No Aircraft Noise latest newsletter

Newsletters
May 2011 Volume 16, Issue 1, http://www.noaircraftnoise.org.au

Albanese admits Sydney Airport cannot cope

The Federal Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese has admitted again that the airport cannot cope with the expected increase in traffic. Albanese told the Sydney Morning Herald that “Sydney needs a second airport sooner rather than later. Without action the national economy will be constrained with a negative impact on growth and jobs.”

An analysis by the consultants Booz and Company shows that bad weather will cause increasing delays at Sydney Airport, which will flow on to disrupt flights throughout the country. By 2020 a strong crosswind during two hours of the morning peak would cause delays over the following five hours. The analysis was prepared for a federal government inquiry into a second airport.

Paul Fitzgerald, former Marrickville Greens councillor, wrote in a letter to the Herald: “Sydney does not need a second airport. It needs a replacement airport.”

“A second airport would make things far worse for the people who live under Sydney Airport’s flight paths because it would allow aircraft smaller than jets to be removed. The 27 percent of air traffic capacity that is now taken by those planes would then be available for large jets – which are noisier, more polluting and more dangerous.”

“If a replacement airport were built outside the Sydney basin and connected by fast train, the site of the current airport could become a residential and employment precinct.”

Albanese has ruled out consideration of a replacement airport which means he is failing to even look at the most viable alternative.

Noise limits artificial says Sydney Airport

Sydney Airport is constrained by an 80 movements an hour cap, intended to limit the noise impact on residents. The slot manager said there is increasing pressure on peak hour slots with seven hours a day when airlines want more than 80 flights per hour.

Sydney Airport’s response is to ask for the cap to be lifted in a submission to the Productivity Commission. “The 80 movements per hour cap is an arbitrary regulatory cap that does not reflect the capacity of the infrastructure at Sydney Airport,” they told the Herald. The airport would like regional aircraft exempted from the cap, so that they can cram more large noisy jets through in peak hours.

Who cares about the noise which continues to rise? The noise from the airport is way above the Australian Standards for aircraft noise in residential areas, but these standards are not enforced on Australian airports.

Sites named include Wilton

Wilton, the best near city site for a major airport to replace the present inadequate operation, was named in the list in the second airport story. Wilton is just 20km south of Campbelltown and was assessed in 1985 as a possible site for a major second airport for Sydney. Unlike Badgerys Creek, it has not had large scale housing built nearby.

Far out sites mentioned include Williamstown, north of Newcastle, and Canberra, both too far to be any use as a new Sydney airport. Suburban locations like Bankstown, Richmond and Camden have too much nearby housing for the existing small airports to take regular jet traffic.

The Central Coast was also listed as a possible second airport site. There was a proposal in the 1990’s to expand the small airport at Warnervale, just north of Wyong. Wyong Council wanted a 24 hour airport with 65,000 flights a year. Residents took the council to court and lost, with costs awarded against them. The Carr Labor Government intervened, paid the residents costs and limited the airport’s size. There has been a lot of new housing in the area since then.

Sydney Airport owners accused of avoiding tax in Denmark

Denmark’s largest broadsheet “Politiken” has published allegations against MAp Airports (part owner of Copenhagen airport and main shareholder in Sydney Airport), of exploiting a tax loophole. MAp is accused of avoiding withholding tax to the tune of $100m on earnings from the country’s main airport at Copenhagen. Map was previously known as Macquarie Airports, before it paid the parent company, Macquarie Bank, $345 million to cease managing it.

The three major stakeholders in the airport are MAp (30.8% and formerly managed by Macquarie Group), the Danish Government (39%), and a Macquarie-managed fund called Macquarie European Infrastructure Fund 3 (26.9%). The allegations which are being investigated have been denied by the chairman of Copenhagen Airport and by MAp.

Make public transport to the airport cheaper

The NSW Labor Government started subsidising fares on the privately owned rail line to the airport just before it left office. This move resulted in more people using the line as ticket prices are now the same as on other rail lines. However the only stations subsidised were Green Square and Mascot, not the two airport stations.

Recent NSW Parliamentary Budget Office analysis suggests that buying the rail line would be a better deal than subsidising the private owners for the extra cost of the fares on an ongoing basis. The price tag for the rail line is expected to be $300m or less.

What better way to increase usage of the rail line? Fares would be cheaper for now and the future. If the rail line is more popular with airport users, the roads to the airport will be less congested, and we will have less cars parking at the airport for exorbitant rates.

Dick Smith safe in Terry Hills

Aviation personality and Terry Hills resident, Dick Smith, has promoted the big quiet planes myth. In a letter to the Herald, he said “a stable population, coupled with quieter and larger aircraft, would render Sydney Airport sufficient for our long-term needs.” For Dick’s information, the big new “quiet” Airbus A380 is right up there with all the other regular noisy jets, but is slightly quieter than the Boeing 747, a design whose first version flew in the 1970’s.

