In today’s episode of “yes, airport curfews are actually enforced,” I present to you what happened on a recent Condor flight, which missed the airport’s curfew extension by seconds, leading to a flight diversion, and an unpleasant bus ride in the middle of the night. Thanks to aeroTELEGRAPH for flagging this story.
Delayed Condor flight misses Frankfurt Airport closure by seconds
On Friday, September 11, 2026, Condor flight DE1809 was scheduled to operate from Olbia (OLB) to Frankfurt (FRA). The flight was operated by an Airbus A320 with the registration code D-ASGE, and was scheduled to depart at 8:15PM and arrive at 10:15PM.
However, the flight was running way behind schedule, due to the inbound aircraft being delayed. The plane ended up taking off from Olbia at 10:39PM, over two hours behind schedule. This was definitely a race against the clock. Frankfurt Airport has a curfew of 11PM, though extensions of up to one hour can be granted, so the plane had an absolute latest landing time of 12AM.
Looking at historical data, the 633-mile journey ordinarily has a flight time of anywhere from 1hr24min to 1hr41min. So as you can tell, taking off 1hr21min before the final possible landing time sure is optimistic.
My guess is that the airline decided it made sense to transport passengers to Germany either way, even if it meant diverting to another airport, since it would be cheaper than canceling the flight altogether, having to cover hotel rooms for everyone, etc. (though with a diversion, EC261 compensation would have to be paid either way, just as a function of the timing).
Anyway, the plane actually made really good time. The plane was cleared to approach Frankfurt Airport’s runway 25C. The gear dropped, and the plane descended all the way down to 875 feet, and was a matter of seconds from landing… only to not be given landing clearance. Below was the plane’s position at 12AM.
As a result, the A320 had to divert to divert to Cologne (CGN), which is 85 miles away, and is one of the few major airports in Germany that allows 24/7 operations. The plane ultimately landed there around 25 minutes later, at 12:25AM.
Upon landing in Cologne, the airline sent passengers to Frankfurt by bus, a roughly two hour drive. So I imagine it was close to 4AM by the time passengers made it to their destination, given the need to collect bags, etc.
Should there be more flexibility with airport curfews?
When you see situations like this, you can’t help but wonder if curfews are actually serving their intended purpose. The intent of curfews is to avoid the noise of aircraft near airports, for the benefits of residents in the area.
You know what likely causes more noise than a plane landing at midnight? Well, a plane discontinuing its approach at a low altitude. So in the end, people in the area were subjected to more noise than they would’ve otherwise been, simply because that’s what the rules state. That says nothing of the increased emissions.
Logically, one would say that there should be a little flexibility… I mean, we’re talking about a matter of seconds here. But I also get that this is a slippery slope. An extension of one hour had already been offered, and that’s the point at which there’s just no flexibility.
The other consideration with these curfew stories is that airlines are generally really pushing their luck in the first place. The plane took off from Olbia with the hopes of having a shorter flight time than this exact flight has ever had, best I can tell. And that was already reliant on an extension of one hour. The airline has some responsibility here. No matter where you draw the line, there are always going to be situations where flights just barely miss the latest possible landing time, and various parties aren’t happy about it.
Bottom line
A Condor Airbus A320 flying from Olbia to Frankfurt had to divert after it missed Frankfurt’s curfew extension by a matter of seconds. The plane already had its gear out and was at an altitude of under 1,000 feet, but wasn’t given landing clearance due to barely missing the deadline. This triggered a diversion to Cologne, so that passengers could then be put on buses to Frankfurt, leading to a very long night.
Is this super frustrating, and does it seem unreasonable? I mean, yes. But at the same time, I feel like no matter how much leeway you give, airlines will always try to push their luck. After all, they had already been given an extension of one hour, and even with the math not really mathing, they still gave it a shot.
What do you make of this Condor diversion?
“What they should do….” is as helpful as… “If I were president i’d…. blah blah blah.” Well you’re not, and what makes 100% sense in our tiny part of the world wont work or be possible everywhere else.
I do appreciate the german system for taking out the middle ground of uncertainty in many situations.… it can be cold and uncaring, but at least you know what you’re going to get…
It does...
“What they should do….” is as helpful as… “If I were president i’d…. blah blah blah.” Well you’re not, and what makes 100% sense in our tiny part of the world wont work or be possible everywhere else.
I do appreciate the german system for taking out the middle ground of uncertainty in many situations.… it can be cold and uncaring, but at least you know what you’re going to get…
It does surprise me that this happened with a german airline. clearly they felt the only thing to loose was some very unhappy customers… so why not try it?
