Aircraft LTO emissions regulations and implementations at European airports

Abstract

Aviation affects the environment via the emission of pollutants from aircraft,impacting human health and ecosystem.Impacts of aircraft operations at lower ground towards local air quality have been recognized. Consequently, various standards and regulations have been introduced to address the related emissions. This paper discussed both environmental regulations by focusing more on the implementations of LTO emissions charges, an incentive-based regulation introduced in Europe as an effort to fill the gap in addressing the environmental issues related to aviation.

Full text

Aircraft LTO emissions regulations and implementations at European airports
Siti Nur Mariani Mohd Yunos, Mohammad Fahmi Abdul Ghafir, and Abas Ab Wahab
Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1831, 020006 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.4981147
View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4981147
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1831/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
Articles you may be interested in
Risk prediction model: Statistical and artificial neural network approach
AIP Conference Proceedings 1831, 020002020002 (2017); 10.1063/1.4981143
A comparative study on the motion of various objects inside an air tunnel
AIP Conference Proceedings 1831, 020005020005 (2017); 10.1063/1.4981146
Study the velocity and pressure exerted in front of the filter surface in the kitchen hood system by using ANSYS
AIP Conference Proceedings 1831, 020007020007 (2017); 10.1063/1.4981148
The feasibility study on fabrication customized orthotic insole using fused deposition modelling (FDM)
AIP Conference Proceedings 1831, 020001020001 (2017); 10.1063/1.4981142
Numerical analysis for comparison of aerodynamic characteristics of six airfoils
AIP Conference Proceedings 1831, 020004020004 (2017); 10.1063/1.4981145
Preface: 7th International Conference on Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering (ICME’16)
AIP Conference Proceedings 1831, 010001010001 (2017); 10.1063/1.4981141

Aircraft LTO Emissions Regulations and Implementations at
European Airports
Siti Nur Mariani Mohd Yunos1, a), Mohammad Fahmi Abdul Ghafir1, b) and Abas Ab
Wahab1
1Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Universiti Tun
Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia.
a)Corresponding author: nmariani@uthm.edu.my
b)fahmi@uthm.edu.my
Abstract. Aviation affects the environment via the emission of pollutants from aircraft, impacting human health and
ecosystem. Impacts of aircraft operations at lower ground towards local air quality have been recognized.
Consequently, various standards and regulations have been introduced to address the related emissions. This paper
discussed both environmental regulations by focusing more on the implementations of LTO emissions charges, an
incentive-based regulation introduced in Europe as an effort to fill the gap in addressing the environmental issues
related to aviation.
INTRODUCTION
Air transport passenger traffic has grown impressively for the past 50 years despite numerous difficult periods
and challenges in the aviation industry. Forecast of future traffic by the industry key players indicate this positive
trend will continue with annual growth rates of around 5 percent for the next 20 years [1], [2]. The significant and
continuous growth of air traffic has heightened concerns that aircraft operations may contribute to increasing
amount of aircraft emissions.
The detrimental impact of the emissions can be divided into global and local impacts [3]. While climate change
is always recognized as global impacts as it can occur practically anywhere and spread on a relatively bigger area,
local impacts such as unfavorable air quality affects communities surrounding the airport area. Concerted efforts
by the aviation industry and regulatory bodies to address the environmental impact of aviation are often driven by
the emissions of CO2 as they are the major pollutants emitted by the aircraft engines. However, numerous studies
also have highlighted that aircraft emissions affect local air quality and consequently give adverse health impact to
communities in the area located near to airports [4]–[9]. A study by Masiol and Harrison [10] denote a positive
relation between pollutant concentrations and aircraft activities at landing and takeoff (LTO) with higher pollutant
concentrations can be expected during aircraft movement for departures compared to landings.
In the United States, an evaluation using response surface method for 2005 emission data shows that aircraft
LTO emissions are responsible for about 210 mortalities per year [4]. Meanwhile, severity of the health impact due
to airport emissions in the UK alone was reported may cause 110 early death to occur each year and the number
could increase to approximately 250 in 2030 [11]. Impacts of emissions due to aviation activities on selected major
airports also have been investigated [12]–[14].
Increasing awareness on the impact of aviation towards health and local air quality has caused the regulatory
bodies and the airports to respond through the perspective of economics. One of the approach taken to mitigate
the negative environmental impact of aviation emissions is through the introduction of emission -related charges
7th International Conference on Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
AIP Conf. Proc. 1831, 020006-1–020006-16; doi: 10.1063/1.4981147
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1499-0/$30.00
020006-1

[15], [16]. Consequently, airline operations at airports are subjected to an additional charge due to emissions
specifically nitrogen oxides (NOX). Its implementation is currently limited to several airports Europe. This paper
briefly review the type of aircraft emissions associated with air quality, the regulations related to aviation emission
with emphasis on those related to addressing the local air quality, comparison on the approach taken by the
individual airports as well as various issues related to its implementation.
AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS
In general, aircraft engine produces various types of emissions which include carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor
(H2O), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons (HC), sulfur oxides (SOX), particulate
matter (PM), and other trace compounds. About 70 percent of aircraft emissions are CO2; followed by H2O at
slightly less than 30% while the rest of the pollutant represent less than 1 percent each [17]. CO2 and H2O form
significant amount of GHG emissions that can trigger climate change while NOX, CO, HC, SOX and particulate matter
are always associated with air quality and subsequently public health [18].
The amount of aircraft emissions released during the LTO cycle is always been of interest. The cycle refers to
aircraft activities in the vicinity of the airport that take place up to the altitude of 915 meter (3000 feet) above
ground level as defined by ICAO [19]. As shown in Fig. 1, the activities for arrival involve approach to runway,
landing and taxi-in to terminal. Meanwhile for departure, the cycle begins with taxi-out to runway, hold on
taxiway, take-off, initial climb and climb-out to 915 meter. It is perceived that pollutants emitted during this cycle
can reach ground level within a few days and mixed with the existing pollutants to further deteriorate the quality
of air [3].
FIGURE 1. Reference LTO cycle for ICAO emissions standards [20].
The primary emissions of concern during the LTO are NOX and particulate matter, mainly due to their impact
towards health and environment [21]. Being the major air pollutants at the LTO cycle, much of the attention has
been focused on NOX. NOX emissions are produced during high pressure and high temperature combustion which
exist when the aircraft flies at high thrust setting. As the air passes through the combustor, the high pressure
compressed air is exposed to high temperature which cause the nitrogen that present in the air to oxidize and
form NOX [22]. Its production rate increases with the increase in overall pressure ratio and combustor inlet
temperature [23].
Table 1 shows an example of emission data for a CFM56-7B26 turbofan engine at 4 specific operating modes
and respective thrust settings at ICAO reference LTO cycle. It can be observed that at high thrust settings,
particularly during departures; the amount of NOX is expected to be significantly higher compared to during
arriving operations. Unlike NOX emissions, CO and HC emissions are emitted due to incomplete combustion of
hydrocarbon fuel and their amount are expected to be higher at low thrust settings which usually used during
descent, taxiing and idling on the ground. Therefore, less CO and HC emissions can be observed at high thrust since
the combustion is nearly complete. Another product of incomplete hydrocarbon fuel combustion is the particulate
020006-2

