ERG No.: 0245.03.408.001 

Contract No.: EP-D-07-097 

Historical Assessment of Aircraft Landing and Take-off Emissions 

(1986 - 2008) 

Prepared by: 

Eastern Research Group 

1600 Perimeter Park Drive 

Morrisville, North Carolina 27560 

Under Contract to: 

E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 

3622 Lyckan Parkway 

Suite 2002 

Durham, North Carolina 27707 

For Submittal to: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

Assessment and Standards Division 

2000 Traverwood Drive 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

May 2011 
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page No. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 National-level Approach for Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO 

Provisions and Included in the T-100 Dataset ................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Engine Assignment ............................................................................... 2-2

2.1.2 Improved Accuracy for High Activity Aircraft ..................................... 2-4

2.2 Non-attainment Area Approach for Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by 

ICAO Provisions and Included in the T-100 Dataset ........................................ 2-7

2.3 Assessment of Non-Commercial Aircraft in the TAF/5010 Dataset Equipped with 

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions .............................................................. 2-9

2.4 Aircraft Not Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions (TAF/5010 

Aircraft Activity ............................................................................................... 2-9

2.5 Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) .......................................................................... 2-10

3.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 National-level Assessment Aircraft Equipped with ICAO Certified Engines 

Included in the T-100 Dataset .......................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Normalized Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data for Commercial Aircraft 

Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions Included in the T-100 

Dataset ............................................................................................................. 3-2

3.2.1 Emissions and Fuel Consumption by Aircraft Categories for Commercial 

Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by the ICAO Provisions

Included in the T-100 Dataset ............................................................... 3-5

3.2.2 Engine Design/Operation vs. NOx Emissions for Aircraft Equipped with 

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset 3-20

3.3 Non-attainment Area (NAA) Assessment ....................................................... 3-27

3.4 Evaluation of 2008 Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Emissions ........................... 3-37

3.5 Evaluation of TAF and 5010 Aircraft ............................................................. 3-41

3.6 Non-Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO 

Provisions ...................................................................................................... 3-42

3.7 Summary of All Project Data ......................................................................... 3-43

 
ii 

Appendix A – Interpolation of T-100 LTO Data to Backcast to 1986 to 1989 

Appendix B – T-100/EDMS Matches 

Appendix C – Default Emission Aircraft Data 

Appendix D – High-Activity Aircraft 

Appendix E – Aircraft Engine Weighting Data 

Appendix F – Example Variance in Taxi Times 

Appendix G – Aircraft Crosswalk - Category Designations 

Appendix H – Airports in Identified Non-attainment Areas 

Appendix I – Non-Commercial Aircraft Covered by ICAO Provisions 
iii 

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 

Tables Page No. 

Table E-1. Summary of 2008 National Aircraft Activity and Emissions Data for Turbofan and 

Turboprop Aircraft by ICAO Provision ................................................................................... xiii

Table 2-1. Distribution of Engine Models for the Ascend Database– Boeing 737-300 ............. 2-3

Table 2-2. ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Data Bank .......................................................... 2-3

Table 2-3. Compiled High-Activity Aircraft ............................................................................ 2-5

Table 2-4. List of Non-attainment Areas Included ................................................................... 2-7

Table 3-1. National Activity (LTOs), Fuel Consumption, and Emissions for Commercial Aircraft 

Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset 

(metric ton) ............................................................................................................................. 3-1

Table 3-2. National Average Fuel Consumption and Average Emissions Normalized with 

Respect to Activity (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by 

ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset ..................................................................... 3-3

Table 3-3. National LTOs (million) for Commercial Aircraft, Included in the T-100 Dataset .. 3-9

Table 3-4. National LTOs (Percent of Total) for Commercial Aircraft, Included in the T-100 

Dataset .................................................................................................................................. 3-10

Table 3-5. National Emission (metric ton) for Commercial Aircraft Included in the T-100 

Dataset .................................................................................................................................. 3-12

Table 3-6. National Emission (Percent of Total) for Commercial Aircraft Included in the T-100 

Dataset .................................................................................................................................. 3-13

Table 3-7. National Average NOx Emissions (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft, Included in the 

T-100 Dataset........................................................................................................................ 3-16

Table 3-8. National Average Engine Thrust Normalized with Respect to Activity (kN/LTO) for 

Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T100 Dataset (turboprop aircraft excluded) .............................................................................. 3-21

Table 3-9. National Average NOx Emissions per LTO Cycle/Engine-Thrust (g per LTO/kN) for 

Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the 

T-100 Dataset (turboprop aircraft excluded) .......................................................................... 3-24

Table 3-10. National Average Engine Pressure Ratios for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with 

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset (turboprop aircraft 

excluded) .............................................................................................................................. 3-25

Table 3-11. Selected Non-attainment Areas LTOs (× 10,000) for Commercial Aircraft, Included 

in the T-100 Dataset .............................................................................................................. 3-30

Table 3-12. Selected Non-attainment Areas NOx Emission (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft, 

Included in the T-100 Dataset................................................................................................ 3-32

Table 3-13. Selected Non-attainment Areas NOx Emissions (metric ton) for Commercial 

Aircraft, Included in the T-100 Dataset ................................................................................. 3-34

Table 3-14. Selected Non-attainment Areas that Follow the National LTO and NOx Emissions 

Trends ................................................................................................................................... 3-36

Table 3-15. 2008 Commercial Aircraft Fleet Composition for Selected Non-attainment 

Areas .................................................................................................................................... 3-37

Table 3-16. National APU Emissions Annual Total and Normalized with Respect to Activity for 

Commercial Aviation, Included in the T-100 Dataset ............................................................ 3-38
iv 

Table 3-17. Selected Non-attainment Areas APU Activity and Emissions (metric ton) for 

Commercial Aircraft, Included in the T-100 Dataset ............................................................. 3-39

Table 3-18. 2008 National Activity (LTOs) and Emissions (kg) for Aircraft not Equipped with 

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in TAF and 5010 Dataset (turboprop and 

turbofan engines) .................................................................................................................. 3-41

Table 3-19. 2008 Selected Non-attainment Areas Activity (LTOs) and Emissions (kg) for 

Aircraft Equipped with Engines that are Not Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in TAF and 

5010 Dataset (turboprop and turbofan engines) ..................................................................... 3-41

Table 3-20. Baseline and Projected Activity, Fuel Usage and Emissions for Non-Air Carrier 

Aircraft Equipped with ICAO Certified Engines ................................................................... 3-43

Table 3-21. Summary of All 2008 National Aircraft/Airport Emission Estimates for Aircraft 

Equipped with Turbofan and Turboprop Engines .................................................................. 3-43

Figures Page No. 

Figure E-1. National LTOs (million) and NOx Emissions (kg/LTO and kg) for Commercial 

Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, 

Total Fleet ............................................................................................................................... viii

Figure E-2. National LTOs (million) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered 

by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by Aircraft Type...................... ix

Figure E-3. National NOx Emissions (metric ton) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with 

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by Aircraft 

Type............................................................................................................................................x

Figure E-4. National Average NOx Emissions (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with 

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by Aircraft 

Type.......................................................................................................................................... xi

Figure 3-1. National LTOs (million) and NOx Emissions (kg/LTO and kg) for Commercial 

Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, 

Total Fleet ............................................................................................................................... 3-2

Figure 3-2. National Average Fuel Consumption Normalized with Respect to Activity 

(liters/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, 

Included in the T-100 Dataset, Total Fleet ............................................................................... 3-4

Figure 3-3. National LTOs (million) for High Activity Commercial Aircraft, Included in the 

T-100 Dataset (Narrow-Body 2 Engine, Narrow-Body 3 Engine, Regional 2 Engine Turboprop, 

Regional 2 Engine Turbojet) [Refers to Table 3-3] .................................................................. 3-6

Figure 3-4. National LTOs (million) for Low Activity Commercial Aircraft Included in the 

T-100 Dataset (Wide-Body 2, 3, and 4 Engine, Narrow-Body 4 Engine, Regional 4 Engine 

Turbojet, Regional 4 Engine Turboprop, 4 Engine Turboprop, Regional 1 Engine Turbojet, 

Regional 1 Engine Turboprop) [Refers to Table 3-3] ............................................................... 3-7

Figure 3-5. National LTOs (million) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered 

by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by Aircraft Type [Refers to 

Table 3-4] ............................................................................................................................... 3-8

Figure 3-6. National Average NOx Emission (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with 

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by Aircraft 

Type [Refers to Table 3-7] .................................................................................................... 3-17
v 

Figure 3-7. National Average NOx Emissions (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with 

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by Aircraft 

Type...................................................................................................................................... 3-18

Figure 3-8. National NOx Emissions (metric ton) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with 

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by Aircraft 

Type [Refers to Table 3-5] .................................................................................................... 3-19

Figure 3-9. National Average Engine Thrust Normalized with Respect to Activity (kN/LTO)) for 

Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the 

T-100 Dataset, Organized by Aircraft Type [Refers to Table 3-8].......................................... 3-22

Figure 3-10. National Average NOx Emission (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with 

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by Aircraft 

Type and Thrust .................................................................................................................... 3-23

Figure 3-11. National Average Engine Pressure Ratios for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with 

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by Aircraft 

Type [Refers to Table 3-10] .................................................................................................. 3-26

Figure 3-12. Selected Non-attainment Areas LTOs for Commercial Aircraft, Included in the 

T-100 Dataset, Total Fleet [Refers to Total from Table 3-11] ................................................ 3-28

Figure 3-13. Selected Non-attainment Areas NOx Emissions (kg) for Commercial Aircraft, 

Included in the T-100 Dataset, Total Fleet [Refers to Total from Table 3-12] ........................ 3-28

Figure 3-14. Selected Non-attainment Areas NOx Emissions (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft, 

Included in the T-100 Dataset................................................................................................ 3-29
vi 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Background 

Historically, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has worked with the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the International Civil Aviation Organization 

(ICAO) in developing emission provisions for aircraft operating in U.S. air space. Under this 

approach, ICAO has proposed international provisions, and subsequently EPA has initiated 

Clean Air Act rulemakings to establish domestic standards that are at least as stringent as 

ICAO’s provisions. In 1981, ICAO adopted provisions for emission of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 

hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and smoke; these standards went into effect in 

1986.1 ICAO developed more stringent NOx provisions in 1992, 1998, and 2004, which went 

into effect in 1996, 2004, and 2008, respectively. The EPA promulgated similar emission 

standards in 1982 for HC, and in 1997 for NOx and CO. In 2005, EPA promulgated additional 

NOx emission limits. Currently, the EPA is conducting a rulemaking to adopt standards 

equivalent to the latest ICAO NOx provisions. Note that these standards are designed to address 

emissions during landing and take–off (LTO) cycles. 

Purpose of this Study 

The EPA is assessing the impact these past standards have had on reducing emissions 

from commercial aircraft. In order to evaluate the long term impact of these standards, the EPA 

is evaluating aircraft engine emissions associated with LTO cycles for the period from 1986 

through 2008. An LTO cycle includes: the approach below 3,000 feet, the landing, taxi to and 

from the terminal, take-off and climb-out to 3,000 feet. The EPA commissioned this project to 

compile appropriate activity and aircraft characteristics data and to develop the emission 

inventories for each year of the study period. Pollutants included in this assessment are: NOx, 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), CO, particulate matter (PM) and fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5), oxides of sulfur (as SO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 

emissions as defined in Section 112(b)1 of the Clean Air Act. 

Scope of this Study 

This study provides a comprehensive look at changes in annual NOx inventories for 

aircraft operations in the United States for subsonic aircraft using engines covered by the 

provisions of ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP). Engines 

covered by the ICAO gaseous emissions provisions, specifically include jet engines with outputs 

(or thrust) greater than 26.7 kN. 

This study covers the period 1986-2008 and includes domestic and foreign flagged 

carriers. Emissions were calculated at both the national level and for 42 non-attainment areas that 

had significant commercial air traffic. There were 201 airports in these non-attainment areas; 

Appendix H includes a complete list of nonattainement areas and airports included in this 

 

1

 The first ICAO emission standards went into effect in 1986, and thus, the first year of this analysis is 1986. Smoke 

standards apply to engines independent of engine size. It should be noted that smoke is outside the scope of this 

study. 
vii 

assessment. Emissions were also normalized by LTO level (kgs of pollutant/LTO), to assess how 

the fleet is performing from year-to-year, independent of changes in activity. The developed 

emission trends were evaluated relative to the years when the ICAO provisions were 

implemented to try to discern associated changes in emissions (total kgs) or emission rates 

(kg/LTO). Fleet-wide averages were also developed for each year to assess relative changes in 

engine pressure ratios and thrust output to evaluate changes in fleet engine performance over 

time. This was done because the provisions and level of emissions depends on these parameters 

(or is a function of these parameters) in some cases.

Additional studies were included in this project to more accurately estimate emissions for 

2008, such as: an inventory of emission estimates for auxiliary power units (APUs), emission 

estimates for aircraft not included in the T-100 data such as non-air carrier operations for air 

taxis and general aviation, and an assessment of non-commercial (non-air carrier) activities that 

use aircraft equipped with engines covered by the ICAO gaseous emissions provisions, but not 

reported in the T-100 dataset. 

Results 

As shown in Figure E-1, total U.S. LTOs for aircraft with engines covered by the ICAO 

provisions for gaseous emissions2 increased approximately 50 percent between 1986 and 2008, 

and the LTO NOx emissions inventory increased approximately 28 percent during that same 

timeframe. And the NOx emissions per LTO decreased by 11 percent. This analysis indicates 

that when operations activity, aircraft fleet population, accessions, retirements, and fleet mix 

changes are accounted for, growth in the level of NOx emission was less than that of LTOs. 

However, even with technology improvements and more stringent provisions for NOx emissions, 

this analysis also shows that there has been no net reduction in the LTO NOx inventory over this 

period of time. 

 

2

 Engines covered by the ICAO standards have rated output (or thrust) greater than 26.7 kN. 
viii 

Figure E-1. National LTOs (million) and NOx Emissions (kg/LTO and kg) for Commercial 

Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 

Dataset, Total Fleet 

Changes in the fleet (for aircraft with engines covered by the ICAO provisions for 

gaseous emissions) were also evaluated for different aircraft types. Figure E-2 shows that the 

increase in LTOs was caused almost exclusively by a dramatic increase in regional jet activity. 

Since 1986, LTOs from regional jets increased from 500,000 per year to over 3 million per year 

in 2008, while those from the traditional wide- and narrow-body aircraft were relatively 

unchanged. For the purpose of this study, regional aircraft are defined as aircraft with a seat 

count less than 100 passenger seats. 
ix 

Figure E-2. National LTOs (million) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines 

Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by Aircraft Type 

The information shown in Figure E-2 may suggest that this increase in the LTO NOx

inventory is caused primarily by regional jet activity, since NOx emissions from wide-/narrowbody aircraft have presumably decreased as a result of the technology response to the ICAO 

provisions. This also might be anticipated because wide-/narrow-body LTOs were nearly 

unchanged over the study period. However, Figure E-3 shows the opposite to be true for NOx

emission. Over the study period, the LTO NOx emissions inventory for traditional wide-/narrowbody aircraft increased by 13 percent. 

Also, on a kg NOx/LTO basis, Figure E-4 shows that traditional wide-/narrow-body 

aircraft emissions increased by 9 percent, while emissions from regional jets decreased by 

32 percent. The cause of this increase is not obvious. 
x 

Figure E-3. National NOx Emissions (metric ton) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with 

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by 

Aircraft Type 
xi 

Figure E-4. National Average NOx Emissions (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped 

with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by 

Aircraft Type 

Efforts to improve the fuel efficiency of engines that power the wide- and narrow-body 

aircraft fleet seem to result in some degradation in NOx emissions reduction performance, which 

may not have been fully anticipated and appreciated years ago when the NOx standards were set. 

This degradation (or NOx increase) is consistent with the increase in engine compressor pressure 

ratios over time. Higher pressures increase the air temperature entering the combustion chamber, 

increasing combustion temperatures with a concomitant rise in NOx emissions. 

The relaxed slope of the Pressure Ratio (PR) versus Dp/Foo3 line for PRs over 30 have 

made new NOx standards less challenging and the use of derivatives have allowed throttle push 

versions of certified engine models to continue production under previous standards. 

Furthermore, the less stringent requirement for engines under 89kN thrust, and the lack of 

production cut-off could have all, to varying degrees, contributed to the loss in effectiveness of 

the provisions for NOx emissions in reducing LTO NOx emission inventories in the U.S. 

To put into perspective the emissions associated with aircraft equipped with engines 

covered by ICAO gaseous emissions provisions, it was necessary to develop a complete 

inventory of aircraft emissions that included smaller aircraft in the air taxi and general aviation 

categories, equipped with turbofan engines that have a thrust less than or equal to 

26.7 kilonewtons. The T-100 data were therefore supplemented with operations data obtained 

 

3

 The mass, in grams (Dp), of NOx emitted during the LTO cycle, divided by the rated output (Foo) of the engine. 
xii 

from the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) 4 and airport master plan (5010) data5 obtained 

from the 2008 aircraft portion of the National Emission Inventory, which was split into piston 

and jet powered aircraft using data from the FAA’s 2008 General Aviation and Air Taxi Activity 

(GAATA) Survey6. The TAF and 5010 data were also adjusted to account for duplicates in the 

T-100 data, mostly for the air taxi category, but air carrier data were also evaluated. This was 

done by summing the T-100 data by aircraft type (i.e., air carriers and air taxis) as defined by the 

FAA and included in the aircraft crosswalk table developed for this project (see Appendix G). 

The aggregated T-100 data were compared with the TAF and 5010 data for individual airports. 

Where the LTOs in TAF and 5010 were equal to or less than those reported in the T-100 data, 

only the T-100 data were used. Where the LTOs in the TAF and 5010 data were greater than the 

T-100 values, the T-100 LTOs were subtracted from the TAF and 5010 values to avoid double 

counting. 

The TAF and 5010 operations data are not provided by aircraft make and model, but are 

summarized in terms of aircraft types. In order to estimate emissions for these general aircraft 

types, generic criteria and HAP emission factors used in the EPA’s National Emission Inventory7

were applied to the adjusted TAF and 5010 LTO data to estimate airport specific emissions. 

It is noted that some of the aircraft included in the TAF and 5010 data are equipped with 

engines covered by ICAO gaseous emissions provisions, but are not included in the T-100 

dataset because they are not involved directly in commercial air carrier activities. In this study, 

these are referred to as non-air carrier aircraft equipped with engines covered by ICAO 

provisions. As noted above, the TAF and 5010 data do not differentiate aircraft make/model and 

engine configuration, therefore it was necessary to quantify the makeup of the fleet of non-air 

carrier aircraft covered by ICAO provisions using FAA aircraft registration data. Aircraft that 

could be identified as being part of the commercial air carrier fleet, charter fleet or licensed to a 

broker were identified and removed from the registry dataset. Based on the registration data, if 

the aircraft was equipped with an engine that had a thrust rating greater than 27.6 kN, then it was 

retained in the non-air carrier aircraft covered by ICAO provisions dataset. Since the FAA 

aircraft registry data does not quantify annual operations, these aircraft were assumed to have a 

level of activity similar to other aircraft involved in general aviation based on the 2008 GAATA 

survey. This LTO activity level was assigned to each aircraft included in the dataset of non-air 

carrier aircraft equipped with engines covered by ICAO provisions and applied to Emissions and 

Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS)8 to estimate national 2008 emissions. Note that using the 

aircraft registration data it is not possible to identify where these non-air carrier aircraft operate. 

Therefore, only national estimates could be developed. 

To avoid double counting of the aircraft in the dataset of non-air carrier aircraft equipped 

with engines covered by ICAO provisions with the TAF and 5010 data, it was necessary to 

exclude these aircraft LTOs from the TAF and 5010 data and those remaining LTOs represent 

 

4

 The Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) system is the official forecast of aviation activity at FAA facilities. 

http://aspm.faa.gov/main/taf.asp 

5

 FAA’s Office of Air Traffic provides a complete listing of operational airport facilities in the National Airspace 

System Resources (NASR) database. An electronic report can be generated from the NASR database and is 

available for download from the internet at the following web site: http:// 

www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/. This database is updated every 56 days. 

6

 http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/CY2008/ 

7

 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/nei08_alm_popup.html 

8

 http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/models/edms_model/ 
xiii 

activity levels for aircraft that are not equipped with engines covered by ICAO gaseous 

emissions provisions. Table E-1 summarizes results for aircraft relative to the ICAO status (i.e., 

ICAO or Non-ICAO) of the engines associated with the aircraft, also noting the data source (i.e., 

T-100, TAF/5010, or aircraft registration data). 

Table E-1. Summary of 2008 National Aircraft Activity and Emissions Data for Turbofan 

and Turboprop Aircraft by ICAO Provision 

Source 

Operational 

Type Regulated LTO 

NOX

(kg) 

VOC 

(kg) 

CO 

(kg) 

PM10

(kg) 

PM2.5

(kg) SO2

T100 AC ICAO 6,354,778 77,756,251 9,019,675 52,370,174 1,032,172 1,032,172 7,784,761 

T100 AT ICAO 2,431,408 10,315,077 2,063,428 10,419,912 228,701 228,701 1,247,253 

Aircraft (b)

Registry GA ICAO 563,472 5,110,719 3,484,480 7,038,627 197,625 197,625 563,924 

T100 AT non ICAO 1,231,925 732,963 988,339.48 5,800,159 (a) (a) 155,297 

5010/TAF AT non ICAO 2,641,969 929,174 1,205,643 4,327,450 723,017 705,520 194,720 

5010/TAF GA non ICAO 11,242,286 1,650,911 2,785,050 48,837,110 1,207,032 1,177,822 374,667 

T100 APU non ICAO 8,892,776 2,577,545 284,544 3,693,825 414,601 414,601 401,838 

Total 99,072,640 19,831,158 132,487,258 3,803,160 2,124,018 10,722,461

(a) Although EDMS has a method to estimate PM emissions from ICAO certified engines, coverage for non-ICAO 

certified engines was too incomplete to provide an emission estimate at this time. 

(b) Emissions for Non-air carrier Aircraft Covered by ICAO Provisions were calculated from the FAA’s Aircraft 

Registry. This information is presented in Appendix I. 

(c) AC = air carrier, AT = air taxi, GA = general aviation, and APU = auxiliary power unit 

In conclusion, this study shows that at the national level air carrier aircraft and air taxis 

equipped with engines that are subject to the ICAO provisions as reported in the T-100 dataset 

accounted for 89 percent of aircraft NOx emissions. When non-commercial air carriers equipped 

with engines that are covered by the ICAO provisions are also considered, 94 percent of NOx

emissions are accounted for. Much of the remaining aircraft NOx emissions (2.6 percent) are 

attributed to auxiliary power units (APUs), which are not affected by ICAO provisions. This 

study also indicates that improvements in emission rates were mostly driven by changes in fleet 

operations that utilized more regional jets. 

Emissions by nonattainment areas generally followed the national trends, but some 

locations varied significantly reflecting changes in local fleet operations, such as the opening or 

expansion of new freight handling facilities or the realignment of air carrier service hubs. 
1-1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Historically, the U.S. EPA has worked with the FAA and the ICAO in developing 

emission standards for aircraft with FAA type certificates, operating in U.S. air space. Under this 

approach international provisions have first been adopted by ICAO, and subsequently EPA has 

initiated Clean Air Act (CAA) rulemakings to establish domestic standards that are at least as 

stringent as ICAO’s provisions. 

In 1981, ICAO adopted emission provisions for NOx, HC, CO, and smoke; these 

provisions went into effect in 1986. ICAO developed more stringent NOx provisions in 1992, 

1998, and 2004, which went into effect in 1996, 2004, and 2008, respectively. The EPA 

promulgated similar emission standards in 1982 for HC, and in 1997 for NOx and CO. In 2005, 

EPA promulgated additional NOx emission limits. Currently, the EPA is conducting a 

rulemaking to adopt the last two rounds of ICAO NOx provisions. 9

For this project, the EPA is assessing the impact these past EPA standards have had on 

reducing emissions from commercial aircraft. In order to evaluate the long term impact of these 

standards, the EPA is evaluating aircraft engine emissions associated with LTO cycles for the 

period from 1986 through 2008. An LTO cycle includes the approach below 3,000 feet altitude, 

the landing, taxi to and from the terminal, take-off and climb-out to 3,000 feet. 

The EPA commissioned this project to compile appropriate activity and aircraft 

characteristics data and to develop the emission inventories for each year of the study period. 

Pollutants included in this assessment are: NOx, VOC, CO, particulate matter (PM) and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5), oxides of sulfur (as SO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), and hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) emissions. Note the HAPs included in this study are limited to those noted in 

Section 112(b)1 of the Clean Air Act. It should also be noted that aircraft do not emit all 

188 HAPs noted in the act. The fuel sulfur content used in this study was 0.068 percent 

(680 ppm,1.292 g/Kg of fuel) to be consistent with the FAA agreed upon First Order 

Approximation (FOA) 3a methodology used for PM emissions modeling.

This assessment includes domestic and foreign flagged carriers. Emissions were 

calculated at both the national level and for 42 non-attainment areas that had significant 

commercial air traffic. Emissions were also normalized by LTO level (kgs of pollutant/LTO), to 

assess how the fleet is performing from year-to-year, independent of changes in activity. The 

developed emission trends were evaluated relative to the years when the ICAO provisions were 

implemented to try to discern associated changes in emissions (total kgs) or emission rates 

(kg/LTO). Fleet-wide averages were also developed for each year to assess relative changes in 

engine pressure ratios and thrust output to evaluate changes in fleet engine performance over 

time. This was done because the provisions and level of emissions depends on these parameters 

(or is a function of these parameters) in some cases.

Section 2 of this report summarizes the methodologies used to develop input files for the 

FAA’s EDMS. Note that EDMS version 5.1.1 was used for the national assessment and EDMS 

 

9

 ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection adopted the last two rounds of NOx standards at their 6th

meeting in 2004 and 8th meeting in 2010. 
1-2 

version 5.1.2 was used for the non-attainment assessment. FAA staff indicated that the upgrade 

to version 5.1.2 did not affect engine or fleet emission calculation methodologies and only 

improved reporting output files for the FAA’s Voluntary Airport Low Emissions Program 

(VALE). Section 2 also discusses how non-T-100 data were used to estimate emissions for 

remainder of the fleet not represented in the T-100 data in order to have a complete estimate of 

aircraft emissions. 

Section 3 of this report presents and discusses output of the EDMS model for the national 

assessment and the non-attainment area assessment. Output from the model was processed to 

allow easy comparison between years and aircraft types (i.e., regional, narrow-body, and widebody), engine types (i.e., turbofan and turboprop), engine configurations (i.e., two-, three-, and 

four- engine aircraft), and ICAO certification status (i.e., certified or non-certified for ICAO 

gaseous emissions provisions). This study focuses on aircraft equipped with engines covered by 

ICAO gaseous emissions provisions and where the T-100 data document activity of aircraft 

equipped with non-ICAO engines (e.g. turbo props or jets with output (or thrust) less than 26.7 

kN), these aircraft were identified in this study and their data handled separately. EDMS output 

included in Section 3 includes emissions from both propulsion engines and auxiliary power units 

(APUs). Section 3 also includes emission estimates for aircraft activities not included in the 

T-100 data set such as estimates derived from the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) and 

5010 Master Plan data. The TAF and 5010 Master Plan data would include aircraft equipped 

with engines covered by ICAO gaseous emissions provisions as well as those not covered by 

ICAO provisions. 
2-1 

2.0 METHODOLOGY 

In order for the EPA to accurately assess the impact of the ICAO engine provisions, ERG 

developed a dataset of aircraft activity for the entire country and for selected non-attainment 

areas for each inventory year using the Department of Transportation (DOT) Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS) Air Carrier Statistics database, also known as the T-100 10 data 

provided to the project by Database Products. This BTS dataset contains data on domestic 

market, domestic segment, international market, international segment, combined domestic and 

international market, and combined domestic and international segment data by certificated U.S. 

air carriers. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 217 and Part 241, data are collected by the Office of Airline 

Information (OAI) within the BTS on the Form 41, Schedule T-100—U.S. Air Carrier Traffic 

and Capacity Data By Nonstop Segment and On-flight Market and Form 41, Schedule 

T-100(f)—Foreign Air Carrier Traffic and Capacity Data by Nonstop Segment and On-flight 

Market. Large, certificated air carriers, small certificated air carriers, and commuter air carriers 

are required to complete Form 41. The Form 41 requirements are tiered based on the carriers’ 

annual operating revenue. The reporting groups are as follows: 

• Group III - over $1 billion in annual operating revenues 

• Group II - from $100,000,001 to $1 billion in annual operating revenues 

• Group I Over - from $20,000,001 to $100,000,000 in annual operating revenues 

• Group I Under - $20,000,000 or less in annual operating revenues 

All carriers submit monthly segment and market traffic data and quarterly enplanement and 

operations statistics. Aircraft that do not generate operating revenue do not trigger the above 

reporting requirements and are therefore excluded from the T-100 data. 

Because the T-100 data extend back to only 1990, the EPA provided comparable aircraft 

activity data by airport for the years 1986 through 1989 for domestic traffic.11 Activity data for 

foreign flagged carriers were unavailable prior to 1990. To account for foreign flagged activity 

from 1986 through 1989, LTOs were backcast using the average LTOs growth factors derived 

from the period 1990-1993, for which foreign flagged data were available. The data used for 

backcasting are provided in Appendix A. 

2.1 National-level Approach for Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO 

Provisions and Included in the T-100 Dataset 

The T-100 data provide LTO counts associated with specific aircraft based on the 

manufacturer and airframe model. The T-100 data for the study period includes a total of 

242 aircraft models. Each aircraft model reported in the T-100 dataset has a unique identification 

code (A/C code). For this project ERG used the FAA’s EDMS 12 model to calculate emissions. 

The EDMS data files include 539 aircraft models, each with its own unique identification code 

 

10

www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_policy_and_research/source_and_accuracy_compendium/form41_schedule.html

11 EPA obtained the 1986 through 1989 T-100 data from Database Products. 

12 http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/models/edms_model/
2-2 

(ACCODE). To link the T-100 activity data to the aircraft models in EDMS, ERG created a 

crosswalk based on information obtained from aircraft manufacturers, airlines, Jane’s Aircraft 

Recognition Guide, Aviation Week Source Book, and on-line data sources. The crosswalk is 

provided in Appendix G of this report. The T-100 data does not include engine type. 

2.1.1 Engine Assignment 

To calculate emissions using EDMS, both the airframe model and engine must be 

identified and matched to data in EDMS. To help match aircraft to their associated engines, the 

EPA provided ERG with Ascend fleet inventories for each year of the study period. The Ascend 

Online Fleets Database13 is a privately owned database that contains details on individual aircraft 

in the global fleet including information such as aircraft serial number and engine make and 

model. Because many aircraft can be equipped with different engine models, the Ascend data 

were used to assign engines used on a specific aircraft model for each inventory year. 

For example, the U.S. fleet includes Boeing 737-300 series aircraft, which can be 

equipped with three different CFM International engine models: the CFM56-3-B1 and CFM56-

3-B2, which were originally introduced in 1986, and CFM56-3-C1, which was introduced in 

1997 (as shown in Table 2-1). These respective CFM engines have different fuel consumption 

rates, emission rates, pressure ratios, and thrust derived from data obtained from individual 

engine datasheets, contained in ICAO databank,14 as noted in Table 2-2. As illustrated in Table 

2-2, variance in the emission rates between the different engines associated with a given aircraft 

make and model can be significant. 

 

13 www.ascendworldwide.com 

14 http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=702
2-3 

Table 2-1. Distribution of Engine Models for the Ascend Database– Boeing 737-300 

Year 

Number of 

Planes in 

Service 

CFM 56-3-B1 

(UID: 2CM004) 

CFM 56-3-B2 

(UID: ICM005) 

CFM 56-3-C1 

(UID: 1CM007) 

1986 130 76% 24%

1987 291 76% 24%

1988 291 76% 24%

1989 336 69% 31%

1990 376 62% 38%

1991 378 61% 39%

1992 385 62% 38%

1993 416 65% 35%

1994 437 67% 33%

1995 470 69% 31%

1996 496 69% 31%

1997 515 69% 30% 1%

1998 527 67% 31% 2%

1999 534 66% 15% 19%

2000 539 63% 16% 21%

2001 524 63% 16% 21%

2002 504 63% 15% 22%

2003 49 63% 17% 20%

2004 481 64% 16% 20%

2005 409 69% 14% 18%

2006 378 66% 14% 20%

Table 2-2. ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Data Bank 

Engine 

Make/Model 

Rated 

Output 

(kN) 

NOx Emissions

During LTO Cycle 

(g) 

Fuel Usage During 

LTO Cycle 

(kg) 

NOx Emissions 

Per Unit Output 

(g/kN) 

Pressure 

Ratio 

CFM 56-3-B1 89 3,595 392 40.2 22.6

CFM 56-3-B2 98 4,213 421 42.9 24.3

CFM 56-3-C1 105 4,810 448 46.0 25.2

As aircraft models and engines changed over time, the engine assignment for an aircraft 

model was reassigned when another engine became the dominant engine. The engine assignment 

and modeling had some limitations. First, the Ascend data do not include either the airframe 

identification codes used by either T-100 data or the EDMS model. Second, EDMS does not 

include all combinations of airframe model and engine. If EDMS did not include the most 

popular engines, then the next most popular engine was used and so on until a match was made 

with the engines in EDMS. If none of the engines matched the engines reported in the Ascend 

database and comparable engines could not be identified, then an engine in EDMS with similar 

thrust characteristics was used. However, this default engine matching was a rare event. 
2-4 

The limitations discussed above resulted in a small percentage of airframe model and 

engine combinations that could not be matched in EDMS. Approximately 97 percent of aircraft 

LTOs were matched, the exact percentage varied from year-to-year as noted in Appendix B. 

The remaining aircraft that could not be matched tended to be smaller or older aircraft 

associated with a relatively small number of LTOs. The emission inventory impact of these 

missing aircraft were accounted for in the national estimates by applying the aggregated LTO 

emission factors reported in Appendix C to the total amount of LTOs not matched for each 

inventory year. 

2.1.2 Improved Accuracy for High Activity Aircraft 

In initial EDMS modeling runs, Ascend data were used to quantify the most popular 

engines for each inventory year. As aircraft models and engines changed over time, it was 

determined that the accuracy of EDMS emissions estimates (and pressure ratio and thrust 

characterizations) could be improved by using the Ascend engine distribution for a given 

aircraft model. However, the level of resources required to quantify all engine options for all 

242 aircraft models for each year of the study period was not warranted because the variance 

between the engine options was not always significant. Thus, this data improvement effort was 

targeted at high-activity aircraft. 

In developing the improved Ascend engine distribution in the fleet, this project focused 

on the top 10 high-activity aircraft for each year, including domestic and foreign operations. 

The high-activity aircraft were identified based on total annual LTOs for each year. The top 10 

high-activity aircraft varied over the period of the study and as a result, 47 aircraft were 

identified as high-activity for domestic and foreign operations. These 47 aircraft, listed in 

Appendix D, represent approximately 80 percent of the fleet activity, in terms of LTO cycles 

each year. 

LTOs cycles were distributed across existing EDMS engines in a manner consistent 

with the Ascend engine distribution producing weighted emissions. However, not all highactivity aircraft received this LTO distribution, only those that met the following criteria: 

1. The aircraft model must account for greater than four percent of the total annual 

LTOs. 

2. The variance of the NOx emission factor associated with the different aircraft engine 

options must be greater than 10 percent in any year. 

3. The aircraft must be equipped with an engine covered by ICAO provisions. 

These criteria were evaluated for each year and for domestic and international 

operations separately. Of the 40 high-activity aircraft, 27 met the criteria, accounting for 

approximately 75 percent of annual fleet activity in terms of LTO cycles. Aircraft that did not 

meet these criteria, or that were not considered to be high activity aircraft, used the approach 

described in Section 2.1.1 to make airframe engine assignments. Table 2.3 presents the 27 highactivity aircraft selected for accuracy improvement with the maximum NOx variance between 

engines modeled in domestic and international use. 
2-5 

Table 2-3. Compiled High-Activity Aircraft 

27 High-Activity Aircraft(a)

Airframe 

Max. NOx

Variance Airframe 

Max. NOx

Variance 

Domestic Int’l Domestic Int’l 

Airbus Industrie A319 87% 87% Boeing 747-200/300 94% 

Airbus Industrie 

A320-100/200 209% 129% Boeing 747-400 133% 

Airbus Industrie 

A330-200 43% Boeing 757-200 82% 

Airbus Industrie 

A340-200 39% Boeing 767-200/ER/EM 74% 

Boeing 727-100/C/Qc 112% Boeing 767-

300/300ER 193% 

Boeing 727-200/231A 71% 86% Boeing 777-

200/200LR/233LR 80% 

Boeing 737-100/200 39% 39% Embraer-145 26% 

Boeing 737-300 34% McDonnell Douglas 

DC-9-10 48% 

Boeing 737-400 14% McDonnell Douglas 

DC-9-30 39% 39% 

Boeing 737-5/600LR 34% McDonnell Douglas 

DC-9-50 

16% 

Boeing 737-

700/700LR 

74% 106% McDonnell Douglas 

DC-10-30 13% 

 Boeing 737-800 41% McDonnell Douglas 

DC-9 Super 

80/MD81/2/3/7/8 

20% 45% 

Boeing 747-100 80% McDonnell Douglas 

MD-11 

 25% 

Boeing 747F 69% 

(a) Each of these high-activity aircraft met the following criteria in at least one year of the study period: 1) the 

aircraft model accounted for more than 4% of the total annual LTOs. 2) the variance of the NOx emission 

factor, associated with the different aircraft engine options, was greater than 10%, and 3) the aircraft was 

equipped with an engine covered by ICAO provisions. 

