# 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 En gines Covered by

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

2.3 Assessment of Non-Commercial Aircraft in the TAF/5010 D ataset 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 Ce rtified Engines

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

3.2 Normalized Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data for Comm ercial 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. NO

x 

# Emissions for Aircraft Equipped with

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Data set 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 I CAO

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 Provi sions

# iii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables Page No.

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

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

................................................... ............. xiii

Table 2-1. Distribution of Engine Models for the Ascend Da tabase– 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, an d 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 Emis sions Normalized with

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

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

................................................... ...... 3-3

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

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

Dataset ...........................................

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

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

Dataset ...........................................

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

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

Dataset ...........................................

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

Table 3-7. National Average NO

x 

# Emissions (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft, Included in the

T-100 Dataset.........................................

................................................... ............................ 3-16

Table 3-8. National Average Engine Thrust Normalized with R espect 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 NO

x 

# Emissions per LTO Cycle/Engine-Thrust (g per LTO/kN) f or

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 Co mmercial Aircraft Equipped with

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Data set (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 NO

x 

# Emission (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft,

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

................................................... ................. 3-32

Table 3-13. Selected Non-attainment Areas NO

x 

# 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 NO

x 

# 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 Normaliz ed 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) f or Aircraft not Equipped with

Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in TAF and 5010 Dat aset (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 Em issions for Non-Air Carrier

Aircraft Equipped with ICAO Certified Engines ............

................................................... .... 3-43

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

Equipped with Turbofan and Turboprop Engines ................

.................................................. 3-43

Figures Page No.

Figure E-1. National LTOs (million) and NO

x 

# Emissions (kg/LTO and kg) for Commercial

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

Total Fleet ........................................

................................................... .................................... viii

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

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

Figure E-3. National NO

x 

# Emissions (metric ton) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with

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

Type................................................

................................................... .........................................x

Figure E-4. National Average NO

x 

# Emissions (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with

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

Type................................................

................................................... ....................................... xi

Figure 3-1. National LTOs (million) and NO

x 

# Emissions (kg/LTO and kg) for Commercial

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

Total Fleet ........................................

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

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

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

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

................................................... ............. 3-4

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

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

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

................................................... ....... 3-6

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

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

Turbojet, Regional 4 Engine Turboprop, 4 Engine Turboprop, R egional 1 Engine Turbojet,

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

................................................... ... 3-7

Figure 3-5. National LTOs (million) for Commercial Airc raft 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 NO

x 

# Emission (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with

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

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

................................................... .................... 3-17

# v

Figure 3-7. National Average NO

x 

# Emissions (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with

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

Type................................................

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

Figure 3-8. National NO

x 

# Emissions (metric ton) for Commercial Aircraft Equippe d with

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

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

................................................... .................... 3-19

Figure 3-9. National Average Engine Thrust Normalized with R espect 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 NO

x 

# Emission (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with

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

Type and Thrust .....................................

................................................... ............................ 3-23

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

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

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

................................................... .................. 3-26

Figure 3-12. Selected Non-attainment Areas LTOs for Commer cial 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 NO

x 

# 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 NO

x 

# 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 Internati onal Civil Aviation Organization

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

approach, ICAO has proposed international provisions, and s ubsequently 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 emis sion of oxides of nitrogen (NO

x 

# ),

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

1986. 1 

# ICAO developed more stringent NO

x 

# provisions in 1992, 1998, and 2004, which went

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

standards in 1982 for HC, and in 1997 for NO

x 

# and CO. In 2005, EPA promulgated additional

NO

x 

# emission limits. Currently, the EPA is conducting a rul emaking to adopt standards

equivalent to the latest ICAO NO

x 

# provisions. Note that these standards are designed to addre ss

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 fee t, 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 characteristic s data and to develop the emission

inventories for each year of the study period. Pollutants included in this assessment are: NO

x 

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

(PM 2.5 

# ), oxides of sulfur (as SO 2 

# ), carbon dioxide (CO 2 

# ), and hazardous air pollutants (HAP)

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

Scope of this Study

This study provides a comprehensive look at changes in annual NO

x 

# inventories for

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

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

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

(or thrust) greater than 26.7 kN.

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

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

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

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

1 

# The first ICAO emission standards went into effect i n 1986, and thus, the first year of this analysis is 1986. Sm oke

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

study.

# vii

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

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

emission trends were evaluated relative to the years wh en the ICAO provisions were

implemented to try to discern associated changes in emi ssions (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 change s in fleet engine performance over

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

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

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

2008, such as: an inventory of emission estimates for auxilia ry 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-com mercial (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 wi th engines covered by the ICAO

provisions for gaseous emissions 2 

# increased approximately 50 percent between 1986 and 2008,

and the LTO NO

x 

# emissions inventory increased approximately 28 percent during that same

timeframe. And the NO

x 

# emissions per LTO decreased by 11 percent. This analysis i ndicates

that when operations activity, aircraft fleet populatio n, accessions, retirements, and fleet mix

changes are accounted for, growth in the level of NO

x 

# emission was less than that of LTOs.

However, even with technology improvements and more s tringent provisions for NO

x 

# emissions,

this analysis also shows that there has been no net reduction in the LTO NO

x 

# inventory over this

period of time.

2 

# Engines covered by the ICAO standards have rated output (o r thrust) greater than 26.7 kN.

# viii

Figure E-1. National LTOs (million) and NO

x 

# 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 covere d by the ICAO provisions for

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

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

Since 1986, LTOs from regional jets increased from 500,000 per y ear 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 aircraf t 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, Organ ized by Aircraft Type

The information shown in Figure E-2 may suggest that this i ncrease in the LTO NO

x 

# inventory is caused primarily by regional jet activity, s ince NO

x 

# emissions from wide-/narrowbody aircraft have presumably decreased as a result of t he technology response to the ICAO

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

unchanged over the study period. However, Figure E-3 shows the opposite to be true for NO

x 

# emission. Over the study period, the LTO NO

x 

# emissions inventory for traditional wide-/narrowbody aircraft increased by 13 percent.

Also, on a kg NO

x



# /LTO basis, Figure E-4 shows that traditional wide-/narr ow-body

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

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

# x

Figure E-3. National NO

x 

# Emissions (metric ton) for Commercial Aircraft Equippe d with

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

Aircraft Type

# xi

Figure E-4. National Average NO

x 

# 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 N O

x 

# emissions reduction performance, which

may not have been fully anticipated and appreciated years ago when the NO

x 

# standards were set.

This degradation (or NO

x 

# increase) is consistent with the increase in engine compressor pressure

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

increasing combustion temperatures with a concomitant ri se in NO

x 

# emissions.

The relaxed slope of the Pressure Ratio (PR) versus Dp/F oo 3 

# line for PRs over 30 have

made new NO

x 

# standards less challenging and the use of derivatives ha ve allowed throttle push

versions of certified engine models to continue production un der previous standards.

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

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

the provisions for NO

x 

# emissions in reducing LTO NO

x 

# emission inventories in the U.S.

To put into perspective the emissions associated with air craft equipped with engines

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

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

categories, equipped with turbofan engines that have a th rust 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 NO

x 

# 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) data 5 

# obtained

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

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

(GAATA) Survey 6 

# . The TAF and 5010 data were also adjusted to account for duplica tes in the

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

done by summing the T-100 data by aircraft type (i.e., air ca rriers 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 t hose reported in the T-100 data,

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

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

counting.

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

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

types, generic criteria and HAP emission factors used i n the EPA’s National Emission Inventory 7



# 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 ar e not included in the T-100

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

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

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

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

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

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

broker were identified and removed from the registry data set. 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 IC AO 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 ai rcraft included in the dataset of non-air

carrier aircraft equipped with engines covered by ICAO provi sions 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 ident ify 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 off icial forecast of aviation activity at FAA facilitie s.

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 Airspa ce

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

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

www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/airport_safety/a irportdata_5010/. This database is updated every 56 days.

6 

# http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistic s/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 en gines covered by ICAO gaseous

emissions provisions. Table E-1 summarizes results for a ircraft 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 Emission s Data for Turbofan

and Turboprop Aircraft by ICAO Provision

Source Operational

Type Regulated LTO NO X 

# (kg) VOC

(kg) CO

(kg) PM 10



# (kg) PM 2.5



# (kg) SO 2



# 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 fr om ICAO certified engines, coverage for non-ICAO

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

(b) Emissions for Non-air carrier Aircraft Covered by ICA O 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 aviatio n, and APU = auxiliary power unit



# In conclusion, this study shows that at the national l evel 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 NO

x 

# emissions. When non-commercial air carriers equipped

with engines that are covered by the ICAO provisions are also considered, 94 percent of NO

x 

# emissions are accounted for. Much of the remaining airc raft NO

x 

# emissions (2.6 percent) are

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

study also indicates that improvements in emission rate s 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 lo cal fleet operations, such as the opening or

expansion of new freight handling facilities or the real ignment of air carrier service hubs.

# 1-1



# 1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

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

approach international provisions have first been adopte d 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 NO

x 

# , HC, CO, and smoke; these

provisions went into effect in 1986. ICAO developed more st ringent NO

x 

# 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 NO

x 

# and CO. In 2005,

EPA promulgated additional NO

x 

# emission limits. Currently, the EPA is conducting a

rulemaking to adopt the last two rounds of ICAO NO

x 

# 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 emissio ns associated with LTO cycles for the

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

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

The EPA commissioned this project to compile appropriat e activity and aircraft

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

Pollutants included in this assessment are: NO

x 

# , VOC, CO, particulate matter (PM) and fine

particulate matter (PM 2.5 

# ), oxides of sulfur (as SO 2 

# ), carbon dioxide (CO 2 

# ), 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 n oted 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 upo n First Order

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

.

This assessment includes domestic and foreign flagged carri ers. Emissions were

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

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

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

developed emission trends were evaluated relative to the y ears when the ICAO provisions were

implemented to try to discern associated changes in emi ssions (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 change s in fleet engine performance over

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

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

Section 2 of this report summarizes the methodologies us ed 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 NO

x 

# standards at their 6 th



# meeting in 2004 and 8 th



# 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 c alculation methodologies and only

improved reporting output files for the FAA’s Voluntary Ai rport 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 o f the EDMS model for the national

assessment and the non-attainment area assessment. Out put 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 aircra ft equipped with engines covered by

ICAO gaseous emissions provisions and where the T-100 data d ocument 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 th eir 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 Te rminal Area Forecast (TAF) and

5010 Master Plan data. The TAF and 5010 Master Plan data would i nclude 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 o f 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 Tr ansportation (DOT) Bureau of

Transportation Statistics (BTS) Air Carrier Statisti cs 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, intern ational segment, combined domestic and

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

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

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

and Capacity Data By Nonstop Segment and On-flight Marke t 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 certif icated 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 reve nues

• 

# Group I Over - from $20,000,001 to $100,000,000 in annual operating revenue s

• 

# 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 ope rating 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 c omparable aircraft

activity data by airport for the years 1986 through 1989 for dom estic traffic. 11 

# Activity data for

foreign flagged carriers were unavailable prior to 1990. To acc ount 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 av ailable. 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 a ircraft based on the

manufacturer and airframe model. The T-100 data for the st udy 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_a nd_accuracy_compendium/form41_schedule.html

11 

# EPA obtained the 1986 through 1989 T-100 data from Database P roducts.

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 ma nufacturers, 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 i nclude engine type.

2.1.1 Engine Assignment

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

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

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

Online Fleets Database 13 

# is a privately owned database that contains details on individual aircraft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rates, emission rates, pressure ratios, and thrust derive d 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 diffe rent 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 Datab ase– 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) NO

x 

# Emissions

During LTO Cycle

(g) Fuel Usage During

LTO Cycle

(kg) NO

x 

# 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 en gine assignment for an aircraft

model was reassigned when another engine became the do minant engine. The engine assignment

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

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

include all combinations of airframe model and engine. If E DMS 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 matc hed the engines reported in the Ascend

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

thrust characteristics was used. However, this default e ngine matching was a rare event.

# 2-4

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

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

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

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

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

missing aircraft were accounted for in the national esti mates 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 quanti fy the most popular

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

determined that the accuracy of EDMS emissions estimate s (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 requi red 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, inc luding domestic and foreign operations.

The high-activity aircraft were identified based on tota l 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 operat ions. These 47 aircraft, listed in

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

each year.

LTOs cycles were distributed across existing EDMS engine s in a manner consistent

with the Ascend engine distribution producing weighted emiss ions. However, not all highactivity aircraft received this LTO distribution, only th ose that met the following criteria:

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

LTOs.

2. The variance of the NO

x 

# emission factor associated with the different aircr aft engine

options must be greater than 10 percent in any year.

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

These criteria were evaluated for each year and for do mestic 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 o f 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 assignmen ts. Table 2.3 presents the 27 highactivity aircraft selected for accuracy improvement wit h the maximum NO

x 

# 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. NO

x 

# Variance Airframe Max. NO

x 

# 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 followin g 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 o ptions, was greater than 10%, and 3) the aircraft was

equipped with an engine covered by ICAO provisions.



# The weighted emissions approach assumes that all aircr aft 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. A lthough this approach is a refinement

over using a single engine to estimate aircraft model e missions, 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 emissio n estimates, the

weighted NO

x 

# emission factors were compared to the NO

x 

# emission factor associated with the

most popular engine; these data are presented in Appendix C. The NO

x 

# 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 ope rational Airbus 320

aircraft were equipped with a United Technologies PW4168A, who se NO

x 

# emission rate

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

International Aero Engine V2527-A5). See Appendix D for detai ls on engine NO

x 

# 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 process ed at a hypothetical airport

based on FAA default values. This approach allowed the mix ing 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 defaul t value used in the EPA’s

National Emission Inventory)). Note that all EDMS mode ling 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 an d without engines covered

by ICAO gaseous emissions provisions. ICAO provisions do not c over 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 NO

x 

# inventories for commercial aircraft

covered by the provisions of ICAO, therefore the aircra ft equipped engines not covered by ICAO

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

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

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

above.

Output from EDMS was grouped into appropriate aircraft catego ries for further

evaluation. These aircraft categories roughly match gene ral industry groupings. Initially aircraft

were split into narrow- and wide-body categories. Narro w-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 gro uped 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 c ategories were further

disaggregated into aircraft equipped with engines covered by an d not covered by ICAO

provisions. Also aircraft equipped with turbo props were separ ated from aircraft equipped with

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

15 

# As stated earlier, emissions were calculated for engi nes 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 avi ation does not generate revenue from their

activities and are therefore excluded from T-100; their ac tivities 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 eva luate 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 emissi ons 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 En gines 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 emiss ion relative to the total inventory,

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

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

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

identified NAA are provided in Appendix H.

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



# 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 Included a 

# (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 onl y

for purposes of this report.



# To estimate emissions for airports located in the 42 ide ntified areas, input files were

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

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

for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) online database TranStats 16 

# were used for each

airport included in the selected NAAs. Departure and arriv al 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-m inutes and varied year-to-year and

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

is provided in Appendix F.

Except for the taxi time adjustment, the emission esti mating procedures for each airport

included in the non-attainment area were the same as tha t 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/mo del 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 re gistration data. Aircraft that

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

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

data, if the aircraft was equipped with an engine that ha d 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 operat ions, these aircraft were assumed to

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

GAATA survey. This LTO activity level was assigned to ea ch 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 aircr aft registration data it is not possible

to identify where these non-air carrier aircraft operat e. 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 en gines covered by ICAO gaseous

emissions provisions.

The estimated census of these aircraft, their activit y, 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 upo n pollutant). These results are

summarized in Table 3-20.

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

Aircraft Activity

In order to develop a complete picture of aircraft acti vities 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 a ircraft 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 ac count for these smaller jet powered

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

component of the National Emission Inventory. That inf ormation 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 operation s were compared to the T-100

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

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

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

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

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

values, the T-100 LTOs were subtracted from the TAF and 5010 v alues 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, NO

x 

# , PM 10 

# , PM 2.5 

# and SO

x 

# (as SO 2 

# ) were taken from the EPA’s National Emission

Inventory report 17 

# and applied to the adjusted TAF and 5010 LTO dataset described a bove.

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 e ngines are not operating.

In EDMS each aircraft is matched with the appropriate A PU. 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 a t the national level in Table 3-16

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

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

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

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

ventilation to aircraft while docked at the terminals, t his 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 C ertified 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 sho wn in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1.

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

NO

x 

# emissions increased significantly; increases in NO

x 

# emissions were not proportional to

increases in LTOs for the study period: LTOs increased by 50 percent, while NO

x 

# emissions

increased by 28 percent. Other pollutants decreased during the s tudy 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 E missions 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 NO X 

# SO X 

# PM 2.5 

## 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, NO

x 

# = nitrogen oxide, SO

x 

# = sulfur dioxide, PM = particulate matter.

a 

# EDMS calculates both PM 2.5 

# and PM 10 

# , because these values are identical only PM 2.5 

# is shown.

# 3-2

Figure 3-1. National LTOs (million) and NO

x 

# 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 co nsumption to assess aircraft

emission changes—independent of changes in aircraft activit y. 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 an d Figure 3-2). All pollutant

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

shown in Table 3-2. For example, normalized NO

x 

# 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 Equ ipped with Engines Covered by

ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset

Year Fuel CO THC VOC TOG NO X 

# SO X 

# 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 PM 2.5 

# and PM 10 

# , because these values are identical only PM 2.5 

# is shown.

# 3-4

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

(liters/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with E ngines 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 Commer cial Aircraft

Equipped with Engines Covered by the ICAO Provisions Included i n 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 NO

x 

# emissions increased

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

a normalized basis). Figure 3-3 below shows the study peri od historical trends in annual NO

x 

# emissions, LTOs, and NO

x 

# emissions per LTO for commercial aircraft operations

.

LTO Activity, By Aircraft Group

The impact of changes in the U.S. fleet on historical a nnual NO

x 

# emissions for

commercial aircraft operations was further investigate d. Because the emission estimates were

developed for individual aircraft models, it was possible t o 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 evaluat ed for each aircraft category. As

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

and 3-4 (low activity (less than 1 million LTOs) commerci al 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 emiss ions 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 increa sed 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 Commerc ial Aircraft, Included in the

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

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

# 3-7

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

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

Turbojet, Regional 4 Engine Turboprop, 4 Engine Turboprop, Region al 1 Engine

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

# 3-8

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

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

[Refers to Table 3-4]3-9Table 3-3. National LTOs (million) for Commercial Aircraft,Included in the T-100 DatasetGroup/EngineaRegulated19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Narrow-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 4.97 5.16 5.14 5.01 5.09 4.84Narrow-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 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.06Narrow-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 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02Regional 1 ICAO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03Regional 2 ICAO 0.40 0.41 0.36 0.31 0.30 0.27 0.290.31 0.37 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.49 0.58 0.89 1.01 1.43 2.44 2.94 3.27 3.24 3.35 3.23Regional 4 ICAO 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.06 0.050.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.03 - -Wide-Body 2 ICAO 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.190.20 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.32 0.360.42 0.43 0.42 0.39 0.41 0.39Wide-Body 3 ICAO 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.240.22 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.070.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09Wide-Body 4 ICAO 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.090.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.120.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.13Wide-Body 6 ICAO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 -Regional 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 0.46 0.45 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.45Regional 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 1.94 1.78 1.59 1.51 1.48 1.35Regional 3 non-ICAO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Regional 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 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01ALL - 6.38 6.68 6.71 6.69 6.49 6.35 6.56 6.71 6.987.52 7.69 7.65 7.75 8.06 8.66 8.15 8.55 10.77 11.2811.34 11.03 11.16 10.58ALL Regulated - 5.87 6.21 6.20 6.13 6.05 5.73 5.815.86 6.12 6.20 6.25 6.37 6.43 6.80 7.27 7.12 7.29 8.36 9.05 9.31 9.07 9.22 8.79aEngines are turbofan unless otherwise noted.Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is awide-body aircraft equipped with four engines.Narrow-body 4 engine aircraft include the Boeing 707 and McDonnell Douglas DC-8. For additional details on aircraft models and category assignments see Appendix G.3-10Table 3-4. National LTOs (Percent of Total) for Commercial Aircraft, Included in the T-100 DatasetGroup/Enginea19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Narrow-Body 2(ICAO)44% 46% 48% 51% 57% 59% 59% 61% 64% 61% 61% 63% 61%62% 61% 63% 59% 46% 46% 45% 45% 46% 46%Narrow-Body 3(ICAO)30% 28% 26% 24% 21% 18% 16% 13% 11% 9% 9% 9% 8% 7%5% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 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% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%0.2%Regional 1(ICAO)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%Regional 2(ICAO)6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 7% 10% 12% 17% 23% 26% 29% 29% 30% 31%Regional 4(ICAO)2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%1% 1% 1% 0.3% - -Wide-Body 2(ICAO)2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4%4% 4% 4% 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% 1% 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% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%Wide-Body 6(ICAO)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% -<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% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%Regional 2(non-ICAO)7% 6% 6% 7% 7% 10% 11% 12% 12% 18% 19% 17% 17% 16%16% 13% 13% 18% 16% 14% 14% 13% 13%Regional 3(non-ICAO)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%<0.1% <0.1% <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% 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% 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% 80% 82% 82% 83%83%aEngines are turbofan unless otherwise noted.Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is awide-body aircraft equipped with four engines.Narrow-body 4 engine aircraft include the Boeing 707 and McDonnell Douglas DC-8. For additional details on aircraft models and category assignments see Appendix G.