matter; a mixture of very small liquid and solid particles of different size and chemical compositions that emitted
due to combustion which include smokes, fumes and dust [24].
With the presence of heat and sunlight, surface NOX will react with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), HC and
CO to form ground level ozone or smog that cause health impacts [25]. Additionally, NOX alone is a precursor to
other oxidized nitrogen that contributes to the formation of secondary particulate matter which worsens the
quality of air. The particulate matter is recognized as the most harmful emissions for health as it is small enough to
be inhaled and enters into the human respiratory system, causing diseases and cancers [20].
TABLE 1. Emission of CFM56-7B26 at LTO cycle
Mode Max thrust
(%)
Time in mode
(min)
NOX
(kg)
HC
(kg)
CO
(kg)
Takeoff
100
0.7
1.48
0.01
0.01
Climb
85
2.2
2.97
0.08
0.01
Approach
30
4.0
0.88
0.13
0.01
Taxi/Idle
7
26
0.83
3.31
0.33
Source: ICAO [19].
An emission inventory study conducted for annual emissions of particle number (PN), particulate matter PM2.5
and NOX from large aircraft operations at Brisbane Airport shows that more than 97 percent of annual emissions
at
the airport came from the LTO cycle operations while the rest were due to ground running procedures [26].
Observations on NOX, CO and HC emissions at Zurich airport also conform to a similar behavior and demonstrate
that the CO emissions concentrations are highly dependent on the motion of the aircraft and engine status [12].
REGULATIONS ON AIRCRAFT LTO EMISSIONS
Environmental economics regulations can be classified into command and control regulations and incentive-
based regulations [27]. Command and control regulations prevent environmental problems by setting a limitation,
standard or rule and penalizing noncompliant [28]. The approach differs from incentive-based regulations or
market-based measures which use environmental charges, fees, taxes or tradable permits to encourage airlines to
voluntarily reduce emissions [29]. The latter also allow greater flexibility for the airline to look for effective
approaches to control emissions while adhering to the policy [30]. Although the command and control regulations
is quite rigid, the short term results had been positive for the environment [29]. Further discussion and example of
regulations related to aircraft LTO emissions are given in the subsequent subsection.
Command and Control Regulations
Earliest approach in reducing emission was done through command and control approach at national, regional
and international levels. Local air quality regulations have been developed to regulate specific emissions types
based on local conditions and national or regional requirements [31]. As a result, a number of regulations exist
between different countries. With the emphasis is on local air quality, some of the regulations may not specifically
address pollutant emissions due to aircraft operations but rather a general standards and guidelines for all source
of pollutants. Therefore, only those that are strongly related to aviation particularly for emissions at LTO are
discussed in the following subsections.
Global Regulations
Internationally, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has played a major role in setting standard and
recommended practices for aviation industry. For example, in 1981, ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental
Protection (CAEP) has established certification standards to control emissions from turbojet and turbofan engines
which applies to emissions of NOX, HC, CO, and smoke [19]. Aircraft engines with a thrust greater than 26.7 kN are
020006-3

subjected to this mandatory certification standard. The standard aims to address concern on local air quality at the
vicinity of airport hence they are based on the gases emissions release during the LTO cycle and none for the cruise
phase [32].
To establish data for certification process, emissions during the LTO cycle are measured by running a number of
newly-manufactured engines at four thrust settings for a specified duration on an engine test bed as indicated in
table I. The recorded values are then compiled in the publicly available ICAO Aircraft Engine Exhaust Emission
Databank and serve as a reference value for a similar type of engine [33].
The impacts of the ICAO certification standard for NO
X emissions are twofold: an improvement in aircraft
engine combustor design that reduce the amount of NOX and consequently a decrease in formation of secondary
particulate matter in aircraft engine exhaust. Concerns on the impact of particulate matter towards human health
have led to the development of the first standard for non-volatile particulate matter for aircraft engines by
ICAO/CAEP. The recommendation of this standard has been finalized in CAEP/10 in 2016 to compliment the
current aircraft engine emissions standards by ICAO [34]. It is also interesting to note that the first market-based
measure for CO2 is also included in CAEP/10.
ICAO also has developed and published an Airport Air Quality Manual [31]. However, this is not intended to be
a regulatory action but guidance for Member States to assess airport-related air quality and to determine the best
practices to address environmental impacts due to airport operations.
As highlighted in [32], standards developed by ICAO are not legally binding as member states have the option
not to include the standard into their law. Enforcement on the standards cannot be done until they are included in
the national regulations. This process can be time consuming and delay in local implementation are expected [35].
Regional and National Regulations
Within the U.S., Clean Air Act (CAA) has been the primary air quality law [24]. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has been established through CAA to set regulatory standards on aircraft engine emissions, and ensuring
they are aligned with the ICAO standards [36]. Before engine certification standard were introduced by ICAO, EPA
has already promulgated their emission regulations for commercial and general aviation aircraft and engines in
1973 that cover similar type of exhaust emissions [37]. With the establishment of international standards by ICAO,
EPA changed its regulations to be compatible and consistent with the ICAO requirements.
Meanwhile in Europe, the limits of emissions are defined through a legally binding Air Quality Framework
Directive on Ambient Air Quality [38]. Several other countries including Australia, India, Canada, China, Japan,
Brazil and South Africa have also introduced local regulations and guidelines although they are not particularly
focused on emissions from aircraft engine combustion [31].
Stringency Level
Over the years, NOX emissions have been the primary interest of ICAO standard. The level of stringency of the
NOX emission standard has been increased periodically as shown in Table 2, with the latest standard (CAEP/8) is 50
percent more stringent than the original [39], [40]. As illustrated in Fig.2, observations in Heathrow Airport in the
first quarter of 2016 indicate that more than 94 percent of the aircraft movement are represented by newer,
cleaner aircraft powered by CAEP/4, CAEP/6 and CAEP/8 engines [41]. On the contrary, the limits for HC, CO and
smoke remains the same as their original value as they are considered sufficient enough in protecting the
environment [20]. Stringent NOX standards are necessary as they have better long-lasting impact on air quality
given the aircraft long lifetime.
At the early stage of its implementation, many newly manufactured aircraft engines have already met the ICAO
NOX emission standards before they were introduced [21], [37]. Overall, the approach taken by ICAO is seen to be
more to 'technology feasible' rather than 'technology forcing' since they only attempt to set and raise the
standards based on the capability of the proven, certified technologies [24].
020006-4

