Sir - Further to your editorial "Bad promises" (Flight International, 19-25 March), several separate, but inter-related, points are touched upon.
Firstly, the equation "payload equals profit" puts this fundamental figure at the root of all the arguments. Reduce the payload, and noise limits can be met, irrespective of whether the aircraft is Chapter 2 or 3 (note the recent announcement on the operation of Boeing 727s with new flap settings and flat-rated engines, which put it well inside Chapter 3 limits).
Secondly, why should not citizens demand, and have set, noise limits which suit their local and/or national circumstances? The argument that noise limits be set (as they originally were) to what could be achieved is spurious. Car speed limits, for example, vary from country to country, and are not to the speeds which a modern car can achieve.
The Federation of Heathrow Anti-Noise Groups makes the following comments on the International Air Transport Association's (IATA) leave to seek a judicial review:
- why has IATA chosen the UK in which to challenge noise limits? Other European Union countries charge far greater noise penalties/levies on Chapter 2 aircraft than the UK;
- the airline industry is being hypocritical, because we are soon to have two parallel legal processes in place, where the airline industry will give two opposing arguments;
- it is iniquitous that an international body such as IATA should dictate/challenge the decisions of elected UK politicians, trying to improve the environment for their electorates;
- the Federation is also concerned that the merits of the current judicial review being presented by IATA could be dragged out and used again without any amendments in 2002 - the year in which the new noise limits come into force.
Ponder the following: reduced payload equals reduced noise equals reduced profit.
K J ABNETT
general secretary
The Federation of Heathrow Anti-Noise Groups
East Molesey, Surrey, UK
Source: Flight International
