COMPARING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FROM USING LARGE AND SMALL PASSENGER AIRCRAFT ON SHORT HAUL ROUTES

Moshe Givoni* and Piet Rietveld Department of Spatial Economics, Free University Amsterdam ABSTRACT
One of the main outcomes of open skies policies is the importance of service frequency in the competition between airlines. To keep load factors high while offering high frequency service, airlines tend to reduce the size of the aircraft used. On short haul routes this phenomenon is even more apparent and especially on routes between hub airports, even though these routes and airports are often congested. This choice of service frequency and aircraft size must have important environmental consequences, which this paper aims to evaluate and quantify. Using the route between London Heathrow and Amsterdam Schiphol airports as a case study, the environmental impact of a large (wide-body) aircraft and small (narrowbody) is compared in terms of noise pollution, local air pollution and climate change impact. The results show that to transport the daily seating capacity offered on the case study route, the use of narrow-body aircraft results in lower local air pollution and climate change impacts than the operation of wide-body aircraft (and lower frequency), but higher noise pollution. This suggests that competition between airlines, which leads them to meet new demand mainly through higher frequency and not larger aircraft, does not carry an environmental penalty and, from an environmental perspective, might even be advantageous.

1. INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2006, airlines operating between London and Amsterdam (371km great circle distance) have been offering 55 daily one-way services, using, on average, aircraft with 125 seats capacity. Between Heathrow and Schiphol airports alone, there were 26 daily one-way services, and these were offered by an aircraft fleet with an average capacity of 143 seats. If instead of narrow-body aircraft airlines would have utilised a fleet of wide-body aircraft a much lower frequency of service would have been required to offer similar seating capacity, which could have freed scarce runway capacity or could have reduced congestion at these airports. At the other side of the world, Japanese airlines operating between Tokyo and Sapporo, also a short haul route in airlines terms (820km great circle distance), offered 51 daily one-way services but utilising a fleet of aircraft with an average capacity of 395 seats. Most of these services were provided by a high seat capacity version of the Boeing 747. An analysis of short-haul routes around the world revealed that the LondonAmsterdam route is the general rule while the Tokyo-Sapporo route is the exception (Givoni and Rietveld, 2007). In general, airlines opt for high frequency service and small aircraft rather than lower frequency and larger aircraft when demand is relatively high on short haul routes. An empirical examination of airlines choice of aircraft size in airports and (short-haul)

Association for European Transport and contributors 2007

routes around the world found that the main explanation for choice of high frequency and small aircraft is the importance of service frequency in airlines competition. To keep frequency high while striving to maintain a high load factor, airlines must reduce aircraft size. Other contributing factors are the route density, distance and whether the airport is a hub (Givoni and Rietveld, 2007). This paper investigates the environmental implications of airlines choice of aircraft size in terms of noise pollution, local air pollution (LAP) and climate change. The aim is to evaluate whether the competitive environment which drives airlines to offer high frequency service carries an environmental penalty. The focus of the paper is on the environmental perspective, and other issues, like customers benefits from a high level of service, are put aside and not dealt with at this stage. On most routes airlines choice of aircraft is relatively limited, partly due to the bundling of size and range in aircraft development. On long haul routes the choice will be limited to the wide-body (large) aircraft, the aircraft which has a high operating range. On many short haul routes demand will not be enough to support large capacity aircraft, nor high frequency service. It is on the short haul high density routes, such as the London-Amsterdam or Tokyo-Sapporo, where airlines have a real choice. It is this type of routes which this paper focuses on. The reminder of the paper is arranged as follows. In section 2 the aircraft and case study route are described. Section 3, 4 and 5 describe the analysis for noise, LAP and climate change respectively. Section 6 summarises the main findings and conclusions. 2. THE CHOICE OF AIRCRAFT AND ROUTE FOR ANALYSIS To compare between narrow-body and wide-body aircraft (often the reference in the paper is to small and large aircraft respectively) a representative model was selected for each group. The Airbus A320-200 (henceforth A320) is selected as a typical narrow-body aircraft and the Boeing B747-400 (henceforth B747) as a typical wide-body aircraft. These aircraft are amongst the most used aircraft in the world. In May 1999, the A320 accounted for 4.4% and 5.5% of the global aircraft departures and the distance flown by scheduled civil aircraft respectively. In that period, the B747 accounted for only 1.4% of the global aircraft departures but for 8.1% of the global distance flown by scheduled civil aircraft (Sutkus et al., 2001). The main characteristics of these aircraft are summarised in Table 1. The aircraft entered service about the same time and therefore represent similar level of technological development with respect to engines (the chosen engines are considered to be the basic version for these models), aerodynamic design and weight. The B747 is currently the largest commercial passenger aircraft in service. In a 3-class configuration it typically has 416 seats and in a 2-class configuration 524 seats. The number and thrust of the B747 engines are designed not only