# 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 dec lined around 2005 to

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

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

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

LTO activities.

Conversely, narrow-body aircraft equipped with three engi nes 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 pe rcent in 2008; except for the twoengine wide-body aircraft, which remains around two to four percent of LTOs throughout the

study period.

NO

x 

# Emissions Inventory, By Aircraft Group

By disaggregating the normalized emissions into aircraft categories, NO

x 

# 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. NO

x 

# emissions for narrow-body aircraft

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

NO

x 

# 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 NO

x 

# 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 decl ined to less than 50 percent, but

accounted for approximately 55 percent of the NO

x 

# emissions. Aggregating the kg NO

x 

# /LTO

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

32 percent.3-12Table 3-5. National Emission (metric ton) for Commercial Aircraft Included in the T-100 DatasetGroup/Enginea19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Narrow-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 50,432 52,532 52,621 51,556 51,94449,335Narrow-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 1,155 1,044 888 797 656 497Narrow-Body 4(ICAO)2,136 2,533 2,249 2,784 880 527 403 387 366 372 357331 278 236 158 92 285 652 550 508 510 458 349Regional 1(ICAO)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 1,772 1,803 1,619 1,623 1,888 1,973Regional 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 5,2658,897 10,823 12,114 12,049 12,576 12,350Regional 4(ICAO)615 807 808 741 671 363 295 263 231 247 316 328 404571 673 689 637 598 560 497 171 0 0Wide-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 9,98611,277 11,553 11,169 10,535 11,261 10,964Wide-Body 3(ICAO)10,906 11,247 11,018 10,252 9,686 9,388 9,797 9,3377,084 6,574 6,441 6,395 6,241 5,360 4,616 3,246 3,335 5,078 5,281 5,476 5,191 5,039 4,897Wide-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 7,5608,357 8,142 8,583 8,688 8,904 7,705Wide-Body 6(ICAO)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0Regional 1(non-ICAO)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 17 74 77 74 80 86 89Regional 2(non-ICAO)201 173 183 233 244 378 499 563 659 981 1,047 980 1,045 967 978 848 865 1,252 1,120 979 1,077 1,237 1,410Regional 3(non-ICAO)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Regional 4(non-ICAO)27 28 32 29 23 14 12 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00Turboprop 4(non-ICAO)77 158 140 149 5 4 6 7 9 10 10 10 10 8 8 2 9 12 119 9 17 9ALL69,060 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 89,559 93,498 94,536 92,286 94,06789,580ALL Regulated68,754 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 88,221 92,290 93,475 91,120 92,72788,071aEngines are turbofan unless otherwise noted.Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is awide-body aircraft equipped with four engines.3-13Table 3-6. National Emission (Percent of Total) for CommercialAircraft Included in the T-100 DatasetGroup/Enginea19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Narrow-Body 2(ICAO)38%40%42%44%50%53%55%57%61%62%63%63%62%62%63%65%63%56%56%56%56%55%55%Narrow-Body 3(ICAO)21%20%18%16%15%13%12%10%8%8%7%7%7%6%5%3%1%1%1%1%1%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%1%1%1%0.5%0.4%Regional 1(ICAO)----------------0.4%2%2%2%2%2%2%Regional 2(ICAO)4%4%3%3%3%2%2%2%2%3%3%2%3%3%4%5%7%10%12%13%13%13%14%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%1%1%0.2%--Wide-Body 2(ICAO)6%5%6%6%6%6%6%7%7%6%7%7%8%9%10%12%12%13%12%12%11%12%12%Wide-Body 3(ICAO)16%15%15%14%14%14%14%13%10%9%9%8%8%7%6%4%4%6%6%6%6%5%5%Wide-Body 4(ICAO)11%11%11%12%11%11%10%10%10%10%10%10%11%11%11%9%9%9%9%9%9%9%9%Wide-Body 6(ICAO)----------------<0.1%<0.1%<0.1%-<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%<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%1%1%1%1%2%Regional 3(non-ICAO)-----------------<0.1%<0.1%<0.1%<0.1%<0.1%<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%<0.1%<0.1%<0.1%<0.1%<0.1%ALL100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%ALL Regulated100%100%100%99%100%99%99%99%99%99%99%99%99%99%99%99%99%99%99%99%99%99%98%aEngines are turbofan unless otherwise noted.Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is awide-body aircraft equipped with four engines.

# 3-14

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

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

contributed about the same percentage of total NO

x 

# emissions relative to their share of the LTOs.

Wide-body aircraft generally had the highest NO

x 

# emissions relative to their share of

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

NO

x, 

# but only four percent of the LTOs (Table 3-4). This situati on remained until around 1995

when their share of the LTOs declined to two percent, but accounted for nine percent of the NO

x 

# emissions. Similarly wide-body two-engine aircraft c onsistently accounted for 11 to 13 percent

of NO

x 

# from 2001 to 2008, while representing only four percent of the LT Os. Note that although

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

decline in the emission rate over the study period, as sh own 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 pas sengers or freight carried were not

considered in this assessment.

Regional aircraft consistently have a disproportionately lower NO

x 

# contribution relative

their share of the LTOs. The growth in activity of th ese 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 emiss ions provisions tend to have the

lowest emissions in terms of LTOs.

Table 3-7 and Figures 3-6 and 3-7 show the NO

x 

# emission rate (kg/LTO) trends over the

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

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

aircraft groups had 31, 1 and less than one percent of the f leet 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 NO

x 

# emission rates relative other

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

contribution of NO

x 

# emissions (metric ton) from regional aircraft has i ncreased. Figure 3-8

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

jet NO

x 

# emissions increased by 433 percent over the study period, an d wide-/narrow-body NO

x 

# emissions inventory increased by 13 percent.

Emission Benefits from Last Round of the ICAO NO

x 

# Standards (from 2014 to 2030)

In addition to assessing the effect that past ICAO NO

x 

# standards have had on reducing

LTO NO

x 

# emissions (from 1986 to 2008) from commercial aircraft, th e EPA is evaluating the

LTO NO

x 

# emission reductions in the U.S. from the last round of the ICAO NO

x 

# standards. CAEP

adopted these additional NO

x 

# standards at their 8 th 

# 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 NO

x 

# standards. CAEP’s assessments indicated that the CAEP /8 NO

x 

# standards would provide global NO

x 

# reductions, which would translate to emission reductions i n

# 3-15

the U.S. The global LTO NO

x 

# reductions were estimated to be about 5.5 percent in 2026 and

7 percent in 2036 relative to the baseline. 18



# For comparable percent NO

x 

# reductions in the U.S., we estimated the percent and

absolute LTO NO

x 

# inventory reductions in the U.S. for the years 2020 and 2030. T o evaluate

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

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

LTO NO

x 

# emissions for these aircraft, which is 88,071 metric ton s) 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 NO

x 

# emissions were projected to increase

by about 17 percent to 102,621 metric tons, and from years 2008 t o 2030, LTO NO

x 

# emissions

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

NO

x 

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

subsequent absolute reductions of the U.S. LTO NO

x 

# for 2020 and 2030 by linear interpolation.

This estimation would translate to LTO NO

x 

# 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 cum ulative LTO NO

x 

# reductions from 2014 to 2030 (2014 is the implementation date of th e CAEP/8 NO

x 

# standards)

were projected to be about 100,000 NO

x 

# tons.

18 

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

Environmental and Economic Assessment of the NO

x 

# Stringency Scenarios , CAEP/8-WP/15, December 2, 2009.3-16Table 3-7. National Average NOxEmissions (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft, Includedin the T-100 DatasetGroup/EngineaRegulated19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Narrow-Body 2ICAO9.3 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9 10.0 10.010.0 9.6 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.3 10.2 10.2Narrow-Body 3ICAO7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.18.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.9 8.0 8.0 7.9 8.2 8.3Narrow-Body 4ICAO19.3 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 19.0 18.3 18.6 19.3 19.9 20.3Regional 1ICAO- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.858.8 58.8 58.8Regional 2ICAO6.6 6.7 6.7 6.5 6.6 5.7 5.3 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.84.1 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8Regional 4ICAO5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.85.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 - -Wide-Body 2ICAO25.9 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 27.2 27.1 26.6 26.7 27.6 28.0Wide-Body 3ICAO39.3 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 51.7 52.1 52.5 52.1 51.8 52.3Wide-Body 4ICAO78.1 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 65.9 63.7 64.2 64.1 64.2 61.1Wide-Body 6ICAO- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 168 168 168 - 168 168 -Regional 1non-ICAO- - - - - 0.04 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.10.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Regional 2non-ICAO0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.80.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0Regional 3non-ICAO- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7Regional 4non-ICAO0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.30.3 0.3 0.3 - - - - - - -Turboprop 4non-ICAO2.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.7 3.1 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.24.2 1.5 0.4 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.8 1.4ALL-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 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.5ALL 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 10.6 10.2 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.0aEngines are turbofan unless otherwise noted.Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is awide-body aircraft equipped with four engines.

# 3-17

Figure 3-6. National Average NO

x 

# 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 in dicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is a

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

# 3-18

Figure 3-7. National Average NO

x 

# 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 NO

x 

# Emissions (metric ton) for Commercial Aircraft Equippe d with

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

Aircraft Type [Refers to Table 3-5]

# 3-20

3.2.2 Engine Design/Operation vs. NO

x 

# Emissions for Aircraft Equipped with Engines

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

The ICAO databank 19 

# contains information on engine exhaust emissions and normal

operating conditions. There are two important terms tha t define the databanks’ reference

conditions:

• Thrust is the maximum thrust available for take-off under norma l 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 pre ssure 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, a nd NO

x 

# emissions, data were

evaluated relative to the terms and units of the ICAO pr ovisions (i.e., grams of NO

x 

# per

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

and were aggregated into aircraft categories as shown in Ta ble 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=7023-21Table 3-8. National Average Engine Thrust Normalized with Respect to Activity (kN/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft Equippedwith Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset (turboprop aircraft excluded)Group/EngineaRegulated19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Narrow-Body 2 ICAO75.4 78.1 80.6 83.1 85.1 87.8 91.1 93.7 93.5 93.6 94.1 95.2 96.6 98.0 100 102 105 106 106 107 107 106108Narrow-Body 3 ICAO66.9 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 68.9 69.0 69.1 69.0 69.7 69.7Narrow-Body 4 ICAO94.5 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 95.4 94.5 95.1 96.1 97.0 97.5Regional 1 ICAO- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.271.2 71.2 71.2Regional 2 ICAO53.4 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 39.8 39.8 40.6 41.2 41.7 43.0Regional 4 ICAO31.0 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 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 - -Wide-Body 2 ICAO223 220 230 231 223 237 238 241 244 247 249 256 264241 268 278 281 276 260 278 280 275 280Wide-Body 3 ICAO191 190 190 191 189 190 192 207 200 202 205 209 211216 229 234 235 224 222 219 221 222 221Wide-Body 4 ICAO216 217 221 218 222 225 225 224 224 224 224 226 226227 228 228 225 223 226 227 228 227 229Wide-Body 6 ICAO- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 191 191 191 - 191 191 -ALL Regulated75.6 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 74.7 74.7 76.2 76.8 76.5 78.1Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is awide-body aircraft equipped with four engines.

# 3-22

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

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

T-100 Dataset, Organized by Aircraft Type [Refers t o 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 NO

x 

# emissions per LTO cycle by thrust groupings; note t hat NO

x 

# emissions increase as engine thrust increases. Figu re 3-10 presents NO

x 

# emissions per LTO cycle for

three aircraft types and engine thrust groupings: r egional 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 NO

x 

# emissions (kg/LTO) from nonregional aircraft with ratings greater than 89 kN d eclined by 25 percent ( the data in these tables ha ve

not been weighted relative to activity), so larger aircraft equipped with higher thrust is not adjuste d

to account for the relatively small number of LTOs associated with these aircraft. For smaller

aircraft, NO

x 

# emissions from non-regional aircraft with ratings less than 89 kN increased

moderately, while NO

x 

# emissions from regional aircraft decreased over ti me.

# 3-23

Figure 3-10. National Average NO

x 

# 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 NO

x 

# per LTO per kilonewton per engine for each

aircraft type. Over the study period, two engine regiona l aircraft had a 28 percent decline in NO

x 

# emissions (grams per LTO) per kilonewton per engine, nar row-body two engine aircraft had a 24

percent decline, and wide body two-engine aircraft had a 16 pe rcent decline. These three aircraft

types account for approximately 80 percent of the air traf fic in 2008. Narrow body three-engine and

four-engine aircraft along with wide body three-engine aircraft showed an increase in NO

x 

# emissions

per kilonewton per engine, but they collectively accounte d 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 IC AO gaseous emissions provisions

increased by 19 percent during the study period and narrow-body ai rcraft equipped with two engines

covered by ICAO gaseous emissions provisions increased by 36 perc ent, indicating that aircraft are

being equipped with engines with increasingly larger pressure ratios.3-24Table 3-9. National Average NOxEmissions per LTO Cycle/Engine-Thrust (g per LTO/kN) for Commercial AircraftEquipped with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset (turboprop aircraft excluded)Group/EngineRegulated19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Narrow-Body 2ICAO124 121 118 115 114 111 108 106 106 106 106 105 10497.9 96.8 96.3 95.7 96.2 96.1 96.0 95.8 96.3 94.7Narrow-Body 3ICAO114 114 114 114 115 115 116 117 117 117 117 117 118118 118 117 117 115 115 115 115 117 118Narrow-Body 4ICAO205 202 207 210 212 205 200 210 202 199 184 197 206216 229 191 205 199 194 196 201 205 208Regional 1ICAO- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 826 826 826 826 826826 826Regional 2ICAO124 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 91.7 92.5 91.4 90.3 90.1 88.9Regional 4ICAO182 181 181 181 183 185 186 186 187 187 186 186 186185 185 185 185 185 185 184 183 - -Wide-Body 2ICAO116 104 97.7 96.9 101 95.6 103 97.0 97.6 95.7 98.799.1 100 111 101 103 99.0 98.6 104 95.7 95.2 100 100Wide-Body 3ICAO205 209 215 216 219 225 215 208 191 188 185 185 190186 184 191 209 231 235 240 236 233 237Wide-Body 4ICAO361 351 338 352 348 345 329 326 318 317 314 308 307301 290 284 286 295 282 283 281 283 267Wide-Body 6ICAO- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 880 880 880 - 880 880 -Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is awide-body aircraft equipped with four engines.3-25Table 3-10. National Average Engine Pressure Ratios for Commercial Aircraft Equipped with Engines Covered by ICAOProvisions, Included in the T-100 Dataset (turboprop aircraftexcluded)Group/EngineaRegulated19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Narrow-Body 2ICAO17.6 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 23.2 23.3 23.6 23.7 23.5 23.9Narrow-Body 3ICAO16.4 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 16.7 16.7 16.8 16.7 16.9 16.9Narrow-Body 4ICAO20.9 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 21.2 21.2 21.6 22.3 22.9 23.3Regional 1ICAO- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.017.0 17.0 17.0Regional 2ICAO16.5 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 18.8 19.1 19.2 19.4 19.5 19.7Regional 4ICAO12.3 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 12.7 12.6 12.7 12.9 - -Wide-Body 2ICAO26.6 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 32.6 32.2 32.7 32.9 32.4 33.0Wide-Body 3ICAO25.4 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 28.2 28.1 27.9 28.2 28.2 28.4Wide-Body 4ICAO23.8 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 26.9 28.2 28.2 28.4 28.5 28.4Wide-Body 6ICAO- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.0 8.0 8.0 - 8.0 8.0 -ALL Regulated16.8 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 18.9 19.6 19.9 20.0 20.1 20.4aEngines are turbofan unless otherwise noted.Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is awide-body aircraft equipped with four engines.

# 3-26

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

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

Type [Refers to Table 3-10]

*Note: The number associated with the aircraft type in dicate 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 35198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008



### YearNormalized 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 NO

x 

# emissions trends. As shown in Figure 3-1, for national c ommercial aircraft over the study period,

annual NO

x 

# emissions increased 28 percent, LTOs increased approximately 50 percent, and NO

x 

# emissions per LTO decreased 11 percent. As will be discuss ed 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 comm ercial 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 avia tion operations that do not generate

revenue and therefore do not trigger reporting requirements a nd would not be included in the

T-100 data.

In general, the emissions data for airports in the sele cted non-attainment areas can vary

significantly from each other over time as fleet opera tions change from passenger to cargo

operations or from large aircraft to smaller regional a ircraft and air taxis or for broader economic

reasons. In order to evaluate the impact aviation is havi ng on local air quality, it is necessary to

assess the changes in aircraft activities over time fo r 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 include d in the T-100 dataset; Figure 3-13

and Table 3-12 show annual NO

x 

# emissions for commercial aircraft included in the T-100

dataset; and Figure 3-14 and Table 3-13 show NO

x 

# emission rates for commercial aircraft

included in the T-100 dataset.

20 

# Annual NO

x 

# emissions increased by 28 percent, LTOs increased by 50 perc ent, and NO

x 

# emissions per LTO

decreased by 11 percent.