The weighted emissions approach assumes that all aircraft of the same model and series 

have similar types of operations and utilization rates. Summary data used to develop the 

weighted emission factors are presented in Appendix E. Although this approach is a refinement 

over using a single engine to estimate aircraft model emissions, it may not be representative of 

the fleet profile at an individual airport. Additionally, this approach does not specifically 

account for high-emitter aircraft that have low LTOs. Such aircraft are not considered a highactivity aircraft, but may have a significant impact on air quality because they are equipped 

with older engines that may emit more pollutants. 
2-6 

To evaluate this approach’s degree of improvement upon emission estimates, the 

weighted NOx emission factors were compared to the NOx emission factor associated with the 

most popular engine; these data are presented in Appendix C. The NOx difference ranged from 

zero to 33 percent, with the largest differences noted for the domestic Airbus 320-100/200 

(209 percent in 2000). In 2000, according to Ascend, six of the 233 operational Airbus 320 

aircraft were equipped with a United Technologies PW4168A, whose NOx emission rate 

13.9 kg/LTO is much higher than dominate engine used at the time (i.e., 5.4 kg/LTO 

International Aero Engine V2527-A5). See Appendix D for details on engine NOx emission 

variance. 

The first set of input files created for the EDMS run were developed to provide national 

emission estimates that did not differentiate between airports. For this analysis, all annual 

activity was aggregated by aircraft make and model and processed at a hypothetical airport 

based on FAA default values. This approach allowed the mixing height, temperature, and the 

taxi time-in-modes to be held constant (taxi in and out times for each aircraft were set at 7 and 

9 minutes respectively (16 minutes total, which was the default value used in the EPA’s 

National Emission Inventory)). Note that all EDMS modeling used the performance mode, 

which varies aircraft approach and take-off and climb-out modes according to an individual 

aircraft design and engine characteristics. 

Emissions were developed for both aircraft equipped with and without engines covered 

by ICAO gaseous emissions provisions. ICAO provisions do not cover gaseous emissions from 

aircraft with turbofan engines less than or equal to 26.7 kilonewtons of thrust or turboprop and 

piston-engines.15 

This study is an investigation into annual NOx inventories for commercial aircraft 

covered by the provisions of ICAO, therefore the aircraft equipped engines not covered by ICAO 

were removed from the dataset and handled separately. Emissions associated with engines not 

covered by ICAO gaseous emissions provisions were developed using the EDMS model and 

embedded assumptions such as mixing height and individual aircraft-engine modes as described 

above. 

Output from EDMS was grouped into appropriate aircraft categories for further 

evaluation. These aircraft categories roughly match general industry groupings. Initially aircraft 

were split into narrow- and wide-body categories. Narrow-body aircraft were assumed to have 

single aisle configuration in the passenger compartment (e.g., Airbus A319 and Boeing 737-

300), while wide-body aircraft were assumed to have a dual aisle configuration (e.g., Boeing 

767-300 and McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30). Aircraft were further grouped into those equipped 

with two, three, and four engines. Given the growth in regional aircraft activities, a separate 

group was developed of regional jet aircraft equipped with two engines and having less than 

100 passenger seats (e.g., Canadair RJ-700 and Embraer-145). All categories were further 

disaggregated into aircraft equipped with engines covered by and not covered by ICAO 

provisions. Also aircraft equipped with turbo props were separated from aircraft equipped with 

turbofan engines. The T-100 data did not include any piston driven aircraft. Piston engines are 

 

15 As stated earlier, emissions were calculated for engines found on aircraft in the T-100 database which did not 

include aircraft equipped with piston engines. 
2-7 

common to small general aviation aircraft. General aviation does not generate revenue from their 

activities and are therefore excluded from T-100; their activities are captured by TAF and 5010 

data. Emissions from aircraft equipped with piston engines are discussed in Section 2.4. 

Note that use of a single (hypothetical) airport approach will provide a useful estimate of 

national emissions, which was considered appropriate to evaluate the performance that the ICAO 

provisions have had over the study period. Actual aircraft and emissions at individual airports 

may not follow national trends and may be significantly different than the national average. To 

investigate trends on a smaller scale, historical emissions for airports in a select number of nonattainment areas were also developed and are discussed in the next section. 

2.2 Non-attainment Area Approach for Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by 

ICAO Provisions and Included in the T-100 Dataset 

Commercial service aircraft emissions inventories were analyzed for criteria pollutant 

non-attainment areas (NAA) where airports had either: 1) high commercial service, 2) large 

human population nearby, or 3) high percent aircraft emission relative to the total inventory, 

leading to a list of 42 NAA, as listed in Table 2-4. Collectively these 42 NAAs include 201 

airports that account for 73 percent of commercial air traffic as reported in the T-100 data set and 

are included in the project data files associated with this project. A list of airports in each 

identified NAA are provided in Appendix H. 

Table 2-4. List of Non-attainment Areas Includeda 

State Non-attainment Area Name

AK Anchorage

AZ Phoenix-Mesa

CA Lake Tahoe South Shore

CA Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin

CA Riverside Co.

CA Sacramento Metro

CA San Diego

CA San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose

CA San Joaquin Valley

CO Aspen

CO Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft Collins-Love

CT Greater Connecticut; Hartford-New Britain-Middletown

DC-MD-VA Washington

GA Atlanta

IL-IN Chicago-Gary-Lake County

 
2-8 

Table 2-4. List of Non-attainment Areas Includeda (Cont.) 

State Non-attainment Area Name

IN Indianapolis

KY-IN Louisville

MD Baltimore

MA Boston-Lawrence-Worcester

MI Detroit-Ann Arbor

MN Minneapolis-St. Paul

MO-IL St. Louis

NC-SC Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill

NC Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill

NH Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth; Manchester

NM Albuquerque

NV Las Vegas; Clark County

NV Reno; Washoe County

NY-NJ-CT New York City

NY Syracuse

OH-KY-IN Cincinnati-Hamilton

OH Cleveland-Akron-Lorain

PA-NY-MD-DE Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City

PA Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

RI Providence (All RI)

TN-AR Memphis

TX Dallas-Fort Worth

TX El Paso

TX Houston-Galveston-Brazoria

UT Salt Lake City

WA Seattle-Tacoma

WI Milwaukee-Racine

a

 Please note that the non-attainment status of areas changes over time. This list represents a 2010 snapshot only 

for purposes of this report. 

To estimate emissions for airports located in the 42 identified areas, input files were 

compiled and applied to the EDMS using the 2008 T-100 data. The approach used for the NAA 

portion of this study is slightly different from the national approach because taxi times collected 

for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) online database TranStats16 were used for each 

airport included in the selected NAAs. Departure and arrival performance data are available by 

airport from 1995 forward. For years prior to 1995, a national average of taxi times was used. 

The data show that taxi times were often higher than 16-minutes and varied year-to-year and 

airport-to-airport. As an example of the significant difference in taxi times, data for two airports 

is provided in Appendix F. 

Except for the taxi time adjustment, the emission estimating procedures for each airport 

included in the non-attainment area were the same as that described for the national emission 

estimates. 

 

16 http://www.transtats.bts.gov/
2-9 

2.3 Assessment of Non-Commercial Aircraft in the TAF/5010 Dataset Equipped with 

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions 

Some of the aircraft equipped with engines covered by ICAO gaseous emissions 

provisions are included in the TAF and 5010 data and are not in the T-100 data since they are not 

directly involved in commercial air carrier activities. In this study, these aircraft are referred to as 

non-air carrier aircraft equipped with engines covered by ICAO provisions. 

The TAF and 5010 data do not differentiate aircraft make/model and engine 

configuration, therefore it was necessary to quantify the makeup of the fleet of non-air carrier 

aircraft covered by ICAO provisions using 2008 FAA aircraft registration data. Aircraft that 

could be identified in the registration data as being part of the commercial air carrier fleet, 

charter fleet or licensed to a broker were removed from the dataset. Based on the registration 

data, if the aircraft was equipped with an engine that had a thrust rating greater than 27.6 kN, 

then it was retained in the non-air carrier aircraft covered by ICAO provisions dataset. Since the 

FAA aircraft registry data does not quantify annual operations, these aircraft were assumed to 

have a level of activity similar to other aircraft involved in general aviation based on the 2008 

GAATA survey. This LTO activity level was assigned to each aircraft included in the dataset of 

non-air carrier aircraft equipped with engines covered by ICAO provisions and applied to EDMS 

to estimate national 2008 emissions. Note that using the aircraft registration data it is not possible 

to identify where these non-air carrier aircraft operate. Therefore, only national estimates could 

be developed. 

To avoid double counting of the aircraft in the dataset of non-air carrier aircraft equipped 

with engines covered by ICAO provisions with the TAF and 5010 data, it was necessary to 

exclude these aircraft LTOs from the TAF and 5010 data and those remaining LTOs represent 

activity levels for aircraft that are not equipped with engines covered by ICAO gaseous 

emissions provisions. 

The estimated census of these aircraft, their activity, fuel consumption and emissions are 

discussed in greater detail in Appendix I. This assessment quantified that emissions from these 

non-air carrier aircraft equipped with engines covered by ICAO provisions accounted for only 

two to four percent of total aircraft emissions (depending upon pollutant). These results are 

summarized in Table 3-20. 

2.4 Aircraft Not Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions (TAF/5010 

Aircraft Activity 

In order to develop a complete picture of aircraft activities and to put in perspective the 

emissions associated with aircraft equipped with engines that meet the ICAO gaseous emissions 

provisions, it was necessary to evaluate emissions of aircraft not equipped with engines covered 

by ICAO gaseous emissions provisions. To account for these aircraft, aviation traffic associated 

with smaller aircraft with turbofan engines that have a thrust less than or equal to 

26.7 kilonewtons were evaluated. These aircraft are used in air taxi and general aviation 

applications and may not be included in the T-100 data. To account for these smaller jet powered 

aircraft, 2008 air taxi and general aviation LTOs were obtained from the 2008 aircraft 

component of the National Emission Inventory. That information was derived from the FAA’s 
2-10 

Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) and Airport Master Plan (5010) data and split into piston and jet 

powered aircraft using data from the FAA’s GAATA. 

The TAF and 5010 data for air carrier and air taxi operations were compared to the T-100 

dataset to account for duplicates. This was done by summing the T-100 data by aircraft type as 

defined by the FAA and included in the aircraft crosswalk table developed for this project (see 

Appendix G) and comparing them with the TAF and 5010 data for individual airports. Where the 

LTOs in TAF and 5010 were equal to or less than those reported in the T-100 data, then the 

T-100 data were used. Where the LTOs in the TAF and 5010 data were greater than the T-100 

values, the T-100 LTOs were subtracted from the TAF and 5010 values to avoid double 

counting. 

The TAF and 5010 data are not provided by aircraft make and model, instead they are 

presented as activity in generic terms of aircraft types (e.g., air taxis and general aviation). In 

order to estimate emissions for these general categories, the generic emission factors for VOC, 

CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5 and SOx (as SO2) were taken from the EPA’s National Emission 

Inventory report 17and applied to the adjusted TAF and 5010 LTO dataset described above. 

2.5 Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) 

APUs are small turbine engines that tend to be located in the back of the aircraft. APUs 

provide power for engine start up, but also generate energy for the cabin, ventilation, hydraulics 

and pre-flight system checks during periods when the main engines are not operating. 

In EDMS each aircraft is matched with the appropriate APU. EDMS calculates APU 

emission estimates based on aircraft LTOs activities. These emission estimates were compiled 

from the EDMS output for the 2008 runs and are summarized at the national level in Table 3-16 

and by non-attainment area in Table 3-17. In general, APU emissions account for roughly 

three percent of total aircraft emissions. This relatively small value is considered reasonable 

given the low power of the engines and the short period of time they operate. Note that a 

growing number of airports are reducing APU operations by providing gate power and 

ventilation to aircraft while docked at the terminals, this allows the APUs to be shut off during 

passenger boarding and departure of aircraft. This evaluation did not take into consideration 

these emission reduction measures, so actual emissions may be less. 

 

17 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/nei08_alm_popup.html 
3-1 

3.0 RESULTS 

3.1 National-level Assessment Aircraft Equipped with ICAO Certified Engines 

Included in the T-100 Dataset 

Over the study period, aircraft traffic varied from year-to-year, but there was a general 

increase in LTO activity of approximately 50 percent as shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1. 

Over the study period, LTO fuel consumption increased by only 37%. At the national level, only 

NOx emissions increased significantly; increases in NOx emissions were not proportional to 

increases in LTOs for the study period: LTOs increased by 50 percent, while NOx emissions 

increased by 28 percent. Other pollutants decreased during the study period. The significant 

reductions in VOC, THC, and total organic gases (TOG) can likely be attributed to more 

complete combustion as engine efficiency improves. 

Table 3-1. National Activity (LTOs), Fuel Consumption, and Emissions for Commercial 

Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 

Dataset (metric ton) 

Year LTO Fuel CO THC VOC TOG NOX SOX PM2.5

a

1986 5,874,316 6,816,452 74,353 29,613 34,061 34,240 68,754 8,807 2,504

1987 6,206,370 7,112,409 75,225 29,548 33,986 34,165 72,540 9,189 2,257

1988 6,202,985 7,054,137 74,057 28,311 32,563 32,734 72,967 9,114 2,222

1989 6,125,675 6,970,700 75,224 29,523 33,958 34,136 73,482 9,006 2,346

1990 6,045,322 6,673,942 67,379 23,835 27,415 27,559 71,438 8,623 1,961

1991 5,733,914 6,259,928 60,743 19,919 22,911 23,031 68,156 8,088 1,793

1992 5,808,380 6,328,411 61,655 20,202 23,236 23,358 69,777 8,176 1,823

1993 5,861,193 6,300,469 54,743 14,254 16,395 16,481 70,788 8,140 1,631

1994 6,119,188 6,461,585 61,664 18,272 21,016 21,127 71,700 8,348 1,770

1995 6,203,165 6,486,013 61,177 17,832 20,511 20,618 71,829 8,380 1,733

1996 6,251,732 6,528,713 61,870 17,480 20,106 20,212 73,000 8,435 1,727

1997 6,372,166 6,658,898 60,982 15,902 18,290 18,386 75,136 8,603 1,716

1998 6,432,611 6,654,759 60,404 14,819 17,044 17,134 75,968 8,598 1,669

1999 6,796,307 6,866,667 64,243 13,249 15,239 15,319 77,130 8,872 1,456

2000 7,281,089 7,087,654 63,062 10,335 11,888 11,950 80,401 9,157 1,324

2001 7,129,475 6,718,712 59,725 9,712 11,171 11,230 77,845 8,681 1,236

2002 7,294,559 6,587,966 58,166 8,721 10,031 10,084 79,401 8,512 1,173

2003 8,360,221 7,169,167 64,382 10,287 11,832 11,894 88,221 9,263 1,338

2004 9,045,669 7,463,913 65,632 10,153 11,678 11,739 92,290 9,643 1,354

2005 9,314,957 7,543,544 65,631 9,821 11,296 11,356 93,475 9,746 1,289

2006 9,067,032 7,303,603 62,877 9,207 10,590 10,646 91,120 9,436 1,214

2007 9,215,727 7,352,405 64,669 9,427 10,843 10,900 92,727 9,499 1,245

2008 8,786,186 6,990,724 62,790 9,636 11,083 11,141 88,071 9,032 1,261

Change Over 

Period (%) 50% 3% -16% -67% -67% -67% 28% 3% -50%

Where LTO = landing and take-off, CO = carbon monoxide, THC = total hydrocarbon, VOC = volatile organic 

compounds, TOG = total organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxide, SOx = sulfur dioxide, PM = particulate matter. 

a

 EDMS calculates both PM2.5 and PM10, because these values are identical only PM2.5 is shown.
3-2 

Figure 3-1. National LTOs (million) and NOx Emissions (kg/LTO and kg) for Commercial 

Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 

Dataset, Total Fleet 

3.2 Normalized Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data for Commercial Aircraft 

Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions Included in the T-100 Dataset 

EDMS output was normalized in terms of LTOs and fuel consumption to assess aircraft 

emission changes—independent of changes in aircraft activity. Results show that in aggregate, 

normalized fuel consumption rates for LTOs have declined 31 percent over time for engines 

covered by ICAO gaseous emissions provisions (see Table 3-2 and Figure 3-2). All pollutant 

emission rates (per LTO) varied from year-to-year, generally declining over the study period, as 

shown in Table 3-2. For example, normalized NOx emissions remained relatively stable from 

1986 to 1998 at around 12 kg per LTO as shown in Figure 3-1, which was followed by a gradual 

decline until 2005 when it held at 10 kg per LTO. 
3-3 

Table 3-2. National Average Fuel Consumption and Average Emissions Normalized with 

Respect to Activity (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by 

ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset 

Year Fuel CO THC VOC TOG NOX SOX PM 25 

1986 1,160 12.7 5.04 5.80 5.83 11.70 1.50 0.43

1987 1,146 12.1 4.76 5.48 5.50 11.69 1.48 0.36

1988 1,137 11.9 4.56 5.25 5.28 11.76 1.47 0.36

1989 1,138 12.3 4.82 5.54 5.57 12.00 1.47 0.38

1990 1,104 11.1 3.94 4.53 4.56 11.82 1.43 0.32

1991 1,092 10.59 3.47 4.00 4.02 11.89 1.41 0.31

1992 1,090 10.61 3.48 4.00 4.02 12.01 1.41 0.31

1993 1,075 9.34 2.43 2.80 2.81 12.08 1.39 0.28

1994 1,056 10.08 2.99 3.43 3.45 11.72 1.36 0.29

1995 1,046 9.86 2.87 3.31 3.32 11.58 1.35 0.28

1996 1,044 9.90 2.80 3.22 3.23 11.68 1.35 0.28

1997 1,045 9.57 2.50 2.87 2.89 11.79 1.35 0.27

1998 1,035 9.39 2.30 2.65 2.66 11.81 1.34 0.26

1999 1,010 9.45 1.95 2.24 2.25 11.35 1.31 0.21

2000 973 8.66 1.42 1.63 1.64 11.04 1.26 0.18

2001 942 8.38 1.36 1.57 1.58 10.92 1.22 0.17

2002 903 7.97 1.20 1.38 1.38 10.88 1.17 0.16

2003 858 7.70 1.23 1.42 1.42 10.55 1.11 0.16

2004 825 7.26 1.12 1.29 1.30 10.20 1.07 0.15

2005 810 7.05 1.05 1.21 1.22 10.03 1.05 0.14

2006 806 6.93 1.02 1.17 1.17 10.05 1.04 0.13

2007 798 7.02 1.02 1.18 1.18 10.06 1.03 0.14

2008 796 7.15 1.10 1.26 1.27 10.02 1.03 0.14

Change Over 

Period (%) -31% -44% -78% -78% -78% -14% -31% -66%

EDMS calculates both PM2.5 and PM10, because these values are identical only PM2.5 is shown.
3-4 

Figure 3-2. National Average Fuel Consumption Normalized with Respect to Activity 

(liters/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO 

Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Total Fleet 

 
3-5 

3.2.1 Emissions and Fuel Consumption by Aircraft Categories for Commercial Aircraft 

Equipped with Engines Covered by the ICAO Provisions Included in the T-100 Dataset 

Total U.S. LTOs for aircraft with engines covered by the ICAO gaseous emissions 

provisions increased approximately 50 percent since 1986, while NOx emissions increased 

approximately 28 percent during that same timeframe (see Table 3-2 for other pollutant trends on 

a normalized basis). Figure 3-3 below shows the study period historical trends in annual NOx

emissions, LTOs, and NOx emissions per LTO for commercial aircraft operations. 

LTO Activity, By Aircraft Group 

The impact of changes in the U.S. fleet on historical annual NOx emissions for 

commercial aircraft operations was further investigated. Because the emission estimates were 

developed for individual aircraft models, it was possible to assess whether the normalized 

emission trends noted in Table 3-2 occurred equally across all aircraft categories. In order to 

evaluate this question, LTO trends over time were evaluated for each aircraft category. As 

indicated in Figures 3-3 (high activity (greater than 1 million LTOs) commercial aircraft groups) 

and 3-4 (low activity (less than 1 million LTOs) commercial aircraft groups), activity between 

the different aircraft categories varied significantly over time. 

Regional aircraft equipped with turbofan engines covered by ICAO gaseous emissions 

provisions increased from eight percent of annual LTOs in 1986 to 31 percent in 2008 as shown 

in Table 3-4. A significant increase in activity in 2001/2002 may be due to the fleet restructuring 

that occurred when air travel declined after September 2001. Regional aircraft equipped with 

turboprop engines (i.e., not covered by ICAO gaseous emissions provisions) had a relatively 

constant growth from 1986 to 1996 when they peaked at 19 percent of the LTOs. Figure 3-5 

shows that LTOs associated with regional jets increased while those from the traditional wideand narrow-body aircraft had modest increases over time. 
3-6 

Figure 3-3. National LTOs (million) for High Activity Commercial Aircraft, Included in the 

T-100 Dataset (Narrow-Body 2 Engine, Narrow-Body 3 Engine, Regional 2 Engine 

Turboprop, Regional 2 Engine Turbojet) [Refers to Table 3-3] 
3-7 

Figure 3-4. National LTOs (million) for Low Activity Commercial Aircraft Included in the 

T-100 Dataset (Wide-Body 2, 3, and 4 Engine, Narrow-Body 4 Engine, Regional 4 Engine 

Turbojet, Regional 4 Engine Turboprop, 4 Engine Turboprop, Regional 1 Engine 

Turbojet, Regional 1 Engine Turboprop) [Refers to Table 3-3] 
3-8 

Figure 3-5. National LTOs (million) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines 

Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by Aircraft Type 

[Refers to Table 3-4] 
3-9 

Table 3-3. National LTOs (million) for Commercial Aircraft, Included in the T-100 Data

Group/Engine

a Regulated 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2

Narrow-Body 2 ICAO 2.79 3.09 3.25 3.41 3.69 3.73 3.89 4.08 4.45 4.58 4.66 4.79 4.73 5.02 5.25 5.17 5.06 4Narrow-Body 3 ICAO 1.94 1.87 1.77 1.58 1.38 1.16 1.03 0.89 0.76 0.70 0.66 0.65 0.63 0.57 0.48 0.33 0.13 0Narrow-Body 4 ICAO 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0Regional 1 ICAO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 0Regional 2 ICAO 0.40 0.41 0.36 0.31 0.30 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.37 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.49 0.58 0.89 1.01 1.43 2Regional 4 ICAO 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.11 0Wide-Body 2 ICAO 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.32 0.36 0Wide-Body 3 ICAO 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.24 0.22 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.07 0Wide-Body 4 ICAO 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0Wide-Body 6 ICAO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0Regional 1 non-ICAO - - - - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.11 0Regional 2 non-ICAO 0.45 0.39 0.43 0.49 0.42 0.61 0.74 0.84 0.86 1.32 1.43 1.27 1.32 1.27 1.36 1.03 1.15 Regional 3 non-ICAO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0Regional 4 non-ICAO 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - Turboprop 4 non-ICAO 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0ALL - 6.38 6.68 6.71 6.69 6.49 6.35 6.56 6.71 6.98 7.52 7.69 7.65 7.75 8.06 8.66 8.15 8.55 10ALL Regulated - 5.87 6.21 6.20 6.13 6.05 5.73 5.81 5.86 6.12 6.20 6.25 6.37 6.43 6.80 7.27 7.12 7.29 8

a Engines are turbofan unless otherwise noted. Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is a wide-body aircraft equipped wi

Narrow-body 4 engine aircraft include the Boeing 707 and McDonnell Douglas DC-8. For additional details on aircraft models and category ass
3-10 

Table 3-4. National LTOs (Percent of Total) for Commercial Aircraft, Included in the T-100 

Group/Enginea 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Narrow-Body 2 (ICAO) 44% 46% 48% 51% 57% 59% 59% 61% 64% 61% 61% 63% 61% 62% 61% 63% 59% 46% Narrow-Body 3 (ICAO) 30% 28% 26% 24% 21% 18% 16% 13% 11% 9% 9% 9% 8% 7% 5% 4% 2% 1% Narrow-Body 4 (ICAO) 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 0.2% 0.3% Regional 1 (ICAO) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1% 0.3% Regional 2 (ICAO) 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 7% 10% 12% 17% 23% Regional 4 (ICAO) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Wide-Body 2 (ICAO) 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% Wide-Body 3 (ICAO) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% Wide-Body 4 (ICAO) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% Wide-Body 6 (ICAO) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1% <0.1% Regional 1 (non-ICAO) - - - - - <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 0.2% <0.1% 1% 4% Regional 2 (non-ICAO) 7% 6% 6% 7% 7% 10% 11% 12% 12% 18% 19% 17% 17% 16% 16% 13% 13% 18% Regional 3 (non-ICAO) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1% Regional 4 (non-ICAO) 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% - Turboprop 4 (non-ICAO) 0.5% 1% 1% 1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 0.1% ALL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ALL Regulated 92% 93% 92% 92% 93% 90% 89% 87% 88% 82% 81% 83% 83% 84% 84% 87% 85% 78% 

a Engines are turbofan unless otherwise noted. Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is a wide-body aircraft equipped wi

Narrow-body 4 engine aircraft include the Boeing 707 and McDonnell Douglas DC-8. For additional details on aircraft models and category ass
3-11 

Narrow-body two-engine aircraft represented approximately 44 percent of LTOs in 1986, 

reaching a peak in the later 1990s and 2001 of 63 percent and then declined around 2005 to 

46 percent of LTOs, which was maintained through 2008. Collectively, regional turbofan aircraft 

and narrow-body two-engine aircraft represent around 77 percent of LTO activities, compared to 

1986, when these two aircraft categories collectively accounted for approximately 52 percent of 

LTO activities. 

Conversely, narrow-body aircraft equipped with three engines have consistently declined 

in activity, accounting for 30 percent of LTO activities in 1986, declining to around one percent 

from 2003 to 2008. Also the larger wide-body aircraft (three and four engines) show a historical 

decline in LTO activities from six percent in 1986 to two percent in 2008; except for the twoengine wide-body aircraft, which remains around two to four percent of LTOs throughout the 

study period.

NOx Emissions Inventory, By Aircraft Group 

By disaggregating the normalized emissions into aircraft categories, NOx emissions 

trends between aircraft types can be discerned as shown in Tables 3-5 and 3-6 and Figure 3-6; 

note that emissions were normalized relative to LTOs. NOx emissions for narrow-body aircraft 

equipped with two engines dominate all historical years (Tables 3-4 and 3-5). Note that their 

NOx contributions (Table 3-6) were less than their share of the LTOs (Table 3-4) during the 

period from 1986 to 1994. From 2000 to 2008 the NOx contributions associated with narrowbody two engined aircraft were larger than their share of the LTOs. Note also that after 2002, 

narrow-body two-engine aircraft’s share of the LTOs declined to less than 50 percent, but 

accounted for approximately 55 percent of the NOx emissions. Aggregating the kg NOx/LTO 

data into regional versus non-regional aircraft, Figure E-4 shows that traditional wide-/narrowbody aircraft emissions increased by 9 percent, while emissions from regional jets decreased by 

32 percent. 
3-12 

Table 3-5. National Emission (metric ton) for Commercial Aircraft Included in the T-100 D

Group/Engine

a 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Narrow-Body 2 (ICAO) 26,049 29,224 30,910 32,574 35,727 36,178 38,322 40,604 44,161 45,346 46,410 47,941 47,504 48,140 51,041 50,788 50,950 50,43Narrow-Body 3 (ICAO) 14,761 14,240 13,477 12,024 10,683 9,008 8,089 7,072 6,063 5,667 5,316 5,261 5,086 4,627 3,856 2,632 1,044 1,15Narrow-Body 4 (ICAO) 2,136 2,533 2,249 2,784 880 527 403 387 366 372 357 331 278 236 158 92 285 65Regional 1 (ICAO) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 1,77Regional 2 (ICAO) 2,652 2,739 2,395 2,027 1,974 1,537 1,545 1,572 1,808 1,919 1,887 1,730 2,324 2,372 3,473 3,790 5,265 8,89Regional 4 (ICAO) 615 807 808 741 671 363 295 263 231 247 316 328 404 571 673 689 637 59Wide-Body 2 (ICAO) 3,801 3,843 4,293 4,246 4,079 3,934 4,530 4,680 4,899 4,529 4,880 5,349 5,837 6,873 8,032 9,139 9,986 11,27Wide-Body 3 (ICAO) 10,906 11,247 11,018 10,252 9,686 9,388 9,797 9,337 7,084 6,574 6,441 6,395 6,241 5,360 4,616 3,246 3,335 5,07Wide-Body 4 (ICAO) 7,834 7,907 7,817 8,833 7,739 7,222 6,795 6,874 7,088 7,175 7,393 7,801 8,295 8,952 8,552 7,470 7,560 8,35Wide-Body 6 (ICAO) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Regional 1 (non-ICAO) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 17 7Regional 2 (non-ICAO) 201 173 183 233 244 378 499 563 659 981 1,047 980 1,045 967 978 848 865 1,25Regional 3 (non-ICAO) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Regional 4 (non-ICAO) 27 28 32 29 23 14 12 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turboprop 4 (non-ICAO) 77 158 140 149 5 4 6 7 9 10 10 10 10 8 8 2 9 1ALL 69,060 72,899 73,321 73,893 71,710 68,553 70,295 71,371 72,373 72,820 74,057 76,127 77,023 78,105 81,388 78,696 80,291 89,55ALL Regulated 68,754 72,540 72,967 73,482 71,438 68,156 69,777 70,788 71,700 71,829 73,000 75,136 75,968 77,130 80,401 77,845 79,401 88,22

a Engines are turbofan unless otherwise noted. Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is a wide-body aircraft equipped wi
3-13 

Table 3-6. National Emission (Percent of Total) for Commercial Aircraft Included in the T-10

Group/Engine

a 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Narrow-Body 2 (ICAO) 38% 40% 42% 44% 50% 53% 55% 57% 61% 62% 63% 63% 62% 62% 63% 65% 63% 56% Narrow-Body 3 (ICAO) 21% 20% 18% 16% 15% 13% 12% 10% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 6% 5% 3% 1% 1% Narrow-Body 4 (ICAO) 3% 3% 3% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 1% Regional 1 (ICAO) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.4% 2% Regional 2 (ICAO) 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 4% 5% 7% 10% Regional 4 (ICAO) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Wide-Body 2 (ICAO) 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 6% 7% 7% 8% 9% 10% 12% 12% 13% Wide-Body 3 (ICAO) 16% 15% 15% 14% 14% 14% 14% 13% 10% 9% 9% 8% 8% 7% 6% 4% 4% 6% Wide-Body 4 (ICAO) 11% 11% 11% 12% 11% 11% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% 11% 9% 9% 9% Wide-Body 6 (ICAO) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1% <0.1% Regional 1 (non-ICAO) - - - - - <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% Regional 2 (non-ICAO) 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Regional 3 (non-ICAO) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1% Regional 4 (non-ICAO) <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% - Turboprop 4 (non-ICAO) 0% 0% 0% 0% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% ALL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ALL Regulated 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

a Engines are turbofan unless otherwise noted. Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is a wide-body aircraft equipped wi
3-14 

Narrow-body aircraft equipped with three engines generally had proportionally lower 

emissions relative to their share of the LTOs from 1986 to about 2001, after which time they 

contributed about the same percentage of total NOx emissions relative to their share of the LTOs. 

Wide-body aircraft generally had the highest NOx emissions relative to their share of 

LTOs. For example, in 1986, wide-body three-engine aircraft accounted for 16 percent of the 

NOx, but only four percent of the LTOs (Table 3-4). This situation remained until around 1995 

when their share of the LTOs declined to two percent, but accounted for nine percent of the NOx

emissions. Similarly wide-body two-engine aircraft consistently accounted for 11 to 13 percent 

of NOx from 2001 to 2008, while representing only four percent of the LTOs. Note that although 

the wide-body four-engine aircraft have the highest emission rates, they had an 22 percent 

decline in the emission rate over the study period, as shown in Table 3-7 and Figure 3-6. Note, 

the intent of this study is to evaluate engine emission performance for the duration of the study 

period, therefore impacts relative to the volume of passengers or freight carried were not 

considered in this assessment. 

Regional aircraft consistently have a disproportionately lower NOx contribution relative 

their share of the LTOs. The growth in activity of these lower emitting aircraft appears to be 

compensating for the higher emission trends of the larger aircraft. These aircraft, along with two 

engine jets and turboprops not covered by ICAO gaseous emissions provisions tend to have the 

lowest emissions in terms of LTOs. 

Table 3-7 and Figures 3-6 and 3-7 show the NOx emission rate (kg/LTO) trends over the 

study period. Three aircraft groups’ emission rates decreased over time: regional two engine 

aircraft, wide-body four engine, and aircraft equipped with four turboprops. In 2008, these 

aircraft groups had 31, 1 and less than one percent of the fleet activity respectively. The dramatic 

increase in regional jet activity is discussed earlier in this section. While activity for these aircraft 

have increased, they are associated with significantly lower NOx emission rates relative other 

non-regional jets noted in Figure E-4. Although regional jet emission rates decreased, the total 

contribution of NOx emissions (metric ton) from regional aircraft has increased. Figure 3-8 

shows the total emissions for regional jets compared to wide- and narrow-body aircraft. Regional 

jet NOx emissions increased by 433 percent over the study period, and wide-/narrow-body NOx

emissions inventory increased by 13 percent. 

Emission Benefits from Last Round of the ICAO NOx Standards (from 2014 to 2030) 

In addition to assessing the effect that past ICAO NOx standards have had on reducing 

LTO NOx emissions (from 1986 to 2008) from commercial aircraft, the EPA is evaluating the 

LTO NOx emission reductions in the U.S. from the last round of the ICAO NOx standards. CAEP 

adopted these additional NOx standards at their 8th meeting in February 2010 (CAEP/8 meeting), 

and as described earlier, currently the EPA is conducting a rulemaking to adopt standards 

equivalent to the CAEP/8 NOx standards. CAEP’s assessments indicated that the CAEP/8 NOx

standards would provide global NOx reductions, which would translate to emission reductions in 
3-15 

the U.S. The global LTO NOx reductions were estimated to be about 5.5 percent in 2026 and 

7 percent in 2036 relative to the baseline.18 

For comparable percent NOx reductions in the U.S., we estimated the percent and 

absolute LTO NOx inventory reductions in the U.S. for the years 2020 and 2030. To evaluate 

these reductions, we first projected the 2008 national emissions for aircraft equipped with 

engines covered by ICAO provisions included in the T-100 dataset (see Table 3-1 for the 2008 

LTO NOx emissions for these aircraft, which is 88,071 metric tons) to 2020 and 2030 by utilizing 

the forecast of operations (or LTOs) from the December 2009 TAF -- for air carrier and air taxi 

categories of aircraft. From years 2008 to 2020, LTO NOx emissions were projected to increase 

by about 17 percent to 102,621 metric tons, and from years 2008 to 2030, LTO NOx emissions 

were forecast to grow by 46 percent to 128,792 metric tons. Second, for the CAEP global percent 

NOx reductions described above for years 2026 and 2036, we estimated the percent and 

subsequent absolute reductions of the U.S. LTO NOx for 2020 and 2030 by linear interpolation. 

This estimation would translate to LTO NOx reductions in the U.S. of about 4.5 percent or 

5,200 tons in 2020 and about 6 percent or 8,700 tons in 2030. The cumulative LTO NOx

reductions from 2014 to 2030 (2014 is the implementation date of the CAEP/8 NOx standards) 

were projected to be about 100,000 NOx tons. 

