EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 1.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1455 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESMENT 
Accompanying the document 
on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-
related operating restrictions at Union airports within a Balanced Approach and 
repealing Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
{COM(2011) 828 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1456 final}  
 
EN 2   EN This report commits only the Commission’s servic es involved in its preparation and does not 
prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission.  
 
EN 3   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties...............................................6 
1.1. Organisation and timing................................................................................................6 1.2. Consultation and expertise............................................................................................6 1.3. Results of the consultation of the Impact Assessment Board.......................................7 2. Problem definition ........................................................................................................8 2.1. Policy context ............................................................................................................ ...8 
2.2. Description and scope of the problem ........................................................................14 2.2.1. The specific rules on MCA are no longer effective....................................................16 2.2.2. The existing legal framework does not ensure that operating restricti ons are considered at 
airports with broadly comp arable noise problems in a consistent manner .................18 
2.3. Stakeholders affected..................................................................................................23 2.4. What if present trends continue? ................................................................................26 2.5. The EU's right to act ...................................................................................................28  
3. Objectives .................................................................................................................. .29 
3.1. Policy objectives......................................................................................................... 29 
3.2. Consistency with horizontal object ives of the European Union.................................31 
4. Description of Policy Options.....................................................................................31 4.1. Establishing Policy Options........................................................................................31 4.2. Discussing the legal instrument ..................................................................................34 5. Impact analysis of Policy Options ..............................................................................36 5.1. Impact on the implementation of the Balanced Approach .........................................36 5.2. Economic impacts.......................................................................................................36 5.2.1. Impact on the efficient functioning of the European aviation network ......................37 5.2.2. Impact on airport capacity ..........................................................................................38 5.2.3. Impact on aircraft operators........................................................................................38 5.2.4. Impact on airframe and aircra ft engine manufacturers...............................................40 
5.2.5. Impact on innovation and research .............................................................................42 5.2.6. Impact on administrative costs ...................................................................................42 5.2.7. Impact on EU budget ..................................................................................................44 
 
EN 4   EN 5.2.8. Impact on international relations ................................................................................45 
5.3. Social impacts............................................................................................................ .45 
5.3.1. Impact on governance and participation.....................................................................46 5.3.2. Impact on employment level and conditions ..............................................................46 5.3.3. Impact on safety........................................................................................................ ..46 
5.4. Environmental impacts ...............................................................................................46 5.4.1. Impact on noise climate ..............................................................................................47 5.4.2. Impact on greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions ....................................................47 5.5. Conclusions............................................................................................................... ..48 
6. Comparison of the options..........................................................................................49 6.1. Effectiveness............................................................................................................. ..50 
6.2. Efficiency................................................................................................................ ....51 
6.3. Coherence ................................................................................................................. ..51 
6.4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ ..51 
7. Monitoring and evaluation..........................................................................................52 8. Reference documents..................................................................................................54 9. Appendices.................................................................................................................. 56 
1. The European approach to noise.................................................................................61 
2. The phenomenon of aviation noise.............................................................................64 3. Aviation as an engine to inclusive growth..................................................................65 
4. Health impacts of aviation noise and annoyance........................................................66 5. The ICAO Noise Standard Setting Process ................................................................67 5.1.1. Parameters for the economic costs for airlines  with the extended definition of marginal 
compliant aircraft........................................................................................................83 
 
EN 5   EN 
 
EN 6   EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
Identification  
Lead DG: Directorate General for Mobility and Transport 
Agenda Planning: 2008/MOVE/054 
Proposal for a Regulation on rules and procedures w ith regard to the intr oduction of noise-related 
operating restrictions at EU airports which w ill repeal Directive 2002/30/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 
1.1. Organisation and timing  
1. This impact assessment (IA) has been prepared  in two phases. The fi rst phase started in 
2007 with an external report assessing th e implementation of Directive 2002/30/EC 
(hereinafter "the Directive")1. The Commission's assessment  was presented in a report 
adopted in 20082 by which it has invited all stakeholders to provide comments. 
Subsequently the second phase of the IA cycl e was initiated, consisting of the appropriate 
consultations of stakeholde rs, the establishment of a Commission Impact Assessment 
Steering Group (IASG). The Impact Assessmen t Board examined tw o draft IA reports 
already on 14 July 2008 and 9 October 2008 respectively.  
2. The current proposal forms part of a wider 'A irport Package' which is planned to include 
also proposals on airport slots, and groundha ndling. The common trait of all of these 
proposals is their impact on airport capacity a nd hence on the performa nce of the European 
transport network. 
3. The IASG3 was reconvened, met five times and had the opportunity to comment on the 
final version of the IA report until 23 June 20114. Stakeholders were also given the 
opportunity to endorse or amend their earlier positions. 
1.2. Consultation and expertise 
4. The most affected stakeholders concerning noise and aviation are th e airlines (with air 
cargo as specific niche), aircraft manufact urers, airports, community groups and 
independent noise councils. These stakeholders were intensely consulted as outlined below: 
– in 2007 the external consultant  collected responses  to questionnaires received, and made 
interviews with a range of stakeholders on the implementation of Directive 2002/30/EC; 
                                                
 
1 MPD Group Ltd, (2007), " Study of Aircraft Noise Exposure at and around Community Airports: Evaluation of 
the Effect of Measures to Reduce Noise ". 
2 COM(2008) 66, Report from the Commission to the Co uncil and the European Parliament - Noise Operation 
Restrictions at EU Airports (Report on the application of Directive 2002/30/EC).  
3 The services involved in this gro up included the Secretariat-General, Le gal Service, DG Climate Action, DG 
Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, DG Enterprise and Indust ry, DG Environment, DG 
Health and Consumers, and DG Research. 
4 The IASG met on 27 May 2010, on 6 July 2010, on 2 September 2010, 19 October 2010 and on 17 June 2011. 
 
EN 7   EN – in 2008 the Commission organi sed an open consultation on the ways forward to 
amend the Directive on basis of the report referred to above; 
– in 2010, all stakeholders were again cont acted to see whethe r the organisations 
wanted to endorse their 2008 posit ions or not, in particular to give  their views on the 
possible amendments of the directive; in addition, the range of stakeholders was widened with (1) Autorité de Contrôle  des Nuisances Aéroportuaires (ACNUSA), 
the French independent noise council; (2) the Aviation Environmental Federation, 
representing UK, DE, FR community ac tion groups; and (3) the Aerospace and 
Defence industries Associat ion in Europe (ASD). 
5. All in all, the aviation comm unity, including the relevant community groups, have been 
fully able to contribute to the current pr oposal for the review of Directive 2002/30/EC. 
Their views have been assesse d and appropriately taken into  consideration. Appendix 1 
demonstrates that the general principles a nd minimum standards for consultation of the 
interested parties by the Commission were re spected. The full details of the consultation 
are given in Appendix 2: Details of the consultation process and outcome.  
1.3. Results of the consultation of  the Impact Assessment Board 
6. In the course of preparing this IA, the Im pact Assessment Board delivered three opinions, 
on 14 July 2008, 9 October 2008 and 22 July 2011, respectively. This report has been 
improved to fully reflect the main recommendations for improvement made by the Board in its opinions. These recommendations related (1 ) to the policy context with a clarification 
of the scope of the addressed problems; (2) to  the control function of the Commission; and 
(3) to other aspects of the problem definition. 
7. The report now explains the wider policy contex t of noise standards and indicates the role 
of operating restrictions as one of the available tools to mitigate noise nuisances in Appendix 3: Overview of international a nd EU policies affecting airport noise. The 
relationship between this directive and the pr eparation of noise ac tions plans under the 
Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC wa s clarified. The information requirements 
for assessing the impact of noise restrictions we re also highlighted with particular attention 
to potential effects.  
8. The problem definition is more focused and more  limited in scope, so as to make realistic 
progress within a better-iden tified area of action. The Impact  Assessment also develops 
now a range of realistic policy options with regard to the problem identified in relation to 
the Directive. 
9. Concerning the third main recommendation of the Board, the justification for the scrutiny 
right for the Commission is documented, pointin g to the weaknesses of the current system 
and assessing alternatives.  
10. Finally, the revised IA report has also been fine-tuned on the basis of  the more technical 
comments transmitted to DG MOVE. 
 
EN 8   EN 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. Policy context 
11. In 2006, the European Council adopted the Rene wed Sustainable Development Strategy of 
the European Union5 which sets as its operational objective " Reducing transport noise both 
at source and through mitigation measures to ensure overall exposure levels minimise 
impacts on health ". 
12. On 28 March 2011, the Commission adopted the White Paper on Transport 'Roadmap to a 
Single European Transport Area – Towards a co mpetitive and resource efficient transport 
system'6. The White Paper recognised that airports pl ay a capital role in  the aviation chain. 
Their well-functioning and efficiency is central  for the successful delivery of the Single 
European Sky reform; and the White Paper ca lled for a more efficient use of airport 
capacity to tackle the expected saturation of Eu ropean skies and airports. In this respect, 
the Commission Staff Working Docume nt accompanying the White Paper7 noted that 
aircraft noise is often the reason for the di fficulty of expanding airp ort capacity at major 
European hubs. 
Noise policy in the EU  
13. Noise policy is a shared responsibility between  the EU and the Member States. The local 
nature of noise problems does not mean that all action is be st taken at local level, as 
sources of noise are not always of local origin. However, eff ective action is very dependent 
on strong local and national policie s and these need to be more closely related to measures 
decided at Community level. 
14. For this reason and further to its 1996 Green Paper on Future Noise Policy8, the 
Commission developed a framework for noise  policy, based on shared responsibility 
between the EU, national and local level, a nd including measures to improve the accuracy 
and standardisation of data to help improve the coherency of different actions. As part of 
the effort to tackle noise pollution, the Eur opean Union has laid down a common approach 
to avoiding, preventing or reducing on a prioritis ed basis the harmful effects of exposure to 
environmental noise. This approach is ba sed on using common methods to map noise, on 
providing information to the public and on implementing action plans at local level.  
15. The Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC9 serves as a basis for developing EU 
measures concerning noise sources. Aircraft no ise is considered to be one of the major 
sources of noise.10 Directive 2002/49/EC aims to defi ne a common approach to avoid, 
prevent or reduce the harmful effects, in cluding annoyance, of environmental noise. 
                                                 
5 European Council, June 2006 
6 COM(2011) 144. 
7 Commission staff working document accompanying the White Paper - Roadmap to a Single European 
Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource e fficient transport system (SEC(2011) 391 final). 
8 COM(96)540 
9 Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the 
assessment and management of environmental noise - Declaration by the Commission in the Conciliation 
Committee on the Directive relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise. 
10 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council concerning existing Community 
measures relating to sources of environmental noise, purs uant to article 10.1 of Directive 2002/49/EC relating 
to the assessment and management of environmental noise - COM(2004) 160 final. 
 
EN 9   EN Eventually it aims at developing European m easures to reduce noise emitted by road, rail, 
aircraft, industrial equipment and mobile machinery. This di rective covers airports with 
more than 50,000 movements. The noise assessm ents are based on harmonized indicators, 
assessment methods and noise mapping. For aviati on, a reference is made to the relevant 
international guidance material11. 
                                                 
11 ECAC document 29. – report on standard method of computing noise contours around civil airports. 
 
EN 10   EN  
Figure 1: Interaction between the Directive and other EU policies 
Balanced approach to aircraft noise management at international level 
16. In 2001, the International Civil Aviation Or ganisation (hereinaft er ICAO) Assembly 
endorsed the concept of a "balanced approach" to ai rcraft noise management12, 13. The 
Assembly in 2007 reaffirmed the "balanced ap proach" principle and called upon States to 
recognize ICAO’s role in dealing with  the problems of aircraft noise.14 
17. The ICAO Balanced Approach offers a policy framework to reduce noise at airports in a 
cost-effective manner and usi ng restrictions on operations15 not as a first resort, but only 
after consideration of other possible measures16. According to the defi nition adopted by the 
                                                 
12 Appendix C of Assembly Resolution A35-5 
13 Additional information is provided on the Balanced Approach in 
Appendix 3: Overview of international and EU policies affecting airport noise. 
14 Appendix C of Assembly Resolution A36-22 
15 Operating restrictions mean noise related actions that limit or reduce acce ss of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes to 
an airport.  
16 ICAO Assembly Resolution A36-22 " Encourages States to […] not apply operating restrictions as a first 
resort but only after consideration of the benefits to be gained from other elements of the balanced approach 
 
EN 11   EN Organization, " the balanced approach to noise manageme nt developed by ICAO consists 
of identifying the no ise problem at an airport and then analysing the various measures 
available to reduce noise th rough the exploration of four principal elements, namely 
reduction at source, land-use planning and management17, noise abatement operational 
procedures18 and operating restrictions, with the goal  of addressing the noise problem in 
the most cost-effective manner "19. 
18. The Balanced Approach adds value through se tting out a framework for authorities to 
pursue a consistent noise management policy, tailo red to the characteristics of the airport. 
It is designed to provide a range of policy options for policy makers. It should lead to 
consultation of all actors involved and to evidence-based decision-making guided by the 
objective of cost-effectiveness in each cas e where the noise management policy is 
amended by the airports or competent authorities.  
Box 1: An example of good practice 
In 2007-2008, substantial political pressure was mounting from local  and national politici ans to introduce a 
complete night ban at Paris Charles De Gaulle airport (CDG), one of the main entry points into France and 
Europe. CDG has more than 500,000 flight movements a year, more than London and Frankfurt. It also is the 
European home base for FedEx and has intense night activities. At the same time, CDG operates a partial 
night curfew. The CDG 'heliotropolis', the 'city of the air' attracting more industrial activities and services, 
creates more than 12,000 direct jobs. 
With such political pressure to swiftly introduce a co mplete night ban as the only possible remedy, the 
French Directorate General for Civil Aviation (DGCA) st arted a process of intense consultation and analysis 
based on the Balanced Approach. A survey conducted among stakeholders revealed that most of the 
annoyance was in fact created by an increase in traffic during the 10-12pm  time period when most people try 
to get to sleep, and over particular zones. On the basis of this result, the DGCA analysed the range of 
measures already in place. Indeed, fo r years, CDG had given equal attenti on to all four pillars of the ICAO 
Balanced Approach. The analys is showed that the potential of the re duction of noise at source and land use 
planning had already fully been utilized, toge ther with that of operational measures. 
At the end of this 3-year consultation and analysis , the DGCA came up with a combination of measures 
which delivers better environmental protection and preserves long-term environmental sustainability. The 
number of people affected by a 50dB(A) air traffic noise level at night would decrease by 70%  from the 
current 90,000 to 24,000 in 2017, whilst growth of air traffic is maintained. 
Beyond operational improvements, the measures also focus on the least noise performing aircraft. As from 
2012, all aircraft must satisfy chapter 3 minus 8; from 2014, the margin is increased to minus 10. The 
measure does not impact chapter 4 aircraft. 
19. In this context, the scope for EU action is limited by the regulatory framework set out at 
international level. Reducti on at source means noise reduc tion through the adoption and 
implementation of the noise certification sta ndards. The adoption and implementation of 
certification standards is within  the authority of the ICAO. 
                                                                                                                                                                  
and in a manner which is consistent with Appendix E [on local noise-related operating restrictions at airports] 
to this Resolution and taking into account the possible impact of such restrictions at other airports " 
17 Land-use planning and management measures can be categorized as planning instruments (comprehensive 
planning, noise zoning, subdivision regulations, transfer of development rights, and easement acquisition), 
mitigating instruments (building codes, noise insulation programmes, land acquisition and relocation, 
transaction assistance, real estate disclosure, and noise barriers), financial instruments (capital improvements, 
tax incentives. 
18 ICAO's noise abatement procedures such as use of flight departure and approach routings or use of approach 
procedures are also contained in Annex 16. 
19 As established in ICAO Assembly Resolution A33-7. 
 
EN 12   EN 20. In this respect, it is worth noting that ICAO has set progressively tighter certification 
standards for noise emissions from civil aircra ft. Aircraft operating in  Member States must 
conform to these standards, which are know n as Chapters. The Chapters set maximum 
acceptable noise levels for different aircraft  during landing and take-off. The Commission 
has systematically transposed ICAO noise standards into European law20 to reduce noise at 
source and promote the use of quieter aircraft: aircraft falling within Chapter 2 have been 
banned from operating within the EU since 1 April 2002, unless they are granted specific 
exemptions. The vast majority of civil ai rcraft now operating therefore fall within 
Chapters 3 and 4, i.e. they are less than half as noisy as the previous Chapter 2 aircraft. All 
new aircraft manufactured from  2006 onwards have to meet the requirements of Chapter 4.  
The Directive 
21. In this context, the Directive, acting unde r the umbrella of the Environmental Noise 
Directive, implements one of the four main p illars of ICAO's Balanced Approach to noise 
management at EU airports. This is because , in addition to the limitation described above, 
the scope for EU action with respect to certain type of measures such as land use planning, 
operational procedures or insulation programme s is limited further for subsidiarity and 
proportionality considerations.  
22. Within the regulatory framework described above, the aim of the Directive is to facilitate 
the introduction of operating restrictions in a c onsistent manner at airport level so as to 
limit or reduce the number of people signifi cantly affected by the harmful effects of 
noise.21  
23. To this end, the Directive la ys down a common framework of rules and procedures  for the 
introduction of operating restrictions at Co mmunity airports, as part of a balanced 
approach on noise management. The purpose of this common framework is to safeguard environmental protection around EU  airports in a way that is compatible with internal 
market requirements by considering similar opera ting restrictions at airports with broadly 
comparable noise problems. The common fram ework includes asse ssment of the noise 
impact at an airport and evaluation of the meas ures available to alleviate that impact, and 
selection of the appropriate mitigation meas ures with the goal of achieving the maximum 
environmental benefit most cost effectively.
22  
24. More precisely, the Directive lays down rules on how to carry out in general the noise 
assessment process , which has to be taken into account  prior to the introduction of noise 
related operations restrictions.23 Operating restrictions are de fined as noise related actions 
that limit or reduce acce ss of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes to an airport; and they include 
operating restrictions of a partial nature , affecting the operation of civil subsonic 
aeroplanes according to time peri od. Operating restrictions or noise related restrictions of 
                                                 
20 E.g. Council Directive 98/20/EC amending Directiv e 92/14/EEC on the limitation of operation of aeroplanes 
covered by Part II , Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. 
21 The objectives of Directive 2002/30/EC are set out in Article  1. In particular, states th at "[the objectives of this 
Directive are] to "lay down rules for the Community to facilitate the introduction of operating restrictions in a 
consistent manner at airport level so as to limit or re duce the number of people si gnificantly affected by the 
harmful effects of noise;[…] "to enable measures to be chosen from those available with the aim of achieving 
maximum environmental benefits in the most cost-effec tive manner". Directive 2002/30/EC, Art. 1(a) and Art. 
1(e)  
22 See Recital 7 of the Directive. 
23 See Article 5 of the Directive. 
 