Association for European Transport and contributors 2007

to carry high payload (of passengers and cargo) but also to carry it far (the average route distance for the world's B747 fleet is 5,632km compared to 1,243km for the A320 - Sutkus et al., 2001). It means that the expected higher noise and emissions levels from large aircraft relates to both their high payload and range. This makes comparison between large and small aircraft difficult. Table 1: Main characteristics of the Airbus A320 and the Boeing B747 aircraft Manufacturer Airbus Boeing Aircraft A320 B747 Model 200 400 Entered service 1988 (Nov.) 1989 (Feb.) MTOW 77,000 396,890 Engine manufacturer CFM International General-Electric Engine model (number) CFM56-5A1 (2) CF6-80C2B1F (4) Engine thrust 111.21 kN 257.98 kN Seating capacity 150 (2-class) 416 (3-class) 164 (1-class) 524 (2-class) 568 (B747-400D, 3-class)
Source: aircraft manufacturers

The B747-400D variant (D for Domestic, henceforth B747D) was developed by Boeing (mainly) for the Japanese domestic market, its typical seating capacity is 568 seats 1. Other than the higher seating capacity, it is similar to the basic B747-400, including similar engines. The data used in the analysis below do not include specific information on this model (mainly because of the similar type of engines) and therefore it was only possible to account for its high seating capacity but not for the lower amount of fuel required for short haul operation and thus the lower Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW). In addition to the A320 and the B747, two additional aircraft are considered, the narrow-body Airbus A319-100 (entered service on May 1996, typical capacity of 124 seats) and the wide-body Airbus A330-300 (entered service on January 1994, typical high density 2-class capacity of 335 seats). The case study route chosen for analysis is the route between London Heathrow and Amsterdam Schiphol airports. As noted above, on such routes airlines have more freedom in their choice of aircraft and due to the competitive pressure choose relatively small aircraft (and high frequency service). The seat capacity offered on the route in the summer of 2006 was 7,436 seats per day (two-way), and this is taken as the benchmark capacity to compare between different aircraft. The main reason for choosing the daily capacity and not one seat for the comparison is the characteristics of noise emission which does not allow dividing the noise from an aircraft by its seating capacity. The great circle distance between Heathrow and Schiphol airports is 371km (200nm). Depending on the runway used, the approach path and other airspace restrictions the actual flight will be longer. For short haul flights the
Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 3