 

18 CAEP Rapporteurs of Modeling Task Force and Forecasting and Economic Analysis Support Group, 

Environmental and Economic Assessment of the NOx Stringency Scenarios, CAEP/8-WP/15, December 2, 2009. 
3-16 

Table 3-7. National Average NOx Emissions (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft, Included in the T

Group/Enginea Regulated 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 200

Narrow-Body 2 ICAO 9.3 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.6 9.7 9.8 10.1 10Narrow-Body 3 ICAO 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 7Narrow-Body 4 ICAO 19.3 18.9 19.2 18.8 20.2 18.7 17.5 19.0 18.2 18.0 17.1 17.7 19.2 20.6 22.6 17.7 19.8 19Regional 1 ICAO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 58.8 58Regional 2 ICAO 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.5 6.6 5.7 5.3 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.8 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.7 3Regional 4 ICAO 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5Wide-Body 2 ICAO 25.9 22.9 22.4 22.4 22.6 22.7 24.4 23.4 23.8 23.6 24.5 25.3 26.4 26.7 27.1 28.7 27.9 27Wide-Body 3 ICAO 39.3 39.8 40.9 41.2 41.3 42.6 41.4 43.0 38.4 37.9 37.9 38.7 40.1 40.2 42.1 44.6 49.2 51Wide-Body 4 ICAO 78.1 76.1 74.6 76.8 77.1 77.7 73.8 73.1 71.2 71.0 70.3 69.7 69.5 68.5 66.2 64.7 64.3 65Wide-Body 6 ICAO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 168 16Regional 1 non-ICAO - - - - - 0.04 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0Regional 2 non-ICAO 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0Regional 3 non-ICAO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1Regional 4 non-ICAO 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 - Turboprop 4 non-ICAO 2.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.7 3.1 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.2 1.5 0.4 1.4 1ALL - 10.8 10.9 10.9 11.0 11.0 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.4 9.7 9.6 9.9 9.9 9.7 9.4 9.6 9.4 8ALL Regulated - 11.7 11.7 11.8 12.0 11.8 11.9 12.0 12.1 11.7 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.8 11.3 11.0 10.9 10.9 10

a Engines are turbofan unless otherwise noted. Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is a wide-body aircraft equipped 
3-17 

Figure 3-6. National Average NOx Emission (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped 

with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by 

Aircraft Type [Refers to Table 3-7] 

*Note: The number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is a 

wide-body aircraft equipped with four engines. These emission values are comparable to those in Table 3-7. 
3-18 

Figure 3-7. National Average NOx Emissions (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped 

with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by 

Aircraft Type 
3-19 

Figure 3-8. National NOx Emissions (metric ton) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with 

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by 

Aircraft Type [Refers to Table 3-5] 
3-20 

3.2.2 Engine Design/Operation vs. NOx Emissions for Aircraft Equipped with Engines 

Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset 

The ICAO databank19 contains information on engine exhaust emissions and normal 

operating conditions. There are two important terms that define the databanks’ reference 

conditions: 

• Thrust is the maximum thrust available for take-off under normal operating 

conditions at International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) sea level static conditions 

without the use of water injection. 

• Pressure ratio is the ratio of the mean total pressure at the last compressor 

discharge plane of the compressor to the mean total pressure at the compressor 

entry plane when the engine is developing take-off thrust rating in ISA sea level 

static conditions. 

To study changes in engine designs, engine technologies, and NOx emissions, data were 

evaluated relative to the terms and units of the ICAO provisions (i.e., grams of NOx per 

kilonewton per engine). Normalized fleet thrust profiles were generated relative to LTO activity 

and were aggregated into aircraft categories as shown in Table 3-8 and Figure 3-9. Thrust 

profiles vary from year to year, but generally increased for all aircraft types, except regional 

aircraft, for which thrust declined 19 percent for the study period. 

 

19 http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=702 
3-21 

Table 3-8. National Average Engine Thrust Normalized with Respect to Activity (kN/LTO) for Commerci

with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset (turboprop aircraft 

Group/Engine

a Regulated 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 20

Narrow-Body 2 ICAO 75.4 78.1 80.6 83.1 85.1 87.8 91.1 93.7 93.5 93.6 94.1 95.2 96.6 98.0 100 102 105 1Narrow-Body 3 ICAO 66.9 66.9 67.0 67.0 67.4 67.5 67.7 68.0 68.4 68.5 68.5 68.5 68.7 68.8 68.9 68.9 69.2 68Narrow-Body 4 ICAO 94.5 93.5 92.5 89.6 95.1 91.2 87.6 90.7 90.3 90.2 92.8 90.1 93.1 95.4 98.5 92.8 96.3 95Regional 1 ICAO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 71.2 71Regional 2 ICAO 53.4 53.5 53.2 55.2 55.0 59.5 61.0 61.8 62.0 61.5 62.1 62.1 57.8 51.5 46.5 44.3 40.9 39Regional 4 ICAO 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31Wide-Body 2 ICAO 223 220 230 231 223 237 238 241 244 247 249 256 264 241 268 278 281 2Wide-Body 3 ICAO 191 190 190 191 189 190 192 207 200 202 205 209 211 216 229 234 235 2Wide-Body 4 ICAO 216 217 221 218 222 225 225 224 224 224 224 226 226 227 228 228 225 2Wide-Body 6 ICAO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 191 1ALL Regulated 75.6 77.7 79.5 80.6 82.8 83.4 84.8 86.3 86.3 81.0 80.4 83.7 83.8 84.9 85.4 89.5 87.4 74

Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is a wide-body aircraft equipped wi
3-22 

Figure 3-9. National Average Engine Thrust Normalized with Respect to Activity (kN/LTO)) 

for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the 

T-100 Dataset, Organized by Aircraft Type [Refers to Table 3-8] 

*Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is a 

wide-body aircraft equipped with four engines. 

Next, Figure 3-10 presents NOx emissions per LTO cycle by thrust groupings; note that NOx 

emissions increase as engine thrust increases. Figure 3-10 presents NOx emissions per LTO cycle for 

three aircraft types and engine thrust groupings: regional aircraft equipped with engines with thrust 

ratings less than 89 kN, non-regional aircraft with ratings less than 89 kN, and non-regional aircraft

with thrust ratings greater than 89 kN. Figure 3-10 shows that NOx emissions (kg/LTO) from nonregional aircraft with ratings greater than 89 kN declined by 25 percent ( the data in these tables have 

not been weighted relative to activity), so larger aircraft equipped with higher thrust is not adjusted 

to account for the relatively small number of LTOs associated with these aircraft. For smaller 

aircraft, NOx emissions from non-regional aircraft with ratings less than 89 kN increased 

moderately, while NOx emissions from regional aircraft decreased over time. 

 
3-23 

Figure 3-10. National Average NOx Emission (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped 

with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by 

Aircraft Type and Thrust 

Table 3-9 presents the weighted grams of NOx per LTO per kilonewton per engine for each 

aircraft type. Over the study period, two engine regional aircraft had a 28 percent decline in NOx 

emissions (grams per LTO) per kilonewton per engine, narrow-body two engine aircraft had a 24 

percent decline, and wide body two-engine aircraft had a 16 percent decline. These three aircraft 

types account for approximately 80 percent of the air traffic in 2008. Narrow body three-engine and 

four-engine aircraft along with wide body three-engine aircraft showed an increase in NOx emissions 

per kilonewton per engine, but they collectively accounted for approximately two percent of the 

2008 LTOs. 

Looking at engine design trends, normalized engine pressure ratios for all aircraft categories 

increased during the study period, as noted in Table 3-10 and Figure 3-11. Pressure ratios for 

regional aircraft equipped with two engines covered by ICAO gaseous emissions provisions 

increased by 19 percent during the study period and narrow-body aircraft equipped with two engines 

covered by ICAO gaseous emissions provisions increased by 36 percent, indicating that aircraft are 

being equipped with engines with increasingly larger pressure ratios. 
3-24 

Table 3-9. National Average NOx Emissions per LTO Cycle/Engine-Thrust (g per LTO/kN) for Comm

Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset (turboprop airc

Group/Engine Regulated 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Narrow-Body 2 ICAO 124 121 118 115 114 111 108 106 106 106 106 105 104 97.9 96.8 96.3 95.7 Narrow-Body 3 ICAO 114 114 114 114 115 115 116 117 117 117 117 117 118 118 118 117 117 Narrow-Body 4 ICAO 205 202 207 210 212 205 200 210 202 199 184 197 206 216 229 191 205 Regional 1 ICAO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 826 Regional 2 ICAO 124 124 126 119 121 96.5 86.2 81.4 79.6 80.2 79.4 76.1 82.3 79.9 83.7 85.1 90.1 Regional 4 ICAO 182 181 181 181 183 185 186 186 187 187 186 186 186 185 185 185 185 Wide-Body 2 ICAO 116 104 97.7 96.9 101 95.6 103 97.0 97.6 95.7 98.7 99.1 100 111 101 103 99.0 Wide-Body 3 ICAO 205 209 215 216 219 225 215 208 191 188 185 185 190 186 184 191 209 Wide-Body 4 ICAO 361 351 338 352 348 345 329 326 318 317 314 308 307 301 290 284 286 Wide-Body 6 ICAO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 880 

Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is a wide-body aircraft equipped wi
3-25 

Table 3-10. National Average Engine Pressure Ratios for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines 

Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset (turboprop aircraft excluded) 

Group/Enginea Regulated 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 20

Narrow-Body 2 ICAO 17.6 18.1 18.6 19.0 19.3 19.8 20.3 20.7 20.7 20.8 20.8 21.0 21.3 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.1 2Narrow-Body 3 ICAO 16.4 16.4 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.8 1Narrow-Body 4 ICAO 20.9 20.4 19.8 18.3 19.9 17.5 14.7 15.3 15.5 15.6 16.4 15.7 16.6 17.2 18.9 19.5 20.2 2Regional 1 ICAO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17.0 1Regional 2 ICAO 16.5 16.3 16.2 16.0 15.7 15.9 16.0 16.1 16.1 16.2 16.1 16.2 16.6 17.2 17.7 17.9 18.5 1Regional 4 ICAO 12.3 12.2 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.0 12.0 12.1 12.5 12.6 12.6 12.6 1Wide-Body 2 ICAO 26.6 28.6 29.6 29.7 29.4 30.0 27.8 30.5 30.7 30.8 31.1 31.6 32.1 30.7 31.6 32.9 33.2 3Wide-Body 3 ICAO 25.4 25.4 25.5 25.4 25.2 25.3 25.6 26.8 26.1 26.2 26.5 26.7 26.9 27.1 28.0 28.1 28.7 2Wide-Body 4 ICAO 23.8 23.1 23.7 23.5 24.2 25.2 24.9 25.2 25.5 26.0 26.0 26.5 26.8 27.1 27.7 27.9 27.3 2Wide-Body 6 ICAO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.0 ALL Regulated 16.8 17.3 17.6 17.7 18.3 18.5 18.8 19.2 19.4 19.0 18.9 19.3 19.7 20.0 20.3 21.0 21.0 1

a Engines are turbofan unless otherwise noted. Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is a wide-body aircraft equipped 
3-26 

Figure 3-11. National Average Engine Pressure Ratios for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with 

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset, Organized by Aircraft 

Type [Refers to Table 3-10] 

*Note: The number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is a 

wide-body aircraft equipped with four engines. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008

Year

Normalized Pressure Ratios

wide-body, 4 wide-body, 3 wide-body, 2

narrow-body, 4 narrow-body, 3 narrow-body, 2

regional aircraft, 4 regional aircraft, 2
3-27 

3.3 Non-attainment Area (NAA) Assessment 

This study assessed whether the 42 selected NAAs followed the national LTO and NOx

emissions trends. As shown in Figure 3-1, for national commercial aircraft over the study period, 

annual NOx emissions increased 28 percent, LTOs increased approximately 50 percent, and NOx

emissions per LTO decreased 11 percent. As will be discussed below, not all 42 NAA locations 

considered in this study followed this national trend.20 Collectively these non-attainment areas 

include 201 airports and account approximately 70 percent of commercial air traffic as reported 

in the T-100 data. Each NAA was grouped according to the total number of annual LTOs. Most 

NAA include more than one airport. It is likely that LTO activities at small airports are underreported because they may primarily consist of general aviation operations that do not generate 

revenue and therefore do not trigger reporting requirements and would not be included in the 

T-100 data. 

In general, the emissions data for airports in the selected non-attainment areas can vary 

significantly from each other over time as fleet operations change from passenger to cargo 

operations or from large aircraft to smaller regional aircraft and air taxis or for broader economic 

reasons. In order to evaluate the impact aviation is having on local air quality, it is necessary to 

assess the changes in aircraft activities over time for the specific airports in the local area of 

interest, rather than extrapolate from national air traffic or emission patterns. 

Three pairs of figures and tables show results for the 42 selected NAAs. Figure 3-12 and 

Table 3-11 show annual LTOs for commercial aircraft included in the T-100 dataset; Figure 3-13 

and Table 3-12 show annual NOx emissions for commercial aircraft included in the T-100 

dataset; and Figure 3-14 and Table 3-13 show NOx emission rates for commercial aircraft 

included in the T-100 dataset. 

 

20 Annual NOx emissions increased by 28 percent, LTOs increased by 50 percent, and NOx emissions per LTO 

decreased by 11 percent. 
3-28 

Figure 3-12. Selected Non-attainment Areas LTOs for Commercial Aircraft, Included in 

the T-100 Dataset, Total Fleet [Refers to Total from Table 3-11]

Figure 3-13. Selected Non-attainment Areas NOx Emissions (kg) for Commercial Aircraft, 

Included in the T-100 Dataset, Total Fleet [Refers to Total from Table 3-12] 

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008

Year

Landing and Take-Off Cycle
3-29 

Figure 3-14. Selected Non-attainment Areas NOx Emissions (kg/LTO) for Commercial 

Aircraft, Included in the T-100 Dataset 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008

Year

NOx Emissions (kg per LTO)
3-30 

Table 3-11. Selected Non-attainment Areas LTOs (× 10,000) for Comme

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 

Albuquerque, NM 3.61 3.49 3.45 3.45 3.30 3.13 3.28 3.55 3.77 4.41 5.13 4.55 Anchorage, AK 3.43 3.51 3.61 3.99 3.50 3.35 3.60 3.38 3.42 3.28 3.69 3.83 Aspen 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.36 0.31 0.28 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Atlanta, GA 28.8 28.7 28.1 24.4 28.5 20.5 21.7 26.5 31.5 34.2 34.2 35.6 Baltimore, MD 6.49 6.84 7.59 7.80 7.37 6.75 5.77 5.96 7.77 7.40 7.13 7.22 Boston-LawrenceWorcester (eastern MA), MA 

12.0 12.8 12.7 12.5 12.0 11.4 15.2 16.4 16.3 17.7 14.5 13.3 

Boston-ManchesterPortsmouth (southeast NH), NH 

0.28 0.26 0.33 0.63 0.46 0.53 0.77 1.40 1.24 1.37 0.78 0.71 

Charlotte-GastoniaRock Hill, NC-SC 9.50 9.45 10.7 11.6 11.9 12.7 12.7 12.1 13.3 13.3 13.2 13.1 Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN 38.3 38.8 39.3 39.4 39.1 38.8 41.5 42.7 44.5 44.5 43.8 45.2 Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 3.96 6.30 6.56 6.89 6.57 6.99 7.32 7.30 7.32 8.14 9.23 9.23 Cleveland-AkronLorain, OH 6.21 6.66 7.56 7.74 8.08 6.84 6.68 6.37 7.53 9.43 11.3 12.1 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 26.4 27.3 28.4 29.8 30.6 30.8 32.3 39.2 41.0 41.8 40.8 40.4 Denver-BoulderGreeley-Fort CollinsLoveland, CO 20.1 20.4 19.0 16.7 15.0 14.7 15.6 17.3 16.3 17.1 19.0 18.3 Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI 14.4 13.9 13.7 14.9 14.1 13.5 13.9 14.4 15.1 15.9 16.6 18.9 El Paso, TX 2.22 2.59 2.62 2.79 2.80 2.75 2.69 2.84 2.93 2.97 2.75 2.61 Greater Connecticut, CT 3.92 3.25 3.38 3.24 3.11 2.95 3.48 3.29 3.24 3.67 3.67 3.46 Houston-GalvestonBrazoria, TX 15.2 16.6 16.4 16.6 16.9 16.3 17.0 17.7 18.2 23.4 24.4 25.2 Indianapolis, IN 4.74 4.45 4.58 4.98 4.55 4.50 4.59 4.05 4.31 4.26 4.20 4.41 Lake Tahoe South Shore, CA 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.03 <0.01 0.03 (a) (a) Las Vegas, NV 7.31 9.61 8.72 9.31 9.15 9.63 9.05 9.67 10.9 12.4 13.3 13.4 Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA 30.2 33.3 33.2 34.5 35.4 33.7 32.1 31.6 32.7 36.8 38.4 36.9 Louisville, KY-IN 3.48 4.03 3.63 4.13 2.07 2.01 1.94 2.04 2.56 2.74 2.76 2.91 Memphis, TN-AR 10.6 10.9 10.5 9.95 6.54 5.88 5.46 5.36 5.54 5.76 5.55 5.70 Milwaukee-Racine, WI 3.19 2.92 3.64 3.77 3.82 3.59 3.85 3.73 3.93 3.92 4.13 4.31 Minneapolis-St Paul, MN 12.1 11.4 11.3 11.7 11.2 11.3 12.2 12.9 13.3 14.1 14.7 17.1 New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 

41.1 38.7 39.8 38.3 37.7 36.6 39.6 40.3 41.3 44.6 44.7 45.0 
3-31 

Table 3-11. Selected Non-attainment Areas LTOs (× 10,000) for Commercia

Area Name 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 

PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE 

8.82 10.4 10.2 9.30 10.8 9.23 10.5 11.2 10.9 12.1 13.3 13.8 

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 11.4 13.0 13.5 14.4 14.6 14.3 14.2 14.1 15.0 17.0 19.2 18.5 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA 11.6 12.1 12.8 12.3 12.4 12.3 13.8 12.7 13.6 14.4 15.1 13.7 Providence (entire State), RI 1.42 1.35 1.41 1.40 1.66 1.60 2.20 2.15 1.92 1.94 1.78 2.25 Raleigh-DurhamChapel Hill, NC 2.94 4.72 6.41 6.41 6.46 6.19 5.97 5.81 5.06 4.23 4.27 4.30 Reno, NV 2.53 2.83 2.25 2.24 2.15 2.40 2.47 2.89 2.92 3.12 3.82 4.15 Riverside County (Coachella Valley), CA 

0.59 0.61 0.61 0.71 0.94 0.97 0.83 0.48 0.46 0.62 0.74 0.62 

Sacramento Metro, CA 2.57 2.94 3.50 3.65 3.83 3.78 3.84 3.42 3.16 3.86 3.95 4.00 Salt Lake City, UT 6.84 7.56 7.66 7.84 7.41 7.25 7.29 8.03 8.40 8.75 9.28 9.03 San Diego, CA 5.82 6.44 6.91 7.08 7.01 6.99 7.00 6.75 7.13 7.47 7.62 7.97 San Francisco Bay Area, CA 23.5 25.0 25.5 26.5 27.2 26.7 26.1 24.7 24.2 26.9 28.2 28.4 San Joaquin Valley, CA 1.22 1.40 2.13 2.66 3.31 2.82 2.27 1.25 0.61 0.84 1.08 0.72 Seattle-Tacoma, WA 9.69 11.3 11.4 12.1 12.4 14.1 14.3 13.7 13.7 15.0 15.8 15.8 St. Louis, MO-IL 16.1 14.0 14.2 14.8 13.3 15.8 17.5 18.3 20.4 22.1 22.4 22.8 Syracuse, NY 3.64 3.89 3.87 3.45 2.71 2.61 2.58 2.32 2.11 2.01 1.63 1.46 Washington, DC-MDVA 16.8 18.9 17.9 17.1 17.9 18.4 15.7 14.2 14.2 14.9 15.0 15.5 

a Lake Tahoe periods when commercial airline service (that are required to report T-100 data) was temporarily discontinued t

Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is a wide-body a
3-32 

Table 3-12. Selected Non-attainment Areas NOx Emission (kg/LTO) for Commercia

Area Name 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Albuquerque, NM 7.64 7.74 7.68 7.88 7.90 7.94 8.14 8.17 8.11 7.16 6.53 7.17 8.14 Anchorage, AK 21.0 20.6 19.6 21.6 28.4 26.6 24.5 24.3 27.6 29.5 30.4 33.9 36.4 Aspen 1.59 1.80 2.12 2.59 3.17 3.89 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.97 4.00 4.04 Atlanta, GA 12.1 12.3 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.9 13.0 12.1 10.8 10.7 11.2 11.4 11.6 Baltimore, MD 10.6 9.91 9.72 9.32 9.17 9.26 9.34 9.63 9.40 9.51 9.63 9.53 9.67 Boston-LawrenceWorcester (eastern MA), MA 

15.7 14.7 14.7 15.8 15.4 15.3 11.9 11.1 10.9 9.41 11.1 12.7 13.7 

Boston-ManchesterPortsmouth (southeast NH), NH 

4.28 8.40 8.09 8.39 8.45 8.45 5.45 2.72 3.23 3.03 4.49 6.18 6.90 

Charlotte-GastoniaRock Hill, NC-SC 8.40 8.37 8.50 8.32 8.57 8.22 8.46 8.31 8.59 8.91 9.00 8.95 8.86 Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN 13.6 14.0 13.8 13.6 13.2 13.1 12.3 12.6 11.3 11.0 11.2 11.1 11.6 Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 9.46 9.40 9.64 10.9 10.0 10.2 10.7 10.9 10.8 10.5 11.2 11.7 11.9 Cleveland-AkronLorain, OH 9.14 9.45 9.34 9.33 9.46 9.46 9.57 9.15 9.00 6.99 6.10 5.75 5.68 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 12.7 13.1 13.7 13.7 13.9 13.5 13.5 11.0 9.55 9.26 9.08 9.32 8.70 Denver-BoulderGreeley-Fort CollinsLoveland, CO 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.7 11.0 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.1 10.2 9.81 10.6 11.8 Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI 11.0 12.0 12.3 12.4 12.8 13.1 13.2 13.0 12.8 12.9 13.2 11.9 10.6 El Paso, TX 7.81 8.39 8.70 7.85 7.86 8.08 7.79 7.92 7.86 7.78 7.62 7.46 7.65 Greater Connecticut, CT 8.80 11.6 10.7 10.5 10.6 10.8 8.89 8.49 8.98 8.02 8.17 8.60 9.23 Houston-GalvestonBrazoria, TX 10.6 10.1 9.72 9.99 10.1 10.4 10.6 10.5 10.3 8.22 7.87 8.07 8.48 Indianapolis, IN 7.62 8.36 8.75 8.54 8.86 8.60 8.52 8.41 8.32 8.33 8.44 8.32 8.64 Lake Tahoe South Shore, CA 7.78 7.71 7.71 7.75 7.77 7.78 0.86 0.86 9.87 9.87 (a) (a) (a) Las Vegas, NV 11.0 10.9 11.2 10.6 10.1 9.85 10.4 10.3 9.99 9.96 10.4 10.4 10.5 Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA 17.1 16.4 16.0 15.5 14.8 15.4 16.7 17.3 16.6 15.2 14.8 15.7 15.4 Louisville, KY-IN 9.39 11.5 11.7 13.7 8.63 8.08 7.44 7.84 8.33 8.14 8.15 7.92 7.78 Memphis, TN-AR 10.9 11.8 12.0 11.1 9.60 9.79 9.89 9.86 9.99 10.0 10.5 10.6 10.4 Milwaukee-Racine, WI 8.41 9.22 8.31 9.90 9.38 9.05 8.96 8.89 8.52 8.61 8.59 8.53 8.35 Minneapolis-St Paul, MN 12.9 13.5 13.1 14.0 13.8 13.8 13.6 13.3 12.8 12.5 12.6 11.4 10.1 New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 

18.3 18.9 18.8 18.9 19.4 18.7 17.4 17.2 17.4 15.8 16.1 17.0 17.2 
3-33 

Table 3-12. Selected Non-attainment Areas NOx Emission (kg/LTO) for Commercial Ai

Area Name 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE 

12.3 11.3 11.8 12.4 11.3 11.4 10.9 10.2 10.4 9.31 9.08 10.1 11.0 

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 9.11 9.23 9.17 9.22 9.38 9.12 9.35 9.85 9.53 9.09 8.74 9.38 9.97 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA 8.95 8.87 8.96 9.31 9.07 9.00 9.29 9.72 9.43 8.44 7.81 8.34 8.98 Providence (entire State), RI 6.94 8.44 8.03 8.54 8.82 8.78 6.46 5.57 6.55 5.91 7.20 7.82 7.87 Raleigh-DurhamChapel Hill, NC 8.38 8.43 8.72 8.90 9.23 9.77 10.5 10.4 9.12 8.31 7.71 8.08 7.36 Reno, NV 8.14 8.09 8.37 8.50 7.75 7.42 7.86 8.29 8.58 8.63 8.60 8.57 8.85 Riverside County (Coachella Valley), CA 

9.17 9.32 8.23 6.88 5.42 4.94 4.72 7.00 7.76 5.59 5.70 6.27 5.83 

Sacramento Metro, CA 8.24 8.31 6.95 6.11 5.47 6.02 6.62 7.49 8.03 7.83 7.76 7.93 8.07 Salt Lake City, UT 8.89 9.10 9.57 9.73 9.98 10.3 10.7 10.7 10.6 10.8 10.9 11.3 11.6 San Diego, CA 11.6 11.1 10.3 9.74 9.60 9.19 10.1 10.9 10.1 9.49 9.51 9.55 9.12 San Francisco Bay Area, CA 14.3 14.0 13.5 13.3 13.1 13.1 13.4 14.5 15.1 14.3 14.2 14.4 14.6 San Joaquin Valley, CA 7.18 7.37 3.54 2.63 2.13 2.01 2.19 3.81 5.93 3.43 3.26 2.95 1.99 Seattle-Tacoma, WA 13.7 11.7 11.3 11.3 11.4 9.54 9.60 10.1 10.3 10.6 10.2 10.2 10.5 St. Louis, MO-IL 9.73 10.6 10.7 11.3 10.7 8.66 8.19 8.09 8.24 8.35 8.41 8.36 8.47 Syracuse, NY 7.24 7.23 7.28 7.91 8.17 7.88 6.93 6.63 6.76 5.62 6.51 7.31 6.75 Washington, DC-MDVA 10.8 10.8 10.5 10.7 10.8 10.1 12.4 13.5 14.0 13.1 12.6 12.6 12.7 

a Lake Tahoe periods when commercial airline service (that are required to report T-100 data) was temporarily discontinued to the area
3-34 

Table 3-13. Selected Non-attainment Areas NOx Emissions (metric ton) for Commerc

Area Name 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Albuquerque, NM 275 270 265 272 261 249 267 290 306 316 335 326 307 Anchorage, AK 715 720 704 858 995 892 880 821 941 966 1,120 1,296 1,522 Aspen 5.42 6.21 7.19 9.30 9.8 10.9 12.9 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.5 13.6 15.0 Atlanta, GA 3,491 3,534 3,510 3,080 3,631 2,642 2,820 3,201 3,408 3,671 3,814 4,063 4,377 Baltimore, MD 687 678 737 727 676 625 539 574 730 704 686 688 756 Boston-LawrenceWorcester (eastern MA), MA 1,884 1,884 1,870 1,978 1,841 1,741 1,803 1,822 1,769 1,662 1,608 1,681 1,759 Boston-ManchesterPortsmouth (southeast NH), NH 12.1 21.7 26.9 52.7 38.8 44.7 42.2 38.1 40.0 41.5 35.1 43.9 75.5 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 798 791 906 964 1,017 1,040 1,071 1,001 1,141 1,184 1,191 1,169 1,114 Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN 5,223 5,414 5,421 5,351 5,155 5,089 5,114 5,364 5,042 4,892 4,913 5,032 5,392 Cincinnati-Hamilton, OHKY-IN 375 592 632 753 657 715 781 795 791 857 1,037 1,084 1,087 Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH 567 630 706 722 764 647 639 583 678 659 687 697 703 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 3,358 3,572 3,900 4,091 4,241 4,168 4,359 4,323 3,912 3,866 3,702 3,768 3,667 Denver-Boulder-GreeleyFort Collins-Loveland, CO 2,126 2,162 2,040 1,793 1,654 1,683 1,776 1,962 1,811 1,740 1,859 1,938 1,988 Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI 1,577 1,669 1,688 1,836 1,800 1,773 1,836 1,881 1,931 2,055 2,198 2,257 2,199 El Paso, TX 173 217 228 219 220 222 210 225 230 231 209 195 200 Greater Connecticut, CT 345 377 361 339 331 318 309 280 291 294 300 298 303 Houston-GalvestonBrazoria, TX 1,611 1,673 1,590 1,655 1,703 1,692 1,803 1,855 1,868 1,925 1,924 2,031 2,272 Indianapolis, IN 362 371 400 424 403 387 391 341 359 355 354 367 375 Lake Tahoe South Shore, CA 7.11 7.85 7.04 7.03 6.47 1.84 0.03 0.25 0.16 2.61 (a) (a) (a) Las Vegas, NV 806 1,044 973 985 927 949 944 999 1,087 1,233 1,377 1,396 1,412 Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA 5,169 5,458 5,306 5,350 5,250 5,203 5,349 5,471 5,415 5,595 5,676 5,814 5,817 Louisville, KY-IN 326 462 425 565 179 162 144 160 213 223 225 230 219 Memphis, TN-AR 1,152 1,284 1,261 1,107 628 576 540 528 553 578 583 604 580 Milwaukee-Racine, WI 268 269 302 374 358 325 345 331 335 337 355 367 365 Minneapolis-St Paul, MN 1,564 1,535 1,472 1,635 1,545 1,554 1,664 1,711 1,696 1,759 1,859 1,958 1,899 New York-N. New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT 7,522 7,317 7,503 7,228 7,319 6,828 6,905 6,921 7,173 7,045 7,183 7,649 8,057 Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NY-MDDE 1,088 1,166 1,202 1,145 1,229 1,051 1,143 1,143 1,129 1,125 1,209 1,397 1,499 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 1,040 1,204 1,241 1,327 1,369 1,305 1,331 1,391 1,430 1,542 1,677 1,734 1,754 
3-35 

Table 3-13. Selected Non-attainment Areas NOx Emissions (metric ton) for Commercial A

Area Name 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA 1,038 1,074 1,145 1,147 1,121 1,110 1,278 1,230 1,286 1,218 1,179 1,144 1,083 Providence (entire State), RI 98.3 114 113 120 146 140 142 120 126 115 128 176 196 Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 246 398 559 571 596 605 626 604 462 352 329 347 381 Reno, NV 206 229 188 191 167 178 194 240 250 269 329 356 345 Riverside County (Coachella Valley), CA 54.0 56.8 50.4 49.0 51.1 47.7 39.4 33.5 35.3 34.5 42.1 39.0 42.7 Sacramento Metro, CA 212 240 239 218 209 227 254 256 254 302 307 318 321 Salt Lake City, UT 608 688 734 763 739 746 781 863 892 945 1,015 1,024 1,012 San Diego, CA 675 709 706 686 673 643 705 735 720 709 725 761 770 San Francisco Bay Area, CA 3,353 3,487 3,440 3,517 3,563 3,515 3,510 3,577 3,639 3,840 3,986 4,102 4,117 San Joaquin Valley, CA 87.7 103 75.2 70.0 70.7 56.5 49.8 47.5 36.2 28.8 35.3 21.3 17.6 Seattle-Tacoma, WA 1,328 1,326 1,290 1,365 1,411 1,346 1,371 1,385 1,401 1,601 1,603 1,613 1,665 St. Louis, MO-IL 1,568 1,489 1,517 1,678 1,425 1,370 1,436 1,481 1,679 1,849 1,883 1,902 1,879 Syracuse, NY 263 281 282 273 221 206 179 154 143 113 106 107 107 Washington, DC-MD-VA 1,814 2,033 1,882 1,837 1,936 1,864 1,938 1,929 1,982 1,952 1,896 1,952 2,039 

a Lake Tahoe periods when commercial airline service (that are required to report T-100 data) was temporarily discontinued to the area. 
3-36 

At the NAA level the direction and magnitude of change for these three parameters 

(annual LTOs, annual NOx, NOx emissions per LTO) varies and can vary significantly from the 

national average. In order to identify possible causes for the varying trends, each NAA was 

grouped based on activity levels and compared to the national trend. Generally, the groups of 

NAAs with activity levels greater than 200,000 LTOs per year followed a trend similar to the 

national level, while NAAs with activity levels less than 200,000 LTOs showed greater deviation 

from the national level. For example, the San Francisco Bay Area, with annual LTOs between 

200,000 and 300,000, followed the trend of increasing LTOs, increasing NOx emissions, and 

decreasing NOx per LTO, as seen at the national level. However, the Aspen, Colorado area, with 

annual LTOs less than 50,000, showed an increase in all three parameters. Conversely, Syracuse, 

New York, with annual LTOs less than 50,000, showed a decrease in all three parameters NOx

emissions, total LTOs, and NOx per LTO. Table 3-14 shows how many of the NAAs agreed with

the national trend. 

Table 3-14. Selected Non-attainment Areas that Follow the National LTO and NOx

Emissions Trends 

Grouping 

(Annual LTO Total) 

Number of 

NAAs in 

Grouping

Percentage of 

NAAs That Are 

Consistent with the 

National Trend a

x > 300,000 5 100 

300,000 > x > 200,000 4 100 

200,000 > x > 100,000 12 67 

100,000 > x > 50,000 8 63 

x < 50,000 13 38 

a The National Trend is increased annual NOx; increased LTOs; and decreased 

 NOx emission per LTO. 

The variance between the airports may be due to the unique aircraft fleet operating at 

each airport. For example, during the study period national LTOs for regional aircraft equipped 

with two-engines covered by ICAO gaseous emissions provisions increased from 6 to 31 percent 

(see Table 3-4). Table 3-15 provides examples of how the aggregated fleet at the NAA level can 

vary from the national average. The table shows six NAA where the contribution of emissions 

from air transportation is significant. 

In Memphis, regional aircraft with two engines represent the dominant fraction of the 

fleet LTOs, but also has a large fraction (30%) of wide-body LTOs. The Memphis NAA area 

accounts for 2.5 percent of the national LTOs and three percent of the national NOx emissions. 

Las Vegas and Phoenix have very high levels of narrow body two-engine aircraft operations. 

NAA in the middle rows have fleet compositions where the contributions of two engine narrow 

body and regional aircraft, like in the national fleet, are dominant (see Tables 3-4 and 3-6 for 

national trends). Details concerning the mix of aircraft that operate at individual airports are 

provided in the Access database developed for this project. 
3-37 

Table 3-15. 2008 Commercial Aircraft Fleet Composition for Selected Non-attainment 

Areas 

Percent of 

Annual National 

Total 

Local Fleet LTO Composition (Percent of Annual 

LTOs by Aircraft Type) 

LTO NOx

Regional Aircraft ,2 

Narrow-body, 2 Narrow-body, 3 Narrow-body, 4 

Wide-body, 2 Wide-body, 3 Wide-body, 4 

Group 1 NAA – Regional Aircraft with 2 Engines Account for the Largest Fraction of 

Local Fleet LTOs 

Memphis, TN-AR 2.5% 3.0% 38% 18% 8% 0% 14% 16% 0%

Group 2 NAA – Narrow-body with 2 Engines Account for 48% or More of the Local Fleet LTOs

Los Angeles South Coast Air 

Basin, CA 6.8% 6.6% 14% 62% 0% 0% 7% 1% 5%

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 5.9% 3.9% 27% 64% 0% 0% 3% 1% 1%

Denver-Boulder-Greenley-Fort 

Collins-Loveland, CO 4.7% 2.7% 22% 60% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0%

Atlanta, GA 7.5% 5.9% 36% 55% 0% 0% 6% 0% 1%

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN 8.2% 6.1% 41% 52% 0% 0% 4% 0% 2%

New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT 10.3% 10.4% 32% 48% 0% 0% 8% 1% 4%

Group 3 NAA – Narrow-body with 2 Engines Account for the Largest Fraction of 

Local Fleet LTOs (excluding those noted in Group 2) 

Las Vegas, NV 3.1% 2.3% 3% 91% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 3.4% 2.3% 15% 79% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%

San Francisco Bay Area, CA 4.9% 4.5% 11% 68% 0% 0% 6% 2% 3%

Opening and closing of different types of hubs can also cause considerable changes in 

activity and emission trends. This observation is illustrated in the historical analysis of the 

Memphis NAA. In 2003, the number of annual LTOs increased by approximately 170 percent 

and the NOx emissions more than doubled in tonnage, which coincides with an expansion of 

FedEx freight activities at the Memphis, TN airport. Similar results were found for the St. Louis 

NAA when United Parcel Service (UPS) opened its air freight hub there in 2002. 

3.4 Evaluation of 2008 Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Emissions 

As part of the scope of work for this project, APU emissions were quantified at the 

national level and in the 42 nonattainment areas of interest. APUs are small turbine engines that 

tend to be located in the back of the aircraft. APUs provide power for engine start up, but also 

generate energy for the cabin, ventilation, hydraulics and pre-flight system checks during periods 

when the main engines are not operating. 