EN 13   EN traffic can be inter alia curfews (limiting operations duri ng a certain period of time), 
quotas, noise budget, noise level limits and rest rictions on the opera tions of Chapter 3 
aircrafts24. 
25. In addition, the Directive also sets up specific rules on the introduction of operating 
restrictions aimed at th e withdrawal of marginally compliant aircraft  (hereinafter MCA). 
The latter are defined by the Directive as aerop lanes that have a cumulative margin of no 
more than 5 decibels in relation to Chapter 3 certification limits. The Directive also defines a time schedule of 5 years for the introduction of  the total phase-out of MCA. Completely 
banning certain aircraft complying with ICAO cer tified noise standards from operations at 
specific airports is a strong policy instrument which coul d have far reaching economic 
consequences for airlines, unless an appropria te transition period is implemented enabling 
airlines to adapt to the new noise regime. This  set of specific rules is aimed at ensuring an 
optimal targeting of operating restrictions on the noisiest ai rcraft and at the same time 
protect the legitimate economic intere sts of airlines and the citizens. 
26. Finally, the Directive sets out a procedure  to be followed by the relevant authorities on the 
introduction of any new operating restriction.  This procedure covers areas such as 
consultation of stakeholders, prior inform ation of the Commission and other Member 
States and right of appeal. 
27. The Directive currently covers the 69 European  airports as they have more than 50 000 
movements of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes per calendar year. 
Interaction between the Direct ive and the Balanced Approach 
28. The interaction between the Directive and the Balanced Approach is schematically 
presented in Figure 2. While instruments su ch as land-use planning and operational 
procedures are not directly covered in the Directive for subsidiari ty and proportionality 
reasons, their interaction with operating restri ctions must be recognised. This is because 
the Balanced Approach requires all other measur es to be first taken into account before an 
operating restriction is implemented
25. Reduction of noise at sour ce is indirectly linked to 
the Directive, because the legislation define s a category of aircra ft (the MCA) as a 
complementary measure on the basis of current  noise standards. MCA can become subject 
to a total ban from an airport after th eir stepwise withdraw al over 5 years.  
                                                 
24 Further explanation is provided in Appendix 5: Explanation on noise abatement measures applied at EU 
airports. 
25 Ibid footnote 16. 
 
EN 14   EN Figure 2: Interaction between ICAO's Balanced Approach  and the Directive26 
 
2.2. Description and scope of the problem  
29. Pursuant to Article 13 of the Directive, its review27 was undertaken in 2008. In light of the 
results of this review and of the ensui ng stakeholder consulta tion, the Commission has 
come to the conclusion that, taking into accoun t the intrinsic limitations to EU action set 
out above, the rules and procedures laid dow n by the Directive on the way EU airports 
introduce operating restrictions today are not  applied in a consistent manner and their 
impact is limited28. This is particularly felt at two levels. First, the specific rules on MCA 
are no longer effective. Second, in the current legal framewor k, the analysis of available 
data shows that the assessment of possible nois e-related measures by airp orts is not done in 
a consistent manner.  
30. This is confirmed not only by the results of the stakeholder consultation, but also by the 
results of a comparative analys is undertaken by the Commission.  
31. As shown in Figure 3, the measures primarily  applied at European airports are noise 
abatement procedures. However, in addition, op erating restrictions ar e used. Regarding the 
latter, the following restrictions have been introduced at the 224 EU airports assessed29 for 
                                                 
26 Further explanation is provided in Section 6 in A ppendix 3: Overview of international and EU policies 
affecting airport noise. 
27 COM(2008) 66 final. 
28 See in this respect the Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Noise 
Operation Restrictions at EU Airports (Report on the application of Directive 2002/30/EC) COM(2008)_66 
29 See also Appendix 5: Explanation on noise abatement measures applied at EU airports. The figure appears in 
DLR (2011), based on database maintained by Boeing. The database “Airports with Noise Restrictions” is 
publicly available. The information and the data on this website are provided directly by the airports 
themselves. http://www.boeing.com/commerc ial/noise/listcountry.html . Although only 69 airports are 
 
EN 15   EN this report: 116 curfews30, 52 noise limits, 51 restrictions targeted aircraft of the noise 
standard "Chapter 3", 38 noi se quotas and 7 noise budgets.  
Figure 3: Overview of current European (EU and non-EU) airport noise restrictions31 
 
32. Additional analysis has been performed on th e nature of the most prevalent operating 
restriction, curfew. As shown in Table 1, am ong the 69 airports cu rrently covered by the 
Directive, approximately 70% operate curfews. Out of thes e 49 airports, around one-third 
operates a night ban on air traffic.  
Table 1: Overview of assessment results on curfews32 
 EU27 
airports % EU27 airports 
covered by the 
Directive % US 
airports % Japanese 
airports % 
Number of 
airports 224 100% 69 100% 229 100% 19 100% 
Number of 
curfews 116 52% 49 71% 53 23% 3 16% 
Number of 
night bans 61 27% 17 25% 11 5% 3 16% 
 
33. For comparison purposes, analysis has also been carried on airports in the United States 
and Japan. It appears that in  the US there are approximately  50% less curfews for around 
                                                                                                                                                                  
currently covered by the Directive, more airports will fa ll within its scope with in creased traffic foreseen for 
the future. Therefore an overview of all 224 airports is also provided. 
30 Curfews limit operations during a certain period of time (noise related restrictions of traffic). 
31 Further explanation is provided in Appendix 5: Explanation on noise abatement measures applied at EU 
airports. 
32 Ibid footnote 29. 
 
EN 16   EN the same number of ai rports as in the EU33. The number of night bans is less than 5% of 
the total. In Japan, only 1 in every 6 airports operates a curfew. The large number of 
curfews already in place in Europe compared to other major economies could indicate that 
the assessment required by the Directive is not applied in a consistent manner and 
operating restrictions are implemente d too often as a first resort.  
2.2.1.  The specific rules on MCA are no longer effective  
34. Stakeholders reported that the impact of the Directive on the targeting of operating 
restrictions on the noisiest aircraft through MCA is relatively limited. Indeed, over time, 
the number of MCA has become comparativel y small due to their natural replacement 
following technological development. 
Obsolete definition of MCA 
35. As indicated above, a MCA is currently define d in the Directive as an aircraft 5 EPNdB34 
less noisy than the Chapter 3 standard called 'Chapter 3-5'35. The update of this definition 
would currently require completing a co-decisi on procedure. At the same time, the new 
noise standard of Chapter 4 was adopted in 2001 in ICAO and became applicable as from 
2006, when Chapter 2 aircraft, the older and very  noisy aircraft, were totally banned from 
European skies. Chapter 4 (or higher) became the de facto  fleet standard. Chapter 3 aircraft 
and especially MCA were systematically take n out of circulation due  to autonomous fleet 
development and noise management policies. Th is leads to a situation where the current 
definition only covers a marginal fraction of the fleet and the measure has lost its 
effectiveness.  
36. As shown on Table 2, the share of aircraft not satisfying Chapter 4 requirements is steadily 
falling, from one fifth in 2002 to one tenth in  2010. Especially the number of movements 
of the noisiest aircraft types (Chapter 3 -5) has shrunk in 2010 to less than 0.3% of total 
movements. The night movements of noisy aircra ft are however systematically higher than 
day movements due to their relatively larger share in freight operations. 
                                                 
33 In the US, decisions on operating restrictions are taken at the federal level on basis of the 'interstate commerce' 
principle. The FAA plays a dominant role in aviation. Firstly, as responsible for air navigation, it can elaborate 
operational improvements of noise procedures upfront in the noise management process. Secondly, the FAA takes the final decision on operating restrictions. This regulatory competence is financially supported through 
an Airport Investment Programme which finances airport investments, land use measures (even buying houses 
around airports) and insulation programmes. A corresponding mechanism does not exist in Europe. The administrative procedure in the US is quite burdensome if  an airport intends to introduce operating restrictions. 
The FAA receives less than one applica tion for a noise restriction per year. 
34 Effective Perceived Noise in decibels. 
35 Article 2 (d) of the Directive states that "‘ MCA’ shall mean civil subsonic jet aeroplanes, that meet the 
certification limits laid down in Volume 1, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International 
Civil Aviation by a cumulative margin of not more than 5EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise in decibels), whereby the cumulative margin is th e figure expressed in EPNdB obtained by adding the individual margins 
(i.e. the differences between the certificated noise level and the maximum permitted nois e level) at each of the 
three reference noise measurement points as defined in Volume 1, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the 
Convention on International Civil Aviation;"  
 
EN 17   EN Table 2: Movements by aircraft in the EU accordin g to noise standard  – evolution 2002-1036 
 2002 
Day 2002 
Night 2006 
Day 2006 
Night 2010 
Day 2010 
Night 
Ch3 -5 2.63% 3.03% 0.86% 1.40% 0.28% 0.54% 
Ch3 -8 0.41% 0.35% 0.30% 0.25% 0.17% 0.13% 
Ch3 -10 8.22% 9.32% 6.71% 8.23% 5.09% 6.90% 
Ch3 -U 9.67% 11.01% 7.63% 8.65% 3.83% 4.60% 
Ch3 20,94% 23,71% 15.51% 18.52% 9.37% 12.17% 
Absolute 1,714,014 415,914 1,476,931 425,484 420,369 232,887 
All absolute 8,187,250 1,754,283 9,525,282 2,297,712 9,454,100 2,341,800 
 
Inappropriate associated phasing-out period 
37. When the assessment of the potential noise reducing measures has shown that to achieve 
the noise objectives requires the introduction of restrictions aimed at withdrawal of MCA, 
Article 637 of the Directive defines a time schedul e of 5 years for the introduction of the 
total phase-out. Subject to this  phase-out schedule, the operation of these MCA aircraft can 
be restricted irrespective of the period of the day. This relationship is presented in Figure 4. 
Figure 4: Relationship between aircraft noise performance and applicable rules38 
 
                                                 
36 Ch3-5: aircraft 5dB less noisy than chapter 3; Ch3-8: aircraft 8dB less noisy than chapter 3; Ch3-10: aircraft 
10dB less noisy than chapter 3; Ch3-U: aircraft with different noise certificati on levels, the lowest falling 
within the chapter 3 band. A considerable proportion of these aircraft may sa tisfy chapter 4. Source: 
Eurocontrol. Further explanation is provided in Appendix 6: Data sources and limitations on information. 
37 COM (2008) 66 provides the following interpretation: "A rticle 6.1 of the Directive permits the introduction of 
“operating restrictions of a partial nature” on unspecified aircraft types, as part of the preferential hierarchy of 
actions within the Balanced Approach preceding the ‘las t resort’ withdrawal of marginal Chapter 3 aircraft". 
38 ICAO Contracting States decided on phasing-out chapter 2 aircraft in 1990 with complete withdrawal by 2002. 
ICAO Resolution 37-18 and guidance stipulate that all aircraft should be allowed to fly as long as they satisfy 
chapters 3 or 4. Operating restrictions should not be  imposed on chapter 3 aircraft, except as part of the 
Balanced Approach to noise management. In addition, noise measures can always be enhanced at night. 
Explanation of ICAO noise standards ("Chapters") is provided in Section 4 of Appendix 3: Overview of 
international and EU policies affectin g airport noise. EPNdB refers to Ef fective Perceived Noise in decibels. 
 
EN 18   EN 38. However, this phase-out period for operating restrictions on MCA has now become too 
long so as to render the targeti ng of operating restrict ions on the noisiest  aircrafts attractive 
and effective. To achieve the noise objectives, airports often apparent ly have to use the 
remaining possibilities, i.e. putting operating rest rictions on less noisy aircraft or taking 
action such as noise abatement procedures, land-use planning.39 This could lead to the 
introduction of operating restrictions that ar e suboptimal in terms of  cost-effectiveness, 
countering the objective of the Dire ctive laid out in Article 1(e)40. Given the continuous 
growth of aviation in combination with the noise  objectives, ever quieter planes need to be 
incentivised through focusing noise m easures on the noisiest aircraft.  
2.2.2.  The existing legal framework does not ensure th at operating restrictions are considered at 
airports with broadly comparable noise  problems in a consistent manner 
39. Stakeholders reported that, in the current legal framework, operating restrictions are 
considered differently at airports with br oadly comparable noise problems, entailing the 
possibility of distortions of competition. Many airports have implemented operating 
restrictions as a first resort instead of only after assessing the range  of alternative noise 
management instruments. 
40. Given that the current legal framework implemen ts one of the four main pillars of ICAO's 
Balanced Approach to noise management, the problem referred to above implies that the 
Balanced Approach is not applied in  a consistent manner at EU airports41 (see in this 
respect Box ).  
Box 2: Case studies on the incorrect application of the Balanced Approach 
Not taking account of safety consideration 
Case 1:  There is a notable case in Europe where noise rules preventing overflight of an ad jacent State’s territory may 
have partly contributed to a major civil aviation disaster. It  is not known if a safety assessment was carried out when 
such noise rules were originally considered. 
Case 2: In 2003-04, a Member State government installed a micr ophone in order to monitor and, if necessary, impose 
fines on aircraft on approach (around 2- 3 miles from threshold) at large airport. "Approach" is a very safety-critical 
phase of the flight where the pilot is following standard operating procedures, and where wind and weather can be more 
influential over noise than pilot techniques. For example, gear, flap and thrust are being chosen for the safe operation of 
flight and not for noise purposes. This kind of measure had been previously considered for an airport in another 
Member State, but was rejected on grou nds of safety. It would have been safer and more effective to encourage low 
power-low drag techniques and to publish guidance on  these. The noise rule was eventually withdrawn. 
Lack of awareness of practice elsewhere in the EU 
Many airports have total night time restrictions while at others (e.g. airports around London) scientific studies dictate 
that for the quietest jets, sleep disturbance may be minimal (insignificant), and hence that some movements should be 
allowed. It could be that these and other restrictions are ba sed on complaints, and not nois e impact and therefore reflect 
the incorrect application of the Balanced Approach. 
                                                 
39 Article 5 of the Directive states "When a decision on operating restrictions is being considered, the 
information as specified in Annex II shall, as far as appropriate and possible, for the operating restrictions 
concerned and for the characteristics of the airport, be taken into account."  
40 Ibid footnote 21. 
41 Ibid footnote 16. 
 
EN 19   EN Ineffective land-use planning   
Land-use planning is an essential pillar of the Balanced  Approach. However, many airports have inappropriate 
development (residential, schools and hospitals) that were permitted without integrated land-use and airport planning. 
As noise contours temporarily shrink due to reduction at source (i.e. use of less noisy aircraft), encroachment of the 
airport is often allowed to fill the temporary ease in noise an noyance. This produces problems for airport growth in the 
longer term. At one European airport a major initiative is been undertaken to build a new airport in a green field 
location largely because of the failure of land use planning protection.  
Unachievable rules  
For at least one ECAC42 airport, aircraft are fined for straying off track without any international (ICAO) guidance on 
what accuracy of Standard Instrument Departure (SID) navigation is safely achievable. Sometimes there is no 
transparent assessment of the flyability of the SID (routes) before such rules are implemented. The fines can even be 
imposed in cases where the pilot is instructed  to leave the SID by air traffic control.  
Regulating using a specified solution  instead of a desired performance  
An EU airport has noise departure proced ures that are imposed in its operating permit. These rules remain in place for 
10 years before review. This long timeframe before review and implementation of noise management instrument based 
on mandated procedures rather than on desired noise ou tcomes means that more people are being unnecessarily 
impacted by noise and it is not in line with the Balanced Approach.  
41. The principal risks associated with this situ ation are the lack of consistency and cost-
effectiveness of introducing operating restrictions. In othe r words, reduction of noise 
pollution is achieved at a higher cost than necessary for the air ports undertaking the 
operating restrictions, for the airlines obliged to comply with such measures, and for the 
surrounding communities which depend on these airports. 
42. Indirectly, this situation also  harms regional development and has repercussions for the 
European transport system as a whole by lim iting airport capacity. It may also accelerate 
the need for investment in new airport infra structure (with attendant  costs and impacts), 
and risk the accelerated transposition of noise impact to areas not presently affected (e.g. 
around smaller airports).The scope of the initia tive is therefore to improve the functioning 
of the existing Directive and, more specif ically, the functioning of the two main 
instruments of the Directive (i .e. the set of rules and proced ures for the introduction of 
operating restrictions at Commu nity airports as well as the specific rules on the 
introduction of operating restrictions aimed at the withdrawal of Marginally Compliant Aircraft (MCA)). 
The causes  43. Over the last 10 years, EU legislation has e volved and Member States are now required to 
deal with a range of EU instruments relating to noise
43. Furthermore complexity in 
assessing noise issues has grown as mark ets have completely opened up, widening and 
deepening the European air transport network. The steps in the (national) noise assessment 
process are explained in Box . 
                                                 
42 Founded in 1955 as an intergovernmental organisation, the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) seeks 
to harmonise civil aviation policies and practices amongst its Member States and, at the same time, promote 
understanding on policy matters between its Member States and other parts of the world. ECAC is composed of 44 Member States. 
43 A brief overview of existing legislation in the field is provided in 
Appendix 3: Overview of international and EU policies affecting airport noise. 
 
EN 20   EN Box 3: Description of no ise assessment process  
The noise assessment process may be triggered on a regular basis by nationa l or EU legislative 
requirements (like the Environmental Noise Dir ective or performance plan under the Single 
European Sky legislation) or by particular ev ents, e.g. a decision on a building a new runway. 
Normally, the process starts with  a declaration by the competent au thorities setting the objectives 
for noise reduction in a wider context of regional development.44  
As a second step, in light of the declared obj ectives for noise reduction, the authority should 
consider a range of noise abatement measures duri ng the preparation phase to achieve the aims. The 
technical measures should id eally be prepared in full collaboration between airports, airlines and air 
navigation service providers. The im pact of alternative measures s hould thereafter be  assessed using 
evidence from noise mapping: a model calculates the noise contours in light of existing and 
projected aircraft noise performa nce and traffic volumes. Experts vi ews suggest that the preparation 
phase is often incomplete: either because only a limited number of noise abatement instruments are 
considered, because not all affected ai rlines are involved in the assessment 45, or because there is 
not sufficient modelling underpinning the results. The cost of undertaking this assessment ranges from around €20,000 to €100,000, depending on the size of the airport and depending on the modelling efforts, which may cost up to  €50,000, for multi-airport and multi-runways 
configurations.
46  
A stakeholder consultation is held as the next phase on the different  possible measures in order to 
get the views of interested parties. However in  many cases no consultation is organised, as the 
measures are not perceived or defined as opera ting restrictions (e.g. a new operational measure 
which de facto restricts access to the airport or limits the optimal capacity should be considered as 
an operating restriction). 
After assessing the observations, as a fourth step, the airports select certain measures to abate noise 
and have them approved by the co mpetent Member State authorities . Member States usually take 
around several months to take a decision, de pending on the quality of the consultation and 
assessment process. In line with these decisions , airports then set the exact measures and 
communicate the details of the chosen instruments to ICAO. Member States are also required to 
notify the Commission, an element which however is almost always ignored. 
The existing rules on how to carry out a noise assessment process are unclear and not precise 
enough 
44. Article 5 of the Directive requires that a set of information detailed in Appendix 2 of the 
Directive is taken into account  when a decision on operating restriction is taken; The 
information requirements cover amongst others the following aspects: 
• Detailed description of the specific situation of the airport concerned in terms of 
geography environmental objectives, noise, noise measures already in place; 
                                                 
44 http://www.gov-news.org/gov/uk/ne ws/consultation_night_flying_restrictions_heathrow/77870.html ; 
Alternatively see for an explanation of government policy:  
http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/ Environnement-Les-actions,10105.html   
45 That is why the bilateral air services agreements cont ain a clause on appropriate consultation and notification. 
46 The cost of Environmental Impact Assessments due to new infrastructure or programmes (e.g. change in air 
space structure above an agglomeration) are of anothe r magnitude. The mapping re quirements, also stemming 
from the Environmental Noise Directive, have a much smaller cost burden. 
 