TABLE 2. ICAO/CAEP NOX emission standards
Standard
source
Year
introduced
Effective year & affected engine
Reduction of
emission limit
a
NOX
emission
limit (g/kN) b
CAEP/1
1981
1986 (newly manufactured engines)
-
100
CAEP/2
1993
1996 (newly certified engines)
2000 (already certified newly manufactured engines)
20%
80
CAEP/4 c
1998
2004 (newly certified engines)
16%
67
CAEP/6
2004
2008 (newly certified engines)
2013 (already certified newly manufactured engines)
12%
59
CAEP/8
2010
2014 (newly certified engines)
15%
50
aPercent reduction from the previous standard.
bInitial standard has established a limit on NOX at 100 g/kN of rated engine thrust based on engine pressure ratio of 30.
cDoes not applied to already certified in-production and newly manufactured engines.
Source: ICAO [19] and U.S. EPA[42].
FIGURE 2. Air traffic movements at Heathrow Airport according to ICAO/CAEP standards. For 2016, aircraft
movement data were taken based on data of the first quarter. Adapted from Heathrow Airport [41], [43].
This issue has been raised by state and local governments as well as environmental groups in the U.S. while
giving feedback to EPA on their effort to aligned the emissions standards with the internationally adopted ICAO
standards [44]. On the contrary, engine and airframe manufacturers as well as airlines are more inclined towards
standards that are technologically feasible and not compromising flight safety and noise. 'Technology forcin g'
standards are perceived as risky since the standard could be set based on technologies that are uncertain to be
certified as airworthy, safe and operable [44].
Incentive-based Regulations
Incentive-based regulations have gained an attention to fill in the gap in addressing the environmental issues
related to aviation. Current operational fleets contain aircraft with a mix of CAEP emission standards. As the
standards become more stringent, airlines will gradually replacing their older, higher' emissions aircraft to modern,
10.44 9.54 8.70 8.73 6.86 6.40 5.91
46.28 47.27 46.49 45.09
38.33 36.80 36.49
43.28 43.19 44.81
33.40
40.24 39.60 38.65
12.78 14.57 17.2 18.95
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2016 (Q1)
Total of aircraft movement (%)
pre-CAEP & CAEP/2 CAEP/4 CAEP/6 CAEP/8
020006-5

less emissions aircraft. At the same time, as the air traffic increases, airports are expected to expand to cater huge
aircraft movements which continuously deteriorate the quality of air. The weak, 'non-technology forcing'
standards is insufficient to reduce the NOX emissions since improvement rate will be outpaced by the projected
growth in aircraft operation [44]. A huge cost and a time delay are expected in developing a more effective
technology [45]. It is reported that an average retirement age for commercial aircraft is 25.7 years as they have
been designed with a long lifetime and replacing them with those equipped with better technology in a shorter
time frame will increase airlines operating cost [46].
Therefore, incentive-based measures in a form of environmental levies are seen as viable options to encourage
airlines to operate with a cleaner aircraft and better engine technology [21][47]. Environmental levies is a generic
term that has been used widely to refer to a charge or tax imposed on emissions or fuel of an aircraft [48].
Several potential environmental levies including charges and taxes on emissions, fuel and ticket as well as
emission trading system have been examined and considered by IPCC in shaping the best economic measures to
address environmental impact of aviation [8]. A feasibility study conducted by the Centre for Energy Conservation
and Environmental Technology (CE) [49] have examined five possible options for environmental charge in Europe
and concluded that emissions charge is the most feasible option as it offers high environmental effectiveness and
little economic distortions. The suggested option however is not materialized as it suggests that all type of
pollutants emitted in European airspace are subjected to the charge. Current implementation in Europe however
shows the emission charge is imposed on emission emitted during the LTO cycle and limited to NO
X and a few
voluntary airports.
Regulatory Approach for LTO Emissions Charge
In 1996, ICAO has approved a resolution to allow individual member states to implement environmental
charges [50]. ICAO strongly recommends that the incentive-based environmental regulation should be in the form
of charges and not taxes. This is mainly due to the fact that taxes are usually associated with the fiscal resources of
governments [27], [29]. Hence, instead of imposing taxes, LTO emissions are subjected to additional surcharge.
Additionally, the collected funds should be directed towards mitigating the environmental impact of aircraft engine
emissions. In response to this approach, International Air Transport Association (IATA) suggests that proper
analyses need to be conducted before airlines are charged for emissions and the charging methodology should be
simple, auditable and harmonized across airports [40]. In 2007, ICAO published Doc 9884, a guidance on LAQ
emission charge that contains European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) model as an example [51].
As an effort to preserve a good local air quality, a revenue-neutral LTO NOX emission charge is currently in
practice by several voluntary airports in Europe. The aim of the charge is to encourage airlines to accelerate the
purchase and use of the best available engine technology that emits the lowest NOX emission through economic
incentives without having to set limits to aircraft operations [52], [53]. It is imposed as part of a landing or takeoff
fee and based on consideration of NOX and HC emissions certified values during the LTO cycle and levied per kg of
NOX emitted [29]. Although the LTO emission charge is intended for NOX emission, the emission of HC is also taken
into consideration due to some older engines that tend to have higher HC emissions [54]. The introduction of this
charges however does not increase the overall revenue of the airports as it is intended to be revenue-neutral [16].
LTO EMISSION CHARGE IMPLEMENTATION IN EUROPE
Emission charges were introduced as part of mitigation measures by airports to reduce damage incurred due to
aircraft emissions during landing and take-off. Currently there are five European countries that are charging
aircraft for NOX emissions: Switzerland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Denmark and Germany.
The charge was first implemented in Switzerland in 1997 due to concern over air quality around Zurich Airport
[55]. This was done after legislation to allow airports to impose emissions-related charge was enacted by Swiss
government in 1995 [56]. In the beginning, it was applied at Zurich as an incentive for airlines to reduce aircraft
emissions. It was then followed by other airports in Switzerland namely Geneva, Bern, Basel and Lugano [52].
Meanwhile in Sweden, nine Swedish airports started to implement emission charges in 1998 and later extended to
all 19 airports in 2000 [57]. Emission charge has subsequently been introduced in several airports in United
Kingdom starting with Heathrow in 2004 [58]. In 2008, the charge was introduced in three airports in Germany
020006-6