relative deviation from the great circle distance can be significant and for this analysis a 15% increase in route distance was assumed, yielding a route distance of 427km. 3. NOISE EMISSION Noise data were obtained from ICAO on-line noise database 2. For each combination of aircraft type, engine type, MTOW and MLM (Maximum Landing Mass) the database provides the certified noise levels in EPNdB units for the three standard reference points around the runway: lateral, approach and flyover (see definition in Table 2). EPNdB is the unit used to measure the Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) and is the basic element for noise certification criteria. The EPNdB units are a single number to evaluate the subjective effects of airplane noise on human beings. The certified noise levels and main characteristics of the aircraft used in the analysis are presented in Table 2. To account for operation of B747 on short-haul route, the lowest MTOW version in the noise database was used. Also for the A320 the case study route is relatively short and a relatively low MTOW was assumed (the range in the database is from 66,000kg to 77,000kg). Table 2: Aircraft characteristics and certified noise levels Aircraft A320-211 B747-400 Engine manufacturer CFM International General Electric Engine CFM56-5A1 CF6-80C2B1F Thrust (kN) 111.21 257.98 MTOW assumed (kg) 77,000 272,156 MLM assumed (kg) 66,000 255,826 Noise certification levels at reference points Lateral (full-power) (EPNdB) 94.6 99.1 Approach (EPNdB) 96.2 101.7 Flyover (EPNdB) 85.5 89.6 One option for Comments One option for engine model for this engine model for this version. Lowest version. Medium MTOW assumed MTOW assumed
Note: the noise "reference measurement points" are: Lateral (full power) - the certified noise level corresponds to the average of two points located on a line parallel to and at a distance of 450m from the runway centre line. This is where the take-off noise level is at its maximum. Flyover (reduced power) - the point is located on the extended centre line of the runway, at a distance of 6500m from the start of roll. Approach - the point is located at the extended centre line of the runway, at a distance of 2000m from the runway threshold. On level ground this corresponds to a position of 120m vertically below the 30 descent path. Source: ICAO noise database (http://noisedb.stac.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/).

The noise certification levels at the three points were averaged to derive the noise from a specific aircraft. Accounting for the number of flights required to offer 7,436 seats (the capacity offered by airlines on the case-study route)

Association for European Transport and contributors 2007

when using the A320 or the B747, the fleet exposure level was calculated using the formula below for each aircraft type.

L fleet = 10 log ncat 10 Lave / 10

Where Lfleet is the fleet noise exposure, ncat is the number of aircraft movements (including time-of-day weightings, which here is not accounted for) for an aircraft type (one type, the A320 or B747, is assumed in each calculation), and Lave is the average of the three noise certification levels for an aircraft type (Busink, 2001). The results are presented in Table 3. Table 3: Fleet noise exposure for A320 and B747 aircraft 7,436 seats 2,714,140 seats (daily capacity) (annual capacity) Aircraft seats Noise / atm atms1 Lfleet atms1 Lfleet A320-200 150 92.4 50 109.09 18,095 134.68 A320-200 164 92.4 46 108.73 16,550 134.29 B747-400 B747-400D
Rounded up.

cat

524 568

96.8 96.8

15 14

108.56 108.26

5,180 4,779

133.94 133.59

As expected, per air traffic movement (atm) the larger aircraft is noisier. However, to supply 7,436 seats between Heathrow and Schiphol 50 atms are needed using the A320 in the standard 2-class configuration compared to only 15 flights when using the B747 in 524 seats configuration, and only 14 assuming the B747D is utilised. Offering the same seat capacity using larger aircraft and lower frequency results in lower noise exposure compared to using smaller aircraft and higher capacity. The non-linear property of noise volume, as heard by the human ear, makes it hard to interpret the magnitude of the reduction in the fleet noise exposure. The relative small difference in the noise exposure level between one, 50 and over 18,000 atms of A320 suggests that the reduction in noise from shifting services from the A320 (150 seats) to the B747D is not insignificant. For an annual operation on the route (supplying 2,714,140 seats) by the B747D instead of the A320 (150 seats) 13,316 atms can be removed and the reduction in the fleet noise exposure from this equals 1.09 units. Assuming the highest MTOW for the B747 and 524 seats results in a fleet noise exposure of 112.39 (112.09 if 568 seats). The high seating configuration A320 is more likely to be used by low-cost airlines, but such airlines are currently not operating on the case study route. Increasing the number of seats on board the A320 to 164 reduces the number of atms to 46 and the noise exposure level to 108.73 units, still higher than the noise level of the B747 fleet. Downsizing the fleet and replacing the A320 with the smaller and newer A319100 (highest MTOW assumed and the typical 124 seats configuration) will also result in less noise, 108.08 units. Using a fleet of A330-300 aircraft (lowest MTOW and 335 seats in a 2-class configuration assumed), which is smaller and newer than the B747, results in a noise exposure level of 108.25 units. If a domestic version of the A330 existed and assuming it had a 350
Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 5