APU national emission totals and emission rates for 2008 are presented in Table 3-16. In 

this analysis, APUs account for 2.6 percent of the aircraft national NOx emissions. Table 3-17 

shows the APU emission totals in the nonattainment areas of interest. 
3-38 

Table 3-16. National APU Emissions Annual Total and Normalized with Respect to Activity for Commercial 

the T-100 Dataset 

LTO CO THC VOC TOG NOX SOX PM

2008 National APU Emissions (metric ton)8,892,776 3,694 247 285 286 2,578 402 2008 National APU Emissions per LTO (kg/LTO)8,892,776 0.42 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.05 

a EDMS calculates both PM2.5 and PM10, because these values are identical only PM2.5 is shown.
3-39 

Table 3-17. Selected Non-attainment Areas APU Activity and Emissions (metric ton) for Commercial Aircr

T-100 Dataset 

Non-attainment Area Name LTO CO THC VOC TOG NOX 

Albuquerque, NM 43,725 19.9 1.27 1.46 1.47 12.0 Anchorage, AK 55,780 53.9 3.42 3.93 3.95 30.5 Aspen, CO 3,130 2.60 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.69 Atlanta, GA 465,282 232 14.9 17.1 17.2 134 Baltimore, MD 109,760 52.2 3.31 3.81 3.83 31.4 Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA 142,517 50.2 3.52 4.05 4.07 45.6 Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (southeast NH), NH 23,122 10.1 0.66 0.75 0.76 6.08 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 197,283 86.5 5.43 6.24 6.28 52.43 Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN 520,479 233 15.5 17.8 17.9 149 Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 152,941 59.9 4.05 4.66 4.68 34.7 Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH 97,744 32.6 2.32 2.67 2.68 19.8 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 356,004 196 12.3 14.2 14.3 91.5 Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins- Loveland, CO 258,217 88.7 5.80 6.67 6.71 86.1 Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI 197,521 81.9 5.32 6.12 6.15 58.6 El Paso County, TX 23,183 13.6 0.83 0.96 0.96 5.95 Greater Connecticut, CT 37,729 14.6 0.99 1.14 1.14 10.6 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX 309,917 119 8.20 9.43 9.48 76.4 Indianapolis, IN 74,478 29.7 2.05 2.36 2.37 22.2 Las Vegas, NV 194,332 65.1 4.41 5.07 5.10 67.3 Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA 416,555 173 12.7 14.6 14.7 149 Louisville, KY-IN 63,845 25.2 1.87 2.15 2.16 22.7 Memphis, TN-AR 146,514 57.9 4.08 4.69 4.72 52.9 Milwaukee-Racine, WI 70,473 30.0 1.93 2.22 2.23 15.2 Minneapolis-St Paul, MN 172,614 62.4 4.11 4.73 4.75 55.9 New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 589,852 211 15.5 17.9 17.9 199 
3-40 

Table 3-17. Selected Non-attainment Areas APU Activity and Emissions (metric ton) for Commercial Aircr

T-100 Dataset (Cont.) 

Non-attainment Area Name LTO CO THC VOC TOG NOX 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE 184,044 61.6 4.18 4.80 4.83 54.8 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 207,664 82.0 5.23 6.01 6.04 68.4 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA 57,755 23.2 1.52 1.75 1.76 13.6 Providence (entire State), RI 27,393 10.9 0.71 0.82 0.82 7.03 Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 73,260 27.3 1.86 2.14 2.15 16.3 Reno, NV 25,932 10.4 0.68 0.79 0.79 7.92 Riverside County (Coachella Valley), CA 12,558 5.17 0.34 0.39 0.39 2.57 Sacramento Metro, CA 59,963 23.7 1.57 1.80 1.81 18.1 Salt Lake City, UT 143,641 53.9 3.58 4.12 4.14 37.8 San Diego, CA 98,328 35.0 2.38 2.74 2.75 29.9 San Francisco Bay Area, CA 309,405 130 9.32 10.7 10.8 107 San Joaquin Valley, CA 21,887 7.55 0.53 0.61 0.61 3.91 Seattle-Tacoma, WA 130,317 55.5 3.73 4.28 4.31 45.2 St. Louis, MO-IL 104,784 47.5 3.11 3.58 3.60 22.9 Syracuse, NY 18,857 6.70 0.45 0.52 0.52 4.31 Washington, DC-MD-VA 261,242 90.0 6.26 7.20 7.24 76.7 a EDMS calculates both PM2.5 and PM10, because these values are identical only PM2.5 is shown.
3-41 

3.5 Evaluation of TAF and 5010 Aircraft 

Table 3-18 shows the TAF and 5010 national inventory estimates for aircraft equipped 

with turbofan or turboprop engines as submitted to the EPA’s 2008 National Emission Inventory, 

as discussed in Section 2.4 of this report. Note that the values presented in this table have been 

adjusted to account for the overlap with air taxi activities reported in the T-100 data. 

Table 3-18. 2008 National Activity (LTOs) and Emissions (kg) for Aircraft not Equipped 

with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in TAF and 5010 Dataset (turboprop 

and turbofan engines) 

Operational 

Type LTO 

CO 

(kg) 

NOX

(kg) 

PM10 

(kg) 

PM2.5 

(kg) 

SO2 

(kg) 

VOC 

(kg) 

AT 2,641,969 4,327,450 929,174 723,017 93,992 194,720 1,205,643

GA 11,805,758 51,284,864 1,733,656 1,267,529 164,779 394,005 2,924,638

Where AT = Air Taxi, GA = General Aviation 

Table 3-19 summarizes the TAF and 5010 inventory data for the 42 non-attainment areas 

of interest. Airport specific TAF and 5010 estimates are included in the supplemental data files 

provided with this study. Note because the non-attainment areas of interest do not include all US 

airports considered in the national analysis, the sum of these is less than the national estimates 

provided in Table 3-18. 

Table 3-19. 2008 Selected Non-attainment Areas Activity (LTOs) and Emissions (kg) for 

Aircraft Equipped with Engines that are Not Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in 

TAF and 5010 Dataset (turboprop and turbofan engines) 

 Non-Attainment Area LTO 

CO 

(kg) 

NOX

(kg) 

PM10

(kg) 

PM2.5

(kg) 

SO2

(kg) 

VOC 

(kg) 

Albuquerque, NM 14,538 39,670.58 3,912.62 3,004.08 2,931.38 835.17 5,411.91

Anchorage, AK 17,446 57,078.65 3,977.88 3,022.61 2,949.46 861.00 5,763.84

Aspen 7,367 21,540.69 1,873.93 1,434.00 1,399.29 401.81 2,631.70

Atlanta, GA 60,496 209,035.66 12,953.73 9,799.26 9,562.12 2,820.25 19,131.47

Baltimore, MD 10,727 28,467.53 2,947.58 2,265.80 2,210.97 628.17 4,054.91

Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern 

MA), MA 97,898 272,554.78 25,936.89 19,896.08 19,414.59 5,543.20 36,025.38

Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth 

(southeast NH), NH 11,727 38,283.75 2,680.56 2,037.17 1,987.87 580.07 3,881.24

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 27,802 79,156.18 7,233.11 5,542.55 5,408.42 1,548.09 10,095.71

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN 61,978 200,626.42 14,294.89 10,870.50 10,607.43 3,090.90 20,642.71

Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 27,306 67,318.85 7,893.26 6,084.35 5,937.11 1,675.84 10,719.29

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH 33,432 103,235.85 8,088.36 6,170.15 6,020.83 1,741.59 11,519.43

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 89,294 300,811.47 19,704.90 14,938.78 14,577.26 4,277.90 28,834.09

Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort CollinsLoveland, CO 105,233 383,330.24 21,040.33 15,834.04 15,450.86 4,611.96 31,759.00

Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI 59,765 201,304.12 13,190.96 10,000.52 9,758.51 2,863.69 19,301.23
3-42 

Table 3-19. 2008 Selected Non-attainment Areas Activity (LTOs) and Emissions (kg) for 

Aircraft Equipped with Engines that are Not Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in 

TAF and 5010 Dataset (turboprop and turbofan engines) (Continued)

 Non Attainment Area LTO 

CO 

(kg) 

NOX

(kg) 

PM10

(kg) 

PM2.5

(kg) 

SO2

(kg) 

VOC 

(kg) 

El Paso County, TX 8,948 26,420.63 2,256.51 1,725.86 1,684.09 484.18 3,176.53

Greater Connecticut, CT 8,597 23,338.15 2,322.76 1,783.80 1,740.63 495.66 3,209.51

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX 57,613 192,747.16 12,815.10 9,720.89 9,485.64 2,780.09 18,707.19

Indianapolis, IN 8,829 23,110.35 2,450.42 1,884.68 1,839.07 521.83 3,362.30

Las Vegas, NV 58,680 116,383.96 19,103.28 14,813.12 14,454.64 4,022.81 25,215.66

Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, 

CA 225,122 810,877.64 45,705.34 34,437.01 33,603.63 10,002.94 68,648.31

Louisville, KY-IN 8,810 19,918.72 2,683.20 2,073.88 2,023.69 567.57 3,597.54

Memphis, TN-AR 8,548 27,566.93 1,979.20 1,505.47 1,469.04 427.80 2,854.79

Milwaukee-Racine, WI 12,236 26,470.87 3,816.88 2,953.63 2,882.15 806.05 5,088.41

Minneapolis-St Paul, MN 26,108 82,625.33 6,164.75 4,695.31 4,581.68 1,330.20 8,841.41

New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, 

NY-NJ-CT 215,857 754,211.99 45,587.95 34,451.49 33,617.76 9,938.47 67,619.16

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic 

City, PA-NY-MD-DE 57,100 201,946.02 11,874.57 8,963.43 8,746.52 2,592.64 17,698.98

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 64,450 233,126.02 13,010.86 9,798.79 9,561.66 2,849.15 19,577.85

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA 13,805 38,111.03 3,681.93 2,825.48 2,757.11 786.49 5,105.00

Providence (entire State), RI 4,663 14,883.11 1,091.72 831.02 810.91 235.74 1,569.65

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 22,617 69,396.59 5,505.41 4,201.41 4,099.73 1,184.81 7,827.17

Reno, NV 13,610 40,895.78 3,378.42 2,581.40 2,518.93 725.86 4,776.78

Riverside County (Coachella Valley), 

CA 8,164 28,385.31 1,734.78 1,311.59 1,279.85 377.97 2,568.22

Sacramento Metro, CA 19,155 59,450.10 4,611.56 3,516.78 3,431.68 993.38 6,577.00

Salt Lake City, UT 22,165 50,925.49 6,688.74 5,167.41 5,042.36 1,415.76 8,987.88

San Diego, CA 40,989 147,362.58 8,342.67 6,287.07 6,134.92 1,825.39 12,520.36

San Francisco Bay Area, CA 74,571 267,310.93 15,237.47 11,486.48 11,208.51 3,332.68 22,839.07

San Joaquin Valley, CA 64,530 250,597.90 11,726.07 8,754.84 8,542.97 2,596.57 18,277.26

Seattle-Tacoma, WA 85,612 271,154.91 20,198.60 15,383.20 15,010.93 4,358.67 28,975.40

St. Louis, MO-IL 52,185 179,305.81 11,250.51 8,515.05 8,308.98 2,447.84 16,580.91

Syracuse, NY 7,336 24,903.01 1,604.53 1,215.67 1,186.25 348.63 2,354.29

Washington, DC-MD-VA 28,514 77,207.45 7,719.15 5,928.70 5,785.22 1,646.95 10,660.55

3.6 Non-Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions 

As noted in Section 2.4, this study also considered non-commercial (non-air carrier) 

aircraft covered by ICAO provisions that do not report activities to T-100, but are included in the 

TAF and 5010 data. To evaluate emissions from non-air carrier, baseline emissions were 

developed that indicate that these aircraft account for five percent of NOx, CO, and PM 

emissions and 18 percent of VOC emissions in 2008. To determine whether this category of 

aircraft would continue to be significant in the future, the 2008 baseline emissions were 
3-43 

projected to estimated emissions in 2020 and 2030. The growth factors used to make this future 

year adjustment were derived by comparing annual national general aviation LTO levels for 

2008, 2020, and 2030 provided in the FAA’s TAF dataset. The projected emission estimates are 

provided in Table 3-20 along with the baseline estimates. 

Table 3-20. Baseline and Projected Activity, Fuel Usage and Emissions for Non-Air Carrier 

Aircraft Equipped with ICAO Certified Engines 

3.7 Summary of All Project Data 

Table 3-21 compiles the 2008 estimates for all emissions sources included in this study. 

This table summarized the national results by aircraft type, whether the engine was covered by 

ICAO provisions, and data source. Note that adjustments have been made to the TAF and 5010 

data to address any double counting with the T-100 data and the aircraft registration data for the 

non-air carrier aircraft equipped with ICAO certified engines. For purposes of this assessment, it 

is assumed that once the non-air carrier aircraft are removed from the TAF/5010 data then the 

remaining TAF/5010 data represent aircraft that are equipped with engines not covered by ICAO 

provisions. Detailed data are provided in the Access data files that supplement this report. 

As Table 3-21 indicates aircraft equipped with engines covered by ICAO gaseous 

emissions provisions accounts for 28 percent of total LTOs (including APUs), but in 2008 are 

associated with 94 percent of aircraft NOx emissions (73 percent of VOC emissions, 53 percent 

of CO emissions, and 38 percent of PM2.5). 

Table 3-21. Summary of All 2008 National Aircraft/Airport Emission Estimates for 

Aircraft Equipped with Turbofan and Turboprop Engines 

Source 

Operational 

Type Regulated LTO 

NOX

(kg) 

VOC 

(kg) 

CO 

(kg) 

PM10

(kg) 

PM2.5

(kg) SO2

T100 AC ICAO 6,354,778 77,756,251 9,019,675 52,370,174 1,032,172 1,032,172 7,784,761 

T100 AT ICAO 2,431,408 10,315,077 2,063,428 10,419,912 228,701 228,701 1,247,253 

Aircraft (b)

Registry GA ICAO 563,472 5,110,719 3,484,480 7,038,627 197,625 197,625 563,924 

T100 AT non ICAO 1,231,925 732,963 988,339.48 5,800,159 (a) (a) 155,297 

5010/TAF AT non ICAO 2,641,969 929,174 1,205,643 4,327,450 723,017 705,520 194,720 

5010/TAF GA non ICAO 11,242,286 1,650,911 2,785,050 48,837,110 1,207,032 1,177,822 374,667 

T100 APU non ICAO 8,892,776 2,577,545 284,544 3,693,825 414,601 414,601 401,838 

Total 99,072,640 19,831,158 132,487,258 3,803,160 2,124,018 10,722,461

(a) Although EDMS has a method to estimate PM emissions from engines covered by ICAO provisions, coverage for 

engines not covered by ICAO provisions was too incomplete to provide an emission estimate at this time. 

(b) Emissions for Non-air carrier Aircraft Covered by ICAO Provisions were calculated from the FAA’s Aircraft 

Registry. This information is presented in Appendix I. 

(c) AC = air carrier, AT = air taxi, GA = general aviation, and APU = auxiliary power unit. 

Year LTO CO_KG VOC_KG TOG_KG NOX_KG PM10_KG FUEL_KG 

2008 563,472 7,038,627 3,484,480 3,502,745 5,110,719 197,625 436,473,773

2020 553,332 6,911,961 3,421,774 3,439,710 5,018,747 194,069 428,619,091

2030 627,923 7,843,717 3,883,040 3,903,395 5,695,291 220,230 486,398,384
Appendix A 

Interpolation of T-100 LTO Data to Backcast to 1986 to 1989
A-1 

Table A-1. Export of Annual LTOs from the T-100 Database for Linear Interpolation 

Linear 

Interpolation T-100 Data provided by EPA (LTOs) 

 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 199Foreign Carrier, Nonscheduled 17,687 16,640 17,974 19,742 18,417 17,946 16,478 13,5Foreign Carrier, Scheduled 145,854 154,749 156,859 167,263 170,748 179,684 200,777 212,7US Carrier, Nonscheduled 12,682 12,388 17,750 18,929 19,935 21,941 25,7US Carrier, Scheduled 6,319,266 6,173,691 6,363,653 6,514,765 6,777,589 7,292,893 7,442,

Table A-2. Calculation of Linear Interpolation Equation 

Foreign 

Nonscheduled 

Foreign 

Scheduled 

Intercept 827,193 18,085,318 Slope -407 9,166 

Table A-3. Export of Annual LTOs From the T-100 Database After Extrapolation Using the Above Line

Linear 

Interpolation T-100 Data provided by E

 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Foreign Carrier, Nonscheduled 18,891 18,484 18,077 17,670 16,640 17,974 19,742 18,417 17,946 Foreign Carrier, Scheduled 118,358 127,524 136,690 145,856 154,749 156,859 167,263 170,748 179,684 2US Carrier, Nonscheduled 115,158 202,678 187,402 266,022 12,682 12,388 17,750 18,929 19,935 2US Carrier, Scheduled 6,132,276 6,338,620 6,375,377 6,271,934 6,319,266 6,173,691 6,363,653 6,514,765 6,777,589 7,
A-2 

Figure A-1. Graphic Representation of Historical T-100 Data 

Note that the equations noted in the above graphic describe the slope for the line – these equations were used to backcast the period from 1986 to 19

y = 9166x - 2E+07

y = -406.99x + 827193

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

100,000,000

1986

1991

1996

2001

2006

Year

LTO

Foreign Carrier, Foreign Carrier, US Carrier, NonUS Carrier, SchLinear (Foreign 
Appendix B 

T-100/EDMS Matches
B-1 

Approximately 97 percent of aircraft LTOs associated with the T-100 and Ascend data 

were matched to the aircraft and engines in the EDMS, though matching rates did vary from 

year to year. 

Appendix B. Percentage of LTOs Matched in EDMS by Year 

Study Year Percentage of LTOs Matched in EDMS 

1986 94.1

1987 94.2

1988 94.5 

1989 94.3

1990 96.5

1991 98.1

1992 98.5

1993 97.4 

1994 99.2

1995 99.4

1996 99.3

1997 99.2

1998 99.4 

1999 99.5

2000 99.2

2001 99.4

2002 97.7

2003 93.1 

2004 93.7

2005 93.9

2006 93.5

2007 93.2 

2008 92.6 

Average 96.5
Appendix C 

Default Emission Aircraft Data
C-1 

Year US/For Units LTO CO THC VOC TOG NOX SOX PM10 

1986 Foreign kg 125,067 4,820,013 2,023,953 2,327,961 2,340,164 4,396,505 382,965 127,234 1986 US kg 5,885,100 67,780,271 26,868,962 30,904,811 31,066,809 63,751,900 8,223,957 2,278,963 1986 Total kg 6,010,167 72,600,284 28,892,915 33,232,772 33,406,972 68,148,406 8,606,922 2,406,197 1986 Foreign kg/LTO 38.5 16.2 18.6 18.7 35.2 3.06 1.02 1986 US kg/LTO 11.5 4.57 5.25 5.28 10.8 1.40 0.39 1987 Foreign kg 132,381 4,165,156 1,696,885 1,951,765 1,961,996 4,692,710 400,331 115,609 1987 US kg 6,159,197 68,607,356 26,981,839 31,034,642 31,197,321 66,810,749 8,569,425 2,043,366 1987 Total kg 6,291,578 72,772,512 28,678,723 32,986,407 33,159,316 71,503,459 8,969,756 2,158,975 1987 Foreign kg/LTO 31.5 12.8 14.7 14.8 35.4 3.02 0.87 1987 US kg/LTO 11.1 4.38 5.04 5.07 10.8 1.39 0.33 1988 Foreign kg 143,413 4,284,858 1,768,990 2,034,701 2,045,366 4,971,814 422,307 121,105 1988 US kg 6,195,081 66,960,077 25,550,019 29,387,753 29,541,800 68,068,757 8,523,104 2,018,185 1988 Total kg 6,338,494 71,244,935 27,319,009 31,422,454 31,587,166 73,040,571 8,945,411 2,139,290 1988 Foreign kg/LTO 29.9 12.3 14.2 14.3 34.7 2.9 0.84 1988 US kg/LTO 10.8 4.12 4.74 4.77 10.99 1.38 0.33 1989 Foreign kg 152,451 4,445,525 1,806,603 2,077,962 2,088,855 5,306,613 448,965 126,462 1989 US kg 6,162,006 68,378,173 26,838,420 30,867,677 31,030,374 68,373,555 8,410,598 2,149,542 1989 Total kg 6,314,457 72,823,698 28,645,023 32,945,639 33,119,229 73,680,168 8,859,562 2,276,004 1989 Foreign kg/LTO 29.2 11.9 13.6 13.7 34.8 2.94 0.83 1989 US kg/LTO 11.1 4.36 5.01 5.04 11.1 1.36 0.35 1990 Foreign kg 166,963 5,467,138 2,301,701 2,647,428 2,661,305 6,181,503 517,395 149,495 1990 US kg 6,100,052 59,501,795 20,569,936 23,659,614 23,783,646 66,234,682 7,980,352 1,754,889 1990 Total kg 6,267,015 64,968,932 22,871,638 26,307,042 26,444,951 72,416,184 8,497,747 1,904,384 1990 Foreign kg/LTO 32.7 13.8 15.9 15.9 37.0 3.10 0.90 1990 US kg/LTO 9.75 3.37 3.88 3.90 10.86 1.31 0.29 1991 Foreign kg 169,594 5,009,844 2,143,090 2,464,993 2,477,914 5,841,590 494,301 146,960 1991 US kg 6,069,886 55,202,753 17,248,191 19,838,953 19,942,946 64,419,269 7,644,197 1,646,304 
C-2 

Year US/For Units LTO CO THC VOC TOG NOX SOX PM10 

1991 Total kg 6,239,480 60,212,597 19,391,281 22,303,946 22,420,860 70,260,859 8,138,497 1,793,265 1991 Foreign kg/LTO 29.5 12.6 14.5 14.6 34.4 2.9 0.87 1991 US kg/LTO 9.09 2.84 3.27 3.29 10.61 1.26 0.27 1992 Foreign kg 179,428 5,007,924 2,042,152 2,348,877 2,361,197 5,961,754 510,056 143,992 1992 US kg 6,287,453 56,562,918 17,750,372 20,416,564 20,523,584 65,858,308 7,746,488 1,688,680 1992 Total kg 6,466,881 61,570,842 19,792,524 22,765,441 22,884,781 71,820,062 8,256,544 1,832,672 1992 Foreign kg/LTO 27.9 11.4 13.1 13.2 33.2 2.8 0.80 1992 US kg/LTO 9.00 2.82 3.25 3.26 10.47 1.23 0.27 1993 Foreign kg 182,630 4,782,317 1,787,714 2,056,231 2,067,012 5,931,615 509,707 129,288 1993 US kg 6,358,399 49,352,673 11,849,193 13,628,999 13,700,440 65,729,753 7,596,475 1,496,392 1993 Total kg 6,541,029 54,134,991 13,636,907 15,685,230 15,767,452 71,661,367 8,106,181 1,625,679 1993 Foreign kg/LTO 26.2 9.79 11.3 11.3 32.5 2.8 0.71 1993 US kg/LTO 7.76 1.86 2.14 2.15 10.34 1.19 0.24 1994 Foreign kg 192,381 4,998,234 1,796,640 2,066,504 2,077,337 6,054,168 529,619 129,164 1994 US kg 6,744,229 57,532,799 16,306,203 18,755,475 18,853,788 67,951,296 7,972,793 1,666,322 1994 Total kg 6,936,610 62,531,033 18,102,844 20,821,979 20,931,124 74,005,464 8,502,412 1,795,487 1994 Foreign kg/LTO 26.0 9.34 10.7 10.8 31.5 2.75 0.67 1994 US kg/LTO 8.53 2.42 2.78 2.80 10.1 1.18 0.25 1995 Foreign kg 214,336 5,050,504 1,821,247 2,094,807 2,105,788 6,665,755 578,963 137,867 1995 US kg 7,262,232 59,314,445 16,419,257 18,885,509 18,984,504 67,430,486 8,005,757 1,629,640 1995 Total kg 7,476,568 64,364,949 18,240,504 20,980,316 21,090,292 74,096,241 8,584,720 1,767,507 1995 Foreign kg/LTO 23.6 8.50 9.77 9.82 31.1 2.70 0.64 1995 US kg/LTO 8.17 2.26 2.60 2.61 9.29 1.10 0.22 1996 Foreign kg 220,505 4,982,592 1,747,189 2,009,625 2,020,159 6,819,966 597,598 139,139 1996 US kg 7,419,189 61,190,645 16,317,906 18,768,934 18,867,318 67,976,689 8,025,467 1,610,055 1996 Total kg 7,639,694 66,173,237 18,065,094 20,778,559 20,887,477 74,796,655 8,623,065 1,749,194 
C-3 

Year US/For Units LTO CO THC VOC TOG NOX SOX PM10 

1996 Foreign kg/LTO 22.6 7.92 9.11 9.16 30.9 2.71 0.63 1996 US kg/LTO 8.25 2.20 2.53 2.54 9.16 1.08 0.22 1997 Foreign kg 236,927 5,102,866 1,662,613 1,912,346 1,922,370 7,508,764 646,131 139,511 1997 US kg 7,351,670 59,015,172 14,747,056 16,962,056 17,051,004 69,617,216 8,140,329 1,618,756 1997 Total kg 7,588,597 64,118,039 16,409,669 18,874,402 18,973,374 77,125,980 8,786,459 1,758,267 1997 Foreign kg/LTO 21.5 7.02 8.07 8.11 31.7 2.73 0.59 1997 US kg/LTO 8.03 2.01 2.31 2.32 9.47 1.11 0.22 1998 Foreign kg 251,758 5,089,342 1,473,956 1,695,352 1,704,239 8,185,592 693,406 137,145 1998 US kg 7,459,834 57,151,688 13,491,513 15,517,894 15,599,285 70,235,406 8,120,425 1,578,159 1998 Total kg 7,711,592 62,241,030 14,965,469 17,213,245 17,303,524 78,420,997 8,813,831 1,715,304 1998 Foreign kg/LTO 20.2 5.85 6.73 6.77 32.5 2.75 0.54 1998 US kg/LTO 7.66 1.81 2.08 2.09 9.42 1.09 0.21 1999 Foreign kg 256,575 5,072,792 1,362,846 1,567,553 1,575,769 8,437,026 709,946 131,931 1999 US kg 7,768,475 60,767,623 12,099,679 13,916,759 13,989,864 70,251,212 8,366,200 1,369,935 1999 Total kg 8,025,050 65,840,415 13,462,525 15,484,311 15,565,634 78,688,237 9,076,146 1,501,866 1999 Foreign kg/LTO 19.8 5.31 6.11 6.14 32.9 2.77 0.51 1999 US kg/LTO 7.82 1.56 1.79 1.80 9.04 1.08 0.18 2000 Foreign kg 262,642 4,885,715 1,205,596 1,386,683 1,393,951 8,534,974 717,648 125,400 2000 US kg 8,334,398 61,546,435 9,922,217 11,412,582 11,472,405 73,690,821 8,638,841 1,275,498 2000 Total kg 8,597,040 66,432,150 11,127,813 12,799,265 12,866,356 82,225,795 9,356,488 1,400,898 2000 Foreign kg/LTO 18.6 4.59 5.28 5.31 32.5 2.73 0.48 2000 US kg/LTO 7.38 1.19 1.37 1.38 8.84 1.04 0.15 2001 Foreign kg 254,831 4,147,339 906,607 1,042,784 1,048,250 7,854,938 661,019 110,995 2001 US kg 7,862,396 56,808,314 8,991,409 10,341,962 10,396,173 73,344,822 8,228,595 1,224,910 2001 Total kg 8,117,227 60,955,654 9,898,017 11,384,747 11,444,424 81,199,760 8,889,613 1,335,904 
C-4 

Year US/For Units LTO CO THC VOC TOG NOX SOX PM10 

2001 Foreign kg/LTO 16.3 3.56 4.09 4.11 30.8 2.59 0.44 2001 US kg/LTO 7.23 1.14 1.32 1.32 9.33 1.05 0.16 2002 Foreign kg 248,142 4,015,048 841,918 968,378 973,454 7,321,334 611,620 98,636 2002 US kg 8,115,134 56,519,253 8,343,081 9,596,136 9,646,489 74,696,619 8,052,655 1,170,503 2002 Total kg 8,363,276 60,534,301 9,184,999 10,564,514 10,619,943 82,017,953 8,664,276 1,269,139 2002 Foreign kg/LTO 16.2 3.39 3.90 3.92 29.5 2.46 0.40 2002 US kg/LTO 6.96 1.03 1.18 1.19 9.20 0.99 0.14 2003 Foreign kg 260,145 4,462,043 1,061,429 1,220,861 1,227,261 7,521,344 622,673 106,383 2003 US kg 9,772,005 65,430,561 10,408,591 11,971,462 12,034,460 81,964,741 8,725,237 1,287,193 2003 Total kg 10,032,150 69,892,604 11,470,021 13,192,323 13,261,721 89,486,085 9,347,910 1,393,577 2003 Foreign kg/LTO 17.2 4.08 4.69 4.72 28.9 2.39 0.41 2003 US kg/LTO 6.70 1.07 1.23 1.23 8.39 0.89 0.13 2004 Foreign kg 278,722 4,335,072 981,689 1,129,143 1,135,062 7,930,575 652,006 107,559 2004 US kg 10,287,822 66,871,810 10,438,887 12,006,359 12,069,517 85,766,738 9,022,152 1,324,538 2004 Total kg 10,566,544 71,206,882 11,420,576 13,135,502 13,204,579 93,697,313 9,674,158 1,432,097 2004 Foreign kg/LTO 15.6 3.52 4.05 4.07 28.5 2.34 0.39 2004 US kg/LTO 6.50 1.01 1.17 1.17 8.34 0.88 0.13 2005 Foreign kg 281,970 4,413,695 985,117 1,133,083 1,139,024 8,219,710 672,631 110,047 2005 US kg 10,379,237 66,222,381 9,939,628 11,432,257 11,492,340 86,251,018 9,054,391 1,289,444 2005 Total kg 10,661,207 70,636,075 10,924,745 12,565,340 12,631,363 94,470,728 9,727,022 1,399,491 2005 Foreign kg/LTO 15.7 3.49 4.02 4.04 29.2 2.39 0.39 2005 US kg/LTO 6.38 0.96 1.10 1.11 8.31 0.87 0.12 2006 Foreign kg 287,178 4,473,660 1,015,344 1,167,843 1,173,969 8,256,924 677,979 110,795 2006 US kg 10,027,636 66,222,381 9,293,967 10,689,967 10,746,002 84,000,741 8,740,399 1,229,802 2006 Total kg 10,314,814 67,660,020 10,309,312 11,857,810 11,919,971 92,257,665 9,418,378 1,340,598 
C-5 

Year US/For Units LTO CO THC VOC TOG NOX SOX PM10 

2006 Foreign kg/LTO 15.6 3.54 4.07 4.09 28.8 2.36 0.39 2006 US kg/LTO 6.60 0.93 1.07 1.07 8.38 0.87 0.12 2007 Foreign kg 290,666 4,690,768 1,152,116 1,325,163 1,332,112 8,454,618 685,976 115,100 2007 US kg 10,118,573 64,847,116 9,437,331 10,854,864 10,911,763 85,755,987 8,792,482 1,243,588 2007 Total kg 10,409,239 69,537,884 10,589,447 12,180,027 12,243,875 94,210,605 9,478,457 1,358,688 2007 Foreign kg/LTO 16.1 3.96 4.56 4.58 29.1 2.36 0.40 2007 US kg/LTO 6.41 0.93 1.07 1.08 8.48 0.87 0.12 2008 Foreign kg 277,154 3,754,036 664,768 764,619 768,627 7,794,345 627,461 92,245 2008 US kg 9,532,042 62,751,803 9,820,453 11,295,533 11,354,742 81,114,678 8,329,585 1,293,178 2008 Total kg 9,809,196 66,505,839 10,485,222 12,060,152 12,123,370 88,909,023 8,957,047 1,385,423 2008 Foreign kg/LTO 13.5 2.40 2.76 2.77 28.1 2.26 0.33 2008 US kg/LTO 6.58 1.03 1.19 1.19 8.51 0.87 0.14 
Appendix D 

High Activity Aircraft 
Appendix D. High Activity Aircraft, US Fleet

A/C (a) ACCODE (b) 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of US LTOs 24% 22% 21% 19% 19% 17% 15% 13% 11% 9% 9% 9% 8% 7% 6% 4% 1% 1% 1% 

US LTOs 1,417,383 1,384,410 1,324,520 1,183,402 1,145,255 1,003,395 935,704 828,072 732,370 685,820 639,730 635,496 613,704 558,653 463,621 316,241 116,222 116,574 112,053 

% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 

US LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,804 60,596 152,789 234,153 289,709 395,827 570,011 737,192 

% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 

US LTOs 0 0 0 3,299 11,202 33,062 73,496 97,010 122,649 144,098 154,354 160,064 183,942 216,493 272,276 297,159 343,851 348,776 400,517 

% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3% 6% 3% 1% 1% 3% 0% 1% 3% 3% 

US LTOs 0 0 451 746 703 0 35,794 50,071 55,401 242,786 422,986 246,212 63,256 59,870 264,062 18,569 88,900 340,642 328,844 

% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 

US LTOs 0 0 0 1,156 1 0 62,943 144,589 151,678 154,340 94,870 145,702 415,189 456,123 432,348 408,802 350,142 322,843 320,980 

% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

US LTOs 0 0 10,383 24,070 53,614 88,378 60,130 106,246 165,184 278,881 279,783 231,716 203,699 171,201 171,138 147,691 131,998 209,864 199,304 

% of US LTOs 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

US LTOs 47,389 82,585 96,399 99,656 111,643 116,776 110,141 105,124 92,233 70,894 46,765 25,589 920 284 231 250 8,573 29,082 25,112 

% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

US LTOs 0 0 13,634 22,123 61,479 200,246 165,268 129,735 74,397 90,750 85,495 104,454 106,345 102,786 21,164 0 6,844 25,431 22,273 

% of US LTOs 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

US LTOs 133,166 136,085 132,481 104,749 125,346 67,519 61,069 57,218 64,823 70,509 65,781 44,816 43,089 52,668 50,455 34,280 7,523 524 451 

% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 0% 

US LTOs 0 0 0 2,057 32,924 56,952 123,040 173,212 224,639 231,473 233,170 232,556 229,900 229,318 224,127 200,716 116,260 78,781 20,000 

% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 4% 3% 4% 

US LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,528 215,206 311,472 324,661 402,628 

% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

US LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 844 20,229 107,508 199,756 276,720 273,528 289,833 

% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 

US LTOs 0 0 0 0 17,859 66,704 140,195 183,437 207,591 246,932 264,492 253,871 282,975 298,640 290,334 271,956 246,316 218,382 210,428 

% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 

US LTOs 0 0 0 18,671 75,504 106,880 121,926 139,738 163,028 155,492 145,671 158,029 171,755 174,609 173,058 157,408 159,996 137,019 139,624 

% of US LTOs 4% 6% 9% 11% 12% 13% 12% 13% 14% 14% 14% 15% 16% 17% 17% 15% 12% 9% 9% 

US LTOs 219,028 353,787 534,186 677,307 740,590 772,995 768,806 820,443 947,942 993,850 1,059,175 1,135,016 1,165,837 1,294,425 1,382,244 1,177,836 1,014,113 886,299 880,578 

% of US LTOs 17% 16% 14% 13% 13% 12% 11% 10% 11% 10% 9% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 2% 2% 2% 

US LTOs 1,026,998 1,013,343 895,455 823,206 771,878 743,705 704,310 664,744 724,039 734,141 693,907 663,532 585,829 533,297 459,577 358,191 202,038 186,191 179,335 

% of US LTOs 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 7% 6% 5% 

US LTOs 93,372 126,496 148,586 171,420 224,081 263,654 321,860 392,015 424,580 438,469 473,834 506,473 516,945 567,694 622,471 590,395 608,008 544,074 543,221 

% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 4% 5% 9% 11% 

US LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,697 87,869 270,304 283,100 368,428 860,626 1,097,198 

% of US LTOs 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

US LTOs 149,321 146,390 129,535 123,434 103,942 90,626 76,442 65,466 70,298 73,083 69,771 64,893 110,753 35,176 31,185 27,620 22,681 14,008 11,094 

% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 

US LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,338 36,766 117,959 193,203 

% of US LTOs 12% 12% 11% 10% 11% 10% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 

US LTOs 712,098 718,940 681,983 633,437 694,217 579,967 488,017 437,790 505,438 526,634 508,975 528,274 445,295 481,473 404,060 315,733 261,461 216,841 180,833 

% of US LTOs 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 

US LTOs 151,532 139,322 131,245 118,074 139,377 106,200 105,762 97,418 130,691 146,882 145,439 130,808 133,303 133,219 123,943 90,653 56,987 51,434 52,208 

% of US LTOs 6% 7% 9% 11% 12% 14% 15% 15% 15% 14% 13% 14% 13% 13% 12% 12% 10% 7% 7% 

US LTOs 371,693 455,270 565,049 663,577 759,233 848,276 948,491 980,877 1,019,324 989,356 989,289 1,001,911 1,004,053 1,005,209 1,002,052 940,212 820,459 717,371 737,982 

% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% 

US LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,894 67,967 144,199 230,111 293,194 299,731 328,354 

% of US LTOs 7% 5% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

US LTOs 384,747 337,637 306,147 259,364 162,602 114,494 64,826 30,523 5,670 1,451 1,195 1,635 1,841 2,012 2,396 1,864 6,833 14,236 9,694 

% of US LTOs 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

US LTOs 110,223 111,779 111,401 101,981 101,306 100,846 100,518 84,062 55,780 50,732 43,052 38,272 39,780 26,473 14,501 5,675 13,501 32,817 36,261 