# 3-28

Figure 3-12. Selected Non-attainment Areas LTOs for Commerc ial Aircraft, Included in

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

Figure 3-13. Selected Non-attainment Areas NO

x 

# 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 8,000,000198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008



### YearLanding and Take-Off Cycle

# 3-29

Figure 3-14. Selected Non-attainment Areas NO

x 

# Emissions (kg/LTO) for Commercial

Aircraft, Included in the T-100 Dataset 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008



### YearNOx Emissions (kg per LTO)3-30Table 3-11. Selected Non-attainment Areas LTOs (× 10,000) for Commercial Aircraft, Included in the T-100 Dataset19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Albuquerque, NM3.61 3.49 3.45 3.45 3.30 3.13 3.28 3.55 3.77 4.41 5.13 4.55 3.77 3.88 3.75 3.75 4.17 5.09 4.92 4.69 4.68 5.06 4.84Anchorage, AK3.43 3.51 3.61 3.99 3.50 3.35 3.60 3.38 3.42 3.28 3.69 3.83 4.18 4.30 4.37 4.44 5.70 8.68 9.35 9.91 10.3 10.3 9.5Aspen0.34 0.34 0.34 0.36 0.31 0.28 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.37 0.35 0.36 0.33 0.34 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.47 0.48 0.58Atlanta, GA28.8 28.7 28.1 24.4 28.5 20.5 21.7 26.5 31.5 34.2 34.2 35.6 37.8 41.2 41.9 41.5 41.7 43.8 46.9 47.4 47.3 48.2 47.6Baltimore, MD6.49 6.84 7.59 7.80 7.37 6.75 5.77 5.96 7.77 7.40 7.13 7.22 7.82 9.00 9.90 10.8 10.8 11.8 12.4 12.4 12.3 12.2 11.6Boston-LawrenceWorcester (easternMA), MA12.0 12.8 12.7 12.5 12.0 11.4 15.2 16.4 16.3 17.7 14.5 13.3 12.9 13.6 15.6 16.3 17.0 23.7 25.0 25.1 25.2 24.7 22.5Boston-ManchesterPortsmouth (southeastNH), NH0.28 0.26 0.33 0.63 0.46 0.53 0.77 1.40 1.24 1.37 0.78 0.71 1.09 1.41 1.89 1.87 2.10 2.91 3.41 3.39 2.97 3.03 2.72Charlotte-GastoniaRock Hill, NC-SC9.50 9.45 10.7 11.6 11.9 12.7 12.7 12.1 13.3 13.3 13.2 13.1 12.6 12.1 13.6 13.5 14.2 18.9 19.9 22.7 22.2 23.0 23.7Chicago-Gary-LakeCounty, IL-IN38.3 38.8 39.3 39.4 39.1 38.8 41.5 42.7 44.5 44.5 43.8 45.2 46.6 47.7 48.6 49.1 51.2 56.2 60.2 56.6 56.5 56.0 52.5Cincinnati-Hamilton,OH-KY-IN3.96 6.30 6.56 6.89 6.57 6.99 7.32 7.30 7.32 8.14 9.23 9.23 9.13 8.93 15.7 14.6 20.9 25.3 26.2 25.6 19.0 18.2 15.4Cleveland-AkronLorain, OH6.21 6.66 7.56 7.74 8.08 6.84 6.68 6.37 7.53 9.43 11.3 12.1 12.4 13.0 13.7 12.0 11.1 12.5 13.1 13.2 12.8 12.4 11.7Dallas-Fort Worth, TX26.4 27.3 28.4 29.8 30.6 30.8 32.3 39.2 41.0 41.8 40.8 40.4 42.1 43.1 43.5 41.0 39.8 42.0 43.9 39.3 39.4 39.1 37.5Denver-BoulderGreeley-Fort CollinsLoveland, CO20.1 20.4 19.0 16.7 15.0 14.7 15.6 17.3 16.3 17.1 19.0 18.3 16.9 18.8 19.6 18.5 19.8 23.7 26.8 26.8 28.6 29.7 29.9Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI14.4 13.9 13.7 14.9 14.1 13.5 13.9 14.4 15.1 15.9 16.6 18.9 20.8 22.9 22.9 22.0 21.6 23.5 25.0 25.1 23.1 22.7 22.4El Paso, TX2.22 2.59 2.62 2.79 2.80 2.75 2.69 2.84 2.93 2.97 2.75 2.61 2.61 2.61 2.55 2.32 2.52 2.57 2.63 2.66 2.55 2.59 2.42Greater Connecticut,CT3.92 3.25 3.38 3.24 3.11 2.95 3.48 3.29 3.24 3.67 3.67 3.46 3.29 3.84 4.32 3.96 3.91 4.35 4.73 5.29 4.90 4.75 4.29Houston-GalvestonBrazoria, TX15.2 16.6 16.4 16.6 16.9 16.3 17.0 17.7 18.2 23.4 24.4 25.2 26.8 27.5 28.7 27.9 27.1 28.2 30.4 32.4 34.4 34.7 32.8Indianapolis, IN4.74 4.45 4.58 4.98 4.55 4.50 4.59 4.05 4.31 4.26 4.20 4.41 4.34 4.54 4.85 5.08 5.48 7.41 7.83 8.46 8.11 8.03 7.98Lake Tahoe SouthShore, CA0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.03 <0.01 0.03(a) (a) (a) 0.03 0.01 (a) (a) (a) <0.01 (a) (a) (a)(a)Las Vegas, NV7.31 9.61 8.72 9.31 9.15 9.63 9.05 9.67 10.9 12.4 13.3 13.4 13.5 14.1 15.5 15.3 15.3 16.9 19.4 21.0 21.5 21.5 19.6Los Angeles SouthCoast Air Basin, CA30.2 33.3 33.2 34.5 35.4 33.7 32.1 31.6 32.7 36.8 38.4 36.9 37.8 39.9 40.8 39.2 37.6 43.1 45.2 45.3 45.6 47.7 43.4Louisville, KY-IN3.48 4.03 3.63 4.13 2.07 2.01 1.94 2.04 2.56 2.74 2.76 2.91 2.81 2.77 2.95 2.98 3.93 6.49 6.39 6.77 6.60 6.97 6.47Memphis, TN-AR10.6 10.9 10.5 9.95 6.54 5.88 5.46 5.36 5.54 5.76 5.55 5.70 5.60 6.52 7.37 7.51 9.98 17.3 16.4 16.8 16.7 16.3 16.2Milwaukee-Racine, WI3.19 2.92 3.64 3.77 3.82 3.59 3.85 3.73 3.93 3.92 4.13 4.31 4.38 4.51 4.76 4.60 5.39 7.85 8.24 8.67 7.98 7.99 7.42Minneapolis-St Paul,MN12.1 11.4 11.3 11.7 11.2 11.3 12.2 12.9 13.3 14.1 14.7 17.1 18.9 20.9 21.9 20.7 20.8 22.9 24.6 24.2 21.5 20.7 20.5New York-N. NewJersey-Long Island,NY-NJ-CT41.1 38.7 39.8 38.3 37.7 36.6 39.6 40.3 41.3 44.6 44.7 45.0 46.8 48.1 51.1 50.2 48.7 55.3 60.2 61.7 63.4 67.1 65.83-31Table 3-11. Selected Non-attainment Areas LTOs (× 10,000) for Commercial Aircraft, Included in the T-100 Dataset (Cont.)Area Name19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008PhiladelphiaWilmington-AtlanticCity, PA-NY-MD-DE8.82 10.4 10.2 9.30 10.8 9.23 10.5 11.2 10.9 12.1 13.3 13.8 13.6 13.9 14.7 14.1 15.1 20.1 22.0 24.7 23.9 23.3 23.0Phoenix-Mesa, AZ11.4 13.0 13.5 14.4 14.6 14.3 14.2 14.1 15.0 17.0 19.2 18.5 17.6 18.3 19.3 18.9 19.5 22.8 22.9 23.7 23.6 23.1 21.9Pittsburgh-BeaverValley, PA11.6 12.1 12.8 12.3 12.4 12.3 13.8 12.7 13.6 14.4 15.1 13.7 12.1 11.2 11.9 12.5 12.6 16.3 14.7 11.4 10.1 8.98 6.92Providence (entireState), RI1.42 1.35 1.41 1.40 1.66 1.60 2.20 2.15 1.92 1.94 1.78 2.25 2.49 2.62 3.04 3.22 3.34 4.19 4.48 4.44 4.44 4.42 4.03Raleigh-DurhamChapel Hill, NC2.94 4.72 6.41 6.41 6.46 6.19 5.97 5.81 5.06 4.23 4.27 4.30 5.17 6.52 7.48 7.02 6.31 7.00 8.14 8.36 7.82 8.30 7.48Reno, NV2.53 2.83 2.25 2.24 2.15 2.40 2.47 2.89 2.92 3.12 3.82 4.15 3.89 3.61 3.09 2.58 2.59 3.01 3.31 3.25 3.06 3.19 2.92Riverside County(Coachella Valley),CA0.59 0.61 0.61 0.71 0.94 0.97 0.83 0.48 0.46 0.62 0.74 0.62 0.73 0.80 0.77 0.76 0.80 1.46 1.39 1.32 1.39 1.45 1.33Sacramento Metro, CA2.57 2.94 3.50 3.65 3.83 3.78 3.84 3.42 3.16 3.86 3.95 4.00 3.97 4.02 4.04 4.17 4.66 5.51 5.73 5.89 6.12 6.72 6.21Salt Lake City, UT6.84 7.56 7.66 7.84 7.41 7.25 7.29 8.03 8.40 8.75 9.28 9.03 8.70 8.28 8.09 7.69 8.97 14.0 15.1 17.4 15.7 15.9 14.6San Diego, CA5.82 6.44 6.91 7.08 7.01 6.99 7.00 6.75 7.13 7.47 7.62 7.97 8.43 8.67 8.37 8.23 8.20 9.11 9.44 9.98 10.1 10.6 10.2San Francisco BayArea, CA23.5 25.0 25.5 26.5 27.2 26.7 26.1 24.7 24.2 26.9 28.2 28.4 28.3 28.6 28.5 28.3 27.1 29.9 31.3 30.9 31.4 32.7 31.4San Joaquin Valley,CA1.22 1.40 2.13 2.66 3.31 2.82 2.27 1.25 0.61 0.84 1.08 0.72 0.88 1.08 0.67 0.64 1.04 2.63 2.64 2.81 2.83 3.02 2.61Seattle-Tacoma, WA9.69 11.3 11.4 12.1 12.4 14.1 14.3 13.7 13.7 15.0 15.8 15.8 15.9 17.1 17.3 16.2 16.5 18.6 19.0 18.2 18.3 18.3 18.4St. Louis, MO-IL16.1 14.0 14.2 14.8 13.3 15.8 17.5 18.3 20.4 22.1 22.4 22.8 22.2 22.1 20.6 19.4 17.8 17.7 12.7 13.1 12.5 11.6 11.0Syracuse, NY3.64 3.89 3.87 3.45 2.71 2.61 2.58 2.32 2.11 2.01 1.63 1.46 1.59 1.53 1.69 1.55 1.75 2.67 2.96 2.94 2.58 2.65 2.49Washington, DC-MDVA16.8 18.9 17.9 17.1 17.9 18.4 15.7 14.2 14.2 14.9 15.0 15.5 16.0 17.8 17.9 15.7 17.6 25.2 33.0 35.3 29.0 29.1 28.4aLake Tahoe periods when commercial airline service (that are required to report T-100 data) was temporarily discontinued to the area.Note: the number associated with the aircraft type indicate the number of engines; for example, wide-body 4 is awide-body aircraft equipped with four engines.3-32Table 3-12. Selected Non-attainment Areas NOxEmission (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft, Included in the T-100 DatasetArea Name19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Albuquerque, NM7.64 7.74 7.68 7.88 7.90 7.94 8.14 8.17 8.11 7.16 6.53 7.17 8.14 7.89 7.87 7.89 7.61 6.70 6.98 7.15 6.96 6.92 7.17Anchorage, AK21.0 20.6 19.6 21.6 28.4 26.6 24.5 24.3 27.6 29.5 30.4 33.9 36.4 37.9 38.1 38.3 34.5 26.5 27.4 28.6 28.4 28.3 24.4Aspen1.59 1.80 2.12 2.59 3.17 3.89 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.97 4.00 4.04 4.11 4.14 4.10 3.97 3.54 3.06 3.01 2.95 3.46 2.97Atlanta, GA12.1 12.3 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.9 13.0 12.1 10.8 10.7 11.2 11.4 11.6 11.6 12.2 12.0 12.6 13.7 13.6 13.8 11.9 11.1 11.1Baltimore, MD10.6 9.91 9.72 9.32 9.17 9.26 9.34 9.63 9.40 9.51 9.63 9.53 9.67 9.67 9.56 9.36 9.76 9.45 9.53 9.23 9.12 9.36 9.04Boston-LawrenceWorcester (easternMA), MA15.7 14.7 14.7 15.8 15.4 15.3 11.9 11.1 10.9 9.41 11.1 12.7 13.7 13.5 12.6 11.2 9.89 7.15 7.62 7.41 7.24 7.40 7.70Boston-ManchesterPortsmouth (southeastNH), NH4.28 8.40 8.09 8.39 8.45 8.45 5.45 2.72 3.23 3.03 4.49 6.18 6.90 7.80 7.58 8.25 8.54 7.52 8.02 8.05 7.46 7.37 7.48Charlotte-GastoniaRock Hill, NC-SC8.40 8.37 8.50 8.32 8.57 8.22 8.46 8.31 8.59 8.91 9.00 8.95 8.86 8.62 9.16 9.30 9.38 7.26 7.30 7.55 7.54 7.83 7.79Chicago-Gary-LakeCounty, IL-IN13.6 14.0 13.8 13.6 13.2 13.1 12.3 12.6 11.3 11.0 11.2 11.1 11.6 11.8 11.9 11.1 10.9 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.6 10.8 10.4Cincinnati-Hamilton,OH-KY-IN9.46 9.40 9.64 10.9 10.0 10.2 10.7 10.9 10.8 10.5 11.2 11.7 11.9 11.9 8.53 8.42 7.51 7.72 7.95 7.82 7.24 7.22 7.59Cleveland-AkronLorain, OH9.14 9.45 9.34 9.33 9.46 9.46 9.57 9.15 9.00 6.99 6.10 5.75 5.68 5.13 5.23 5.58 5.96 5.58 5.71 5.64 5.41 5.50 5.51Dallas-Fort Worth, TX12.7 13.1 13.7 13.7 13.9 13.5 13.5 11.0 9.55 9.26 9.08 9.32 8.70 8.37 8.73 8.83 9.04 9.14 9.58 9.72 9.61 9.66 9.43Denver-BoulderGreeley-Fort CollinsLoveland, CO10.6 10.6 10.7 10.7 11.0 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.1 10.2 9.81 10.6 11.8 11.0 10.5 10.4 10.1 8.61 8.25 8.23 8.19 8.32 8.13Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI11.0 12.0 12.3 12.4 12.8 13.1 13.2 13.0 12.8 12.9 13.2 11.9 10.6 10.9 11.1 10.4 10.2 9.69 9.45 9.33 9.60 9.90 9.45El Paso, TX7.81 8.39 8.70 7.85 7.86 8.08 7.79 7.92 7.86 7.78 7.62 7.46 7.65 7.54 7.52 7.46 7.48 7.74 7.91 8.12 8.47 8.80 8.37Greater Connecticut,CT8.80 11.6 10.7 10.5 10.6 10.8 8.89 8.49 8.98 8.02 8.17 8.60 9.23 9.10 9.45 9.83 10.1 9.91 9.82 9.12 8.64 8.57 8.74Houston-GalvestonBrazoria, TX10.6 10.1 9.72 9.99 10.1 10.4 10.6 10.5 10.3 8.22 7.87 8.07 8.48 8.40 8.43 8.86 9.30 9.13 9.09 8.62 8.45 8.46 8.46Indianapolis, IN7.62 8.36 8.75 8.54 8.86 8.60 8.52 8.41 8.32 8.33 8.44 8.32 8.64 8.68 8.62 8.09 9.96 12.4 12.5 12.3 12.1 12.4 12.4Lake Tahoe SouthShore, CA7.78 7.71 7.71 7.75 7.77 7.78 0.86 0.86 9.87 9.87 (a) (a) (a) 9.16 10.9 (a) (a) (a) 6.51 (a) (a) (a) (a)Las Vegas, NV11.0 10.9 11.2 10.6 10.1 9.85 10.4 10.3 9.99 9.96 10.4 10.4 10.5 11.0 11.5 11.2 11.1 10.4 10.5 10.1 10.1 10.5 10.7Los Angeles SouthCoast Air Basin, CA17.1 16.4 16.0 15.5 14.8 15.4 16.7 17.3 16.6 15.2 14.8 15.7 15.4 15.0 15.2 15.1 14.8 13.8 13.7 13.7 13.8 13.5 13.7Louisville, KY-IN9.39 11.5 11.7 13.7 8.63 8.08 7.44 7.84 8.33 8.14 8.15 7.92 7.78 7.48 7.30 7.06 11.4 15.7 14.9 14.2 15.4 15.7 17.0Memphis, TN-AR10.9 11.8 12.0 11.1 9.60 9.79 9.89 9.86 9.99 10.0 10.5 10.6 10.4 9.91 10.0 10.2 11.7 14.2 15.2 15.5 15.9 16.8 16.8Milwaukee-Racine,WI8.41 9.22 8.31 9.90 9.38 9.05 8.96 8.89 8.52 8.61 8.59 8.53 8.35 8.54 8.74 8.44 7.11 5.77 5.96 6.06 6.39 6.52 6.82Minneapolis-St Paul,MN12.9 13.5 13.1 14.0 13.8 13.8 13.6 13.3 12.8 12.5 12.6 11.4 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.9 10.4 9.95 9.87 9.90 10.1 10.1 9.58New York-N. NewJersey-Long Island,NY-NJ-CT18.3 18.9 18.8 18.9 19.4 18.7 17.4 17.2 17.4 15.8 16.1 17.0 17.2 17.2 16.7 15.7 15.0 14.1 14.1 14.2 14.5 14.5 14.23-33Table 3-12. Selected Non-attainment Areas NOxEmission (kg/LTO) for Commercial Aircraft, Included in the T-100 Dataset (Cont.)Area Name19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008PhiladelphiaWilmington-AtlanticCity, PA-NY-MD-DE12.3 11.3 11.8 12.4 11.3 11.4 10.9 10.2 10.4 9.31 9.08 10.1 11.0 11.0 11.2 11.7 11.8 10.1 10.3 9.83 9.67 9.89 9.60Phoenix-Mesa, AZ9.11 9.23 9.17 9.22 9.38 9.12 9.35 9.85 9.53 9.09 8.74 9.38 9.97 10.0 10.2 10.1 9.82 9.05 9.13 9.18 9.31 9.56 9.56Pittsburgh-BeaverValley, PA8.95 8.87 8.96 9.31 9.07 9.00 9.29 9.72 9.43 8.44 7.81 8.34 8.98 8.90 8.97 8.90 8.11 5.52 5.45 5.35 5.48 5.83 6.66Providence (entireState), RI6.94 8.44 8.03 8.54 8.82 8.78 6.46 5.57 6.55 5.91 7.20 7.82 7.87 8.01 7.80 8.06 8.24 6.47 6.80 6.82 5.78 5.58 5.41Raleigh-DurhamChapel Hill, NC8.38 8.43 8.72 8.90 9.23 9.77 10.5 10.4 9.12 8.31 7.71 8.08 7.36 6.97 7.00 7.24 7.47 6.80 6.57 6.56 6.78 7.00 7.19Reno, NV8.14 8.09 8.37 8.50 7.75 7.42 7.86 8.29 8.58 8.63 8.60 8.57 8.85 8.25 8.47 8.27 8.15 7.77 7.89 7.96 8.07 8.00 7.74Riverside County(Coachella Valley),CA9.17 9.32 8.23 6.88 5.42 4.94 4.72 7.00 7.76 5.59 5.70 6.27 5.83 4.89 5.76 4.90 4.46 3.72 4.02 4.35 4.55 4.75 5.10Sacramento Metro,CA8.24 8.31 6.95 6.11 5.47 6.02 6.62 7.49 8.03 7.83 7.76 7.93 8.07 7.93 8.36 8.52 8.55 8.83 8.98 9.07 9.06 8.83 8.88Salt Lake City, UT8.89 9.10 9.57 9.73 9.98 10.3 10.7 10.7 10.6 10.8 10.9 11.3 11.6 11.8 12.1 12.6 11.2 8.19 7.27 7.11 7.31 7.47 7.78San Diego, CA11.6 11.1 10.3 9.74 9.60 9.19 10.1 10.9 10.1 9.49 9.51 9.55 9.12 8.59 9.26 9.37 9.48 9.06 8.91 8.89 9.06 9.05 9.28San Francisco BayArea, CA14.3 14.0 13.5 13.3 13.1 13.1 13.4 14.5 15.1 14.3 14.2 14.4 14.6 14.5 14.9 14.5 14.3 13.3 13.3 13.1 13.4 13.1 12.8San Joaquin Valley,CA7.18 7.37 3.54 2.63 2.13 2.01 2.19 3.81 5.93 3.43 3.26 2.95 1.99 1.60 2.94 2.42 3.21 3.01 2.88 2.95 2.85 2.77 2.98Seattle-Tacoma, WA13.7 11.7 11.3 11.3 11.4 9.54 9.60 10.1 10.3 10.6 10.2 10.2 10.5 10.1 9.74 10.2 10.2 10.7 10.5 10.6 11.0 10.7 11.1St. Louis, MO-IL9.73 10.6 10.7 11.3 10.7 8.66 8.19 8.09 8.24 8.35 8.41 8.36 8.47 8.27 8.88 9.04 8.76 7.10 5.90 5.91 6.14 6.74 6.71Syracuse, NY7.24 7.23 7.28 7.91 8.17 7.88 6.93 6.63 6.76 5.62 6.51 7.31 6.75 6.87 6.28 6.33 6.40 4.84 5.14 5.26 5.31 5.69 5.55Washington, DC-MDVA10.8 10.8 10.5 10.7 10.8 10.1 12.4 13.5 14.0 13.1 12.6 12.6 12.7 12.5 12.6 13.0 11.2 8.41 8.06 8.18 9.09 9.54 9.68aLake Tahoe periods when commercial airline service (that are required to report T-100 data) was temporarily discontinued to the area.3-34Table 3-13. Selected Non-attainment Areas NOxEmissions (metric ton) for Commercial Aircraft, Includedin the T-100 DatasetArea Name19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Albuquerque, NM 275 270 265 272 261 249 267 290 306316 335 326 307 306 295 296 318 341 344 336 326 350 347Anchorage, AK 715 720 704 858 995 892 880 821 941 966 1,120 1,296 1,522 1,628 1,664 1,700 1,962 2,2942,559 2,835 2,932 2,917 2,324Aspen 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 14.6 14.9 13.6 13.7 13.6 11.9 12.0 13.9 16.6 17.1Atlanta, 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 4,770 5,0984,985 5,265 6,006 6,367 6,559 5,614 5,355 5,293Baltimore, MD 687 678 737 727 676 625 539 574 730 704 686 688 756 871 947 1,013 1,054 1,110 1,177 1,143 1,121 1,145 1,052Boston-LawrenceWorcester (eastern MA),MA 1,884 1,884 1,870 1,978 1,841 1,741 1,803 1,8221,769 1,662 1,608 1,681 1,759 1,848 1,971 1,821 1,678 1,696 1,904 1,860 1,826 1,827 1,730Boston-ManchesterPortsmouth (southeastNH), 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 75.5 110 144 154 180 219 273 273 221 223 203Charlotte-Gastonia-RockHill, NC-SC 798 791 906 964 1,017 1,040 1,071 1,0011,141 1,184 1,191 1,169 1,114 1,042 1,245 1,253 1,333 1,374 1,453 1,715 1,678 1,799 1,850Chicago-Gary-LakeCounty, 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 5,635 5,768 5,443 5,562 5,920 6,401 6,076 6,011 6,028 5,464Cincinnati-Hamilton, OHKY-IN 375 592 632 753 657 715 781 795 791 857 1,0371,084 1,087 1,060 1,335 1,232 1,567 1,950 2,086 2,002 1,377 1,311 1,169Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,OH 567 630 706 722 764 647 639 583 678 659 687 697703 666 717 667 662 697 749 747 694 683 646Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 3,358 3,572 3,900 4,091 4,2414,168 4,359 4,323 3,912 3,866 3,702 3,768 3,667 3,605 3,799 3,624 3,595 3,837 4,203 3,816 3,789 3,7783,538Denver-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 2,059 2,051 1,914 1,998 2,045 2,207 2,204 2,338 2,473 2,436Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI 1,577 1,669 1,688 1,836 1,8001,773 1,836 1,881 1,931 2,055 2,198 2,257 2,199 2,491 2,540 2,282 2,205 2,280 2,366 2,342 2,215 2,2432,112El Paso, TX 173 217 228 219 220 222 210 225 230 231209 195 200 197 192 173 188 199 208 216 216 228 203Greater Connecticut, CT 345 377 361 339 331 318 309280 291 294 300 298 303 350 409 389 394 431 465 482 423 407 375Houston-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 2,306 2,4202,469 2,522 2,577 2,766 2,794 2,909 2,939 2,778Indianapolis, IN 362 371 400 424 403 387 391 341 359 355 354 367 375 394 418 411 546 919 976 1,037 984995 991Lake 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) 2.58 0.68 (a) (a) (a) 0.03 (a) (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 1,556 1,783 1,715 1,7061,754 2,042 2,130 2,178 2,253 2,099Los Angeles South CoastAir 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 5,989 6,186 5,896 5,575 5,933 6,186 6,188 6,286 6,418 5,926Louisville, KY-IN 326 462 425 565 179 162 144 160 213 223 225 230 219 207 215 210 449 1,021 953 962 1,014 1,094 1,098Memphis, TN-AR 1,152 1,284 1,261 1,107 628 576 540528 553 578 583 604 580 646 737 763 1,166 2,444 2,493 2,600 2,649 2,739 2,718Milwaukee-Racine, WI 268 269 302 374 358 325 345 331 335 337 355 367 365 385 416 388 383 453 492 525 510 521 507Minneapolis-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 1,8992,166 2,376 2,260 2,164 2,283 2,429 2,396 2,173 2,089 1,969New York-N. New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT 7,522 7,317 7,503 7,228 7,3196,828 6,905 6,921 7,173 7,045 7,183 7,649 8,057 8,282 8,534 7,856 7,324 7,805 8,474 8,745 9,176 9,7369,361Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NY-MDDE 1,088 1,166 1,202 1,145 1,229 1,051 1,143 1,1431,129 1,125 1,209 1,397 1,499 1,532 1,656 1,645 1,787 2,020 2,256 2,431 2,309 2,307 2,206Phoenix-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 1,833 1,967 1,903 1,913 2,063 2,087 2,179 2,195 2,206 2,0933-35Table 3-13. Selected Non-attainment Areas NOxEmissions (metric ton) for Commercial Aircraft, Includedin the T-100 Dataset (Cont.)Area Name19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley,PA1,038 1,074 1,145 1,147 1,121 1,110 1,278 1,230 1,286 1,218 1,179 1,144 1,083 1,001 1,069 1,113 1,025899 800 612 555 524 461Providence (entire State),RI98.3 114 113 120 146 140 142 120 126 115 128 176 196 210 237 260 275 271 305 303 256 247 218Raleigh-Durham-ChapelHill, NC246 398 559 571 596 605 626 604 462 352 329 347 381454 523 509 471 476 535 548 530 581 538Reno, NV206 229 188 191 167 178 194 240 250 269 329 356 345297 262 213 211 234 261 259 247 256 226Riverside County(Coachella Valley), CA54.0 56.8 50.4 49.0 51.1 47.7 39.4 33.5 35.3 34.5 42.1 39.0 42.7 39.2 44.1 37.2 35.6 54.3 55.8 57.4 63.4 69.1 68.0Sacramento Metro, CA212 240 239 218 209 227 254 256 254 302 307 318 321319 338 355 398 487 515 534 554 593 552Salt Lake City, UT608 688 734 763 739 746 781 863 892 945 1,015 1,0241,012 979 979 970 1,000 1,144 1,098 1,238 1,147 1,189 1,134San Diego, CA675 709 706 686 673 643 705 735 720 709 725 761 770745 775 771 777 825 841 887 912 958 949San Francisco Bay Area,CA3,353 3,487 3,440 3,517 3,563 3,515 3,510 3,577 3,639 3,840 3,986 4,102 4,117 4,165 4,257 4,121 3,8783,981 4,151 4,064 4,189 4,275 4,034San Joaquin Valley, CA87.7 103 75.2 70.0 70.7 56.5 49.8 47.5 36.2 28.8 35.3 21.3 17.6 17.3 19.8 15.5 33.5 79.3 76.1 82.9 80.4 83.5 77.8Seattle-Tacoma, WA1,328 1,326 1,290 1,365 1,411 1,346 1,371 1,385 1,401 1,601 1,603 1,613 1,665 1,726 1,690 1,653 1,6791,991 1,999 1,939 2,003 1,960 2,034St. Louis, MO-IL1,568 1,489 1,517 1,678 1,425 1,370 1,436 1,481 1,679 1,849 1,883 1,902 1,879 1,831 1,825 1,754 1,5611,255 750 776 766 784 737Syracuse, NY263 281 282 273 221 206 179 154 143 113 106 107 107105 106 98.2 112 129 152 155 137 151 138Washington, DC-MD-VA1,814 2,033 1,882 1,837 1,936 1,864 1,938 1,929 1,982 1,952 1,896 1,952 2,039 2,231 2,249 2,037 1,9642,123 2,665 2,885 2,636 2,777 2,746aLake 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 f or these three parameters

