Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (15 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1596 times:
Last week’s Flight International contained a very interesting article about huskitting, and the different stances taken by the USA and EU on the issue. Having had a week to think about it, I thought I’d post my thoughts in the hope there might be some discussion on the matter. I nearly didn’t because I was worried this could turn into a slanging match, but I’m sure we can control ourselves!
First the rule; On the 4th May no more hushkitted aircraft can be added to EU registers unless they have a history of operation into the EU since 1995.
The EU is reasonably claiming this is on environmental grounds, there is little argument that hushkitted aircraft only just scrape within the stage 3 rules they still have higher levels of not only noise, but also harmful emissions. Also noise tradeoffs are allowed, which means aircraft may exceed the stage 3 rules in one area if they meet them in the other 2 parameters comfortably. For example the F100 has a noise margin of 7.8dB, with no shortfall – while the MD-87 only has a margin of 1.9dB, including a shortfall in sideline noise limits, remember the dB scale is logarithmic. If the MD-80 only just meets the requirements, older technology aircraft must come within the rules by a knife-edge.
The USA, home to the hushkitting industry and most airlines operating hushkitted aircraft, claims this threatens the industry and aircraft resale values. However, this doesn’t seem borne out by reality. European airlines operate very few hushkitted aircraft, they generally have more modern fleets than their US counterparts – it’s quite rare to see a 737-200, 727 or DC-9 at many airports now, even though they still proliferate in the US. The EU ban may prevent EU airlines buying hushkitted aircraft, but they were never going to do so anyway in all except a few very small airlines. There are less than 30 hushkitted aircraft in Europe – and in the future there will be even less as they are retired. How will this ban affect resale values of hushkitted aircraft, when there is only a tiny market for them in Europe anyway? Europe, having totally revamped it’s airline fleets with the likes of modern 737s and A320s is unlikely to start purchasing older, hushkitted aircraft in any significant numbers. Let’s not forget, if the aircraft has operated in the EU since 1995 it can still be sold, bough and hushkitted in the EU.
With Europe’s more congested airspace, higher airport density and airports closer to cities the environmental concerns should be regarded as valid. Noise and pollution from aircraft has a daily impact on the lives of millions across the Union every day. The way the US policy on huskitting has operated appears to have forced hushkitting, and help create the problem that now exists. They brought in the stage 2 ban over 2 years ahead of ICAO’s 2002 deadline, 75% of aircraft had to be stage 3 compliant by 1998 etc. This is significant when you consider the 737NG wasn’t available until 1997, and both this and the A320 lines are very busy. This left airlines with little option than to hushkit. By making a short-term gain in noise reduction with hushkitting, the rule has meant there will be many noisier aircraft flying around just under the limits for a good many years where they would otherwise have been replaced by new, much quieter aircraft, as in Europe. US airlines just had huge numbers of stage 2 aircraft, which couldn’t be replaced within the reduced timeframe the USA laid down. European airlines were allowed time to wait for new aircraft to be delivered.
While I’m not saying the EU’s stance isn’t illegal , it probably is, because they’re interpreting the ICAO rules more strictly than were intended, but they do appear good reasons for it – and potential harm to the market for hushkitted aircraft sales appears very small. Plus, aside from any EU rules many airports here make hushkitted aircraft very unwelcome, with large hikes in landing fees that would make it unviable to operate hushkitted aircraft into and out of them.
UAL747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 637 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (15 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1388 times:
This will be a shame as I have never flown on a concorde. I wonder where they will be places into service next????
I find the whole issue a joke. I read the flight article and I find the ban out of line. To say that they can modify an existing agreement because the members signed as independent nations and not collectively is re-diculous. I think this is another example of European lawmakers protecting European business interests at all costs. The US gov't does it also, I just don't think to the same extent.
It will be enjoyable to see what happens. Just think, if the current sentiment permeating the US Gov't of breaking up Microsoft and bankrupting the tobacco companies (let's leave littly Elian out of this please), people are going to demand extreme retaliation against the Europeans. Who knows what will happen????
Maybe one will be able to fly Toronto/Montreal - LHR/CDG.
Avion From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 2205 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (15 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1354 times:
This rule does no harm to the resale value of aircrafts. Can you imagine Air France or Lufthansa buying a hush-kitted 727. No.
I think this rule is good because many people complain about noise.
I dont see why concorde operations should be affected by that.
It is already commercially not viable to operate such an aircraft in the EU. The landing fees are to high. So nothing really changes.
LBSteve From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1345 times:
I’m assuming the thinking of US politicians is that Air France & British Airways (both Concorde operators) hold some collective influence over their respective governments, and the EU. The fear of losing exclusive Concorde US landing rights with these major carriers have proved well enough the last time to have this issue delayed. Why should they think now to be any different? Personally though, I side with the EU.