% of US LTOs 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

US LTOs 68,880 113,861 125,113 114,982 69,872 29,731 17,191 12,629 64 3,158 17,296 17,141 18,546 0 0 0 0 0 0 

650640867 BAE146-200730710

MD82A319-1B727-1DC10-1

620619 B737-3

DC9-5DC9-3CRJ7

698655603 F28-100631630 DC9-1629 CRJ2622 B757-2

B737-1

614 B737-8612 B737-7617 B737-4616 B737-5675 ERJ145715 B727-2

SAAB340-B

405 BEECH1900-C694 A320-2456467 SA227461 EMB120602 F28-4000469 J31

Boeing 737-300Boeing 737-400Boeing 737-500Boeing 737-800McDonnell Douglas DC9 Super 80/MD81/2/3/7/8McDonnell Douglas DC-9-50McDonnell Douglas DC-9-30Canadair RJ-700Boeing 757-200Boeing 737-100/200Aircraft NameEmbraer EMB-120 BrasiliaSaab-Fairchild 340/BBeech 1900 A/B/C/DAirbus Industrie A320-100/200British Aerospace BAE-146-200McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10Boeing 727-100Airbus Industrie A319Mcdonnell Douglas DC-9-10Embraer-145Boeing 727-200/231A(a) Each aircraft model reported in the T-100 dataset has a unique identification code (A/C code) (b) Each aircraft model used in the FAA's EDMS model has a unique identification code (ACCODE)Boeing 737-700/700LRFokker 100Fokker F28-4000/6000 FellowshipBritish Aerospace Jetstream 31Swearingen Metro IIICanadair Rj-200ER /RJ-440
Appendix D. High Activity Aircraft, Foreign Fleet

A/C (a) ACCODE (b) 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of Foreign LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 8% 8% 

Foreign LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,888 12,451 13,504 14,371 13,942 19,254 21,25

% of Foreign LTOs 3% 3% 3% 3% 0% 1% 4% 7% 8% 7% 7% 8% 8% 9% 10% 10% 10% 9% 

Foreign LTOs 3,995 4,220 4,572 4,862 86 2,044 7,637 12,415 15,735 15,242 15,898 19,397 19,152 22,888 25,642 25,489 25,436 23,38

% of Foreign LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

Foreign LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 407 957 1,208 1,388 1,877 4,088 7,402 8,839 6,226 7,74

% of Foreign LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 

Foreign LTOs 122 128 142 150 0 0 0 713 3,113 5,259 5,472 6,256 7,595 9,256 12,097 11,403 11,840 11,07

% of Foreign LTOs 11% 11% 11% 11% 15% 12% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 3% 2% 

Foreign LTOs 13,557 14,345 15,551 16,523 24,882 19,740 16,917 14,056 14,478 16,261 15,863 14,992 14,212 13,397 12,705 10,600 6,795 4,11

% of Foreign LTOs 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 8% 7% 5% 6% 3% 2% 

Foreign LTOs 6,165 6,531 7,073 7,514 9,730 10,083 7,051 7,535 7,940 10,809 12,857 13,513 18,942 17,280 13,980 15,418 7,567 5,56

% of Foreign LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 

Foreign LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 16 841 1,451 1,76

% of Foreign LTOs 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 

Foreign LTOs 4,115 4,354 4,713 5,010 6,681 5,528 5,552 5,184 4,515 4,435 4,392 4,332 5,000 3,517 1,965 1,220 264 4

% of Foreign LTOs 13% 13% 13% 13% 16% 14% 12% 11% 10% 9% 8% 8% 9% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 

Foreign LTOs 16,552 17,510 18,975 20,168 27,044 23,392 21,224 20,562 19,215 20,086 18,497 19,704 22,190 22,150 18,402 14,811 9,227 9,12

% of Foreign LTOs 7% 7% 7% 7% 5% 6% 7% 8% 10% 10% 11% 12% 12% 13% 15% 15% 14% 13% 

Foreign LTOs 8,348 8,837 9,570 10,176 8,169 10,019 13,255 15,045 18,471 20,732 23,224 28,187 31,426 34,270 38,621 37,711 35,027 33,87

% of Foreign LTOs 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 8% 

Foreign LTOs 8,067 8,539 9,257 9,832 10,663 11,174 11,204 11,934 14,245 15,579 15,918 17,242 19,848 21,263 22,155 20,323 21,266 21,41

% of Foreign LTOs 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 

Foreign LTOs 5,266 5,574 6,040 6,423 6,115 7,408 7,670 8,157 8,402 8,956 9,627 6,807 4,404 3,860 4,172 3,869 3,103 3,17

% of Foreign LTOs 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 5% 6% 5% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 5% 

Foreign LTOs 3,865 4,091 4,433 4,709 2,577 3,894 6,092 8,959 10,609 10,734 13,310 15,803 17,157 17,031 18,323 18,544 15,752 13,83

% of Foreign LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 5% 6% 

Foreign LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 1,322 2,574 4,137 5,569 7,016 11,995 14,33

% of Foreign LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 7% 6% 

Foreign LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 522 6,662 799 0 0 0 0 8,983 18,540 16,48

% of Foreign LTOs 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 5% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Foreign LTOs 5,301 5,614 6,078 6,463 10,345 8,684 6,666 3,901 2,646 2,031 2,035 2,224 857 647 161 49 171 11

% of Foreign LTOs 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 

Foreign LTOs 4,315 4,568 4,944 5,262 5,879 5,978 6,738 5,464 2,659 2,767 2,834 3,936 3,736 1,807 1,605 1,114 982 64

% of Foreign LTOs 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 6% 5% 3% 3% 1% 1% 

Foreign LTOs 8,329 8,814 9,551 10,153 10,865 10,427 12,027 13,092 14,056 16,129 18,707 18,087 14,941 12,158 7,959 7,456 1,830 1,73

% of Foreign LTOs 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 

Foreign LTOs 1,125 1,192 1,288 1,367 0 374 2,546 3,348 4,049 5,470 8,793 9,391 10,991 12,053 13,029 12,414 12,792 11,07

% of Foreign LTOs 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 

Foreign LTOs 6,080 6,441 6,972 7,407 5,710 8,859 9,345 9,968 8,821 9,774 8,432 9,303 10,075 9,975 13,659 10,887 9,430 10,91

(a) Each aircraft model reported in the T-100 dataset has a unique identification code (A/C code) (b) Each aircraft model used in the FAA's EDMS model has a unique identification code (ACCODE)

MD82MD11

655740730 DC10-1640 DC9-3732 DC10-3620 B737-1628 CRJ1627 B777-2626 B767-3ER816 B747-1612 B737-7698 A319-1696 A330-2694 A320-2715 B727-2819 B747-4817 B747-2625 B767-2ER820 B747-1873 A340-2

Canadair RJ-100/RJ-100ERBoeing 777-200/200LR/233LRBoeing 767-300/300ERBoeing 767-200/ER/EMBoeing 747-400Boeing 747-200/300Boeing 747-100Boeing 737-700/700LRMcDonnell Douglas DC9 Super 80/MD81/2/3/7/8McDonnell Douglas MD-11McDonnell Douglas DC-9-30Boeing 747FMcDonnell Douglas DC-10-30McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10Boeing 737-100/200Boeing 727-200/231AAirbus Industrie A340-200Aircraft NameAirbus Industrie A330-200Airbus Industrie A320-100/200Airbus Industrie A319
Appendix E 

Aircraft Engine Weighting Data
Boeing 727-200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

JT8D-7 series Feb-80 15.8 62.3 3,281 419 9.0%JT8D-9 series Feb-80 15.9 64.5 3,488 433 24.6%JT8D-15 Dec-79 16.8 68.9 4,144 486 51.8%JT8D-15A Dec-79 16.5 68.9 3,648 454 1.1%JT8D-17 Dec-79 17.0 71.2 4,559 499 5.5%JT8D-17A Dec-79 16.9 71.2 3,935 470 3.1%JT8D-17R Dec-79 18.2 77.4 5,623 537 5.0%JT8D-217C Feb-99 19.1 92.7 4,216 493 0.1%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO 24% 22% 21% 19% 19% 17% 15% 13% 11% 9% 9% 9% 8% 7% 6% 4% 1% 1% NOx (g/LTO) 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 Thrust (kN) 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 Press Ratio 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 NOx (g/LTO) 3,900 3,895 3,892 3,891 3,901 3,918 3,927 3,999 4,035 4,038 4,039 4,039 4,056 4,074 4,086 4,049 4,109 4,138 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 463 463 463 463 463 464 466 470 473 473 473 473 474 475 476 473 477 478 Thrust (kN) 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.2 67.3 67.4 67.9 68.2 68.2 68.2 68.2 68.3 68.5 68.6 68.4 68.9 68.9 Press Ratio 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.6 16.7 16.7 Max NOx (g/LTO) 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 Min NOx (g/LTO) 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 Percent Difference 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% NOx (g/LTO) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% Thrust (kN) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% Press Ratio 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-1
Embraer-145, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

AE3007A Mar-94 18.1 33.7 1,563 162 4.9%AE3007A1-Type 1 Mar-94 18.0 34.9 1,456 157 6.1%AE3007A1-Type 2 Aug-02 18.0 34.9 1,607 157 37.2%AE3007A1-Type 3 (low emissions) Jun-01 18.0 34.9 1,344 157 4.2%AE3007A1/1-Type 1 Mar-94 17.9 34.7 1,442 156 1.8%AE3007A1/1-Type 2 Aug-02 17.9 34.7 1,592 156 2.8%

AE3007A1/1-Type 3 (low emissions) Jun-01 17.9 34.7 1,333 156 0.4%AE3007A1/3-Type 2 Aug-02 17.2 33.1 1,465 151 0.3%

AE3007A1/3-Type 3 (low emissions) Jun-01 17.2 33.1 1,245 151 0.0%AE3007A1E-Type 3 Jun-01 19.1 37.2 1,501 165 13.9%AE3007A1P-Type 1 Mar-94 17.9 34.7 1,444 157 1.0%AE3007A1P-Type 2 Aug-02 17.9 34.7 1,567 157 24.8%AE3007A1P-Type 3 (low emissions) Jun-01 17.9 34.7 1,334 157 2.4%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ----- 1,563 1,442 1,456 1,456 1,344 1,607 1,607 

Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - 162 156 157 157 157 157 157 

Thrust (kN) - - - - - - ----- 33.7 34.7 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 

Press Ratio - - - - - - ----- 18.1 17.9 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 

NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ----- 1,563 1,498 1,470 1,460 1,349 1,583 1,575 

Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - 162 159 158 157 157 158 158 

Thrust (kN) - - - - - - ----- 33.7 34.3 34.7 34.8 34.8 34.9 35.1 

Press Ratio - - - - - - ----- 18.1 18.0 18.0 18.0 17.9 18.0 18.1 

Max NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ----- 1,563 1,563 1,563 1,563 1,563 1,607 1,607 

Min NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ----- 1,563 1,442 1,442 1,442 1,245 1,465 1,465 Percent Difference - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 8% 8% 8% 26% 10% 10% NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 4% 1% 0% 0% 2% 2% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Thrust (kN) - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% Press Ratio - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-2
Airbus Industrie A320-100/200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

V2500-A1 Jun-88 29.8 111.2 7,716 442 10.0%V2527-A5 Aug-92 27.2 111.2 5,382 437 51.8%V2527E-A5 Aug-92 27.2 111.2 5,382 437 0.1%CFM56-5-A1 Nov-86 26.6 111.2 4,506 385 16.8%CFM56-5A3 Nov-86 27.9 117.9 5,110 406 12.4%CFM56-5B4 Oct-92 27.1 117.9 5,861 421 8.7%CF6-50C2 Jul-87 28.4 230.4 11,884 769 4.2%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO 17% 15% 13% 11% 9% 9% 9% 8% 7% 6% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% NOx (g/LTO) 11,884 11,884 11,884 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 5,382 5,382 5,382 5,382 5,382 5,382 5,382 5,382 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 769 769 769 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 437 437 437 437 437 437 437 437 Thrust (kN) 230.4 230.4 230.4 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 Press Ratio 28.4 28.4 28.4 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 NOx (g/LTO) 11,884 11,884 11,884 4,506 4,506 5,771 5,611 5,479 5,509 5,519 5,649 5,646 5,626 5,563 5,394 5,462 5,444 5,438 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 769 769 769 385 385 407 405 405 411 414 419 420 421 421 412 424 425 426 Thrust (kN) 230.4 230.4 230.4 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 112.2 112.3 112.7 113.1 110.2 113.0 112.9 112.8 Press Ratio 28.4 28.4 28.4 26.6 26.6 27.9 27.7 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.6 26.8 27.4 27.4 27.4 Max NOx (g/LTO) 11,884 11,884 11,884 4,506 4,506 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 13,936 7,716 7,716 7,716 Min NOx (g/LTO) 11,884 11,884 11,884 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 Percent Difference 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 209% 71% 71% 71% NOx (g/LTO) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 28% 25% 22% 22% 22% 5% 5% 5% 3% 0% 1% 1% 1% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 5% 5% 7% 7% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 3% 3% 3% Thrust (kN) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% Press Ratio 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-3
Boeing 737-700/700LR, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CFM56-7B20 Jul-96 22.6 91.6 3,829 361 7.9%CFM56-7B20/3 Sep-05 22.4 91.6 2,987 348 0.5%CFM56-7B22 Jul-96 24.4 101.0 4,560 390 64.4%CFM56-7B22/3 Sep-05 24.2 101.0 3,540 377 3.1%CFM56-7B24 Jul-96 25.8 107.7 5,149 412 21.4%CFM56-7B24/3 Sep-05 25.6 107.6 3,995 398 0.2%CFM56-7B26 Jul-96 27.6 117.0 6,149 441 2.5%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 4% 3% NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ----- 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 

Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 

Thrust (kN) - - - - - - ----- 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 

Press Ratio - - - - - - ----- 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 

NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ----- 4,560 4,807 4,839 4,781 4,755 4,774 4,782 

Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - 390 399 400 398 397 398 398 

Thrust (kN) - - - - - - ----- 101.0 103.8 104.1 103.4 103.1 103.3 103.4 

Press Ratio - - - - - - ----- 24.4 25.0 25.1 24.9 24.8 24.9 24.9 

Max NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ----- 4,560 5,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 

Min NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ----- 4,560 4,560 4,560 3,829 3,829 3,829 3,829 Percent Difference - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 13% 35% 61% 61% 61% 61% NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 5% 6% 5% 4% 5% 5% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% Thrust (kN) - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% Press Ratio - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-4
Boeing 737-800, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CFM56-7B24 Jul-96 25.8 107.7 5,149 412 0.4%CFM56-7B26 Jul-96 27.6 117.0 6,149 441 67.2%CFM56-7B26/3 Sep-05 27.7 117.0 4,763 429 0.7%CFM56-7B27 Jul-96 28.6 121.4 6,719 456 30.6%CFM56-7B27/3 Sep-05 29.0 121.4 5,232 444 1.1%CFM56-7B27/B1 Jul-96 28.6 121.4 6,719 456 0.0%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 3% 3% NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ------ 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 

Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - - 441 441 441 441 441 441 

Thrust (kN) - - - - - - ------ 117.0 117.0 117.0 117.0 117.0 117.0 Press Ratio - - - - - - ------ 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 

NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ------ 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,195 6,381 6,375 

Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - - 441 441 441 442 447 447 

Thrust (kN) - - - - - - ------ 117.0 117.0 117.0 117.4 118.8 118.7 Press Ratio - - - - - - ------ 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.7 28.0 28.0 

Max NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ------ 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,719 6,719 6,719 

Min NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ------ 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 5,149 Percent Difference - - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 9% 9% 30% NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 1% 4% 4% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% Thrust (kN) - - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% Press Ratio - - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-5
Boeing 737-500, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CFM56-3-B1 Nov-83 22.4 89.4 3,595 392 58.1%CFM56-3C-1 Nov-83 25.5 104.6 4,810 448 41.9%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% NOx (g/LTO) - - - - 3,595 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - 392 448 448 448 448 448 448 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 Thrust (kN) - - - - 89.4 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 Press Ratio - - - - 22.4 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 NOx (g/LTO) - - - - 3,942 4,280 4,416 4,448 4,284 4,213 4,218 4,153 4,104 4,104 4,099 4,094 4,091 4,076 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - 408 424 430 431 424 420 421 418 415 415 415 415 415 414 Thrust (kN) - - - - 93.8 98.0 99.7 100.1 98.0 97.1 97.2 96.4 95.8 95.8 95.7 95.7 95.6 95.4 Press Ratio - - - - 23.3 24.2 24.5 24.6 24.2 24.0 24.0 23.8 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 Max NOx (g/LTO) - - - - 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 Min NOx (g/LTO) - - - - 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 Percent Difference - - - - 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% NOx (g/LTO) - - - - 10% 11% 8% 8% 11% 12% 12% 16% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 13% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - 4% 5% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Thrust (kN) - - - - 5% 6% 5% 4% 6% 7% 7% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Press Ratio - - - - 4% 5% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-6
Boeing 737-400, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CFM56-3B-2 Nov-83 24.1 98.3 4,213 421 56.7%CFM56-3C-1 Nov-83 25.5 104.6 4,810 448 43.3%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% NOx (g/LTO) - - 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,810 4,213 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 448 421 Thrust (kN) - - 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.3 104.6 98.3 Press Ratio - - 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 25.5 24.1 NOx (g/LTO) - - 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,224 4,356 4,407 4,457 4,424 4,452 4,467 4,485 4,482 4,472 4,478 4,515 4,502 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - 421 421 421 421 427 430 432 431 432 432 433 433 433 433 435 434 Thrust (kN) - - 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.4 99.8 100.3 100.9 100.5 100.8 101.0 101.2 101.1 101.0 101.1 101.5 101.3 Press Ratio - - 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.4 24.6 24.7 24.6 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.8 24.8 Max NOx (g/LTO) - - 4,213 4,213 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 Min NOx (g/LTO) - - 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 Percent Difference - - 0% 0% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% NOx (g/LTO) - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 5% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Thrust (kN) - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Press Ratio - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-7
Boeing 737-300, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CFM56-3-B1 Nov-83 22.4 89.4 3,595 392 65.9%CFM56-3B-2 Nov-83 24.1 98.3 4,213 421 24.1%CFM56-3C-1 Nov-83 25.5 104.6 4,810 448 10.0%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO 4% 6% 9% 11% 12% 13% 12% 13% 14% 14% 14% 15% 16% 17% 17% 15% 12% 9% NOx (g/LTO) - - 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 Thrust (kN) - - 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 Press Ratio - - 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 NOx (g/LTO) - - 3,746 3,788 3,828 3,834 3,831 3,813 3,801 3,790 3,784 3,796 3,813 3,915 3,944 3,951 3,955 3,947 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - 399 401 403 403 403 402 402 401 401 401 402 407 408 409 409 408 Thrust (kN) - - 91.6 92.2 92.8 92.8 92.8 92.6 92.4 92.2 92.1 92.3 92.5 93.6 94.0 94.1 94.1 94.0 Press Ratio - - 22.8 23.0 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.0 23.0 23.0 22.9 23.0 23.0 23.3 23.3 23.4 23.4 23.3 Max NOx (g/LTO) - - 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 Min NOx (g/LTO) - - 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 Percent Difference - - 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% NOx (g/LTO) - - 4% 5% 6% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 6% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Thrust (kN) - - 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Press Ratio - - 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-8
Boeing 737-100/200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

JT8D-15 Dec-79 16.8 68.9 4,144 486 10.6%JT8D-15A Dec-79 16.5 68.9 3,648 454 25.6%JT8D-17 Dec-79 17.0 71.2 4,559 499 9.9%JT8D-17A Dec-79 16.9 71.2 3,935 470 3.5%JT8D-7 series Feb-80 15.8 62.3 3,281 419 12.1%JT8D-9 series Feb-80 15.9 64.5 3,488 433 38.3%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO 17% 16% 14% 13% 13% 12% 11% 10% 11% 10% 9% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 2% 2% NOx (g/LTO) 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,281 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,648 3,648 3,488 3,648 3,648 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 433 433 433 433 433 419 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 454 454 433 454 454 Thrust (kN) 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 62.3 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 68.9 68.9 64.5 68.9 68.9 Press Ratio 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.8 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 16.5 16.5 15.9 16.5 16.5 NOx (g/LTO) 3,715 3,789 3,639 3,653 3,643 3,539 3,651 3,663 3,661 3,665 3,677 3,702 3,748 3,791 3,803 3,811 3,790 3,786 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 447 453 445 446 446 438 447 448 447 448 449 451 454 458 459 459 458 459 Thrust (kN) 66.0 66.9 66.0 66.1 66.2 64.5 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.8 67.3 67.8 68.0 67.8 68.0 68.2 Press Ratio 16.1 16.3 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.1 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.3 16.3 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 Max NOx (g/LTO) 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,144 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 Min NOx (g/LTO) 3,488 3,488 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 Percent Difference 31% 31% 39% 39% 39% 26% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% NOx (g/LTO) 7% 9% 4% 5% 4% 8% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 7% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 3% 5% 3% 3% 3% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 1% 1% 6% 1% 1% Thrust (kN) 2% 4% 2% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 2% 1% 5% 1% 1% Press Ratio 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-9
Boeing 757-200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

PW2037 Aug-83 26.7 166.4 8,120 586 50.3%PW2040 Aug-83 29.4 182.0 9,989 631 7.2%RB211-535C Apr-84 21.5 163.3 9,277 711 0.1%RB211-535E4 May-99 26.0 178.4 7,492 681 7.8%RB211-535E4 Apr-91 25.8 178.4 11,714 683 3.8%RB211-535E4 Jul-84 25.4 176.1 13,633 711 1.7%RB211-535E4B May-99 27.9 191.7 8,927 732 20.0%RB211-535E4B Apr-91 27.7 191.7 14,791 734 9.0%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 7% 6% NOx (g/LTO) 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 Thrust (kN) 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 Press Ratio 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 NOx (g/LTO) 10,430 9,996 9,782 9,937 10,117 9,887 10,059 10,090 10,460 10,646 10,647 10,693 10,760 8,415 8,401 8,404 8,422 8,417 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 638 629 624 627 631 627 631 632 640 645 645 646 647 647 647 649 649 651 Thrust (kN) 170.4 170.3 170.8 171.5 172.8 173.8 174.4 174.5 175.9 176.5 176.4 176.5 176.8 177.0 176.8 177.0 177.1 177.4 Press Ratio 26.2 26.4 26.7 26.7 26.9 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.1 27.1 27.2 27.2 Max NOx (g/LTO) 13,633 13,633 13,633 14,791 14,791 14,791 14,791 14,791 14,791 14,791 14,791 14,791 14,791 9,989 9,989 9,989 9,989 9,989 Min NOx (g/LTO) 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 7,492 7,492 7,492 7,492 7,492 Percent Difference 68% 68% 68% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% NOx (g/LTO) 28% 23% 20% 22% 25% 22% 24% 24% 29% 31% 31% 32% 33% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 9% 7% 6% 7% 8% 7% 8% 8% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% 11% Thrust (kN) 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% Press Ratio 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-10
McDonnell Douglas DC-9-10, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

JT8D-17 Dec-79 17.0 71.2 4,559 499 0.4%JT8D-7 series Apr-76 15.8 62.3 3,078 419 99.0%JT8D-1 Dec-79 17.0 71.2 4,559 499 0.6%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% NOx (g/LTO) 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 Thrust (kN) 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 Press Ratio 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 NOx (g/LTO) 3,031 3,062 3,061 3,061 3,060 3,033 3,033 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 411 416 415 415 415 413 413 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 Thrust (kN) 61.1 61.7 61.7 61.7 61.7 61.4 61.4 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 Press Ratio 15.5 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.6 15.6 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 Max NOx (g/LTO) 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 Min NOx (g/LTO) 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 Percent Difference 48% 48% 48% 48% 48% 48% 48% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% NOx (g/LTO) 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Thrust (kN) 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Press Ratio 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-11
McDonnell Douglas DC-9-30, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

JT8D-11 Feb-80 17.2 66.7 3,740 475 0.5%JT8D-15 Dec-79 16.8 68.9 4,144 486 3.6%JT8D-15A Dec-79 16.5 68.9 3,648 454 0.6%JT8D-17 Dec-79 17.0 71.2 4,559 499 0.3%JT8D-7 series Feb-80 15.8 62.3 3,281 419 42.2%JT8D-9 series Feb-80 15.9 64.5 3,488 433 52.6%JT8D-1 Dec-79 17.0 71.2 4,559 499 0.1%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO 12% 12% 11% 10% 11% 10% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% NOx (g/LTO) 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 419 419 419 419 419 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 Thrust (kN) 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 Press Ratio 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 NOx (g/LTO) 3,405 3,407 3,409 3,412 3,407 3,420 3,433 3,431 3,429 3,434 3,441 3,439 3,441 3,430 3,434 3,446 3,457 3,454 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 428 428 428 428 428 429 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 429 430 431 431 431 Thrust (kN) 63.5 63.5 63.6 63.6 63.5 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.8 63.8 63.9 63.9 63.9 63.8 63.8 63.9 64.1 64.0 Press Ratio 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 Max NOx (g/LTO) 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 Min NOx (g/LTO) 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 Percent Difference 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% NOx (g/LTO) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% Thrust (kN) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Press Ratio 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-12
McDonnell Douglas DC-9-50, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

JT8D-17 Dec-79 17.0 71.2 4,559 499 90.9%JT8D-17A Dec-79 16.9 71.2 3,935 470 9.1%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% NOx (g/LTO) 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 Thrust (kN) 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 Press Ratio 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 NOx (g/LTO) 4,489 4,506 4,489 4,487 4,492 4,529 4,529 4,544 4,487 4,489 4,489 4,486 4,487 4,475 4,475 4,472 4,472 4,521 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 496 497 496 496 496 498 498 498 496 496 496 496 496 495 495 495 495 497 Thrust (kN) 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 Press Ratio 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Max NOx (g/LTO) 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 Min NOx (g/LTO) 3,935 3,935 3,935 3,935 3,935 3,935 3,935 3,935 3,935 3,935 3,935 3,935 3,935 3,935 3,935 3,935 3,935 3,935 Percent Difference 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% NOx (g/LTO) 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% Thrust (kN) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Press Ratio 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-13
McDonnell Douglas DC9 Super 80/MD81/2/3/7/8, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

JT8D-209 Nov-83 18.3 85.6 5,075 469 0.1%JT8D-217 Feb-99 19.7 92.7 4,582 504 1.3%JT8D-217 series Nov-83 19.7 92.7 5,985 504 36.6%JT8D-217A Feb-99 19.7 92.7 4,582 504 3.7%JT8D-217C Feb-99 19.1 92.7 4,216 493 15.7%JT8D-219 Feb-99 20.3 96.5 4,604 501 25.6%JT8D-219 Nov-83 20.3 96.5 6,106 501 17.1%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO 6% 7% 9% 11% 12% 14% 15% 15% 15% 14% 13% 14% 13% 13% 12% 12% 10% 7% NOx (g/LTO) 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 4,604 4,604 4,604 4,604 4,604 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 501 501 501 501 501 Thrust (kN) 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 Press Ratio 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 NOx (g/LTO) 5,975 5,991 6,002 6,011 6,017 6,018 6,026 6,030 6,031 6,031 6,032 6,032 6,033 4,496 4,451 4,438 4,433 4,431 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 503 503 503 503 503 503 503 503 503 503 503 503 503 500 499 498 498 498 Thrust (kN) 92.8 93.1 93.3 93.6 93.7 93.8 94.0 94.1 94.2 94.2 94.2 94.2 94.2 94.3 94.3 94.4 94.4 94.5 Press Ratio 19.7 19.7 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.8 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 Max NOx (g/LTO) 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 4,604 4,604 4,604 4,604 4,604 Min NOx (g/LTO) 5,075 5,075 5,075 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216 Percent Difference 20% 20% 20% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% NOx (g/LTO) 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Thrust (kN) 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Press Ratio 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-14
Airbus Industrie A319, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CFM56-5A4 Nov-86 23.8 97.9 3,851 346 0.2%CFM56-5A5 Nov-86 25.1 104.5 4,367 365 22%CFM56-5B5/P Nov-95 23.3 97.9 3,732 344 9%CFM56-5B6/2P Aug-96 24.6 104.5 3,020 394 0.2%CFM56-5B6/3 Sep-05 24.3 104.5 3,363 361 0.3%CFM56-5B6/P Nov-95 24.6 104.5 4,232 363 27%CFM56-5B7/P Nov-95 27.7 120.1 5,641 408 0.1%V2522-A5 Aug-92 25.6 102.7 4,720 407 22%V2524-A5 Aug-92 26.9 109.1 5,278 429 18%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 3% NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ----- 4,720 4,720 4,720 4,232 4,232 4,232 4,367 

Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - 407 407 407 363 363 363 365 

Thrust (kN) - - - - - - ----- 102.7 102.7 102.7 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 

Press Ratio - - - - - - ----- 25.6 25.6 25.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 25.1 

NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ----- 4,720 4,677 4,533 4,511 4,547 4,501 4,469 

Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - 407 400 387 383 385 382 381 

Thrust (kN) - - - - - - ----- 102.7 103.7 104.0 104.7 104.6 104.3 104.1 

Press Ratio - - - - - - ----- 25.6 25.5 25.3 25.2 25.3 25.2 25.2 

Max NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ----- 4,720 5,278 5,278 5,278 5,278 5,278 5,278 

Min NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - ----- 4,720 4,232 3,851 4,232 3,732 3,732 3,020 Percent Difference - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 25% 37% 25% 41% 41% 75% NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 1% 4% 7% 7% 6% 2% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 2% 5% 5% 6% 5% 4% Thrust (kN) - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Press Ratio - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 2% 0% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-15
Boeing 727-100, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

JT8D-15 Dec-79 16.8 68.9 4,144 486 0%JT8D-7 series Feb-80 15.8 62.3 3,281 419 85%JT8D-9 series Feb-80 15.9 64.5 3,488 433 3%JT8D-217C Feb-99 19.1 92.7 4,216 493 1%JT8D-219 Feb-99 20.3 96.5 4,604 501 0%JT8D-219 Nov-83 20.3 96.5 6,106 501 0%RB.183 Tay-651-54 Mar-88 16.4 67.2 2,875 378 10%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

% of LTO 7% 5% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% NOx (g/LTO) 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 Thrust (kN) 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 Press Ratio 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 NOx (g/LTO) 3,288 3,290 3,288 3,288 3,296 3,298 3,294 3,274 3,241 3,221 3,225 3,224 3,224 3,224 3,215 3,200 3,220 3,196 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 420 420 419 419 420 420 419 417 414 412 411 411 411 412 411 409 411 409 Thrust (kN) 62.3 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.5 62.8 63.2 63.5 63.8 63.9 63.9 64.6 64.8 65.2 65.9 66.0 Press Ratio 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.9 15.9 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.1 16.1 16.2 16.2 16.2 Max NOx (g/LTO) 4,144 4,144 3,488 3,488 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 4,604 4,604 4,604 4,604 4,604 Min NOx (g/LTO) 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 2,875 2,875 2,875 2,875 2,875 2,875 2,875 2,875 2,875 2,875 2,875 2,875 Percent Difference 26% 26% 6% 6% 86% 86% 112% 112% 112% 112% 112% 112% 112% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% NOx (g/LTO) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Thrust (kN) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% Press Ratio 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-16
Airbus Industrie A319, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CFM56-5A4 Nov-86 23.8 97.9 3,851 346 2.8%CFM56-5A5 Nov-86 25.1 104.5 4,367 365 8.4%CFM56-5B2 Oct-92 31.3 137.9 8,485 489 0.0%CFM56-5B5/3 Sep-05 23.1 97.9 3,047 343 1.7%CFM56-5B5/P Nov-95 23.3 97.9 3,732 344 28.5%CFM56-5B6/2P Aug-96 24.6 104.5 3,020 394 6.7%CFM56-5B6/3 Sep-05 24.3 104.5 3,363 361 1.6%CFM56-5B6/P Nov-95 24.6 104.5 4,232 363 14.9%CFM56-5B7/3 Sep-05 27.3 120.1 4,511 407 0.1%CFM56-5B7/P Nov-95 27.7 120.1 5,641 408 6.0%V2522-A5 Aug-92 25.6 102.7 4,720 407 11.2%V2524-A5 Aug-92 26.9 109.1 5,278 429 14.4%V2527M-A5 Aug-92 27.2 111.2 5,382 437 3.8%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 8% 8% 8% NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - 8,485 4,367 4,367 4,367 3,732 3,732 3,732 3,732 3,732 3,732 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - ------- - 489 365 365 365 344 344 344 344 344 344 

Thrust (kN) - ------- - 137.9 104.5 104.5 104.5 97.9 97.9 97.9 97.9 97.9 97.9 Press Ratio - ------- - 31.3 25.1 25.1 25.1 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - 8,485 3,916 3,941 3,980 4,054 4,095 4,243 4,271 4,235 4,280 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - - - - 489 372 366 364 374 377 377 379 377 379 Thrust (kN) - ------- - 137.9 102.6 102.6 102.4 102.9 103.0 102.7 103.3 103.5 103.7 Press Ratio - ------- - 31.3 24.7 24.6 24.5 24.7 24.8 24.8 24.9 24.8 24.9 NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - 8,485 5,278 4,720 5,278 5,382 5,641 5,641 5,641 5,641 5,641 NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - 8,485 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 Percent Difference - ------- - 0% 75% 56% 75% 78% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - 0% 10% 10% 9% 9% 10% 14% 14% 13% 15% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - ------- - 0% 2% 0% 0% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Thrust (kN) - ------- - 0% 2% 2% 2% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% Press Ratio - ------- - 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 7% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-17
Airbus Industrie A320-100/200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CFM56-5-A1 Nov-86 26.6 111.2 4,506 385 26.9%CFM56-5A3 Nov-86 27.9 117.9 5,110 406 6.4%CFM56-5B4 Oct-92 27.1 117.9 5,861 421 1.1%CFM56-5B4/2 Jun-94 27.1 117.9 3,783 447 1.2%CFM56-5B4/2P Aug-96 27.7 120.1 3,847 442 3.0%CFM56-5B4/3 Sep-05 27.3 120.1 4,511 407 1.1%CFM56-5B4/P Nov-95 27.7 120.1 5,641 408 19.4%CFM56-5B6/3 Sep-05 24.3 104.5 3,363 361 0.6%CFM56-5B6/P Nov-95 24.6 104.5 4,232 363 0.8%V2500-A1 Jun-88 29.8 111.2 7,716 442 15.1%V2527-A5 Aug-92 27.2 111.2 5,382 437 17.3%V2527E-A5 Aug-92 27.2 111.2 5,382 437 4.2%JT9D-59A Apr-76 24.5 235.8 12,381 900 0.4%CF6-50C2R Oct-79 28.8 224.2 13,436 838 0.2%CF6-50C1, -C2 Oct-79 29.8 230.4 14,247 859 0.9%CF6-50C Oct-79 28.8 224.2 13,436 838 0.2%CF6-50C2R Jul-87 27.8 224.2 11,116 751 0.3%CF6-50C2 Jul-87 28.4 230.4 11,884 769 0.9%CF6-50C Jul-87 27.8 224.2 11,116 751 0.1%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 3% 3% 3% 3% 0% 1% 4% 7% 8% 7% 7% 8% 8% 9% 10% 10% 10% 9% 9% NOx (g/LTO) 14,247 11,884 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 5,641 5,641 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 859 769 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 408 408 Thrust (kN) 230.4 230.4 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 120.1 120.1 Press Ratio 29.8 28.4 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 27.7 27.7 NOx (g/LTO) 13,779 11,732 4,675 5,498 5,296 5,394 5,466 5,609 5,616 5,622 5,542 5,554 5,502 5,480 5,452 5,463 5,500 5,346 5,450 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 858 781 388 403 399 401 403 406 406 408 409 411 412 414 414 415 417 416 416 Thrust (kN) 229.2 229.3 111.2 111.2 111.3 111.5 111.7 111.8 111.8 111.9 112.4 112.6 112.9 113.5 113.9 114.1 114.2 114.6 114.3 Press Ratio 28.9 27.7 26.8 27.6 27.4 27.5 27.6 27.8 27.8 27.8 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.6 27.6 27.7 27.4 27.6 NOx (g/LTO) 14,247 12,381 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 NOx (g/LTO) 12,381 11,116 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 3,783 3,783 3,783 3,783 3,783 3,783 3,783 3,783 3,363 3,783 Percent Difference 15% 11% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 129% 104% NOx (g/LTO) 3% 1% 4% 22% 18% 20% 21% 24% 25% 25% 23% 23% 22% 22% 21% 21% 22% 5% 3% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 0% 2% 1% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 2% 2% Thrust (kN) 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 5% 5% Press Ratio 3% 2% 1% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 1% 0% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-18
Airbus Industrie A330-200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CF6-80E1A2 Jan-95 33.1 287.0 13,796 942 1.1%CF6-80E1A3 Jan-95 35.7 304.8 19,254 976 15.9%CF6-80E1A4 Jan-96 34.5 297.4 15,027 963 13.7%PW4168 Feb-93 33.1 302.5 19,704 963 0.1%PW4168A Apr-00 31.8 302.5 13,936 1017 24.3%PW4168A Feb-93 33.1 302.5 19,704 963 2.4%Trent 772 Sep-94 35.8 316.3 17,784 1116 42.5%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - - - 19,704 19,704 19,704 13,936 17,784 17,784 17,784 17,784 

Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - ------- - - - 963 963 963 1017 1116 1116 1116 1116 

Thrust (kN) - ------- - - - 302.5 302.5 302.5 302.5 316.3 316.3 316.3 316.3 

Press Ratio - ------- - - - 33.1 33.1 33.1 31.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 

NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - - - 16,750 19,544 18,847 15,783 16,195 16,456 16,599 16,563 

Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - - - - - - 953 976 1,024 1,062 1,067 1,050 1,036 1,048 

Thrust (kN) - ------- - - - 294.8 303.6 307.8 308.9 309.8 308.3 307.1 308.1 Press Ratio - ------- - - - 33.1 33.3 34.2 33.8 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.6 NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - - - 19,704 19,704 19,704 17,784 19,254 19,254 19,254 19,254 

NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - - - 13,796 17,784 15,027 13,936 13,936 13,796 13,796 13,796 

Percent Difference - ------- - - - 43% 11% 31% 28% 38% 40% 40% 40% 

NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - - - 15% 1% 4% 13% 9% 7% 7% 7% 

Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - ------- - - - 1% 1% 6% 4% 4% 6% 7% 6% 

Thrust (kN) - ------- - - - 3% 0% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 

Press Ratio - ------- - - - 0% 1% 3% 6% 5% 4% 4% 3% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-19
Airbus Industrie A340-200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CFM56-5C2 Jun-91 28.8 138.8 7,077 466 44.2%CFM56-5C2/P Jun-91 28.2 137.6 6,240 441 15.1%CFM56-5C3/P Jun-91 29.2 143.3 6,858 458 34.3%CFM56-5C4 Jun-91 31.2 151.3 8,702 505 6.4%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 5% NOx (g/LTO) - ----- 7,077 7,077 7,077 7,077 7,077 7,077 7,077 7,077 7,077 6,240 7,077 6,858 6,858 

Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - 466 466 466 466 466 466 466 466 466 441 466 458 458 

Thrust (kN) - ----- 138.8 138.8 138.8 138.8 138.8 138.8 138.8 138.8 138.8 137.6 138.8 143.3 143.3 

Press Ratio - ----- 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.2 28.8 29.2 29.2 

NOx (g/LTO) - ----- 7,077 7,077 7,077 7,056 6,821 6,863 6,863 6,855 6,895 6,882 6,904 6,982 7,100 

Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - - 466 466 466 465 458 459 459 459 460 459 460 462 465 Thrust (kN) - ----- 138.8 138.8 138.8 139.2 139.3 140.1 140.1 139.9 140.3 140.9 140.8 141.9 142.2 

Press Ratio - ----- 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.7 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.9 28.9 28.9 29.1 29.2 NOx (g/LTO) - ----- 7,077 7,077 7,077 7,077 7,077 8,702 8,702 8,702 8,702 8,702 8,702 8,702 8,702 

NOx (g/LTO) - ----- 7,077 7,077 7,077 7,077 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 

Percent Difference - ----- 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% NOx (g/LTO) - - - - - -00 0 0% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 10% 2% 2% 4% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - - -00 0 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 4% 1% 1% 2% Thrust (kN) - - - - - -00 0 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% Press Ratio - - - - - -00 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 

Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

1-Default

E-20
Boeing 727-200/231A, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

JT8D-15 Dec-79 16.8 68.9 4,144 486 35.2%JT8D-15A Dec-79 16.5 68.9 3,648 454 1.1%JT8D-17 Dec-79 17.0 71.2 4,559 499 12.8%JT8D-17A Dec-79 16.9 71.2 3,935 470 0.2%JT8D-17R Dec-79 18.2 77.4 5,623 537 18.8%JT8D-7 series Feb-80 15.8 62.3 3,281 419 6.1%JT8D-9 series Feb-80 15.9 64.5 3,488 433 23.3%JT8D-217C Feb-99 19.1 92.7 4,216 493 2.2%JT8D-219 Feb-99 20.3 96.5 4,604 501 0.2%JT8D-219 Nov-83 20.3 96.5 6,106 501 0.0%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 11% 11% 11% 11% 15% 12% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% NOx (g/LTO) 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 Thrust (kN) 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 Press Ratio 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 NOx (g/LTO) 4,248 4,248 4,259 4,269 4,282 4,305 4,280 4,291 4,260 4,165 4,224 4,225 4,247 4,234 4,265 4,310 4,297 4,272 4,342 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 479 479 480 480 481 482 481 482 480 475 478 478 479 478 480 483 483 482 487 Thrust (kN) 69.2 69.2 69.4 69.5 69.6 69.8 69.7 69.5 69.4 68.9 69.3 69.2 69.9 70.2 71.0 71.8 71.7 70.5 71.9 Press Ratio 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.9 16.9 16.8 16.8 16.7 16.8 16.8 16.9 16.9 17.0 17.1 17.1 16.9 17.1 NOx (g/LTO) 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 6,106 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 NOx (g/LTO) 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 Percent Difference 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 86% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% NOx (g/LTO) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 3% 5% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% Thrust (kN) 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 4% 2% 4% Press Ratio 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-21
Boeing 737-100/200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

JT8D-15 Dec-79 16.8 68.9 4,144 486 29.1%JT8D-15A Dec-79 16.5 68.9 3,648 454 18.1%JT8D-17 Dec-79 17.0 71.2 4,559 499 17.3%JT8D-17A Dec-79 16.9 71.2 3,935 470 16.1%JT8D-7 series Feb-80 15.8 62.3 3,281 419 1.9%JT8D-9 series Feb-80 15.9 64.5 3,488 433 17.6%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 8% 7% 5% 6% 3% 2% 2% NOx (g/LTO) 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 3,648 3,648 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 454 454 Thrust (kN) 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 Press Ratio 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.5 16.5 NOx (g/LTO) 4,005 3,987 3,980 3,969 3,958 3,987 3,937 3,946 3,950 3,955 3,962 3,949 3,955 3,955 3,960 3,963 3,962 3,974 3,949 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 472 471 470 470 469 471 468 468 469 469 469 468 469 469 469 469 469 471 469 Thrust (kN) 68.8 68.7 68.7 68.7 68.7 68.9 68.6 68.7 68.7 68.7 68.8 68.7 68.7 68.7 68.7 68.7 68.9 69.2 69.0 Press Ratio 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 NOx (g/LTO) 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 NOx (g/LTO) 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 Percent Difference 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% NOx (g/LTO) 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 9% 8% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% Thrust (kN) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Press Ratio 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-22
Boeing 737-700/700LR, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CFM56-7B20 Jul-96 22.6 91.6 3,829 361 17.0%CFM56-7B20/3 Sep-05 22.4 91.6 2,987 348 0.5%CFM56-7B22 Jul-96 24.4 101.0 4,560 390 42.7%CFM56-7B22/3 Sep-05 24.2 101.0 3,540 377 1.9%CFM56-7B24 Jul-96 25.8 107.7 5,149 412 33.5%CFM56-7B24/3 Sep-05 25.6 107.6 3,995 398 1.4%CFM56-7B26 Jul-96 27.6 117.0 6,149 441 3.1%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - - - - 4,560 4,560 5,149 5,149 4,560 4,560 4,560 

Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - ------- - - - - 390 390 412 412 390 390 390 

Thrust (kN) - ------- - - - - 101.0 101.0 107.7 107.7 101.0 101.0 101.0 

Press Ratio - ------- - - - - 24.4 24.4 25.8 25.8 24.4 24.4 24.4 

NOx (g/LTO) - ------- ---- 4,807 4,863 4,825 4,751 4,643 4,593 4,607 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - ------- - - - - 399 401 400 397 393 392 391 Thrust (kN) - ------- ---- 103.8 104.3 103.8 103.0 101.7 101.9 101.2 Press Ratio - ------- ---- 25.0 25.1 25.0 24.8 24.6 24.6 24.5 

NOx (g/LTO) - ------- ---- 5,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 

NOx (g/LTO) - ------- ---- 4,560 3,829 3,829 3,829 3,829 2,987 3,829 Percent Difference - ------- ---- 13% 61% 61% 61% 61% 106% 61% NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - - - - 5% 7% 6% 8% 2% 1% 1% 

Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - ------- - - - - 2% 3% 3% 4% 1% 1% 0% 

Thrust (kN) - ------- - - - - 3% 3% 4% 4% 1% 1% 0% 

Press Ratio - ------- - - - - 2% 3% 3% 4% 1% 1% 0% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-23
Boeing 747-100, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

JT9D-7 Mar-76 21.5 202.4 11,892 794 18.8%JT9D-7A Mar-76 20.3 205.3 12,291 802 43.8%JT9D-7F Sep-80 22.8 213.5 13,703 837 1.7%JT9D-7J Sep-80 23.5 222.4 15,885 883 1.0%CF6-45A Jul-87 25.4 202.8 9,105 701 20.9%CF6-50E2 Jul-87 28.4 230.4 11,884 769 0.9%RB211-524C2 Sep-86 29.1 224.8 16,401 1016 12.9%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% NOx (g/LTO) 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 9,105 9,105 12,291 12,291 12,291 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 802 802 802 802 802 802 802 802 802 802 802 802 802 802 701 701 802 802 802 Thrust (kN) 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 202.8 202.8 205.3 205.3 205.3 Press Ratio 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 25.4 25.4 20.3 20.3 20.3 NOx (g/LTO) 12,013 12,020 12,009 12,017 11,996 12,004 11,989 11,981 12,090 12,041 11,964 11,978 11,926 12,084 12,089 12,185 12,394 12,606 13,216 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 801 801 801 801 801 802 801 800 805 803 800 800 800 811 813 817 824 831 855 Thrust (kN) 206.1 206.2 206.1 206.2 206.2 206.5 206.4 206.3 207.0 207.3 207.1 207.0 207.5 208.7 209.5 209.7 210.0 210.2 211.8 Press Ratio 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.6 22.5 22.7 22.8 22.9 22.7 23.2 24.0 24.4 24.4 24.2 23.8 23.9 NOx (g/LTO) 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401 NOx (g/LTO) 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 9,105 Percent Difference 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% NOx (g/LTO) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 33% 34% 1% 3% 8% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 16% 17% 3% 4% 7% Thrust (kN) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% Press Ratio 10% 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% 12% 11% 12% 12% 13% 12% 14% 18% 4% 4% 19% 17% 18% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-24
Boeing 747-200/300, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CF6-50E Jul-87 28.4 230.4 11,884 769 0.4%CF6-50E2 Jul-87 28.4 230.4 11,884 769 28.1%CF6-50E2 Oct-79 29.8 230.4 14,247 859 1.5%CF6-80C2B1 May-85 30.1 249.0 10,400 797 0.7%CF6-80C2B1 Jan-95 29.5 249.0 10,719 811 1.2%CF6-80C2B1F Jan-95 30.1 254.3 11,113 830 0.0%JT9D-7 Mar-76 21.5 202.4 11,892 794 0.1%JT9D-70A Apr-76 24.5 235.8 12,381 900 0.7%JT9D-7A Mar-76 20.3 205.3 12,291 802 7.0%JT9D-7F Sep-80 22.8 213.5 13,703 837 3.6%JT9D-7J Sep-80 23.5 222.4 15,885 883 6.0%JT9D-7Q Apr-76 24.5 235.8 12,381 900 16.2%JT9D-7R4G2 Oct-81 26.3 243.5 14,253 858 17.3%JT9D-7W Sep-80 23.5 222.4 15,885 883 0.1%RB211-524C2 Sep-86 29.1 224.8 16,401 1016 3.3%RB211-524D4 Sep-86 30.2 231.3 20,124 912 13.7%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 13% 13% 13% 13% 16% 14% 12% 11% 10% 9% 8% 8% 9% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% NOx (g/LTO) 14,247 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 859 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 Thrust (kN) 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 Press Ratio 29.8 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 NOx (g/LTO) 14,413 13,878 13,854 13,857 13,885 13,962 13,958 13,958 13,973 13,978 14,014 14,025 14,032 14,072 14,132 13,869 13,915 14,408 14,075 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 873 846 845 845 846 849 846 847 847 846 846 846 844 846 848 844 848 860 851 Thrust (kN) 228.3 228.8 229.7 229.8 230.2 230.4 230.9 231.1 231.0 230.9 230.8 230.7 230.6 231.1 232.0 232.6 233.2 233.4 233.5 Press Ratio 26.4 26.2 26.3 26.3 26.5 26.5 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.7 26.8 27.0 26.8 26.8 26.7 27.1 NOx (g/LTO) 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 NOx (g/LTO) 11,884 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,719 10,719 10,719 10,719 10,719 10,719 10,719 10,719 10,719 10,719 Percent Difference 69% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% NOx (g/LTO) 1% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 19% 17% 17% 21% 18% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 2% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 12% 11% Thrust (kN) 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Press Ratio 11% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-25
Boeing 747-400, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CF6-80C2B1F May-85 30.1 254.3 10,528 809 6.5%CF6-80C2B1F Jan-95 30.1 254.3 11,113 830 39.7%CF6-80C2B5F Jan-95 32.8 272.5 13,142 887 2.3%PW4056 Aug-87 29.3 249.1 11,987 836 27.0%PW4x62 Jan-93 31.9 275.8 15,864 920 0.6%RB211-524G Apr-87 32.1 253.0 21,075 958 4.4%RB211-524G-T Sep-94 32.1 253.0 12,513 970 0.0%RB211-524H Apr-87 34.0 264.4 24,501 977 19.4%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 7% 7% 7% 7% 5% 6% 7% 8% 10% 10% 11% 12% 12% 13% 15% 15% 14% 13% 14% NOx (g/LTO) - - - 21,075 10,528 10,528 10,528 10,528 10,528 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - 958 809 809 809 809 809 830 830 830 830 830 830 830 830 830 830 Thrust (kN) - - - 253.0 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 Press Ratio - - - 32.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 NOx (g/LTO) - - - 14,694 15,028 14,485 14,684 14,479 14,382 14,547 14,399 14,337 14,490 14,593 14,577 14,565 14,511 14,437 14,396 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - 870 872 864 865 861 859 868 866 865 867 868 868 868 868 868 867 Thrust (kN) - - - 252.3 253.5 253.8 254.6 254.9 254.9 254.7 254.5 254.4 254.6 254.9 255.1 255.3 255.7 256.0 256.3 Press Ratio - - - 30.6 30.8 30.8 30.9 30.9 30.8 30.8 30.7 30.7 30.7 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.9 30.9 30.9 NOx (g/LTO) - - - 21,075 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 NOx (g/LTO) - - - 10,528 10,528 10,528 10,528 10,528 10,528 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 Percent Difference - - - 100% 133% 133% 133% 133% 133% 120% 120% 120% 120% 120% 120% 120% 120% 120% 120% NOx (g/LTO) - - - 30% 43% 38% 39% 38% 37% 31% 30% 29% 30% 31% 31% 31% 31% 30% 30% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - 9% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Thrust (kN) - - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Press Ratio - - - 5% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-26
Boeing 747F, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CF6-50E2 Jul-87 28.4 230.4 11,884 769 39.9%CF6-50E2 Oct-79 29.8 230.4 14,247 859 1.4%JT9D-70A Apr-76 24.5 235.8 12,381 900 2.0%JT9D-7A Mar-76 20.3 205.3 12,291 802 1.8%JT9D-7F Sep-80 22.8 213.5 13,703 837 7.4%JT9D-7J Sep-80 23.5 222.4 15,885 883 1.4%JT9D-7Q Apr-76 24.5 235.8 12,381 900 24.3%JT9D-7R4G2 Oct-81 26.3 243.5 14,253 858 14.1%RB211-524C2 Sep-86 29.1 224.8 16,401 1016 1.3%RB211-524D4 Sep-86 30.2 231.3 20,124 912 6.3%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 8% 9% NOx (g/LTO) 14,247 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 12,381 11,884 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 859 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 900 769 Thrust (kN) 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 235.8 230.4 Press Ratio 29.8 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 24.5 28.4 NOx (g/LTO) 13,594 12,805 12,840 13,025 13,120 13,098 13,181 13,191 13,116 13,130 13,181 13,123 13,158 13,131 13,121 13,028 13,056 13,519 13,239 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 876 844 840 841 839 839 832 835 832 831 832 829 826 830 832 828 832 856 832 Thrust (kN) 229.7 229.8 230.7 231.0 231.4 231.2 231.8 231.9 232.1 232.0 231.8 231.7 231.3 231.2 232.2 232.1 232.8 233.1 231.9 Press Ratio 26.4 26.0 26.2 26.3 26.5 26.5 26.6 26.6 26.7 26.7 26.6 26.8 26.7 26.6 26.8 26.7 26.8 26.3 27.0 NOx (g/LTO) 16,401 16,401 16,401 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124 NOx (g/LTO) 12,291 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 Percent Difference 33% 38% 38% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% NOx (g/LTO) 5% 8% 8% 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% 10% 10% 11% 10% 11% 10% 10% 10% 10% 9% 11% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 2% 10% 9% 9% 9% 9% 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 8% 8% 8% 8% 5% 8% Thrust (kN) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Press Ratio 11% 9% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 5% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-27
Boeing 767-200/ER/EM, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CF6-80A Nov-83 29.0 208.8 11,066 709 25.1%CF6-80A2 Nov-83 30.1 216.5 11,878 731 14.4%CF6-80C2B2 May-85 27.7 231.1 8,796 760 2.6%CF6-80C2B2 Jan-95 27.5 231.1 9,169 758 4.1%CF6-80C2B2F May-85 27.5 231.4 8,361 735 0.2%CF6-80C2B2F Jan-95 27.6 231.4 9,192 760 2.9%CF6-80C2B4 May-85 30.4 254.4 11,211 830 1.5%CF6-80C2B4 Jan-95 30.1 254.4 11,226 828 3.0%CF6-80C2B4F May-85 30.2 254.8 10,635 799 0.7%CF6-80C2B4F Jan-95 30.2 254.8 11,137 830 3.0%CF6-80C2B6F Jan-95 31.7 267.0 12,420 867 2.5%CF6-80C2B7F Jan-95 31.7 267.0 12,420 867 0.5%JT9D-7R4D, -7R4D1 Mar-80 23.4 213.5 13,067 810 9.2%JT9D-7R4E, -7R4E1 Mar-80 24.2 222.4 14,527 818 12.2%JT9D-7R4E4, -E1(H) Oct-81 24.2 222.4 13,117 832 4.9%PW4x52 Jan-93 26.3 231.3 10,449 774 2.0%PW4056 Aug-87 29.3 249.1 11,987 836 7.9%PW4060 Aug-87 32.4 266.9 14,097 887 3.3%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% NOx (g/LTO) 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 14,527 14,527 11,878 11,987 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 818 818 731 836 Thrust (kN) 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 222.4 222.4 216.5 249.1 Press Ratio 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 24.2 24.2 30.1 29.3 NOx (g/LTO) 12,172 11,959 11,912 11,860 11,938 11,859 11,944 11,841 11,674 11,756 11,802 11,790 11,836 11,883 11,928 12,103 12,099 11,852 11,985 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 754 756 757 759 767 764 769 771 768 770 770 771 776 781 783 797 800 796 805 Thrust (kN) 213.4 215.1 216.2 218.0 221.6 221.0 222.5 224.0 224.6 224.6 224.5 224.8 226.7 228.2 229.2 231.9 233.6 233.7 236.2 Press Ratio 27.1 27.1 27.3 27.4 27.8 27.8 27.9 28.0 28.1 28.1 28.1 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.3 27.9 28.0 28.2 28.3 NOx (g/LTO) 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527 NOx (g/LTO) 11,066 8,796 8,796 8,796 8,796 8,796 8,796 8,796 8,361 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169 Percent Difference 31% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 74% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% NOx (g/LTO) 10% 8% 8% 7% 8% 7% 8% 7% 5% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 17% 17% 0% 0% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 6% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 9% 8% 9% 9% 9% 10% 10% 10% 3% 2% 9% 4% Thrust (kN) 2% 3% 4% 4% 6% 6% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 10% 4% 5% 8% 5% Press Ratio 7% 7% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 15% 16% 6% 3% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-28
Boeing 767-300/300ER, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CF6-80A2 Nov-83 30.1 216.5 11,878 731 0.0%CF6-80C2B2 May-85 27.7 231.1 8,796 760 2.8%CF6-80C2B2 Jan-95 27.5 231.1 9,169 758 10.4%CF6-80C2B2F May-85 27.5 231.4 8,361 735 0.5%CF6-80C2B2F Jan-95 27.6 231.4 9,192 760 2.8%CF6-80C2B4 May-85 30.4 254.4 11,211 830 1.3%CF6-80C2B4 Jan-95 30.1 254.4 11,226 828 3.3%CF6-80C2B4F May-85 30.2 254.8 10,635 799 0.0%CF6-80C2B4F Jan-95 30.2 254.8 11,137 830 0.5%CF6-80C2B6F May-85 31.8 267.0 12,134 834 1.1%CF6-80C2B6F Jan-95 31.7 267.0 12,420 867 16.1%CF6-80C2B7F May-85 31.8 267.0 12,134 834 0.0%CF6-80C2B7F Jan-95 31.7 267.0 12,420 867 9.1%JT9D-7R4D, -7R4D1 Mar-80 23.4 213.5 13,067 810 5.0%PW4x52 Jan-93 26.3 231.3 10,449 774 0.0%PW4056 Aug-87 29.3 249.1 11,987 836 4.6%PW4060 Aug-87 32.4 266.9 14,097 887 17.5%PW4x62 Jan-93 31.9 275.8 15,864 920 3.2%RB211-524H Apr-87 34.0 264.4 24,501 977 8.9%CF6-80C2B6 May-85 31.6 267.2 12,362 871 2.4%CF6-80C2B6 Jan-95 31.7 267.2 12,640 866 10.4%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 5% 6% 5% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 5% 5% NOx (g/LTO) 13,067 13,067 13,067 13,067 8,796 14,097 14,097 14,097 14,097 14,097 14,097 14,097 14,097 12,420 12,420 12,420 12,420 12,420 12,420 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 810 810 810 810 760 887 887 887 887 887 887 887 887 867 867 867 867 867 867 Thrust (kN) 213.5 213.5 213.5 213.5 231.1 266.9 266.9 266.9 266.9 266.9 266.9 266.9 266.9 267.0 267.0 267.0 267.0 267.0 267.0 Press Ratio 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 27.7 32.4 32.4 32.4 32.4 32.4 32.4 32.4 32.4 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 NOx (g/LTO) 13,067 11,643 11,296 11,866 12,945 13,291 13,417 13,410 13,248 13,313 13,401 13,406 13,489 13,362 13,411 13,167 13,228 13,280 13,301 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 810 793 805 827 839 852 853 853 850 853 857 858 859 858 859 857 858 860 860 Thrust (kN) 213.5 219.4 232.4 244.5 247.3 253.2 254.2 254.4 254.4 254.9 256.2 256.8 257.2 257.4 257.7 257.7 257.9 258.9 258.7 Press Ratio 23.4 24.8 26.9 28.8 29.6 30.3 30.5 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.7 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.9 31.0 NOx (g/LTO) 13,067 13,067 13,067 14,097 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501 NOx (g/LTO) 13,067 8,796 8,796 8,796 8,361 8,361 8,361 8,361 8,361 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169 Percent Difference 0% 49% 49% 60% 193% 193% 193% 193% 193% 167% 167% 167% 167% 167% 167% 167% 167% 167% 167% NOx (g/LTO) 0% 11% 14% 9% 47% 6% 5% 5% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 8% 8% 6% 7% 7% 7% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 0% 2% 1% 2% 10% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Thrust (kN) 0% 3% 9% 15% 7% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Press Ratio 0% 6% 15% 23% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-29
Boeing 777-200/200LR/233LR, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

GE90-110B1 Nov-03 39.7 492.6 30,616 1479 0.8%GE90-76B Jan-00 34.9 360.6 19,394 1017 1.0%GE90-76B Apr-97 35.1 360.6 19,680 1048 0.5%GE90-76B Feb-95 35.3 360.6 21,342 1082 0.2%GE90-85B Jan-00 37.7 395.3 24,177 1107 7.2%GE90-85B Apr-97 38.0 395.3 24,478 1134 2.0%GE90-85B Feb-95 38.1 395.3 25,703 1149 0.2%GE90-90B Jan-00 39.4 418.1 27,923 1166 15.6%GE90-90B Apr-97 39.8 418.1 28,459 1193 2.5%GE90-94B Jan-00 40.5 432.8 30,617 1203 12.2%PW4074 Apr-94 32.2 333.2 18,078 981 8.2%PW4077 Apr-94 33.2 343.0 19,299 1008 5.8%PW4084 Apr-94 36.2 369.6 23,229 1086 0.9%PW4090 Jun-96 39.2 395.0 31,629 1204 9.4%Trent 875 Sep-94 35.4 351.9 17,575 1117 3.1%Trent 877 Sep-94 36.3 361.6 18,736 1139 3.3%Trent 884 Sep-94 39.0 390.1 22,687 1247 8.7%Trent 890 Sep-94 41.4 411.5 26,405 1281 0.6%Trent 892 Sep-94 41.4 411.5 26,405 1281 11.8%Trent 895 Sep-94 41.5 413.1 28,029 1357 6.1%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 5% 6% 5% NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - 21,342 18,078 24,478 28,459 28,459 27,923 27,923 27,923 27,923 27,923 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - ------- - 1082 981 1134 1193 1193 1166 1166 1166 1166 1166 Thrust (kN) - ------- - 360.6 333.2 395.3 418.1 418.1 418.1 418.1 418.1 418.1 418.1 Press Ratio - ------- - 35.3 32.2 38.0 39.8 39.8 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - 20,909 19,796 22,541 23,623 24,072 24,462 25,016 25,476 25,903 25,722 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - ------- - 1,055 1,078 1,126 1,144 1,149 1,148 1,167 1,177 1,180 1,176 Thrust (kN) - ------- - 356.6 356.0 375.7 383.8 386.8 389.8 392.5 395.6 398.7 397.3 Press Ratio - ------- - 34.6 35.0 36.8 37.5 37.7 37.8 38.2 38.5 38.7 38.5 NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - 25,703 25,703 31,629 31,629 31,629 31,629 31,629 31,629 31,629 31,629 NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - 18,078 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575 Percent Difference - ------- - 42% 46% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% NOx (g/LTO) - ------- - 2% 10% 8% 17% 15% 12% 10% 9% 7% 8% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - ------- - 2% 10% 1% 4% 4% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% Thrust (kN) - ------- - 1% 7% 5% 8% 7% 7% 6% 5% 5% 5% Press Ratio - ------- - 2% 9% 3% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-30
McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CF6-50C Jul-87 27.8 224.2 11,116 751 34.2%CF6-50C1 Jul-87 28.4 230.4 11,884 769 1.8%CF6-50C2 Jul-87 28.4 230.4 11,884 769 50.5%CF6-50C2B Jul-87 29.1 236.7 12,482 779 6.3%CF6-50C2R Jul-87 27.8 224.2 11,116 751 7.1%CF6-6D Aug-79 24.7 174.8 11,611 648 0.1%CF6-6D1A Aug-79 25.4 181.9 12,549 667 0.1%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% NOx (g/LTO) 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 Thrust (kN) 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 Press Ratio 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 NOx (g/LTO) 11,514 11,527 11,557 11,576 11,586 11,603 11,538 11,555 11,604 11,636 11,674 11,707 11,651 11,634 11,667 11,721 11,717 11,694 11,638 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 760 760 761 761 762 762 761 761 762 763 764 765 763 763 764 765 765 764 763 Thrust (kN) 227.5 227.6 227.9 228.0 228.1 228.3 227.6 227.8 228.2 228.5 228.8 229.1 228.6 228.5 228.8 229.3 229.2 229.0 228.4 Press Ratio 28.1 28.1 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.1 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.3 28.3 28.2 28.2 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.2 NOx (g/LTO) 12,482 12,482 12,482 12,482 12,482 12,482 12,482 12,482 12,482 12,482 12,482 12,482 12,482 12,482 12,482 12,482 12,482 12,482 11,884 NOx (g/LTO) 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116 Percent Difference 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 7% NOx (g/LTO) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Thrust (kN) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% Press Ratio 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-31
McDonnell Douglas DC-9-30, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

JT8D-11 Feb-80 17.2 66.7 3,740 475 1.1%JT8D-15 Dec-79 16.8 68.9 4,144 486 2.2%JT8D-15A Dec-79 16.5 68.9 3,648 454 0.6%JT8D-17 Dec-79 17.0 71.2 4,559 499 16.6%JT8D-7 series Feb-80 15.8 62.3 3,281 419 20.7%JT8D-9 series Feb-80 15.9 64.5 3,488 433 58.8%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 6% 5% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% NOx (g/LTO) 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 Thrust (kN) 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 Press Ratio 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 NOx (g/LTO) 3,625 3,633 3,643 3,652 3,656 3,639 3,626 3,627 3,628 3,662 3,665 3,696 3,701 3,666 3,700 3,726 3,686 3,529 3,546 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 442 443 443 444 444 442 442 442 441 444 444 446 446 444 446 448 446 436 437 Thrust (kN) 65.2 65.3 65.4 65.4 65.4 65.3 65.2 65.2 65.1 65.3 65.3 65.5 65.5 65.3 65.7 65.9 65.6 64.6 64.7 Press Ratio 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.2 16.2 16.1 16.2 16.2 16.1 16.0 16.0 NOx (g/LTO) 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 

NOx (g/LTO) 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 

Percent Difference 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 

NOx (g/LTO) 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 5% 6% 7% 6% 1% 2% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% 3% 1% 1% Thrust (kN) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% Press Ratio 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-32
McDonnell Douglas MD-11, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

CF6-80C2D1F May-85 32.9 270.0 12,714 845 5.8%CF6-80C2D1F Jan-95 32.1 270.0 12,724 876 53.9%PW4460 Aug-87 32.4 266.9 14,097 887 23.5%PW4x62 Jan-93 31.9 275.8 15,864 920 16.7%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% NOx (g/LTO) - - - - 12,714 14,097 14,097 14,097 12,714 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - 845 887 887 887 845 876 876 876 876 876 876 876 876 876 876 Thrust (kN) - - - - 270.0 266.9 266.9 266.9 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 Press Ratio - - - - 32.9 32.4 32.4 32.4 32.9 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 NOx (g/LTO) - - - - 12,714 13,613 13,521 13,520 13,676 13,709 13,731 13,744 13,677 13,715 13,699 13,592 13,529 13,310 13,444 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - 845 872 870 869 871 887 887 888 887 888 888 887 886 883 886 Thrust (kN) - - - - 270.0 268.0 268.2 268.6 269.5 269.9 270.0 270.3 270.4 270.6 270.6 270.5 270.6 270.1 271.0 Press Ratio - - - - 32.9 32.6 32.6 32.6 32.6 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.0 NOx (g/LTO) - - - - 12,714 14,097 14,097 15,864 15,864 15,864 15,864 15,864 15,864 15,864 15,864 15,864 15,864 15,864 15,864 

NOx (g/LTO) - - - - 12,714 12,714 12,714 12,714 12,714 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 Percent Difference - - - - 0% 11% 11% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% NOx (g/LTO) - - - - 0% 3% 4% 4% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 8% 8% 7% 6% 5% 6% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - 0% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Thrust (kN) - - - - 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Press Ratio - - - - 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

E-33
McDonnell Douglas DC9 Super 80/MD81/2/3/7/8, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)

All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngine

Test

Date

Press

Ratio

Thrust

(kN)

Nox

(g/LTO)

Fuel

(kg/LTO)

Distribution

JT8D-209 Nov-83 18.3 85.6 5,075 469 3.6%JT8D-217 series Nov-83 19.7 92.7 5,985 504 43.9%JT8D-217C Feb-99 19.1 92.7 4,216 493 19.7%JT8D-219 Nov-83 20.3 96.5 6,106 501 32.8%

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

% of LTO 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% NOx (g/LTO) 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 493 493 493 493 493 493 Thrust (kN) 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 Press Ratio 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 NOx (g/LTO) 5,693 5,754 5,823 5,874 5,914 5,937 5,961 5,976 5,996 6,015 6,023 6,025 6,026 5,239 5,250 5,264 5,270 5,344 5,230 Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 492 494 496 497 499 500 501 501 502 503 503 503 503 498 498 498 498 499 498 Thrust (kN) 90.6 91.4 92.2 92.8 93.1 93.1 93.5 93.6 93.7 93.8 93.9 94.0 94.0 94.1 94.1 94.2 94.1 94.1 94.0 Press Ratio 19.2 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.7 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.7 19.6 NOx (g/LTO) 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106 NOx (g/LTO) 5,075 5,075 5,075 5,075 5,075 5,075 5,075 5,075 5,075 5,075 5,985 5,985 5,985 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216 Percent Difference 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 2% 2% 2% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% NOx (g/LTO) 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 24% 25% 25% 25% 27% 24% Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Thrust (kN) 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% Press Ratio 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

Weighted Weighted vs.