But I guarantee you they weren't surprised with the outcome.
Lol, Germany. Such effective and reasonable policies
Why did ATC clear them for approach when there was no time to land before curfew? Is it FRA's way to screw the neighbors? You restrict our operations with your silly curfew, now enjoy the go-around noise - we are following the rules to the letter?
I think the most fair compromise would be hefty fine if the airline absolutely needs to violate curfew and loss of slots if it becomes a habitual offense.
Set the fines linked to the amount of seats in the plane scaling up around 60 to 80 percent of E621 compensation and go from there. This would discourage close calls like this plus rerouting while making sure airlines don't get in the habit of always...
I think the most fair compromise would be hefty fine if the airline absolutely needs to violate curfew and loss of slots if it becomes a habitual offense.
Set the fines linked to the amount of seats in the plane scaling up around 60 to 80 percent of E621 compensation and go from there. This would discourage close calls like this plus rerouting while making sure airlines don't get in the habit of always paying the fine.
If an airline is frequently paying fines on late flights they lose the rights to the slot.
Yes! Punish the actual bad actor - the airline - rather than the passengers who paid the airline to get them from point A to point B but otherwise had no control over the timing.
You've made this kind of post before. It is a legal issue, countless lawsuits have been fought over the aviation noise.
The current system is the one which survived in courts. No administrator has flexibility here.
ATC has authority to override the curfew for delayed flights. At many airports this is common: LGA has a midnight to 6:00am curfew, but ATC regularly allows planes to land or depart later, sometimes much later if there are cascading delays from thunderstorms. There are no legal repercussions.
Sam R: Since when does the German law apply at La Guardia?
I'd point out that this is in Germany, not the US. In the US, I think there's more flexibility - common law vs civil law makes a difference, and I think the US also has a far more casual relationship with the letter of the law. Rishi Sunak's seatbelt incident comes to mind for the latter - I think in most of the US the reaction would have been "So what?" rather than it being...
I'd point out that this is in Germany, not the US. In the US, I think there's more flexibility - common law vs civil law makes a difference, and I think the US also has a far more casual relationship with the letter of the law. Rishi Sunak's seatbelt incident comes to mind for the latter - I think in most of the US the reaction would have been "So what?" rather than it being a big scandal.
Put differently, in the US I think the airline would be more likely to risk the curfew violation with the expectation that the fine would be far below the max and with no expectation of public outrage.
I was also once on a flight that missed the curfew by seconds (3000 seconds to be precise) and had to divert. So infuriating.
Yeah there should be fines for this, increasing the more a curfew is overstepped.
Also extension of curfew shouldn't be something that you can do before starting, the 1-hour grace period should be for cases where the plane intended to land at 11pm but due to issues is a bit delayed, it seems to me that Condor interpreted this as "Frankfurt is open until 12am")
I always hope there's one lucky pax whose final destination was Cologne and he's celebrating tonight that he didn't have to get the bus from Frankfurt :)
There is flexibility. Up to one hour, which is quite generous. If you offer additional 5 minutes, then someone will come in at 5:05 minutes and people will be asking for "more flexibility" again. You gotta draw the line somewhere.
How about they fine the $hit out of the airline and not screw all the passengers? Oh wait, Germany.
The curfew is not meant to benefit the government, it's to benefit the 100K+ people who are trying to sleep beneath the flight path. So what amount of fine would you suggest? If each passenger gets 250 euros, at least 100 euros for each person on the ground?
I had never heard of Olbia, and I will probably never hear of it again.
Weird to brag about willfully ignoring Olbia when its one of the main gateways to Sardinia. Delta and United both fly there.
@Ross The fine, I think, is meant to discourage airlines from breaching the curfew.
More germans gonna be germans. It’s the rules. And cannot do the right thing….
You can’t fix stupid.
I've said it last time something similar happened:
They shouldn't have curfews based on landing times, instead of e.g. final approach fix (be at position X or Y miles out at 11:55). That way the decision would be made earlier, saving fuel and sparing residents the noise.
I'd go a step further and say it should be based upon takeoff time. The flight release has a planned flight time on it... if the flight takes off in time to fly the planned flight time and land before the curfew, but then encounters en route delays, it should still be allowed to land.
In the US, at least, that's the standard we use for crew member duty limits... you have to expect,...