(annual LTOs, annual NO

x 

# , NO

x 

# emissions per LTO) varies and can vary significantly from the

national average. In order to identify possible causes f or the varying trends, each NAA was

grouped based on activity levels and compared to the nation al 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 t han 200,000 LTOs showed greater deviation

from the national level. For example, the San Franci sco Bay Area, with annual LTOs between

200,000 and 300,000, followed the trend of increasing LTOs, increasi ng NO

x 

# emissions, and

decreasing NO

x 

# per LTO, as seen at the national level. However, th e Aspen, Colorado area, with

annual LTOs less than 50,000, showed an increase in all thr ee parameters. Conversely, Syracuse,

New York, with annual LTOs less than 50,000, showed a decreas e in all three parameters NO

x 

# emissions, total LTOs, and NO

x 

# 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 Nati onal LTO and NO

x 

# 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 NO

x 

# ; increased LTOs; and decreased

NO

x 

# emission per LTO.



# The variance between the airports may be due to the unique a ircraft fleet operating at

each airport. For example, during the study period nationa l LTOs for regional aircraft equipped

with two-engines covered by ICAO gaseous emissions provis ions increased from 6 to 31 percent

(see Table 3-4). Table 3-15 provides examples of how the aggregat ed 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 repres ent 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 NO

x 

# emissions.

Las Vegas and Phoenix have very high levels of narrow bo dy two-engine aircraft operations.

NAA in the middle rows have fleet compositions where t he contributions of two engine narrow

body and regional aircraft, like in the national flee t, 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 Select ed Non-attainment

Areas

Percent of

Annual National

Total Local Fleet LTO Composition (Percent of Annual

LTOs by Aircraft Type)

LTO NO

xRegional Aircraft ,2Narrow-body, 2Narrow-body, 3Narrow-body, 4Wide-body, 2Wide-body, 3Wide-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 Jersey

Long 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 illust rated in the historical analysis of the

Memphis NAA. In 2003, the number of annual LTOs increased by approximately 170 percent

and the NO

x 

# emissions more than doubled in tonnage, which coincides wi th an expansion of

FedEx freight activities at the Memphis, TN airport. Si milar results were found for the St. Louis

NAA when United Parcel Service (UPS) opened its air frei ght 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 emiss ions were quantified at the

national level and in the 42 nonattainment areas of int erest. APUs are small turbine engines that

tend to be located in the back of the aircraft. APUs pr ovide 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 a re presented in Table 3-16. In

this analysis, APUs account for 2.6 percent of the airc raft national NO

x 

# emissions. Table 3-17

shows the APU emission totals in the nonattainment ar eas of interest.3-38Table 3-16. National APU Emissions Annual Total and Normalizedwith Respect to Activity for Commercial Aviation, Includedinthe T-100 DatasetLTOCOTHCVOCTOGNOXSOXPM2.5a2008 National APU Emissions (metric ton)8,892,7763,6942472852862,5784024152008 National APU Emissions per LTO (kg/LTO)8,892,7760.420.030.030.030.290.050.05aEDMS calculates both PM2.5and PM10, because these values are identical only PM2.5is shown.3-39Table 3-17. Selected Non-attainment Areas APU Activity and Emissions (metric ton) for Commercial Aircraft, Included in theT-100 DatasetNon-attainment Area NameLTOCOTHCVOCTOGNOXSOXPM2.5aAlbuquerque, NM 43,72519.91.271.461.4712.01.972.09Anchorage, AK55,78053.93.423.933.9530.55.456.51Aspen, CO3,1302.600.150.170.170.690.140.21Atlanta, GA465,28223214.917.117.213421.423.7Baltimore, MD 109,76052.23.313.813.8331.45.125.47Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (easternMA), MA 142,51750.23.524.054.0745.66.366.18Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth(southeast NH), NH 23,12210.10.660.750.766.081.021.07Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 197,28386.55.436.246.2852.438.288.68Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN520,47923315.517.817.914923.825.6Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN152,94159.94.054.664.6834.76.176.29Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH97,74432.62.322.672.6819.83.653.64Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 356,00419612.314.214.391.516.018.8Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, CO 258,21788.75.806.676.7186.111.510.6Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI197,52181.95.326.126.1558.68.809.01El Paso County, TX23,18313.60.830.960.965.951.081.26Greater Connecticut, CT 37,72914.60.991.141.1410.61.631.65Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX 309,9171198.209.439.4876.413.213.5Indianapolis, IN74,47829.72.052.362.3722.23.423.23Las Vegas, NV194,33265.14.415.075.1067.39.258.52Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin,CA 416,55517312.714.614.714921.823.6Louisville, KY-IN63,84525.21.872.152.1622.73.203.23Memphis, TN-AR146,51457.94.084.694.7252.97.496.44Milwaukee-Racine, WI70,47330.01.932.222.2315.22.792.93Minneapolis-St Paul, MN 172,61462.44.114.734.7555.97.697.30New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island,NY-NJ-CT 589,85221115.517.917.919928.228.23-40Table 3-17. Selected Non-attainment Areas APU Activity and Emissions (metric ton) for Commercial Aircraft, Included in theT-100 Dataset (Cont.)Non-attainment Area NameLTOCOTHCVOCTOGNOXSOXPM2.5aPhiladelphia-Wilmington-AtlanticCity, PA-NY-MD-DE 184,04461.64.184.804.8354.88.017.26Phoenix-Mesa, AZ207,66482.05.236.016.0468.49.669.45Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA57,75523.21.521.751.7613.62.332.42Providence (entire State), RI 27,39310.90.710.820.827.031.181.19Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 73,26027.31.862.142.1516.32.882.93Reno, NV25,93210.40.680.790.797.921.201.19Riverside County (Coachella Valley),CA 12,5585.170.340.390.392.570.490.51Sacramento Metro, CA 59,96323.71.571.801.8118.12.762.72Salt Lake City, UT143,64153.93.584.124.1437.86.125.91San Diego, CA98,32835.02.382.742.7529.94.424.26San Francisco Bay Area, CA309,4051309.3210.710.810715.616.9San Joaquin Valley, CA 21,8877.550.530.610.613.910.770.79Seattle-Tacoma, WA 130,31755.53.734.284.3145.26.626.63St. Louis, MO-IL104,78447.53.113.583.6022.94.224.75Syracuse, NY18,8576.700.450.520.524.310.720.72Washington, DC-MD-VA261,24290.06.267.207.2476.711.310.8aEDMS calculates both PM2.5and PM10, because these values are identical only PM2.5is 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 EP A’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 activi ties reported in the T-100 data.

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

with Engines Covered by ICAO Provisions, Included in TAF an d 5010 Dataset (turboprop

and turbofan engines)

Operational

Type LTO CO

(kg) NO X



# (kg) PM 10



# (kg) PM 2.5



# (kg) SO 2



# (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 i ncluded in the supplemental data files

provided with this study. Note because the non-attainment ar eas 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) an d Emissions (kg) for

Aircraft Equipped with Engines that are Not Covered by ICA O Provisions, Included in

TAF and 5010 Dataset (turboprop and turbofan engines)

Non-Attainment Area LTO CO

(kg) NO X



# (kg) PM 10



# (kg) PM 2.5



# (kg) SO 2



# (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 Collins

Loveland, 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) an d Emissions (kg) for

Aircraft Equipped with Engines that are Not Covered by ICA O Provisions, Included in

TAF and 5010 Dataset (turboprop and turbofan engines) (Continued)

Non Attainment Area LTO CO

(kg) NO X



# (kg) PM 10



# (kg) PM 2.5



# (kg) SO 2



# (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 I CAO Provisions

As noted in Section 2.4, this study also considered non-co mmercial (non-air carrier)

aircraft covered by ICAO provisions that do not report act ivities 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 NO

x 

# , CO, and PM

emissions and 18 percent of VOC emissions in 2008. To determi ne whether this category of

aircraft would continue to be significant in the future, t he 2008 baseline emissions were

# 3-43

projected to estimated emissions in 2020 and 2030. The growth fa ctors used to make this future

year adjustment were derived by comparing annual national gene ral 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 Em issions 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 so urces included in this study.

This table summarized the national results by aircraft ty pe, whether the engine was covered by

ICAO provisions, and data source. Note that adjustments ha ve been made to the TAF and 5010

data to address any double counting with the T-100 data and the a ircraft registration data for the

non-air carrier aircraft equipped with ICAO certified en gines. For purposes of this assessment, it

is assumed that once the non-air carrier aircraft ar e 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 fi les that supplement this report.

As Table 3-21 indicates aircraft equipped with engines cover ed by ICAO gaseous

emissions provisions accounts for 28 percent of total LTO s (including APUs), but in 2008 are

associated with 94 percent of aircraft NO

x 

# emissions (73 percent of VOC emissions, 53 percent

of CO emissions, and 38 percent of PM 2.5 

# ).

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

Aircraft Equipped with Turbofan and Turboprop Engines

Source Operational

Type Regulated LTO NO X 

# (kg) VOC

(kg) CO

(kg) PM 10



# (kg) PM 2.5



# (kg) SO 2



# 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 fr om 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 ICA O 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 aviatio n, and APU = auxiliary power unit. Year LTO CO_KG VOC_KG TOG_KG NO X 

# _KG PM 10 

# _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 1989A-1Table A-1. Export of Annual LTOs from the T-100 Database for Linear InterpolationLinearInterpolationT-100 Data provided by EPA (LTOs)1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997Foreign Carrier,Nonscheduled 17,687 16,640 17,974 19,742 18,417 17,946 16,478 13,527 13,669Foreign Carrier,Scheduled 145,854 154,749 156,859 167,263 170,748 179,684 200,777 212,704 229,980US Carrier,Nonscheduled 12,682 12,388 17,750 18,929 19,935 21,941 25,787 28,704US Carrier, Scheduled 6,319,266 6,173,691 6,363,653 6,514,765 6,777,589 7,292,8937,442,370 7,385,628Table A-2. Calculation of Linear Interpolation EquationForeignNonscheduledForeignScheduledIntercept 827,193 18,085,318Slope -407 9,166Table A-3. Export of Annual LTOs From the T-100 Database After Extrapolation Using the Above Linear InterpolationLinearInterpolationT-100 Data provided by EPA1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997Foreign Carrier,Nonscheduled 18,891 18,484 18,077 17,670 16,640 17,974 19,742 18,417 17,946 16,478 13,527 13,669Foreign Carrier,Scheduled 118,358 127,524 136,690 145,856 154,749 156,859 167,263 170,748 179,684 200,777 212,704 229,980US Carrier,Nonscheduled 115,158 202,678 187,402 266,022 12,682 12,388 17,750 18,929 19,935 21,941 25,787 28,704US 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 7,292,893 7,442,370 7,385,628A-2Figure A-1. Graphic Representation of Historical T-100 DataNote that the equations noted in the above graphic describe theslope for the line – these equations were used to backcastthe period from 1986 to 1990.y = 9166x - 2E+07y = -406.99x + 8271931101001,00010,000100,0001,000,00010,000,000100,000,000 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006Year

LTOForeign Carrier, NonscheduledForeign Carrier, ScheduledUS Carrier, NonscheduledUS Carrier, ScheduledLinear (Foreign Carrier,