Default

1-Default

E-34
Appendix F 

Example Variance in Taxi Times
F-1 

Appendix F. Taxi Times for Selected Airports* 

Los Angeles International Ted Stevens Anchorage 

International 

Tower 

Description Large Hub Medium Hub 

LTOs in 1986 207,210 34,302

LTOs in 2008 286,787 91,628

Average Taxi Time (minutes)

Taxi In Taxi Out Taxi In Taxi Out

1995 5.3 15.0 3.7 11.5

1996 5.4 15.3 3.9 12.4

1997 5.5 15.1 4.0 12.2

1998 5.8 14.7 4.1 12.0

1999 5.7 16.1 4.4 12.2

2000 5.9 16.5 4.7 12.1

2001 5.8 15.6 5.1 12.8

2002 5.9 14.3 5.2 12.3

2003 5.2 13.8 5.2 12.4

2004 5.8 14.4 5.4 12.4

2005 5.9 14.2 5.6 13.0

2006 5.9 14.9 5.5 13.2

2007 6.2 16.1 5.2 14.1

2008 6.3 15.2 5.2 14.1

* Note that Los Angeles and Ted Stevens Anchorage International were selected as exampled to demonstrate 

the variance of taxi-in and taxi-out times. 
Appendix G 

Aircraft Crosswalk – Category Designations 
1 of 6

T-100 Code

(A/C)

T-100 Aircraft 

Name

EDMS Aircraft 

Name

EDMS Aircraft 

Code (ACCODE)

Helicopter, 

Military, or 

Other

Engine Type

(propeller or jet)

Aircraft Size 

Category Aircraft Type SeatsCount Regional Jet Powerplant No

Gross Wgt

(Kg)

020 BELLANCA CH-300 BELLANCA CH-300 A1B Other propeller RJ turboprop 2 regional aircraft 1 1,847

080 PIPER PA-18 PIPER PA-18 

(SUPER-CUB) A1B Other propeller RJ turboprop 2 regional aircraft 1 1,847

695 A300-B2

AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE A300-

B2

A300B2-1 Other jet TA wide-body 251 100 or more seats 2 136,985

690 A300B/C/F-100/200

AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE 

A300B/C/F-100/200

A300B4-1 Other jet TA wide-body 251 100 or more seats 2 157,487

691 A300-600/R/CF/RCF

AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE A300-

600/R/CF/RCF

A300F4-6 Other jet TA wide-body 266 100 or more seats 2 170,506

689 A300-

600ST(BELUGA)

AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE A330-

600ST (BELUGA)

A300F4-6-ST Other jet TA wide-body 314 100 or more seats 2 140,614

692 A310-200C/F

AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE A310-

200C/F

A310-2 Other jet TA wide-body 250 100 or more seats 2 142,020

693 A310-300

AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE A310-

300

A310-3 Other jet TA wide-body 250 100 or more seats 2 164,019

644 A-318 AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE A-318 A318-1 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 120 100 or more seats 2 67,998

698 A319 AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE A319 A319-1 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 140 100 or more seats 2 75,523

694 A320-100/200

AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE A320-

100/200

A320-2 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 165 100 or more seats 2 77,020

699 A321 AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE A321 A321-1 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 202 100 or more seats 2 83,008

696 A330-200

AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE A330-

200

A330-2 Other jet TA wide-body 316 100 or more seats 2 232,997

697 A340 AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE A340 A340-2 Other jet TA wide-body 320 100 or more seats 4 275,000

873 A340-200

AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE A340-

200

A340-2 Other jet TA wide-body 320 100 or more seats 4 275,000

871 A340-300

AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE A340-

300

A340-3 Other jet TA wide-body 366 100 or more seats 4 276,501

872 A340-500

AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE A340-

500

A340-5 Other jet L wide-body 344 100 or more seats 4 368,000

874 A340-600

AIRBUS 

INDUSTRIE A340-

600

A340-6 Other jet L wide-body 427 100 or more seats 4 368,000

882 A380 A380 A340-6 Other jet L wide-body 426 100 or more seats 4 560,006

507 ANTONOV 12 ANTONOV 12 AN12 Military propeller SAE2 turboprop 90 regional aircraft 4 60,999

880 ANTONOV 124 ANTONOV 124 AN124 Other jet L Wide-Body 1000 100 or more seats 4 401,997

444 ANTONOV 24/26/32 ANTONOV 24/26/32 AN26 Military propeller RJ turboprop 50 regional aircraft 2 27,000

408 BAE-ATP

BRITISH 

AEROSPACE BAEATP

ATP Other propeller RJ turboprop 66 regional aircraft 2 23,678

441 ATR-42 AEROSPATIALE/A

ERITALIA ATR-42 ATR42-2 Other propeller RJ turboprop 48 regional aircraft 2 18,600

442 ATR-72 AEROSPATIALE/A

ERITALIA ATR-72 ATR72-2 Other propeller RJ turboprop 68 regional aircraft 2 21,500

835 AVROLINER RJ85 AVROLINER RJ85 AVRORJ85 Other jet RJ narrow-body 90 regional aircraft 4 43,999

800 BOEING 707-100 BOEING 707-100 B707-1 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 110 100 or more seats 4 116,573

802 BOEING 707-100B BOEING 707-100B B707-1 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 179 100 or more seats 4 116,573

804 BOEING 707-200 BOEING 707-200 B707-1 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 140 100 or more seats 4 116,573

830 CONVAIR 990

CONVAIR 990 

CORONADO (CV30)

B707-1 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 106 100 or more seats 4 116,573

806 BOEING 707-300 BOEING 707-300 B707-3 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 147 100 or more seats 4 151,319

808 BOEING 707-300B BOEING 707-300B B707-3 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 189 100 or more seats 4 151,319

809 BOEING 707-300C BOEING 707-300C B707-3 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 202 100 or more seats 4 151,319

810 BOEING 707-400 BOEING 707-400 B707-3 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 189 100 or more seats 4 151,319

812 BOEING 720 BOEING 720-000 B720 Other jet SAE4 narrow-body 117 100 or more seats 4 100,698

710 BOEING 727-100 BOEING 727-100 B727-1 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 149 100 or more seats 3 76,657

711 BOEING 727-

100C/QC

BOEING 727-

100C/QC B727-1 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 189 100 or more seats 3 76,657

715 BOEING 727-200 BOEING 727-

200/231A B727-2 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 138 100 or more seats 3 92,125

620 BOEING 737-

100/200

BOEING 737-

100/200 B737-1 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 106 100 or more seats 2 49,087

621 BOEING 737-200C BOEING 737-200C B737-2 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 118 100 or more seats 2 58,105

619 BOEING 737-300 BOEING 737-300 B737-3 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 126 100 or more seats 2 62,823

618 BOEING 737-300LR BOEING 737-300LR B737-3 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 126 100 or more seats 2 62,823
2 of 6

T-100 Code

(A/C)

T-100 Aircraft 

Name

EDMS Aircraft 

Name

EDMS Aircraft 

Code (ACCODE)

Helicopter, 

Military, or 

Other

Engine Type

(propeller or jet)

Aircraft Size 

Category Aircraft Type SeatsCount Regional Jet Powerplant No

Gross Wgt

(Kg)

617 BOEING 737-400 BOEING 737-400 B737-4 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 144 100 or more seats 2 68,039

615 BOEING 737-

5/600LR

BOEING 737-

5/600LR B737-5 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 113 100 or more seats 2 52,390

616 BOEING 737-500 BOEING 737-500 B737-5 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 110 100 or more seats 2 52,390

633 BOEING 737-600 BOEING 737-600 B737-6 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 110 100 or more seats 2 65,091

612 BOEING 737-

700/LR

BOEING 737-

700/700LR B737-7 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 149 100 or more seats 2 70,080

614 BOEING 737-800 BOEING 737-800 B737-8 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 162 100 or more seats 2 79,016

634 BOEING 737-900 BOEING 737-900 B737-9 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 180 100 or more seats 2 79,016

816 BOEING 747-100 BOEING 747-100 B747-1 Other jet L wide-body 409 100 or more seats 4 341,556

818 BOEING 747C BOEING 747C B747-1 Other jet L wide-body 409 100 or more seats 4 341,556

820 BOEING 747F BOEING 747F B747-1 Other jet L wide-body 409 100 or more seats 4 341,556

817 BOEING 747-

200/300

BOEING 747-

200/300 B747-2 Other jet L wide-body 454 100 or more seats 4 377,843

819 BOEING 747-400 BOEING 747-400 B747-4 Other jet L wide-body 470 100 or more seats 4 396,894

822 BOEING 747SP BOEING 747SP B747-SP Other jet L wide-body 454 100 or more seats 4 303,907

622 BOEING 757-200 BOEING 757-200 B757-2 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 217 100 or more seats 2 115,666

623 BOEING 757-300 BOEING 757-300 B757-3 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 243 100 or more seats 2 123,831

625 BOEING 767-

200/ER

BOEING 767-

200/ER/EM B767-2ER Other jet TA wide-body 181 100 or more seats 2 179,169

626 BOEING 767-

300/ER

BOEING 767-

300/300ER B767-3ER Other jet TA wide-body 218 100 or more seats 2 186,880

624 BOEING 767-400 BOEING 767-400 B767-4 Other jet TA wide-body 266 100 or more seats 2 204,117

627 BOEING 777 BOEING 777-

200/200LR/233LR B777-2 Other jet TA wide-body 301 100 or more seats 2 247,208

637 CESSNA CITATION 

V

BOEING 777-

300/300ER/333ER B777-3ER Other jet L wide-body 365 100 or more seats 2 351,535

605 BAC-111-200

BRITISH 

AEROSPACE BAC111-200

BAC111-2 Other jet RJ Narrow-Body 89 regional aircraft 2 33,793

094 LAND-TURBINE LAND-TURBINE BAC111-2 Other jet RJ Narrow-Body 89 regional aircraft 2 33,793

610 BAC-111-400

BRITISH 

AEROSPACE BAC111-400

BAC111-4 Other jet RJ Narrow-Body 89 regional aircraft 2 33,793

867 BAE-146-200

BRITISH 

AEROSPACE BAE146-200

BAE146-200 Other jet RJ narrow-body 90 regional aircraft 4 42,184

868 BAE-146-300

BRITISH 

AEROSPACE BAE146-300

BAE146-300 Other jet RJ narrow-body 103 100 or more seats 4 44,225

866 BAE-146-100/RJ70

BRITISH 

AEROSPACE BAE146-100/RJ70

BAE146-RJ70 Other jet RJ Narrow-Body 78 regional aircraft 4 38,102

409 BEECH B-100 BEECHCRAFT 

KING AIR B100 BEECH100 Other propeller RJ turboprop 7 regional aircraft 2 5,352

110 BEECH 18 BEECH 18 C-185 BEECH18 Military propeller RJ turboprop 9 regional aircraft 2 3,266

402 BEECH 18

BEECH MODEL 18 

TURBO-PROP 

CONVERSIONS

BEECH18 Military propeller RJ turboprop 9 regional aircraft 2 3,266

490 VOLPAR TURBO 

18

VOLPAR TURBO 

18 BEECH18 Military propeller RJ turboprop 15 regional aircraft 2 3,266

405 BEECH 1900 A/B/C BEECH 1900 

A/B/C/D BEECH1900-C Other propeller RJ turboprop 19 regional aircraft 2 7,983

406 BEECH 200 

KINGAIR

BEECH 200 SUPER 

KINGAIR BEECH200 Other propeller RJ turboprop 15 regional aircraft 2 6,350

095 PISTON-LT 450 HP LAND-PISTON-LT 

450 HP BEECH200 Other propeller RJ turboprop 15 regional aircraft 2 6,350

010 BEECH 35/36

BEECH BONANZA 

35A/C/D/E/G/H/J/K/

S/V/ 36A

BEECH36 Other propeller RJ turboprop 6 regional aircraft 1 1,656

117 BEECH BARON B55

BEECH BARON (55 

SERIES) BEECH55 Other propeller RJ turboprop 5 regional aircraft 2 2,495

457 BEECH KING AIR BEECH KING AIR 

C-90 BEECH90 Other propeller RJ turboprop 12 regional aircraft 2 3,719

111 BEECH KINGAIR C90

BEECH KING AIR 

90 BEECH90 Other propeller RJ turboprop 12 regional aircraft 2 3,719

133 BEECH QUEEN AIR

BEECH 65/65A80/65B-80 (QUEEN 

AIR)

BEECH90 Other propeller RJ turboprop 9 regional aircraft 2 3,719

411 BEECHCRAFT 65-

A90

BEECH KING AIR 

65-A90 QUEEN AIR BEECH90 Other propeller RJ turboprop 7 regional aircraft 2 3,719

403 BEECH 99 BEECH 99 

AIRLINER BEECH99 Other propeller RJ turboprop 15 regional aircraft 2 5,126

404 BEECH C99 BEECH C99 BEECH99 Other propeller RJ turboprop 15 regional aircraft 2 5,126

201 BN2A 

TRISLANDER

PILATUS BRITTENNORMAN BN2A 

TRISLANDER

BN2A-III Other propeller RJ turboprop 10 regional aircraft 2 2,994

131 BRITT-NORMAN 

BN2/A

PILATUS BRITTENNORMAN BN2/A 

ISLANDER

BN2A-III Other propeller RJ turboprop 10 regional aircraft 2 2,994

412 CASA 212 CASA/NURTANIO 

C212 AVIOCAR CASA212-2 Military propeller RJ turboprop 26 regional aircraft 2 6,500
3 of 6

T-100 Code

(A/C)

T-100 Aircraft 

Name

EDMS Aircraft 

Name

EDMS Aircraft 

Code (ACCODE)

Helicopter, 

Military, or 

Other

Engine Type

(propeller or jet)

Aircraft Size 

Category Aircraft Type SeatsCount Regional Jet Powerplant No

Gross Wgt

(Kg)

520 CANADAIR CL-44D CANADAIR CL-44D CL-44 Other propeller SAE4 turboprop 160 100 or more seats 4 95,255

668 CHALLENGER 601

CANADAIR 

(BOMBARDIER) 

CHALLLENGER 

601

CL601 Other jet RJ narrow-body 19 regional aircraft 2 19,550

669 CHALLENGER 604 BOMBARDIER 

CHALLENGER 604 CL604 Other jet RJ narrow-body 15 regional aircraft 2 21,591

024 BEECH B-23 BEECH B-23 

MUSKETEER CNA172 Other propeller RJ turboprop 3 regional aircraft 1 1,089

036 CESSNA 172 

SKYHAWK

CESSNA 172 

SKYHAWK CNA172 Other propeller RJ turboprop 4 regional aircraft 1 1,111

031 CESSNA 180A/B CESSNA 180A/B CNA182 Other propeller RJ turboprop 6 regional aircraft 1 1,406

030 CESSNA 180 CESSNA 180 CNA182 Other propeller RJ turboprop 6 regional aircraft 1 1,406

039 CESSNA 182 

SKYLANE

CESSNA 182 

SKYLANE CNA182 Other propeller RJ turboprop 4 regional aircraft 1 1,406

033 CESSNA 185A/B/C CESSNA 185A/B/C 

SKYWAGON CNA182 Other propeller RJ turboprop 6 regional aircraft 1 1,406

041 CESSNA 205 CESSNA 205 CNA206 Military propeller RJ turboprop 6 regional aircraft 1 1,633

035 CESSNA 

206/207/209

CESSNA 

C206/207/209/210 

STATIONAIR

CNA206 Military propeller RJ turboprop 6 regional aircraft 1 1,633

416 CESSNA 208 CESSNA 208 

CARAVAN CNA208 Other propeller RJ turboprop 9 regional aircraft 1 3,969

415 CESSNA 208B

CESSNA 

C208B/GRAND 

CARAVAN

CNA208 Other propeller RJ turboprop 12 regional aircraft 1 3,969

148 CESSNA C-337 CESSNA C-337 CNA310 Other propeller RJ turboprop 5 regional aircraft 2 1,996

122 CESSNA C-310 CESSNA C-310 

SERIES CNA310 Other propeller RJ turboprop 5 regional aircraft 2 2,495

149 CESSNA C-401 CESSNA C-401 CNA402 Other propeller RJ turboprop 8 regional aircraft 2 3,107

125 CESSNA C402/402A

CESSNA C402/402A CNA402 Other propeller RJ turboprop 9 regional aircraft 2 3,107

128 CESSNA 404 CESSNA 404 CNA404 Military propeller RJ turboprop 10 regional aircraft 2 4,502

417 CESSNA 406 CESSNA 406 

CARAVAN II CNA404 Other propeller RJ turboprop 14 regional aircraft 2 4,502

639 CITATIONJET/CJ1/

CJ

CESSNA 

CITATIONJET/CJ1/

CJ2/CJ3

CNA525 Other jet RJ narrow-body 6 regional aircraft 2 6,291

636 CESSNA CITATION 

II

CESSNA CITATION 

II CNA550 Other jet RJ narrow-body 10 regional aircraft 2 6,849

646 CITATION III 

650/550

CESSNA CITATION 

X MODEL 

650/550B/550XL/560

XL

CNA650 Other jet RJ narrow-body 8 regional aircraft 2 16,375

647 CITATION X 

CE750X

CESSNA CITATION 

X MODEL CE750 X CNA750 Other jet RJ narrow-body 8 regional aircraft 2 16,375

103 AERO COMANDR 

500/6

AERO 

COMMANDER 

(500/600 SERIES 

EXCPT 680FL)

COMMANDER500 Military propeller RJ turboprop 7 regional aircraft 2 3,062

875 CONCORDE

AEROSPATIALE/B

RITISH 

AEROSPACE 

CONCORDE

CONCRD Other jet SAE4 narrow-body 128 100 or more seats 4 185,070

628 CANADAIR RJ100/ER

CANADAIR RJ100/RJ-100ER CRJ1 Other jet RJ Narrow-Body 50 regional aircraft 2 24,040

629 RJ-200ER/RJ-440 CANADAIR RJ200ER /RJ-440 CRJ2 Other jet RJ narrow-body 50 regional aircraft 2 23,133

658 CANADAIR BD-700

BOMBARDIER BD700 GLOBAL 

EXPRESS

CRJ7 Military jet RJ narrow-body 74 regional aircraft 2 32,999

657 CANADAIR RJ 705 BOMBARDIER CRJ 

705 CRJ7 Other jet RJ narrow-body 74 regional aircraft 2 36,514

631 CANADAIR RJ-700 CANADAIR RJ-700 CRJ7 Other jet RJ narrow-body 74 regional aircraft 2 32,999

638 CANADAIR RJ 900 CANADAIR CRJ 

900 CRJ9 Other jet RJ narrow-body 88 regional aircraft 2 36,514

140 CONVAIR CV-240 CONVAIR CV-240 CV440 Other propeller RJ turboprop 40 regional aircraft 2 19,278

143 CONVAIR CV340/440

CONVAIR CV340/440 CV440 Other propeller RJ turboprop 52 regional aircraft 2 22,226

420 CONVAIR CV-540 CONVAIR CV-540 CV580 Other propeller RJ turboprop 34 regional aircraft 2 26,372

430 CONVAIR CV-580 CONVAIR CV-580 CV580 Other propeller RJ turboprop 56 regional aircraft 2 26,372

435 CONVAIR CV-600 CONVAIR CV-600 CV640 Other propeller RJ turboprop 40 regional aircraft 2 25,855

440 CONVAIR CV-640 CONVAIR CV-640 CV640 Other propeller RJ turboprop 40 regional aircraft 2 25,855

730 DOUGLAS DC-10-

10

MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-10-

10

DC10-1 Other jet TA wide-body 380 100 or more seats 3 195,045

731 DOUGLAS DC-10-

20

MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-10-

20

DC10-1 Other jet TA wide-body 380 100 or more seats 3 251,744
4 of 6

T-100 Code

(A/C)

T-100 Aircraft 

Name

EDMS Aircraft 

Name

EDMS Aircraft 

Code (ACCODE)

Helicopter, 

Military, or 

Other

Engine Type

(propeller or jet)

Aircraft Size 

Category Aircraft Type SeatsCount Regional Jet Powerplant No

Gross Wgt

(Kg)

732 DOUGLAS DC-10-

30

MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-10-

30

DC10-3 Other jet TA wide-body 380 100 or more seats 3 263,084

735 DOUGLAS DC-10-

30CF

MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-10-

30CF

DC10-3 Other jet TA wide-body 380 100 or more seats 3 259,455

733 DOUGLAS DC-10-

40

MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-10-

40

DC10-4 Other jet TA wide-body 380 100 or more seats 3 251,744

150 CURTISS C46 

SERIES

CURTISS 

C46/20T/A/D/F/R 

COMMANDO

DC3 Military propeller RJ turboprop 50 regional aircraft 2 21,772

210 DOUGLAS DC-4

MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC4(C54/C54A/C54B/C

54E)

DC6 Other propeller RJ turboprop 86 regional aircraft 4 33,112

216 DOUGLAS DC-6 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-6 DC6 Other propeller SAE4 turboprop 78 regional aircraft 4 48,534

218 DOUGLAS DC-6A MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-6A DC6 Other propeller SAE4 turboprop 78 regional aircraft 4 48,534

220 DOUGLAS DC-6B MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-6B DC6 Other propeller SAE4 turboprop 78 regional aircraft 4 48,534

225 DOUGLAS DC7A/B

MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC7A/B

DC6 Other propeller SAE4 turboprop 102 100 or more seats 4 64,864

228 DOUGLAS DC-7C MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-7C DC6 Other propeller SAE4 turboprop 102 100 or more seats 4 64,864

248 LOCKHEED 

1049C/D/E

LOCKHEED L1049C/D/E DC6 Military propeller SAE2 turboprop 78 regional aircraft 4 62,369

247 LOCKHEED L-1049 LOCKHEED L-1049 DC6 Military propeller SAE2 turboprop 78 regional aircraft 4 62,369

242 LOCKHEED L-649 LOCKHEED L-649 DC6 Other propeller RJ turboprop 81 regional aircraft 4 44,490

840 DOUGLAS DC-8-10 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-8-10 DC8-5 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 150 100 or more seats 4 120,202

842 DOUGLAS DC-8-20 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-8-20 DC8-5 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 150 100 or more seats 4 125,192

844 DOUGLAS DC-8-30 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-8-30 DC8-5 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 150 100 or more seats 4 150,000

846 DOUGLAS DC-8-40 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-8-40 DC8-5 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 150 100 or more seats 4 142,882

848 DOUGLAS DC-8-50 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-8-50 DC8-5 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 150 100 or more seats 4 142,880

850 DOUGLAS DC-8-

50F

MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-8-

50F

DC8-5 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 150 100 or more seats 4 147,418

851 DOUGLAS DC-8-61 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-8-61 DC8-6 Other jet SAE4 narrow-body 150 100 or more seats 4 161,026

854 DOUGLAS DC-8-62 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-8-62 DC8-6 Other jet SAE4 narrow-body 259 100 or more seats 4 161,026

856 DOUGLAS DC-8-63 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-8-63 DC8-6 Other jet SAE4 narrow-body 220 100 or more seats 4 161,026

852 DOUGLAS DC-8-

63F

MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-8-

63F

DC8-6 Other jet SAE4 narrow-body 220 100 or more seats 4 161,026

860 DOUGLAS DC-8-71 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-8-71 DC8-7 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 200 100 or more seats 4 161,026

862 DOUGLAS DC-8-72 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-8-72 DC8-7 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 200 100 or more seats 4 161,026

864 DOUGLAS DC-8-73 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-8-73 DC8-7 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 200 100 or more seats 4 161,026

865 DOUGLAS DC-8-

73F

MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-8-

73F

DC8-7 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 200 100 or more seats 4 161,026

630 DOUGLAS DC-9-10 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-9-10 DC9-1 Other jet RJ Narrow-Body 76 regional aircraft 2 41,141

635 DOUGLAS DC-9-

15F

MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-9-

15F

DC9-2 Other jet RJ Narrow-Body 99 regional aircraft 2 44,452

640 DOUGLAS DC-9-30 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-9-30 DC9-3 Other jet SAE2 Narrow-Body 115 100 or more seats 2 49,895

645 DOUGLAS DC-9-40 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-9-40 DC9-4 Other jet SAE2 Narrow-Body 109 100 or more seats 2 51,710

608 BOEING 717-200 BOEING 717-200 DC9-5 Other jet SAE2 Narrow-Body 117 100 or more seats 2 49,895
5 of 6

T-100 Code

(A/C)

T-100 Aircraft 

Name

EDMS Aircraft 

Name

EDMS Aircraft 

Code (ACCODE)

Helicopter, 

Military, or 

Other

Engine Type

(propeller or jet)

Aircraft Size 

Category Aircraft Type SeatsCount Regional Jet Powerplant No

Gross Wgt

(Kg)

650 DOUGLAS DC-9-50 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC-9-50 DC9-5 Other jet SAE2 Narrow-Body 122 100 or more seats 2 54,885

040 DEHAVILLAND 

DHC2

DEHAVILLAND 

DHC2 BEAVER DHC2T Other propeller RJ turboprop 6 regional aircraft 1 2,313

042 DEHAVILLAND 

DHC3

DEHAVILLAND 

DHC3 OTTER DHC3T Other propeller RJ turboprop 11 regional aircraft 1 3,629

091 FLT/AMPHIB 

TURBINE

FLOAT/AMPHIB 

TURBINE DHC3T Other propeller RJ turboprop 11 regional aircraft 1 3,629

485 DEHAVILLAND 

DHC-6

DEHAVILLAND 

TWIN OTTER DHC6

DHC6-1 Other propeller RJ turboprop 20 regional aircraft 2 5,670

570 DEHAVILLAND 

DASH-7

DEHAVILLAND 

DHC7 DASH-7 DHC7-1 Other propeller RJ turboprop 54 regional aircraft 4 19,958

483 DHC8-100 DASH 8 DEHAVILLAND 

DHC8-100 DASH-8 DHC8-1 Other propeller RJ turboprop 38 regional aircraft 2 16,465

491 DEHAVILLAND 

DHC8-2

DEHAVILLAND 

DHC8-200Q DASH8

DHC8-2 Other propeller RJ turboprop 39 regional aircraft 2 16,465

484 DHC8-300 DASH 8 DEHAVILLAND 

DHC8-300 DASH 8 DHC8-3 Other propeller RJ turboprop 55 regional aircraft 2 19,504

482 DHC8-400 DASH-8 DEHAVILLAND 

DHC8-400 DASH-8 DHC8Q-4 Other propeller RJ turboprop 73 regional aircraft 2 29,574

449 DORNIER 328 DORNIER 328 DO328-1 Other propeller RJ turboprop 33 regional aircraft 2 13,990

632 DORNIER 328 JET DORNIER 328 JET DO328JET Other jet RJ narrow-body 33 regional aircraft 2 15,200

464 EMBRAER 

BANDEIRNTE

EMBRAER EMB110 BANDEIRANTE EMB110 Other propeller RJ turboprop 19 regional aircraft 2 5,670

461 EMB-120 BRASILIA EMBRAER EMB120 BRASILIA EMB120 Other propeller RJ turboprop 30 regional aircraft 2 11,990

674 EMBRAER-135 EMBRAER-135 ERJ135 Other jet RJ Narrow-Body 37 regional aircraft 2 19,000

676 EMBRAER-140 EMBRAER-140 ERJ140 Other jet RJ narrow-body 44 regional aircraft 2 20,193

675 EMBRAER-145 EMBRAER-145 ERJ145 Other jet RJ narrow-body 50 regional aircraft 2 20,990

677 EMBRAER 170 EMBRAER 170 ERJ170 Other jet RJ narrow-body 80 regional aircraft 2 35,990

673 EMBRAER-175 EMBRAER ERJ-175 ERJ175 Other jet RJ narrow-body 88 regional aircraft 2 37,500

678 EMBRAER 190 EMBRAER 190 ERJ190 Other jet RJ narrow-body 114 100 or more seats 2 47,790

450 F-27

FOKKER 

FRIENDSHIP F27/FAIRCHILD F27/A/B/F/J

F27 Other propeller RJ turboprop 44 regional aircraft 2 19,731

603 FOKKER 100 FOKKER 100 F28-100 Other jet RJ narrow-body 104 100 or more seats 2 45,813

601 FOKKER F28-1000 FOKKER F28-1000 

FELLOWSHIP F28-100 Other jet RJ narrow-body 104 100 or more seats 2 45,813

602 F28-4000/6000

FOKKER F28-

4000/6000 

FELLOWSHIP

F28-4000 Other jet RJ Narrow-Body 85 regional aircraft 2 33,112

604 FOKKER 70 FOKKER 70 F28-70 Other jet RJ narrow-body 90 regional aircraft 2 41,731

681 DASSAULT 

MYSTERE-FAL

DASSAULTBREGUET 

MYSTEREFALCON

FAL10 Other jet RJ narrow-body 7 regional aircraft 2 8,500

682 DASSAULT 2000EX DASSAULT 

FALCON 2000EX FAL2000EX Other jet RJ narrow-body 14 regional aircraft 2 19,142

770 FALCON 900 DASSAULT 

FALCON 900 FAL900 Military jet RJ narrow-body 16 regional aircraft 3 20,640

454 FH-227 FAIRCHILDHILLER FH-227 FH227 Other propeller RJ turboprop 56 regional aircraft 2 19,731

170 GRUMMAN G-21A GRUMMAN G-21A 

(GOOSE) G21G Military propeller RJ turboprop 12 regional aircraft 2 5,670

173 GRUMMAN G-73 GRUMMAN G-73 

(MALLARD) G-73 Other propeller RJ turboprop 10 regional aircraft 2 5,783

470 GULFSTREAM I GULFSTREAM I GULF1 Military propeller RJ turboprop 19 regional aircraft 2 15,920

671 GULFSTREAM 

G450

GULFSTREAM 

G450 GULF450 Other jet RJ narrow-body 15 regional aircraft 2 32,160

667 GULFSTREAM V/ 

G-V

GULFSTREAM V/ 

G-V EXEC/ G-5/550 GULF5 Other jet RJ narrow-body 16 regional aircraft 2 41,050

407 BAE-748

BRITISH 

AEROSPACE 

(HAWKERSIDDELEY) BAE748

HS748-1 Other propeller RJ turboprop 51 regional aircraft 2 21,092

474 HAWKER SIDELEY 

748

HAWKER 

SIDDELEY 748 HS748-1 Other propeller RJ turboprop 51 regional aircraft 2 21,092

876 ILYUSHIN 62 ILYUSHIN 62 IL62 Other jet SAE4 Narrow-Body 185 100 or more seats 4 165,108

877 ILYUSHIN 76/TD ILYUSHIN 76/TD IL76 Other jet TA Wide-Body 250 100 or more seats 4 190,000

878 ILYUSHIN 86 ILYUSHIN 86 IL86 Other jet TA wide-body 350 100 or more seats 4 208,000

879 ILYUSHIN 96 ILYUSHIN 96 IL96 Other jet TA wide-body 300 100 or more seats 4 269,888

469 BAE JETSTREAM 

31

BRITISH 

AEROSPACE 

JETSTREAM 31

J31 Other propeller RJ turboprop 19 regional aircraft 2 7,059
6 of 6

T-100 Code

(A/C)

T-100 Aircraft 

Name

EDMS Aircraft 

Name

EDMS Aircraft 

Code (ACCODE)

Helicopter, 

Military, or 

Other

Engine Type

(propeller or jet)

Aircraft Size 

Category Aircraft Type SeatsCount Regional Jet Powerplant No

Gross Wgt

(Kg)

471 JETSTREAM 41

BRITISH 

AEROSPACE 

JETSTREAM 41

J41 Other propeller RJ turboprop 29 regional aircraft 2 10,886

760 L-1011-1/100/200 LOCKHEED L-1011-

1/100/200 L1011-3 Other jet TA wide-body 400 100 or more seats 3 211,374

765 L-1011-500 

TRISTAR

LOCKHEED L-1011-

500 TRISTAR L1011-3 Other jet TA wide-body 330 100 or more seats 3 231,332

550 LOCKHEED L188A/C

LOCKHEED L188A/C ELECTRA L188 Other propeller SAE2 turboprop 104 100 or more seats 4 51,256

660 LEAR-23 GATES LEARJET 

LEAR-23 LEAR23 Other jet RJ narrow-body 6 regional aircraft 2 5,669

662 LEAR-25 GATES LEARJET 

LEAR-25 LEAR25 Other jet RJ narrow-body 8 regional aircraft 2 7,031

663 LEAR-35 GATES LEARJET 

LEAR-35 LEAR35 Military jet RJ narrow-body 8 regional aircraft 2 8,301

659 LEAR-60

BOMBARDIER 

(GATES) LEARJET 

60

LEAR60 Other jet RJ narrow-body 10 regional aircraft 2 10,659

740 MD-11 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS MD-11 MD11 Other jet TA wide-body 298 100 or more seats 3 285,990

655 MD-80,1,2,3,7,8

MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC9 

SUPER 

80/MD81/2/3/7/8

MD82 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 143 100 or more seats 2 67,812

654 MD-87

MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS DC9 

SUPER 87

MD87 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 117 100 or more seats 2 67,812

656 MD-90 MCDONNELL 

DOUGLAS MD-90 MD90 Other jet SAE2 narrow-body 153 100 or more seats 2 78,245

870 LOCKHEED 

JETSTAR

LOCKHEED 

JETSTAR MIL-C130 Other propeller SAE4 turboprop 9 regional aircraft 4 20,185

553 LOCKHEED L100-

10

LOCKHEED L100-

10 HERCULES MIL-C130 Other propeller SAE2 turboprop 250 100 or more seats 4 70,670

555 LOCKHEED L100-

20

LOCKHEED L100-

20 HERCULES MIL-C130 Other propeller SAE2 turboprop 250 100 or more seats 4 70,670

556 LOCKHEED L100-

30

LOCKHEED L100-

30/L-382E MIL-C130 Other propeller SAE2 turboprop 250 100 or more seats 4 70,670

552 LOCKHEED L-382B LOCKHEED L-382B MIL-C130 Other propeller SAE2 turboprop 250 100 or more seats 4 70,670

890 ANTONOV 225 ANTONOV 225 (6 

ENGINE) MIL-C5 Other jet L Wide-Body 1000 100 or more seats 6 600,104

034 HELIO 

H250/295/395

HELIO H250/295/395 MIL-U10 Other propeller RJ turboprop 6 regional aircraft 1 2,000

190 PIPER PA-23 PIPER PA-23-250 

(AZTEC/APACHE) PA23 Other propeller RJ turboprop 4 regional aircraft 2 2,359

084 PIPER PA-28 PIPER PA-28 

(CHEROKEE) PA28 Other propeller RJ turboprop 4 regional aircraft 1 975

194 PIPER PA-31/T-1020 PIPER PA-31 

(NAVAJO)/T-1020 PA31 Other propeller RJ turboprop 6 regional aircraft 2 3,103

478 PIPER T-1040 PIPER T-1040 PA31T Other propeller RJ turboprop 6 regional aircraft 2 4,082

079 PIPER PA-32 PIPER PA-32 

(CHEROKEE 6) PA32 Other propeller RJ turboprop 6 regional aircraft 1 1,542

195 PIPER PA-34/39

PIPER PA-34/39 

(TWIN 

COMMANCHE)

PA34 Other propeller RJ turboprop 6 regional aircraft 2 1,905

476 PIPER PA-31T PIPER PA-30/31T 

CHEYENNE II XL PA42 Other propeller RJ turboprop 6 regional aircraft 2 4,082

479 PILATUS PC-12 PILATUS PC-12 PC12 Other propeller RJ turboprop 10 regional aircraft 1 4,740

466 SWEARINGEN 

METRO 2

SWEARINGEN 

METRO II SA226TC Other propeller RJ turboprop 19 regional aircraft 2 7,484

455 FAIRCHILD 

METRO 23

FAIRCHILD 

METRO 23 SA227 Other propeller RJ turboprop 19 regional aircraft 2 6,577

467 SWEARINGEN 

METRO 3

SWEARINGEN 

METRO III SA227 Other propeller RJ turboprop 19 regional aircraft 2 6,577

459 SAAB-FAIRCHD 

340/A

SAAB-FAIRCHILD 

340/A SAAB340-A Other propeller RJ turboprop 33 regional aircraft 2 12,927

456 SAAB-FAIRCHD 

340/B

SAAB-FAIRCHILD 

340/B SAAB340-B Other propeller RJ turboprop 34 regional aircraft 2 13,154

670 ROCKWELL 

SABRELINR

ROCKWELL 

SABRELINER SABR80 Other jet RJ narrow-body 10 regional aircraft 2 10,342

486 SHORT HARLAND 

SC-7

SHORTS 

HARLAND SC-7 

SKYVAN

SC7-3-1 Other propeller RJ turboprop 19 regional aircraft 2 5,670

487 SHORTS 330 SHORTS 330 SD330 Other propeller RJ turboprop 30 regional aircraft 2 10,387

489 SHORTS 360 SHORTS 360 SD360-1 Other propeller RJ turboprop 36 regional aircraft 2 11,793

560 SHORTS-BELFASTSH5

SHORTS BELFAST 

FREIGHTER-SH5 SHORT-SC5 Other propeller RJ turboprop 375 100 or more seats 4 45,000

780 TUPOLEV 154 TUPOLEV TU-154 TU154 Other jet SAE2 Narrow-Body 147 100 or more seats 3 104,000

465 NIHON YS-11 NIHON YS-11 YS11-1 Other propeller RJ turboprop 64 regional aircraft 2 23,500
Appendix H 

Airports in Identified Non-attainment Areas
H-1 

Nonattainment Area Name Airport Name City 

Albuquerque, NM Albuquerque Intl Sunport Albuquerque Anchorage, AK Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl Anchorage Anchorage, AK Merrill Field Anchorage Aspen Aspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy Field Aspen Atlanta, GA Dobbins Air Reserve Base (Atlanta Nas) Marietta Atlanta, GA Fulton County Airport-Brown Field Atlanta Atlanta, GA Dekalb-Peachtree Atlanta Atlanta, GA Gwinnett County - Briscoe Field Lawrenceville Atlanta, GA Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta Intl Atlanta Baltimore, MD Lee Annapolis Baltimore, MD Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshal Baltimore Baltimore, MD Martin State Baltimore Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Marthas Vineyard Vineyard Haven Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Worcester Rgnl Worcester Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Barnstable Muni-Boardman/Polando Field Hyannis Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Provincetown Muni Provincetown Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Laurence G Hanscom Fld Bedford Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl Boston Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA New Bedford Rgnl New Bedford Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Norwood Memorial Norwood Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Mansfield Muni Mansfield Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Nantucket Memorial Nantucket 
H-2 

Nonattainment Area Name Airport Name City 

Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Lawrence Muni Lawrence Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Katama Airpark Edgartown Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Fitchburg Muni Fitchburg Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (southeast NH), NH Boire Field Nashua Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (southeast NH), NH Portsmouth Intl At Pease Portsmouth Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (southeast NH), NH Manchester Manchester Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC Rowan County Salisbury Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC Charlotte/Douglas Intl Charlotte Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC Concord Rgnl Concord Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Chicago Executive Chicago/Prospect Heights/Wheeling Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Chicago O'Hare Intl Chicago Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Chicago Midway Intl Chicago Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Dupage Chicago/West Chicago Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Gary/Chicago Intl Gary Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Porter County Muni Valparaiso Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Airborne Airpark Wilmington Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl Covington Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Cincinnati Muni Airport Lunken Field Cincinnati Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH Cleveland-Hopkins Intl Cleveland Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH Lorain County Rgnl Lorain/Elyria Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH Cuyahoga County Cleveland Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH Akron-Canton Rgnl Akron 
H-3 

Nonattainment Area Name Airport Name City 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH Burke Lakefront Cleveland Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH Kent State Univ Kent Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Arlington Muni Arlington Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Addison Dallas Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Dallas/Fort Worth Intl Dallas-Fort Worth Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Dallas Love Field Dallas Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Kittyhawk Allen Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Denton Muni Denton Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Fort Worth Meacham Intl Fort Worth Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Fort Worth, Tx: Carswell Air Force Base Fort Worth Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Fort Worth Alliance Fort Worth Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Denver Intl Denver Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Denver Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Centennial Denver Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Fort Collins-Loveland Muni Fort Collins/Loveland Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI Coleman A. Young Muni Detroit Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI Oakland County Intl Pontiac Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Detroit Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI Detroit, MI: (Metropolitan Area) Detroit Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI Willow Run Detroit Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI Selfridge Angb Mount Clemens Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI St Clair County Intl Port Huron Greater Connecticut, CT Groton-New London Groton (New London) 
H-4 

Nonattainment Area Name Airport Name City 

Greater Connecticut, CT Bradley Intl Windsor Locks Greater Connecticut, CT Hartford-Brainard Hartford Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX Ellington Field Houston Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX Sugar Land Rgnl Houston Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX William P Hobby Houston Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX George Bush Intercontinental/Houston Houston Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX Lake Jackson, TX: Brazoria County Lake Jackson Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX Scholes Intl At Galveston Galveston Indianapolis, IN Anderson Muni-Darlington Field Anderson Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis Intl Indianapolis Las Vegas, NV Nellis AFB Las Vegas Las Vegas, NV North Las Vegas Las Vegas Las Vegas, NV Mc Carran Intl Las Vegas Las Vegas, NV Boulder City Muni Boulder City Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Bob Hope Burbank Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA March Arb Riverside Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Long Beach /Daugherty Field/ Long Beach Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Los Angeles Intl Los Angeles Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Santa Monica Muni Santa Monica Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Ontario Intl Ontario Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA John Wayne Airport-Orange County Santa Ana Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Van Nuys Van Nuys Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Los Alamitos Aaf Los Alamitos 
H-5 

Nonattainment Area Name Airport Name City 

Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Southern California Logistics Victorville Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Palmdale Rgnl/USAF Plant 42 Palmdale Louisville, KY-IN Louisville Intl-Standiford Field Louisville Memphis, TN-AR Memphis Intl Memphis Memphis, TN-AR Millington Rgnl Jetport Millington Milwaukee-Racine, WI General Mitchell Intl Milwaukee Milwaukee-Racine, WI John H Batten Racine Milwaukee-Racine, WI Waukesha County Waukesha Milwaukee-Racine, WI Kenosha Rgnl Kenosha Minneapolis-St Paul, MN St Paul Downtown Holman Fld St Paul Minneapolis-St Paul, MN Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain Minneapolis New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Stewart Intl Newburgh New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT New York, NY: Metropolitan New York New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Waterbury-Oxford Oxford New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Montauk Montauk New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT West 30th St. New York New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Teterboro Teterboro New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Morristown Muni Morristown New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT La Guardia New York New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Republic Farmingdale New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Elizabeth Field Fishers Island New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Monmouth Executive Belmar/Farmingdale New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Igor I Sikorsky Memorial Bridgeport 
H-6 

