The European Commission, Switzerland, Japan and Australasia are in favour of new restrictions. The United States and the Russian Federation were among the supporters of the airline case voiced by the International Air Transport Association (Iata) in mid-December. While it appears the airlines have won the latest battle, they have not necessarily won the war - which could hit their bottom lines, as the next economic downturn approaches.
The body which makes recommendations on new noise and emission restrictions, the International Civil Aviation Organisation's (Icao) 15-member Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (Caep), met in December. Eight members favoured increasing noise stringencies, but as Caep works on a global consensus, no recommendation was put forward to Icao. Caep has put forward a majority recommendation (10 in favour, four against, one abstention) to Icao for reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx)emissions by about 16 per cent. This would be implemented in 2000 for new engine designs and in 2008 for engines currently in production or designed before 2000. It is uncertain if Icao will adopt this recommendation at its next council meeting in early March.
A quick scan of those that pushed for lower noise levels shows the countries most affected by the problem are the most concerned - France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan and Australia. Certainly these countries have airports generally situated closer to heavily populated areas which are often inhabited by very vocal opponents of noise.
Opposing new noise stringencies were the US, Canada, Italy, Spain, the Russian Federation, Poland and Brazil. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) director of energy and environment, James Erickson defends the US position on the basis of the cost to the airlines for what some Caep experts said was a minimal gain. 'The bottom line was that the proposed increases in stringency are very costly and provide only marginal [environmental] benefits. For these suggested changes in stringency, to the US it did not make sense,' says Erickson.
Like the US, the other opponents said more information was needed. The FAA points to the current Nasa project aimed at decreasing aeroengine noise by 10dB as one example of information that is needed before decisions on new stringencies can be made. The environmental benefits are unclear at present, partly because the phaseout of Chapter 2 aircraft is still in progress (see box).
At present there are also about 22 scientific studies being conducted on emissions that will add to the understanding of their effects on the atmosphere in cooperation with various airlines. These include Mozaic, under which concentrations of ozone and water vapour are being measured by five Airbus A340s when inflight, and Noxar, which involves the measurement of tropospheric NOx and ozone by a Swissair B747.
The emissions debate centres on carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides, the most concentrated on the list of aircraft emissions. The atmospheric layers affected by aircraft begin with the troposphere, which is closest to the earth's surface and extends up about 9 km. Above it the tropopause rises to about 15 km and above that is the stratosphere. Subsonic aircraft do stray into the lowest levels of the stratosphere, but this is primarily the domain of supersonic aircraft.
Carbon dioxide is known to contribute to global warming and at present it is believed that NOx emissions from aircraft flying in the lower stratosphere contribute to ozone destruction. In the troposphere emissions probably contribute to ozone production. It is in the tropo-pause, where a large part (estimates vary from 30 to 50 per cent) of air traffic operates, that the prime uncertainty lies. This layer varies in height with geography and season making it difficult for scientists to determine the net effect of aircraft emissions.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, part of the World Meteor-ological Organisation, have said that aircraft emissions contribute approximately 2-3 per cent of overall CO2 emissions. The current best estimate of the percentage of NOx emissions produced by the industry is equal to or smaller than that of CO2.
At present Icao recommends that where aircraft are more than 25 years old and engines exceed the specifications set out in Icao's Chapter 3, Volume 1, Annex 16, they should be phased out in noise-restricted states by 1 April, 2002. The countries considered to be noise-restricted are the European Civil Aviation Conference (Ecac) member states, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the US.
The US' noise policy refers to Chapter 3 standards as Stage 3 and requires these standards be met by 31 December, 1999 by mixing fleets with a higher proportion of Stage 3 aircraft or phasing out the older aircraft. By the end of 1996 US airline fleets must reduce Stage 2 aircraft to 50 per cent of the total fleet, or have a fleet mix with 65 per cent Stage 3 aircraft.
Some airlines, such as Swissair, KLM, Qantas and All Nippon Airways, have already achieved Chapter 3 only fleets. Others, like Lufthansa and SAS, will achieve Chapter 3 fleets by the end of 1996 and 1999 respectively (see box).
With this phase-out process yet to be completed, Iata believes it is costly and impractical to jump to the next step. One primary concern to the airlines is the impact of introducing new stringencies on current fleet values, and on operations if some airports choose to jump the gun by restricting Chapter 3 operations, in the way that Chapter 2 operations are being restricted.
'One of our concerns has been and always will be the possible effect on the asset values of the existing fleet,' says Leonie Dobbie, environmental coordinator at Iata. The US Air Transport Association presented a study to Caep estimating the impact on the worldwide fleet would range between $19 and $30 billion, although Airports Council International (ACI) pointed to an earlier study by the European Union which gave a much lower estimate.