# 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 DataC-1YearUS/ForUnitsLTOCOTHCVOCTOGNOXSOXPM10PM2.5Fuel1986 Foreign kg 125,067 4,820,013 2,023,953 2,327,961 2,340,164 4,396,505 382,965 127,234 127,234 296,412,8461986 US kg 5,885,100 67,780,271 26,868,962 30,904,811 31,066,809 63,751,900 8,223,957 2,278,9632,278,963 6,365,291,4191986 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 2,406,197 6,661,704,2651986Foreignkg/LTO38.516.218.618.735.23.061.021.022,3701986USkg/LTO11.54.575.255.2810.81.400.390.391,0821987 Foreign kg 132,381 4,165,156 1,696,885 1,951,765 1,961,996 4,692,710 400,331 115,609 115,609 309,853,9351987 US kg 6,159,197 68,607,356 26,981,839 31,034,642 31,197,321 66,810,749 8,569,425 2,043,3662,043,366 6,632,681,9071987 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 2,158,975 6,942,535,8421987Foreignkg/LTO31.512.814.714.835.43.020.870.872,3411987USkg/LTO11.14.385.045.0710.81.390.330.331,0771988 Foreign kg 143,413 4,284,858 1,768,990 2,034,701 2,045,366 4,971,814 422,307 121,105 121,105 326,862,6431988 US kg 6,195,081 66,960,077 25,550,019 29,387,753 29,541,800 68,068,757 8,523,104 2,018,1852,018,185 6,596,829,8301988 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 2,139,290 6,923,692,4731988Foreignkg/LTO29.912.314.214.334.72.90.840.842,2791988USkg/LTO10.84.124.744.7710.991.380.330.331,0651989 Foreign kg 152,451 4,445,525 1,806,603 2,077,962 2,088,855 5,306,613 448,965 126,462 126,462 347,495,7961989 US kg 6,162,006 68,378,173 26,838,420 30,867,677 31,030,374 68,373,555 8,410,598 2,149,5422,149,542 6,509,750,6361989 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 2,276,004 6,857,246,4321989Foreignkg/LTO29.211.913.613.734.82.940.830.832,2791989USkg/LTO11.14.365.015.0411.11.360.350.351,0561990 Foreign kg 166,963 5,467,138 2,301,701 2,647,428 2,661,305 6,181,503 517,395 149,495 149,495 400,460,2281990 US kg 6,100,052 59,501,795 20,569,936 23,659,614 23,783,646 66,234,682 7,980,352 1,754,8891,754,889 6,176,743,0921990 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 1,904,384 6,577,203,3201990Foreignkg/LTO32.713.815.915.937.03.100.900.902,3981990USkg/LTO9.753.373.883.9010.861.310.290.291,0131991 Foreign kg 169,594 5,009,844 2,143,090 2,464,993 2,477,914 5,841,590 494,301 146,960 146,960 382,585,7311991 US kg 6,069,886 55,202,753 17,248,191 19,838,953 19,942,946 64,419,269 7,644,197 1,646,3041,646,304 5,916,560,841C-2YearUS/ForUnitsLTOCOTHCVOCTOGNOXSOXPM10PM2.5Fuel1991 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 1,793,265 6,299,146,5721991Foreignkg/LTO29.512.614.514.634.42.90.870.872,2561991USkg/LTO9.092.843.273.2910.611.260.270.279751992 Foreign kg 179,428 5,007,924 2,042,152 2,348,877 2,361,197 5,961,754 510,056 143,992 143,992 394,780,0141992 US kg 6,287,453 56,562,918 17,750,372 20,416,564 20,523,584 65,858,308 7,746,488 1,688,6801,688,680 5,995,733,7241992 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 1,832,672 6,390,513,7381992Foreignkg/LTO27.911.413.113.233.22.80.800.802,2001992USkg/LTO9.002.823.253.2610.471.230.270.279541993 Foreign kg 182,630 4,782,317 1,787,714 2,056,231 2,067,012 5,931,615 509,707 129,288 129,288 394,509,7841993 US kg 6,358,399 49,352,673 11,849,193 13,628,999 13,700,440 65,729,753 7,596,475 1,496,3921,496,392 5,879,624,5021993 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 1,625,679 6,274,134,2851993Foreignkg/LTO26.29.7911.311.332.52.80.710.712,1601993USkg/LTO7.761.862.142.1510.341.190.240.249251994 Foreign kg 192,381 4,998,234 1,796,640 2,066,504 2,077,337 6,054,168 529,619 129,164 129,164 409,921,6371994 US kg 6,744,229 57,532,799 16,306,203 18,755,475 18,853,788 67,951,296 7,972,793 1,666,3221,666,322 6,170,892,3421994 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 1,795,487 6,580,813,9791994Foreignkg/LTO26.09.3410.710.831.52.750.670.672,1311994USkg/LTO8.532.422.782.8010.11.180.250.259151995 Foreign kg 214,336 5,050,504 1,821,247 2,094,807 2,105,788 6,665,755 578,963 137,867 137,867 448,114,0421995 US kg 7,262,232 59,314,445 16,419,257 18,885,509 18,984,504 67,430,486 8,005,757 1,629,6401,629,640 6,196,405,9991995 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 1,767,507 6,644,520,0411995Foreignkg/LTO23.68.509.779.8231.12.700.640.642,0911995USkg/LTO8.172.262.602.619.291.100.220.228531996 Foreign kg 220,505 4,982,592 1,747,189 2,009,625 2,020,159 6,819,966 597,598 139,139 139,139 462,537,2061996 US kg 7,419,189 61,190,645 16,317,906 18,768,934 18,867,318 67,976,689 8,025,467 1,610,0551,610,055 6,211,661,9511996 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 1,749,194 6,674,199,157C-3YearUS/ForUnitsLTOCOTHCVOCTOGNOXSOXPM10PM2.5Fuel1996Foreignkg/LTO22.67.929.119.1630.92.710.630.632,0981996USkg/LTO8.252.202.532.549.161.080.220.228371997 Foreign kg 236,927 5,102,866 1,662,613 1,912,346 1,922,370 7,508,764 646,131 139,511 139,511 500,101,1261997 US kg 7,351,670 59,015,172 14,747,056 16,962,056 17,051,004 69,617,216 8,140,329 1,618,7561,618,756 6,300,564,0541997 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 1,758,267 6,800,665,1791997Foreignkg/LTO21.57.028.078.1131.72.730.590.592,1111997USkg/LTO8.032.012.312.329.471.110.220.228571998 Foreign kg 251,758 5,089,342 1,473,956 1,695,352 1,704,239 8,185,592 693,406 137,145 137,145 536,692,2501998 US kg 7,459,834 57,151,688 13,491,513 15,517,894 15,599,285 70,235,406 8,120,425 1,578,1591,578,159 6,285,158,4751998 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 1,715,304 6,821,850,7251998Foreignkg/LTO20.25.856.736.7732.52.750.540.542,1321998USkg/LTO7.661.812.082.099.421.090.210.218431999 Foreign kg 256,575 5,072,792 1,362,846 1,567,553 1,575,769 8,437,026 709,946 131,931 131,931 549,493,7961999 US kg 7,768,475 60,767,623 12,099,679 13,916,759 13,989,864 70,251,212 8,366,200 1,369,9351,369,935 6,475,387,2011999 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 1,501,866 7,024,880,9971999Foreignkg/LTO19.85.316.116.1432.92.770.510.512,1421999USkg/LTO7.821.561.791.809.041.080.180.188342000 Foreign kg 262,642 4,885,715 1,205,596 1,386,683 1,393,951 8,534,974 717,648 125,400 125,400 555,454,9422000 US kg 8,334,398 61,546,435 9,922,217 11,412,582 11,472,405 73,690,821 8,638,841 1,275,4981,275,498 6,686,409,1612000 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 1,400,898 7,241,864,1032000Foreignkg/LTO18.64.595.285.3132.52.730.480.482,1152000USkg/LTO7.381.191.371.388.841.040.150.158022001 Foreign kg 254,831 4,147,339 906,607 1,042,784 1,048,250 7,854,938 661,019 110,995 110,995 511,624,4092001 US kg 7,862,396 56,808,314 8,991,409 10,341,962 10,396,173 73,344,822 8,228,595 1,224,9101,224,910 6,368,881,3772001 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 1,335,904 6,880,505,786C-4YearUS/ForUnitsLTOCOTHCVOCTOGNOXSOXPM10PM2.5Fuel2001Foreignkg/LTO16.33.564.094.1130.82.590.440.442,0082001USkg/LTO7.231.141.321.329.331.050.160.168102002 Foreign kg 248,142 4,015,048 841,918 968,378 973,454 7,321,334 611,620 98,636 98,636 473,390,4302002 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 1,170,503 6,232,705,4212002 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 1,269,139 6,706,095,8512002Foreignkg/LTO16.23.393.903.9229.52.460.400.401,9082002USkg/LTO6.961.031.181.199.200.990.140.147682003 Foreign kg 260,145 4,462,043 1,061,429 1,220,861 1,227,261 7,521,344 622,673 106,383 106,383 481,944,8942003 US kg 9,772,005 65,430,561 10,408,591 11,971,462 12,034,460 81,964,741 8,725,237 1,287,1931,287,193 6,753,279,3942003 Total kg 10,032,150 69,892,604 11,470,021 13,192,323 13,261,721 89,486,085 9,347,9101,393,577 1,393,577 7,235,224,2882003Foreignkg/LTO17.24.084.694.7228.92.390.410.411,8532003USkg/LTO6.701.071.231.238.390.890.130.136912004 Foreign kg 278,722 4,335,072 981,689 1,129,143 1,135,062 7,930,575 652,006 107,559 107,559 504,648,6582004 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 1,324,538 6,983,090,0662004 Total kg 10,566,544 71,206,882 11,420,576 13,135,502 13,204,579 93,697,313 9,674,1581,432,097 1,432,097 7,487,738,7242004Foreignkg/LTO15.63.524.054.0728.52.340.390.391,8112004USkg/LTO6.501.011.171.178.340.880.130.136792005 Foreign kg 281,970 4,413,695 985,117 1,133,083 1,139,024 8,219,710 672,631 110,047 110,047 520,612,0932005 US kg 10,379,237 66,222,381 9,939,628 11,432,257 11,492,340 86,251,018 9,054,391 1,289,4441,289,444 7,008,042,5072005 Total kg 10,661,207 70,636,075 10,924,745 12,565,340 12,631,363 94,470,728 9,727,0221,399,491 1,399,491 7,528,654,6002005Foreignkg/LTO15.73.494.024.0429.22.390.390.391,8462005USkg/LTO6.380.961.101.118.310.870.120.126752006 Foreign kg 287,178 4,473,660 1,015,344 1,167,843 1,173,969 8,256,924 677,979 110,795 110,795 524,751,5022006 US kg 10,027,636 66,222,381 9,293,967 10,689,967 10,746,002 84,000,741 8,740,399 1,229,8021,229,802 6,765,014,7832006 Total kg 10,314,814 67,660,020 10,309,312 11,857,810 11,919,971 92,257,665 9,418,3781,340,598 1,340,598 7,289,766,284C-5YearUS/ForUnitsLTOCOTHCVOCTOGNOXSOXPM10PM2.5Fuel2006Foreignkg/LTO15.63.544.074.0928.82.360.390.391,8272006USkg/LTO6.600.931.071.078.380.870.120.126752007 Foreign kg 290,666 4,690,768 1,152,116 1,325,163 1,332,112 8,454,618 685,976 115,100 115,100 530,940,8692007 US kg 10,118,573 64,847,116 9,437,331 10,854,864 10,911,763 85,755,987 8,792,482 1,243,5881,243,588 6,805,326,4992007 Total kg 10,409,239 69,537,884 10,589,447 12,180,027 12,243,875 94,210,605 9,478,4571,358,688 1,358,688 7,336,267,3682007Foreignkg/LTO16.13.964.564.5829.12.360.400.401,8272007USkg/LTO6.410.931.071.088.480.870.120.126732008 Foreign kg 277,154 3,754,036 664,768 764,619 768,627 7,794,345 627,461 92,245 92,245 485,651,2082008 US kg 9,532,042 62,751,803 9,820,453 11,295,533 11,354,742 81,114,678 8,329,585 1,293,1781,293,178 6,447,047,5862008 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 1,385,423 6,932,698,7942008Foreignkg/LTO13.52.402.762.7728.12.260.330.331,7522008USkg/LTO6.581.031.191.198.510.870.140.14676