seat capacity, such an aircraft fleet would outperform the other models examined above, resulting in a noise exposure level of 108.06 units. It appears that the newer models are quieter than the older ones. The above analysis demonstrated that increasing aircraft size (and reducing service frequency) can result in lower noise impact provided the large aircraft are in high seating density configuration. The fact that large aircraft flying on short haul routes will require to carry substantially less fuel is also likely to lead to lower noise levels, but this effect could not be accounted for in full with the available data. 4. LOCAL AIR POLLUTION (LAP) Aircraft are considered to impact LAP only when operating inside the Landing Take-Off (LTO) cycle. This cycle consists of four stages: take off, climb (up to 3,000ft), approach (from 3,000ft to landing) and idle (when the aircraft is taxiing or standing on the ground with engines on). It is within this part of the flight that aircraft emission standards are measured. The 3000ft (or approximately 915m) boundary is the standard set by the ICAO for the average height of the mixing zone, the layer of the earth atmosphere where chemical reactions of pollutants can ultimately affect ground level pollutant concentrations (EPA, 1999). The ICAO also determined engine power settings and time in mode for each stage of the LTO cycle and these are used as the basis for aircraft emission measurement. Emission data for certification of different aircraft engines are provided on the ICAO engine exhaust data bank 3 and this is used in the analysis below. The engines selected for the modelled aircraft are similar to the engines used in the noise analysis. These are considered to be the base engines for these types of aircraft. The data refer to the engine performance (100% power is assumed for take-off, 85%, 30% and 7% for the climb, approach and idle stages) and not the aircraft and therefore MTOW is not accounted for. The data for the LAP analysis are summarised in Table 4. SO2 emission is a major contributor to LAP, it is directly related to fuel consumption (an emission rate of 0.8 grams per kg of fuel consumed is assumed in the analysis based on Sutkus et al., 2001) and therefore not measured directly in the ICAO database. The fuel consumption and emission levels associated with supplying 7,436 seats between Heathrow and Schiphol is presented in Table 5. Fuel consumption can be a good indication for environmental impact since in general the higher this is the higher is the level of emission. It is clear from Table 5 that the narrow-body aircraft outperform the wide-body aircraft even when the latter are in high seating configuration. More important, however, is the mix of gases emitted. From the four gases measured, NOx is considered as the major contributor to LAP while the contribution of HC, CO and SO2 is less significant. Particulate Matter (PM) emission is considered an important contributor to LAP but measuring emission of this pollutant is not part of the engine certification process, and an alternative source of data was not found. Table 5 shows that the operation of the A320 results in less emission than the operation of the B747D across all the gases/pollutants. Using the A320 fleet

Association for European Transport and contributors 2007

and not the B747D will result in a saving of 7.93 ton of fuel (17% lower), 172 kg of NOx (28% lower) and 6.3kg of SO2 (17% lower). The newer and smaller A319 consumes more fuel than the base aircraft, the A320, and therefore emits more SO2, but it emits less NOx, which does not allow concluding which is better. The A320 also outperforms the wide-body A330 across all the criteria measured, also when assuming a seating capacity of 350 seats, and even 370. Table 4: Emission during the LTO cycle for different types of aircraft Engine LTO mass/aircraft1 Fuel Aircraft HC (g) CO (g) Manufacturer Model (kg) (engines) A320-200 (2) CFM CFM56 771 570 6,185 International -5-A1 A319-100 (2) CFM CFM56 686 1040 12,686 International -5B5/3 A330-300 (2) General CF61,884 6767 31,203 Electric 80E1A2 B747-400 (4) General CF6-80 3,320 2054 25,266 Electric C2B1F

NOx (g) 9,011 6,094 32,405 44,450

Fuel consumption; HC, CO and NOx emission. Source: ICAO engine exhaust data bank (www.caa.co.uk).