Nonattainment Area Name Airport Name City 

New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Newark Liberty Intl Newark New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Francis S Gabreski Westhampton Beach New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Port Auth-Dwntn-Manhattan/Wall St New York New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Tweed-New Haven New Haven New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Long Island Mac Arthur Islip New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Essex County Caldwell New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT East Hampton East Hampton New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Westchester County White Plains New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT John F Kennedy Intl New York New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Danbury Muni Danbury Phildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE New Castle Wilmington Phildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Pottstown Muni Pottstown Phildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Willow Grove Nas Jrb Willow Grove Phildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Mc Guire AFB Wrightstown Phildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Northeast Philadelphia Philadelphia Phildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Trenton Mercer Trenton Phildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Philadelphia Intl Philadelphia Phildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Robert J. Miller Air Park Toms River Phildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Millville Muni Millville Phildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Dover AFB Dover Phildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Atlantic City Intl Atlantic City Phoenix-Mesa, AZ Gateway East Knxv Tv Phoenix Phoenix-Mesa, AZ Falcon Fld Mesa 
H-7 

Nonattainment Area Name Airport Name City 

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ Phoenix Goodyear Goodyear Phoenix-Mesa, AZ Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Phoenix-Mesa, AZ Glendale Muni Glendale Phoenix-Mesa, AZ Southern Command Police Station Phoenix Phoenix-Mesa, AZ Chandler Muni Chandler Phoenix-Mesa, AZ Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl Phoenix Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA Allegheny County Pittsburgh Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA Arnold Palmer Rgnl Latrobe Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA Pittsburgh Intl Pittsburgh Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA Butler County/K W Scholter Field Butler Providence (entire State), RI Block Island State Block Island Providence (entire State), RI Theodore Francis Green State Providence Providence (entire State), RI North Central State Pawtucket Providence (entire State), RI Newport State Newport Providence (entire State), RI Quonset State North Kingstown Providence (entire State), RI Westerly State Westerly Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Raleigh-Durham Intl Raleigh/Durham Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Person County Roxboro Reno, NV Reno/Tahoe Intl Reno Riverside County (Coachella Valley), CA Palm Springs Intl Palm Springs Sacramento Metro, CA Mc Clellan Airfield Sacramento Sacramento Metro, CA Sacramento Intl Sacramento Sacramento Metro, CA Sacramento Mather Sacramento 
H-8 

Nonattainment Area Name Airport Name City 

Salt Lake City, UT Salt Lake City Intl Salt Lake City San Diego, CA Miramar Mcas San Diego San Diego, CA North Island Nas /Halsey Field/ San Diego San Diego, CA San Diego Intl San Diego San Diego, CA Brown Field Muni San Diego San Diego, CA Mc Clellan-Palomar Carlsbad San Francisco Bay Area, CA Metropolitan Oakland Intl Oakland San Francisco Bay Area, CA Napa County Napa San Francisco Bay Area, CA Travis AFB Fairfield San Francisco Bay Area, CA San Francisco Intl San Francisco San Francisco Bay Area, CA Charles M. Schulz - Sonoma County Santa Rosa San Francisco Bay Area, CA San Francisco, CA: China Basin Heliport San Francisco San Francisco Bay Area, CA Norman Y. Mineta San Jose Intl San Jose San Francisco Bay Area, CA Moffett Federal Afld Mountain View San Joaquin Valley, CA Merced Muni/Macready Field Merced San Joaquin Valley, CA Porterville Muni Porterville San Joaquin Valley, CA Visalia Muni Visalia San Joaquin Valley, CA Fresno Yosemite Intl Fresno San Joaquin Valley, CA Meadows Field Bakersfield San Joaquin Valley, CA Madera Muni Madera San Joaquin Valley, CA Stockton Metropolitan Stockton San Joaquin Valley, CA Castle Merced San Joaquin Valley, CA Modesto City-Co-Harry Sham Fld Modesto 
H-9 

Nonattainment Area Name Airport Name City 

Seattle-Tacoma, WA Kenmore Air Harbor Inc Kenmore Seattle-Tacoma, WA Snohomish County (Paine Fld) Everett Seattle-Tacoma, WA Tacoma Narrows Tacoma Seattle-Tacoma, WA Boeing Field/King County Intl Seattle Seattle-Tacoma, WA Lake Union Seaplane Base, Wa: Lake Union Sea Plane Base Lake Union Seaplane Base Seattle-Tacoma, WA Renton Muni Renton Seattle-Tacoma, WA Seattle-Tacoma Intl Seattle Seattle-Tacoma, WA Mcchord AFB Tacoma St. Louis, MO-IL St Louis Downtown Cahokia/St Louis St. Louis, MO-IL Lambert-St Louis Intl St Louis St. Louis, MO-IL Scott AFB/Midamerica Belleville St. Louis, MO-IL Spirit of St Louis St Louis Syracuse, NY Syracuse Hancock Intl Syracuse Washington, DC-MD-VA Leesburg Executive Leesburg Washington, DC-MD-VA Washington Dulles Intl Washington Washington, DC-MD-VA Andrews AFB Camp Springs Washington, DC-MD-VA Ronald Reagan Washington National Washington El Paso County, TX El Paso Intl El Paso Lake Tahoe South Shore, CA Lake Tahoe South Lake Tahoe 
Appendix I 

Non-Commercial Aircraft Covered by ICAO Provisions
I-1 

TO: Bryan Manning 

U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality Assessment and Standards 

Division 

FROM: Richard Billings, Bryan Lange, and Jennifer Marik 

Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) 

DATE: January 27, 2011 

SUBJECT: Non-Commercial Aircraft Covered by ICAO Provisions 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

It is acknowledged that the T-100 data under-represents the activity of aircraft whose 

engines are covered by ICAO provisions; for instance, some of the aircraft included in the TAF 

and 5010 data are equipped with engines covered by the ICAO gaseous emissions provisions but 

are not included in the T-100 data as they do not provide commercial air carrier services (e.g., 

those aircraft used in general aviation service). We will refer to these aircraft as non-air carrier 

aircraft equipped with engines covered by ICAO gaseous emissions provisions. These aircraft 

include, aircraft used by business to transport senior employees to meetings or move high value 

materials to their manufacturing facilities. This would also include aircraft used for government 

services such as fire control. 

These non-commercial or non-air carrier aircraft are included in the FAA’s Terminal 

Area Forecast (TAF) and airport master plan (5010) data, but these data sources do not provide 

sufficient details about the aviation fleet (i.e., airframe make and model, engine model and 

thrust) to differentiate ICAO applicability. ERG has determined that an appropriate approach for 

approximating the activity and emissions from these non-air carrier aircraft is by using the FAA 

Aircraft Registry to identify aircraft equipped with engines covered by ICAO provisions that are 

not associated with airline-type activities, applying typical general aviation annual LTO activity 

to each aircraft, and then applying these data to the FAA’s EDMS to calculate airport related 

emissions for 2008. 

2.0 FAA AIRCRAFT REGISTRY 

Aircraft owned by individuals, corporations, the U.S. Government, States and territories 

must be registered with the FAA. Registrants can include a trustee or someone who holds a legal 

title to the aircraft. Registrant types included in the FAA data base are summarized in Table 1 for 

aircraft not pending sale. 

 
I-2 

Table 1. Aircraft Included in FAA Registration Databasea

Registrant Type Percent of Total

Individual 49

Corporation 35

Co-Owned 11

Partnership 2.1

Government 1.6

Non Citizen Corporation <1

Non Citizen Co-Owned <1

 Total aircraft population

(excluding aircraft pending sale)

349,641

a

 Excludes aircraft where the registrants name is either “Sale Reported” or 

 “Registration Pending” 

The FAA has recently noted “registration records for as many as one-third of all private 

aircraft are out-of-date and inaccurate, 21 specifically regarding aircraft ownership. Therefore, 

some uncertainty is associated with the owner types noted in Table 1. 

The Registry also includes a list of certificated dealers. Dealer's Aircraft Registration 

Certificates are issued to allow manufacturers to make any required flight tests of aircraft or to 

facilitate operating, demonstrating, and merchandising aircraft by the manufacturer without the 

burden of obtaining a Certificate of Aircraft Registration.22 In some cases, dealers may hold 

aircraft until the title transfer with the owner is finalized. Because dealer activities are not 

considered to be typical of general aviation, aircraft associated with them are not included in this 

analysis

2.1 AIRCRAFT AND ENGINES 

There are over 50,000 different aircraft models included in the registration database. It 

should be noted that this total is inflated by the many variations or series for each model; Boeing 

alone has over 1,200 models including nine versions of the 777 Freighter (i.e., 777FZN, 777FZB, 

777FHT, 777FDZ, 777-F6N, 777F28, 777F1H, 777F1B, and 777F). The most popular aircraft 

(1.7 percent of total or 5,989 aircraft) is the fixed wing single engine Piper model PA-28-140. 

Table 2 below shows the Registry engine types. A large fraction of aircraft are equipped 

with either a reciprocating engines (i.e., piston) or the engine had been removed for service, 

maintenance, or replacement. Note that the focus of this analysis is turbo-fans and turbo-jet 

powered aircraft which account for six percent of all registered aircraft. 

 

 

21 Meserve, Jeanne & Mike M. Ahlers. FAA Orders Re-registration of Thousands of Private Aircraft. CNN, 10 Dec. 

2010. Web. 24 Jan. 2011. <http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/10/faa.re.registration/index.html?iref=allsearch>. 

Chris Hawley, Missing airplanes data has FAA forcing owners to submit information again, December 10, 2010, 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1210/Missing-airplanes-data-has-FAA-forcing-ownersto-submit-information-again 

22 14 CFR Part 47.61 
I-3 

Table 2. Aircraft Engine Typesa

Aircraft Type Percent of Total

Reciprocating 71

None 9.8

4 Cycle 5.4

Turbo-prop 3.6

Turbo-fan 3.4

Turbo-jet 2.4

Turbo-shaft 2.4

2 Cycle 1.9

Not Specified <1

 Total 374,019

a

 Number of aircraft that does not match Table 1 above. This is attributed to two facts: 1) not all 

aircraft have a registrant identified and 2) table 1 excludes all records identified as “sale reported” 

or “registration pending.” 

To quantify aircraft activity covered by ICAO provisions the Registry was filtered using 

the following criteria: 

1) All aircraft that were not powered by a turbo-fan or turbo-jet were removed leaving 

21,921 aircraft. 

 

2) All aircraft whose engines are rated less than or equal to 26.7 kN were removed 

leaving 11,194. 

2.2 IDENTIFICATION OF NON-AIR CARRIER REGISTRANTS 

To identify registrants who likely performed commercial air carrier activities all 

registrants were divided into 6 generic categories: A) Banks, B) Leasing Companies and Air 

Service Providers, C) Airlines / Couriers, D) Aircraft Manufacturers, E) Misc. Fortune 500 

Companies (excluding banks), and F) Other Small Companies / Individuals / Government 

Agencies. 

To identify aircraft that are not associated with air carrier activities, the following 

assumptions were made: 

1. Banks may own executive jets for their own purposes or they may be shown as 

owners for aircraft that are in default of payment. This latter category of aircraft 

are likely parked and not actively flown. Because it is not possible to easily 

determine which aircraft are owned and used by bank executives for banking 

activities and which aircraft are associated with repossession, it was assumed that 

during this economic period bank related activities were less significant than 

aircraft repossessions. Therefore, any aircraft associated with banking was 

excluded in this analysis. (Registrant Category A). 

2. Leasing companies lease aircraft to airlines and freight couriers for the purposes 

of generating operating revenue. These aircraft would also be included in the T-
I-4 

100 data for the airlines that are leasing them and therefore should be excluded 

from this analysis (Registration Category B). 

3. Airlines and freight couriers generate operating revenue. Since these operations 

are documented in T-100 forms, these aircraft are excluded from this analysis 

(Registration Category C). 

4. This leaves Fortune 500, other small companies, and government agencies that do 

not generate revenue as air carriers. Examples of these activities would include 

corporations flying staff to meetings or shipment of high value equipment to 

manufacturing facilities. Collectively these registrants own a total of 3,096 nonair carrier aircraft (Registration Categories E and F). 

Search terms used to identify owners for categories A through D are noted in Table 3. 

The category assignments were made by searching the corporation names for terms that would 

indicate their core business. 

Table 3. Registrant Key Words 

Generic Category Key Words Other Databases 

A - Bank a Bank, Trust, Investment, 

Financial, Insurance, Finance 

B - Leasing Companies and Air 

Service Providers a

Holdings, Rental, Lease, Leasing, 

Air Service, Charter, Helicopter 

Service, Sales, Asset Management 

C - Airlines / Couriers a Airline b, Cargo, DHL, Packaging FAA Air Carrier 

Groupingsc

D - Aircraft Manufacturers Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, 

Grumman, General Dynamics, 

Honeywell, General Electric, 

Cessna, Beechcraft, Gulfstream 

Aerospace, Hunter Aviation, 

Bombardier, 

Certificated Dealersd 

a These registrants perform commercial activities (see discussion below in Section 3.0) and are excluded from the 

final analysis. 

b The FAA Aircraft Registry often includes variants of a corporations name (e.g., Southwest Airlines, Southwest

Airlines Co). Therefore, the combination of both the key word “airline” and the FAA Air Carrier Grouping 

database create a more comprehensive filter. 

c

 Carriers are grouped according to the operating revenue boundaries contained in 14 CFR Part 241, Section 04. 

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics - Office of Airline Information issues directives that provide regulatory 

clarity. Directive Number 299, issued October 19th 2010, defines the Air Carrier Groupings. For example, “Air 

Tran” operating revenue is over $1 billion therefore their reporting level is Group III. Suissa, Anne. Y. Air Carrier 

Groupings. U. S. Department of Transportation, Office of Airline Information, 19 Oct. 2010. Web. 24 Jan. 2011. 

<http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/accounting_and_reporting_directives/number_299.html>.

d

 Pursuant to 14 CFR §47.61, the FAA issues a Dealer’s Aircraft Registration Certificate to U.S. manufacturers and

dealers to allow manufacturers to make any required flight tests of aircraft, facilitate operating, demonstrating, and 

merchandising aircraft by the manufacturer or dealer without the burden of obtaining a Registration. 

A complete list of non-air carrier aircraft subject to ICAO provisions identified in this 

study are provided in Appendix A to this memo. 
I-5 

2.3 ACTIVITY 

LTO activity for registration categories E and F are assumed to match the activity level 

observed in the General Aviation and Part 135 Activity (GA) Survey for calendar year 2009.23

According to the survey, there were 2.208 million landings for the 12,121 fixed wing turbojets 

surveyed (Survey Result Tables 2.4 and 2.1 respectively) or 182 LTO per airframe per year. 

Table 7. Non-air carrier Aircraft – Activity 

Number of 

Aircraft 

LTO Activity Rate a 

(per plane per yr) 

Annual 

LTO Total 

Aircraft b 3,096 c 182 563,472 

a Fixed wing turbojets activity, calculated from the General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey – CY 2009. 

b Excludes aircraft that perform commercial activities as discussed above. 

c Not all combinations of airframe and engine could be matched to aircraft in EDMS. In order to estimate emissions 

for these unmatched aircraft, default emission factors were developed. 

 2.4 EMISSION CALCULATIONS 

All identified non-air carrier aircraft equipped with engines covered by ICAO provisions 

were matched to airframes and engines in EDMS 5.2 using the crosswalk table developed for this 

project that links engines to each airframe. The model was run assuming the default values for 

time-in-mode,24 taxi time, and mixing height.25 Note that not all combinations of airframe and 

engine could be matched to aircraft in EDMS. In order to estimate emissions for these 

unmatched aircraft, default emission factors were developed from the matched aircraft by 

summing emissions for each pollutant and dividing by the total LTOs associated with the 

matched aircraft. This same approach was used for aircraft that did not have PM estimates, total 

PM from matched aircraft were divided by the associated LTO activity to get a default PM 

factor. These default emission factors were then applied to the LTOs of all unmatched aircraft. 

Matched and unmatched emissions were compiled and presented in Table 8 for the 2008 baseline 

emissions. 

Table 8. Summary of Activity and Emissions for Non-air carrier Aircraft Covered by 

ICAO Provisions 

Year LTO CO (kg) VOC (kg) NOX (kg) PM2.5 (kg) FUEL (kg) 

2008 563,472 7,038,627 3,484,480 5,110,719 197,625 436,473,773

 

23 The General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey provides the FAA with information on general aviation and 

on-demand Part 135 aircraft activity. The survey enables the FAA to monitor the general aviation fleet so that it can 

anticipate and meet demand. Since 1978, the FAA has collect data on general aviation activity. In 1993, the name of 

the survey was changed to the General Aviation and Air Taxi Activity Survey to reflect that the survey included air 

taxi (that is, on-demand 14 CFR §135) aircraft. 

General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Surveys - Calendar Year 2009. FAA, 29 Oct. 2010. Web. 24 Jan. 2011. 

<http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/ CY2009/>. 

24 Time in mode is the amount of time an aircraft spends in the different portions of a LTO cycle. In EDMS an LTO 

cycle is divided into six phases: approach, taxi in, startup, taxi out, takeoff and climb out. 

25 The mixing height provides a vertical cutoff for EDMS’s modeling of aircraft emissions. 
I-6 

Appendix A. Non-air carrier Aircraft Covered by ICAO Provisions 

Aircraft_Mfr Aircraft_Model Count 

Bombardier Inc CL-600-2B19 583

Boeing 737-7H4 345

Embraer EMB-145LR 337

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-82(MD-82) 276

Bombardier Inc CL-600-2C10 254

Cessna 750 251

Bombardier Inc CL-600-2B16 216

Cessna 680 202

Bombardier Inc BD-100-1A10 192

Canadair Ltd CL-600-2B16 177

Boeing 737-823 167

Gulfstream Aerospace GV-SP (G550) 165

Gulfstream Aerospace GIV-X (G450) 164

Dassault Aviation FALCON 2000 159

Gulfstream Aerospace G-V 153

Boeing 737-3H4 144

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-83(MD-83) 144

Bombardier Inc BD-700-1A10 140

Bombardier Inc CL600-2D24 139

Aero Vodochody L39C 134

Airbus Industrie A320-232 134

Boeing 737-824 130

Boeing 757-223 124

Boeing 717-200 122

Airbus A320-232 122

McDonnell Douglas MD-11F 114

Boeing 757-232 112

McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Co MD-88 111

Israel Aircraft Industries GULFSTREAM 200 107

Embraer EMB-145XR 104

Canadair CL-600-2B19 99

Boeing 757-222 97

Embraer ERJ 190-100 IGW 82

Gulfstream Aerospace G-1159A 82

Boeing 767-332 79

Boeing 757-24APF 75

Embraer-Empresa Brasileira De ERJ 170-200 LR 75

Embraer EMB-135KL 74

Boeing 737-832 71
I-7 

Aircraft_Mfr Aircraft_Model Count 

Dassault FALCON 2000EX 67

Douglas DC-9-31 67

Embraer EMB-135LR 65

McDonnell Douglas MD-10-10F 59

Canadair Ltd 

CL-600 

CHALLENGER 58

Airbus Industrie A319-112 58

Boeing 767-323 57

Boeing 737-890 56

Boeing 777-222 55

Airbus A320-214 54

Boeing 737-322 52

Boeing 757-251 50

Airbus Industrie A319-131 50

McDonnell-Douglas DC-10-30 49

Embraer EMB-135BJ 49

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-51 46

Airbus A319-132 44

Boeing 767-34AF 43

Airbus Industrie A320-212 42

Boeing 727-227 41

Boeing 727-232 40

Boeing 737-524 40

Bombardier Inc BD-700-1A11 40

Embraer ERJ 170-100 SE 40

Boeing 727-223 38

Boeing 737-724 36

Airbus Industrie A300F4-605R 36

Boeing 767-322 35

Embraer ERJ 170-100SU 35

Airbus Industrie A319-132 35

Boeing 727-233 34

Boeing 737-3TO 34

Embraer EMB-145EP 34

Hawker Beechcraft Corp HAWKER 4000 34

Boeing 737-7BD 33

Boeing 737-924ER 33

Canadair Ltd CL-600-2A12 33

Dassault Aviation FALCON 2000EX 33

Douglas DC-9-32 33

Airbus Industrie A320-231 33

Airbus A300 F4-622R 32
I-8 

Aircraft_Mfr Aircraft_Model Count 

Boeing 727-225 31

Airbus A319-114 31

Grumman American Avn. Corp. G-1159 31

Boeing 747-422 30

Airbus Industrie A320-211 30

Airbus A319-112 30

McDonnell Douglas MD-90-30 29

Airbus A319-111 29

Boeing 727-224 28

Airbus Industrie A300B4-605R 28

Gulfstream Aerospace G1159B 28

Dassault Aviation FALCON 7X 27

Douglas DC-8-73F 27

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-41 27

Boeing 727-231 26

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32 26

Airbus Industrie A319-114 26

Airbus A321-231 26

Lockheed L-1011-385-1 26

Boeing 737-5H4 25

Airbus Industrie A321-211 25

Boeing 767-223 24

Convair 22 24

McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Co MD 83 24

Airbus Industrie A310-203 24

Boeing 727-222 23

Boeing 737-522 23

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-81(MD-81) 23

Airbus Industrie A320-214 23

Israel Aircraft Industries GALAXY 23

Boeing 737-76N 22

Boeing 777-224 22

Boeing 767-432ER 21

Dornier 328-300 21

Airbus Industrie A300F4-622R 21

Airbus A330-323 21

Boeing 747-121 20

Airbus Industrie A300 B4-203 20

Boeing 727-23 19

Boeing 737-790 19

Boeing 737-4Q8 18

Boeing 757-2B7 18
I-9 

Aircraft_Mfr Aircraft_Model Count 

Boeing 757-236 18

Boeing 767-281 18

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-87 18

McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30F 18

Embraer EMB-135ER 18

Fokker F.28 MK 0100 18

Boeing 727-200 17

Boeing 727-251 17

Boeing 737-490 17

Boeing 747-451 17

Fairchild Dornier DORNIER 328-300 17

Lockheed L-1011-385-3 17

Boeing 737-2H4 16

Boeing 757-2Q8 16

Boeing 757-351 16

Boeing 767-424ER 16

McDonnell Douglas Corp DC-9-82 16

Boeing 737-3G7 15

Douglas DC-9-14 15

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-31 15

Douglas DC-10-40 15

McDonnell Douglas MD-10-30F 15

Embraer ERJ170-200LR 15

Airbus A330-243 15

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp GVI 15

Hamburger Flugzeugbau HFB 320 HANSA 15

Boeing 727-22 14

Boeing 727-247 14

Douglas DC-8-21 14

Douglas DC-8-51 14

Douglas DC-8-71F 14

McDonnell Douglas Corporation MD-88 14

Airbus Industrie A310-222 14

Israel Aerospace Industriesltd G200 14

Boeing 737-3B7 13

Boeing 737-247 13

Boeing 737-401 13

Boeing 747-400 13

Boeing 757-28A 13

Boeing 767-232 13

Canadair CL-600-1A11 13

McDonnell Douglas A4N 13
I-10 

Aircraft_Mfr Aircraft_Model Count 

Douglas DC-9-41 13

Airbus A320-233 13

Israel Aerospace Ind Ltd GULFSTREAM 200 13

Boeing 737-990 12

Boeing 747-47UF 12

Boeing 737-924 12

Airbus A300B4-622R 12

Iai Ltd GULFSTREAM 200 12

Boeing 737-232 11

Boeing 767-33A 11

Douglas DC-8F-54 11

Airbus Industrie A310-324 11

Boeing 737-200 10

Boeing 737-222 10

Boeing 737-400 10

Boeing 737-8Q8 10

Boeing 737-7ES 10

Boeing 737-732 10

Boeing 747-243B 10

Boeing 757-23A 10

Boeing 767-224 10

Boeing 777-232LR 10

Douglas DC-9-15F 10

McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 10

McDonnell Douglas MD-11 10

Embraer EMB-145 10

Airbus Industrie A300B4-622R 10

Airbus A330-223 10

Gulfstream Aerospace G-IV (G400) 10

Boeing 737-7BC 9

Boeing 757-324 9

Boeing 757-200 SERIES 9

Boeing 767-222 9

Boeing Co 777-FS2 9

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-15F 9

Airbus Industrie A330-323 9

Gates Lear Jet 25C 9

Boeing 727-22C 8

Boeing 727-51 8

Boeing 727-2S2F 8

Boeing 727-277 8

Boeing 737-300 8
I-11 

Aircraft_Mfr Aircraft_Model Count 

Boeing 737-3Q8 8

Boeing 757-231 8

Boeing 777-232 8

Airbus A321-211 8

Gulfstream Aerospace GV-SP (G500) 8

Hawker Beechcraft Corp 4000 8

Boeing 707-321B 7

Boeing 727-25 7

Boeing 727-214 7

Boeing 737-700 7

Boeing 737-291 7

Boeing 737-752 7

Boeing 747-123 7

Boeing 747-230B 7

Boeing 747-251F 7

Boeing 747-44AF 7

Boeing 767-3P6 7

McDonnell Douglas DC-8-62 7

McDonnell Douglas DC-8-63 7

Douglas DC9-15 7

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-33F 7

Airbus A318-111 7

Hawker Aircraft Ltd 

HAWKER HUNTER 

MK.58 7

Lockheed L-1011-385-1-15 7

Boeing 737-66N 6

Boeing 707-138B 6

Boeing 727-21 6

Boeing 727-281 6

Boeing 737-201 6

Boeing 737-205 6

Boeing 737-301 6

Boeing 737-3Y0 6

Boeing 747-246F 6

Boeing 747-212B 6

Boeing 747-251B 6

Boeing 757-2S7 6

Boeing 767-200 6

Boeing 767-231 6

British Aircraft Corp. BAC 1-11 401/AK 6

Douglas DC-9-33F 6

Airbus A300F4-605R 6
I-12 

Aircraft_Mfr Aircraft_Model Count 

Airbus A320-212 6

Airbus A310-324 6

Gulfstream Aerospace GV-SP 6

Israel Aircraft Industries KFIR-C2 6

North American F-100F 6

Boeing 707-321C 5

Boeing 727-31 5

Boeing 727-212 5

Boeing 727-228 5

Boeing 737-3A4 5

Boeing 737-3L9 5

Boeing 737-236 5

Boeing 757-204 5

Boeing 737-7AX 5

Boeing 747-2D7B 5

Boeing 747-4H6 5

Boeing 747-46NF 5

Boeing 757-23N 5

Boeing 767-2B7 5

Boeing 767-201 5

Boeing 767-316F 5

British Aircraft BAC 1-11 204/AF 5

Canadair Ltd CT-33 5

Douglas DC-8F-55 5

Douglas DC-8-61 5

Douglas DC-8-62 5

Airbus Industrie A300B4 5

Airbus A319-131 5

Airbus A320-211 5

Gulfstream Aerospace GIV-X 5

Gulfstream Aerospace G-IV (G350) 5

Fokker F.28 MK4000 5

McDonnell Douglas TA-4J 4

Hawker Aircraft Factory 

HAWKER HNTR FMK 

58 4

Boeing 707-131 4

Boeing 720-022 4

Boeing 720-027 4

Boeing 727-287 4

Boeing 727-2B7 4

Boeing 727-2M7 4

Boeing 727-230 4
I-13 

Aircraft_Mfr Aircraft_Model Count 

Boeing 727-243 4

Boeing 727-254 4

Boeing 737-317 4

Boeing 737-3S3 4

Boeing 737-3K2 4

Boeing 737-7BX 4

Boeing 747-228F 4

Boeing 747-446 4

Boeing 747-481 4

Boeing 757-2G5 4

Boeing 757-212 4

Boeing 767-238 4

Boeing 767-2EY 4

Boeing 777-2Q8 4

Canadair Ltd 

CL600-2B16(CL601-

3A) 4

Canadair CT-133 4

Douglas DC-9-83 4

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32F 4

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-34 4

Douglas ERA-3B 4

Airbus Industrie A300 B4-622 4

Airbus A319-115 4

Saab-Scania SK35XD 4

Boeing 707-382B 3

Boeing 707-323B 3

Boeing 707-351C 3

Boeing 727-30 3

Boeing 727-30C 3

Boeing 727-25C 3

Boeing 727-27C 3

Boeing 727-2J4 3

Boeing 727-77 3

Boeing 727-100 3

Boeing 727-191 3

Boeing 727-221 3

Boeing 727-2A1 3

Boeing 727-235 3

Boeing 737-347 3

Boeing 737-2L9 3

Boeing 737-48E 3

Boeing 737-76Q 3
I-14 

Aircraft_Mfr Aircraft_Model Count 

Boeing 747-SR-46 3

Boeing 747-206B 3

Boeing 747-246B 3

Boeing 757-2T7 3

Boeing 757-21B 3

Boeing 757-2G7 3

Boeing 767-3CB 3

Douglas DC-8-33 3

McDonnell Douglas DC-8-61 3

McDonnell Douglas DC-8-62F 3

McDonnell Douglas DC-8-63F 3

McDonnell Douglas DC-8-71 3

Douglas DC-8-72 3

Douglas DC-9-21 3

Douglas DC-9-32F 3

Douglas DC-10-30F 3

Douglas Aircraft Company NRA3B 3

Airbus Industrie A319-111 3

Airbus A310-203 3

Gulfstream Aerospace GIV-X (G350) 3

Vought-Thunderbird Avn Inc F-8 2

Boeing 707-368C 2

Boeing 707-123B 2

Boeing 707-331B 2

Boeing 707-331C 2

Boeing 707-338C 2

Boeing 720-025 2

Boeing 720-047B 2

Boeing 727-17 2

Boeing 727-27 2

Boeing 727-35 2

Boeing 727-95 2

Boeing 727-2H3 2

Boeing 727-2S7 2

Boeing 727-290 2

Boeing 737-832 2

Boeing 737-112 2

Boeing 737-214 2

Boeing 737-2A1 2

Boeing 737-2X6C 2

Boeing 737-297 2

Boeing 737-290C 2
I-15 

Aircraft_Mfr Aircraft_Model Count 

Boeing 737-2K5 2

Boeing 737-293 2

Boeing 737-2T4 2

Boeing 737-4S3 2

Boeing 737-228 2

Boeing 737-75V 2

Boeing 737-705 2

Boeing 737-81Q 2

Boeing 737-7DM 2

Boeing 737-73V 2

Boeing 737-2H6 2

Boeing 737-73Q 2

Boeing 737-3T5 2

Boeing 747SP-21 2

Boeing 747-2F6B 2

Boeing 747-2B4B 2

Boeing 747-238B 2

Boeing 747-2B5F 2

Boeing 747-200 2

Boeing 747-249F 2

Boeing 747-282B 2

Boeing 747-243B 2

Boeing 747-122 2

Boeing 747-131 2

Boeing 747-132 2

Boeing 747-4HQF 2

Boeing 747-273C 2

Boeing 747-281F 2

Boeing 747-341 2

Boeing 747-346 2

Boeing 747-409 2

Boeing 747-412F 2

Boeing 747-446 2

Boeing 747SP-09 2

Boeing 747-222B 2

Boeing 747-45E 2

Boeing 767-200ER 2

Boeing 767-300ER 2

Boeing 767-324 2

Boeing 767-383 2

Boeing 767-3Y0 2

Boeing 777F28 2
I-16 

Aircraft_Mfr Aircraft_Model Count 

Boeing 777-F6N 2

Boeing 777FZB 2

Boeing 767-328 2

British Aircraft BAC 1-11 203/AE 2

Bombardier Inc CL-600-2B16(CL-604) 2

Canadair Ltd CL600-1A11 2

Dassault Aviation 

MYSTERE FALCON 

20 2

Douglas DC-8-31 2

Douglas DC-8-52 2

Douglas DC-8-62F 2

Douglas DC-8-63F 2

Douglas DC-8-73 2

McDonnell Douglas DC-8-71F 2

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-15 2

Douglas TA-3B 2

Douglas EA3B 2

Gulfstream Aerospace GULFSTREAM 200 2

Gulfstream Aerospace Lp GULFSTREAM 200 2

Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd G200 2

Lockheed YF-22A 2

Northrop YF-23A 2

Raytheon Aircraft Company HAWKER 4000 2

Mcdougall/Douglas TA-4J 1

Scaled Composites Llc 348 1

Boeing 727-2K5 1

Boeing 727-2K3 1

Boeing 367-80 1

Boeing 707-131B 1

Boeing 707-311C 1

Boeing 707-328 1

Boeing 707-331 1

Boeing 707-330B 1

Boeing 707-323C 1

Boeing 707-330C 1

Boeing 707-349C 1

Boeing 720-023B 1

Boeing 720-059B 1

Boeing 727 1

Boeing 727-2J7 1

Boeing 727-51C 1

Boeing 727-76 1
I-17 

Aircraft_Mfr Aircraft_Model Count 

Boeing 727-81 1

Boeing 727-116 1

Boeing 727-44 1

Boeing 727-155C 1

Boeing 727-172C 1

Boeing 727-269 1

Boeing 727-2F9 1

Boeing 727-2B6 1

Boeing 727-2D3 1

Boeing 727-2Q6 1

Boeing 727-2Q8 1

Boeing 727-2Q9 1

Boeing 727-259 1

Boeing 727-264 1

Boeing 727-276 1

Boeing 727-282 1

Boeing 727-291 1

Boeing 737-219 1

Boeing 737-296 1

Boeing 737-7ET 1

Boeing 737-2CO 1

Boeing 737-2E1 1

Boeing 737-2Q8 1

Boeing 737-284 1

Boeing 737-2V6 1

Boeing 737-2M6C 1

Boeing 737-9HWER 1

Boeing 737-282 1

Boeing 737-282C 1

Boeing 737-330 1

Boeing 737-35B 1

Boeing 737-408 1

Boeing 737-448 1

Boeing 737-230C 1

Boeing 737-72T 1

Boeing 737-75T 1

Boeing 737-8DC 1

Boeing 737-79U 1

Boeing 737-7CG 1

Boeing 737-7CJ 1

Boeing 737-7HJ 1

Boeing 737-436 1
I-18 

Aircraft_Mfr Aircraft_Model Count 

Boeing 737-83N 1

Boeing 737-8FH 1

Boeing 737-7EG 1

Boeing 737-7CU 1

Boeing 737-7EL 1

Boeing 737-7EI 1

Boeing 737-8EF 1

Boeing 737-8EQ 1

Boeing 737-73T 1

Boeing 737-74Q 1

Boeing 737-7AV 1

Boeing 737-7BF 1

Boeing 737-7GV 1

Boeing 737-7AH 1

Boeing 737-7KK 1

Boeing 737-73W 1

Boeing 737-7BQ 1

Boeing 737-2Y5 1

Boeing 737-8KT 1

Boeing 737-9BQER 1

Boeing Co 737-9LBER 1

Boeing 737-505 1

Boeing 747-SP44 1

Boeing 747 212B 1

Boeing 747-230F 1

Boeing 747-2L5B 1

Boeing 747-284B 1

Boeing 747-267B 1

Boeing 747-136 1

Boeing 747-209B 1

Boeing 747-281B 1

Boeing 747-271C 1

Boeing 747-4J6 1

Boeing 747-4B5 1

Boeing 747-143 1

Boeing 757-26D 1

Boeing 757-256 1

Boeing 757-23APF 1

Boeing 767-269 1

Boeing 767-2J6 1

Boeing 767-24Q 1

Boeing 767-241 1
I-19 

Aircraft_Mfr Aircraft_Model Count 

Boeing 767-258 1

Boeing 767-205 1

Boeing 767-323ER 1

Boeing 767-2S1 1

Boeing 767-306 1

Boeing 767-36N 1

Boeing 767-2Q8 1

Boeing 767-3Z9 1

Boeing 777-24Q 1

Boeing 737-7JR 1

Boeing 737-7JZ 1

Boeing 767-2AX 1

British Aircraft Corp. BAC 1-11 212/AR 1

British Aircraft Corp. BAC 1-11 215/AU 1

British Aircraft Corp. BAC 1-11 410/AQ 1

British Aerospace SEA HARRIER FA2 1

Canadair CL-601-3A 1

Canadair CL-600-2A12(CL-601) 1

Canadair CL601-3R 1

Convair 30A 1

Convair 30A-6 1

Convair 22M 1

Dornier Luftfahrt Gmbh 328-300 1

Douglas NTA3B 1

Douglas DC-8-43 1

McDonnell Douglas DC-8-33 1

Douglas DC-8-54 1

Douglas DC-8-55 1

McDonnell Douglas DC-8-52 1

McDonnell Douglas DC-8F-54 1

Douglas DC8-72-CF 1

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-21 1

McDonnell-Douglas DC-10-10F 1

Airbus Industrie A300-B4-2C 1

Airbus Industrie A319-133 1

Airbus Industrie A330-223 1

Airbus A310-304 1

Gulfstream Aerospace G-IV (G300) 1

Gulfstream Aerospacecorp G-IIB 1

Fokker F.28 MK 1000 1

Lockheed 300-50A-01 1

Lockheed L-1011-385-1-14 1
I-20 

Aircraft_Mfr Aircraft_Model Count 

North American F-100D 1

Saab Scandia S-35XD 1