After a period of relative quiet, noise is creeping back on to the mainstream aeropolitical agenda. Operators are already starting to feel the effects of a patchwork of regulations, which have emerged to fill the vacuum created by slow progress on the march to the next generation of standards.
Europe remains the battleground for a clash between airlines, airports and regulators which have failed to reach a consensus on how best to tackle a strengthening environmental lobby fuelled by the net increase in noise emissions as air traffic grows.
Three crucial decisions likely to emerge towards the end of 1997 will set the pattern for future regulatory developments, and already airlines are claiming that the goalposts of current regulatory standards for noise are being moved.
The most closely watched development will be the final outcome of the UK Department of Transport's attempts to increase the stringency of noise regulations and the efficiency of monitoring at the three main London airports - Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. The airlines, through the International Air Transport Association, have forced the UK government to back down from the planned introduction of its tough new noise rules this April. However, this victory may be a temporary one, as a new round of consultations is planned later in the year.
The London proposals have been joined by planned new standards from the European Civil Aviation Conference (Ecac) and the European Commission, which aim to introduce rules more stringent than the phase-out of Chapter II equipment by 2002, as laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
The London case lies at the heart of current developments in the noise debate in that opponents of the new regulations argue that they would limit the operations of Chapter III aircraft - principally all variants of the Boeing 747.
Iata took its unprecedented action armed with evidence that the planned reduction in noise levels of 3dBA for daytime operations and 2dBA at night, backed by a system of fines, would lead to uneconomic payload restrictions. Furthermore, the industry said the proposals were seriously flawed as they could not achieve the UK DOT's stated intention of reducing noise and encouraging carriers to use quieter aircraft.
The London proposals were first aired in October 1995 and were due to come into effect this April, but last December Iata appealed against their introduction and won leave for a judicial review. In April the DOT retreated after taking legal advice, and agreed to retain the old noise limits together with some improvements in monitoring during a period of further consultation.
In the face of considerable political pressure, the DOT remains determined to tighten up on noise measures around the London airports. Talks with the industry will resume after the UK general election on 1 May, but no timetable has been set for a conclusion.
The failure of Icao member states to adopt a common approach for a Chapter IV framework is blamed for the fragmentation of policy making. Icao's Committee on Environmental Protection (CAEP) was split during its vote last year about whether to introduce a new Chapter IV noise standard which would be 4dB below Chapter III limits; it was also considering the imposition of a 20 per cent reduction in emissions of nitrogen oxides.
The failure to achieve unanimity led to a compromise proposal later in the year, but this also failed to carry and, to the dismay of many regulators, noise was removed from the CAEP working agenda for 1996/97.
The main opposition to the proposals came from the US and Russia, and efforts to introduce new noise standards have now shifted from CAEP to Nasa which is carrying out research into the next generation of powerplants. 'The argument is that the [eventual] new standard will be more stringent than if we set one now,' says Dave Tompkins, head of air services policy at the UK Civil Aviation Authority and head of the Ecac environmental working group. 'The question is how long we can wait.'
The European Commission supported the toughening of Icao's rules proposed by the CAEP and is pushing ahead with its own proposals to introduce the new limits. Meanwhile it has turned its attention to quickening the pace of Chapter II phase-out and, most controversially, targeting the noisier Chapter III equipment.
Ecac is examining a non-addition rule and a non-operational rule for hushkitted equipment, but recognises that agreement will be difficult to reach, especially given the expansion of Ecac to include central European countries. 'We have to recognise that the airlines have been given targets and that some of them will be seeking to meet them through hushkits,' admits Tompkins. 'Any earlier cut-off date could present serious problems.'
Tompkins believes that a non-operational rule would have minimal impact at present as there are few hushkitted aircraft in Europe, but this will change. He says the most likely outcome is for Ecac to follow the US lead for Chapter II phase-out by setting a base level for hushkitted equipment in, say, 2000, with phase-out to take place after that.
Airport operators remain the principal focus for environmental pressure and are quick to defend themselves against charges that they are moving the goalposts with individual noise rules. 'We argued that the lack of an integrated industry response to growing environmental concerns would lead to a proliferation of national and regional initiatives,' says Avi Gil, director of environment at the Airports Council International.
'Airports are very easy targets - they have an address and they can't move,' says Gil. 'We are forced to respond in ways [the airlines] don't like. Although we don't like what we see, there's not much we can do.'
Gil points to the spread of noise quotas and noise credits: 'I can foresee more of that coming unless CAEP gets its act together. A vacuum has been created and the politicians have stepped into it.'
The response of airports to environmental pressure groups, particularly in Europe, has been to introduce a range of measures which airlines argue are leading to discriminatory and potentially anticompetitive practices. These include differential charges for Chapter II equipment and in some cases a complete ban on Chapter II aircraft before the Icao deadline of 2002.
