Time appears to be running out on the hushkit debate. There are only a couple of months to go before the European Union (EU) plans to implement its new rules, which would effectively rule out future use of hushkitting as a way to bring aircraft up to Chapter III noise regulations. Yet the transatlantic dispute which the proposals have stirred, seems as far from resolution as ever. Talk in Washington and Brussels is still of hidden agendas and political interference
On the surface, US opponents argue that the EU ban is about economics and free trade. It would, they claim, cut the resale value of US hushkitted aircraft. The Europeans are sceptical. "Frankly, one wonders where they think the secondhand market for hushkitted aircraft is?" asks a senior source at the Association of European Airlines (AEA). But there may be far more to this debate than the threat to the value of older generation aircraft. There is a much more important debate, for which the hushkit row may be only a dress rehearsal. That is the creation of a new "Chapter IV" noise standard. If Europe has its way, that could be on the agenda when the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) assembles in late 2001.
The Europeans have already backtracked a little since the hushkit ban was first proposed in mid-1998. The initial aim was to outlaw hushkitted aircraft in Europe as of April 2002 unless they had already been in operation by April 1999. Following uproar in the USA, the latter "grandfather" deadline was delayed a year to May 2000. However, Europe has made little secret of the fact that this is just the opening shot in an effort to raise noise standards above the current Chapter III. US opponents argue that it is not a helpful one. "As long as the EU persists on hushkits it is difficult, if not impossible, to pursue the debate," warns John Meenan, senior vice-president for industrial policy at the Washington-based Air Transport Association (ATA).
Trade suspicions
Both sides remain suspicious of the other's motives. At the European Commission (EC), some suggest that the USA is acting tough on hushkits to increase its negotiating strength on other trade-related issues. However, the USA signed a World Trade Organisation agreement on genetically modified food and biotechnology in January, so this theory may be wide of the mark. Others see the impending US presidential election as generating an atmosphere conducive for some nationalistic chestbeating in Congress.
What is clear, however, is that the US airline and aerospace industries have a good deal more invested in hushkitting than European counterparts (see tables over page). Around 40% of the North American single-aisle fleet is of older generation types, representing over 1,750 aircraft. Of those, more than three quarters are now hushkitted or re-engined. In Europe, the older generation represents only 10% of the fleet, with less than 200 hushkitted. Opposition to a hushkit ban in Europe is understandably muted, although Irish Boeing 707 operator Omega Air has won a hearing in the UK which will allow it take the issue to a the European courts.
The USA has attempted to rally opposition elsewhere around the world, but with limited effect. Congressman James Oberstar issued a fiery warning to the delegates at the Association of Asia-Pacific Airlines (AAPA) annual general meeting in Tokyo last November, backed by dire figures from the ATA. But as AAPA director general Richard Stirland politely pointed out: "In this part of the world, hushkitting is a non-issue." He added that this appeared to be a general view except for "a few pockets of antediluvian resistance" in the USA.
US politicians remain suspicious, however, not least about the possibility that the hushkit ban is some form of trade protection. Given the mistrust that has long festered over rival government support for Airbus and Boeing, that remains a highly volatile issue. It is true that the hushkitting debate largely centres on US-built aircraft - the Boeing 707, 727 and older 737 types, together with the McDonnell Douglas DC-9. Most of the suppliers of hushkitting and re-engining solutions are based in the USA.
Beyond Chapter III
Such objections aside, there is a much bigger struggle going on behind the scenes as the USA and Europe brace themselves for the next round of negotiations towards a new noise standard beyond Chapter III. Both sides agree on the principle that a more stringent engine noise standard than the current Chapter III is required. Unfortunately, they have different views on how strict the standard should be, when it should be implemented, and when non-compliant aircraft should be phased out.
The US side sees the proposed hushkit ban as the thin end of the wedge, with the end result being an attempt by the Europeans to phase out the noisiest Chapter III aircraft well before the end of the decade.