Table 5: Fuel consumption and gas emission from a daily operation between Heathrow and Schiphol for different types of aircraft fleet Aircraft Seats atms Fuel (kg) HC (g) CO (g) NOx (g) SO2(g) A320-200 150 50 38,548 28,506 309,254 450,564 30,839 A320-200 164 46 35,464 26,226 284,513 414,519 28,371 B747-400 B747-400D A319-100 A330-300 524 568 124 335 15 14 60 23 49,795 46,476 41,160 43,332 30,805 28,751 62,400 378,995 353,729 761,160 666,752 622,301 365,640 745,324 39,836 37,180 32,928 34,665

155,646 717,671

Cost of damage estimates are the most common way to compare between emissions of different gases/pollutants. Dings et al. (2002a and b) reviewed the literature and derived cost estimates in euros for kg emission and these are used in this analysis. Table 6 allows to infer the magnitude of reduction in LAP from using a narrow-body fleet, which amounts to 1,588 Euro per day of operation on the route. From the aircraft analysed, the A319 appears as the best option and the A330 as the worse despite the two being the more modern types. It is also apparent from Table 6 that the differences between aircraft are a factor of their NOx emission while the emission of other gases only plays a small role in the contribution to LAP. As noted, the data used do not account for the fact that wide-body aircraft operating on short-haul routes require to carry less fuel than when operating on long-haul routes, leading to lower fuel consumption and emission rates.
Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 7

Thus, a B747 at maximum payload will still be lighter on take-off when operating a short-haul route which suggests that engines can be used at lower power (thrust) at take-off. The approach stage of the LTO cycle can provide a better comparison between aircraft since most of the fuel carried has been used. When comparing the A320 with the B747D when accounting for the number of approaches only, a fleet of A320s will result in lower LAP than a fleet of B747D. The B747D fleet consumes 25% more fuel and emits 95% more NOx gases on approach than the A320 fleet (Table 7). Table 6: The cost of LAP associated with daily operation between Heathrow and Schiphol for different types of aircraft fleet (Euros) Euro /kg 4 0.07 9 6 Aircraft seats atms HC CO NOx SO2 Total A320-200 150 50 114 22 4,055 185 4,376 A320-200 164 46 105 20 3,731 170 4,026 B747-400 B747-400D A319-100 A330-300 524 568 124 335 15 14 60 23 123 115 250 623 27 25 53 50 6,001 5,601 3,291 6,708 239 223 198 208 6,390 5,964 3,791 7,589

In conclusion, it can be expected that replacing the narrow-body fleet with wide-body fleet on short haul routes, and adjusting the frequency to supply similar seating capacity, will result in increasing LAP from aircraft operation. Table 7: Fuel consumption and emission for the approach stage of the LTO Approach Aircraft seats atms Fuel (kg) HC (g) CO (g) NOx (g) SO2(g) A320-200 150 50 6,984 2,794 17,460 55,872 5,587 A320-200 164 46 6,425 2,570 16,063 51,402 5,140 B747-400 B747-400D 524 568 15 14 9,360 8,736 1,030 961 19,937 18,608 116,719 108,938 7,488 6,989

5. CLIMATE CHANGE To account for aircraft operation impact on climate change the whole flight must be accounted for, from engines on to engines off position. Thus, to fuel consumption and emission during the LTO cycle the rest of the flight must be added. This includes the climb from 3000ft (the LTO cycle boundary) to cruise altitude, the cruise stage and the descent to 3000ft where the approach stage begins. Eurocontrol Experimental Centre (2004) provides aircraft performance summary tables where fuel use for every flight level, for the climb, cruise and descent stages, is indicated. Based on this, and assuming a cruise level of

