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 curfew by seconds, leading to an outrageously complicated rerouting (thanks to Klaus for flagging this).
In this post:
Delayed Condor flight misses Munich Airport curfew by seconds
On Monday, June 2, 2025, Condor flight DE1513 was scheduled to operate from Palma de Mallorca (PMI) to Munich (MUC). The flight was operated by an Airbus A321 with the registration code D-ATCA, and was scheduled to depart at 8:35PM and arrive at 10:40PM.
However, the flight was running way behind schedule, in large part due to the inbound aircraft being delayed. Munich Airport ordinarily has a 12AM curfew, with the ability to extend it under some circumstances, all the way until 12:30AM, an exception that Condor managed to secure.
The plane ended up taking off from Palma de Mallorca at 10:52PM, over two hours behind schedule. Looking at historical data, the 756-mile journey ordinarily has a flight time of anywhere from 1hr38min to 2hr11min.
With a 10:52PM takeoff and the need to land by 12:30AM, that meant the plane had to take no longer than the shortest possible flight time, of 1hr38min. The pilots seemingly made great time, and the plane began its approach to runway 8R in Munich.
The landing gear was dropped in preparation for landing… only for the pilots to discontinue their approach. To give you a sense of how close this was, below is the aircraft’s position at 12:30AM, also when it was at its lowest altitude.
Shortly thereafter, the captain reportedly came on the PA to apologize, and explain that the airport was denying permission for the plane to land, as they missed their latest possible landing time by 10 seconds.
Interestingly, at this point the aircraft was diverted to Hahn Airport (HHN), a full 233 miles away, and not that far from Frankfurt. The plane touched down there at 1:13AM.
Passengers were in for a very long night…
Logically speaking, one wonders why the aircraft was flown all the way to Hahn, rather than to a closer airport without a curfew. Once in Hahn, passengers were in for an absolutely brutal night:
- Passengers had to deplane at Hahn Airport and collect their luggage, which took some time, given the lack of staffing
- At around 3AM, passengers were placed on buses to Frankfurt Airport (FRA), where they arrived at around 4:30AM
- Then at 6:50AM, passengers were put on another Condor flight from Frankfurt to Munich, which arrived around 8AM
- Given that passengers were scheduled to arrive at 10:40PM, that means they arrived over nine hours behind schedule, all without getting a wink of sleep
Diverting is one thing, but essentially keeping people moving throughout the night is especially rough, though I guess it’s one way to avoid having to pay for hotel accommodations.
For those curious, the initial aircraft that had diverted to Hahn Airport ended up being flown to Munich Airport at 5:47AM, arriving there at 6:29AM. So the initial plane actually made it to Munich before passengers did. One wonders if Condor somehow got an extra crew in Hahn, or if the crew was only able to fly after such a long day without passengers.
Of course logistics can be complicated, but this is definitely one of the more head scratching diversions we’ve seen, in terms of airports being chosen. Diverting to an airport, then placing passengers on a bus, and then putting them on another flight the following morning, doesn’t sound like a very pleasant experience.
Was the government being unreasonable?
As you’d expect, many passengers weren’t happy about this arrangement, and in particular, about the flight having to divert over a matter of seconds. As one passenger explained, “bureaucracy was put above common sense.”
I’m conflicted on that. Would it be nice if there were a little more flexibility, to avoid this complete pain? Absolutely, if you look at this situation in isolation.
But at the same time, airlines are also really pushing their luck in situations like this. The flight had already been granted a 30 minute extension, and then the plane took off in a way where it could only make it to the destination in time based on an absolute best case scenario outcome. There was literally zero margin for anything other than the most direct possible flight, and that just seems unrealistic.
I feel like no matter what the curfew is, you’re always going to have flights that push their luck. Just recently, we saw a story of Ryanair being furious after a flight had to divert over what it called a seven minute delay. In reality, the flight had taken off 1hr40min late, and was already granted an exception to the curfew.
Bottom line
A Condor Airbus A321 flying from Palma de Mallorca to Munich had to divert after it missed its extended curfew by a matter of seconds. The aircraft had already dropped its gear and was on final approach, when the decision was made for the plane not to be given clearance to land.
This triggered quite a complicated diversion to Hahn Airport, followed by a bus ride to Frankfurt Airport, followed by a flight to Munich Airport.
What do you make of this Condor diversion?
Why punish the passengers? Let them land, then fine the airline for arriving 10 seconds after the curfew. The airline made the mistake, yet the passengers were put through this hell.