EN 21   EN • Forecasts related to airport development and expected impacts on noise in 
comparison with a do noting option; 
• Assessment of additional noise measures (d etailed description, cost/effectiveness or 
cost/benefit analysis of the introduction of  specific measures, analysis of possible 
environmental and competitive impacts of thr proposed measures, reason for selection of the preferred option). 
45. According to stakeholders, the existing rules on noise assessment process are not 
sufficiently precise so as to ensure that th e assessment of the noise impact and evaluation 
of the measures available to alleviate that  impact is made on a uniform way across EU 
airports. 
46. At this time of growing techni cal and legal complexity of aviation noise assessments, it 
appears that the Directive does not equip stak eholders with sufficient assessment tools to 
ensure the correct applicat ion of the Balanced Approach. Although ICAO produced a 
revised guidance document as recently as in 2008
47, EU-wide databases and analytical 
assessment tools based on an internationally recognised method and data to be used for 
noise modelling and cost-benefit analysis are not systematically utilised and need some 
further development. 
47. In addition the scope of the assessment is open to interpretation as to when it must be 
applied and whether it covers all significant e ffects from a proposed noise related action or 
whether it is restricted to the effects on parties specifically name d in the clause. The lack of 
clarity on noise assessment process may con ceivably lead to omission of potentially 
significant impacts from the local assessment scope including impacts on wider economy 
and employment; on the wider air traffic management system and on greenhouse gas 
(GHG) and pollutant emissions. 
48. The stakeholder consultation and discussion s with experts revealed many concrete 
concerns and problems on how to carry  out a noise assessment process: 
• Failure to correctly assess implications for other enviro-socia l and socio-economic 
impacts and interdependencies. 
• Failure to consult interested  parties properly and to invol ve local expertise in noise 
rule development. 
• Many stakeholders had the im pression that local decisions (e.g. total curfews and 
land-use planning restriction exemptions) were made on the basis of political 
expediency and without full transparen cy of their effects or benefits. 
• Failure to consider the impacts of lo cal decisions on the wider ATM system. 
• Lack of awareness of existing a nd emerging aircraft  capabilities. 
• Adopting rules that exist fo r too long a duration without  possibility of review. 
                                                 
47 ICAO (2008), Guidance on the Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management, Doc 9829 AN/451. 
 
EN 22   EN • Lack of transparency of decisions that can have effects under any of the Balanced 
Approach elements and an over emphasis for the need for assessment of restrictions 
only. 
• Basing noise rules on specific procedures or solutions and not on desired noise 
outcomes – the latter provides the same prot ections but also allows for continual 
improvement and the adop tion of new techniques. 
The existing procedure to introduce operating restrictions is too weak 
49. Finally, the Directive is not cl ear as to whether th e assessment should also link with other 
elements of the balanced appro ach, so as to take due account of evolving noise standards of 
aircraft, operational measures under the Single European Sky performance regulation, and 
requirements of the Environmental Noise Directive. 
50. As indicated above, Member States introduci ng operating restrictions must follow certain 
procedures regarding: 
– Consultation and transparency : Interested parties shall be consulted in accordance 
with applicable national law; 
– Notice of introduction : public notice, including an e xplanation of the reasons for 
introducing it taking into account  the appropriate elements of the balanced approach, 
should be given to all interested parties; 
– Information : Member States shall inform th e other Member States and the 
Commission of any new operating restriction; 
– Right of appeal : Member States shall ensure the ri ght to appeal against the measures 
taken before an appeal body other than the authority that has adopted the contested 
measure, in accordance with nati onal legislation and procedures. 
51. The existing possibility of infringement proce dures is normally not adequate to prevent or 
to avoid the damages caused by such an operating restriction48. Although prior notification 
has been a legal requirement in the Directive,  there are indications that there is ample 
scope to improve its implementation considerably49.  
52. While the Commission launched infringement pro cedures for not timely transposition into 
national law against ten Member States, only one single procedure was launched for failing 
to fulfil its obligations under the Directive. This is due to the rather unclear wording of the text, which creates legal uncertainty as to  the correct application of the Balanced 
Approach. Indeed, the noise assessment need not  be applied for minor technical changes or 
for already established restrictions. If the measur e is substantial and new, the process is to 
be applied "as far is appropriate and possible" and "for the characteri stics of the airport". 
Though the spirit of the Balanced Approach is clear, the wording of the Directive does not 
provide the sufficient legal cl arity for court proceedings. 
                                                
 
48 Further details on the how various stakeholders are affected by cost-ineffective operating restrictions are 
provided in Section 2.3.  
49 Over the course of 2007-2010, the Commission did not receive any no tification on a newly introduced 
operating restriction while there have been a number of cases, such at Paris CDG or at Frankfurt airport. 
 
EN 23   EN 53. Moreover the Directive does not allow tempor ary suspension of the implementation of 
measures restricting operations50 in the event where the cost-effectiveness of these 
measures is contested by stakeholders, and wh ere there is demonstrated that the impacts on 
noise, safety, competition or network efficiency  have not been prope rly taken into account. 
Such a possibility of suspension is important as there is ample evidence that introduction of 
local noise rules that were not preceded by  the correct application of the Balanced 
Approach have had significant adverse a ffects on the European aviation system.51  
54. Finally, rules on the scope of the stakeholder consultation, namely which actors need to be 
consulted, vary considerably across Member States. 
2.3. Stakeholders affected 
55. Airports certainly lose revenue as a result of operating restrictions. Attempts to offset such 
loss of capacity by increasing th e frequency of operations is often no longer possible due to 
existing congestion levels52 and related provisions on safety. The restricted activities have 
knock-on effects on other aviation operators , like ground-handlers and air navigation 
service providers. Airport capacity is also a crucial factor for Single European Sky Key 
Performance Areas such as flight efficiency (fuel use and climate change) and delay management. In addition, maximi sing existing airport capacity to the extent sustainably 
possible delays the need for new infrastructu re and optimises the ec onomic benefit from 
existing investment and helps European competitiveness (economies of scale). 
56. Airlines are significantly affected as operating restrictions have a s ubstantial impact on the 
flexibility of organising their bus iness. Operating restrictions affect all types of operators. 
Concerning passenger transport, the low cost airlines' business model is based on high 
utilization of their fleet enabled by the use of shoulder hours (i.e. early morning and late 
evening flights). Network carriers may need to  abandon a route if the spoke/hub can not be 
reached within the day. Charter airlines use night flights to a considerable extent to offer the cheapest holidays packages. As for freight transport, Figure 5 below shows that all-cargo
53 flights rely most on operations at night, the time of the day that is most often 
subjected to operating restrictions. There may be an additional negative impact on 
                                                 
50 Paragraph 3 of Article 20 of Regulation 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 
September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community, OJ L 293/3 of 31.10.2008 foresees the suspension of measures taken to address serious environmental problems stating that 
"At the request of another Member State or on its own initiative, the Commission may, in accordance with the 
procedure referred to in Article 25(2), suspend the measures if they do not meet the requirements of paragraph 1 or are otherwise contrary to Community law ". 
51 Box  gives a range of real-world examples for the incorrect application of the Balanced Approach at a number 
of European airports. 
52 In its survey of 138 airports in 2008, Eurocontrol has highlighted that, despite a 41% increase in airport 
capacity between 2007 and 2030, 11% of demand will not  be accommodated in the mo st favourable scenario 
and 25% in the most challenging one. 19 airports will f unction at full capacity 8 hours/day in the former case; 
39 airports in the latter. Source: Eurocontrol, (2008), Long -Term Forecast: IFR Fli ght Movements 2008-2030. 
53 DLR (2011): " Cargo flights in this data have been identified by classifying each flight based on the following 
rules: all-cargo operator, an aircraft type which is al ways all-cargo, an aircraft type which for particular 
operators is a cargo type, call sign which particular operators assign to their cargo flights. These rules do not 
cover belly-hold cargo. A major proportion of general freight, global and European mail air cargo is transported in the bellies of passenger aircraft on scheduled services. How ever, high value express freight is 
usually not carried in belly-holds. Therefore, this data should include a large proportion of this type of freight. 
cf. EUROCONTROL (2009), p. 18 et seq."  
 
EN 24   EN competition among aircraft operators if decisions  on noise measures are motivated by bias 
towards a particular, mostly home-based, operator.  
Figure 5: Traffic durin g night by market 
segment54
 
57. Consumers will be adversely affected by subopt imal noise policies leading to unnecessary 
operating restrictions. Operating restrictions li miting the choice of the consumer could lead 
to higher prices due to increase in costs of airlines. More over there have been cases where 
operating restrictions have negatively influenced the safety of air travel55. 
58. Citizens in the vicinity of airports are dire ctly affected by the various noise mitigation 
options. The impact may be quite differing fo r various communities. For instance, they can 
be affected by poor land-use planning decisions close to an airport, by additional costs to 
insulate properties, and by unexpected severity  in noise impact leading to reductions in 
house value. A poor analysis of the problem ma y miss key aspects, e.g. where a problem is 
concentrated in a particular zone or during a particular time period, and may gear solutions 
towards the most vocal group instead of fo cusing on the reduction of the global noise 
impact – or impact on citizen s of a neighbouring country. 56 
59. The development of areas surrounding airports is also affected as airports are essential to 
boost the local economy57. Industry has become increasi ngly reliant on overnight/24h 
delivery and dispatch of high- value documents, products and co mponents to feed the 'just 
in time' production chain58. Operating restrictions may pr event the satisfaction of this 
                                                 
54 Reproduced in DLR (2011) based on Eurocontrol (2009) Trends in Air Traffic, Vol. 5, Fig. 16, p. 30. 
55 See Box . 
56 In a recent petition, a German citizen complained that the traffic at Weeze airport was so regulated that the 
noise impact was less felt in the Netherlands at the expense of German citizens. 
57 York Aviation, 2004, The social and ec onomic impact of airports in Europe. 
58 MPD Group Ltd, (2005), 'Assessing the economic costs of night flight restrictions' , London, p. 24. 
 
EN 25   EN demand. As shown in Figure 6, the transport of high value goods is pr incipally carried out 
by air. According to OECD estimations while  only 3% of all globally traded goods are 
currently transported by air, this part represents 40% of th e value of these goods59.  
Figure 6: Value of goods in relation to transport modes60 
 
60. Finally, due to the network characteristics of the transport system, aviation operations 
across the whole of the EU are impacted by the effects of operating re strictions of a given 
airport. Depending on the characteristics of th e airport (hub, regiona l airport), the ripple 
effects and associated costs for airlines, airports and industry to adapt to the new 
conditions could be considerable. There could be a loss in overall efficiency of the air 
transport system leading to a permanent increa se in costs for airlines and in unnecessary 
emissions from aircraft. Figure 7 shows the imp act of the closure of three (out of six) 
runways at Amsterdam airport, after the noise limits were r eached sooner than expected. 
The measure had to be urgently withdrawn after two weeks in effect: it caused havoc 
throughout the European aviation system, where average delays soared from the standard 
2-3 minutes to more than 30 minutes for depa rtures and up to 50 minutes for arrivals. The 
cost of this measure can be esti mated to be in the range of €1bn61.  
                                                 
59 Oxford Economic Forecasting (2004). 
60 As reproduced in the presentation of ACEA at the second large stakeholder meeting of 10 Nov 2009 of the 
project 'EU Transport GHG:Routes to 2050'. 
http://www.eutransportghg2050.eu/cms/a ssets/ACEA-EU-Transport-GHG-2050.pdf   
61 Own cost calculations based on €100 per minute delay with an average of 30 minutes for 20,000 daily flights 
during two weeks. Such average delays  indeed lead to these costs, as th ey hide the huge number of missed 
connections, cancelled meetings and shortened holidays. 
 
EN 26   EN Figure 7: Ripple effects of local noise restrictions on the European aviation 
network62
Comparison of Average Delay per Movement (ATFM Only) at Amsterdam Airport
0102030405060
1-
août4-
août7-
août10-
août13-
août16-
août19-
août22-
août25-
août28-
août31-
août3-
sept6-
sept9-
sept12-
sept15-
sept18-
sept21-
sept24-
sept27-
sept30-
sept3-octMinutes Delay
Arrivals Departures
 
2.4. What if present trends continue?  
61. The Commission has carried out an analysis of possible future developments in a scenario 
based on unchanged policies, the so-called ‘baseline scenario’. 
62. Aviation activities are expected to continue to grow63. Economic growth and increasing 
need for connectivity are likely to make European citizens fly more. So the need to carefully balance the welfare effects of aviation against noise nuisances will grow. The growing demand for air traffic services, t ogether with competition among airports and 
among airlines, will increase the cost of any inefficiency in the network. On the other hand, quality of life issue and noise  induced health eff ects make a strong case for integrating 
these aspects into active noi se management policies. 
Table 3: ICAO forecasts of number of  people affected by noise (in Millio n) in Europe – without substantial 
operational and technological improvements64 
Noise level/Year  2006 2016 2026 2036 
> 55 DNL  2.63 3.47 4.48 5.79 
> 60 DNL  0.799  1.14 1.53 2.12 
> 65 DNL  0.23 0.32 0.43 0.66 
63. Excessive introduction of operating restrictions (curfews, night bans etc.) not targeting the 
noisiest aircraft due to obsol ete definition of MCA and an  extended phasing out period 
(further exacerbate the alre ady challenging capacity crunch of the current air transport 
                                                 
62 Ibid footnote 61. 
63 As shown in the Impact Assessment accompanying the White Paper on Transp ort (SEC(2011) 358 final). 
64 Source: CAEP/8 – Information Paper 8 – expressed in Day-Night average noise levels (DNL) – baseline 
scenario, without substantial technology or operational improvements – ICAO European region 
 
EN 27   EN system artificially. These operating restrictions create economic competitive disadvantages 
for aircraft operators as well as for th e relevant airports and the regions.  
64. Moreover, they act as a considerably limiting and cost increasing factor as airlines need to 
preserve sufficient margin to cater for delaye d flights; a banned delayed flight leads to 
extra passenger entitlements and crew costs. Failure to provide sufficient capacity as a 
measure to curb throughput will tend to re duce flight efficiency and reduce system 
resilience to perturbatio ns (e.g. volcanic ash or severe weat her). Ultimately this could lead 
to the abandonment of certain routes, in extreme cases, relocation65.The considerable 
differences and deficiencies in the way the present rules on noise abatement analysis are 
interpreted and put into practis e and how stakeholders are in volved in the decision process 
implies that, in addition to MCA problems menti oned above, there is considerable risk that 
noise abatement policies in airports will continue to be inefficient in the future. As noise problems due the expected increase in aviation activities (cf. table 3) will grow, it is important that the desired noise level at airports is achieved at minimum costs. 
65. Finally, without the update of the definition of  MCA, a signal would be lost for airframe 
and engine manufacturers, which further stim ulates innovation in noise reduction at source 
by providing a predictable investment framewor k. This risks leading to a situation where 
aircraft do not improve th eir noise performance. Inde ed, while large body aircraft 
demonstrate substantial improvements in noise performance to satisfy local requirements, 
short and medium-range aircraft  have not had significant nois e improvement over the past 
two decades. The noise certification le vels of this category have plateaued
66. The 
technology is proven cost-effec tive, but there is not sufficien t incentive to use the best 
available technology on the full range of aircraft67. 
66. Drawing on their currently use shown on Figure 8, it is unlikely that there will be fewer 
operating restrictions in the future.  
                                                 
65 A prominent example is DHL and the relocation of its Eu ropean hub from Brussels to Leipzig/Halle Leipzig in 
2008. The decision resulted from the implementation of an operating restriction. According to estimates, 
Brussels airport DHL’s hub function at Brussels contributed in 2003 to the regional and national economy by a 
direct value added of € 273 million, an indirect value added of € 121 million and a catalytic value added of € 
600 million. DLR (2011).  
66 Source: CAEP/8 – Working Paper 74, p; 3. 
67 CAEP8 Working Paper 74, 2010, " Proposed Noise Stringency Options for CAEP9 ", Paper introduced by EC, 
FR, DE, IT, NL, NO, PO, ES, SV, CH and UK, 5 p. + annexes. 
 
EN 28   EN Figure 8: Growth in airport noise 
restrictions68
 
2.5. The EU's right to act 
67. The necessity to act at Eur opean level in relation to noi se-related operation-related 
operating restrictions was recognized in 2002 with the adoption of Council Directive 
2002/30/EC on the establishment of rules and pro cedures with regard to the introduction of 
noise-related operating restricti ons at Community airports. This Directive contributes to 
the proper functioning of the European air tran sport system. It responds to the objective 
Articles 90 and 91 of the Treat y on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 
68. According to Article 4 of the TFEU, EU  action regarding noi se-related operating 
restrictions, as part of the common air transport policy, has to be justified. EU action is 
only necessary to the extent that the internal market  is affected by non-harmonised 
procedures to introduce noise-rel ated operating restrictions at EU airports. In the present 
case, it is therefore necessary that the subsidia rity principle set out in Article 5(3) of the 
Treaty on the European Union is respecte d. This involves assessing two aspects. 
69. Firstly, it has to be assessed if the objectiv es of the proposed action could not be achieved 
sufficiently by Member States in the framewor k of their national constitutional system, the 
so-called " necessity test ". In the present case, this just ification centres on the need to 
ensure that international rules and procedur es are implemented by Member States in a 
uniform and efficient manner in order to prov ide EU and non-EU ope rators with a level 
playing field.  
70. Secondly, it has to be consider ed whether and how the objecti ves could be better achieved 
by action on the part of the EU, the so-called " test of European added value ". The EU's 
added value of the pres ent initiative should cons ist of implementing meas ures that take into 
account the situation of different  airports while, at same ti me, ensuring that noise-related 
                                                 
68 http://www.boeing.com/commerc ial/noise/restrictions.pdf  
 
EN 29   EN operating restrictions are implemented in a co st-effective way at loca tions where the noise 
situation requires action and the appropriate, locally-tailore d balance is found between the 
various transport and environmental policy objectives. Any individual action at the 
Member State level would have the potential to  prejudice the functiona lity of the internal 
market. 
3. OBJECTIVES  
71. Section 2 has shown that the rules and pro cedures laid down by the Directive on the way 
EU airports introduce operating restrictions today are not ap plied in a consistent manner 
and their impact is limited69. This is particularly felt at two levels. First, the specific rules 
on MCA are no longer effective. Second, in the current legal framework, the analysis of 
available data shows that the assessment of possible noise-related measures by airports is 
not done in a consistent manner. The scope of  the initiative is limited to improving the 
functioning of the existing Directive, and more  in particular, the functioning of the two 
main instruments (the set of rules and procedures for the introduction of operating restrictions at Community ai rports, and the specific rules aimed at the withdrawal of 
MCA). 
72. This section defines the general, specific and operational policy objectives of the proposed 
initiative, and verifies their consistency with  other EU horizontal objectives. An overview 
on their relationship with the identif ied problems is provided in Table 4. 
3.1. Policy objectives 
General policy objective 
73. As indicated above, the proposed initiative shou ld fit in a specific regulatory framework 
defined by ICAO obligations, by Article 5 of  the Treaty on European Union on the 
principles of subsidiarity and proportionali ty and by the umbrella Directive on EU noise 
policy (i.e. the Environmental Noise Directive).. 
74. In this context, the general pol icy objective of this initiative is to harmonise and strengthen 
further the common rules and procedure rela ted to the introduction of noise related 
operating restrictions at EU airports as part  of the noise manageme nt process, thereby 
promoting the most cost-effective noise-relate d solutions to merely achieve established 
noise quality objectives as establis hed by EU, national and local rules 
Specific policy objectives 75. In light of the root causes of the problems that  have been identified in section 2 above, the 
general objective of the proposed  initiative can be translated into more specific goals: 
(1) Make the set of rules on MCA effective by revising the definition of MCA and the 
associated phasing-out provision
70; 
                                                 
69 See in this respect the Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Noise 
Operation Restrictions at EU Airports (Report on the application of Directive 2002/30/EC) COM(2008)_66 
70 This would involve the revision of Article 2 (d) and Article 6 on " Rules on the introduction of operating 
restrictions aimed at the withdrawal of MCA ".  
 
