Guy Norris/LOS ANGELES
The US aviation industry is calling 'foul play' on the hushkitting issue, claiming that the European viewpoint is based on virtually all grounds except environmental concern.
"We are convinced the rule is wrong, illegal and not even justifiable environmentally," says Mark Atwood, a partner in the Washington DC-based law firm of Sher and Blackwell, and counsel for a noise reduction technology coalition formed by three companies which either make hushkits or modify aircraft lift systems to help meet Stage 3 (the US equivalent of Chapter 3) requirements. The alliance includes the ABS Partnership, Burbank Aeronautical and Duganair.
"More importantly than the $2 billion of economic harm it could do, the legislation threatens the whole structure of international standards on certification, environmental standards and a lot more," says Atwood. "This is not driven by a small group of hushkit makers anymore. It now involves the entire industry, and has gone well beyond the non-addition issue."
Ironically, some in the USA believe the crisis began almost by mistake. "Its genesis lies in a terrible misunderstanding of US law when somebody interpreted that hushkitted Stage 2 aircraft would not be allowed to fly in the USA after 31 December, 1999," says Atwood. "They suddenly thought thundering herds of aircraft would fly to Europe and darken their skies."
Some US companies and organisations also name Airbus Industrie as one of the main agitators [to sell its own aircraft]. Bob Olson of Duganair says: "It goes back five years, and was indirectly sponsored by Airbus, of that there can be no doubt. The problem is that there has been a huge amount of misinformation fed to the EC to say hushkits are not at the same technical level as new aircraft. In some respects that is true, but not in the noise arena, which is surely the whole point of this," he adds.
But Airbus says: "There's no way we would get involved in this. We would have nothing to gain and a lot to lose from any attempt to force the EC to bring in such a rule".
Summarising US concerns, the Air Transport Association says that the proposed regulation is "unacceptable because there is no technical basis for it, it fails to promote environmental interests in any way, and because it has been carefully crafted to protect European aviation interests while putting US workers, manufacturers and carriers at a severe disadvantage in international trade".
ATA president and chief executive Carol Hallett adds: "This European regulation banning aircraft with hushkits is clearly illegal under international law and we support our government in taking strong action."
Support also comes from the US Aerospace Industries Association (AIA). President and chief executive John Douglass suggests the action is as much about legal protocol as discriminatory posturing. "Unfortunately, the EU seems determined to go its own way despite the obligations of its member states under ICAO. In doing so, the EU has placed the ICAO consensus-building process at risk. AIA remains convinced that ICAO is the appropriate place to negotiate an international consensus on acceptable levels of aircraft noise and emissions".
Pratt & Whitney says everyone, Airbus included, will suffer if regulations vary from region to region: "We build for a global industry, and even Airbus does not want a scattering of regulations. It is hard enough for an engine maker to deal with, let alone an airframer."
Ruth Harkin, senior vice-president for P&W's parent company, United Technologies, says: "The EU non-addition rule is nothing more than a protectionist measure masquerading as an environmental initiative. Regional bodies should not make unilateral decisions that affect world trade. Not only is it absolutely unfair, it could serve to unravel the fabric that holds global trade together and makes it possible. The EU cannot be permitted to undermine international standards."
Bottom line
The bottom line, P&W believes, is that the EU keeps changing the requirements. It adds that this could have disastrous implications for operators and a negative impact on the environment as it will stop incremental improvements taking place. The company says: "You can't keep on asking the world's airlines to meet a standard which is suddenly changed again. Why would anyone invest in fixing a 737 when there are no guarantees that the rules will not exempt it in a few years? We are only asking for a rational policy for something that will provide long-term benefits to the environment and the industry."
P&W has a substantial stake in the hushkit business for the JT8D (727, 737-200 and DC-9) through various partnerships with orders and options for 2,011 shipsets, or 77% of the existing "standard" JT8D-powered (ie excluding JT8D-200-engined aircraft, which do not need hushkitting) commercial fleet of 2,614 aircraft. More than 1,400 are already hushkitted. Its wider interest is in keeping these aircraft flying so it can sell engine parts over their lifetime - far more lucrative than their hushkit sales.
Another US objection is the EU rule banning aircraft with engines having a bypass ratio of less than 2 from using European airports from April 2002. "I say to the EU, you should not be in the business of telling manufacturers, engine makers and entrepreneurs what bypass ratio to have on an engine," says James Raisbeck, Raisbeck Commercial Air Group president and chief executive. "They should be telling us what noise footprint we should have to live with, and then let us figure out how we can do it."
Raisbeck is working on a possible combination of its LEAP (leading edge advanced performance) system with BFGoodrich's Super 27 JT8D-200 re-engined 727 programme. This solution, which is aimed at Stage 4 compliance, will fall foul of the bypass ratio requirement when the EU ruling takes effect.
Omega's 7Q7 programme, which replaces the 707's P&W JT3D engines with JT8D-200s, is similarly affected . Omega's winning of an initial victory in the UK's High Court last year has cheered US interests. The court said the regulation was "wholly defective in its reasons" as it was based on a single design parameter, not an environmental requirement. But the court referred the issue to the European Court of Justice for a decision, which has yet to be made. Omega is expected to lodge similar complaints throughout Europe in the hope that a national court may make a ruling itself.
Source: Flight International