The person was right, bureaucracy over common sense.
Completely unreasonable by the government. Let the freaking plane land at this point. However, the flight should have been cancelled or diverted from the beginning, because this is at the point of being unsafe. Having the "tunnel vision" where they HAVE to "make it" means pilots may have cut corners, done things, that weren't exactly safe, and they put profit above safety. This is how and when accidents and mistakes actually happen, when the pressure...
Completely unreasonable by the government. Let the freaking plane land at this point. However, the flight should have been cancelled or diverted from the beginning, because this is at the point of being unsafe. Having the "tunnel vision" where they HAVE to "make it" means pilots may have cut corners, done things, that weren't exactly safe, and they put profit above safety. This is how and when accidents and mistakes actually happen, when the pressure is on to "make it"
Correct.
If there is a hard curfew (LHR has "only x hundred movements during curfew") then the extensions should only be for issues that arise during flight.
i.e. with an expected arrival time beyond 00:00, airport should have said no before takeoff.
Seems that you could add penalties to an airline for the first 10-15 minutes past the (extended) curfew...
0.01 to 9.9 minutes - $5,000
10 to 19.9 minutes - $10,000
20 to 29.99 minutes - $25,000
30 minutes - too bad.
(2nd time in 30 days for an airline, double the fines. 3rd time x3)
Diversion not allowed unless emergency.
Don't like it, don't take off!!!
SMH, the go around probably caused more noise than the landing!
This is entirely on the cocky “I’m sure I won’t need more than an extra half hour” pilot. Had he (we all know it was a guy, am I right ) asked for 45 extra minutes (which the airport could have approved, if filed before take-off), all would have been well.
And I think most of us would agree that time- and safety-critical communication channels like plane-to-ATC has no room for “Well, maybe we can make an ad-hoc exception in real time; it should be safe” discussions.
The latest arrival time is at 24:00. Prior to departure Condor DE1513 applied for an exclusion from the curfew and received an extension to 00:30. So not 10 seconds but in reality 30 min 10 sec. At point of departure they should have known that even with the extension it so nearly impossible.
Rules are rules! End of story, nothing more to add.
Why not allow them to land but fine Condor for the violation? That would seem to balance things for everyone.
Because considering this while the flight was on approach would be dangerous. Time- and safety-critical systems like ATC leave no room for “common sense” judgment calls. Everybody has to follow the rules all the time — or all hell breaks loose.
If 10 additional seconds means all hell breaks loose, if that means safety-critical systems would be any different, then there are bigger problems to worry about.
Let's put it this way - if they had to declare Mayday and the 10sec delay was due to the Mayday, would there be any safety issues on the airport side?
This is clearly just bureaucracy. Was the airline wrong? Absolutely. Was the airport authorities being a pain in the backside because they can? Yes.
No it’s stupid and wasteful
Airport curfews are stupid. They benefit a select few - those who live near an airport - over literally everyone else
Wonder if passengers can impact the outcome.
What about pretending a medical emergency which force you to land in MUC?
Any thoughts?
How about the Bavarian Land government issuing a fine for MUC due to the carbon footprint infraction, for a change? They are oh so banging around about green/renewable energy in Germany, whereas this diversion has "contributed" tons of very unnecessary emissions.
Perhaps the airline should have not left the originating airport to begin with, but DE was probably looking to avoid EU261 compensations at any cost. In the end, there were no winners...
My take on it is that airlines should take curfews more seriously. If you have exactly the appropriate time to do it in then it would be pressing your luck if anything goes wrong to attempt the flight. Every flight that is delayed beyond curfew would be considered a one off, so it begs the question of having a curfew so I do not think the curfew rule should be changed,
So it missed the curfew by 30 minutes, not by a few seconds. Or did I miss something? The curfew is at 12:00 am and an extension was granted. I guess it's all about perspective?
On a final approach with the landing gear down and the pilots psyched up for a landing presents safety issues for cancelling the landing at such short notice. Although pilots are trained for overshoot procedures the authorities should still have allowed the aircraft to land instead of confusing the crew for such a situation.
If the flight crew was confused, they are no professional pilots.
We need to bring back the 707 727 747 and DC-8 MD-80.
That's the noise pollution that the curfew wants to prevent.
A321neo landing is about 80 dB. That's about your household vacuum cleaner.
Unless you're sleeping in a tent next to the runway, you'd barely hear a thing.
