Dark skies ahead for Europe’s airlines

Date: 29/05/1997

By Chris Johnstone

EUROPE's airlines see clouds on the horizon from the European Commission's increasing focus on combating emissions and noise pollution.

Transport is forecast to be the greatest contributor to increased greenhouse gas output in Europe over the next ten to 15 years and the Commission is expecting the aviation sector to play its part in helping the Union live up to its ambitious targets for cutting emissions.

With airline passenger and cargo traffic predicted to increase by 7&percent; a year over the next 20 years, the sector will clearly face a tough task in making a significant contribution to pollution control.

One target for action, and an Achilles heel for airlines, is the current exemption of aviation fuel from excise taxes. Past Commission moves to bring the sector into line have failed in the face of protests that airlines cannot switch to another fuel source and warnings that the net result of any such measure would be to hike up the cost of air travel without any environmental benefit.

The Association of European Airlines (AEA) says scrapping the derogation would add around 13&percent; to operating costs and an average of 13 ecu to a one-way ticket within the Union.

Airlines defend their privilege by arguing that they could save millions of ecu and avoid considerable pollution if Europe's air traffic problems were resolved and aircraft did not have to stack up above airports waiting for permission to land.

Now, however, there is renewed pressure for change, with Internal Market Commissioner Mario Monti pushing national ministers to accept a broadening and gradual increase in excise taxes.

The last debate on the airlines' exemption at a March meeting of transport ministers ended somewhat inconclusively, with ministers asking the Commission for more information and details of the international implications if Europe took such a step unilaterally.

With transport ministers expected to take a decision on whether the exemption stays or goes by the end of the year, their environment counterparts have left no doubt as to where they stand, declaring that there are no grounds for maintaining the privilege.

Pressure to cut air pollution and noise are also pushing the Commission to speed up moves to outlaw the oldest aircraft still flying in Europe's skies. When they meet in July as the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), transport ministers are expected to propose tighter restrictions to stop airlines from acquiring any aircraft that do not meet so-called 'Chapter III' noise standards.

This would prevent airlines from attempting to side-step the rules and keep older aircraft flying by adding new noise dampening equipment, a process technically known as 'hush kitting'.

The Commission has made no secret of the fact that it is seeking to toughen up its noise rules and the AEA claims it will adopt the ECAC initiative and turn it into Union law.

However, a question mark remains over whether the ECAC approach could be used to cover third countries in regions such as the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The ECAC believes its rules could not be imposed on non-Europeans, but reckons it could prevent them from winning new routes unless they used the most up-to-date aircraft.

“If European airlines were subject to additional constraints, it would be discriminatory if others were not as well,” claimed an AEA official.

The whole issue has once again raised the question of how far regional agreements which set tighter standards than the norm are possible or appropriate in an international industry such as aviation.

US officials recently raised the issue of noise abatement during EU-US 'open skies' discussions, suggesting it made absolutely no sense for the Europeans to go out on a limb, leaving the rest of the world behind.

Commission officials admit that their desire to act unilaterally is a direct result of the failure of international efforts to negotiate tighter noise limits within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), partly because of US resistance.

But one American source said: “If they want to do something, they should do something about the way the ICAO works, rather than setting tighter standards unilaterally.”