namely Frankfurt, Munich and Cologne. A similar approach was then implemented in Hamburg an d Dusseldorf in
2010 and 2011. The last country to implement emission charge is Denmark in 2010 [59].
A list of airports with environmental charges published by Boeing [60] are frequently quoted in a number of
studies [61]–[64]. Recent observation and a thorough search on the relevant literature however show that the list
of airports with such charges has changed due to new additions and withdrawals by several airports. Current
airports with emissions charges are given in Table 3.
Emissions Charging Method
In general, the approach taken for charging aircraft for emissions can be divided into two: engine emission
classification and polluters-pay approach. Although many airports have moved to the latter, there are a few
airports still charging aircraft according to its class.
Engine Emission Classification
At the early stage, emission charging model was developed based on an engine emission classification where
each aircraft/engine configuration are placed into several classes according to its emission levels. All classes are
subjected to a corresponding additional percentages of landing fee with the best class is free from any surcharge
[35]. The emission charging method was first used in Switzerland and Sweden. As indicated in Table 4, however,
both took different approach to define the engine classification scheme with five classes in Switzerland and seven
classes in Sweden [32][65].
After almost 20 years of its introduction, the present application of this model can only be found in Basel-
Mulhouse, Karlsruhe and Saarbrucken airports. Engine classification model has been used by Basel-Mulhouse since
2003. In contrast to the early year of its implementation, landing fees are now subjected to an increment or
reduction based on a factor applied to each emission class. Furthermore, it was found that the airport has raised
the emission surcharge for the dirtiest engines by 10 percent while the cleanest engines are rewarded with 4
percent reduction of landing fee (see Table 5). Meanwhile, the implementation of emission charge is relatively new
at Karlsruhe and Saarbrucken airports and both have opted for engine classification based on the aircraft emission
value. The emission value is calculated using a standard methodology based on ERLIG formula but only to be
separated into eight categories and each category has been assigned with a fixed emission charge as shown in
Table 6.
020006-7

TABLE 3. List of airports with NOX emissions charge in 2015
Country Airport name IATA Code
Year introduceda Passenger
traffic
2015 (mil)
Denmark
Copenhagen
CPH
2010
26.60
Germany
Dusseldorf
DUS
2011
22.48
Germany
Frankfurt
FRA
2008
61.03
Germany
Hamburg
HAM
2010
15.60
Germany
Munich
MUC
2008
41.00
Germany
Cologne
CGN
2008
10.34
Germany
Stuttgart
STR
2011
10.53
Germany
Karlsruhe
FKB
2015
1.06
Germany
Saarbrucken
SCN
2015
0.47
Germany
Hannover
HAJ
2015
5.45
Sweden
Bromma
BMA
1998
2.50
Sweden
Are Ostersund
OSD
1998
0.47
Sweden
Ronneby
RNB
1998
0.22
Sweden
Kiruna
KRN
1998
0.26
Sweden
Landvetter
GOT
1998
6.20
Sweden
Lulea-Kallax
LLA
1998
1.18
Sweden
Malmo
MMX
1998
2.20
Sweden
Arlanda
ARN
1998
23.20
Sweden
Umea
UME
1998
1.05
Sweden
Visby
VBY
1998
0.43
Switzerland
Basel-Mulhouseb
BSL
2003
7.06
Switzerland
Bern
BRN
2000
0.19
Switzerland
Geneva
GVA
1998
15.77
Switzerland
Lugano
LUG
2007
0.20
Switzerland
Zurich
ZRH
1997
26.23
UK
Gatwick
LGW
2005
40.30
UK
Heathrow
LHR
2004
74.96
UK
Luton
LTN
2009
12.30
aAssumed data is marked with italic.
bAlso known as EuroAirport, it is jointly operated by Switzerland (Basel) and France (Mulhouse)
with
IATA Code: BSL or MLH or EAP.
Source: Airport's official websites and guidelines for aerodrome charges.
TABLE 4. Comparison between Swiss and Swedish emission classification
Switzerland
Sweden
Emission factor
Summation of LTO NO
X
and
LTO HC per rated thrust
Total LTO NO
X
per rated
thrust
Emission class
5
7
Maximum surcharge
40% of landing fee
30% of landing fee
Year effective
1997 - 2010
1998 - 2004
TABLE 5. Engine emission classification at Basel-Mulhouse Airport
Emission class
Corresponding factor
1
1.50
2
1.25
3
1.20
4
1.05
5
0.96
Source: Basel-Mulhouse Airport tariff regulations [66].
020006-8

TABLE 6. Engine emission classification at Karlsruhe and Saarbrucken
Emission class
Emission value
(kg)
Karlsruhe
(EUR)
Saarbrucken
(EUR)
1
≤ 1
5
4
2
1.1 to 4.0
10
8
3
4.1 to 7.0
20
16
4
7.1 to 10.0
35
26
5
10.1 to 13.0
50
44
6
13.1 to 16.0
70
55
7
16.1 to 19.0
100
80
8
> 19.0
200
150
Source: Karlsruhe Airport and Saarbrucken Airport schedule of charges.
Polluters-pay Approach
This charging method was introduced following the industry request for a single and harmonized emission
charging model that does not rely on engine emission classes and most importantly consistent around Europe. Due
to this reason, Emission Related Landing-charges Investigation Group (ERLIG) was assigned by ECAC in 2001 to
develop a model that reinforce polluters-pay approach that results aircraft with higher NOX emissions to pay more
than aircraft with lower emissions [52]. Based on their guidelines, ECAC released Recommendation 27/4 - NOX
Emission Classification Scheme; which frequently referred as the ERLIG formula, issued in 2003 [54].
The formula provides a methodology to calculate aircraft emission value using NOX and HC emissions mass at a
standardized LTO cycle. To estimate this value, absolute amounts of NOX need to be calculated as:

1000
mod
¦
uu
u eLTO f
ea
EINOxmt
nNOx
(1)
where ne is the number of engines of the aircraft; t is time in mode as given in table I (in sec); mf is the fuel flow per
mode (in kg/s); and EINOX is the emission index per mode (in g/kg fuel). Next, the aircraft emission value can be
calculated as:
aa NOxaEV u
(2)
where a is the HC emission factor and given as a = 1 if the average HC emissions per rated thrust are less than or
equal to the ICAO standard of 19.6 g/kN; or a > 1 if it exceed the standard. In this case, a is given as the value of
average HC emissions per rated thrust over the ICAO standard, with a maximum value of 4. The emission data of
NOX and HC can be referred from three sources:
1. ICAO Aircraft Engine Exhaust Emissions Databank [33] for regulated turbofan and turbojet engines of more
than 26.7 kN rated thrust.
2. FOI Swedish Defence Research Agency database [67] for unregulated turbofan engines and turboprop
engines with emission data.
3. Swiss and Swedish 'Aircraft Emission Value Matrix for Aircraft with Unregulated Engines' [68] for piston
engines, helicopter and engines with no emission data available from ICAO nor FOI database.
This new emission classification approach was first implemented in Sweden in 2004 while Switzerland
continues to use the old, engine emission classification until 2010. Generally, heavier aircraft specifically those
with maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) above 8,618 kg are charged for emissions as they emit more compared to
lighter aircraft [54]. With respect to the lighter aircraft, the implementation is subjected to the individual airports.
020006-9

Comparison of LTO Emission Charge
Table 7 shows the variation of emission charging method applied at airports with emission charges in Europe.
ERLIG formula clearly has been used by most of the airports with some airports only consider NOX to be charged
for emissions. The frequency of charge also differs between airports since some opt to charge the aircraft at both
landing and takeoff which increase the airline's cost to fly to or from those particular airports.
TABLE 7. Variations of emission charging scheme in European airports in 2015
Airport name
Rate/kg
Rate
(USD)a
Charging
frequenc
y
Basis for emission value
and charging scheme b
Remark
Copenhagen
16.60 DKK
2.42
TO
Total NOX at LTO
Dusseldorf
1.50 EUR
1.63
L and TO
ERLIG
Flat rate if MTOW ≤ 5,700kg c
Frankfurt
3.08 EUR
3.35
L and TO
ERLIG
Flat rate if MTOW ≤ 5,700kg c
Hamburg
1.50 EUR
1.63
L and TO
ERLIG
Flat rate if MTOW ≤ 2,000kg d
Munich
3.00 EUR
3.26
L
ERLIG
Different charge if MTOW ≤
5,700kg
e
Cologne
3.00 EUR
3.26
L
ERLIG
Flat rate if MTOW = 2 - 6 tonne f
Stuttgart
3.00 EUR
3.26
L and TO
ERLIG
Flat rate if MTOW ≤ 5,700kg g
Karlsruhe
-
-
L
ERLIG,
Engine classification
8 emission classes
Saarbrucken
-
-
L
ERLIG,
Engine classification
8 emission classes
Hannover
3.00 EUR
3.26
L
ERLIG
Bromma
50.00 SEK
5.92
TO
ERLIG
Are Ostersund
50.00 SEK
5.92
TO
ERLIG
Ronneby
50.00 SEK
5.92
TO
ERLIG
Kiruna
50.00 SEK
5.92
TO
ERLIG
Landvetter
50.00 SEK
5.92
TO
ERLIG
Lulea-Kallax
50.00 SEK
5.92
TO
ERLIG
Malmo
50.00 SEK
5.92
TO
ERLIG
Arlanda
50.00 SEK
5.92
TO
ERLIG
Umea
50.00 SEK
5.92
TO
ERLIG
Visby
50.00 SEK
5.92
TO
ERLIG
Basel-Mulhouse
-
-
L
Total NO
X
at LTO,
Engine classification
5 emission classes
Bern
3.30 CHF
3.30
L
ERLIG
Geneva
1.40 CHF
1.40
L
ERLIG
Lugano
3.40 CHF
3.39
L
ERLIG
Zurich
2.50 CHF
2.50
L
ERLIG
Gatwick
2.80 GBP
4.13
L and TO
Total NO
X
at LTO
For aircraft MTOW > 8,618kg
only
Heathrow
8.57 GBP
12.64
L
Total NO
X
at LTO
For aircraft MTOW > 8,618kg
only
Luton
5.10 GBP
7.52
L
Total NO
X
at LTO per pax
or per 100kg cargo
Applies for total NO
X
> 400g per
pax or per 100kg cargo
aEquivalent rate is given in USD using conversion rate for 31st December 2015.
bContinuous charging scale is applied except at Karlsruhe, Saarbrucken and Basel-Mulhouse.
cEmission value is given as 1kg per LTO cycle.
dEmission charge is EUR0.25 per takeoff and EUR0.25 per landing.
eCharge at takeoff and landing is calculated as lump sum with noise and emission charges.
fEmission charge is EUR2.00 per landing.
gEmission charge is EUR1.50 per takeoff and EUR1.50 per landing.
Source: Airport's official websites and guidelines for aerodrome charges.
020006-10