My take is that airlines need to start being more conservative with their scheduling. If your pushback from the gate is going to be within your best possible flight time to the destination plus 15 minutes, just assume you aren't going to make it and reschedule the flight. Chances are good you're having to pay EU261 and put the passengers up for the night regardless. I also think the airport should have the flexibility to...
My take is that airlines need to start being more conservative with their scheduling. If your pushback from the gate is going to be within your best possible flight time to the destination plus 15 minutes, just assume you aren't going to make it and reschedule the flight. Chances are good you're having to pay EU261 and put the passengers up for the night regardless. I also think the airport should have the flexibility to still allow landings for edge cases like this, but also think it should be handled case by case to avoid actors like Ryan Air pushing the envelope and demanding more and more leeway from any published extra grace period.
Agreed in general but this flight took off way way behind schedule. I guess in that case you can build an argument around padding schedules out in case inbound planes are delayed and I'd agree there too
That was my line of thinking, but re-reading I realize I said "scheduling" in the first sentence, so my apologies for any misunderstanding. My thinking was that a minimum flight time plus padding to determine if the flight operates or not would apply to the actual time the flight pushes back, not the scheduled time of departure.
It's Germany. Rule enforcement matters more than anything else.
Connection issues so apologies if this posts twice:
I got a fare enforcement ticket on the Frankfurt S-Bahn once for not having a pass with the proper fare zones delineated, even though the pass I purchased actually cost more than the adherent one would have. I argued with the (perfectly fluent in English) inspector but no dice.
I mean, with this kind of simple fare structure, how could a tourist go wrong?
https://www.vgf-ffm.de/fileadmin/_processed_/0/8/csm_Kachel_Preise___Tarife_Ausschnitt_Preisstufen_Frankfurt_6963fcfe83.jpg
Connection issues so apologies if this posts twice:
I got a fare enforcement ticket on the Frankfurt S-Bahn once for not having a pass with the proper fare zones delineated, even though the pass I purchased actually cost more than the adherent one would have. I argued with the (perfectly fluent in English) inspector but no dice.
I mean, with this kind of simple fare structure, how could a tourist go wrong?
https://www.vgf-ffm.de/fileadmin/_processed_/0/8/csm_Kachel_Preise___Tarife_Ausschnitt_Preisstufen_Frankfurt_6963fcfe83.jpg
"Condor A321 Misses Munich Curfew By 10 Seconds, Causing Eight Hour Detour"
Not really. They missed by 30 minutes and 10 seconds. That MUC gave them a 30-minute grace period that Condor had every reason to know they couldn't make shows all the good will that one could really ask from MUC. As I am sure everyone knows, a rule is only a rule if it is enforced--and this is Germany. Perhaps Deutsche Bahn could give Condor lessons on timeliness. Maybe not.
I was going to say: the 10sec claim is BS. The curfew was already missed. Condor, and nobody else, is to be blamed for pushing it like this. As suggested elsewhere, NUE could have been an alternative, but only as a primary destination, not something the pilots decide upon 3min out.
I'm all for following rules but once a landing clearance has been issued, which I assume is the case here, it's outright stupid to withdraw it. Honestly, pilots should probably have just ignore the instruction assuming that the airport was in sight and no colliding traffic was present.
My take on this: airport curfews are meant to prevent noise disruption to local residents. Attempting a low-altitude approach (even without landing) clearly does make noise for local residents, so the goal wasn't achieved here.
This being said, why not just let them land and give the airline a fine (which is probably cheaper than accommodating the passengers during the night)?
The issue there is that airlines will likely look at the fine as simply the cost of doing business to run flights into the airport after curfew time, which also defeats the point of the curfew because then the airlines can just price it in to their operations. Having to divert and accommodate passengers is probably the intended goal by the airport, since it's more expensive as you said.
I mean, you could escalate fines over repeat violations.
On the other side of this, why wasn't landing permission pulled far sooner?
One other thought - if an airline is repeatedly doing this (and it isn't clearly out of their hands), start blocking scheduled arrivals off a few more minutes at a time (or require them to add in additional padding). So a hypothetical 0000 scheduled arrival cutoff becomes 2350, then 2340, and so on. Either they find a way to sort their timetables or they lose the use of a slab of time.
Exactly! Enforcing the rules in this case was counterproductive in terms of noice for the residents.
Playbook on how to destroy welfare! Just go with a heavy penalty for the airline which is used to make the area for residents nicer. Win-win
Having trouble making a judgement call when I don't know how frequently these 12:30 extensions are handed out. If Condor knew they were cutting it close enough they knew they would be there later than the normal curfew maybe it's on the airport to deny landing (and prevent unneeded takeoff) there unless there was some kind of medical emergency that couldn't be handled at the origin. Once the flight is in the air they should just let it land
Ridiculous! Divert flight to FRA instead of Hahn and they would have actually been able to get some rest before the FRA to MUC flight.