A further consideration to fleet value would be which aircraft could be made to meet the new regulations, says Stephen Rimmer, director of London-based aviation finance firm Curtis and Co. 'While some Stage 2 aircraft could be hushkitted to reach Stage 3, could you hushkit to Stage 3.5?' he asks.
At present narrowbody aircraft like B737-200s, B727s and DC-9s can be hushkitted to meet Chapter 3 standards, leaving B707s, BAC 1-11s, Fokker 28s, and some of the Russian manufactured aircraft as the only aircraft operated in significant numbers which fall into the Chapter 2 category. Rimmer makes the point, however, that at some airports modified Chapter 2 aircraft are not considered to qualify as Chapter 3 and are subject to higher charges. In addition airlines buy against the current value of their fleets, so any drop could affect their ability to purchase more environmentally friendly aircraft in the future.
Finally Rimmer says that, with the industry just beginning to see the profits flow in, moving to so-called Chapter 4, or more accurately Chapter 3.5 noise standards, could quickly see carefully restructured airline debt to equity ratios fall to pieces. 'Going beyond Stage 3 will cost the industry when it is only just recovering from the last recession. [The upturn] was meant to fund the [airlines'] compliance with Stage 3,' he says.
In addition to the high costs, Iata argues that changes in restrictions must reflect the available technology. Rolls Royce says that at present the emissions from engines available on the market are below any current or foreseen legislation and that the next step will require some time. 'Technology does exist that could take us lower [in emissions] but it is complex technology that will take serious development,' says the manufacturer.
Up to a point improvements in engine fuel efficiency have been possible alongside reductions in CO2 and NOx emissions. How-ever further improvements have been hampered by an inverse relationship. An engine producing the greatest fuel efficiency produces relatively high amounts of NOx, while a low NOx producer consumes more fuel, producing more CO2.
Some engine manufacturers claim to offer products which emit lower levels of NOx than their competitors. CFM International has developed the CFM-56-5B which Swissair specified for its A321s. General Electric says the GE90 engine for the Boeing 777 emits '35 per cent fewer oxides of nitrogen per passenger mile than current technology engines'.
Meanwhile on the noise front the European Commission could strengthen the airport position if it decides to opt for a non-addition rule for Chapter 3 aircraft, currently being considered in conjunction with Ecac. While the US has had legislation prohibiting its airports from relating new charges to Stage 2 or Stage 3 aircraft since 1990, in Europe experience would suggest that airports are more likely to impose surcharges on noise.
'If airports have to they will impose restrictions as a result of Icao's lack of action,' says Avi Gil, environmental coordinator at ACI. Restrictions are likely to refer mainly to noise, although in Sweden there are already taxes on aircraft emissions. In Zurich the airport authority is seeking federal government approval for an emissions charge for introduction in early 1997, which could be up to 80 per cent of the landing fee.
According to Franz Wyss, corporate environmental coordinator at Swissair, the charges would apply to both Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 aircraft and would be based on engine performance and aircraft size, with the largest aircraft paying the most.
Lufthansa and Swissair are among the few airlines not towing the Iata line and Wyss says Swissair is concerned that action will now come on noise levels from the European Union or Ecac. But one source close to the Commission says Brussels is more likely to let the airports take the lead. 'Leave market forces to have a go. The airlines had their opportunity and they blew it. After two or three years there may be proposals from the airlines on how they want noise charges to go, but that may be too late.'
Both Iata and the FAA say it is not only the control of noise at the source that matters but that issues such as land zoning control and operational procedures that can reduce the effects of noise at ground level should be looked at.
As the phase out of Chapter 2 aircraft progresses there should be a noticeable noise reduction around airports. John Crayston, coordinator of air transport and environmental programmes for Icao, says the worry is that local authorities may believe the noise problem has gone away and shore up future problems by allowing an increase in housing in areas around the airport.
The US has a funding scheme to help airports examine the impact of planning on the surrounding population and look at how people can be moved from affected areas. The FAA's Erickson says $1.7 billion has been invested in the past 20 years, with about 200 major airports currently participating in the programme.
In the US seven million people were being severely affected by noise in 1975 before Stage 2 restrictions were introduced. By the year 2000, when Stage 2 aircraft have been phased out, Erickson says this will have dropped to 400,000. This, while traffic will have quadrupled in that time.