Association for European Transport and contributors 2007

25,000ft 4, fuel consumption is calculated for the climb and descent stages outside the LTO cycle. Next, the cruise time was determined. In a typical flight profile for medium range jet flying a route of 500NM (approximately 927km), and assuming a cruise level of 25,000ft, an aircraft will cruise for 48.32 minutes at a speed of 825 kph (climb from zero will be 12.26 minutes and descent to zero 15.45 minutes) 5. The only change to the above flight profile when the route is 427km is the cruise time, which will equal 11.91 minutes, the time assumed in this analysis for all aircraft types. Table 8: CO2 and NOx emission from a daily operation between Heathrow and Schiphol for different types of aircraft fleet Climb + LTO cycle Descent Cruise NOx CO2 NOx NOx CO2 (t) (kg) (t) (kg) Aircraft seats atms CO2 (t) (kg) A320-200 150 50 121.62 450.56 159.70 845.33 95.37 504.79 A320-200 164 46 111.89 414.52 146.93 777.71 87.74 464.40 B747-400 B747-400D A319 A330 524 568 124 335 15 14 60 23
157.10 146.63 129.86 136.71 666.75 622.30 365.64 745.32 129.90 121.24 170.22 164.48 839.94 783.95 1100.6 1063.5 107.48 100.31 102.49 87.78 694.93 648.60 662.67 567.57

Table 8: (continued) Aircraft A320-200 A320-200 B747-400 B747-400D A319 A330 seats atms 150 50 164 46 524 568 124 335 15 14 60 23 CO2 (t) 376.69 346.55 394.48 368.18 402.57 388.97 Total NOx (kg) 1800.68 1656.63 2201.63 2054.85 2128.94 2376.43

Aircraft operation impact on climate change is related mainly to CO2 and NOx emission. CO2 emission is directly related to fuel consumption (a ratio of 3155gr per kg of fuel is used Sutkus et al., 2001) and therefore can be estimated accurately. NOx emission is not directly related to fuel consumption but depends on the combustion temperature which increases with the engines power setting. This makes NOx emission more difficult to estimate. Furthermore, engine certification procedures do not include measurement of (NOx) emissions outside the LTO cycle. Sutkus et al. (2001) provide emission indices for different aircraft/engine combination calculated as part of the scheduled civil aircraft emission inventories for 1999. For NOx emission two indices are given for each aircraft/engine combination, one for emission at the

Association for European Transport and contributors 2007

1-9km altitude band and one for the 9-13km band, the former was used in this analysis. Water vapour (H2O) emission from aircraft operation is considered to be another important contributor to climate change, partly through its role in the formation of contrails and cirrus clouds. These phenomena, however, are related to emission at high altitude. At lower altitudes, the concentration and impact of H2O are largely determined internally within the climate system and are not significantly affected by human sources. Both the IPCC (1999) and the RCEP (2002) considered emission of H2O within the troposphere not to have an effect on climate change. At mid latitudes the troposphere (lower atmosphere) boundary is at about 36,000ft. Water vapour emission were therefore not accounted for in this analysis. In terms of CO2 emission, and therefore fuel consumption, the use of an A320 fleet (in typical 2-class configuration) results in less emission than using a B747 fleet, but not the B747D fleet (Table 8). The differences do not appear substantial. In terms of NOx emission, the A320 outperforms both of the B747 models considered. Breaking total emission into the LTO cycle, climb+descent and cruise stages shows that in cruise and during the LTO cycle the A320 aircraft emit less CO2 and NOx. During the climb+descent stage, the B747 models emit less CO2 and less NOx. This means that as the route distance increases, and assuming a cruise level of 25,000ft, the advantage of using a smaller size fleet will increase with respect to impact on climate change. Table 9: The cost of climate change associated with daily operation between Heathrow and Schiphol for different types of aircraft fleet (Euros) Euro /kg 0.03 4 seat Aircraft s atms CO2 NOx Total A320-200 150 50 11,301 7,203 18,503 A320-200 164 46 10,397 6,627 17,023 B747-400 B747-400D A319-100 A330-300 524 568 124 335 15 14 60 23 11,834 11,046 12,077 11,669 8,807 8,219 8,516 9,506 20,641 19,265 20,593 21,175

