Noise surcharges : do they have any effect?

Introduction

In several documents relative to the CRINEN proposals there have been references to measures which have been proposed in the past, and sometimes already implemented, as part of the fight against noise nuisances. This document looks at the various measures, with a view to deciding whether they have had, or might have, a genuine positive effect. It also suggests other new measures which could be taken, and which ARAG believes would have such a positive impact.

The main measure often referenced, and which has been in force since April 2008, is that of an additional surcharge on late departures. At that same time it was stated that aircraft in noise chapter 2 would be banned.

Further measures, which have been stated to be under study, are listed in the various documents submitted by the AIG, in particular in the observations on their behalf which were submitted in October 2007 by Me Olivier Jornot. These measures were the summarised in the OFEV position document as being:-

a) Développement du processus d’évaluation et de validation des demandes de mouvements entre 2200 et 6h avec composante bruit (semblable à processus en place pour dérogations après 24h).

b) Extension, à l’ensemble de l’aviation générale, de l’interdiction d’atterrissage et de décollage entre 22h et 6h applicable aux vols non commerciaux.

c) Extension des mesures d’insonorisation des locaux à usage sensible au bruit.

d) Favorisation de l’usage de la piste 23 (plus favorable aux riverains) par rapport à la piste 05, selon marge de manœuvre et conditions météorologiques.

e) Améliorations domaine des nuisances de l’aviation légère (y.c. hélicoptères).

f) Mise à jour de la classification des avions parmi les 5 classes de bruit, en particulier classe V (rééquilibrage et renforcement de l’effet dissuasif de la surtaxe bruit).

Each of these proposed measures will be discussed, in particular relative to the question of whether they are well-defined, realistic and unlikely to be subject to the well-known law of unexpected consequences.

Executive summary

ARAG is of the opinion that the noise surcharges, in particular the extra surcharges on late takeoffs, are insufficiently high to make any real impression on either the aircraft used or the scheduling of movements. This is unlikely to change when eventually the noise classification of aircraft is brought more up to date.

However, simply raising these charges in any significant manner would doubtless be justifiably resisted by the airlines concerned, on the basis that they have no desire to be responsible for late movements and are very often in no way responsible for their lateness. As an example, if there are unusual ATFM delays, whether at Geneva or elsewhere, that cause a delay, the airline should not be held entirely responsible.

It is also regrettable that there is no penalty whatsoever for any very late arrivals (ones during the grace period, currently from midnight to 00h30). As with late departures, these very late arrivals may not be the direct responsibility of the airline concerned. They may, however, be indirectly caused by movement schedules which are sometimes difficult to adhere to.

ARAG can see that some of the measures which the AIG has envisaged could be beneficial. However, particularly because they are not all precisely defined, they should not be considered as a replacement for other measures, in particular the different curfew possibilities.

ARAG therefore believes that the AIG should concentrate on those measures which will have a direct and immediate impact on the actual noise nuisances, rather than on those which will generate extra revenue to be used on soundproofing. It is wrong to think that soundproofing buildings should be a replacement for a reduction in noise.

Finally, the most effective method could be that for every takeoff after 23h00 and every landing after 24h00 the AIG, together with the company concerned, should provide a documented explanation for the lateness. As well as being sent to OFAC, these explanations should be included in the monthly “Relevé des nuisances sonores”. They should then be reviewed at every meeting of the CCLNTA.

The extra surcharge on late takeoffs

The measures put in place by the AIG, operational from April 2008, imposed a schedule of surcharges ranging from CHF 50 to CHF 9’000 per takeoff for jet aircraft from 22h00 to 06h00 according to the noise class of the aircraft and the time of takeoff. The income generated from these charges then goes into the environmental funds, to be used for a variety of expenses classed as environmental. Over half of these expenses are devoted to soundproofing of habitations.

Since this was introduced in April 2008 it has become apparent that it has not generated very much revenue, nor has it had the desired effect in some cases of noisy aircraft. The revenue actually generated in 2009 is stated to be approximately 200’000 CHF. This may sound high, but represents only about one eighth of the standard noise surtaxes (not paid by aircraft in noise class V).

For the particular case of the very noisy and frequently late departures of the Air Mauritius Airbus A340 flight, this extra surcharge has clearly had at best no impact. In fact, reviewing the details for this noise class III aircraft, the extra surcharge has arguably had the reverse effect (according to the law of unforeseen consequences!), as reflected in the revenue figures. These figures show, for noise class III aircraft, just 5’900 CHF in the nine months of 2008 but 49’900 CHF in 2009. ARAG calculations show that about 80% of this 2009 revenue was generated by this flight alone. In detail, these figures show, as revenue per departure of this aircraft, an average of 31 CHF in 2008, 655 CHF in 2009 and 1’470 CHF in the first three months of 2010. It is thus clear that, notwithstanding some cases of unusual delays, the scheduling of these flights has worsened.

Looking in more detail, even this latest figure of 1’470 CHF, though it may sound a lot, is only about a quarter of the total fees paid for each arrival/departure (which include landing charges and Air Traffic Control charges). Since this Airbus carries around 300 passengers, each paying on average over 1000 CHF, it represents only 0.5% of the revenue for each flight.