FIGURE 3. Comparison of emission charges between European airports for B738
Most of the airports are charging aircraft emissions using a continuous charging scale as defined in 'polluters-
pay' approach. By applying a specific rate, heavier aircrafts are charged according to their emission values at which
a higher charge is levied to those that produce a greater mass of emissions. The rate used for the emission charge
calculation varies widely between the airports. For a comparison, Heathrow is charging aircraft at USD12.64 per kg
of emission value per landing while the rate used at Geneva Airport is only USD1.40 per kg, almost 89 per cent
lower than Heathrow. However in Sweden, all airports are using a same rate regardless of the number of aircraft
movement and passenger.
Several airports have expanded the implementation of the emission charge to include all aircraft in order to
avoid discrimination. In Germany for instance, emission for small aircraft are charged using a fixed amount.
Scheelhase [16] suggests that the fixed amount is more practical than calculating the exact amount of emission
charge for each aircraft/engine pair. On the other hand, it can be observed that the definition for small and lighter
aircraft or the threshold for aircraft weight that is subjected to this fixed emission charge are not similar across
those airports. Airports in the UK however impose emission charge for heavier aircraft only.
Figure 3 illustrates the variation of emission charges between several European airports for Boeing 737-800
aircraft flying with two CFM56-7B26 engines. Charge for emissions is expected to be comparatively high in the UK
especially at Heathrow (USD120.4 per landing). Nevertheless, due to the different charging method, the same
aircraft/engine pair is not penalized for emission when lands at Luton. Almost similar result can be observed in
Basel-Mulhouse where the aircraft is rewarded with a reduction of 4 percent in landing fee. For the purpose of
comparing the emission charge of this aircraft, it is given as a negative value in the figure (-USD14.0).
The same figure also highlights that the rate used for emission charges are not strongly influenced by the
number of aircraft movement at the airport. Airlines that choose to fly to airports with higher aircraft movement
might pay a relatively cheaper emission charge compared to the less busy airports. For example, emission charges
for Boeing 737-800 at Munich and Cologne airport in Germany are both USD31.1 per landing even though the
number of aircraft movement at the former is more than twice of the latter. Evidently, the number of aircraft
movement is not the only factor considered by authorities in determining the charge of emissions at these
airports.
23.1 31.1
63.8
31.1 31.1 31.1
62.1
35.0 26.0 31.1
56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4
-14.0
31.4
13.3
32.3 23.8
78.7
120.4
0.0
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-20
20
60
100
140
180
220
CPH
DUS
FRA
HAM
MUC
CGN
STR
FKB
SCN
HAJ
BMA
KRN
GOT
LLA
ARN
BSL
BRN
GVA
LUG
ZRH
LGW
LHR
LTN
Aircraft movement
x 100000
Emission charge (USD)
Airport name
Emission charge Aircraft movement
020006-11

Issues Related to LTO Emission Charge Implementation
Influence of Aircraft and Engine Pair
Table 8 shows emission value for commonly selected aircraft and engine pair for domestic and international
flights in Europe. The aircrafts are given in their ICAO designation. Frequently, emission values can be directly
represented by the total NOX emissions at the LTO cycle since the amount of HC is very small compared to the
ICAO standard.
TABLE 8. Aircraft/engine pair with their respective emission value
Aircraft MTOW
(kg) Engine
Rated thrust
(kN)
No of
engine
Emission value
(kg)
Narrow-body aircraft
A318
68,000
PW6124A
105.87
2
8.340
A319
75,500
CFM-5B7/3
120.10
2
9.022
A320
73,500
CFM-5B6/3
104.50
2
6.726
A321
87,000
CFM-5B4/3
120.10
2
9.022
B737
70,080
CFM56-7B24/3
107.60
2
7.990
B738
79,016
CFM56-7B26/3
116.99
2
9.526
B739
79,016
CFM56-7B27/3
121.40
2
10.464
CRJ9
38,329
CF34-8C5
59.42
2
4.410
E170
35,990
CF34-8E5A1
62.49
2
4.838
E190
47,790
CF34-10E
83.70
2
6.656
Wide-body aircraft
A333
233,000
Trent 772
316.30
2
35.568
A346
368,000
Trent 556-61
261.50
4
64.452
A388
575,000
Trent 972
345.90
4
69.308
B744
396,894
RB211-524G-T
253.00
4
50.052
B748
447,695
GENx-2B67
299.80
4
43.912
B763
186,880
PW4062
275.80
2
29.110
B772
297,557
GE90-90B
419.25
2
53.278
B788
227,930
GENx-1B64
298.00
2
17.152
Source: ICAO Aircraft Engine Exhaust Emissions Databank and ICAO Noise Certification Database.
From the table, it can be seen that bigger and heavier aircraft powered by high rated thrust engines produce a
large amount of NOX and will be charged higher for emissions compared to the smaller and lighter aircraft.
Additionally, the amount of emissions also depends on the engine fitted to the aircraft as a range of options are
available for a single aircraft.
Influence of ICAO Standard Certification Mode and Data
Swedish airports have made adjustments on the taxi times during the LTO cycle where it is now reflects closely
the actual conditions at the respective airports. Instead of suggested standard time of 26 minutes by ICAO, the taxi
times for emission charge calculations in Swedish airports varies between 7.17 to 15 minutes, depending on the
average actual time spent by aircraft taxiing in the respective airports.
It is important to note that the suggested amount of time spent at the LTO cycle by ICAO is generally not reflect
the actual operations at airports hence affecting the calculated amount of emissions might deviate from the
actual. A study conducted by [69] estimated that the standard time-in-mode deviate about 10 to 20 percent for
takeoff and climb and 15 to 20 percent for approach. The actual time spend at each phase also varies according to
aircraft weight and size category [7]. Additionally, the actual thrust setting at idle is also reported to be between 3
to 6 percent which is lower than thrust setting used in the ICAO certification standard [70].
Despite the fact and actions taken by Swedish airports, no most of the airports are currently using the
standardized time-in-mode to estimate the amount of emissions for LTO emission charge. It seems practical for the
020006-12