A mixed picture emerges when comparing the A319 to the A330 (Table 8), the former performs better in terms of NOx emission and the latter in terms of CO2 emission. The differences between the models are relatively small. Also in the cruise stage, one model emits more NOx and the other more CO2, which means also on longer routes it cannot be concluded which model should be preferred. Perhaps surprisingly, the A320 fleet outperforms the newer and smaller A319 model, and the high seating capacity version B747 outperforms the newer and smaller A330 model. Cost estimates of the climate change impact associated with emission of CO2 and NOx can provide a clearer comparison between the models.
Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 10

Estimates of the cost of damage caused by climate change as a result of CO2 and NOx emission provided by Dings et al (2002a and b) are used. The estimate for NOx emission refers to climate change impact only. Since the estimate used in the LAP section refers to the impact of NOx emission on LAP there is no double counting of damage when the impacts of LAP and climate change are later aggregated. The cost of climate change, which can be associated with the operation of the daily flights between Heathrow and Schiphol airports, does not vary much between the different types of aircraft. Again, the picture that emerges is that the A320 would be better to use than the B747, thus the smaller aircraft should be preferred. Yet, the utilisation of the even smaller A319 would provide further reduction in climate change costs but downsizing the fleet from the B747 to the A330 would increase climate change. The contribution of CO2 emission from aircraft operation is up to 36% more than the contribution of NOx emission (Table 9). The climate change analysis suggests that increasing aircraft size and reducing service frequency will not result in a reduction of aircraft operation affect on climate change. The analysis did not provide evidence to establish that technological development in aircraft design and engines results in a lower environmental impact of these aircraft, at least with respect to climate change. It should be noted again that the analysis did not account for the fact that wide-body aircraft operating on short-haul routes would require to operate with less fuel than what was probably assumed to derive the emission indices used here. 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The comparison of the environmental impact from the operation of large (wide-body) and small (narrow-body) aircraft showed the following. In terms of noise emission, increasing aircraft size and switching from narrow to wide body aircraft can result in noise reduction, especially if the wide-body aircraft are configured in high seating configuration. Although the absolute difference in the noise exposure level when using different types of aircraft (and seating capacities) is very small, the analysis suggests that these are not marginal in terms of noise impact. In terms of aircraft operation impact on LAP it was found that increasing aircraft size will increase LAP around airports. Finally, in terms of climate change it seems that increasing aircraft size would also result in increasing environmental impact. The nature of noise measurement used here does not allow assigning monetary values to the noise levels measured, mainly since this requires estimating the number of people exposed to noise from aircraft movements at an airport. This prevents comparison between the aircraft when accounting for the three environmental impacts. Table 10 therefore compares between the cost of damage from operating different aircraft on the case study route accounting only for LAP and climate change. Upsizing the aircraft fleet and switching from the A320 fleet (in 150 seats) to the B747D seats will result in 2,349 Euro increase in the cost of damage. Again, there is no evidence that

Association for European Transport and contributors 2007

11

newer models perform better in terms of LAP and climate change impacts, although they do appear to emit less noise. Table 10: The cost of LAP and climate change associated with daily operation between Heathrow and Schiphol for different types of aircraft fleet (Euros) Climate seats atms LAP TOTAL Aircraft change A320-200 150 50 4,376 18,503 22,879 A320-200 164 46 4,026 17,023 21,049 B747-400 B747-400D A319-100 A330-300 524 568 124 335 15 14 60 23 6,390 5,964 3,791 7,589 20,641 19,265 20,593 21,175 27,031 25,228 24,384 28,764