EN 30   EN (2) Ensure that operating restrictions are considered at air ports with broadly 
comparable noise problems in a consistent manner by: 
• clarifying how to carry out a noise assessment process; 
• strengthening the procedural framew ork leading to the introduction of 
operating restrictions. 
Operational policy objectives 76. In order to evaluate the pr ogress made towards achieving th e general and specific policy 
objectives, the following operational policy objectives are proposed:  
• The share of new curfews to total operat ing restrictions shoul d be substantially 
reduced by 2020; 
• To achieve the noise object ives, airports often appa rently have to use the 
remaining possibilities, i.e. putting opera ting restrictions on less noisy aircraft 
or taking action such as noise abat ement procedures, land-use planning. 
Therefore all new operating restrictions  should include measures targeting 
MCA with the aim of maxi mising noise reduction.  
Table 4: Mapping problem, drivers and objectives  
Problem  General objective 
The common rules and procedures laid down by the 
Directive on the way EU airports introduce operating 
restrictions today are not applied in a consistent manner 
and their impact is limited   Harmonise and strengthen further the common rules 
and procedure related to the introduction of noise 
related operating restrictions  at EU airports as part 
of the noise management process.  
Drivers to the problem  Specific objectives 
Dr.1 The specific rules on MCA are no longer 
effective because: SO1 Target operating restrictions on the noisiest aircraft 
by: 
 - The definition of MCA is obsolete  Revising obsolete definition of MCA 
 - The associated phasing-out period is too long  - Choosing an adequate associated phasing-out 
period 
Dr.2 The existing legal framework does not ensure that 
operating restrictions are considered at airports 
with broadly comparable  noise problems in a 
consistent manner SO2 Ensure that similar operating restrictions are 
considered at airports with  broadly comparable noise 
problems in a consistent manner by: 
 - The existing rules on how to carry out a noise 
assessment process are unclear and imprecise  - clarifying and specify how to carry out a noise 
assessment process 
 - The existing procedure to introduce operating 
restrictions is too weak  - strengthening the procedur al framework leading to 
the introduction of operating restrictions 
 
 
EN 31   EN 3.2. Consistency with horizontal objectives of the European Union 
77. The ongoing revision of the Environmenta l Noise Directive (Directive 2002/49/EC)71 has 
set the scene for this initiative.  
78. The European aviation policy requi res the same rules for all market players to ensure fair 
competition. Environmental policies form part of the aviation regulatory framework. Whilst local noise issues deserve local solutions , operators are entitled to have stability and 
consistency in the application in environmental standards. 
79. Directive 2002/49/EC obliges Member States to identify industrial and transport sources of 
noise pollution, make noise mappings to identi fy the number of people affected, and take 
the required mitigating measures, especially in  view of the long-term health effects.  
80. The Commission report
72 on the implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in 
accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2002/49/EC announced the revision of Directive 
2002/30/EC on airport noise, " which will, as part of the airport package, improve noise 
mapping on the basis of an internationally r ecognised method and data, and drive towards 
the adoption of cost-effective noi se mitigating measure, taking into account internationally 
agreed standards to streamline the relationship between the airport no ise directive and the 
Environmental Noise Directive. It will also update the definition of noi sy aircraft ("MCA") 
in line with the current co mposition of the aircraft fleet ". The review of the Directive on 
airport noise will contribute to the setting- out consistent and ambitious National Noise 
Action Plans, as required by Directive 2002/49/EC.  
4. DESCRIPTION OF POLICY OPTIONS  
4.1. Establishing Policy Options 
81. The logic of constructing the Policy Options  reflects the interaction between the two 
problems. The phase-out period for operating restrictions on MCA has now become too 
long and the definition too outdated so as to re nder the targeting of operating restrictions 
on the noisiest aircrafts attractive and effectiv e. Hence, to achieve the noise objectives, 
airports often apparently have to use the remaining possibilities, i.e. putting operating restrictions on less noisy aircraft. For ex ample, at a major hub, in 2008, 4% of the 
movements contributed to 25% of the nuisance as measured in noise contours. Hence, the 
authorities could benefit from a new MCA defi nition harmonized at a stricter level and a 
swifter phase-out of the most  annoying aircraft to see th ese replaced by the latest 
generation of aircraft wh ich produce 75% less noise
73. 
82. At the same time, the existing rules on noise assessment process are not sufficiently precise 
to make sure that the most cost-effective measures are considered and are tailor-made for the specific airport s ituation and the noise problems en countered. The noise climate could 
                                                
 
71 Further information on the European noise policy framework is provided in Appendix 3: Overview of 
international and EU policie s affecting airport noise. 
72 COM(2011) 321 final. 
73 For this reason, many airports im pose the use of chapter 4 compliant ai rcraft at night, like Paris CDG and 
Fraport. There are some cases known where the margin was increased up to minus 15 or even minus 17 in 
order to leave the airport open for aircraft which are by far less noisy than the current standard. 
 
EN 32   EN be improved through a better an alysis of the noise problem and a more thorough analysis 
of the contribution of each of the available measures.  
83. The Policy Options to be examined are construc ted in order to address these problems in 
the most cost-efficient way. Therefore each Policy Option has two main components which 
tackle one of the problems each. Moreover, each  Policy Option is designed to maintain at 
least the same noise climate as under a busines s-as-usual scenario (Policy Option 1), in 
other words, to maintain existing noise protec tion standards. What distinguishes the Policy 
Options is not the noise climate, but the in tensity of intervention that, depending on the 
option, is higher on the first (MCA-related issues), and lower on the second problem 
(procedure-related considerations). As explaine d in Section 2, tackling the issues related to 
MCA (Problem 1) will enable fewer and/or be tter-focused operating restrictions affecting 
non-marginally compliant (less noisy) aircraft. Hence the significance of the issues related 
to the correct implementation of the Balanced Approach (Problem 2) for the latter aircraft 
decreases. 
84. In light of the above, the Commission has id entified three Policy Op tions – besides the 
baseline scenario – that combine specific EU  actions across the two policy areas described 
above. By construction, the Policy Options de scribed below are capable on a standalone 
basis to address the two drivers identified in section 2, and to reach the specific objectives 
defined in section 3 above. An overview of  the Policy Options is provided in Table 5. 
Policy Option 1: No additional EU action 85. Policy Option 1 assumes the continuation of the Directive unchanged. The developments 
foreseen under this Policy Opti on are presented in Section 2.4. 
Policy Option 2 86. Policy Option 2 includes the revision of Article 2
74 to amend the definition of MCA. This 
Policy Option foresees the new definition to be based on a very ambitious noise 
certification limit of Chapter 3 with a cumu lative margin of not more than 12 EPNdB75. 
This reflects the trend of the last 10 year s where the number of movements performed by 
Chapter 3 aircraft in the EU has steadily fa llen to about 10% in 2010. This lower margin 
would mean a greater coverage of aircra ft movements. Article 6 on the phase-out 
requirements of MCA would be shortened by one year. 
87. Concerning the second problem id entified in Section 2, in order to ensure that existing 
rules on how to carry out a noise assessment process are clearer and more precise, the 
Policy Option foresees the establishment of an EU-level support cell. This cell will act as a helpdesk and will assist airports and Member States by providing advice
76 on how to best 
carry out the appraisal require d by the Balanced Approach; ma nage central databases on 
aircraft noise performance to ensure consistent noi se performance information for aircraft 
including certification margin values for use locally; and supply the necessary modelling 
                                                 
74 Ibid footnote 35. 
75 Please note that Chapter 3 -12 EPNdB is not necessarily complia nt with the Chapter 4 standard as it requires 
that the -10 EPNdB cumulative margin from the Chapter 3 limit is achieved by reduction of noise at least at two of the three different points (approach, lateral and fly-over) of measurement. Further explanation on 
measurement is provided in Appendix 4: Glossary. 
76 The advice would inter alia relate to the noise mapping and cost-benefit analysis. 
 
EN 33   EN software and related technical guidance to  perform noise mapping around airports. With 
the creation of this EU support cell, the Comm ission will be able to spread good practice in 
considering the most cost-effective measures. 
88. With the aim of ensuring that the existing pr ocedure to introduce opera ting restrictions is 
sufficiently stringent, Policy Option 2 foresees the revision of the wording of the Directive 
so that sufficient legal clarity for court pro ceedings is provided in case of infringement 
cases need to be launched by the Commission. In addition, the Policy Option foresees an 
additional provision on the scope of the stakeh older consultations required for measures 
covered by the Directive 
Policy Option 3 89. Policy Option 3 also includes the revision of Article 2
77 to amend the definition of MCA. 
This Policy Option foresees the new definition to be based on a less ambitious noise certification limit of Chapter 3 with a cumulative margin of not more than 10 EPNB. Article 6 on the phase-out would also be ame nded to allow for a complete phasing-out of 
marginally-compliant aircraft within 2 years. 
90. Concerning the second problem identified in S ection 2, similarly to Policy Option 2, in 
order to ensure that existing rules on how to  carry out a noise assessment process are 
sufficient, the Policy Option foresees the es tablishment of an EU -level support cell.  
In addition, with the aim of ensuring that the ex isting procedure to introduce operating restrictions 
is sufficiently stringent, it foresees the right of  scrutiny for the Commission to check whether the 
authority followed the noise assessment process and temporarily suspend the implementation of an 
operating restriction, mirroring the provisions of Regulation No. 1008/2008
78. In addition, the 
Policy Option foresees an additional provision on the scope of the stak eholder consultations 
required for measures covered by the Directive. Policy Option 4 
91. Policy Option 4 also includes the revision of Article 279 to amend the definition of MCA. 
This Policy Option foresees the new definition to be based on the least ambitious noise certification limit of Chapter 3 with a cumulative margin of not more than 8 EPNdB. Article 6 on the phase-out would also be ame nded to allow for a complete phasing-out of 
marginally-compliant aircraft within 2 years. 
92. As for the second problem identified in Section 2, similarly to Policy Options 2 and 3, in 
order to ensure that existing rules on how to  carry out a noise assessment process are 
sufficient, the Policy Option foresees the es tablishment of an EU -level support cell.  
93. In addition, with the aim of ensuring that the existing procedure to introduce operating 
restrictions is sufficiently st ringent, it foresees the need fo r the Commission to grant prior 
authorization to any operating restriction. In addition, the Policy Option foresees an 
additional provision on the scope of the stakeh older consultations required for measures 
covered by the Directive. 
                                                
 
77 Ibid footnote 35. 
78 Ibid footnote 50.  
79 Ibid footnote 35. 
 
EN 34   EN 94. The difference compared to Policy Option 3 is that under the la tter Commission would 
review the noise assessment process (appropr iate consultation, adequate noise mapping 
methods and data used, fair cost-benefit anal ysis methods and values used). Under Policy 
Option 4, the Commission would effectively take  a decision on a conc rete noise operating 
restriction (“grant prior au thorization”). Hence, under Option 3, the Commission protects 
the assessment rules and procedures; under Po licy Option 4 the Commission would assume 
the full political responsibility  of confirming or refusing opera ting restrictions. The right to 
suspend the measure prior to its implementation is a nece ssity under both Policy Option 3 
and 4, as the measures may have lasting effects on safety, competition and the network capacity. Both options will clearly identify the ac tors and their tasks and responsibilities in 
the decision-making process. This will provide sufficient legal clarity for court proceedings in case of infringement cases need  to be launched by the Commission. 
4.2. Discussing the legal instrument 
95. The European legislation on airport noise is cu rrently in the form of  a Directive (Directive 
2002/30/EC). This choice of the legal instrument  has partly led to th e large heterogeneity 
in the way operating restrictions are introduced  in Europe, since the Directive in question 
leaves a wide margin of interp retation to the Member States in the implementation. One of 
the consequences of this heterogeneity, desc ribed above, is the excessive use of operating 
restrictions. 
96. In order to address the probl ems identified above, Policy Option 3 and 4 proposes to give 
the right to the Commission for scrutiny. This is motivated by the fact  that if the cost-
effectiveness of an operating restriction is not  demonstrated taking into account other noise 
management instruments, the Commission would need to ensure that such a measure can 
be suspended until the assessment process is done in a correct way. Transparent, EU-wide 
applicable and interpreted crit eria would need to be esta blished on the possibility of 
suspending an operating restriction. 
97. Moreover the fact that the Policy Options fore see an update of the de finition of the MCA. 
This definition would need to apply equally  in all Member Stat es, being a technical 
standard which is agreed by the same Member States in ICAO. Reflecting on the likely future need to amend this definition in order to keep up with scientific progress and the 
autonomous renewal of the aircraft fleet, al l Policy Options foresee the possibility of 
updating the definition of MCA through dele gated act by the appropriate Committee. 
Given the potential impact of any such update on aircraft operators, the proposal will be 
accompanied by a proportionate Impact Assessment carried out by the Commission. 
98. On the basis of the above argumentation, a Regulation would pr obably be a more 
appropriate tool for translating th e policy changes into legislation. 
80 
Table 5: Mapping objectives and Policy Options 
Policy options Specific Objectives 
PO2 PO3 PO4 
Make the specific rules on MCA  
                                                 
80 Airlines, including express carriers, favoured the transfor mation of the directive into a regulation, if legislative 
action was deemed necessary. 
 
EN 35   EN effective by : 
revising the obsolete definition of 
MCA Change the definition of 
MCA to include aircraft 
below Chapter 3 -12 
EPNdB standard Change the definition of 
MCA to include aircraft 
below Chapter 3 -10 
EPNdB standard Change the definition 
of MCA to include 
aircraft below Chapter 
3 -8 EPNdB standard 
choosing an adequate associated 
phasing-out period Complete phase-out 
allowed within 4 years Complete phase-out 
allowed within 2 years Complete phase-out 
allowed within 2 years 
Ensure that similar operating 
restrictions are considered at 
airports with broadly comparable 
noise problems in a consistent 
manner by:  
-strengthening the procedural 
framework leading to the 
introduction of operating restrictions Establishment of EU-
level support cell for the 
implementation of the BA Establishment of EU-
level support cell for 
the implementation of 
the BA  Establishment of EU-
level support cell for 
the implementation of 
the BA  
-clarifying and specify how to carry 
out a noise assessment process Additional rules on the 
scope of the stakeholder 
consultation 
 Additional rules on the 
scope of the 
stakeholder 
consultation Additional rules on the 
scope of the stakeholder 
consultation 
 
 Higher legal certainty for 
infringement procedures 
 COM right of scrutiny 
with suspension 
possible until revised 
assessment is found 
adequate Mandatory COM 
scrutiny and prior 
authorisation 
 
EN 36   EN 5. IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POLICY OPTIONS  
99. This section provides an assessment of the ec onomic, social, and environmental impacts of 
the Policy Options identified in section 4 that is proportionate to the scope of the proposed 
initiative being of a procedural nature. Th e assessment of those impacts is supported by 
quantitative data and/or by academic research where necessary. Table 10 presented at the 
end of this section summarises the re sults of the assessment of impacts.  
5.1. Impact on the implementation  of the Balanced Approach 
100. As explained in previous s ection and shown on Figure 2, the Directive acts under the 
umbrella of the Environmental Noise Directive.  It sets out provision on one of the four 
main pillars of ICAO's Balanced Approach to  noise management at EU airports: operating 
restrictions. The scope for noise-related EU acti on with respect to certain type of measures 
such as land use planning, operational proc edures or insulation programmes (Pillars 1 and 
2 of the Balanced Approach) is limited for s ubsidiarity and proportionality considerations. 
On Pillar 3 (reduction of noise at source), it is ICAO who sets noise standards for aircraft. Therefore the impact of the proposed Policy Options on the ove rall implementation of the 
ICAO Balanced Approach is assessed separately.
81 
101. In light of improved EU-level oversight of Policy Option 4, th is option is most likely to 
have the greatest positive effects on the implem entation of Pillar 1 and 2. This is because it 
would ensure that noise management inst ruments such as land use planning and 
operational measures are considered as part of the assessment required for introducing 
operating restrictions.  
102. With regards reduction of noise at source, Pillar 3 of the Balanced Approach, Policy 
Option 2 would send a signal to ICAO that the update of noise standards should be continued. 
5.2. Economic impacts 
103. Over the last decade, the number of movements performed by Chapter 3 aircraft in the EU 
has steadily fallen to about 10%  in 2010 or about 420,000 movements
82. Reflecting this 
trend, Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 propose revisi ng the coverage of the definition of MCA, 
currently set at Chapter 3 -5 EPNdB, to Ch apter 3 -12, -10 and -8 EPNdB, respectively. 
The lower the margin is set, the greater the coverage of movements, i.e. Chapter 3 -5 
EPNdB covers the least movements.  
104. While the most important economic impact is lik ely to be on aircraft operators, the impacts 
of noise measures in Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 are not limited to the particular airport or 
the region where the affected airport is located. As aviati on is a network industry, the 
wider impact of operational rest rictions at a particular air port could in principle have 
consequences over the whole European network83. In addition to the effects on the affected 
                                                 
81 All industry stakeholders stressed the need for more coherence between the different pillars of the Balanced 
Approach. 
82 See Table 2: Movements by aircraft in the EU according to noise standard – evolution 2002-10. 
83 See paragraph 60 for further details. 
 
EN 37   EN airports and the airlines usi ng this airport, th e main economic impacts to be assessed 
should include the effect on the efficient func tioning of the aviation network as a whole.  
5.2.1.  Impact on the efficient fu nctioning of the European aviation network  
105. The potential effect of revising the possibility  to target operating re strictions at MCA on 
the aviation network in Europe depends basica lly on the number of ai rports resorting to 
this instrument, which airports  and which of the pol icy three options is implemented. If a 
large number of airports comprising an im portant share of operations with MCA are 
introducing MCA restrictions it would put  serious limitations on the possible traffic 
programmes which the airline industry could offe r to the customers. This effect would be 
felt especially by airlines with a relatively large share of MCA in their fleet. It would be especially critical for these ai rlines if the operating restrict ions were put in place in the 
airports functioning as important nodes in th eir traffic programme. These restrictions 
would probably lead to increased costs fo r these companies, but  create opportunities for 
airlines with less noisy fleet. On the other si de if only a few airports comprising only a 
minor share of the operations the effects on po tential traffic programmes, the choice of 
customers and on the competition between airlines would be limited. 
106. In comparison to Policy Option 1, it can be argued that Policy Option 2 would have the 
potentially greatest impact on the functioning of  the European aviation system. as it would 
have the possibility to infl uence up to 10% of movement s in the EU, depending on the 
number of airports implementing MCA operating restrictions. 
84 However the phasing-out 
period would only be shorted by  one year compared to th e provision of the current 
Directive, allowing sufficient time for th e overall adaptation of the system.  
107. On the contrary, Policy Options 3 and 4 w ould allow significantly less time for phasing out 
MCA if an airport decides to apply an operating restriction targeting the nosiest aircraft. 
However, as shown on Table 6, the revised definition of MCA in these Policy Options would affect fewer aircraft movements, up to  8% and 2% respectivel y. Moreover, while an 
operating restriction can be implemented far qu icker, both Policy Op tions require a wider 
stakeholder consultation prior such  a decision than Policy Option 1. 
Table 6: Estimated movements of MCA85 
 
108. Looking at individual aircraft, raising the margin even up to  -12 EPNdB would not affect 
great numbers of aircraft and hence disrupt the netw ork. Raising up to  -8 would affect 
older versions of the A321-100/200, the B 737-400 and the MD82. A margin set at -10 
would also affect a few B737-300s and some  B747-400 (the overwhelming majority of 
                                                 
84 The decision to phase-out MCA is ta ken on an airport by airport basis, after a cost-effectiveness assessment. 
Airports then also can decide on the exact date of the introduction of such  measures. Industry has expressed its 
opposition to a revised MCA definition of Chapter 3 minus 12 dB, also pointing to the risk of political 
problems. 
85 Source: Eurocontrol – PRISME and CFMU data. Aircraft type per noise limit  Movements impacted on EU airports  
Chapter 3 minus 8dB  0 – 2%  
Chapter 3 minus 10dB  2 – 8%  
Chapter 3 minus 12dB  6 – 10%  
 
EN 38   EN them have at least a 15.6 margin). A -12 margin would add the B747-400 freighter on the 
list of impacted aircraft, where also most of  the individual aircra ft would meet this 
standard, with margins up to 16.2. 
109. To conclude, it is unlikely that there would be  any significant disruptions in European air 
transport in any of Policy Opti ons 2, 3 or 4. On the contra ry Policy Options 3 and 4 would 
better safeguard protect the smooth functioning  of the network due to enhanced scrutiny 
powers foreseen at EU level. 
5.2.2.  Impact on airport capacity 
110. Demand currently exceeds capacity throughout mo st or all of the da y at six European 
airports (London Heathrow, London Gatwick, Paris Orly, Milan Linate, Düsseldorf and 
Frankfurt). Some of this shortf all in these highly congested ai rports is specifically related 
to noise management measures. 86 Demand also exceeds capacity during peak hours at a 
number of other airports  (Frankfurt and Munich)87. 
111. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 could be all effective in ensuring that airports better utilize their 
capacity for an equal level of noise annoyance abated compared to Policy Option 1. This 
may result in less congestion and more revenues  in particular at airports which face the 
highest capacity constraints. 
112. On the other hand, this general positive economi c impact will be partially offset by the 
increased administrative costs for airports. Under Policy Option 1, noise management in 
connection with the implementation of the present directive already entails some 
administrative costs. These costs are predicted to grow due to increasing complexity and 
complaint management requirements. 88 
113. Policy Option 2 mitigates this administrative burden through the establishment of an EU 
support cell which will provide central da tabases on aircraft noise performance89 and the 
necessary software to perfor m noise mapping. Policy Option 4, on the contrary, will likely 
increase the burden for airports who would be obliged to seek prior authorisation from the 
European Commission. The likely magnitude of this impact is speci fied in Section 5.2.6. 
5.2.3.  Impact on aircraft operators 
114. The further strengthening and harmonisation of  the process leading to the introduction of 
operating restrictions as foreseen in Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 should allow increasing the 
cost-effectiveness of noise abatement measures . In addition transparency will be better 
enforced, which will contribute to a more predictable and stable investment climate. 90 
Increased certainty concerning the regulatory environment woul d be achieved in particular 
in Policy Options 3 and 4. In these Policy Opti ons, a wider stakehol der consultation would 
ensure the involvement of aff ected airlines in the establis hment of noise-related operating 
restrictions at individual ai rports. In addition, the right of scrutiny for the Commission 
                                                 
86 ACI stressed this issue. 
87 Steer Davies Gleave, (2011), Supporting study for the impact assessment of revising Regulation 95/93. 
88 Many stakeholders, both community groups of citizens living in the surroundings and airlines, complained 
about the lack of transparency of  the noise management process. 
89 Currently airports need to ask for the noise certifi cation for each and every aircraft using their facilities. 
90 Airlines stressed their willingness to invest in perform ing aircraft, but the standa rds should be harmonized and 
should not change overnight. 
 