purpose of charging aircraft for emissions but any effort for airport emission inventory should reflect airport-
specific timings.
Effectiveness on its Implementation
An early analysis on emission charges at Zurich and Stockholm Airports reported in 2007 indicate a limited
effects as it did not stimulate a change to an aircraft with better NOX emission reduction technology [71]. The
results imply that airlines were not affected by the charge especially for the smaller and lighter aircraft. Although
the amount of charge is higher for a bigger and larger aircraft, the effect is still considered minor compared to the
other types of aircraft operating expenses. These reasons explain the decisions taken by airports in the United
States for not introducing emission charge [72].
Replacing old aircraft to a newer aircraft with better engine technology will give benefit to the airlines in
lowering the emission charge. Meanwhile, a comparison between noise and emission-related charges shows that
the incentives for using aircraft with lower emissions are much weaker than those related to noise given the strict
charging scheme and various procedures at the airports.
However, the significance of the charge can be observed by considering the number of movement made by an
aircraft to hub airports with emission charges such as Heathrow, Gatwick, Frankfurt and Munich Airports. For
example, a short-medium range aircraft such as B737-800 landing at Heathrow Airport for 3 times a day will be
charged a total of USD361.2 per day for emissions. Furthermore, by taking an annual flight cycle of 1,000 cycles
and half of them is spent to serve a route to Heathrow, the aircraft will be penalized for about USD60,200 per year
for emissions causing the effect of emission-related charges is rather significant.
CONCLUSIONS
The presented research work emphasizes on the actions taken to address local impact of aircraft emissions
particularly those that are emitted at the LTO cycle. Among the many type of emissions, the primary focus has
been on NOX emissions due to its significant impact towards local air quality and human health. Efforts to regulate
the emissions through ICAO certification standard have been recognized. As the air traffic is predicted to increase
consistently in the future, it is expected that the standard to be made more stringent. However, the approach
taken by ICAO in rising the standard is found to be inadequate hence the use of incentive-based measure to
address growing concerns on emissions particularly those that are related to local air quality. Observations on LTO
emission charges implementations in Europe shows that aircraft are exposed to additional expenses for landing or
departing from airports with such charges. The effect is relatively small but appropriate planning on the choice o f
aircraft fleet is still giving a significant advantage to the operating airlines. The use of the collected charges
however is left for further discussions. Finally, with the additional standard on particulate matter and the newly
introduced market-based measure for CO2 in CAEP/10, it is interesting to see how all these standards and
incentives can trigger significant environmental benefits.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work has been conducted as part of a research funded by FRGS grant scheme under Vot 1491. The authors
would also like to acknowledge Uni. Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia with the financial support of this paper.
REFERENCES
1. Boeing, “Current Market Outlook 2015-2034,” 2015.
2. Airbus, “Global Market Forecast 2015-2034,” 2015.
3. Y. Schipper, “Environmental costs in European aviation,” Transp. Policy, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 141–154, 2004.
4. E. Brunelle-Yeung, T. Masek, J. J. Rojo, J. I. Levy, S. Arunachalam, S. M. Miller, S. R. H. Barrett, S. R. Kuhn, and I.
A. Waitz, “Assessing the impact of aviation environmental policies on public health,” Transp. Policy, vol. 34,
pp. 21–28, 2014.
020006-13

5. M. Masiol and R. M. Harrison, “Aircraft engine exhaust emissions and other airport-related contributions to
ambient air pollution: a review,” Atmos. Environ., vol. 95, pp. 409–455, 2014.
6. H. Lee, S. C. Olsen, D. J. Wuebbles, and D. Youn, “Impacts of aircraft emissions on the air quality near the
ground,” Atmos. Chem. Phys., vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 5505–5522, Jun. 2013.
7. M. E. J. Stettler, S. Eastham, and S. R. H. Barrett, “Air quality and public health impacts of UK airports. Part I :
Emissions,” Atmos. Environ., vol. 45, no. 31, pp. 5415–5424, 2011.
8. IPCC, “Aviation and the Global Atmosphere - Summary for Policymakers,” 1999.
9. M. Gauss, I. S. A. Isaksen, D. S. Lee, and O. A. Søvde, “Impact of aircraft NOX emissions on the atmosphere –
tradeoffs to reduce the impact,” Atmos. Chem. Phys., vol. 6, pp. 1529–1548, 2006.
10. H. Hsu, G. Adamkiewicz, E. A. Houseman, J. Vallarino, S. J. Melly, R. L. Wayson, J. D. Spengler, and J. I. Levy,
“The relationship between aviation activities and ultrafine particulate matter concentrations near a mid-sized
airport,” Atmos. Environ., vol. 50, pp. 328–337, 2012.
11. S. H. L. Yim, M. E. J. Stettler, and S. R. H. Barrett, “Air quality and public health impacts of UK airports . Part II :
Impacts and policy assessment,” Atmos. Environ., vol. 67, pp. 184–192, 2013.
12. G. Schu, K. Scha, M. Bauerfeind, E. Fleuti, and B. Rappenglu, “The impact of NOX, CO and VOC emissions on
the air quality of Zurich airport,” Atmos. Environ., vol. 41, pp. 103–118, 2007.
13. Y. Zhu, E. Fanning, R. C. Yu, Q. Zhang, and J. R. Froines, “Aircraft emissions and local air quality impacts from
takeoff activities at a large International Airport,” Atmos. Environ., vol. 45, no. 36, pp. 6526–6533, Nov. 2011.
14. K. Schafer, C. Jahn, P. Sturm, K. Sch, B. Lechner, and M. Bacher, “Aircraft emission measurements by remote
sensing methodologies at airports,” Atmos. Environ., vol. 37, pp. 5261–5271, 2003.
15. E. Fleuti, “Local Emission Charges in Europe,” no. May. 2007.
16. J. D. Scheelhaase, “Local emission charges - A new economic instrument at German airports,” J. Air Transp.
Manag., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 94–99, 2010.
17. FAA, “Aviation & emissions: a primer.” 2005.
18. Anonymous, “ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator Version 5,” no. June. ICAO, 2012.
19. ICAO, “Annex 16 Environmental Protection Volume II - Aircraft Engine Emissions,” Montréal, Quebec, 2008.
20. EASA, “European aviation environmental report,” 2016.
21. Heathrow Airport Limited, “Heathrow air quality strategy 2011-2020,” 2011.
22. D. L. Daggett, “Water misting and injection of commercial aircraft engines to reduce airport NOX,” 2004.
23. A. H. Lefebvre, Gas Turbine Combustion, 2nd. CRC Press, 1998.
24. FAA, “Aviation emissions, impacts and mitigation: a primer,” 2015.
25. A. Mahashabde, P. Wolfe, A. Ashok, C. Dorbian, Q. He, A. Fan, S. Lukachko, A. Mozdzanowska, C.
Wollersheim, S. R. H. Barrett, M. Locke, and I. a. Waitz, “Assessing the environmental impacts of aircraft noise
and emissions,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., vol. 47, pp. 15–52, Jan. 2011.
26. M. Mazaheri, G. R. Johnson, and L. Morawska, “An inventory of particle and gaseous emissions from large
aircraft thrust engine operations at an airport,” Atmos. Environ., vol. 45, no. 20, pp. 3500–3507, Jun. 2011.
27. C. I. Hsu and P. H. Lin, “Performance assessment for airport noise charge policies and airline network
adjustment response,” Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 281–304, 2005.
28. R. N. Stavins, “Market-based environmental policies.” Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, 1998.
29. F. Carlsson, “Incentive-based environmental regulation of domestic civil aviation in Sweden,” Transp. Policy,
vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 75–82, 1999.
30. R. W. Hahn and R. N. Stavins, “Economic incentives for environmental protection: integrating theory and
practice,” Am. Econ. Rev., vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 464–468, 1992.
31. ICAO, “Airport Air Quality Manual,” Montreal, Canada, 2011.
32. A. Graham, Managing Airports : An International Perspective, 4th Ed. Routledge, 2013.
33. ICAO, “EASA - ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank,” 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://easa.europa.eu/node/15672.
34. ICAO, “ICAO environment committee wraps up landmark 10th meeting.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.icao.int/Newsroom/NewsDoc2016/COM.07.16.EN.pdf. [Accessed: 23-May-2016].
35. T. C. Lieuwen and V. Pang, Gas turbine emissions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
36. U.S. EPA, New emission standards for new commercial aircraft engines. United States, 2005.
020006-14

