The environmental debate, it seems, is back with a vengeance. Europe's decision to call a halt to hushkitting has already sparked an acrimonious transatlantic row and there is every indication that this is only for starters. A discussion paper is due from the European Commission (EC) within weeks and, if early indications are anything to go by, it will serve up some radical new proposals for quelling noise and emissions.
There is reason for the industry to fret - as much over Europe's apparent willingness to break with world consensus, as over the new rules themselves. But what no-one can do is to complain that Europe's stand has come without warning.
Ever since it became clear four years ago that the world was unlikely to agree tougher environmental limits, Europe has been threatening to do the job itself. It is true that the EC has always said that it would prefer new rules to be worked out as part of a world consensus under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). But that has been more of a wish than a requirement, as the freeze on further hushkits has already demonstrated, and which the awaited discussion document is widely expected to confirm.
The fact that the paper's contents have been so carefully guarded is perhaps an ominous sign of what may be to come. The industry does not have to look too far for clues. Over the past couple of years, fuelled by public pressure and a round of world environmental summits, the EC has been thinking aloud about possible measures.
Among the possibilities is that familiar favourite, a tax on aviation fuel. However, that now seems to have been losing favour in Brussels, being seen as too blunt an instrument in separating out the heavy polluters from the more virtuous. Their reasoning is right. Bitter experience suggests that such taxes, whatever the original lofty intentions, soon descend into fund-raising exercises. Neither is there evidence that they will work. When fuel prices have soared in the past it has had more impact on profits than on flight hours.
But the industry should not cheer too soon. If support for the fuel tax has been waning, then it is only because there are seen to be "better" ways of achieving the same environmental result. Talk around the bazaars suggests that Brussels may be mulling ways to link navigational charges to environmental impact. It remains to be seen whether that would be a straight penalty on certain aircraft and engine combinations, or a more complex calculation of where and when aircraft fly.
Either way such proposals would represent a heavy penalty on Europe's carriers and a dangerous precedent for other regions to follow.
Another area that the EC is almost obliged to tackle is that of airport noise. There, the consensus has already started to break down as individual cities impose their own ad hoc restrictions and penalties. Amsterdam Schiphol came close to closure due to local noise limits. A new penalty system in London ended up in the courts. Emissions charges, too, are becoming fashionable in Scandinavia and beyond.
It is almost inconceivable that the EC will not soon attempt to bring some order to these á la carte local penalties. In principle, that would be no bad thing. In reality, the temptation will be to base any new classification on the harshest standards.
The question is, what the industry should, or could, do if such proposals are posted up. A starting point is to recognise that some kind of action is inevitable, whether through the EC, in Europe, or via ICAO worldwide. And, if change is coming, then the industry needs to be helping to drive it, rather than it being driven.
A little more consensus within the industry itself would help. The hushkit row has already exposed some damaging divisions between industries on either side of the Atlantic. Within Europe itself, airlines and airports have conspicuously failed to make common cause on the noise debate. It is in the interests of both that they start.
Both know that environmental limits can have hard consequences for local economies and those choices need to be exposed. Other proposals, such as those on engine emissions, may not be possible. The industry needs to argue its case and to do so openly.
There may even be benefits to be gained along the way. Europe's crushing congestion and creaking air-traffic infrastructure are a root cause of wasteful fuel consumption and inefficient routings. It is also an area over which the ECitself has responsibility. Fewer delays in exchange for less pollution. That sounds like a deal worth striking.
Source: Airline Business