# Appendix D

High Activity AircraftAppendix D. High Activity Aircraft, US FleetA/C (a) ACCODE (b) 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of US LTOs 24% 22% 21% 19% 19% 17% 15% 13% 11% 9% 9% 9% 8% 7% 6% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 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 95,334 85,627 73,353 59,396% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 9%9% 9% 8%US LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,804 60,596 152,789 234,153 289,709395,827 570,011 737,192 885,993 897,098 880,908 759,004% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%4% 4% 5%US LTOs 0 0 0 3,299 11,202 33,062 73,496 97,010 122,649 144,098 154,354 160,064 183,942 216,493 272,276 297,159 343,851348,776 400,517 437,731 445,995 450,966 442,383% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3% 6% 3% 1% 1% 3% 0% 1% 3% 3% 3%3% 3% 2%US LTOs 0 0 451 746 703 0 35,794 50,071 55,401 242,786 422,986246,212 63,256 59,870 264,062 18,569 88,900 340,642 328,844 293,510 283,505 271,844 171,702% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3%3% 2% 2%US LTOs 0 0 0 1,156 1 0 62,943 144,589 151,678 154,340 94,870 145,702 415,189 456,123 432,348 408,802 350,142 322,843 320,980 282,058 252,046 249,636 227,688% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%2% 2% 2%US LTOs 0 0 10,383 24,070 53,614 88,378 60,130 106,246 165,184 278,881 279,783 231,716 203,699 171,201 171,138 147,691131,998 209,864 199,304 200,630 188,196 185,460 153,293% of US LTOs 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 14,478 6,026 5,969 2,674% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 21,586 18,814 5,723 79% of US LTOs 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 50,45534,280 7,523 524 451 387 0 0 0% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0%0% 0% 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 0 0 0 0% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 4% 3% 4% 5%6% 7% 8%US LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,528 215,206 311,472 324,661 402,628 512,023 609,450 723,115 804,810% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%3% 3% 3%US LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 844 20,229 107,508 199,756 276,720 273,528 289,833 293,382 283,097 307,436 310,061% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2%2% 2% 2%US LTOs 0 0 0 0 17,859 66,704 140,195 183,437 207,591 246,932264,492 253,871 282,975 298,640 290,334 271,956 246,316 218,382 210,428 186,756 192,717 191,135 156,650% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%1% 1% 1%US LTOs 0 0 0 18,671 75,504 106,880 121,926 139,738 163,028 155,492 145,671 158,029 171,755 174,609 173,058 157,408 159,996 137,019 139,624 132,156 124,904 124,902 119,399% of US LTOs 4% 6% 9% 11% 12% 13% 12% 13% 14% 14% 14% 15% 16% 17% 17% 15% 12% 9% 9% 8% 7% 7% 6%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 1,014,113 886,299 880,578 814,517 710,419 682,546 567,985% of US LTOs 17% 16% 14% 13% 13% 12% 11% 10% 11% 10% 9% 9% 8% 7% 6%5% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0%US LTOs 1,026,998 1,013,343 895,455 823,206 771,878 743,705 704,310 664,744 724,039 734,141 693,907 663,532 585,829533,297 459,577 358,191 202,038 186,191 179,335 104,017 62,003 41,051 17,934% of US LTOs 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 7% 6% 5% 5%5% 5% 5%US LTOs 93,372 126,496 148,586 171,420 224,081 263,654 321,860 392,015 424,580 438,469 473,834 506,473 516,945 567,694 622,471 590,395 608,008 544,074 543,221 537,519 516,804514,095 467,653% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 4% 5% 9% 11% 12% 11% 11% 12%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 1,195,653 1,078,782 1,117,165 1,097,758% of US LTOs 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 41 0 0 0% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3%3% 4% 4%US LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,338 36,766 117,959 193,203 287,141 346,994 368,769 358,627% of US LTOs 12% 12% 11% 10% 11% 10% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% 4% 3%2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%US LTOs 712,098 718,940 681,983 633,437 694,217 579,967 488,017 437,790 505,438 526,634 508,975 528,274 445,295 481,473 404,060 315,733 261,461 216,841 180,833 158,177 114,128 96,094 58,489% of US LTOs 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%0% 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 51,904 47,568 52,57851,211% of US LTOs 6% 7% 9% 11% 12% 14% 15% 15% 15% 14% 13% 14% 13% 13% 12% 12% 10% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6%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 1,002,052 940,212 820,459 717,371 737,982 711,210 653,707 627,685 590,476% of US LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4%4% 4% 4%US LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,894 67,967 144,199 230,111 293,194299,731 328,354 374,148 398,587 410,291 391,519% of US LTOs 7% 5% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 8,594 7,744 2,954 168% of US LTOs 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 41,501 39,813 38,651 38,626% of US LTOs 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 0 0 0 0650640BAE146-200867730710MD82A319-1B727-1DC10-1620B737-3619DC9-5DC9-3CRJ7698655F28-100603631630 DC9-1CRJ2629B757-2622B737-1B737-8614B737-7612B737-4617B737-5616ERJ145675B727-2715SAAB340-BBEECH1900-C405A320-2694456SA227467461 EMB120F28-4000602469 J31Boeing 737-300Boeing 737-400Boeing 737-500Boeing 737-800McDonnell Douglas DC9 Super80/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-440Appendix D. High Activity Aircraft, Foreign FleetA/C (a) ACCODE (b) 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of Foreign LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 8%8% 8% 7% 6% 5% 5%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 21,257 21,413 20,768 17,758 14,818 13,228% of Foreign LTOs 3% 3% 3% 3% 0% 1% 4% 7% 8% 7% 7% 8% 8% 9% 10% 10%10% 9% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8%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 23,386 26,355 24,274 25,001 23,101 21,839% of Foreign LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3%3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5%Foreign LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 407 957 1,208 1,388 1,877 4,088 7,4028,839 6,226 7,746 8,167 8,985 10,399 11,573 12,946% of Foreign LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 5% 4% 5%4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 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 11,076 12,763 12,307 11,11511,856 12,276% of Foreign LTOs 11% 11% 11% 11% 15% 12% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 6% 6% 5%5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%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 12,70510,600 6,795 4,110 3,139 2,602 1,593 1,533 1,866% of Foreign LTOs 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 8% 7% 5% 6% 3%2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1%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 5,569 5,971 6,425 4,929 4,498 3,995% of Foreign LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%1% 2% 2% 3% 5% 5%Foreign LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 16 841 1,451 1,768 4,365 6,847 9,815 13,302 14,436% of Foreign LTOs 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 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 40 32 18 40 0% of Foreign LTOs 13% 13% 13% 13% 16% 14% 12% 11% 10% 9% 8% 8% 9% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3%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 18,40214,811 9,227 9,128 10,292 11,346 10,891 11,170 9,096% of Foreign LTOs 7% 7% 7% 7% 5% 6% 7% 8% 10% 10% 11% 12% 12% 13%15% 15% 14% 13% 14% 14% 14% 13% 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 33,876 37,796 38,530 39,126 37,352 37,393% of Foreign LTOs 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9%8% 9% 9% 9% 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 21,410 24,102 25,887 26,749 26,873 21,266% of Foreign LTOs 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1%1% 1% 1% 1% 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 3,1702,383 3,401 3,359 4,064 3,119% of Foreign LTOs 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 5% 6% 5% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6%5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6%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 13,838 13,617 13,919 16,244 17,396 15,733% of Foreign LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 5%6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%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 14,337 13,606 14,694 13,627 14,195 15,202% of Foreign LTOs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 7%6% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3%Foreign LTOs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 522 6,662 799 0 0 0 0 8,983 18,540 16,485 14,110 14,124 8,078 8,544 7,274% of Foreign LTOs 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 5% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%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 49 171 115 33 0 0 0 0% of Foreign LTOs 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 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 1,114 982 648 578 245 173 214 12% of Foreign LTOs 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 6% 5% 3% 3% 1%1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%Foreign LTOs 8,329 8,814 9,551 10,153 10,865 10,427 12,02713,092 14,056 16,129 18,707 18,087 14,941 12,158 7,959 7,456 1,830 1,733 1,959 1,788 304 0 0% of Foreign LTOs 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5%4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2%Foreign LTOs 1,125 1,192 1,288 1,367 0 374 2,546 3,348 4,0495,470 8,793 9,391 10,991 12,053 13,029 12,414 12,792 11,07312,004 10,552 9,651 7,579 4,573% of Foreign LTOs 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4%4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 0%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 10,912 8,379 6,266 5,106 4,018 1,227(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)MD82MD11655740DC10-1730DC9-3640DC10-3732B737-1620CRJ1628627 B777-2B767-3ER626B747-1816B737-7612A319-1698A330-2696A320-2694B727-2715B747-4819B747-2817B767-2ER625B747-1820A340-2873Canadair 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 DataBoeing 727-200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionJT8D-7 seriesFeb-80 15.8 62.3 3,281 419 9.0%JT8D-9 seriesFeb-80 15.9 64.5 3,488 433 24.6%JT8D-15Dec-79 16.8 68.9 4,144 486 51.8%JT8D-15ADec-79 16.5 68.9 3,648 454 1.1%JT8D-17Dec-79 17.0 71.2 4,559 499 5.5%JT8D-17ADec-79 16.9 71.2 3,935 470 3.1%JT8D-17RDec-79 18.2 77.4 5,623 537 5.0%JT8D-217CFeb-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO24% 22% 21% 19% 19% 17% 15% 13% 11% 9% 9% 9% 8% 7% 6% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 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 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486Thrust (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 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9Press Ratio16.8 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 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8NOx (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 4,111 4,134 4,141 4,206 4,232Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)463 463 463 463 463 464 466 470 473 473 473 473 474 475 476 473 477 478 476 477 478 482 484Thrust (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 68.9 69.1 69.2 69.7 71.0Press Ratio16.5 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 16.7 16.8 16.8 16.8 17.0Max 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 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623Min 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 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,488Percent Difference71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 61%NOx (g/LTO)6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0%Thrust (kN)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3%Press Ratio2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultEmbraer-145, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionAE3007AMar-94 18.1 33.7 1,563 162 4.9%AE3007A1-Type 1Mar-94 18.0 34.9 1,456 157 6.1%AE3007A1-Type 2Aug-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 1Mar-94 17.9 34.7 1,442 156 1.8%AE3007A1/1-Type 2Aug-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 2Aug-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 3Jun-01 19.1 37.2 1,501 165 13.9%AE3007A1P-Type 1Mar-94 17.9 34.7 1,444 157 1.0%AE3007A1P-Type 2Aug-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO- - - - - - - - - - - 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 9% 9% 9% 8%NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - ------1,563 1,442 1,456 1,456 1,344 1,607 1,607 1,607 1,607 1,607 1,607 1,607Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - - - - -- - - - - 162 156 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157Thrust (kN)- - - - - ------33.7 34.7 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9Press Ratio- - - - - ------18.1 17.9 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - ------1,563 1,498 1,470 1,460 1,349 1,583 1,575 1,575 1,573 1,572 1,571 1,571Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - - - - -- - - - - 162 159 158 157 157 158 158 158 159 159 159 159Thrust (kN)- - - - - ------33.7 34.3 34.7 34.8 34.8 34.9 35.1 35.2 35.3 35.3 35.3 35.3Press Ratio- - - - - ------18.1 18.0 18.0 18.0 17.9 18.0 18.1 18.1 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2Max NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - ------1,563 1,563 1,563 1,563 1,563 1,607 1,607 1,607 1,607 1,607 1,607 1,607Min NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - ------1,563 1,442 1,442 1,442 1,245 1,465 1,465 1,465 1,465 1,465 1,465 1,465Percent Difference- - - - - -- - - - - 0% 8% 8% 8% 26% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - - - - - - - 0% 4% 1% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - - - - - - - - - - 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%Thrust (kN)- - - - - - - - - - - 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%Press Ratio- - - - - - - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultAirbus Industrie A320-100/200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionV2500-A1Jun-88 29.8 111.2 7,716 442 10.0%V2527-A5Aug-92 27.2 111.2 5,382 437 51.8%V2527E-A5Aug-92 27.2 111.2 5,382 437 0.1%CFM56-5-A1Nov-86 26.6 111.2 4,506 385 16.8%CFM56-5A3Nov-86 27.9 117.9 5,110 406 12.4%CFM56-5B4Oct-92 27.1 117.9 5,861 421 8.7%CF6-50C2Jul-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO17% 15% 13% 11% 9% 9% 9% 8% 7% 6% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 5,382 5,382 5,382 5,382 5,382Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)769 769 769 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 437 437 437 437 437 437 437 437 437 437 437 437 437Thrust (kN)230.4 230.4 230.4 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2Press Ratio28.4 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 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2NOx (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 5,435 5,430 5,419 5,432 5,448Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)769 769 769 385 385 407 405 405 411 414 419 420 421 421 412 424 425 426 426 427 427 427 428Thrust (kN)230.4 230.4 230.4 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 112.2 112.3 112.7 113.1 110.2 113.0 112.9 112.8 112.8 112.6 112.6 112.7 112.8Press Ratio28.4 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 27.4 27.4 27.3 27.3 27.3Max 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 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716Min 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 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506Percent Difference0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 209% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71%NOx (g/LTO)0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 28% 25% 22% 22% 22% 5% 5% 5% 3% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 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% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%Thrust (kN)0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%Press Ratio0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 737-700/700LR, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCFM56-7B20Jul-96 22.6 91.6 3,829 361 7.9%CFM56-7B20/3Sep-05 22.4 91.6 2,987 348 0.5%CFM56-7B22Jul-96 24.4 101.0 4,560 390 64.4%CFM56-7B22/3Sep-05 24.2 101.0 3,540 377 3.1%CFM56-7B24Jul-96 25.8 107.7 5,149 412 21.4%CFM56-7B24/3Sep-05 25.6 107.6 3,995 398 0.2%CFM56-7B26Jul-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 4% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8%NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - ------4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - - - - -- - - - - 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390Thrust (kN)- - - - - ------101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0Press Ratio- - - - - ------24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - ------4,560 4,807 4,839 4,781 4,755 4,774 4,782 4,721 4,647 4,594 4,494 4,393Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - - - - -- - - - - 390 399 400 398 397 398 398 396 393 391 389 387Thrust (kN)- - - - - ------101.0 103.8 104.1 103.4 103.1 103.3 103.4 102.7 101.9 101.2 100.9 100.7Press Ratio- - - - - ------24.4 25.0 25.1 24.9 24.8 24.9 24.9 24.8 24.6 24.5 24.4 24.3Max NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - ------4,560 5,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 5,149Min NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - ------4,560 4,560 4,560 3,829 3,829 3,829 3,829 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540Percent Difference- - - - - -- - - - - 0% 13% 35% 61% 61% 61% 61% 74% 74% 74% 74% 45%NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - - - - - - - 0% 5% 6% 5% 4% 5% 5% 4% 2% 1% 1% 4%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - - - - - - - - - - 0% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%Thrust (kN)- - - - - - - - - - - 0% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0%Press Ratio- - - - - - - - - - - 0% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 737-800, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCFM56-7B24Jul-96 25.8 107.7 5,149 412 0.4%CFM56-7B26Jul-96 27.6 117.0 6,149 441 67.2%CFM56-7B26/3Sep-05 27.7 117.0 4,763 429 0.7%CFM56-7B27Jul-96 28.6 121.4 6,719 456 30.6%CFM56-7B27/3Sep-05 29.0 121.4 5,232 444 1.1%CFM56-7B27/B1Jul-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - -------6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - - - - -- - - - - - 441 441 441 441 441 441 441 441 441 441 441Thrust (kN)- - - - - -------117.0 117.0 117.0 117.0 117.0 117.0 117.0 117.0 117.0 117.0 117.0Press Ratio- - - - - -------27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - -------6,149 6,149 6,149 6,195 6,381 6,375 6,368 6,334 6,357 6,323 6,199Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - - - - -- - - - - - 441 441 441 442 447 447 447 446 446 446 445Thrust (kN)- - - - - -------117.0 117.0 117.0 117.4 118.8 118.7 118.7 118.4 118.6 118.7 118.6Press Ratio- - - - - -------27.6 27.6 27.6 27.7 28.0 28.0 28.0 27.9 28.0 28.0 28.0Max NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - -------6,149 6,149 6,149 6,719 6,719 6,719 6,719 6,719 6,719 6,719 6,719Min NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - -------6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 5,149 5,149 5,149 5,149 4,763 4,763Percent Difference- - - - - -- - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 9% 9% 30% 30% 30% 30% 41% 41%NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 1% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 1%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%Thrust (kN)- - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%Press Ratio- - - - - - - - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 737-500, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCFM56-3-B1Nov-83 22.4 89.4 3,595 392 58.1%CFM56-3C-1Nov-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 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 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - - - 392 448 448 448 448 448 448 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392Thrust (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 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4Press 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 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4NOx (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 3,971 3,914 3,914 3,923 3,884Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - - - 408 424 430 431 424 420 421 418 415 415 415 415 415 414 409 407 407 407 405Thrust (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 94.1 93.4 93.4 93.5 93.0Press 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 23.4 23.2 23.2 23.3 23.2Max 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 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810Min 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 3,595 3,595 3,595Percent Difference- - - - 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 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% 10% 9% 9% 9% 8%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - - - 4% 5% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3%Thrust (kN)- - - - 5% 6% 5% 4% 6% 7% 7% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 5% 4% 4% 5% 4%Press Ratio- - - - 4% 5% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 737-400, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCFM56-3B-2Nov-83 24.1 98.3 4,213 421 56.7%CFM56-3C-1Nov-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 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 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 448 421 448 448 448 448 448Thrust (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 98.3 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6 104.6Press 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 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5NOx (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 4,565 4,583 4,580 4,581 4,560Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - 421 421 421 421 427 430 432 431 432 432 433 433 433 433 435 434 437 438 438 438 437Thrust (kN)- - 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.4 99.8 100.3 100.9 100.5 100.8 101.0 101.2 101.1 101.0 101.1 101.5 101.3 102.0 102.2 102.2 102.2 102.0Press 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 24.9 25.0 25.0 25.0 24.9Max 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 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810Min 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 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213 4,213Percent Difference- - 0% 0% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 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% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3%Thrust (kN)- - 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3%Press Ratio- - 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 737-300, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCFM56-3-B1Nov-83 22.4 89.4 3,595 392 65.9%CFM56-3B-2Nov-83 24.1 98.3 4,213 421 24.1%CFM56-3C-1Nov-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO4% 6% 9% 11% 12% 13% 12% 13% 14% 14% 14% 15% 16% 17% 17% 15% 12% 9% 9% 8% 7% 7% 6%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 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392Thrust (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 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4Press 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 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4NOx (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 3,940 3,893 3,928 3,916 3,866Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - 399 401 403 403 403 402 402 401 401 401 402 407 408 409 409 408 408 406 407 407 405Thrust (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 93.9 93.3 93.7 93.6 92.9Press 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 23.3 23.2 23.3 23.3 23.1Max 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 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810 4,810Min 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 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595 3,595Percent Difference- - 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 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% 10% 8% 9% 9% 8%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3%Thrust (kN)- - 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 5% 4%Press Ratio- - 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 737-100/200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionJT8D-15Dec-79 16.8 68.9 4,144 486 10.6%JT8D-15ADec-79 16.5 68.9 3,648 454 25.6%JT8D-17Dec-79 17.0 71.2 4,559 499 9.9%JT8D-17ADec-79 16.9 71.2 3,935 470 3.5%JT8D-7 seriesFeb-80 15.8 62.3 3,281 419 12.1%JT8D-9 seriesFeb-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO17% 16% 14% 13% 13% 12% 11% 10% 11% 10% 9% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0%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 3,648 3,648 3,488 3,488 3,488Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)433 433 433 433 433 419 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 454 454 433 454 454 454 454 433 433 433Thrust (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 68.9 68.9 64.5 64.5 64.5Press Ratio15.9 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 16.5 16.5 15.9 15.9 15.9NOx (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 3,780 3,811 3,739 3,711 3,767Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)447 453 445 446 446 438 447 448 447 448 449 451 454 458 459 459 458 459 459 461 453 452 456Thrust (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 68.6 68.6 67.0 67.1 67.8Press Ratio16.1 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 16.5 16.5 16.3 16.3 16.4Max 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 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559Min 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 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281Percent Difference31% 31% 39% 39% 39% 26% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 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% 4% 4% 7% 6% 8%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)3% 5% 3% 3% 3% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 1% 1% 6% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 4% 5%Thrust (kN)2% 4% 2% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 2% 1% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1% 4% 4% 5%Press Ratio2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 757-200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionPW2037Aug-83 26.7 166.4 8,120 586 50.3%PW2040Aug-83 29.4 182.0 9,989 631 7.2%RB211-535CApr-84 21.5 163.3 9,277 711 0.1%RB211-535E4May-99 26.0 178.4 7,492 681 7.8%RB211-535E4Apr-91 25.8 178.4 11,714 683 3.8%RB211-535E4Jul-84 25.4 176.1 13,633 711 1.7%RB211-535E4BMay-99 27.9 191.7 8,927 732 20.0%RB211-535E4BApr-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 7% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%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 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586 586Thrust (kN)166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4 166.4Press Ratio26.7 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 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7NOx (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 8,410 8,442 8,438 8,451 8,450Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)638 629 624 627 631 627 631 632 640 645 645 646 647 647 647 649 649 651 650 650 650 649 650Thrust (kN)170.4 170.3 170.8 171.5 172.8 173.8 174.4 174.5 175.9 176.5 176.4 176.5 176.8 177.0 176.8 177.0 177.1 177.4 177.3 177.5 177.4 177.4 177.4Press Ratio26.2 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 27.1 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2Max 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 9,989 9,989 9,989 9,989 9,989Min 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 7,492 7,492 7,492 7,492 7,492Percent Difference68% 68% 68% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 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% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)9% 7% 6% 7% 8% 7% 8% 8% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11%Thrust (kN)2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%Press Ratio2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultMcDonnell Douglas DC-9-10, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionJT8D-17Dec-79 17.0 71.2 4,559 499 0.4%JT8D-7 seriesApr-76 15.8 62.3 3,078 419 99.0%JT8D-1Dec-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419Thrust (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 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3Press Ratio15.8 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 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8NOx (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 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)411 416 415 415 415 413 413 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419Thrust (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 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3Press Ratio15.5 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 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8Max 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 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078Min 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 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078 3,078Percent Difference48% 48% 48% 48% 48% 48% 48% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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% 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% 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% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Press Ratio2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultMcDonnell Douglas DC-9-30, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionJT8D-11Feb-80 17.2 66.7 3,740 475 0.5%JT8D-15Dec-79 16.8 68.9 4,144 486 3.6%JT8D-15ADec-79 16.5 68.9 3,648 454 0.6%JT8D-17Dec-79 17.0 71.2 4,559 499 0.3%JT8D-7 seriesFeb-80 15.8 62.3 3,281 419 42.2%JT8D-9 seriesFeb-80 15.9 64.5 3,488 433 52.6%JT8D-1Dec-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO12% 12% 11% 10% 11% 10% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%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 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)419 419 419 419 419 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433 433Thrust (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 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.5Press Ratio15.8 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 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9NOx (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 3,450 3,468 3,484 3,486 3,474Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)428 428 428 428 428 429 430 430 430 430 430 430 430 429 430 431 431 431 431 432 433 434 433Thrust (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 64.0 64.1 64.3 64.3 64.2Press Ratio15.9 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 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9Max 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 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144Min 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 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281Percent Difference39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 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% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Thrust (kN)2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%Press Ratio0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultMcDonnell Douglas DC-9-50, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionJT8D-17Dec-79 17.0 71.2 4,559 499 90.9%JT8D-17ADec-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 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 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499Thrust (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 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2Press Ratio17.0 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 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0NOx (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 4,504 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)496 497 496 496 496 498 498 498 496 496 496 496 496 495 495 495 495 497 496 499 499 499 499Thrust (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 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2 71.2Press Ratio17.0 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 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0Max 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 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559Min 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 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559Percent Difference16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%NOx (g/LTO)2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%Thrust (kN)0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Press Ratio0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultMcDonnell Douglas DC9 Super 80/MD81/2/3/7/8, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionJT8D-209Nov-83 18.3 85.6 5,075 469 0.1%JT8D-217Feb-99 19.7 92.7 4,582 504 1.3%JT8D-217 seriesNov-83 19.7 92.7 5,985 504 36.6%JT8D-217AFeb-99 19.7 92.7 4,582 504 3.7%JT8D-217CFeb-99 19.1 92.7 4,216 493 15.7%JT8D-219Feb-99 20.3 96.5 4,604 501 25.6%JT8D-219Nov-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO6% 7% 9% 11% 12% 14% 15% 15% 15% 14% 13% 14% 13% 13% 12% 12% 10% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6%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 4,604 4,604 4,604 4,604 4,604Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 501 501 501 501 501 501 501 501 501 501Thrust (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 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5Press Ratio19.7 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 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3NOx (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 4,471 4,498 4,500 4,501 4,500Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)503 503 503 503 503 503 503 503 503 503 503 503 503 500 499 498 498 498 498 499 499 499 499Thrust (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 95.1 95.4 95.5 95.5 95.5Press Ratio19.7 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 19.8 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9Max 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 4,604 4,604 4,604 4,604 4,604Min 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 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216Percent Difference20% 20% 20% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 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% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%Thrust (kN)0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%Press Ratio0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultAirbus Industrie A319, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCFM56-5A4Nov-86 23.8 97.9 3,851 346 0.2%CFM56-5A5Nov-86 25.1 104.5 4,367 365 22%CFM56-5B5/PNov-95 23.3 97.9 3,732 344 9%CFM56-5B6/2PAug-96 24.6 104.5 3,020 394 0.2%CFM56-5B6/3Sep-05 24.3 104.5 3,363 361 0.3%CFM56-5B6/PNov-95 24.6 104.5 4,232 363 27%CFM56-5B7/PNov-95 27.7 120.1 5,641 408 0.1%V2522-A5Aug-92 25.6 102.7 4,720 407 22%V2524-A5Aug-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4%NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - ------4,720 4,720 4,720 4,232 4,232 4,232 4,367 4,232 4,367 4,367 4,232 5,278Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - - - - -- - - - - 407 407 407 363 363 363 365 363 365 365 363 429Thrust (kN)- - - - - ------102.7 102.7 102.7 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 109.1Press Ratio- - - - - ------25.6 25.6 25.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 25.1 24.6 25.1 25.1 24.6 26.9NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - ------4,720 4,677 4,533 4,511 4,547 4,501 4,469 4,463 4,522 4,518 4,520 4,531Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - - - - -- - - - - 407 400 387 383 385 382 381 380 384 384 385 385Thrust (kN)- - - - - ------102.7 103.7 104.0 104.7 104.6 104.3 104.1 104.1 104.4 104.3 104.4 104.5Press Ratio- - - - - ------25.6 25.5 25.3 25.2 25.3 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3Max NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - ------4,720 5,278 5,278 5,278 5,278 5,278 5,278 5,278 5,278 5,278 5,641 5,641Min NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - ------4,720 4,232 3,851 4,232 3,732 3,732 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,363Percent Difference- - - - - -- - - - - 0% 25% 37% 25% 41% 41% 75% 75% 75% 75% 87% 68%NOx (g/LTO)- - - - - - - - - - - 0% 1% 4% 7% 7% 6% 2% 5% 4% 3% 7% 14%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)- - - - - - - - - - - 0% 2% 5% 5% 6% 5% 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 10%Thrust (kN)- - - - - - - - - - - 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%Press Ratio- - - - - - - - - - - 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 2% 0% 2% 1% 1% 3% 6%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 727-100, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (US Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionJT8D-15Dec-79 16.8 68.9 4,144 486 0%JT8D-7 seriesFeb-80 15.8 62.3 3,281 419 85%JT8D-9 seriesFeb-80 15.9 64.5 3,488 433 3%JT8D-217CFeb-99 19.1 92.7 4,216 493 1%JT8D-219Feb-99 20.3 96.5 4,604 501 0%JT8D-219Nov-83 20.3 96.5 6,106 501 0%RB.183 Tay-651-54Mar-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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO7% 5% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419 419Thrust (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 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3 62.3Press Ratio15.8 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 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8NOx (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 3,238 3,274 3,264 3,615 3,535Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)420 420 419 419 420 420 419 417 414 412 411 411 411 412 411 409 411 409 412 416 414 444 437Thrust (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 66.0 66.4 67.3 71.8 69.1Press Ratio15.8 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 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.9 16.6Max 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 4,604 4,604 4,604 4,604 4,604Min 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 2,875 2,875 2,875 2,875 2,875Percent Difference26% 26% 6% 6% 86% 86% 112% 112% 112% 112% 112% 112% 112% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 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% 1% 0% 1% 10% 8%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 6% 4%Thrust (kN)0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 6% 7% 8% 15% 11%Press Ratio0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 7% 5%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultAirbus Industrie A319, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCFM56-5A4 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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 8% 8% 8% 7% 6% 5% 5%NOx (g/LTO) -------- -8,485 4,367 4,367 4,367 3,732 3,732 3,732 3,732 3,732 3,732 3,732 3,732 3,732 3,732Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) -------- -489 365 365 365 344 344 344 344 344 344 344 344 344 344Thrust (kN) -------- -137.9 104.5 104.5 104.5 97.9 97.9 97.9 97.9 97.9 97.9 97.9 97.9 97.9 97.9Press Ratio -------- -31.3 25.1 25.1 25.1 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3NOx (g/LTO) -------- -8,485 3,916 3,941 3,980 4,054 4,095 4,243 4,271 4,235 4,280 4,365 4,411 4,429 4,305Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) -- - - - - - - - 489 372 366 364 374 377 377 379 377 379 381 381 382 378Thrust (kN) -------- -137.9 102.6 102.6 102.4 102.9 103.0 102.7 103.3 103.5 103.7 104.2 104.5 104.8 104.2Press Ratio -------- -31.3 24.7 24.6 24.5 24.7 24.8 24.8 24.9 24.8 24.9 25.0 25.1 25.1 25.0NOx (g/LTO) -------- -8,485 5,278 4,720 5,278 5,382 5,641 5,641 5,641 5,641 5,641 5,641 5,641 5,641 5,641NOx (g/LTO) -------- -8,485 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020 3,020Percent Difference -------- -0% 75% 56% 75% 78% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87%NOx (g/LTO) -------- -0% 10% 10% 9% 9% 10% 14% 14% 13% 15% 17% 18% 19% 15%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) -------- -0% 2% 0% 0% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% 11% 10%Thrust (kN) -------- -0% 2% 2% 2% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% 6%Press Ratio -------- -0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 7% 7% 8% 8% 7%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultAirbus Industrie A320-100/200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCFM56-5-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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 3% 3% 3% 3% 0% 1% 4% 7% 8% 7% 7% 8% 8% 9% 10% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8%NOx (g/LTO) 14,247 11,884 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,5064,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 4,506 5,641 5,641 5,641 5,641 5,641 5,641Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 859 769 385 385 385 385 385 385 385385 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 408 408 408 408 408 408Thrust (kN) 230.4 230.4 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 120.1 120.1 120.1 120.1 120.1 120.1Press Ratio 29.8 28.4 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.626.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7NOx (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 5,470 5,466 5,413 5,264Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 858 781 388 403 399 401 403 406 406 408 409 411 412 414 414 415 417 416 416 418 418 417 414Thrust (kN) 229.2 229.3 111.2 111.2 111.3 111.5 111.7 111.8 111.8 111.9 112.4 112.6 112.9 113.5 113.9 114.1 114.2 114.6 114.3 114.6 114.6 114.6 114.5Press 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 27.6 27.5 27.5 27.3NOx (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 7,716 7,716 7,716 7,716NOx (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 3,783 3,783 3,363 3,363Percent Difference15% 11% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 129% 104% 104% 104% 129% 129%NOx (g/LTO)3% 1% 4% 22% 18% 20% 21% 24% 25% 25% 23% 23% 22% 22% 21% 21% 22% 5% 3% 3% 3% 4% 7%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)0% 2% 1% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2%Thrust (kN)1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%Press Ratio3% 2% 1% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultAirbus Industrie A330-200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCF6-80E1A2 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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5%NOx (g/LTO) -------- -- - 19,704 19,704 19,704 13,936 17,784 17,784 17,784 17,784 17,784 17,784 17,784 17,784Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) -------- -- - 963 963 963 1017 1116 1116 1116 1116 1116 1116 1116 1116Thrust (kN) -------- -- - 302.5 302.5 302.5 302.5 316.3 316.3 316.3 316.3 316.3 316.3 316.3 316.3Press Ratio -------- -- - 33.1 33.1 33.1 31.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8NOx (g/LTO) -------- - - -16,750 19,544 18,847 15,783 16,195 16,456 16,599 16,563 16,705 16,801 16,772 16,725Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) -- - - - - - - - - - 953 9761,024 1,062 1,067 1,050 1,036 1,048 1,041 1,043 1,042 1,040Thrust (kN) -------- - - -294.8 303.6 307.8 308.9 309.8 308.3 307.1 308.1 307.6 308.0 307.9 307.6Press Ratio -------- - - -33.1 33.3 34.2 33.8 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.6 34.6 34.7 34.8 34.7NOx (g/LTO) -------- - - -19,704 19,704 19,704 17,784 19,254 19,254 19,254 19,254 19,254 19,254 19,254 19,254NOx (g/LTO) -------- - - -13,796 17,784 15,027 13,936 13,936 13,796 13,796 13,796 13,796 13,796 13,936 13,796Percent Difference -------- - - -43% 11% 31% 28% 38% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 38% 40%NOx (g/LTO) -------- -- - 15% 1% 4% 13% 9% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) -------- -- - 1% 1% 6% 4% 4% 6% 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7%Thrust (kN) -------- -- - 3% 0% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%Press Ratio -------- -- - 0% 1% 3% 6% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultAirbus Industrie A340-200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCFM56-5C2 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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4%NOx (g/LTO) ------7,077 7,077 7,0777,077 7,077 7,077 7,077 7,077 7,077 6,240 7,077 6,858 6,858 6,858 6,858 6,858 6,858Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) -- - - - - 466 466 466466 466 466 466 466 466 441 466 458 458 458 458 458 458Thrust (kN) ------138.8 138.8 138.8138.8 138.8 138.8 138.8 138.8 138.8 137.6 138.8 143.3 143.3 143.3 143.3 143.3 143.3Press Ratio ------28.8 28.8 28.828.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.2 28.8 29.2 29.2 29.2 29.2 29.2 29.2NOx (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 7,043 7,041 7,105 7,202Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) -- - - - - 466 466 466 465 458 459 459 459 460 459 460 462 465 463 463 465 467Thrust (kN) ------138.8 138.8 138.8 139.2 139.3 140.1 140.1 139.9 140.3 140.9 140.8 141.9 142.2 142.3 142.6 142.7 143.9Press 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 29.2 29.2 29.3 29.5NOx (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 8,702 8,702 8,702 8,702NOx (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 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240Percent Difference ------0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39%NOx (g/LTO) -- - - - -00 00% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 10% 2% 2% 4% 3% 3% 4% 5%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) -- - - - -00 00% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 4% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2%Thrust (kN) -- - - - -00 00% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%Press Ratio -- - - - -00 00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Weighted Weighted vs. Default