37. A. W. Reitze, Air pollution control law: compliance and enforcement. Washington, DC: Environmental Law
Institute, 2001.
38. European Commission, Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. 2008.
39. N. Dickson, “Local air quality and ICAO engine emissions standards.” ICAO, 2015.
40. IATA, “Local air quality emissions-related charges.” .
41. Heathrow Airport, “Air quality around Heathrow Airport - Q1 2016 Briefing.” 2016.
42. U.S. EPA, Control of air pollution from aircraft and aircraft engines; emission standards and test procedures;
final rule, vol. 77, no. 177. United States, 2012, pp. 36341–36386.
43. Heathrow Airport, “Air quality at Heathrow Airport - Q4 2015 briefing and end of year summary.” 2015.
44. U.S. EPA, “Emission standards and test procedures for aircraft and aircraft engines: summary and analysis of
comments.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005.
45. J. Lee and J. Mo, “Analysis of technological innovation and environmental performance improvement in
aviation sector,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 3777–3795, 2011.
46. D. Forsberg, “Aircraft retirement and storage trends : economic life analysis reprised and expanded,” 2015.
47. M. Schaefer, “Methodologies for aviation Emission Calculation – a comparison of alternative approaches
towards 4D global inventories,” Berlin University of Technology In, 2006.
48. C. Hewett and J. Foley, Plane trading: policies for reducing the climate change effects of international
aviation. Institute for Public Policy Research, 2000.
49. A. N. Bleijenberg and R. C. N. Wit, “A European environmental aviation charge - Feasibility study,” Delft, 1998.
50. ICAO, “Council Resolution on Environmental Charges and Taxes.” ICAO, 1996.
51. ICAO, Doc 9884 - Guidance on aircraft emissions charges related to local air quality. 2007.
52. FOCA, Aircrafte engine emissions charges in Switzerland. 2009.
53. P. S. Morrell, Moving boxes by air: the economics of international air cargo. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 2012.
54. ECAC, “Recommendation 27/4 - NOX emission classification scheme.” 2011.
55. M. Hansen, M. S. Ryerson, and R. F. March, “New methodologies for airport environmental impact,” in
Modelling and managing airport performance, 1st ed., K. Zografos, G. Andreatta, and A. Odoni, Eds. West
Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2013, pp. 145–170.
56. GAO, “Aviation and the environment - Airport operations and future growth present environmental
challenges,” 2000.
57. H. P. van Essen, B. H. Boon, A. Scroten, M. Otten, M. Maibach, C. Schreyer, C. Doll, P. Jochem, M. Bak, and B.
Pawlowska, “Internalisation measures and policy for the external cost of transport,” Delft, 2008.
58. J. D. Scheelhaase, “International and national political regulations on aviation’s climate impact and cost
impacts on air freight,” in The economics of international airline transport: advances in airline economics, 1st.,
vol. 4, J. Peoples, Ed. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2014, pp. 255–280.
59. Copenhagen Airport, “Group annual report 2009.” Kastrup, 2009.
60. Boeing, “Airports with Noise and Emissions Restrictions,” 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/list.page. [Accessed: 16-Mar-2014].
61. C. Lu and P. Morrell, “Determination and applications of environmental costs at different sized airports –
aircraft noise and engine emissions,” Transportation (Amst)., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 45–61, Jan. 2006.
62. A. Johanning, D. Scholz, and B. Tor, “Evaluation of worldwide noise and pollutant emission costs for
integration into direct operating cost methods.” Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft-und Raumfahrt-Lilienthal-
Oberth eV, 2012.
63. C. Lu, “The implications of environmental costs on air passenger demand for different airline business
models,” J. Air Transp. Manag., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 158–165, Jul. 2009.
64. F. Netjasov, “Contemporary measures for noise reduction in airport surroundings,” Appl. Acoust., vol. 73, pp.
1076–1085, 2012.
65. NESCAUM and CCAP, “Controlling airport-related air pollution,” 2003.
66. Basel-Mulhouse Airprot, “Regulation of air royalties and use of facilities - Tariff regulations.” Flughafen Basel-
Mulhouse, Basel, 2015.
67. FOI, “FOI’s confidential database for turboprop engine emissions.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.foi.se/en/Our-Knowledge/Aeronautics/FOIs-Confidential-database-for-Turboprop-Engine-
Emissions/. [Accessed: 10-May-2016].
020006-15

68. Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), “Emission landing charges.” [Online]. Available:
https://www.bazl.admin.ch/bazl/en/home/specialists/aircraft/emissions-landing-charges.html. [Accessed:
10-May-2016].
69. J. Patterson, G. J. Noel, D. A. Senzig, C. J. Roof, and G. G. Fleming, “Analysis of departure and arrival profiles
using real-time aircraft data,” J. Aircr., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1094–1103, 2009.
70. B. Kim and J. Rachami, “Aircraft emissions modeling under low power conditions,” Observatory of
Sustainability in Aviation. Observatory of Sustainability in Aviation, 2008.
71. ICAO, “ICAO Environmental Report 2007,” 2007.
72. GAO, “Aviation and the environment - strategic framework needed to address challenges posed by aircraft
emissions,” 2003.
020006-16