'The airport lobby has been pushing for increased flexibility [and] the right of airports to impose operational restrictions,' says Philippe Hamon, director general of ACI Europe. He argues that noise, rather than slots or access to finance, is the single largest capacity constraint facing the airline industry.
'This is a subject that the whole industry is pussyfooting around. There is no soft option. Airports are not seeking to move the goalposts but attempting to negotiate through a well-nigh impossible situation. What we are talking about is absolute pragmatism. It is not an airport versus airline issue but an issue of air transport versus the population, [which] has the ability to stifle our industry.'
Individual airports and governments have already shown a willingness to work within the framework of local concerns by introducing their own policies. However this has led to friction as the competing aims collide, with the airlines often caught in the middle.
Ostend airport in Belgium was one of the first to suffer from this fragmentation when the Belgian authorities announced late last year that it would be required to ban all aircraft over 25 years old with immediate effect. Ostend has developed a profitable business as a cargo hub focusing on operations to and from Africa often using older, noisier equipment such as Boeing 707s.
After an appeal the airport secured a compromise, under which all aircraft over 28 years old would be banned from the end of this year with progressive bans for older equipment over the next three years. But Luc van Bouwel, the airport's assistant manager, says the announcement, which will remove 10 to 15 per cent of Ostend's business, came as a complete surprise. The airlines are left to look for alternative gateways with northern France the obvious choice. 'It's not fair competition between the airports,' adds van Bouwel.
The move against hushkitted and marginal Chapter III equipment is also raising controversy among airlines and regulators.
'I look upon Chapter III as I do pregnancy. You either are or you aren't,' says the UK CAA's Dave Tompkins. 'I think that some of the developments against hushkits are out of sheer frustration at not being able to progress through Icao.'
The main impact of differential noise standards in Europe - as well as the moves against hushkits and noisier Chapter III aircraft - is felt by the cargo sector, which is vulnerable to night-time restrictions. 'We would have preferred it if the Chapter III transition period was maintained for night-time and daytime operations,' says Kay-Olaf Muehle, manager air operations Europe at United Parcel Service in Cologne. 'But certain airports are open and some are not and we have to learn to work around it.'
Some package operators have already been forced to move their hubs as a result of creeping regulation. TNT, which has acquired larger Boeing 727-200s to supplement its BAe146s, is moving its base from Cologne to Liege in Belgium, which has less stringent regulations for night-time operations.
To maintain its Cologne hub, UPS opted to re-engine its B727-100 fleet with Rolls-Royce Tays ahead of the expiry of the night-time operations limit at the airport. 'It sent a message of goodwill and we got a 10-year extension,' says Muehle.
The strong environmental lobby in Germany places the country at the forefront of regulatory developments. Nuremberg airport plans to ban hushkitted equipment from the end of the year and, in a landmark decision, the European Commission has allowed the Berlin airport authority to ban Chapter II equipment from Tegel and Tempelhof so long as their operation is still allowed at Schönefeld, since it is part of the same airport system. Muehle says the German authorities have also drawn up a bonus list which rewards quieter aircraft with lower landing charges.
Germany is not alone. A survey by ACI-Europe has identified 57 member airports which are applying differential charges based on noise. Amsterdam/Schiphol recently introduced tighter restrictions on Chapter II operations, leading a number of operators of Boeing 737-200s -including British Airways and EasyJet - to reschedule. The Italian authorities are considering a complete night-time ban on Chapter II equipment.
Airline executives worry that the spread of individual national and airport initiatives in Europe will lead to tougher and tougher proposals from the European Commission. 'Brussels takes these initiatives and starts to run with them and cook the hottest cocktail,' says Muehle of UPS. 'The constant change is a worry that will not go away.'
The outlook for airline operators is for an intensified period of pressure from regulators until Icao takes up the noise baton again. Philippe Hamon at ACI-Europe detects the first signs of a more harmonised approach by airlines, airports and manufacturers in the formation of Cofa, a lobby group comprising all three segments.
Ahead of the completion of new proposals from the European Commission and Ecac, the keenest interest lies in the outcome of the London airports case. The evidence in submissions against the DOT's proposals weighs heavily on the alleged weakness of the department's consultative process rather than on the content and effect of the new rules themselves, suggesting that the DOT may succeed in imposing new noise levels after all.
Most of all, airlines fear a domino effect. Asia-Pacific carriers, which stand to lose most from restrictions on Boeing 747 operations, including the 400 series, claim that Los Angeles, Tokyo/Narita and Osaka/Kansai are all considering similar restrictions if the UK DOT successfully implements its plans. The irony is that the penalties for non-compliance are relatively slight - just $1,600 per aircraft movement - and there is already an informal consensus among airlines that they will simply pay the fines rather than accepting payload restrictions.
Source: Airline Business
