval, it should be automatically applied, and reviewed periodically to ensure compliance.

I do not mind the curfew, as long as it allows a practical operation of the airport, and at the moment, it does not.

[Andrew M]

$148,500

Okay so lets assume 200 passengers leaving Sydney and also 200 passengers waiting in Bali for the plane.

If the plane didn't leave accommodation and meal/taxi costs for the stranded passengers would have been more than the fine!

[Jethro H]

Besides the fine, it's a criminal offence.

In business and finance sector, it is not a good idea for a to have a criminal record, which they now have. They can be counted as a liability when applying for extra funding/loans etc.

[Andrew P]

Taking off after 11.00pm is not a criminal offence by the way. It is an offence against the legislation, but not criminal. like a tax fine for late filing of a tax return

Banjo

(some copied)