Thus, it is arguable that the airline feels that by paying the extra surcharge it is purchasing the right to have late flights, including maximising the number of passengers, whilst the AIG is happy to see the considerable augmentation of the money available for soundproofing the houses of people affected by the noise! There are thus two winners (AIG and Air Mauritius), but many losers (the people under the flight path of every noisy takeoff!

At the other end of the spectrum are the departures of modern commercial flights by narrow body aircraft in noise class V. The average amount paid by late departures of such aircraft is about 150 CHF, which is small in relation to the landing and ATC charges which ALL such aircraft pay. Since about one fifth of easyJet UK aircraft leaving on their final rotation back to the UK do so after 22h, one can say that 30 CHF per departure is a cheap price to pay for the right to leave later than the scheduled departure times.

Finally, consider the case of small business jet aircraft, such as the Cessna Citation 560XL aircraft which departed from Geneva airport on Easter Sunday at 23h10. For this aircraft, having a passenger capacity of 7-10 people, the operating company would have paid a late takeoff surcharge of just 200 CHF, approximately the same as it would have paid for landing and ATC fees. However, ARAG has been led to believe that companies would typically charge the clients many thousands of Swiss Francs for operating such business flights. Thus, for a very small extra amount, the clients and the company can happily offer such late flights for small numbers of passengers willing to pay such sums.

All of the above shows that, in relation to other costs, the extra late takeoff costs represent an extremely small amount that might be considered as buying the right to late takeoffs. ARAG believes that the AIG should consider alternative means of discouraging late departures, including an earlier curfew for noisy aircraft.

An evaluation and validation process for late movements

At first sight, the idea that requests for scheduling aircraft movements between 22h00 and 06h00 be judged according to noise criteria is attractive. However, the suggestion that this process should be an extension to one already in use for requests for movements after 24h00 has no meaning unless this latter process is explained in detail. ARAG also feels that the criteria should also include details of the number of passengers likely to be involved. Thus, for a request for a business jet, which may produce a similar amount of noise to a large modern jet, but for very few passengers, some effort should be made to understand the reasons for the request.

More limitations for general aviation.

This exact wording appeared in the Observations of the AIG, and might appear to carry some promise. However, in response to questions posed by ARAG, the AIG has responded by stating that there is currently no exact legal definition of the concept of “l’ensemble de l’aviation générale”.

ARAG has had various discussions with the AIG director and with various companies operating commercial movements of aircraft that can be categorised as business jets, As a result of these discussions, it is clear that both of these other parties will strongly oppose any limitations on these commercial movements.

It therefore follows that in the absence of a necessary legal definition, to be followed by a statement from the AIG defining when such a limitation could be applied, this vague promise is merely “pie in the sky”.

More soundproofing of buildings suffering from noise.

These soundproofing measures are definitely to be welcomed. What should be resisted, however, is any idea that soundproofing is an alternative to noise reduction at source. In other words, it can hardly be in doubt that people living around the airport would prefer quieter nights and (in summer) open bedroom windows to very late, or very early, aircraft noise.

Favouring use of runway 23 to that of 05

It was specifically stated (in the Observations of the AIG) that when meteorological conditions permit a choice of runway, the use of runway 23 is to some extent more favourable than the use of runway 05 to people living near the airport. This unjustified opinion would probably be disputed by the large population living under the takeoff axis of runway 23.

In an exchange of views between ARAG and the AIG, it was agreed on both sides that this statement is open to considerable doubt.

ARAG has also observed that in conditions where either runway might be chosen, it is quite frequently the case that late night or early morning movements may alternate to accommodate the wishes of the pilots concerned. Whilst this can certainly lead to economies in fuel usage and better punctuality, it also can lead to ensuring that there is sometimes noise at both ends of the runway, rather than at just one end. This can often apply when all night departing aircraft have left well on time (often before 22h00), but the population at both ends of the runway are subject to the noise of late landings.

ARAG believes that any attempt to artificially favour one runway over the other, plus the criteria for allowing movements in both directions in the early morning and late night, should be discussed with the local authorities of the affected regions.

Reducing noise from light aircraft, including helicopters

The subject of noise from helicopters is one which is frequently the cause of much indignation from people around Geneva. In the past this has even caused questions to be asked in the Geneva State Council.

ARAG believes that one of the problems is due to the fact that helicopters can, and apparently do, sometimes deviate from the official arrival and departure paths. Some complaints have been answered with the statement that no radar plot of a trajectory was possible because the helicopter pilot had deactivated the aircraft’s transponder. This seems to be permitted because of a problem that helicopters which cross the runway at right angles may cause collision warning signals in large fixed wing aircraft.

ARAG believes that there should be a constant check to see that helicopters follow approved flight paths at approved altitudes. For this, it is essential that the transponders be active for all except possibly for the very brief period when the helicopters are flying very near to the axis of the runway.

Redefinition of the five noise categories

It is absolutely self-evident that this list, which specifies the noise category of all aircraft, should be periodically revised. The current list dates back to the year 2000, which effectively means that there is an overload in the least noise category (class V). This least noise category arguably includes aircraft which are noticeably noisier than the very modern ones.

Although necessary, this redefinition of the noise category for aircraft could have as consequence simply an increase in the revenue generated by the various noise surcharges. As ARAG has demonstrated above, these surcharges are not particularly punitive, thus not being a real incentive to airlines to switch to more modern and quieter aircraft. This is why ARAG believes that there have to be other meaningful incentives directly related to the noise class of aircraft.