EN 39   EN (reinforced under Policy Option 4 to the require ment for prior authoris ation) would enable 
temporary suspension of measures that ar e rightfully contested by stakeholders.  
115. The positive effect of a more stable and transparent EU-wide investment climate would be 
at least in the short and medium run decreased by the need to replace noisy aircraft in the 
airlines' fleets. Airlines nor mally have a long term invest ment programmes to steadily 
replace older (and noisier) aircraft91. Any change in the regulatory environment will 
require adaptation of these programmes. The ex tent of this adjustment is however very 
much dependent on the particular strategy adap ted by the individual ai rline. In general, 
however, operators tend to use ICAO standards as benchmarks for investment purposes. As 
all Policy Options foresee to maintain this benchmark in the revised legislation, the adjustment required will be limited on this aspect. 
116. Concerning the magnitude of the impacts caused by this adjustment, it is clear that Policy 
Option 2 would most heavily affect aircraft op erators all other things  equal as it would 
allow the banning of a greater number of noisier  aircraft than Policy Options 1, 3 and 4. 
The effects would to a large extent depe nd on the number and the role (hub, spoke) of 
airports choosing to introduce MCA restrictions . Especially express cargo carriers could be 
seriously affected as they operate older ai rcraft, in many cases pensioned off passenger 
aircraft transformed into cargo carriers. The value of MCA would mo st likely drop through 
the anticipation of likely operati ng restrictions targeting these aircraft. As shown on Table 
6 however, even if all aircraft that are noisier  than Chapter 3 -12 EPNdB are assumed to be 
banned once this is made possible by the revision of the Directive, the number of affected 
movements would not exceed 10% of the total. Further details are provided in Appendix 8: 
Impact of defining MCA. 
117. In general, raising the margin up to -8 EPNdB does not affect flag carriers.
92 Only 
Lufthansa is expected to be impacted on a smaller part of its B 737-300 fleet when the 
margin is raised up to -10 EPNdB. Raising the margin up to -12 EPNdB does not have an 
additional impact.  
118. Cargo operators would be affected more if the margin is raised up to -12 EPNdB, in 
particular some parts of the B747-400 fr eighters of Cathay Pacific and CargoLux. 93 The 
fleet of FEDEX and DHL consist mainly of  Airbus 310-200 (margins of -14 EPNdB), 
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 (-15.5 EPNdB) and Boeing 757 (-18.6 EPNdB). The aircraft of 
charters and regional airlin es have margins above -20. 
119. To reinforce this conclusion, analysis has also been carried out to determine which aircraft 
types would be the most impacted by the change in the definition of MCA. The A321 and the B733 aircraft have been identified as th e two most affected airframes. Table 7 shows 
the impact on some major airlines operating these aircraft differentiated according to 
Policy Options 2, 3 and 4. For Policy Option 4, it is clear that this negative impact would 
be extremely limited in comparison to Policy Option 1. 
Table 7: Impact on airlines and aircraft types along the three Policy Options94 
                                                 
91 See e.g. http://corporate.airfrance.com/en/sustainable-development/environment-and-climate/ 
92 This information mainly stems from the noise certification levels of aircraft at Heathrow airport and relates to 
individual aircraft. It does not relate to number of flights. Heathrow has a strict noise quota count system where the use of quieter aircraft is promoted. 
93 Ibid footnote 92. 
94 Eurocontrol, 2011, PRISME and CFMU data.  
 
EN 40   EN Airline  Policy 
Option 2   Policy 
Option 3   Policy 
Option 4   
 Absolute 
number  % of A321 
fleet Absolute  
number  % of A321 
fleet Absolute 
number  % of A321 
fleet 
Lufthansa  0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 
Air France  21 100%  17 81% 0 0% 
Iberia Airlines  18 100%  18 100%  0 0% 
Alitalia  23 100%  0 0% 0 0% 
British Airways  0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 
Monarch Airlines  0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 
Spanair  0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 
Turkish Airlines  2 10% 2 10% 0 0% 
 Absolute 
number  % of B733  
fleet Absolute 
number  % of B733  
fleet Absolute 
number  % of B733  
fleet 
Lufthansa  31 97% 0 0% 0 0% 
Norwegian Air Shuttle  6 25% 2 8% 0 0% 
Bmibaby  3 27% 1 9% 0 0% 
Jet2.com  16 50% 1 3% 0 0% 
Europe Airpost  5 31% 0 0% 0 0% 
KLM  5 100%  0 0% 0 0% 
Air Baltic  1 13% 0 0% 0 0% 
Jat Airways  10 100%  0 0% 0 0% 
 
5.2.4.  Impact on airframe and aircraft engine manufacturers 
120. Updating the definition of MCAs could as mentioned above change the investment 
programme of aircraft operators, bringing forw ard the purchasing of less noisier aircraft. 95 
This would have a positive effect in the s hort to medium term on the turnover and sales 
figures of airframe and engine manufa cturers, generating further employment 
opportunities. 
                                                 
95 The newest generation of aircraft reduces both emissions and noise substantially – by some 25%. Some 
stakeholders expressed the concern that the search for emission reductions would go at the expense of noise 
reductions. 
 
EN 41   EN 121. In terms of noise performance, one of the most recently introduced aircraft, the Airbus 
A380 has a cumulative margin of around 28dB96, whilst some business jets have 
cumulative margins of between 30 and 40dB with  regard to the Chapter 3 standard. This 
demonstrates that the necessary noise abatem ent technology already ex ists, but th is needs 
to 'trickle down' from the large airframe s to the medium-sized and smaller models. 
Substantially revising the defini tion of MCA, as foreseen under Policy Options 2 and 3, 
would give a signal that reducin g noise will remain an import ant aspect of future airframe 
and engine development. It will also incentivise the timely renewal of the fleet generating additional market demand for quieter aircraft.
 
122. As for aircraft engines, there are now in principle major technologies97 to further improve 
their noise performance, shown on Figure 9. Wh ile engine manufacturers will likely be 
impacted by more stringent noise measures in  the longer run dependi ng on their principal 
choice of technology investment, the Policy Opti ons in this Impact Assessment would not 
at this stage have any significant effect, in addition to providing the signal on the future 
importance of noise abatement technologies. Ho wever, it is clear that new technology 
should deliver on both emissions and noise perf ormance, and that they should not cause 
additional environmental harm. 
Figure 9: Specific fuel consumption versus  noise for open-rotor engine technology98 
                                                 
96 Depending on the exact Maximum Take-Off Weight. 
97 The performance of the so-called “open rotor” engines n eeds to be compared with state of the art aircraft. 
However, open rotor might be limited to lower flight speeds hence their application will be limited to short-
haul aircraft, where marginally incr eased journey times may be acceptable. Open-rotor technology is therefore 
affected by operational trade-offs as well as “emissions versus noise” trade-offs. Lo nghaul aircraft are more 
likely to continue to be powered by advanced turbofan engines where flight time, airport noise curfews and operational issues may preclude open-rotor solutions. Indeed, open rotor might lead to 'en route' noise, due to 
its specific noise profile caused by th e counter rotating blades. The exact no ise performance of open rotor is 
not yet publicly known. In this example, interdepende ncies prompt two potential solutions showing that fuel 
burn can be decreased at the expense of noise compared with equivalent technology turbofans.  Source: 
Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe, 2010, Aeronautics and Air Transport: Beyond Vision 2020 (Towards 2050), Background Document. 
98 Rolls-Royce as shown Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe, 2010, Aeronautics and Air 
Transport: Beyond Vision 2020 (Towards 2050), Background Document p. 65. 
 
EN 42   EN 
 
5.2.5.  Impact on innovation and research 
123. In 2001, the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe set the target of 
achieving by 2020 "a reduction in pe rceived noise to one half of current average levels". In 
line with this goal, substantial R&D and de ployment efforts have been undertaken, for 
instance through the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative99 by developing quieter 
aircraft; and through the SESAR Joint Undertaking100 by producing the new ATM system 
enabling better noise performance through innovative operational measures. While both 
Policy Option 2 and 3 would in particular in centivise action to re duce noise at source 
through updating the definition of MCA, Policy Option 3 would in addition guarantee that 
operational measures are fully recognised a nd taken into account to assess the cost-
effectiveness of operatin g restrictions through the Balanced Approach. 
5.2.6.  Impact on administrative costs 
124. Administrative costs are define d as the costs incurred by different stakeholders in meeting 
legal obligations to provide information on  their action or produc tion either to public 
authorities or to private partie s. Information is understood in a broad sense, i.e. including 
labelling, reporting, registra tion, monitoring and assessment needed to provide the 
information.  
125. The administrative costs are calculated as changes in costs compared to the baseline 
scenario. Additional costs for public author ities and airports are all considered.  
126. The identification and assessment of administ rative costs have as far as possible been 
following the steps in the EU standard cost model. A more detailed  description of the 
calculation of administrative costs is availabl e in Appendix 7: Revisi on of the Directive - 
assessment of administrative costs. The calcula tions are based on best available estimates 
                                                 
99 http://www.cleansky.eu/ 
100 http://www.sesarju.eu/ 
 
EN 43   EN and assumptions. It should be stressed ther e is a considerable uncertainty in the 
calculations. 
127. The estimated yearly change in administrativ e costs associated with each Policy Option is 
shown in Error! Reference source not found. .  
Table 8: Change in yearly administrative costs 
Euros/year Policy option 2 Policy option 3 Policy option 4 
        
1. Support cell 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 
1 a. Establish support cell 0 0 0 
1 b. Annual update of support cell  40,000 40,000 40,000 
1 c. Impact of support cell on operating 
costs  - 40,000 - 40,000 - 40,000 
1 d. Mandatory modelling  1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 
2. Stakeholder consultation 800,000 800,000 800,000 
3. Notification procedure 0 1,200,000 2,400,000  
3 a. Change in notification procedures   0 1,200,000 0 
3 b. Change in notification procedures  0  0  2,400,000 
 Total 1,800,000 3,000,000 4,200,000 
Private sector 14 % 8 % 6 % 
Public sector 86 % 92 % 94 % 
 
128. The aggregate annual administrative cost in relation to the support cell gives rise to 
administrative costs to airports and airlines in the EU due to increased information obligations. At the same time there will be an  annual reduction in costs of around the same 
size to airports performing a noise assessment in line with the Balanced Approach. The 
information obligation and the costs will fall on all major airports and airlines while the 
savings will be concentrated on the airports obliged to perform an analysis of operating 
restrictions. 
129. Mandatory utilisation of a noise  modelling tool in assessing the impacts of the different 
noise abatement measures in all Policy Options will increase th e costs. It is assumed that 
this will imply an average cost of € 50,000 for each assessment. This corresponds to the estimated cost of procuring this service from  a consultant who woul d tailor the EU tool 
provided by the support cell to local conditions. 
130. All Policy Options foresee a widening and deepening of the scope of stakeholder 
consultation. This measure would imply mo re specific demands on the existing national 
 
EN 44   EN rules, and would increase the cost per assessme nt for authorities in Member States due to 
information obligation, assessment of contributions and decision-making. 
131. The change in notification and scrutiny pro cedure in Policy Option 3 and Policy Option 4 
compared to the Policy Option 1 will raise the qu ality of the analysis which the authorities 
have to deliver.  
132. It is assumed that the Policy Option 3 (scru tiny) would give rise extra cost for public 
authorities due to information exchange w ith Commission, preparation of supplementary 
material, meetings in Brussels etc. Thes e activities would probably involve different 
specialists and management levels from th e Member States, hence a close to average 
hourly rate can be assumed. It is assumed that the Commission scrutiny will amount to 1 
man year distributed on different specialists w ithin the Commission at large. This would be 
in line with the current efforts to monitor th e implementation of the directive and undertake 
noise related action. 
133. Policy Option 4 (prior authorisatio n) is assumed to give rise to  the same type of costs as 
mentioned above, but it clearly would be more demanding on the Member States. The 
Commission would take greater responsibility an d would probably have to ensure that the 
information and analysis supporting the decisions are correct. It is assumed that the 
workload for the Commission will amount to  1-2 man year distributed on different 
specialists, as every decision on an operati ng restriction would become subject to 
Commission analysis. 
134. In addition to a change in the annual administ rative costs, all Policy Options would imply a 
very modest initial data collection aiming at ad justing already existing data for this specific 
purpose, refinement of existing Eurocontrol data, and the validatio n and update of this 
information on a recurrent basis. Data ha s to be supplied by airports, aircraft 
manufacturers, international organisations and public author ities in Member States. The 
baseline scenario does not cont ain administrative costs for this purpose. The one time cost 
is assumed to be € 120,000. 
5.2.7.  Impact on EU budget 
135. The EU budget would be affected by Polic y Options 2, 3 and 4 compared to Policy 
Option 1. The effect on the budget is due to the establishment of a support cell and to the 
staff necessary for the increased supervisio n (Policy Option 3) and enhanced control 
(Policy Option 4), being the lowest in Polic y Option 2 and the most significant burden in 
Policy Option 4. Nevertheless, the impact of the proposal on the EU budget will be fairly limited, as the assessment tools, the required da ta and the evaluation efforts have already 
been developed and will also be used for other purposes. Da tabases on noise performance, 
noise mapping software, a multi-airport model
101 already have been developed by 
Eurocontrol102. They can be used by the SESAR Joint Undertaking to assess the 
performance of new air traffic systems or  by the Single European Sky Performance 
Review Body to assess f easibility of setting performance targets and monitoring them with 
                                                 
101 The Commission and Eurocontrol have jointly developed such model, which is currently used to assess noise 
stringency. The model would also be used to assess SESAR induced operational improvements and would allow assessing the interdependencies between noise and emissions. 
102 The current Eurocontrol framework agreement covers this action. The earmarked budget amounts to about 
€20,000 for the collection of additional data on noise. 
 
EN 45   EN appropriate incentives. The Commissi on has control over these tools. 103 In general these 
tools improve the environmental policy assessment capacity of the Commission. 
136. The costs to the EU budget which are associat ed with the set-up of the support cell, could 
be quite limited if the cell was integrated in an existing structure li ke Eurocontrol or the 
Performance Review Body, estimated at around €100,000 per year. This estimate includes 
the cost of one full-time equi valent Commission official as well as IT costs. The above-
mentioned Commission-Eurocontrol Framework Agreement already foresees support to 
National Supervisory Authorities. 
137. In addition to this support cell, Policy Option 3 foresees the right of scrutiny for the 
Commission in case of a substa ntiated appeal. Such scrutiny would entail the verification 
of the national noise assessment process. This task is estimated to demand what corresponds to a full time Commi ssion official and the associ ated overhead cost. Due to 
the relatively modest demand on resources it is expected that the financing could be found 
within the existing budget. 
138. Under Policy Option 4 the task performed by the Commission would be more demanding. 
The task of the Commission would be to assess the quality of the data  or the robustness of 
the methods used. Hence, the cost per decision would rise as compared to Policy Option 3, 
but the number of decisions would increase. 
5.2.8.  Impact on international relations 
139. In Policy Option 2, MCA are defined as Chapter 3 -12 EPNdB, effectively encroaching on 
Chapter 4 aircraft. However, such an a pproach does not follow the ICAO resolutions
104 
where Contracting States committed, at least fo r day operations, not to use restrictions on 
Chapter 4 compliant aircraft. ICAO resolutions  are binding for all EU Member States 
which are ICAO Contracting States. A ha rmonized definition of MCA going beyond 
Chapter 3 as envisaged under Po licy Option 2 could therefore lead to an international 
conflict with major aviation partners , in particular the United States. 
140. Policy Options 3 and 4 are fully in line with  ICAO commitments and requirements with 
regard to the definition of MCA, as well as to  a strengthened application of the Balanced 
Approach.  
5.3. Social impacts 
141. In this section, the Commission will assess social impacts of  the various po licy options in 
the fields which affect primarily people, na mely governance and participation, employment 
level and conditions and safety. The impact s of variation of noise pollution on human 
health are assessed in the secti on analysing environmental factors105. 
                                                 
103 For instance, STAPES is a multi-airport model to assess noise, developed by Eurocontrol and Commission. 
This model is currently used to assess noise stringency  for new aircraft in the ICAO process. With a limited 
effort, the model could be used to assess both noise and the interdependencies noise/emissions for SESAR or 
for particular airports. The model could also be used for the implementation of the Environmental Noise 
Directive, delivering EU wide noise assessments. 
104 Resolution 37-18 adopted during the ICAO Assembly of 2010. 
105 When assessing social impacts in tr ansport policy, no clear distinction can be made between social, economic 
and environmental impacts. For instance, a policy that reduces noise pollution induced by transport activities 
 
EN 46   EN 5.3.1.  Impact on governance and participation 
142. Thanks to the strengthened procedure, an impr ovement is expected in the transparency of 
noise assessments. The possibility of involve ment by all stakeholders, in particular 
citizens, would be guaranteed by the additional provision on the scope of stakeholder consultation foreseen in Policy Options 2, 3 and 4. The common procedures EU-wide 
would ensure the equal treatment of citizens confronted with deci sions on airport noise 
management, irrespective of where they live. 
5.3.2.  Impact on employment level and conditions 
143. Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 will likely have a positive impact on employment levels due to 
the positive effects outlin ed in Section 5.2.2, and 5.2.4
106. The direct employment benefits 
in the air transport industry can be estimat ed to be around 1.53 million jobs in the EU; 
while indirect and induced empl oyment is about 4.2 million in EU107.  
144. The better implementation of the Balanced A pproach will provide more certainty for 
investment decisions, and will enable aircraft  operators to organize their businesses in a 
more efficient flexible way. In particular ab rupt and costly reloca tions will be more 
certainly avoided under Policy Options 3 and 4.  
145. Concerning the profile of jobs pr ovided, it is likely that in particular Policy Option 2 would 
generate additional employment outside normal business hours. Good working conditions 
will thus need to be maintained in order to avoid any possible negative impact on employees. 
5.3.3.  Impact on safety 
146. Noise measures may have an impact on the sa fety of air transport.  Despite clear ICAO 
requirements to give absolute priority to safety, there are cases where noise related measures interfere with safety decisions, name ly if imposing specific characteristics on the 
final approach of the aircraft to airport, wh ich is a safety critical phase. Through the better 
enforcement of the correct implementation of  the Balanced Approach, Policy Options 3 
and 4 would ensure that su ch conflicts are avoided. 
5.4. Environmental impacts 
147. The Policy Options may affect the environment in two principal ways through their impact 
on the noise climate and their influence on greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions. 
                                                                                                                                                                 
 
affects primarily the natural environment, but also  human health. It has th erefore both social and 
environmental impacts. In this context, and to ensure  complete coherence with the methodology used in the 
Impact Assessment accompanying the recently adopted White Paper on Transport, the Commission assesses 
social impacts of the various policy options in the fields which affect primarily people, namely governance and 
participation, employment level and conditions and safe ty. The impacts of variation of noise pollution on 
human health are assessed in this s ection analysing environmental factors. 
106 Further discussion on the employment effects of air transport are described in 
Appendix 3: Overview of international and EU policies affecting airport noise. 
107 Air Transport Action Group, (2008), The economic and social benefits of air transport 2008, Geneva, 26p. 
 