In a policy statement on noise standards, the ATA "recognises the importance of continuing to strive for improvements and progress in the reduction of aircraft noise." However, the statement adds that while the ATA "strongly supports environmental progress", it does not support a phase-out of the Chapter III (or US Stage 3)fleet "other than by normal attrition" as aircraft are replaced. "The ATA member airlines expect to be permitted to operate aircraft throughout their full useful life," it adds, pointing to the "precedent" for not devaluing earlier technology which has been in place for "over 30 years" and was established with the adoption of the Chapter III standards back in 1977.
The European Commission (EC) takes a different view. In the Air Transport &the Environment communication issued last November, it states that Chapter III "simply no longer represents state-of-the-art engine and aircraft design technology". It also notes that standards agreed through ICAO have been used as benchmarks for European legislation. Ominously, it then questions whether this should continue to be the case, especially given the need to stem the outbreak of different noise standards being adopted piecemeal by Europe's airports.
Following ICAO, it warns, has not been sufficient to relieve environmental pressure on the "effective use of airport infrastructure or to stop a further proliferation of local operational restrictions" with their consequent impact on the economics of the single European air market. "It seems questionable whether ICAO standards should in the future and under all circumstances continue to be used simultaneously for setting production standards," the communication concludes.
The implication is clear. Should the discussions within ICAO fail to reach what the EC regards as acceptable environmental goals, then Europe is prepared to go it alone.
The Americans have reacted swiftly, going through ICAO to issue a so-called Article 84 complaint procedure, against the contracting EU member states. According to this rarely used procedure "if any disagreement between two or more contracting states relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention and its Annexes cannot be settled by negotiation, it shall go before the Council". Member states can appeal against the decision of the Council to an ad hoc arbitrarial tribunal.
In practice, "there is quite a lot of flexibility" in Article 84, says John Crayston, co-ordinator of air transport and environmental programmes in the ICAO Secretariat. If it goes ahead with the procedure, the USA will put its complaint in writing and the EU member states will be asked to respond. But ICAO does not have any enforcement capability and EU states could still act alone.
Brussels is concerned over the prospect of a full Article 84 procedure, seeing it as a counterproductive measure. "This is still a problem," says Eckard Seebohm, head of the environment unit in the EC Transport Directorate's aviation division, although offering a potential exit route. "We have always said to the Americans that we are willing to further suspend the implementation of the hushkit regulation," says "This needs to be justified before the public, and a justification could be a clear EU-US joint statement on common goals for ICAO."
Seebohm says the two sides were close to finding an agreed wording for this joint statement last summer, with a draft paper on the table, but "where we could not agree was what were the policy conclusions of the joint statement".
Besides the threat of invoking Article 84, large parts of the US industry are calling for a full and immediate withdrawal of the hushkit regulation, says Seebohm. He argues this is simply not practical politics. "It would be unrealistic to expect the Transport Commissioner to propose definite withdrawal of an environmental policy instrument before knowing the outcome of ICAO in 2001," he says. "There is no alternative to working step-by-step. They cannot ask us to wave the white flag."
With both sides refusing to give ground, the danger of a further escalation in the dispute cannot be ignored - including the possibility of the USA going ahead with its threat to ban Concorde, flown exclusively by Air France and British Airways.
ICAO compromise
Such US threats do not play well in Europe, providing ammunition to those who see a hidden agenda behind the US position. In particular, there is a growing feeling within in Brussels that elements within the US aviation industry are hoping to raise the political temperature surrounding the issue in an attempt to shape the position which the US representatives take to ICAO.
For its part, ICAO is doing its best to find a compromise and, above all, maintain international consensus. The organisation says it recognises the pressures on European states to act on noise, but, nevertheless, has advised the EC that it considers it essential to protect the integrity of the rules and Standards of Annex 16 and of ICAO policy regarding aircraft noise. "The key question is how to find a way forward that maintains the worldwide system while accommodating these regional concerns," Crayston explains.
ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) has had a group of experts examining the issue of new noise standards beyond Chapter III, especially since 1998, and is due for a crucial meeting in January 2001. "We would hope that there would be good understanding on a new standard by then," says Crayston optimistically. If CAEP does find a consensus view, its proposals could then be ready for consideration by the ICAO general assembly set to take place in around October 2001.
Both the US and European sides, warn that the current hushkit row, intentionally or otherwise, could knock this attempt at an early international agreement off course.
