Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DOT Could Save Industry By Tightening Noise Rules  
User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7551 posts, RR: 14
Posted (6 years 5 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2007 times:

A little known secret is that the Stage 3 noise requirement of a few years ago was GREAT for the industry even though they were against it. Why?

It forced old planes out of the skies and reduced capacity across the board. Further, it kept that capacity out in the future.

So, why not do the same now (over 18 or 24 months) for many reasons:

1) Old planes with high noise also burn more fuel
2) It forces capacity down rather than depending upon the industry to police itself which isn't working
3) It's temporary, hidden re-regulation with precedent (perfect for dealing with the fuel crisis)
4) Why not take advantage of all the these aircraft parkings to reduce noise as well?
5) It's politically popular

I don't know where to draw the decibel line, but I'm guessing a ban would impact
MD-80s
DC-9s
737-200/300/400/500
747-100/200
A-300

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5203 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1983 times:

This would not save the industry - it would send it further into a freefall. What would already struggling airlines do when they have to park those planes you mention without any replacements as well as having to pay lease penalties etc. on those that aren't owned.


Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23224 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1722 times:



Quoting Enilria (Thread starter):
I don't know where to draw the decibel line, but I'm guessing a ban would impact
MD-80s

If you ban MD-80s, AA disappears. If that's all right, then fine. If not, we'll need to rethink this...



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1715 times:

A Chapter/Stage 3 ban, which gets brought up in the CAEP process fairly often, will eventually happen, it happened with None Stage 2 and Stage 2 aircraft in the past. This is quite effective for driving out the last few of a group of noisy aircraft. However, it does nothing to improve the immediate economics of the industry. One could argue that by forcing the adoption of newer airplanes it might help in the next downturn. However, the Stage 2 phaseout did not have this effect in the US. Many old airplanes were hustkitted. This wasn't the case in Europe, but my informal research indicates that this was stimulated by Noise Fees.

As for aircraft effected:

Quoting Enilria (Thread starter):
I don't know where to draw the decibel line, but I'm guessing a ban would impact
MD-80s
DC-9s
737-200/300/400/500
747-100/200
A-300

The line would be drawn at the Chapter/Stage 4 limit, anything else would be illegal (Chicago Convention), and even then it could only be done with international agreement, given the CAEP cycle the earliest this would probably happen is 2010. The fastest way to do this, but not necessarily the easiest, is to lift the congressional ban on noise charges.

As for aircraft effected, DC-9s, B727s, B732s, DC-8 (not CFM56) would fail. MD80s and the high bypass aircraft could be hustkitted if it made economic sense.


User currently offlineTAN FLYR From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1919 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1640 times:

We need less Government regulation on such matters, not more.

User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7551 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1576 times:



Quoting Drerx7 (Reply 1):
This would not save the industry - it would send it further into a freefall. What would already struggling airlines do when they have to park those planes you mention without any replacements as well as having to pay lease penalties etc. on those that aren't owned.

You are missing the fact that airplanes are being retired anyway because of the fuel crisis, wht it does is protect the airlines from those planes coming back when things take even the slightest tick up. If you go look at industry performance after the Stage2 ban you will find that it skyrocketed.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):

If you ban MD-80s, AA disappears. If that's all right, then fine. If not, we'll need to rethink this...

AA is going forward with an accelerated fleet replacement program and you do it over a couple of years.

I think you are missing the point that it is good for the airlines. It's like putting a banned for life tag on all the aircraft that are being parked anyway.


User currently offlineJoecanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5477 posts, RR: 30
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1523 times:

It's good for airlines which can afford new planes. Airplanes are assets and if your model is banned, you've just been stuck with a worthless hunk of junk which you can't even use to trade up for some new equipment.

Most of these noisy planes will be phased out as they're worn out anyway. In any case, every slot for replacement planes is filled for years. Outright banning older planes, will only marginally speed up the process.



What the...?
User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

Although I wouldn't necessarily object to these proposals going through, I would suggest that maybe we could wait another 12-18 months to see what shake out happens in the industry anyway, between aircraft being parked & some airlines going bankrupt you might clear things up a bit anyway just through these changes.

Given the backlog of aircraft orders for both A & B, I don't see it being practical to tell an Airline that you have 3 years to get rid of all aircraft that fail to meet criteria. AA losing all MD80s I would expect to be very problematic.

Also, long term, as we approach the time A & B look to replace the smaller aircraft you don't want Airlines being forced to buy 50 of product X now when it's replacement is arriving in a few years and provides much better economics and can also handle the noise/fuel economy regulations that are coming through.