I'd go a step further and say it should be based upon takeoff time. The flight release has a planned flight time on it... if the flight takes off in time to fly the planned flight time and land before the curfew, but then encounters en route delays, it should still be allowed to land.
In the US, at least, that's the standard we use for crew member duty limits... you have to expect, at the time of takeoff, to arrive before your duty day limit. It's a reasonable standard in both situations.
You need to update the post. FRA has an actual curfew of 11pm and a grace period for late flights until midnight. The Condor flight wasnt seconds past the curfew, it was seconds past the grace period and over an hour past the curfew.
@ BeeDazzle -- Whoops, you're absolutely right. Just updated the post to reflect that, thanks!
You should update the headline too, as it's currently misleading.
Any criticism here should be directed solely at the airline for trying to land over an hour after curfew, having taken off only 20 minutes before the curfew. They ought to have known at take-off that they weren't going to make it.
Functionally though I think it's a bit potato, po-tah-to. If folks are going to be given clearance to take off to try and make it in time for "the grace period curfew" then it's functionally the curfew, no matter how it's legally defined.
Your point, I think, is that they never should have been allowed to even take off to "try and make it" if they never had a shot of landing by the 11pm...
Functionally though I think it's a bit potato, po-tah-to. If folks are going to be given clearance to take off to try and make it in time for "the grace period curfew" then it's functionally the curfew, no matter how it's legally defined.
Your point, I think, is that they never should have been allowed to even take off to "try and make it" if they never had a shot of landing by the 11pm curfew in the first place (or at least, I don't know, within the first half of the grace period?). Or why is ATC even routing a flight like this to FRA to try and make it with seconds to spare - have more of a cut-off of 11:50 or something like that for routings.
But this just seems like the worst of both worlds - ATC accommodating the routing and the pilots flying really fast to try and make it, they end up seconds from the airport, and then having to divert - what is the point of that? At that point they should be able to land regardless of what time it is.
This was DEFINITELY a more environmentally-friendly alternative than just letting them land.
Isn't that 'curfew' less about the environment and more about noise abatement? Either way, yeah, they both burned more fuel and the low-altitude missed-approach was probably loud-ish, too.
What they should do is have a hefty fine to discourage this but allow airlines to land within say 5 minutes of the curfew if they agree to pay x amount. It would be a win-win.
Oh, me thinks they’re already gonna be paying plenty in compensation to those passengers… thanks to EU261!
Honestly, this is a case where "rational illegality" might kick in. The fine could be EUR50k, but EU261 compensation alone could eat up most of the savings there - 180 pax @ EUR150/ea would cost 27k alone. Throw in extra fuel, crew time, and the plane being out of position and if I were the airline I'd be tempted to just take the fine, hope I didn't get maxed out on it, and if I...
Honestly, this is a case where "rational illegality" might kick in. The fine could be EUR50k, but EU261 compensation alone could eat up most of the savings there - 180 pax @ EUR150/ea would cost 27k alone. Throw in extra fuel, crew time, and the plane being out of position and if I were the airline I'd be tempted to just take the fine, hope I didn't get maxed out on it, and if I get yelled at point out that I'm literally choosing between violations (noise vs EU261) at that point.
As others have said, though, there should be a buffer at the end of the grace period where planes aren't allowed to "try and make it" - calling it a "grace period" really makes it sound more like it's there for in-flight diversions (e.g. planes having to go around weather) and the like, not flights that are already that far behind.
Why that detour over the Ahr river? Was the pilot trying to draw a middle finger?
Well, well, well... looks like those passengers are probably eligible for EU261 compensation and duty of care. In this case, looks like +3 hours late with that diversion and bus ride, travel distance under 1,500 km, so €250 per passenger. Condor can try to claim 'extraordinary circumstances,' but, the burden is on them to prove that, and it likely would fail as a defense to claims, because the delay was from their own scheduling issue,...
Well, well, well... looks like those passengers are probably eligible for EU261 compensation and duty of care. In this case, looks like +3 hours late with that diversion and bus ride, travel distance under 1,500 km, so €250 per passenger. Condor can try to claim 'extraordinary circumstances,' but, the burden is on them to prove that, and it likely would fail as a defense to claims, because the delay was from their own scheduling issue, not 'severe weather' or something out of their control. Hmm.
You can rest assured that Condor will do whatever it can to tell those passengers that it's 'beyond their control' and 'based on airport restrictions' and so on. They won't pay unless they're forced to do so.
I have had the right of compensation dozens of times, but got it in less than half the cases. Simply because airlines are arrogant and know that an individual probably won't go to court over it.