Airport monopoly allows price gouging

Sydney Airport sits on a monopoly. There is no alternative if you want to fly into or out of Sydney. So they are able to put up prices for services like parking and get away with it.

Having a monopoly also means they do not have to provide a good service, or provide for all Sydney’s air traffic needs. Privatisation does not work with a monopoly which is only partly regulated.

JOIN US OR SUBSCRIBE
No Aircraft Noise News is published several times per year. Contact us by email at ccnan@bigpond.com, PO Box 613, Petersham 2049, or phone 9564 0018.

For aircraft noise complaints or information, phone 1800 802 584 or go to the Noise Complaints page on this website.

Posted in Aircraft Regulation | Leave a comment

Sydney Airport Forum – 20 May – 9am to 12noon Phillip Street

Sydney Airport Community Forum
There is a meeing of the SACF on 20/5/11  at
Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices
8th Floor,  70 Phillip Street,
9 -12 am
Contact John  on 1800 812069 to be registered if you wish to go. You can listen but not speak.
Posted in Aircraft Regulation | Leave a comment

A lovely day in La Perouse except for the noise

Thank you for having us for lunch today, we really had a lovely day.
We hadn’t seen your new place before and it was so pleasant sitting out on the deck with such a nice view of the bay although it was quite disappointing that the aircraft taking off from Mascot do fly right over your house making it impossible to have a conversation. Is it ever possible to sit out there in peace ?
Cheers
Kathleen
Posted in Reports of noise | Leave a comment

Misleading Maps

from  J. Lord:
The people of the La Perouse Peninsula are in a unique position to demonstrate how the Airlines using Sydney Airport are issuing inaccurate maps of their flight paths. Airservices Australia publishes these maps.
When I have been fortunate enough to visit La Perouse I have seen evidence of this myself – jets definitely fly over Danny’s Seafood Restaurant and residences adjacent to it.  Yet when shown the maps with flightpaths drawn in for a particular day, not one track is shown above the Point of the Peninsula – they appear over the water – the entrance to Botany Bay (where they are supposed to be).
Posted in Aircraft Regulation | Leave a comment

DOUBLE WHAMMY OF INDUSTRIAL NOISE

From Bob:
We have a double whammy of industrial noise here on the La Perouse Peninsula -
(1)  We have jet aircraft flying over our residential area instead of over the water entrance to Botany Bay, and we are often blasted by aircraft for 17 hours per day,  NONE OF WHICH IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY AIR SERVICES AUSTRALIA
and
(2) 24 hour noise from Port Botany which is a drone punctuated by the clanging of dropped containers (loud enough to wake some of us) accompanied by the annoying beeping of of vehicles used at the Terminals.
This morning at 3.45 am some residents were awakened by the sound of a Hooter malfunctioning for 10 minutes,  emanating from the Port.
Posted in Reports of noise | Leave a comment

Information from Aircraft Noise Ombudsman

This information was supplied on 18/3/2011 from the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman

“Airservices Australia does have a web based tool that displays aircraft tracks called WebTrak, which is available at the following link – WebTrak.  You may find this service useful in tracking, and identifying, aircraft movements over La Perouse.  While the raw data for this service comes directly from the calibrated radar system, the sizes of the aircraft are not to scale (some aircraft are displayed being about 2 kilometres wide) and this needs to be taken into account when viewing the display.

In relation to the accuracy of the map you received, I am assuming that you are referring to a map obtained from Airservices Australia.  I am familiar with these maps, and while I am unable to comment on the one specifically prepared for you, I can advise that the source for these records is the same as that used by air traffic control.  As such it is subject to stringent calibration requirements and has very small error tolerances.  I do acknowledge however that you have witnessed aircraft overhead, and there are a number of factors that would reinforce that view.  For example, the aircraft departing to the south on the eastern of the two parallel runways undertake a slight left turn straight after take-off for separation with aircraft from the western parallel runway.  When abeam Port Botany, a slight right turn is required so that the aircraft tracks out via the entrance to Botany Bay.  This would give the perception to those in La Perouse that the aircraft is directly overhead, despite being a small distance to the west.  I emphasise that it is only a small distance to the west due to the narrow entrance to Port Botany, and there may be a small number of aircraft, due to their navigational tolerances, that would pass over the La Perouse foreshore.  I should also add that given the small distance, and the configuration of the aircraft (that is, being in a slight right angle of bank), the noise difference between overhead and slightly to the west is likely to be minimal.”


Posted in Aircraft Regulation | Leave a comment