1-DefaultBoeing 727-200/231A, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionJT8D-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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 11% 11% 11% 11% 15% 12% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%NOx (g/LTO) 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,1444,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486Thrust (kN) 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.968.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9Press Ratio 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.816.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8NOx (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 4,337 4,351 4,365 4,277Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 479 479 480 480 481 482 481 482 480 475 478 478 479 478 480 483 483 482 487 487 487 488 486Thrust (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 71.4 71.7 71.9 73.2Press 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 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.2NOx (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 5,623 5,623 5,623 5,623NOx (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 3,281 3,281 3,281 3,281Percent Difference71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 86% 71% 71% 71% 71% 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% 5% 5% 5% 3%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Thrust (kN)0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6%Press Ratio0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 737-100/200, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionJT8D-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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 8% 7% 5% 6% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1%NOx (g/LTO) 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,1444,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 4,144 3,648 3,648 3,648 3,648 3,648 3,648Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 454 454 454 454 454 454Thrust (kN) 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.968.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9 68.9Press Ratio 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.816.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5NOx (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 3,943 3,943 3,944 3,934Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 472 471 470 470 469 471 468 468 469 469 469 468 469 469 469 469 469 471 469 468 469 469 468Thrust (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 68.9 69.0 69.0 69.0Press 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 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6NOx (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 4,559 4,559 4,559 4,559NOx (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 3,281 3,488 3,488 3,488Percent Difference39% 39% 39% 39% 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% 8% 8% 8% 8%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%Thrust (kN)0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Press Ratio1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 737-700/700LR, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCFM56-7B20 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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 5% 5%NOx (g/LTO) -------- -- - - 4,560 4,560 5,149 5,149 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) -------- -- - - 390 390 412 412 390 390 390 390 390 390 390Thrust (kN) -------- -- - - 101.0 101.0 107.7 107.7 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0Press Ratio -------- -- - - 24.4 24.4 25.8 25.8 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4NOx (g/LTO) ------------4,807 4,863 4,825 4,751 4,643 4,593 4,607 4,662 4,683 4,615 4,555Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) --------- - - - 399 401 400 397 393 392 391 393 394 393 392Thrust (kN) ------------103.8 104.3 103.8 103.0 101.7 101.9 101.2 101.8 102.1 102.2 102.2Press Ratio ------------25.0 25.1 25.0 24.8 24.6 24.6 24.5 24.6 24.7 24.7 24.6NOx (g/LTO) ------------5,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149 6,149NOx (g/LTO) ------------4,560 3,829 3,829 3,829 3,829 2,987 3,829 3,829 3,829 2,987 2,987Percent Difference ------------13% 61% 61% 61% 61% 106% 61% 61% 61% 106% 106%NOx (g/LTO) -------- -- - - 5% 7% 6% 8% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 1% 0%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) -------- -- - - 2% 3% 3% 4% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%Thrust (kN) -------- -- - - 3% 3% 4% 4% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%Press Ratio -------- -- - - 2% 3% 3% 4% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 747-100, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionJT9D-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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%NOx (g/LTO) 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,29112,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 9,105 9,105 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291 12,291Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 802 802 802 802 802 802 802 802 802802 802 802 802 802 701 701 802 802 802 802 802 802 802Thrust (kN) 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 202.8 202.8 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3Press Ratio 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.320.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 25.4 25.4 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3NOx (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 13,445 13,923 13,467 12,705Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 801 801 801 801 801 802 801 800 805 803 800 800 800 811 813 817 824 831 855 865 886 863 827Thrust (kN) 206.1 206.2 206.1 206.2 206.2 206.5 206.4 206.3 207.0 207.3 207.1 207.0 207.5 208.7 209.5 209.7 210.0 210.2 211.8 212.5 213.0 210.9 207.0Press 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 24.0 24.0 23.0 21.7NOx (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 16,401 16,401 16,401 16,401NOx (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 9,105 11,892 11,892 11,892Percent Difference80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 38% 38% 38%NOx (g/LTO)2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 33% 34% 1% 3% 8% 9% 13% 10% 3%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 16% 17% 3% 4% 7% 8% 11% 8% 3%Thrust (kN)0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 3% 1%Press Ratio10% 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% 12% 11% 12% 12% 13% 12% 14% 18% 4% 4% 19% 17% 18% 18% 18% 13% 7%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 747-200/300, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCF6-50E 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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 13% 13% 13% 13% 16% 14% 12% 11% 10% 9% 8% 8% 9% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3%NOx (g/LTO) 14,247 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,88411,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 859 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769Thrust (kN) 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4Press Ratio 29.8 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.428.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4NOx (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 13,985 14,193 14,549 12,926Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 873 846 845 845 846 849 846 847 847 846 846 846 844 846 848 844 848 860 851 847 850 852 826Thrust (kN) 228.3 228.8 229.7 229.8 230.2 230.4 230.9 231.1 231.0 230.9 230.8 230.7 230.6 231.1 232.0 232.6 233.2 233.4 233.5 233.1 233.6 233.1 233.5Press 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 27.0 27.2 27.3 26.8NOx (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 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124NOx (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 10,719 10,719 10,719 10,719Percent Difference69% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 88% 88% 88% 88% 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% 18% 19% 22% 9%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)2% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 12% 11% 10% 11% 11% 7%Thrust (kN)1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%Press Ratio11% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 6%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 747-400, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCF6-80C2B1F 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 9700.0%RB211-524H Apr-87 34.0 264.4 24,501 977 19.4%1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 7% 7% 7% 7% 5% 6% 7% 8% 10% 10% 11% 12% 12% 13% 15% 15% 14% 13% 14% 14% 14% 13% 13%NOx (g/LTO) - - - 21,075 10,528 10,528 10,528 10,528 10,52811,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,987Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - 958 809 809 809 809 809830 830 830 830 830 830 830 830 830 830 830 830 830 836Thrust (kN) - - - 253.0 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 254.3 249.1Press Ratio - - - 32.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.130.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 29.3NOx (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 14,373 14,312 14,271 12,008Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - 870 872 864 865 861 859 868 866 865 867 868 868 868 868 868 867 867 867 866 843Thrust (kN) - - - 252.3 253.5 253.8 254.6 254.9 254.9 254.7 254.5 254.4 254.6 254.9 255.1 255.3 255.7 256.0 256.3 256.0 256.1 256.3 253.8Press 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 30.9 30.9 30.9 30.0NOx (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 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501NOx (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 11,113 11,113 11,113 11,113Percent Difference - - -100% 133% 133% 133% 133% 133% 120% 120% 120% 120% 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% 29% 29% 28% 0%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - -9% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 1%Thrust (kN) - - -0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%Press Ratio - - -5% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 747F, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCF6-50E2 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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 8% 9% 9% 9% 9% 8%NOx (g/LTO) 14,247 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,88411,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 12,381 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 14,253Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 859 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 900 769 769 769 769 858Thrust (kN) 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 235.8 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 243.5Press Ratio 29.8 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.428.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 24.5 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 26.3NOx (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 13,247 13,253 13,642 13,106Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 876 844 840 841 839 839 832 835 832 831 832 829 826 830 832 828 832 856 832 836 838 851 834Thrust (kN) 229.7 229.8 230.7 231.0 231.4 231.2 231.8 231.9 232.1 232.0 231.8 231.7 231.3 231.2 232.2 232.1 232.8 233.1 231.9 232.6 232.7 233.7 236.1Press 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 26.8 26.9 26.8 26.4NOx (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 20,124 20,124 20,124 20,124NOx (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 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884Percent Difference33% 38% 38% 69% 69% 69% 69% 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% 11% 12% 15% 8%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)2% 10% 9% 9% 9% 9% 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 8% 8% 8% 8% 5% 8% 9% 9% 11% 3%Thrust (kN)0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3%Press Ratio11% 9% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 5% 6% 6% 6% 0%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 767-200/ER/EM, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCF6-80A 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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%NOx (g/LTO) 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,06611,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 11,066 14,527 14,527 11,878 11,987 11,878 11,878 11,878 11,878Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709709 709 709 709 709 709 818 818 731 836 731 731 731 731Thrust (kN) 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 208.8 222.4 222.4 216.5 249.1 216.5 216.5 216.5 216.5Press Ratio 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.029.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 24.2 24.2 30.1 29.3 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1NOx (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 12,026 11,899 11,991 12,046Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 754 756 757 759 767 764 769 771 768 770 770 771 776 781 783 797 800 796 805 806 801 798 798Thrust (kN) 213.4 215.1 216.2 218.0 221.6 221.0 222.5 224.0 224.6 224.6 224.5 224.8 226.7 228.2 229.2 231.9 233.6 233.7 236.2 236.4 235.7 233.4 232.4Press 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 28.2 28.4 28.2 28.1NOx (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 14,527 14,527 14,527 14,527NOx (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 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169Percent Difference31% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 74% 58% 58% 58% 58% 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% 1% 0% 1% 1%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)6% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 9% 8% 9% 9% 9% 10% 10% 10% 3% 2% 9% 4% 10% 10% 9% 9%Thrust (kN)2% 3% 4% 4% 6% 6% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 10% 4% 5% 8% 5% 9% 9% 8% 7%Press Ratio7% 7% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 15% 16% 6% 3% 6% 6% 6% 7%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 767-300/300ER, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCF6-80A2 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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 5% 6% 5% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6%NOx (g/LTO) 13,067 13,067 13,067 13,067 8,796 14,097 14,097 14,097 14,09714,097 14,097 14,097 14,097 12,420 12,420 12,420 12,420 12,420 12,420 12,420 12,420 12,420 12,420Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 810 810 810 810 760 887 887 887 887887 887 887 887 867 867 867 867 867 867 867 867 867 867Thrust (kN) 213.5 213.5 213.5 213.5 231.1 266.9 266.9 266.9 266.9266.9 266.9 266.9 266.9 267.0 267.0 267.0 267.0 267.0 267.0 267.0 267.0 267.0 267.0Press Ratio 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 27.7 32.4 32.4 32.4 32.432.4 32.4 32.4 32.4 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7NOx (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 13,364 13,374 13,372 13,493Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 810 793 805 827 839 852 853 853 850 853 857 858 859 858 859 857 858 860 860 861 862 862 862Thrust (kN) 213.5 219.4 232.4 244.5 247.3 253.2 254.2 254.4 254.4 254.9 256.2 256.8 257.2 257.4 257.7 257.7 257.9 258.9 258.7 258.9 259.2 259.5 258.7Press 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 30.9 31.0 31.0 31.0NOx (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 24,501 24,501 24,501 24,501NOx (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 9,169 9,169 9,169 9,169Percent Difference0% 49% 49% 60% 193% 193% 193% 193% 193% 167% 167% 167% 167% 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% 8% 8% 8% 9%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)0% 2% 1% 2% 10% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 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% 3% 3% 3% 3%Press Ratio0% 6% 15% 23% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultBoeing 777-200/200LR/233LR, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionGE90-110B1 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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 5% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%NOx (g/LTO) -------- -21,342 18,078 24,478 28,459 28,459 27,923 27,923 27,923 27,923 27,923 27,923 30,617 30,617 30,617Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) -------- -1082 981 1134 1193 1193 1166 1166 1166 1166 1166 1166 1203 1203 1203Thrust (kN) -------- -360.6 333.2 395.3 418.1 418.1 418.1 418.1 418.1 418.1 418.1 418.1 432.8 432.8 432.8Press Ratio -------- -35.3 32.2 38.0 39.8 39.8 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4 40.5 40.5 40.5NOx (g/LTO) -------- -20,909 19,796 22,541 23,623 24,072 24,462 25,016 25,476 25,903 25,722 26,018 26,197 26,425 26,456Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) -------- -1,055 1,078 1,126 1,144 1,149 1,148 1,167 1,177 1,180 1,176 1,181 1,187 1,195 1,195Thrust (kN) -------- -356.6 356.0 375.7 383.8 386.8 389.8 392.5 395.6 398.7 397.3 398.4 399.7 401.9 402.2Press Ratio -------- -34.6 35.0 36.8 37.5 37.7 37.8 38.2 38.5 38.7 38.5 38.7 38.8 38.9 38.8NOx (g/LTO) -------- -25,703 25,703 31,629 31,629 31,629 31,629 31,629 31,629 31,629 31,629 31,629 31,629 31,629 31,629NOx (g/LTO) -------- -18,078 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575 17,575Percent Difference -------- -42% 46% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%NOx (g/LTO) -------- -2% 10% 8% 17% 15% 12% 10% 9% 7% 8% 7% 14% 14% 14%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) -------- -2% 10% 1% 4% 4% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%Thrust (kN) -------- -1% 7% 5% 8% 7% 7% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 8% 7% 7%Press Ratio -------- -2% 9% 3% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultMcDonnell Douglas DC-10-30, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCF6-50C 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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%NOx (g/LTO) 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,88411,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884 11,884Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769 769Thrust (kN) 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4 230.4Press Ratio 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.428.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4NOx (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 11,743 11,713 11,750 11,730Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 760 760 761 761 762 762 761 761 762 763 764 765 763 763 764 765 765 764 763 766 765 754 765Thrust (kN) 227.5 227.6 227.9 228.0 228.1 228.3 227.6 227.8 228.2 228.5 228.8 229.1 228.6 228.5 228.8 229.3 229.2 229.0 228.4 229.3 229.1 224.0 229.2Press 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 28.3 28.3 28.0 28.3NOx (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 12,482 12,482 12,549 11,884NOx (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 11,116 11,116 11,116 11,116Percent Difference12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 7% 12% 12% 13% 7%NOx (g/LTO)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0%Thrust (kN)1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3% 1%Press Ratio1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultMcDonnell Douglas DC-9-30, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionJT8D-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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 6% 5% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%NOx (g/LTO) 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,4883,488 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 433433 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 64.564.5 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 15.915.9 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 3,552 3,578 3,530 -Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 442 443 443 444 444 442 442 442 441 444 444 446 446 444 446 448 446 436 437 438 440 437 -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 64.8 65.0 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 16.0 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 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 3,281 3,281 3,281-Percent Difference39% 39% 39% 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% 2% 3% 1% -Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% -Thrust (kN)1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% -Press Ratio1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultMcDonnell Douglas MD-11, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionCF6-80C2D1F 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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2%NOx (g/LTO) - - - - 12,714 14,097 14,097 14,097 12,71412,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - 845 887 887 887 845876 876 876 876 876 876 876 876 876 876 876 876 876 876Thrust (kN) - - - - 270.0 266.9 266.9 266.9 270.0270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0 270.0Press Ratio - - - - 32.9 32.4 32.4 32.4 32.932.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1NOx (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 13,489 13,419 13,406 13,213Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - - 845 872 870 869 871 887 887 888 887 888 888 887 886 883 886 886 885 884 882Thrust (kN) - - - - 270.0 268.0 268.2 268.6 269.5 269.9 270.0 270.3 270.4 270.6 270.6 270.5 270.6 270.1 271.0 270.8 270.6 270.4 270.3Press 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 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1NOx (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 15,864 15,864 15,864 15,864NOx (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 12,724 12,724 12,724 12,724Percent Difference - - - -0% 11% 11% 25% 25% 25% 25% 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% 6% 5% 5% 4%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) - - - -0% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 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% 0% 0% 0% 0%Press Ratio - - - -0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1-Default Weighted Weighted vs. DefaultMcDonnell Douglas DC9 Super 80/MD81/2/3/7/8, Most Popular vs. Inventory Weighted Average Engine (Foreign Fleet)All Possible Engines During The Study PeriodEngineTestDatePressRatioThrust(kN)Nox(g/LTO)Fuel(kg/LTO)DistributionJT8D-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 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008% of LTO 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 0%NOx (g/LTO) 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 5,9855,985 5,985 5,985 5,985 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504504 504 504 504 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493Thrust (kN) 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.792.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7Press Ratio 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.719.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1NOx (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 5,284 5,304 5,331 5,248Fuel Usage (kg/LTO) 492 494 496 497 499 500 501 501 502 503 503 503 503 498 498 498 498 499 498 498 498 499 498Thrust (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 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1Press 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 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.6NOx (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 6,106 6,106 6,106 6,106NOx (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 4,216 4,216 4,216 4,216Percent Difference20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 2% 2% 2% 45% 45% 45% 45% 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% 25% 26% 26% 24%Fuel Usage (kg/LTO)2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 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% 1% 1% 1% 2%Press Ratio2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Weighted Weighted vs. Default

1-Default

# 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 Inter national were selected as exampled to demonstrate

the variance of taxi-in and taxi-out times.