EN 47   EN 5.4.1.  Impact on noise climate 
148. As explained in paragraph 81, the underlying logic when constructing the Policy Options 
was to maintain at least the same noise climat e as under Policy Option 1 as it is crucial to 
achieve established noise quality objectives. Given that the proposed initiative relates only to rules and procedure to be followed to in troduce operating restric tions, the impact of 
Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 on noise contours will be highly dependent on the particular noise abatement measures adopt ed by the individual airports. 
149. This dependence also holds for health impacts. Therefore the health impacts should be the 
principal element of noise assessments. Append ix 3: Overview of international and EU 
policies affecting airport noise highlights th e crucial importance of noise impacts on 
human health and the contributi on of aviation to noise pollution. 
5.4.2.  Impact on greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions 
150. Noise and emissions are conflicting objectives in the design of both airframes and engines 
(do manufacturers optimize in terms of fuel c onsumption or in terms of noise) and in the 
adoption of noise mitigating measures (does air traffic management provide for the shortest 
routes (which are likely to be  least costly in terms of em issions) or for somewhat longer 
routes to avoid noise impact on the communitie s on the ground, or stack aircraft in the air 
as long as the night ban lasts).  
Manufacturers need to be incentiv ised to try to achieve both noise and emission reduction, as 
encouraging the use of quieter aircraft can lead  under the current state of technology to fewer 
emissions. The latest generation of jets is signific antly better in terms of both noise and emissions.  
Table 9: Synergies and trade-offs between noise, local air quality and climate from various measures108 
                                                 
108 IEA, 2009, Transport, Energy and CO 2. Moving Toward Sustainability.  Chapter 7, Table 7-3.  
 
EN 48   EN 
 
151. On the other hand, it is recognised that in cert ain cases, measures taken to improve the fuel 
efficiency of aircraft and hence lower th eir emission, may negatively affect noise 
performance. Table 9 (and also Figure 9) highlig hts some of these trade-offs and synergies 
for operational measures. Many operational and technical measures have conflicting 
impacts: for instance, the Continuous Descent Approach benefits all three environmental 
(noise, local air quality and climate). Lightweighting also provides benefits across all areas, as do most types of aerodynamic improv ement. In all other cases, trade-offs are 
necessary. The inclusion of aviation in the EU  ETS from 2012 will in particular provide 
further incentives for lower fuel burn, wh ich in some cases will counteract the 
effectiveness noise management instruments.  
152. While this trade-off affects all Policy Options , Policy Option 4 is expected to be most 
affected since this Option introduces an incr ease in the cumulative margin to the noise 
standard of chapter 3 from five to eight in the definition of marginally compliant aircraft. 
Such a measure will unlikely to be a strong ince ntive and signal to develop and use quieter 
aircraft, and hence will necessita te more operating restrictions. 
5.5. Conclusions 
153. The results of the previous sect ions give the following picture of the impacts of the various 
Policy Options relative to Policy Option 1. 
 
EN 49   EN Table 10: Summary table of impact s compared to Policy Option 1 
 Policy Option 2 Policy Option 3 Policy Option 4 
Impact on the implementa tion of the Balanced 
Approach Medium Medium High 
Economic impacts    
Impact on: 
The efficient functioning of the European aviation 
network  
Low  
Low  
Low 
Airports Medium Medium Low 
Aircraft operators Low Low Medium 
Airframe and aircraft engine manufacturer Medium Medium Neutral 
Administrative costs Up to  
€ 1,800,000/year  Up to  
€ 3,000,000/year  Up to  
€ 4,200,000/year 
EU budget Low Medium High 
International relations High Low Low 
Social impacts    
Impact on governance and participation High High High 
Impact on employment level and conditions Low Low Low 
Impact on safety Low Medium Medium 
Environmental impacts    
Impact on noise Neutral Neutral Neutral 
Impact on climate change Medium Medium Neutral 
Legend: negative impacts are identified as dark orange in bold italics. 
"High" refers to high likelihood of significant impacts. "Medium" and "Low" mean lower probabilities for a significant 
impact to arise. The magnitude of impact will in all cases de pend on the measures chosen through the discretion of local 
and national authorities, and aircraft operators.  
6. COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS  
154. The analysis above has shown that the three Policy Options have clear economic, social 
and environmental impacts. 
– From an economic point of view, Policy Option 2 seems to be overall preferable as it 
has the smallest increase in administrative costs. However this Policy Option can be 
regarded as challenging in terms of intern ational relations. Polic y Option 3 would avoid 
this negative impact on the external relations , but would pose an additional burden on 
the EU budget. This Policy Option would keep  the administrative burden similar to 
Policy Option 1. 
– Also from a social point of view, Policy Op tions 2, 3 and 4 have a similar impact. The 
only major difference in the effects stems from  the extent to which operational measures 
 
EN 50   EN affecting the safety of aircraft are scrutinis ed. Policy Options 2 a nd 3 can be considered 
largely equivalent in this respect.  
– With regard to environment, Policy Option 4 can clearly distinguish ed by the relatively 
high potential of negative im pacts related to trade-off between operational measures 
addressing noise and climate change. Again, Policy Option 2 and 3 can be considered by and large comparable in relation to the environmental impacts.  
155. This section provides for an assessment of how the policy options will contribute to the 
realization of the policy objectives, as set in Section 3, in light of the following evaluation 
criteria: 
• effectiveness – the extent to which options achieve the objectives of the proposal; 
• efficiency – the extent to which objectives can be achieved at least cost; 
• coherence –  the extent to which policy options are likely to limit trade-offs across the 
economic, social, and environmental domain. 
6.1. Effectiveness 
156. Table 11 gives a synthetic overview of the polic y options’ effectiveness with regard to the 
specific policy objectives defined in section 3. Th is shows that in terms of effectiveness, no 
clear priority can be established. This being said, Policy Option 3 appears to be the most 
balanced Policy Option because it offers the most  appropriate pallet of actions to meet the 
defined objectives. 
157. As regards the objective related to the rules on MCA, the effectiveness of the envisaged 
Policy Options is dependent upon their level of ambition in relation with the noise 
performance of aircraft. In this respect, Poli cy Option 2 is expected to score best because 
the revised definition of MCA is the strictest,  that is the MCA will encompass aircraft, the 
noise performance of which will be below Chapter 3 -12EPNdB standard and therefore 
close to Chapter 4 aircraft. Accordingly, Polic y Option 4 offers the lowest effectiveness 
being the least ambitious in terms of noise performance of aircraft whereas Policy Option 3 scores better than Policy Option 3. 
158. As regards the objective related to the consis tent introduction of opera ting restrictions at 
EU airports, the effectiveness of the envi saged Policy Options is dependent upon the 
degree of the quality control performed. Policy Option 4 offers the best possibilities in this respect because it benefits from its much stronger focus on the procedural framework, 
especially with the prominent role of the Commission in controlling the quality of the 
assessment process leading to the introduction of ope rating restrictions. The Commission 
will indeed be in charge of mandatory scru tiny and prior authorisation of any envisaged 
operating restrictions at EU airports. Compared to Policy Option 4, Policy Option 3 is less 
effective because the quality control will not be systematic. However, it will enable the Commission to focus its quality  control on the most problem atic operating restrictions. 
Policy Option 2 is expected to be by far the least effective because the scrutiny of the 
quality of the assessment process proced ure will be perfor med ex post through 
infringement procedures.  
 
EN 51   EN Table 11: Effectiveness of envisaged Policy Op tions in light of specific policy objectives 
Specific policy objectives Policy 
Option 1 Policy 
Option 2 Policy 
Option 3 Policy 
Option 4 
Make the specific rules on MCA effective by: 
- Revising obsolete definition of MCA 
- Choosing an adequate associated phasing-out period  neutral high medium low 
Ensure that similar operating re strictions are considered at 
airports with broadly comparable noise problems in a consistent 
manner by: 
- clarifying and specify how to carry out a noise assessment 
process  
- strengthening the procedural framework leading to the 
introduction of operating restrictions neutral low Medium - 
high high 
6.2. Efficiency  
159. Given that the proposed initiative  is of procedural nature, th e total cost of the envisaged 
Policy Options covers administrative costs (see section 5.2.6) and cost for the EU budget 
(see section 5.2.7). 
160. In light of the estimations detailed above, Polic y Option 2 appears to be  the most efficient 
as it would bring about the smallest increas e in administrative costs. However, this 
assessment does not take account the potential costs of an in ternational di spute in the 
highly globalised avia tion market, possibly negatively aff ecting EU aircraft operators.  
6.3. Coherence 
161. As shown on Table 10, Policy Opti on 3 is the most coherent, ca refully balancing action to 
achieve the specific policy objectives. No signifi cant negative impact is foreseen under this 
Policy Option, which therefore represents lowe st trade-offs across the economic, social, 
and environmental domain. 
6.4. Conclusion  
Table 12: Comparison of options in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and coherence 
Specific policy objectives Policy Option 1 Policy Option 2 Policy Option 3 Policy Option 4 
Effectiveness neutral low medium  high 
Efficiency neutral high medium medium 
Coherence neutral medium high low 
 
 
EN 52   EN 162. In light of the above and as summarised in Table 12, the preference is given to Policy 
Option 3 which performs under no criteria inadequately. Policy Option 3 appears in 
particular with respect to coherence, th e most suitable Policy Option to achieve the 
objectives identified in Section 3. 
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
163. The Commission will properly ev aluate and review the Regul ation five years after its 
adoption by the Commission. On top of the evidence produced in the framework of a 
scrutiny or appeal procedure on  particular cases, the Commissi on will constantly monitor a 
set of core indicators which will be updated to trace the effectivene ss of the regulation.  
(1) In particular, in line with the operational polic y objective that all ne w operating restrictions 
should include measures specifi cally targeting MCA, the evol ution of the role that MCA 
play in the European aviation system will be monitored. This can be done through a set of 
concrete indicators: 
• Noise certification: EASA has a publicly available data bank109 on certification 
information, including noise performa nce, of all new aircraft types. 
• Movements performed by MCA: Eurocontrol has information on all movements in the 
ECAC region (to be defined). This informa tion can be combined with their PRISME 
data base, which is the Eurocontrol data  warehouse holding information on movement 
numbers, aircraft t ypes, airports, etc. 110 
(2) It is generally observed that political pre ssure points to a single solution to the noise 
problem – usually operating rest rictions – while a thorough a nd refined analysis may lay 
the basis for considering a wider range of noise mitigating measures from which the most cost-effective can be selected. Therefore a nother operational policy objective requires that 
the share of new curfews to total operating rest rictions should be s ubstantially reduced by 
2020. This can be monitored through the fo llowing indicator, which would also 
complement monitoring required by the first operational objective: 
• The evolution of noise mitigating measures (based on number and policy mix). This 
information can be drawn from the Perfor mance Plans under to Single European Sky 
legislation; from National Noise Action Plan s; to be delivered under the Environmental 
Noise Directive; and from specifi c noise performance trend reports. 
Table 13: Monitoring indicators 
Key indicators Definition Relevance 
Monitoring the noise performance of aircraft  and quality of noise management policies 
Noise certification  This indicator shows the noise 
performance of new aircraft. This indicator monitors the progress 
in noise performance of new aircraft. 
                                                 
109 http://easa.europa.eu/certificati on/type-certificates/noise.php 
110 These two databases still need to be linked with a common key (with airport data) so that the noise 
performance of individual aircraft is known. This woul d in any case be required to assess noise performance of 
the Single European Sky.  
 
EN 53   EN Number of movements of MCA This indicator gives the number of 
flights performed in the ECAC region 
of MCA (can be detailed per airport 
and airline). This indicator shows trends in the use 
of MCA. 
Overview of operating restrictions 
and the mix of noise mitigating 
measures This new indicator would compile 
information from noise action plans 
and performance plans on the quality 
of noise mitigating measures. This indicator would reveal the 
quality of noise assessment process. 
164. Beyond the existing sources, the Commission is building up its mon itoring and modelling 
capacity, including by gearing existing Eurocontrol expertis e and data towards more 
precise noise (and environmental) assessment capabilities, including through the standing 
framework agreement with Eurocontrol. To summarize, Commission is responsible for the 
monitoring arrangements with the associated  administrative costs, in particular by 
providing for adequate indicators for the noise  annoyance in view of the implicit objective 
to keep low noise levels. 
 
EN 54   EN  
8. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS  
(1) Alders, Hans (2010), "Toekomst van Schiphol en de regio" 
(2) Anotec Consulting, S.L, (2003), "Study on Current and Future Aircraft Noise Exposure at 
and around Community Airports – Final Report", Madrid, 91p. 
(3) Booz & co., (2009), "Effects of EU Libera lisation on Air Transport Employment and 
Working Conditions", France, 186p. 
(4) CE, (2005), "Sound Noise Limits – Options fo r a uniform noise limiting scheme for EU 
airports, Delft, 95p. 
(5) Civil Aviation Authority of UK, (2010), "Env ironmental Noise and Health: A review", 
Norwich, 46p. 
(6) DLR, (2011), Study on the Balanced Approach to noise management and its influence on 
the economic impact of air transportation, Köln, 86p. 
(7) Environmental Health Perspectives, Volu me 113, Number 11, (2005), "Hypertension and 
Exposure to Noise near Airports ( HYENA): Study Design and Noise Exposure 
Assessment", USA, p. 1473 to 1478. 
(8) Eurocontrol, (2007), "A place to stand: Airpor ts in the European Air Network", Brussels, 
72p. 
(9) Eurocontrol, (2008), "Long-Term Forecast – Flight Movements 2008-2030", Brussels, 51p. 
(10) Eurocontrol, (2008), "Challenges  of Growth 2008", Brussels, 34p. 
(11) Eurocontrol, (2010), "Dependent  on the Dark: Cargo and othe r Night Flights in European 
Airspace", Brussels, 92p. 
(12) Eurocontrol, (2011), "Marginal Chapter 3 Ai rcraft – Initial Decision Support Data", 
Brussels, 51p. 
(13) European Environment Agency, (2009), "Transport  at a crossroads – Term 2008: indicators 
tracking transport environment in the European Union", Copenhagen, 53p. 
(14) European Environment Agency, (2010), "Towards  a resource-efficient transport system", 
Copenhagen, 47p. 
(15) MPD Group Ltd, (2005), "Assessing the Economic Cost s of night Flight Restrictions – Final 
Report", London, 138p. 
(16) MPD Group Ltd, in association wi th Environmental Resources Management and CE Delft, 
(2007), "Study of Aircraft Noise Exposure at  and around Community Airports: Evaluation 
of the Effect of Measures to Reduce No ise", Final Report", London, 134p. + appendices. 
 
EN 55   EN (17) RPA Ltd, (2010), "Final Report on Task 3 – Impact Assessment and Proposal of Action 
Plan", Brussels, 77p.+Annex 
(18) SESAR Joint Undertaking, (2011,  SESAR/EC Discussion Pape r regarding the revision of 
2002/30 – airport noise Dir ective, Brussels, 12p. 
(19) Sofréavia, (2004), "Study on the different aspect s of Noise Limits at Airports – Final 
Report", Boulogne-Billancourt, 79p. 
(20) Sourdine II, (2001), "Framework for Cost Be nefit Analysis of NAPs", The Netherlands, 40p. 
(21) World Health Organization, (2011), "Burden of disease from environmental noise", 
Copenhagen, 106p.  
 
EN 56   EN  
9. APPENDICES  
Appendix 1: Assessment of the applicati on of the minimum consultation standards 
• Clear content of the consultation process 
1. The evaluation of Directive 2002/30/EC started fi ve years after its adop tion. It consisted of 
an implementation assessment, and a questionnaire sent to stakeholders. The views of stakeholders, indicating room for improvement , form the basis for the revision of the 
Directive.  
• Consultation of target groups 
2. All relevant stakeholders, as specified in A ppendix 2: Details of the consultation process 
and outcome, have been able to  participate in the consultati on process. These stakeholders 
can be deemed adequately representative fo r aviation noise issues. Beyond Member States 
and aviation industry, also community gr oups and independent 'noise councils' were 
consulted. 
• Publication 
3. The results of the study and views of the st akeholders were reflected in COM(2008) 68. 
• Time limits for participation 
4. Stakeholders have been given three m onths time to provide written comments. 
5. During 2010 until mid-2011 stakeholders were given the opportunity to confirm their 
positions. In addition, the scope of the consulte d stakeholders was widened to also include 
community groups. 
• Acknowledgement and feedback 
6. Responses from stakeholders following the publ ic consultations and stakeholder meetings 
have been acknowledged and most of th e stakeholders’ responses or background 
documents are publicly available on their websites
111. 
• Main results and how these have been taken into account 
7. The Commission has analysed the comments made , and the results of the consultation have 
been taken into account in assessing the differe nt possible actions to improve the quality of 
the noise assessment measures. In addition, Comm ission services were able to count on the 
appreciated support of European Aviation Sa fety Agency, Eurocontrol and the SESAR 
Joint Undertaking. 
                                                 
111 See for instance: http://www.aea.be/assets/documen ts/positions/PP_00329.pdf; 
http://www.acnusa.fr/index.p hp/fr/qui-sommes-nous/publications/communiques/1384. 
 