In a study of 13 airports in the US and Europe the Caep concluded that there would be an overall decrease in the noise in those countries from around 2000 or 2002 until 2015. The next phase-out should begin in 20 years' time, says Erickson, giving the industry time to see the effects of the Stage 2 phase-out and to digest current research. With improved noise reduction, airports should be able to buy up the land belonging to the few still affected and the land should then be zoned and protected, believes Erickson. But ACI disagrees with the Caep analysis of the 13 airports. It says that of those 13, six will experience an increase in noise levels and two airports are capacity constrained. With traffic capped, noise levels are bound to decrease as newer aircraft are introduced, argues ACI.
Airlines can argue quite rightly that they have played a large role in reducing aircraft noise and emissions and contributing to a cleaner, greener earth. But their reluctance to take the next step could result in harsh measures being imposed by those with less knowledge of the industry than an organisation like Icao.
Carriers are finding the effects of cost savings and revenue gains on the bottom line from recycling and reducing energy consumption are worth the effort.
Of the 19 airlines surveyed, 12 responded with information regarding their recycling of on-board waste, chemical reduction measures, lowering of energy consumption, environmental awareness courses and promotion of public transport. Three others provided the company's environmental statement.
All the respondents recycled products and had energy consumption reduction programmes. Five carriers: American, SAS, BA, Lufthansa and JAL produce substantial environmental reports. Some 83 per cent of the carriers said they reduce the chemicals used for operations like paint stripping, adopt greener de-icing agents and recycle on-board waste.
While carriers were happy to encourage their own staff to use public transport or car pool arrangements (75 per cent), less effort is made to encourage the travelling public to do so, with only 33 per cent of carriers urging customers to get to the airport this way.
Many of the carriers offer their staff environmental awareness programmes or training, although in some cases this is limited to managers or staff who would deal with emergency environmental situations such as hazardous chemical spillages. Of the respondents, Qantas offers the most comprehensive training with a four day in-house course open to all staff.
British Airways has found that the recycling of printer cartridges, metals, textiles, paper, kitchen oils and cans can bring financial benefits. In 1994-5 recycling revenues were £50,669 ($76,159), up from £40,067 in 1993-4. BA says in future the funds will be reinvested in environmental initiatives, except for the revenue from precious metals which will be reallocated back to engineering.
Northwest Airlines' waste costs have been reduced by 52 per cent since 1990 because of its recycling programme. In 1994 it had savings/cost avoidance of $5.5 million including a saving of $10,850 by recycling its aerosol cans. The majority of the funds came from reclaiming expendable parts, either through repair or free replacement by the manufacturer for those parts under warranty.
American's waste minimisation and recycling programme, which saved the carrier $8 million in 1994, stems from the premise that the employees are often the best placed to determine where savings can be gained. Lufthansa implemented a similiar programme in 1995 and just three suggestions saved DM 119,800 ($80,331).
Swissair says its environmental initiatives account for 1 per cent of its total investment budget. The Swiss flag has invested SFr23 million ($19 million) in a centralised power supply system for docked aircraft at Zurich airport which improves the energy efficiency of all airlines there.
A creative use for surplus energy has been devised by Swissair, which is converting heat generated by its computers at headquarters into heat for 400 independent apartments near its base.
Other carriers are making headway reducing energy. KLM has agreed with the Dutch government to reduce the energy consumption of its buildings and offices by 25 per cent in the next five years. BA says a 4 per cent improvement in energy consumption on the ground equates to a 13 per cent energy improvement per ATK for 1995 over 1994.
Chemicals are being recycled and reused or swapped for less toxic ones at several carriers, for example Qantas has established a liquid recycling centre, replacing toxic cleaners with water- and terpene-based products.
KLM has installed a waste water treatment centre, which cleans and reprocesses the contaminated water. The carrier has also replaced chemical cleaning of engine parts with high pressure water jets.
Japan Airlines also reprocesses 60 per cent of its water and has taken a leaf out of the book of American Airlines and USAir in trying out polished, rather than painted aircraft. American says the polished aircraft, being lighter, save it $1 million annually in fuel costs. With the cost of painting a widebody pitched at more than $50,000, American, which has the largest fleet in the world, says its polished version is not only environmentally friendly but financially sound.
Several airlines have taken part in studies on aircraft emissions, including JAL's participation in the collection and analysis of greenhouse gases; the cooperation of Lufthansa, Austrian Airlines, and Air France in the A340 Mozaic study; and Swissair's work for Noxar.
Airlines are beginning to get on the environmental band wagon says Geoff Lipman, president of the World Travel and Tourism Council. 'Surveys show that something like 50 per cent of travellers are beginning to consider environmental factors in their holiday and travel planning,' he says.
However airlines cannot not just pay lip service to their green policy, like one carrier replying to the Airline Business survey which said environmental issues were 'very important' to the company, but has yet to implement any environmentally friendly actions.
Source: Airline Business