Not sure what time frame was used previously, but 10 years would be a good time frame to be compliant, of course with gas getting more and more expensive it may get cheaper to buy new planes anyway well before then.


User currently offline777DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1450 times:

One big problem is right now every aircraft that can be built in the next 5 years or so has already been sold, so there is no source for replacement aircraft.

User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7551 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1354 times:



Quoting Joecanuck (Reply 6):
It's good for airlines which can afford new planes.

If you are arguing that it might thin the herd, I think that's a good thing since Ch11 laws are preventing that from happening.

Quoting Jbernie (Reply 7):
Although I wouldn't necessarily object to these proposals going through, I would suggest that maybe we could wait another 12-18 months to see what shake out happens in the industry anyway, between aircraft being parked & some airlines going bankrupt you might clear things up a bit anyway just through these changes.

I think it would need to be passed as a law now so the airlines start eliminating the right aircraft. You don't want NW to sell their Airbuses and keep their DC-9s.

Quoting 777DEN (Reply 8):
One big problem is right now every aircraft that can be built in the next 5 years or so has already been sold, so there is no source for replacement aircraft.

I'm sure at least Boeing would not only support this law big time, they would also find a way to sell more aircraft through more production lines. The reality is that not as many airplanes would be needed as you may think since the Wall Street thinking is that 25% of industry capacity needs to go away.

There would also be a lot of industry consolidation as airlines with old airplanes bought/merged with airlines with newer airplanes to update their fleets.


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23224 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1323 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 5):
AA is going forward with an accelerated fleet replacement program and you do it over a couple of years.

How long will it take AA to get the ~275 738s they'll need to replace the ~350 strong M80 fleet (with some capacity reductions?)

Quoting Enilria (Reply 9):
I think it would need to be passed as a law now so the airlines start eliminating the right aircraft.

Why is an Airbus 'right' and a -9 'wrong?' Noise really doesn't affect many people. I could make an argument that the most profitable airframe is the 'right' one regardless of how noisy it may be.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1311 times:



Quoting TAN FLYR (Reply 4):
We need less Government regulation on such matters, not more.

Thankyouverymuch.
A lot of good points here on why its not that great of an idea to tinker with what we have.
.
My two cents  twocents  is it takes $$ to buy new airplanes. The carriers arent
making any.
If you put more sound suppressors on the engines, it adds weight which burns more
fuel. What is accomplished here?....Nuttin Honey!
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1262 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 9):
I'm sure at least Boeing would not only support this law big time, they would also find a way to sell more aircraft through more production lines.

Well it could help them justify building an extra line, knowing that more airlines would need to replace more jets, a 2nd 787 line or (insert model #) becomes more viable, doesn't become a sure thing, but it moves the goal posts in their favor a bit.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13442 posts, RR: 100
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1252 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

High oil prices are going to kill off the older, higher gas consumption airframes.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):

If you ban MD-80s, AA disappears. If that's all right, then fine. If not, we'll need to rethink this...

Oh... ouch.

Quoting 777DEN (Reply 8):
One big problem is right now every aircraft that can be built in the next 5 years or so has already been sold, so there is no source for replacement aircraft.

 checkmark  Well... almost. More could be built within 18 months.

But even with new aircraft, RASM isn't aligned with CASM. Its going to take some capacity reduction.  Sad

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BMed Could Be Bought By A Lebanese Businessman posted Tue Jan 9 2007 09:10:26 by GoMEA
What Could Save Alitalia? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 03:19:46 by ZschocheImages
Flyi Could Be Gone By Jan 7! posted Fri Dec 30 2005 08:22:44 by Ppostro
China Airlines Could Shut Down By October 1 posted Sun May 26 2002 23:39:00 by Jiml1126
Could Deregulation Save The Airline Industry? posted Fri Nov 21 2003 00:30:19 by AlitaliaORD
VX Fined By DOT For Ticket Sales Prior To Launch posted Wed Apr 30 2008 09:25:32 by LAXintl
United Awarded LAX-SJD By DOT posted Mon Apr 14 2008 17:14:32 by LAXintl
SNECMA/GE Could Have New NB Powerplant By 2015 posted Fri Feb 1 2008 16:01:02 by Stitch
Oasis Could Fly DSA-HKG By 2012 posted Wed Jun 6 2007 22:23:11 by Humberside
US DOT Dumps Changes To 'control' Rules posted Tue Dec 5 2006 17:11:25 by ANother