For its part, the ATA argues that Europe's proposed hushkit ban, effectively challenges the idea of a world consensus. "The EU is truly undermining international certification standards," complains Meenan. "At the time of the agreement on moving from Chapter II to Chapter III it was clearly recognised that hushkitting was very much part of this process." Crayston has some sympathy, agreeing that it seemed to be "understood" in 1990 when the Chapter II phase-out was agreed in ICAO, that hushkitting was a legitimate option.
Yet Crayston also acknowledges that Europe, with its dense traffic volumes in highly populated areas, does have "legitimate concerns that need to be addressed".
Meanwhile, Europe's politicians clearly feel under pressure to act on the environment and not just on aircraft noise. The EC is signed up to a policy of cutting greenhouse gas emissions across industry. For aviation that means reducing hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) at a time when the volume of air transport is rapidly rising.
The EC sees more efficient engines as one of the keys to reducing emissions. And while hushkitted Chapter II engines may meet Chapter III noise requirements - if only just in some cases - they fall short of what is environmentally acceptable if these broad targets on emissions reductions are to be met.
It is clear that the two sides have some way to go before reaching common ground. Reaching agreement on a new noise standard in 2001 looks optimistic. So too does the European aim for a phase-out of the noisier Chapter III aircraft by somewhere around 2006, if the US demand for something closer to 2015 is anything to go by. The alternative is that Europe goes it alone, which is hardly a prospect being championed by the aviation industry anywhere.
| Noise regulation timetable | |
| Date | Event |
| 1969 | FAA introduces Federal Aviation regulation Part 36 - the world's first aviation noise limits |
| 1971 | Adoption of similar standards by ICAO |
| 1977 | Chapter III standards drawn up by ICAO |
| 1990 | ICAO adopts Chapter III noise standard, due to be phased in by 2002 |
| June 1998 | EU transport ministers agree on the EC's proposal to ban aircraft hushkitted to Chapter III after 2002 if they are not "grandfathered" by April 1999 |
| May 1999 | EU agrees to delay the cut-off date for grandfathered aircraft by a year to May 2000. |
| January 2000 | US airlines claim to be fully Chapter III compliant |
| January 2001 | ICAO's CAEP working group due to meet to discuss new noise standards |
| Autumn 2001 | ICAO's 33rd assembly -Ênew noise standard agreement would be ratified here - if agreed |
| 2002 | Final Chapter II phase out. EU's proposed hushkit ban due to take effect |
| World mainline single aisle fleet - by noise classification Jan 2000 | ||||
|
| Total single aisle fleet | Chapter III compliant | Hushkitted or re-engined | Chapter I/II |
| North America | 4.375 | 59.9% | 31.1% | 9.0% |
| Europe | 2,064 | 85.7% | 9.0% | 5.3% |
| Asia | 958 | 81.8% | 0.4% | 17.7% |
| Latin America | 636 | 34,0% | 9.7% | 56.3% |
| Africa | 354 | 31.6% | 2.0% | 66.4% |
| Australasia | 113 | 85.8% | 12.4% | 1.8% |
| Total | 8,500 | 65.8% | 19.2% | 14.9% |
| Note: Includes single-aisle aircraft of over 100-seats in service or temporary storage as at start Jan 2000. Excludes regional jets and equivalent older types. Concorde also excluded in Europe. Source: Airclaims CASE | ||||
| World mainline single aisle fleet - non-Chapter III or hushkitted fleet | ||||
| Region | Hushkitted or re-engined | Chapter I/II | Combined Total | Percentage of combined total |
| North America | 1.361 | 395 | 1.756 | 60% |
| Latin America | 62 | 358 | 420 | 14% |
| Europe | 186 | 109 | 295 | 10% |
| Africa | 7 | 235 | 242 | 8% |
| Asia | 4 | 170 | 174 | 6% |
| Australasia | 14 | 2 | 16 | 1% |
| TOTAL | 1,6341 | 1.269 | 2.903 | 100% |
| Note: Hushkitted or re-engined: aircraft adapted to meet ICAO Chapter III noise regulations. Chapter 1/2: Aircraft which fail to meet Chapter III noise regulations. Source: Airclaims CASE database | ||||
Source: Airline Business