EN 57   EN Appendix 2: Details of the c onsultation process and outcome 
1. The most affected stakeholders concerni ng noise and aviation ar e airport community 
groups, airports, airlines (inc luding air cargo), aircraft manufacturers and independent 
noise councils. These stakeholders  were consulted in two phases.  
2. In a first phase a general open consultation took place in 2007-2008. Article 14 of the 
Directive requires the Commission to report to the European Parliament and to the Council 
on the application of the Directive. The open consultation of stake holders was done as a 
central part of the prepar ation of this report.  
3. Interviews were conducted wi th 52 Community airports and a number of aviation industry 
representatives: 112 
• Association of European Ai rlines (AEA), representing the “mainstream” European 
scheduled service airlines; 
• European Business Aviation Association (EBAA); 
• European Express Association (EEA), whose full members are DHL, FedEx, TNT 
and UPS, hence representing the cargo carriers; 
• European Regions Airline Association (ERA); 
• Committee for Environmentally Friendly Aviation (CEFA); 
• International Air Carrier Association (IA CA), traditionally representing “leisure” 
(holiday/charter) airlines. 
• Airports Council International 
4. The result of this consultation formed part  of a more general background study performed 
by MPD Group Limited. The report from the C onsultant covering consultation and study 
was completed in October 2007. All stakeholders  and stakeholder groups  have been invited 
to send their reactions in the three months after the publication of the Report. The Report 
has also been published on the Internet113. 
5. In the second phase the main stakeholders which had responded to the open consultation 
were contacted again in the course of 2010- 11 to see whether their 2008 positions were 
still valid and could be confirmed. In addi tion, the consultation was widened to the 
"Autorité de contrôle des nuisances sonor es aéroportuaires" (ACN USA); the Aviation 
Environment Federation, an European NGO representing national Community groups 
speaking on behalf of the affected population114; and the AeroSpace and Defence 
Industries Association of Europe (ASD), th e European of equipm ent manufacturers.  
                                                 
112 See especially chapter 5 of MPD Group Ltd (2007). 
113 http://ec.europa.eu/tran sport/air_portal/environmen t/aircraft_noise_en.htm 
114 Community groups are by definition focused on particular airports and are not able to take a substantiated 
position on EU legislation. There are a few NGOs who ar e able to do so. For aviation noise one of the most 
active is Aviation Environment Federation. This NGO shares the work with other NGOs like T&E to follow 
European policies. Other, not noise-specific environmental organisations did not reply to the open consultation 
 
EN 58   EN 6. The main outcome of this consultation round was as follows. The operators115, namely the 
Association of European Airlines (AEA), representing the traditional flag carriers: 
• insisted that the principles of ICAO's Bala nced Approach should be correctly applied 
(on an airport-by-airport basis; operationa l restrictions only to mitigate identified 
noise problems; use of most cost-effective measures on basis of cost-benefit analysis; 
and land use planning as a prerequisite) on basis of the existing Directive; 
• agreed that a new ‘chapter 5’ noise standard  might be feasible, to be developed in an 
ICAO context which takes due account of tec hnical feasibility, environmental benefit 
and economical affordability; 
• requested a further clarificati on of the Directive, what exac tly it permits and what it 
prohibits; 
• reiterated the need to consider the amendment of the definition of noisy aircraft 
(MCA) on basis of international regula tion to avoid market distortions; and 
• stated that the availability of new wide body aircraft wh ich are significantly quieter 
would contribute to contain noise contours. 
7. The European Express Association validated  the main points of  their 2008 position116 with 
a substantial change: the association would now  favour guidance instead of a review of the 
directive, involving a co-decision pr ocess. The position pointed at: 
• the inconsistent interpretation and applications of the Directive; 
• the focus on operating restrictions instead of a Balanced Approach, making best use 
of the full range of instruments, especia lly land use planning a nd reduction of noise 
at source; 
• the disproportionate impact (heavy burden for express carriers with a marginal 
environmental benefit) that a widening of the definition of 'noisy aircraft' would 
have; and 
• its preference of having guidance material developed to help Member States in the 
implementation – however, if a review of th e Directive is deemed necessary, in such 
case the express carriers str ongly prefer the transformatio n of the Directive into a 
regulation; 
8. The airports 117, represented by ACI, reiterated  and updated th eir 2008 position: 
                                                 
115 While this is the AEA statement, its position should represent all operators, namely ERA (regional), IACA 
(leisure) and ELFAA (low cost), as they are impacted in quite similar ways. Only IACA may have relatively 
more night flights for their operations. Also exch anges with IATA, the Inte rnational Aviation Trade 
Association, took place. IATA represen ts the aircraft operators' interests at the global scale. IATA was in 
particularly interested in the follow-up of the EU -US second stage agreemen t on air services and the 
consequences of the possible proposals on non-EU operators – including US carriers. 
116 Details of the EEA's contribution can be found at: 
http://www.europeanexpressassociation. eu/about_the_eea.php?section_id=1 
117 The Airports Council International ACI has a specific working group on the issue. 
 
EN 59   EN • the Directive is more a guideline than hard  law, but can be useful in avoiding hasty 
noise measures; 
• full range of Balanced Approach measures should be exploited; 
• there is scope to widen the de finition of noisy aircraft up to  "chapter 4" aircraft, but 
an overall EU ban is not appropriate; and  
• clarification of exact possibilities/obligati ons would be greatly appreciated, paying 
particular attention to the burdensome procedures (which should not become 
mandatory) and the need to have recogn ition of national equivalent procedures. 
9. The French independent noise council (ACNUSA)118, on the basis of 10 years of 
independent noise policy in France, pleaded for: 
• a widening of the definition of MCA; 
• use of parameters which genuinely capture the annoyance feelings (e.g. complete the 
Lden parameter with the number of too loud aircraft events; absolute loud events 
instead of averages); 
• improved modelling of airport noise, b acked up with actual measuring; and 
• a more systematic use of noise friendly operating procedures, such as “continuous 
descent approaches”. 
10. The Community groups, namely the Aviation Environment Federation representing noise 
and environmental action groups from the UK, France and Germany, stressed: 
• the need to properly regulat e, on basis of a noise th reshold, as airports under 
competition pressure want to remain as flexible as possible; 
• the key role of operating restrictions to  improve the noise nuisance situation and 
incentives to replace the noisiest aircraft; and 
• to widen the definition of "MCA" to have a real impact. 
11. The aircraft manufacturers (ASD ) are especially involved in the development of new noise 
standards within the ICAO technica l working groups and focused on: 
• the need to consider interdependencies between possibly conf licting objectives like 
noise and CO 2 reduction; 
• the longer term view of sta ndard development, where the rhythm of standard setting 
must keep pace of technologi cal feasibility, the value of the fleet over the lifetime of 
aircraft and should be competition neutral. 
                                                 
118 ACNUSA (together with its Walloon sister organisation)  is a unique forum to tackle , in an advisory capacity, 
noise nuisances independently from authorities and airports. More information of ACNUSA activities can be 
found at: http ://www.acnusa.fr/index.php/fr/qui-sommes-nous/ 
 
EN 60   EN 12. The Member States were consulted at numer ous occasions, including the various meetings 
of ANCAT119, EuroCAEP120 and the Noise Regulatory Committee121, and the following 
general messages were communicated to the Commission: 
• the need to preserve flexibility in the assessment of the noise problems and necessity 
to provide for transitional arrangements; 
• avoid duplication of efforts (e.g. environmenta l assessments to be re-used) and fine-
tune the relation betw een the two directives 2002/30/EC  and 2002/EC/49, so that the 
same assessments can satisfy the two directives; and 
• consider the international context, with re gard to the use of methods and measures. 
13. Finally, the local authorities were consulte d in a technical meeting with the ARC – 
Airports Regions Conference, who are main ly in charge for land use. The ARC 
participants approached the i ssue from an environmental cap acity perspective of a region, 
which includes land use planning, use of approp riate indicators, a medi ation process, and a 
need to better integrate the requirements unde r the environmental noise directive with the 
airport noise dire ctive (2002/30/EC). 
                                                 
119 Meetings by the group "Abatement of Nuisances Caus ed by Air Traffic" took place in May and October 2010 
and in May 2011. In this group European Civil Aviati on Conference members are represented together with 
industry. 
120 Only Member States participate. The mo st recent meeting took place in May 2011. 
121 This group was established by the Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC > meetings took place in 
September and December 2010 and in May 2011.  
 
EN 61   EN Appendix 3: Overview of international and EU policies affecting airport noise 
1. THE EUROPEAN APPROACH TO NOISE  
1. Europe is working within the international framework to contribute to consistent noise 
policies where each governance  level bears responsibility fo r a range of noise mitigating 
actions.  
2. As at ICAO level, reducing noise at source is a key component of EU policy. Firstly, the 
EU actively supports the development of new noise standards for aircraft through ICAO. 
After the adoption of the current standard of chapter 4, in 2001, ICAO will develop new 
noise stringency standards in the next ac tivities cycles 2010-13 and 2013-16, expected to 
lead to a new standard by 2016. Secondly, the EU is also i nvesting in new technologies 
through the Framework Programmes and the Clean Sky project122. Thirdly, once a new 
standard is set 123, the older, noisier aircraft sh ould be phased out and banned from 
European airspace. This is done through di rective 2006/93/EC for “chapter 2” aircraft. 
Directive 2002/30/EC, under review, allows taking a range of mitigating measures, 
including a ban of aircraft, which are just above the noise standard (with a common definition of so-called 'MCA', currently define d in the Directive as "chapter 3 minus 5" 
124) 
on a airport by airport basis.  
3. Land use planning, together with  the associated in sulation and compensation programmes, 
is a national competence. This measure is menti oned here as relevant to assess the need for 
operating restrictions. Firstly, authorities should give planni ng guidance and could refuse 
planning permission for housing in areas expo sed to high noise levels (>57dB(A) is a 
general standard). Secondly, la nd around airports also can be demarcated, in function of 
regularly updated noise maps, as either qualifying for compensation or support for 
insulation, or as being inappropriate  for residential development.  
4. Operational noise abatement procedures are us ed at all airports an d may take different 
forms: noise preferential routes (where airc raft fly e.g. over least populated areas), thrust 
management (the more thrust, the more noise is generated but the steeper the aircraft may 
climb) or specific measures on the ground (e.g. use of specific taxi or runways). The EU 
contributes through its Single European Sky legislation, which provides for setting 
performance targets for air navi gation service providers in the environmental field. This 
could provide for a strong boost for emission and noise profile improving flights (green 
flights), such as precision navigation and continuous descen t approaches (not descending 
in steps, but following a natural descent ra te to minimize thrust). The SESAR project 
should in the medium term allow for such "gr een" flights, i.e. preci se navigation ‘business 
                                                 
122 The Clean Sky JTI will be one of the largest European  research projects ever, with a budget estimated at 
€1.6 billion, equally shared between the European Commission and industry, over the period 2008 - 2013. This 
public-private partnership will speed up technological breakthrough developments and shorten the time to 
market for new solutions tested on Full Scale Demonstr ators, contributing to fulfilling the objectives set by 
ACARE (50% less CO 2 emissions, 80% less NO x emissions, half the noise levels and consider the full life 
cycle of the product. Noise is covered through both engine and airframe improvements. 
123 Chapter 2 was adopted in 1977; chapter 3 in 1988; chapter 4 in 2001. 
124 Meaning the aircraft satisfies the ICAO chapter 3 requir ements with at least 5 dBA difference, measured for 
the three measuring points cumulatively. See gl ossary for noise certification measuring points. 
 
EN 62   EN trajectories’ with an optimized flight profile. The assessment tools under this programme 
will also provide evidence on the interdependencies between noise and CO 2 emissions. 
5. The last element of the Balanced Approach, the introduction of operating restrictions, is 
the most delicate element and is a far reaching measure. Hence, the process leading to such decision should be consistent, evidence based and robust to be acceptable for all stakeholders. The Directive 2002 /30/EC implements the four th pillar of the Balanced 
Approach into European law, and provides in particular a decision-making process which 
Member States must follow in case of the implementation operating restrictions. 
6. In 1992, in order to cut down the level of nui sance from air transport, the EU adopted 
Directive 92/14/EEC, based on standards of ICAO, to ban the noisiest aircraft from 
European airports. These aircraft - defined in  Chapter 2 of Annex 16 to the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation (“Chicago Convent ion”) - were no longer allowed to operate 
in the European Union after April 2002. 
7. In March 1998 the Commission proposed a new Directive aimed at limiting the operation 
in the European Union of Chapter 2 aircraft fitted with “hushkits” (a noise reducing device fitted on the engine of an aircraft, which was subsequently re-certificated to satisfy higher noise standards) .The ensuing Regulation was repealed on 28 March 2002 following the 
adoption of the Directive which enshrined the ICAO Resolution A33-7 on the use of a 
‘balanced approach’ to noise manage ment around airports (see below). 
8. The Directive was successful to avoid an open row with major aviation partners on the 
hushkit regulation. In addition, the common de finition of MCA led to the phasing-out of 
this generation of aircraft t ypes. On the other hand, the Dir ective was less successful in 
establishing a strong noise management structure. 
9. In addition to the aviation specific legi slation, the Environmental Noise Directive 
2002/49/EC
125 provides for noise protection from a ll sources of environmental sources 
(transport and industry), obligi ng Member States to identify  the main sources of noise 
(including from aircraft  around airports), to make regular assessmen ts on noise nuisances 
in five years cycles, and then adopt no ise action plans on a five yearly basis. 
10. Directive 2002/49/EC aims to define a common approach to avoid, pr event or reduce the 
harmful effects, including annoyance, of en vironmental noise. Eventually it aims at 
developing European measures to reduce noise  emitted by road, rail, aircraft, industrial 
equipment and mobile machinery. This direct ive covers airports with more than 50,000 
movements. The noise assessments are based on harmonized indicators, assessment methods and noise mapping. For aviation, a referen ce is made to the relevant international 
guidance material
126. 
                                                 
125 Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the 
assessment and management of environmental noise. 
126 ECAC document 29. – report on standard method of computing noise contours around civil airports. 
 
EN 63   EN Figure 10: Interaction between th e Directive and other EU policies 
 
 
11. Every ICAO Assembly adopts a consolidated resolution on environmental policies. The 
last Assembly adopted resolution A37-19. The Eur opean policy is strictly aligned with this 
ICAO policy. 
12. The most relevant clauses of th is resolution are the following: 
 
EN 64   EN • States are urged to refrain from environmen tal measures that w ould adversely affect 
the orderly and sustainable developm ent of internati onal civil aviation. 
• It is ultimately the responsibility of indivi dual states to develop appropriate solutions 
to the noise problems at their airports, w ith due regard to ICAO rules and policies; 
• States are urged to adopt the Balanced  Approach, taking full account of ICAO 
guidance (Doc 9829), relevant legal obligati on, existing agreements, current laws and 
established practices, when addressing noise problems; 
• Not apply operating restrictions as a first resort but only after consideration of the 
benefits to be gained from other elements of the balanced approach; 
• States are urged not to introduce measures to phase out aircraft which comply with 
the noise certification standard s of chapters 3 and 4 (phase-out being a withdrawal of 
a noise-based category of aircraft from inte rnational operational at all airports in one 
or more states); 
• States are urged not to impose any operati ons restrictions on chapter 3 compliant 
aircraft except as part of the bala nced approach to noise management. 
13. It should be noted that ICAO respects curren t laws and practices, which includes in Europe 
particular measures focusing on the noisiest aircraft, as set out by the Directive on 
'marginally compliant aircraft'. 
2. THE PHENOMENON OF AVIATION NOISE  
14. Europe is promoting a strong aviation industry. The decades' long growth of air traffic is 
forecasted to continue. The current level of 10 million flights in Europe is forecasted to 
nearly double to 18 million by 2030.  
15. Noise is an important external cost generate d by transport. Firstly, unlike emissions, noise 
as such is not a problem. Noise only becomes a problem when it translates into annoyance. 
Aviation noise appears to create higher levels  of annoyance than noise from other main 
transport sources. The degree of annoyance depe nds on a range of factors: time, duration, 
frequency, tone, etc. It is the noise stemming from approaching and departing flights which 
creates a problem in the vicinity of the airports , not noise from aircraft  in cruising altitude. 
16. Annoyance is also relative, in the sense that people who are used to a certain exposure to 
noise will react in function of this relativ e level. As a public consultation showed, " A whole 
new group of people suddenl y find their peace shattere d and their houses devalued. 
Aircraft noise is even more strongly resented  when people feel treated unjustly and unable 
to escape…… but for those people adversely affe cted the situation has become intolerable. 
They feel it is totally unfair that they should be made to suffer the whole burden. Frequent 
lower levels of noise are considered worse  than the occasional higher noise: constant 
 
EN 65   EN noise brings the feeling that there is no es cape from it, and for some this leads to 
desperation ." 127 
17. Secondly, in order to adequately address the challenges of noise, te chnical modelling is 
needed. Modelling of noise impacts is becomi ng however more and more complicated due 
to the use of a broader range of aircraft, the emergence of new operational measures, but also due to the increasing n eed to assess the interdependence with GHG and pollutant 
emissions. 
18. Thirdly, deciding on the ways to address no ise problems generates intense discussions 
among stakeholders and is a standing issue on  the local political agenda of communities in 
the vicinity of airports.  
19. Finally, the measures taken at the local leve l can have wider reperc ussions. Aviation is a 
global industry. Aircraft visit European airports  from all corners of the world. At the same 
time, local measures may affect the efficiency of the network as a whol e, or the operations 
of a neighbouring state in case an airport locate d near borders. Noise is  therefore one of the 
standing issues in internati onal (bilateral) discussions. 
3. A
VIATION AS AN ENGINE TO INCLUSIVE GROWTH  
20. Beyond the invaluable freedom to mobility and travel, aviation is an engine to local and 
regional growth. The following figures give an  idea of the general employment effects, 
calculated 128 per 1,000,000 passengers 'airport throughput' (with nearly 800 million 
passengers in European airports:  
• 950 jobs on site;  
• plus 475 additional jobs in the sub-region; 
• plus 570 regional jobs; 
• plus 950 national jobs, so in total nearly 3,000 jobs129. 
21. These general estimates can be refined per sp ecific airport. So is the employment per 
1,000,000 passengers 'airport throughput' in Paris CDG calculated as follows: 1,300 direct 
jobs and a total of 4,727 j obs (including indirect a nd induced employment).  
22. For freight transport, 12,300 jobs have been cr eated in the EU by freight between midnight 
and 5.00 am (2004 figures) due to  the following effects:  
• 272 tons of general cargo and mail produces one direct, one indirect and one induced 
job; 
                                                 
127 Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign, 2011, "A response to the consultation on the future air space strategy", 
p. 3. 
128 MPD Group Ltd in association with ERM,( 2005), Assessing the economic costs of night flight restrictions , 
London, 138p. 
129 MPD Group Ltd in association with ERM,( 2005), p. 80. 
 
EN 66   EN • 24 tonnes of express cargo also creates three jobs; 
23. Especially catalytic effects must be considered  in view of the local characteristics. In 
particular tourist destinations  have higher catalytic employment effects. For instance, the 
catalytic effect for Amsterdam estimated at  700 per million passengers, 882 in Brussels, 
but 16,000 for Malaga.  
4. HEALTH IMPACTS OF AVIATION NOISE AND ANNOYANCE  
24. Noise is a serious public health threat in indus trialised countries. More  and more scientific 
evidence becomes available demonstrating th e link between serious health impacts and 
excessive noise levels. Therefore, the abatemen t of noise is necessary  not only for comfort, 
but also to prevent other important health effects such as cardiovascular problems and 
cognitive impairment130.  
25. In this context, the contribution of aviatio n to noise pollution is important. Taking the 
55 dB L den noise measure (which corresponds to the noise level of a normal conversation at 
1 m distance, averaged over day, evening and night), the bulk of people living in 
agglomerations is affected by road tran sport noise (67 millions), whereas 3.2 million 
citizens are daily exposed to ai rcraft noise of that level131. Concerning night exposure, the 
numbers of people affected by 50 dB L n are shown in Table 14. 
Table 14: EU population exposed to Lnight > 50 dB, by source132 
Source of Exposure  Number of people exposed  
Major Roads 29,244,500 
Major Railways 5,616,800 
Major Airports 348,400 
 
26. The WHO has recently adopted  an authoritative re port on the burden of disease from 
environmental noise. The burden of noise is ex pressed in 'Disability-Adjusted Life Years' 
(DALY) stemming from ischaemic heart diseas e, sleep disturbance, tinnitus and annoyance 
in general. Table 15 gives the estimated DALYs for air traffic. 
                                                 
130 European Environmental Agency, 2009, Transport at a crossroads, EEA Report 3/2009, p. 23. However, the 
scientific evidence for aviation noise to affect mental health, performance, cognitive performance of children 
and foetal effects is far from conclusive. (Source: UK CAA, Environmental Research and Consultancy 
Department, 2010, " Environmental Noise and Health: a Review ", London, 46p.) 
131 See glossary for the explanation of these terms. Information taken from the EEA Report 3/2009, 23pp. 
132 Source: Milieu-RPA-TNO, (2010), Impact A ssessment and Proposal of Action Plan, p. 7. 
 
