MIME Noise Trading for Aircraft Noise Mitigation Peter Hullah - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Air Transport Research Society

San Francisco 22nd March 2007

MIME

Noise Trading for Aircraft Noise Mitigation

Peter Hullah

EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Brétigny sur Orge, France

EUROCONTROL

European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation

European Air-Traffic Management organisation Currently 37 Member States 5 objectives

Heighten Safety Increase Capacity Reduce Delays Enhance Cost-Effectiveness Minimise Environmental Impact

4 activity pillars:

Co-operative network design; Pan-European functions; Regional ATC services; Regulatory activities and support to

EC regulation. EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC)

entrusted with executing the Agency’s research, development and

validation programmes

Society Society Environment Environment Economy Economy

Sustainable Development Sustainable Development

Sustainable Air Transport

Noise Management

Noise Reduction at Source Operating Restrictions Land-Use Planning and Management Noise Abatement Operational Procedures

ICAO Balanced Approach

The last option is a last resort

In theory!

It’s generally all that’s available

Current Noise-based Restrictions

128 124 4 Noise surcharges 15 11 4 Noise budget 367 183 184 Engine run-up 105 85 20 APU 52 44 8 Stage 3 restrictions 358 168 190 Preferential runways 425 228 197 Noise abatement procedures 48 35 13 Noise quotas 93 60 33 Noise limits 230 154 74 Curfew Total Rest of world USA

Growth in Airport Noise Restrictions

Internalisation of external effects

Fundamental principle of environmental economics:

Any externality should be internalised as close to its source as possible

Three major types of “incentive” for internalisation

Pricing Penalties

For deviation from standards

Rationing

By quantity

Can be mixed

Recent Environmental Markets

Many current examples of use of market forces

CO2 emission reduction 2005 EU European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) CO2 emission reduction World Kyoto Protocol Greenhouse-gas emission trading improve fuel efficiency of new cars by 25% relative to 1995 levels by 2008 EU European car manufacturers (ACEA) voluntary agreement speed up the introduction of electronic vehicles

• ngoing

CA Zero Emission Vehicle Program limiting pollution and noise from truck traffic

• ngoing

Austria Ecopoint Programme targeted two gases, SO2 and NOX LA Regional Clean Air Incentives Market RECLAIM

• N. CO / CA

Tradable Water Abstraction Rights Water-pollution control NL & DE Water-pollution control local air-quality control US Emission trading phasing out lead in gasoline 1980s US Lead Trading Program Object Date Where Name

Operation of a Market-based System

Permits issued to meet desired measure of total impact across

specified region

Allocated to sources of impact in region

free or paid for by polluters

Number of permits allocated to a particular company

based on previous impact, declared future impact, or by auction etc.

Reducing impact leaves surplus permits

may be traded

If impact limited, available permits will be limited

scarcity value associated with each permit encourages trading of permits.

Advantages of Market-based Systems

Departure from standards-based regulation easier than tax-

based approach

more cost effective

Can be revenue neutral

producers don’t see them as “just another tax-collection scam” initial permitscould be freely allocated up to the predefined limits all financial transactions are between the companies themselves

Excess permits due to reduced pollution

sold to recuperate investment in less polluting equipment cover pollution from increased production

Taxes, charges and fines restrict growth Tradable permits encourage it

Noise Trading – An Example

2-hour Leq at a major international airport produced by ENHANCE

European Harmonised Aircraft Noise-contour Modelling Environment Produces noise contours from 3D radar trajectories Can be used to produce contours on a “per-airline” basis

Noise per Airline

Area of 24-hour 55dB(A) Leq Contour vs Mvts per airline

Major carrier is just less than 50% of all flights! All other companies in bottom left sector

y = 0.0904x R2 = 0.9909

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Number of Operations

LAeq-24h 55 dBA Contour Area (km^2)

All flights Main “Hub” carrier

Noise per Airline

y = 0.0904x R2 = 0.9909

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 20 30 40 50 60 Number of Operations

LAeq-24h 55 dBA Contour Area (km^2)

“QuietAir.com”

51 mvts with noise of 44 mvts

“Heavy Metal Airlines”

2 mvts with noise of 65 mvts

“Air Rightnoise”

22 mvts with noise of 22 mvts

Noise Trading vs Slot Trading

Recent Slot trading transactions

$110 113 National - 24 LaGuardia National & LaGuardia Republic Holdings 2005 $89.90 6 gates + slots Chicago airports - National and LaGuardia SWA 2004 $87.50 14 gates + 8 slots National - 19 slots LaGuardia National & LaGuardia AirTran 2004 £20 2 pair LHR Qantas 2004 €7.1 M 224 + Gandolf Co CDG Alitalia 2004 £12 4 LHR BA 2003 £35 loan 8 slots LHR (Swiss) BA 2003 £30 7 LHR BA 2003 £3.4 4 LHR BA 2002 €2.4 M 2 Gatwick VA 2001 $500 173 TWA AA 2001 $215 (offer) 119 jet + 103 commuter LHR CO 2000 £2 per slot 7 Gatwick VA 1999 £76 Cityflyer purchase Gatwick BA 1999 $16.30 8 LHR BA 1997 $150 40 + 3 gates ORD AA 1992 £18 per slot ? LHR AA 1991 $61 6 National USAirways 1991 $61 62 jet - 46 commuter LaGuardia USAirways 1991 $85 64 ÷ (6 A380) LaGuardia CO 1991 $54 21 slots - 3 gates ORD UA 1991 $32.50 18 Hatsfiled (Eastern) DL 1991 $3.50 7 LaGuardia DL 1991 $5.40 9 National DL 1991 $7-14 14 LaGuardia AA 1990 $19.30 14 National UA 1990 Cost (millions unless noted) Number of slots Airport Airline Date

Economic value

The UK’s recent £5 additional “environmental surcharge” on (economy!)

passenger tickets

Average aircraft with 120 passengers = £300 = €450 Imagine this as a noise permit value, instead of a tax

Say “QuietAir.com” has 51 movements per day, 365 days per year

Sells 7 permits per day (only needs 44) 7 x 365 x €450 = €1,149,750 per annum additional return on investment from this

airport alone

Say “HeavyMetal Airlines” has 2 flights (= 4 movements) per week

If they bought a new aircraft that produced “average” noise Would free-up 2 x 63 = 126 permits per week 126 x 52 x €450 = €2,948,400 per annum – just from this airport!

Permit definition

The previous example was just that – an example

Need good, usable, definition acceptable to airlines and residents Noise contours are not easily addable - non linear Does not take annoyance into account

More annoyance from many quiet flights than from a few loud ones Why count noise where there aren’t any people?

What granularity is needed? How will permits be attributed?

Sale, grandfather rights, auction etc.

How to combat restrictive practices? How will airports know if noise rading will work for them? What regulation is needed?

MIME will find the answers!

Market simulation Noise technology

MIME partners

Industry:

Boeing R&TE (Spain) (Co-ordinator)

R&D:

SINTEF (Norway) QinetiQ (UK)

Universities:

• U. Leeds (UK)

TU Munchen (Germany)

SMEs:

ENVISA (France)

EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (France)

MIME

Thank you

Peter Hullah EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Brétigny sur Orge, France