Frankfurt (FRA) has a curfew too.
Nürnberg is a 24 hour airport and about 1h 30mins by train to Munich and less than 30mins flight time. Condor could have diverted there but would then have had to find accommodation for the passengers. Hahn meant that no one had a chance to close an eye.
Or a 1:30h bus transfer. So actually no need to find accommodations.
Rules are rules, and Germans are sticklers for them. At the same time, you're allowed to think. I assume that the curfew is there as a noise abatement measure, so there should probably be a bit more flexibility to this rule, like if you are already below 10,000 feet at the end of the curfew. Since they were only a few feet over the runway, you've already made the noise, so what does it really...
Rules are rules, and Germans are sticklers for them. At the same time, you're allowed to think. I assume that the curfew is there as a noise abatement measure, so there should probably be a bit more flexibility to this rule, like if you are already below 10,000 feet at the end of the curfew. Since they were only a few feet over the runway, you've already made the noise, so what does it really matter? But if you missed the curfew and are still at the top of your descend, then you have plenty of room to turn around. Seems an aborted landing here was completely unnecessary.
I mean it's going to actually make more noise to abort the landing and go around. Should have just been allowed to land. This was just stupid.
Would this have happened in any other country?
Japan comes to mind. I mean, they print newspaper apologies when their trains are off by 7 seconds.
@Michael some truth to that historically but the reality is more mundane. Delays happen on Japanese trains all the time. Especially in winter when people have a bad habit of throwing themselves in front of trains, especially on the Yamanote and Tokyo Metro lines. But the in-car display screens announcing the delays are properly apologetic.
I like SNA's policy of landing past curfew. They allow it, but will fine the airline to disincentivise them from scheduling too close to curfew. No point inconveniencing the pax on the flight and those that fly out the next day.
That actually makes a lot of sense. It allows for flexibility in exceptional circumstances while disincentivizing systematic rule-breaking.
In this case, Condor paid what is in effect a fine by having to transport their passengers to FRA and then to MUC. If they could have paid a fine of the same value directly to MUC to be allowed to land late, it would make total sense to accept the deal because they wouldn't have to inconvenience their passengers.
This! It's not the passengers' fault that the airline chose to push its luck.
It would make more sense to just have a fine for airplanes that arrive after curfew to discourage the behavior.
This is a good example of irrational regulation that has caused Europe's economy to fall behind.
This dogmatic application of the rule led to wasted fuel, more noise, and created miserable conditions for the passengers. What a bunch of nonsense.
Europe isn't a monolith. Germany and Switzerland and the worst for this type of behaviour. GVA curfew requires planes be diverted to France as an example... I take the point though that policy made it miserable for passengers for no reason.
Why is bureaucracy being blamed? Condor and pilots knew what they were doing. Condor should have canceled the flight. But that meant EU261, which of course they didn’t want to pay. Also Condor knew, if they can’t make it, everyone will blame bureaucrats and not the airline.
Everyone is jumping head over heels to hold government/bureaucrats accountable, but no one if interested in holding tge private company accountable even though this was completely their fault....
Why is bureaucracy being blamed? Condor and pilots knew what they were doing. Condor should have canceled the flight. But that meant EU261, which of course they didn’t want to pay. Also Condor knew, if they can’t make it, everyone will blame bureaucrats and not the airline.
Everyone is jumping head over heels to hold government/bureaucrats accountable, but no one if interested in holding tge private company accountable even though this was completely their fault. To save few bucks they screwed over their customers and yet aren’t getting blamed for their actions.
I don't think anyone here is excusing Condor, but it is also not the passengers' fault. Probably a combination of hard deck that can be enforced when the curfew hits, plus fines, but doing this over 10 seconds when the aircraft is over the runway is a hard whiplash in the opposite direction. And the diversion caused more noise, which is against the point of the thing.
Just look at the comments here. Hardly see any condemnation of Condor. If there is, it is more about how forcing passengers from bus to flight etc. No one is questioning Condor’s intelligence of being able to beat the curfew.
The 10sec delay became an issue because, Condor took a chance, because they didn’t want to pay EU261 to their customers. Sorry, but this is completely on Condor. Like always, private company screwing its customers...
