There is little argument that last November's policy paper on transport and the environment from the European Commission was a comprehensive piece of work. Yet, while the air transport industry may agree on the broad aim of a Europe-wide environmental policy, there are plenty of questions about how the principle will work in practice.
There are also areas that airlines feel are noticeable by their absence - chiefly land planning. That, they agree, is tackled only in very vague terms. Airlines are worried that reductions in noise pollution will lead to housing being constructed even closer to airports, which would largely nullify any gains.
Under the principle of subsidiarity, issues such as land planning are meant to be a matter for local and national legislation, as long as they comply with EU law. However, Le Thi Mai, Association of European Airlines (AEA)general manager for infrastructure and the environment, complains: "Whenever the issue of land planning is raised, the Commission says this comes under the subsidiarity principle, but why are they trying to set universal standards for noise measurement?"
As Mai says, the white paper suggests that a common basis for noise measurement should be established, but there is widespread scepticism that this can be achieved. "If the EU could agree on a common methodology then we would be living in an ideal world," says Avi Gil, director environment of the Airports Council International (ACI), adding that in reality every airport has its own problems and should be able to deal with them in its own way. The difference between airports which suffer from lateral noise and approach noise problems has been well documented.
However, as Dr Hugh Somerville, head of environment at British Airways points out, airlines want a "level playing field" when it comes to airport noise regulations. "It is a major task to achieve this," he says. "Once you have a common measuring system it is even more difficult to get a common regulatory system."
With this in mind, Somerville argues that in the absence of generally accepted noise measurement systems it would be better to stick to ICAO-agreed engine noise classification systems which at least "meant something to the local community" in the sense that there are commonly agreed standards rather than the proliferation of noise measurement methods found among Europe's airports.
However, ACI's Gil warns that some airports have "gone beyond the point of no return" and that even if ICAO agreed a noise standard more stringent than Chapter III, "this would not be enough".
Environmental charges
The proposals on environmental charges also received a mixed response. AEA's Mai complains that emissions charges are "a type of kerosene taxation" and argues that it would be unfair for these to be collected by the airport entirely as aircraft will pass over many different localities in addition to the destination airport which collects the charge. Mai points out that there is no international agreement for this and ICAO is looking at the matter at the moment. Mai also says that unless the tax was extremely high, it would have no impact other than to add to general operating costs, as the cost of upgrading to a more modern aircraft means that the tax, which is effectively a rise in fuel price, would pale into insignificance.
There would also be a loophole for those operating a broad range of aircraft if the overall system was revenue neutral, following the principle of "reward the best, punish the worst" which runs through the White Paper. The airline could keep running the most environmentally unfriendly 10% of aircraft in its fleet, in the knowledge that it will be able to counter any penalty charges through the savings it will make on the most modern, environmentally friendly 10%of aircraft in its fleet, she argues.
Mai adds that the idea of Eurocontrol collecting en route charges based on emission levels is "a provocation", bearing in mind that 6-12% of fuel consumption over Europe is caused by Air Traffic Control related delays.
The white paper also advocates the idea of noise quotas, whereby each airline is given a limit to the total amount of noise it can generate. Somerville of BA is not against this in principle, but complains: "All to often, the benefits are being taken away from the airlines." Citing examples where a large number of airlines have all met the quota target, Somerville argues that the benefits should not all go to the local community, but should be shared with the airlines in the form of more slots.
Mai also feels the noise quota system is too inflexible to take account of airlines changing schedules, aircraft type and routes. Again, the airline industry is left looking for the devil in the detail.
Source: Airline Business