Given the nature of data available, the methodology used and the many assumptions required as a result, the differences found between using different types of aircraft appear to be small. Furthermore, the direction of effect from upsizing aircraft fleet differs between the LAP and climate change analysis to the noise analysis. Overall, it can be concluded following the analysis that accommodating demand, and future growth in demand, through increasing aircraft size and not frequency, is not expected to result in reduction of environmental pollution from aircraft operation. Even if there are no direct environmental benefits from upsizing aircraft fleet there might be indirect effects. Switching from using the A320 to the B747 and adjusting the service frequency to supply the same seating capacity would mean a substantial reduction in atms; 13,316 atms per year between Heathrow and Schiphol airports. This can have two important environmental implications which must be further investigated. First, reduction in atms can reduce delays, on the ground and in the sky, and therefore reduce flight time leading to lower LAP and climate change impacts. Second, reduction in the number of atms means airport capacity can be maintained or increased with lower number of runways. In conclusion, the environmental analysis did not provide evidence that increasing aircraft size is likely to result in significant environmental benefits, more to the contrary. In this case, there is no environmental justification for an intervention to change airlines' choice of aircraft size, especially when considering the benefits to passengers from high frequency service. Despite the above, one major limitation of the analysis must be remembered. The fact that large aircraft flying on short haul routes will require to carry substantially less fuel than the amount probably assumed when the data used were derived was not accounted for. Given the relatively small differences found between different aircraft, accounting for this might lead to a different conclusion. BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Association for European Transport and contributors 2007 12

Busink J. J. (2001), 'Effects of increased noise stringencies on fleet composition and noise exposure at Schiphol airport', National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, September. Dings J. M. W., Wit R. C. N., Leurs B. A., Bruyn S. M. de, Davidson M. D., Fransen W (2002a), External costs of aviation, CE Delft, Delft, February. Dings J. M. W., Wit R. C. N., Leurs B. A., Bruyn S. M. de, Davidson M. D., Fransen W (2002b), External costs of aviation background report, CE Delft, Delft, February. EPA (1999), Evaluation of air pollutant emissions from subsonic commercial jet aircraft, Environment Protection Agency, EPA 420-R-99-013, April. Eurocontrol Experimental Centre (2004),Aircraft performance summary tables for the base of aircraft data (BADA), Revision 3.6. EEC Note No. 12/04, Project ACE-C-E2, September, Brussels. Givoni and Rietveld (2007), Choice of aircraft size explanations and implications, Paper presented at the 11th World Conference on Transport Research, University of California, 24-28 June, Berkeley, USA. IPCC (1999), Aviation and the global atmosphere Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. RCEP (2002), The environmental effects of civil aircraft in flight, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, London. Sutkus D. J., Baughcum S. L., DuBois D. P. (2001), 'Scheduled civil aircraft emission inventories for 1999: database development and analysis, NASA/CR-2001-211216, Washington, October.

Association for European Transport and contributors 2007

13

NOTES
* Corresponding author. Email: mgivoni@feweb.vu.nl. Moshe Givoni is a Marie Curie Fellow at the Department of Spatial Economics, Free University Amsterdam. 1 The B747-400D maximum seating capacity is considered to be 660 seats. 2 http://noisedb.stac.aviation-civile.gouv.fr (accessed August 2007). 3 Hosted on the UK CAA web site (http://www.caa.co.uk). 4 On short haul flights such as between London and Amsterdam this is considered as the cruise altitude, which is much lower than the aircraft maximum altitude. 5 These data were obtained from Eurocontrol Experimental Centre by email exchange.

Association for European Transport and contributors 2007

14