Just look at the comments here. Hardly see any condemnation of Condor. If there is, it is more about how forcing passengers from bus to flight etc. No one is questioning Condor’s intelligence of being able to beat the curfew.
The 10sec delay became an issue because, Condor took a chance, because they didn’t want to pay EU261 to their customers. Sorry, but this is completely on Condor. Like always, private company screwing its customers for financial gain and general public blaming government for it.
Don't ever want to hear Germans talk about the "climate emergency" anymore when they force aircraft to do things like this (or flying several hours longer to Asia to avoid Russian airspace).
Germany has lost any remaining credibility on environmental matters after they decided to shut down their nuclear plants in 2011.
Germany is not forcing planes to Asia to avoid Russian airspace. Lufthansa or any other carrier is allowed to fly to, from and via Russia as far as German law is concerned. It's Russian sanctions that ban EU carriers from using their airspace (as a reciprocity for EU banning Russian carriers from its airspace).
@Samo - you say it yourself - it's reciprocity for EU banning Russian carriers first. Not trying to defend Russia, far from it, but point is that Western authorities knew fully well what they were doing and should have considered this beforehand if they purportedly care so much about the environment. Would love to see a comprehensive study on how much more CO2 has been emitted since February 2022 due to these circuitous routings.
@Yoshi
First, while the climate is a big issue and I wholeheartedly believe we as a species should be doing more to reduce our impact on the Earth, it is not the only issue. Russia's invasion of Ukraine could easily embolden both Russia and China if allowed to succeed. If Ukraine is not defended, the consequences could be a major ground war in Europe or a major war in defense of Taiwan, in both...
@Yoshi
First, while the climate is a big issue and I wholeheartedly believe we as a species should be doing more to reduce our impact on the Earth, it is not the only issue. Russia's invasion of Ukraine could easily embolden both Russia and China if allowed to succeed. If Ukraine is not defended, the consequences could be a major ground war in Europe or a major war in defense of Taiwan, in both cases between nuclear powers, within the next 10-20 years.
Second, long-haul flights such as Europe to Asia or transoceanic flights are arguably the ones we don't want to cut, because nothing else comes close when you're factoring in time savings. It's the short-haul domestic flights not over large or deep bodies of water that for both climate and convenience could be replaced by rail.
How very... German. Seriously, if you want to be this a***l about the curfew, why not charge 100€ per minute past 12 pm and 200€ after 12:30? Should be enough of a disincentive.
The fee for landing after 1200 should equal the EU261 compensation for all the passengers aboard. Double that at 1230. Then airlines would make rational decisions and not try to beat the clock.
Something like this makes sense.
To factor in that the nuisance to residents does not depend on the number of passengers, but the passengers really would like to get home that night, I suggest that the 12:00 amount should be 75% of the available-seats-on-plane * the EC261 amount.
Doubling at 12:30 seems right.
And it would be rational for the airline to pay the airport because that would avoid messing up their timetable the next morning.
Excellent! Government knows what’s best. They have our best interest in mind.
A situation where EU261 likely cost these passengers a night of sleep. Hour and a half late, Condor pays nothing. Having to wait until morning to take off, everybody gets paid. Condor had nothing to lose by trying.
Agreed. EC261 (not EU btw it's the commission that names it) is being reconsidered this month. I think it should follow the Canadian model where distance doesn't matter, but delay compensation gets worse the longer the delay. These passengers are looking at €250 euros yet passenger 4 hours late on a flight to Asia arriving at 8am where most couldn't even check into their hotels before 3pm get €600 for hardly an inconvenience.
Your entitlement to compensation according to EU261 depends on your actual ARRIVAL delay.
Hence, everyone on that flight is entitled to compensation anyway.
I cannot see, how the regulation can be held responsible for DE‘s irrational takeoff, diversion and passenger re-routing decisions.
They should have never been given the clearance to land - which they had to have - if the airport was not going to approve the diversion.
We have seen these types of things in Europe over and over again. One set of bureaucracy setting different rules.
The question about how the crew managed to get the plane back to Munich -apparently in time for that day's flights - raises questions.
Perhaps climate activists should protest for longer airport operating hours instead, so that this can be avoided in the future.
Wouldn’t diverting be louder than just landing at this point? I believe this is the case, which makes the bureaucracy the hard r word (actually louder for nearby residents and a nightmare for the passengers). Perhaps it should be you can’t descend below XX feet after 12:15 or whatever, as this is more applicable to noise levels.
Enough bureaucratic blame to go around and as always the passengers get screwed. Hopefully at least there was EU261.