# Appendix G

Aircraft Crosswalk – Category Designations1 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 Seats

Count 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 62,8232 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 Seats

Count 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 6,5003 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 Seats

Count 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 3 251,7444 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 Seats

Count 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 49,8955 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 Seats

Count 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 7,0596 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 Seats

Count 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 AreasH-1Nonattainment Area NameAirport NameCitySTATEAlbuquerque, NM Albuquerque Intl Sunport Albuquerque NMAnchorage, AKTed Stevens Anchorage Intl Anchorage AKAnchorage, AKMerrill Field Anchorage AKAspenAspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy Field Aspen COAtlanta, GADobbins Air Reserve Base (Atlanta Nas) Marietta GAAtlanta, GAFulton County Airport-Brown Field Atlanta GAAtlanta, GADekalb-Peachtree Atlanta GAAtlanta, GAGwinnett County - Briscoe Field Lawrenceville GAAtlanta, GAHartsfield - Jackson Atlanta Intl Atlanta GABaltimore, MDLeeAnnapolis MDBaltimore, MDBaltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshal Baltimore MDBaltimore, MDMartin State Baltimore MDBoston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Marthas Vineyard Vineyard Haven MABoston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA WorcesterRgnl Worcester MABoston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Barnstable Muni-Boardman/Polando Field Hyannis MABoston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Provincetown Muni Provincetown MABoston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Laurence GHanscom Fld Bedford MABoston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl Boston MABoston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA New Bedford Rgnl New Bedford MABoston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Norwood Memorial Norwood MABoston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA MansfieldMuni Mansfield MABoston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Nantucket Memorial Nantucket MAH-2Nonattainment Area NameAirport NameCitySTATEBoston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA LawrenceMuni Lawrence MABoston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA Katama Airpark Edgartown MABoston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA FitchburgMuni Fitchburg MABoston-Manchester-Portsmouth (southeast NH), NH BoireField Nashua NHBoston-Manchester-Portsmouth (southeast NH), NH Portsmouth Intl At Pease Portsmouth NHBoston-Manchester-Portsmouth (southeast NH), NH Manchester Manchester NHCharlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC Rowan County SalisburyNCCharlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC Charlotte/Douglas IntlCharlotte NCCharlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC Concord Rgnl Concord NCChicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Chicago ExecutiveChicago/ProspectHeights/WheelingILChicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Chicago O'Hare Intl ChicagoILChicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Chicago Midway Intl ChicagoILChicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN DupageChicago/West Chicago ILChicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Gary/Chicago Intl Gary INChicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Porter County Muni Valparaiso INCincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Airborne Airpark Wilmington OHCincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Cincinnati/Northern KentuckyIntl Covington KYCincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Cincinnati Muni Airport Lunken Field Cincinnati OHCleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH Cleveland-Hopkins Intl Cleveland OHCleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH Lorain County Rgnl Lorain/Elyria OHCleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH Cuyahoga County Cleveland OHCleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH Akron-Canton Rgnl Akron OHH-3Nonattainment Area NameAirport NameCitySTATECleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH Burke Lakefront Cleveland OHCleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH Kent State Univ Kent OHDallas-Fort Worth, TX Arlington Muni Arlington TXDallas-Fort Worth, TX AddisonDallas TXDallas-Fort Worth, TX Dallas/Fort Worth Intl Dallas-Fort Worth TXDallas-Fort Worth, TX Dallas Love Field Dallas TXDallas-Fort Worth, TX KittyhawkAllen TXDallas-Fort Worth, TX Denton Muni Denton TXDallas-Fort Worth, TX Fort Worth Meacham Intl Fort Worth TXDallas-Fort Worth, TX Fort Worth, Tx: Carswell Air Force Base Fort Worth TXDallas-Fort Worth, TX Fort Worth Alliance Fort WorthTXDenver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Denver Intl Denver CODenver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, CO RockyMountain Metropolitan Denver CODenver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, CO CentennialDenver CODenver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, CO FortCollins-Loveland Muni Fort Collins/Loveland CODetroit-Ann Arbor, MI Coleman A. Young Muni Detroit MIDetroit-Ann Arbor, MI Oakland County Intl Pontiac MIDetroit-Ann Arbor, MI Detroit Metropolitan Wayne CountyDetroit MIDetroit-Ann Arbor, MI Detroit, MI: (Metropolitan Area)Detroit MIDetroit-Ann Arbor, MI Willow Run Detroit MIDetroit-Ann Arbor, MI Selfridge Angb Mount Clemens MIDetroit-Ann Arbor, MI St Clair County Intl Port Huron MIGreater Connecticut, CT Groton-New London Groton (New London) CTH-4Nonattainment Area NameAirport NameCitySTATEGreater Connecticut, CT Bradley Intl Windsor Locks CTGreater Connecticut, CT Hartford-Brainard Hartford CTHouston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX Ellington Field HoustonTXHouston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX Sugar Land Rgnl Houston TXHouston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX William P Hobby Houston TXHouston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX George Bush Intercontinental/Houston Houston TXHouston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX Lake Jackson, TX: Brazoria County Lake Jackson TXHouston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX Scholes Intl At Galveston Galveston TXIndianapolis, INAnderson Muni-Darlington Field Anderson INIndianapolis, INIndianapolis Intl Indianapolis INLas Vegas, NVNellis AFB Las Vegas NVLas Vegas, NVNorth Las Vegas Las Vegas NVLas Vegas, NVMc Carran Intl Las Vegas NVLas Vegas, NVBoulder City Muni Boulder City NVLos Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Bob HopeBurbank CALos Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA March ArbRiverside CALos Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Long Beach /Daugherty Field/ Long Beach CALos Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Los Angeles Intl Los Angeles CALos Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Santa Monica Muni Santa Monica CALos Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Ontario Intl Ontario CALos Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA John Wayne Airport-Orange County Santa Ana CALos Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Van NuysVan Nuys CALos Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Los Alamitos AafLos Alamitos CAH-5Nonattainment Area NameAirport NameCitySTATELos Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Southern CaliforniaLogistics Victorville CALos Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA Palmdale Rgnl/USAF Plant 42 Palmdale CALouisville, KY-IN Louisville Intl-Standiford Field Louisville KYMemphis, TN-AR Memphis Intl Memphis TNMemphis, TN-AR Millington Rgnl Jetport Millington TNMilwaukee-Racine, WI General Mitchell Intl Milwaukee WIMilwaukee-Racine, WI John H Batten Racine WIMilwaukee-Racine, WI Waukesha County Waukesha WIMilwaukee-Racine, WI Kenosha Rgnl Kenosha WIMinneapolis-St Paul, MN St Paul Downtown Holman Fld St Paul MNMinneapolis-St Paul, MN Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain Minneapolis MNNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT StewartIntl Newburgh NYNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT New York,NY: Metropolitan New York NYNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Waterbury-Oxford Oxford CTNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT MontaukMontauk NYNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT West 30th St. New York NYNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT TeterboroTeterboro NJNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Morristown Muni Morristown NJNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT La GuardiaNew York NYNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT RepublicFarmingdale NYNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Elizabeth Field Fishers Island NYNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT MonmouthExecutive Belmar/Farmingdale NJNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Igor I Sikorsky Memorial Bridgeport CTH-6Nonattainment Area NameAirport NameCitySTATENew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Newark Liberty Intl Newark NJNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT FrancisS Gabreski Westhampton Beach NYNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Port Auth-Dwntn-Manhattan/Wall St New York NYNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Tweed-NewHaven New Haven CTNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Long Island Mac Arthur Islip NYNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Essex County Caldwell NJNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT East Hampton East Hampton NYNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Westchester County White Plains NYNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT John F Kennedy Intl New York NYNew York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Danbury Muni Danbury CTPhildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE NewCastle Wilmington DEPhildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Pottstown Muni Pottstown PAPhildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Willow Grove Nas Jrb Willow Grove PAPhildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Mc Guire AFB Wrightstown NJPhildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Northeast Philadelphia Philadelphia PAPhildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Trenton Mercer Trenton NJPhildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Philadelphia Intl Philadelphia PAPhildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Robert J. Miller Air Park Toms River NJPhildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Millville Muni Millville NJPhildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE DoverAFB Dover DEPhildelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE Atlantic City Intl Atlantic City NJPhoenix-Mesa, AZ Gateway East Knxv Tv Phoenix AZPhoenix-Mesa, AZ Falcon FldMesa AZH-7Nonattainment Area NameAirport NameCitySTATEPhoenix-Mesa, AZ Phoenix Goodyear Goodyear AZPhoenix-Mesa, AZ Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix AZPhoenix-Mesa, AZ Glendale Muni Glendale AZPhoenix-Mesa, AZ Southern Command Police Station PhoenixAZPhoenix-Mesa, AZ Chandler Muni Chandler AZPhoenix-Mesa, AZ Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl Phoenix AZPittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA Allegheny County Pittsburgh PAPittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA Arnold Palmer Rgnl Latrobe PAPittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA Pittsburgh Intl PittsburghPAPittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA Butler County/K W ScholterField Butler PAProvidence (entire State), RI Block Island State Block Island RIProvidence (entire State), RI Theodore Francis Green State Providence RIProvidence (entire State), RI North Central State Pawtucket RIProvidence (entire State), RI Newport State Newport RIProvidence (entire State), RI Quonset State North Kingstown RIProvidence (entire State), RI Westerly State Westerly RIRaleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Raleigh-Durham Intl Raleigh/Durham NCRaleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Person County Roxboro NCReno, NVReno/Tahoe Intl Reno NVRiverside County (Coachella Valley), CA Palm Springs Intl Palm Springs CASacramento Metro, CA Mc Clellan Airfield SacramentoCASacramento Metro, CA Sacramento Intl Sacramento CASacramento Metro, CA Sacramento Mather Sacramento CAH-8Nonattainment Area NameAirport NameCitySTATESalt Lake City, UT Salt Lake City Intl Salt Lake City UTSan Diego, CAMiramar Mcas San Diego CASan Diego, CANorth Island Nas /Halsey Field/ San Diego CASan Diego, CASan Diego Intl San Diego CASan Diego, CABrown Field Muni San Diego CASan Diego, CAMc Clellan-Palomar Carlsbad CASan Francisco Bay Area, CA Metropolitan Oakland Intl Oakland CASan Francisco Bay Area, CA Napa County Napa CASan Francisco Bay Area, CA Travis AFB Fairfield CASan Francisco Bay Area, CA San Francisco Intl San Francisco CASan Francisco Bay Area, CA Charles M. Schulz - Sonoma County Santa Rosa CASan Francisco Bay Area, CA San Francisco, CA: ChinaBasin Heliport San Francisco CASan Francisco Bay Area, CA Norman Y. Mineta San JoseIntl San Jose CASan Francisco Bay Area, CA Moffett Federal Afld Mountain View CASan Joaquin Valley, CA Merced Muni/Macready Field Merced CASan Joaquin Valley, CA Porterville Muni Porterville CASan Joaquin Valley, CA Visalia Muni Visalia CASan Joaquin Valley, CA Fresno Yosemite Intl Fresno CASan Joaquin Valley, CA Meadows Field Bakersfield CASan Joaquin Valley, CA Madera Muni Madera CASan Joaquin Valley, CA Stockton Metropolitan Stockton CASan Joaquin Valley, CA CastleMerced CASan Joaquin Valley, CA Modesto City-Co-Harry Sham Fld Modesto CAH-9Nonattainment Area NameAirport NameCitySTATESeattle-Tacoma, WA Kenmore Air Harbor Inc Kenmore WASeattle-Tacoma, WA Snohomish County (Paine Fld) Everett WASeattle-Tacoma, WA Tacoma Narrows Tacoma WASeattle-Tacoma, WA Boeing Field/King County Intl SeattleWASeattle-Tacoma, WALake Union Seaplane Base, Wa: Lake Union SeaPlane BaseLake Union SeaplaneBaseWASeattle-Tacoma, WA Renton Muni Renton WASeattle-Tacoma, WA Seattle-Tacoma Intl Seattle WASeattle-Tacoma, WA Mcchord AFB Tacoma WASt. Louis, MO-ILSt Louis Downtown Cahokia/St Louis ILSt. Louis, MO-ILLambert-St Louis Intl St Louis MOSt. Louis, MO-ILScott AFB/Midamerica Belleville ILSt. Louis, MO-ILSpirit of St Louis St Louis MOSyracuse, NYSyracuse Hancock Intl Syracuse NYWashington, DC-MD-VA Leesburg Executive Leesburg VAWashington, DC-MD-VA Washington Dulles Intl Washington VAWashington, DC-MD-VA Andrews AFB Camp Springs MDWashington, DC-MD-VA Ronald Reagan Washington National Washington VAEl Paso County, TX El Paso Intl El Paso TXLake Tahoe South Shore, CA Lake Tahoe South Lake Tahoe CA

# Appendix I

Non-Commercial Aircraft Covered by ICAO Provisions

# I-1

TO: Bryan Manning

U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality Asses sment 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, som e 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 comme rcial air carrier services (e.g.,

those aircraft used in general aviation service). We wil l refer to these aircraft as non-air carrier

aircraft equipped with engines covered by ICAO gaseous emiss ions provisions. These aircraft

include, aircraft used by business to transport senior employ ees 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 ar e 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., air frame make and model, engine model and

thrust) to differentiate ICAO applicability. ERG has dete rmined that an appropriate approach for

approximating the activity and emissions from these non-ai r carrier aircraft is by using the FAA

Aircraft Registry to identify aircraft equipped with engi nes covered by ICAO provisions that are

not associated with airline-type activities, applying typi cal 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. Go vernment, States and territories

must be registered with the FAA. Registrants can incl ude a trustee or someone who holds a legal

title to the aircraft. Registrant types included in th e FAA data base are summarized in Table 1 for

aircraft not pending sale.

# I-2 Table 1. Aircraft Included in FAA Registration Database a



# 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 n oted in Table 1.

The Registry also includes a list of certificated deale rs. Dealer's Aircraft Registration

Certificates are issued to allow manufacturers to make a ny required flight tests of aircraft or to

facilitate operating, demonstrating, and merchandising air craft by the manufacturer without the

burden of obtaining a Certificate of Aircraft Registrati on. 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 a ssociated 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 vari ations or series for each model; Boeing

alone has over 1,200 models including nine versions of the 777 F reighter (i.e., 777FZN, 777FZB,

777FHT, 777FDZ, 777-F6N, 777F28, 777F1H, 777F1B, and 777F). The most popular a ircraft

(1.7 percent of total or 5,989 aircraft) is the fixed wing si ngle engine Piper model PA-28-140.

Table 2 below shows the Registry engine types. A large f raction of aircraft are equipped

with either a reciprocating engines (i.e., piston) or th e 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 re gistered aircraft.

21 

# Meserve, Jeanne & Mike M. Ahlers. FAA Orders Re-registra tion of Thousands of Private Aircraft. CNN, 10 Dec.

2010. Web. 24 Jan. 2011. <http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/10/faa.re.regi stration/index.html?iref=allsearch>.

Chris Hawley, Missing airplanes data has FAA forcing owne rs to submit information again, December 10, 2010,

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1210/Mi ssing-airplanes-data-has-FAA-forcing-ownersto-submit-information-again

22 

# 14 CFR Part 47.61

# I-3 Table 2. Aircraft Engine Types a



# 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 exclude s 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 t urbo-jet were removed leaving

21,921 aircraft.

2) All aircraft whose engines are rated less than or equa l 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 c arrier activities, the following

assumptions were made:

1. Banks may own executive jets for their own purposes or th ey may be shown as

owners for aircraft that are in default of payment. T his latter category of aircraft

are likely parked and not actively flown. Because it is n ot possible to easily

determine which aircraft are owned and used by bank executives for banking

activities and which aircraft are associated with reposs ession, it was assumed that

during this economic period bank related activities were les s significant than

aircraft repossessions. Therefore, any aircraft assoc iated 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 therefo re 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 f rom 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 the se activities would include

corporations flying staff to meetings or shipment of high va lue equipment to

manufacturing facilities. Collectively these registran ts own a total of 3,096 nonair carrier aircraft (Registration Categories E and F ).

Search terms used to identify owners for categories A t hrough D are noted in Table 3.

The category assignments were made by searching the corpo ration 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

Groupings c



# D - Aircraft Manufacturers Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon,

Grumman, General Dynamics,

Honeywell, General Electric,

Cessna, Beechcraft, Gulfstream

Aerospace, Hunter Aviation,

Bombardier, Certificated Dealers d

a 

# These registrants perform commercial activities (see di scussion 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 Air line Information issues directives that provide regulator y

clarity. Directive Number 299, issued October 19 th 

# 2010, defines the Air Carrier Groupings. For example, “Air

Tran” operating revenue is over $1 billion therefore the ir reporting level is Group III. Suissa, Anne. Y. Air Carrier

Groupings. U. S. Department of Transportation, Office of A irline Information, 19 Oct. 2010. Web. 24 Jan. 2011.

<http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/accounting_a nd_reporting_directives/number_299.html>.

d 

# Pursuant to 14 CFR §47.61, the FAA issues a Dealer’s Air craft Registration Certificate to U.S. manufacturers and

dealers to allow manufacturers to make any required flig ht tests of aircraft, facilitate operating, demonstrat ing, and

merchandising aircraft by the manufacturer or dealer without the burden of obtaining a Registration.



# A complete list of non-air carrier aircraft subject t o 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 as sumed 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 Gene ral 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 ma tched to aircraft in EDMS. In order to estimate emissi ons

for these unmatched aircraft, default emission factors were developed.



# 2.4 EMISSION CALCULATIONS

All identified non-air carrier aircraft equipped with engi nes covered by ICAO provisions

were matched to airframes and engines in EDMS 5.2 using t he crosswalk table developed for this

project that links engines to each airframe. The model wa s 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 es timate emissions for these

unmatched aircraft, default emission factors were develope d from the matched aircraft by

summing emissions for each pollutant and dividing by the tota l LTOs associated with the

matched aircraft. This same approach was used for aircraf t 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 app lied 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 carrie r Aircraft Covered by

ICAO Provisions

Year LTO CO (kg) VOC (kg) NO X 

# (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 tha t 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 include d 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_statisti cs/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 LT O

cycle is divided into six phases: approach, taxi in, star tup, 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 Provi sions

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