EN 67   EN Table 15: Estimated Disability Adjusted Li fe Years for air traffic noise in the EU 133 
Exposure 
Category  Highly annoyed 
per million  Number of 
 people exposed  Days lost if DW 
0.01 Days lost if DW 
0.02 Days lost if DW 
0.12 
< 55 dB(A)  30,237  29,244,500  33,360  66,719  400,315  
55 – 59 dB(A)  4,098  5,616,800  11,679  23,358  140,147  
60 - 64 dB(A)  2,176  348,400  6,201  12,401  74,408  
65 - 69 dB(A)  0     
 
27. Recent studies have also attempted to quantify the social and health effects of aviation 
noise. Based on the value of a "disability adju sted life years" of €40,000, the cost of noise 
during the night would amount to about €690 per person.134 
28. These effects should be compared with the he alth effects of unemployment due to missed 
employment opportunities, also for low-skill ed workers. Especially groundhandling or 
express carriers require a great number of low qualified workers. There is scientific evidence showing that unemployment tends  to have a negative health impact.
135 
5. THE ICAO  NOISE STANDARD SETTING PROCESS  
29. The challenge of setting noise  policy for policy-makers is to balance the protection of 
citizens against nuisances from air transport,  whilst maintaining aviation activities as a 
motor for economic growth to the advantage of the wider communit y. The complexity of 
this challenge implies that noise can only be adequately tackled through a range of 
measures within an international framework. 
30. The International Civil Aviation Organisati on (ICAO), the specific UN organisation 
dealing with civil aviation, IC AO, has since the 1970s been working on standard setting for 
aircraft noise. Firstly, a speci fic annex on environmental prot ection was attached to the 
Chicago Convention, specifying the noise stan dards and completed by a technical manual 
on noise certification, so as to ensure that the noise certific ation process is harmonized at 
the global level. Specific noise standards ar e included in "chapters" in this annex. 
Chapter 2 covers aircraft designed before 1977. 
31. Chapter 3 was adopted in 1988, improving the noise requirements 10dB(A) cumulatively 
(for the three certification points) and leadi ng to a progressive phasing-out of chapter 2 
aircraft. Chapter 4 was adopted in 2001 and became applicable in 2006. It allowed for a more general ban of the eldest chapter 2 ai rcraft. Meanwhile, ICAO ha s decided to develop 
a new noise standards ("chapter 5") which should become applicable between 2017 and 
2020
136.  
                                                 
133 WHO-European Commission, (2010), " Burden of disease fromenironmental noise ", p. 95. DW means the 
'Disability Weight' and determines  
134 CE Delft, 2011, " Ban on night flights at Heathrow Airport – A quick scan Social Cost Benefit Analysis ", 
(Delft), 47p. 
135 http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b829.full 
136 The technical group CAEP (Committee on Aviation Envi ronmental Protection) is exploring the increase in 
noise stringency up to 10-12 dB below the current standard (cumulative on the three points of measurement). 
A standard could be adopted by 2017-20. 
 
EN 68   EN 32. This continuous process of noise standards ha s reduced noise from individual aircraft 
by 75% over the last four decades. Meanwhile new technologies have made further noise 
reductions possible. For instance,  the noise performance of th e A380 is impressive for such 
big aircraft as the noise of the A380 at approa ch is comparable with a far smaller aircraft 
from the A320 family. Take-off causes much hi gher noise levels due to its 600 Tons take-
off weight (about 10 times the ta ke-off weight of the A320 family137), but are lower than 
noise levels of aircraft of comparable size (Figure  11). In general, it is clear that the current 
technologies of new engines are capable of achieving substantial reductions in the noise 
footprint (Figure 12). 
Figure 11:  Maximum noise of arriving and departing flights, as measured with a microphone at about 
1 km of the runway under the flight  path – at Heathrow airport – 2010 
 
Figure 12: Reduction of noise footprint through Geared Turbofan technology – Munich airport 
                                                 
137 The Maximum Take-Off Weights vary between 50 and 80 Tons. 
 
EN 69   EN 
 
 
33. The improvements in engine technology could be well combined with further airframe 
technologies and new operationa l procedures. This combinat ion would lead to up to 
60dB(A) reductions, hence about 20dB( A) noise reduction per movement. 
Figure 13: Noise reduction potential of airf rame technologies and operational measures 
 
EN 70   EN 
 
5. The ICAO Balanced Approach 
34. The progress in noise performan ce of aircraft could not offs et the noise generated by the 
growing air traffic. Increasin g noise contours have creat ed more annoyance and louder 
calls for more active noise policies. Operatin g restrictions mushroom ed all over the globe. 
In order to provide for a coherent approach to applying operating re strictions and noise 
mitigation in general, ICAO adopted in 2001 a framework for noise decision-making, completing its traditional standard settin g role. This "Balanced Approach" is an 
international requirement where by ICAO Contracting States are: 
• To mitigate aviation noise through a range of  measures (1) reducing noise at source 
(introduce quieter aircraft), (2) making be st use of land (plan and manage the land 
surrounding airports, i.e. determine conditi ons for issuing building permits, provide 
financial assistance for insulation program mes etc.); (3) intr oduce operational noise 
abatement procedures (like using specific r unways or routes); and, as last resort, (4) 
imposing operational restrictions (such as  a night ban or phasing of out noisier 
aircraft). 
• To select the most cost-effective measure. 
• Not to introduce operating rest rictions, unless the authority  is in a position, on basis 
of studies and consultations, to dete rmine whether a noise problem exists. 
35. The value added of the Balanced Approach is its harmonization at the global level, 
promoting consistency and transparency in de cision-making on basis of  evidence, so that 
economic growth is balanced by protection against nuisances. Beyond the requirement, 
ICAO has developed a suite of guidance material in support to the harmonized 
implementation of the Balanced Approach. As  any international st andard, Contracting 
States need to transpose this requirement into enforceable national/EU law to make it 
binding, and taking due account of existing laws. 
 
EN 71   EN 
 
EN 72   EN Appendix 4: Glossary 
1. Aircraft noise certification: The effectively perceived aircraft  noise is measured in dB(A) 
on three different points (approach, late ral and fly-over, e.g. 105, 95 and 100 dB) and 
compared with noise standards (e.g. 108, 100 an d 102dB). The respective margins (-3, -5 
and -2) are added into a single number, representing the cumulative margin (here marginality of -10).  
Figure 14: Phases of measurement 
 
2. Balanced Approach:  ICAO strategy of noise mitigating measures to deal with noise 
nuisances in a cost-effec tive way, adopted in 2001. 
3. Chapters 2, 3, 4: Classification of aircraft on basis of 'noise levels',  referring to the 
corresponding Chapters in Annex 16 to the Ch icago Convention which describes the noise 
standards and the certification pr ocess; a higher Chapter numb er corresponds to less noisy 
aircraft. Chapter 2 aircraft are forbidden in European airspace. Currently most aircraft 
comply with chapter 4 or above. 
4. dB(A): Logarithmic scale to measure noise, i.e.  the sound pressure impinging on the ear, 
expressed in decibel (dB), adap ted to the human hearing capaci ties (A) (humans better hear 
mid- and high frequency noise). Changes of le ss than 3dB(A) are ha rdly perceived; an 
increase of between 6 and 10dB(A) is perceived as a doubling loudness. 
5. ICAO: International Civil Aviati on Organisation, the UN body d ealing with civil aviation, 
established in 1944 through the Chicago Conv ention, to which annexes are attached 
describing rules and guidance by topic. An nex 16 concerns environment (noise and 
emissions of aircraft).  
6. Lden: Noise indicator which represents the aver age day-evening-night noise level over a 
period of one year, with a 5 dB weighting fact or for evening and a 10 dB weighting factor 
for night. 
7. Lnight: Noise indicator which represents the averag e night noise level over a period of one 
year, where the night is  an eight hour period. 
8. Lnight - outside : Noise indicators measure in principle out side noise. For health assessments, 
the WHO requires inside noise levels. Quality insulation reduces noise levels with some 
15dB, hence the importance of the 55dB(A) standard outside,  which would translate to 
40dB(A) inside, level from which onwards adverse biological effects are observed. 
 
EN 73   EN 9. MCA: Aircraft which only marginally (up to 5 dB) comply with the noise certification 
standard, currently Ch apter 3 of annex 16.  
10. Noise Maps: Line connecting points with the same  noise levels indicating the noise 
contour around airports, the number of people an d dwellings affected by this noise level. 
11. Noise Operating Restriction: Any noise-related action that limits  or reduces an aircraft's 
access to an airport.  
12. Standard Instrument Departure (SID):  is the departure procedur e from an airport that 
has been established by air traffic control to simplify clearance delive ry procedures. Such 
procedures may take noise abatement into account. 
 
EN 74   EN Appendix 5: Explanation on noise abatemen t measures applied at EU airports 
1. APU (Auxiliary Power Unit = device to help st arting the aircraft engines): use of the APU 
can be limited to avoid ground noise, with the necessary exceptions for extremely cold temperatures.  
2. Curfews are restrictions during a defined peri od which may apply to all aircraft or to 
aircraft which do not satisfy specific noise criteria. These noise restrictions may be 
determined in function of the characteristics of  the airport, e.g. to avoid noise for specific 
communities in the vicinity during approach or take-off.  
Figure 15: Example of airport curfew provisions at Nice-Riviera Airport as extracted from the Boeing 
database138 
AIRPORT CURFEWS  
See AIP France AD 2 LFMN ENV 1 
 
1. FRENCH MINISTERIAL DECREE MARCH 2nd, 2010 
 
The French ministerial decree of March 2nd, 2010 (published April 2nd, 2010) concerns the regulations for noise 
abatement at NICE COTE D’AZUR airfield.  Failure to comply with the provisions stated in this decree may result in 
the filing of an infringement report and may 
lead the ACNUSA (Airport Noise Nuisance Control Authority) to issue a penalty in the form of an administrative fine 
for the maximum amount of 20 000 euros for a legal entity, in  accordance with the provisions  of Article L.227-4 of the 
Civil Aviation Code. 
 
These provisions are the following: 
 
1.1 Night flights 
1.1.1 "The cumulative margin of a turbojet engine" is defined as the sum of the difference between the three points 
between the certified noise level and the admissible level as defined in the International Civil Aviation Organization 
(December 7th, 1944) Annexe 16, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 3 for each of the three measurement points as defined in 
this Annex. 
 
1.1.2 All commercial flight companies arriving or departing from NICE COTE D’AZUR airfield must publish in their 
operating manuals the classification and the cumulative margin of their aircraft. 
 
1.1.3 Turbojet aircraft not complying with standards specified in International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 16, 
Volume I, Part II, Chapter 3 or Chapter 4, are not allowed at NICE COTE  D’AZUR airfield to: 
 
- land between 2330 and 0615 local time for arrivals on the apron; 
- depart between 2315 and 0600 local time for departures from the  
 
1.1.4 Starting from October 31st, 2010  - NO jet aircraft whose noise certification 
corresponds with th e norms according to the Interna tional Civil Aviation Organisation (December 7th, 1944) Annex 16 
Volume I, Part II, Chapter 3 with  a cumulative margin < 10 EPNdB can :  
 
- land between 2330 and 0615 (local time) for arrival on the apron; 
- depart between 2315 and 0600 for departure from the apron.  
 
From 30th October 2011 onwards , provided that provisions specified in Paragraph 7 are met, no aircraft equipped 
with turbojet engines the acoustic certification of which compli es with the standards of Chap ter 3 of the second part of 
the first volume of Appendix 16 of th e Convention on Inte rnational Civil Aviation date d 7th December 1944 with a 
cumulative margin lower than 13 EPNdB  shall: 
                                                 
138 1. The "Boeing Noise Restrictions" database is the most authoritative information source of worldwide 
operating restrictions.  
 
EN 75   EN  
- land between 11:30 pm and 6:15 am local time of arrival on the parking area; 
- take off between 11:15 pm and 6 am local time of departure from the parking area.  
 
3. Run-ups are engine tests, which may be prohibited at specific  times or places. 
4. NAP = noise action plans, adopted by nearly all European airports, give an overview of the 
measures in place. 
5. Noise Budget: the airport has to manage a -year ly- noise budget, where the authority gives 
every movement of an aircraft a noise classification. 139 
6. Noise limits restrict the use of particular aircraft in function of their noise performance 
and/or particular period of the day. 
7. Noise charges are airport char ges that are increased in function of aircraft noise 
performance. 
8. Operating Quota: the number of (night) movements is restricted. 
9. Preferential Runways: use of runways is restricted in functio n of time of the day. 
10. Quota count: aircraft are given points in functio n of noise levels, giving incentives to use 
quieter aircraft. 
11. Chapter 3 restrictions: specific restric tions apply to 'chapter 3' aircraft. 
                                                 
139 Every aircraft arriving and departing at night from the Airport is given a noise classification, by the Civil 
Aviation Authority, known as a Quota Count (often referred  to as QC) based on ICAO noise certification data. 
A modern quiet jet such as the Airbus A319 or Boeing 737-700 is classified as QC0.5 on arrival and departure whilst older more noisy aircraft such as the Boeing 747- 200 may be classified as QC8 on departure and QC4 
on arrival. For every arrival and departure we deduct the Quota Count for the arrival or departure from the 
points budget. This process allows air lines to operate more quiet aircraft in exchange for less noisier aircraft. 
 
EN 76   EN Appendix 6: Data sources and limitations on information  
12. Information on aircraft noise performance and modelling input data is scattered over 
several data banks.  
13. EASA has a publicly available data bank on noi se certification, for all EASA certificated 
aircraft types. Hence, per airc raft type and variant (different  engines, modifications, weight 
variants etc), three cert ification values are given, one per certification point, as measured in 
accordance with the globally harmonized ICAO certification procedure. It covers all 
aircraft categories (jets, helic opters, propeller driven etc) to which noise certification is 
applicable. It is limited to those aircraft types variants that have obtai ned a Type Certificate 
in Europe. Its main purpose is to provide the da ta for individual aircraft on EU registers. 
14. NoisedB – Aircraft Noise Performance is a da tabase with global noi se certification data. 
The French DGCA maintains this data bank on  behalf of ICAO. It has for many ICAO 
Aircraft Type identifier the certified noise leve ls and several different  records show a range 
(usually low, medium, high) of certified ma ximum landing and take-o ff weights. It does 
not cover all variants and is limited to jet and heavy propeller driven aircraft only. The 
NoisedB primarily provides noise data for civil jet aircraft plus a few military aircraft types. Many turbo-prop, piston engine and roto rcraft aircraft are not covered therein. Its 
main purpose is to inform the public and a s ubset of the database is normally used in 
impact assessment studies done in th e environmental group of ICAO (CAEP). 
15. The Aircraft Noise and Performance (ANP) Database contains, for noise modelling 
purposes, for a number of aircraft configurations , noise levels as a function of thrust/power 
and distance (so-called noise pe rformance data (NPD) data) Fo r noise modelling, this basic 
information is widened to give  and the 'noise' flight profil es' for approach and take-off 
under different circumstances (e.g. full thrust  or idle) (mainly different weights) per 
aircraft type. This data is  basically provided by aircra ft manufacturers, validated by 
VOLPE, a research centre attached to the US Mo T. Eurocontrol maintains this database in 
its research centre in Brétigny. 
16. Eurocontrol has a data warehouse (PRISME) wh ere movement numbers, aircraft types, 
airports etc. are held per i ndividual aircraft. On noise, th e warehouse only states whether 
chapter 3 compliant or not, and henc e does not precise noise information. 
17. Airports and airlines have noise certifi cation performance information per individual 
aircraft. A single aircraft may at different tim es have different noise  certificates, depending 
on the weight, which may differ according to season (e.g. less seats shorter ranges for the 
winter season, hence li ghter, hence quieter). 
18. The specific problem is that there is no co mmon key to link individua l aircraft movements 
to noise certification levels ("noise performance") per aircraft. The proposals on marginally 
compliant aircraft are based on the best possi ble information, where the Eurocontrol data 
on movements was linked to noise performance ranges by aircraft type, with some cross-
checking on basis of airport data. 
19.
 In order to allow more robust noise assessm ents, these databanks should be linked through 
a common key. This work could be undertaken, w ith a relatively minor financial effort, in 
the framework of current arrangements be tween the Commission, EASA, SESAR Joint 
Undertaking and Eurocontrol, with the collaboration of ai rports, airlines  and national 
 
EN 77   EN authorities. Airports and airl ines would rationalize in the administrative burden, as they 
could be granted access to th is central data bank instead of having to request noise 
certificates from each airline for each aircraft in operation. 
Appendix 7: Revision of the Directive - assessment of admi nistrative costs  
1. Introduction 1. Administrative costs are define d as the costs incurred by different stakeholders in meeting 
legal obligations to provide information on  their action or produc tion either to public 
authorities or to private partie s. Information is understood in a broad sense, i.e. including 
labelling, reporting, registra tion, monitoring and assessment needed to provide the 
information.  
2. The administrative costs are calculated as changes in costs compared to the baseline 
scenario. 
3. The identification and assessment of administ rative costs have as far as possible been 
following the steps in the EU standard cost model and has been presented to the support cell for the calculation of administrativ e cost in the Secretariat-General.  
2. Identification and calculat ion of administrative costs 
4. The structure of the policy options considered in the revision of the Directive 
(2002/30/EC) operates on two elements. The firs t element is the updated definition of a 
marginal compliant aircraft (Article 2) with  associated phasing out model (Article 6). The 
second element is provisions aimed at improvi ng the quality of the Balanced Approach 
analysis.  
2.1.First element 5. Updating the definition of the marginal comp liant aircraft, and amending the associated 
phasing out period would not imply any measur able change in administrative costs, 
because the change in definition does not impl y any changes in the reporting obligations of 
the airlines 
2.2. Second element 6. The different measures aimed at improving the quality of the Balanced  Approach analysis 
will most likely influence administrative co sts. The measure by measure breakdown is 
shown below. 
2.2.1. EU level support cell 7. Establishment of an EU-level support cell (new provision in all the policy options) for the 
implementation of the Balanced Approach is foreseen in Policy Options 2, 3 and 4. This 
cell would support national administrations and airports in the management of the noise 
measure analysis. It will imply a very modest  initial data collection aiming at adjusting 
already existing data for this specific purpose, refinement of  existing Eurocontrol data, and 
the validation and update of this information on a recurrent basis. Data has to be supplied 
by airports, aircraft manufacturer s, international organisations and public authorities in 
 
EN 78   EN Member States. The baseline scenario does not contain administrative costs for this 
purpose.  
8. Impact on business: The EU support cell would n eed to collect information from primarily 
airports, airlines, aircraft ma nufacturers and coordination with  Eurocontrol. Airlines and 
aircraft manufacturers are pr ivate organisations, while ap proximately 25% of EU 27 
airports are wholly or partly owned by the private sector140. Around ¾ of the publicly 
owned airports are managed in a corporatised form.  
9. It is assumed that there will be a one time administrative cost setting up the database. It is 
estimated that around 60 private and 140 public companies will have to supply information 
using on average 30 hours to fill out the information forms from the support cell at an average hourly salary of € 20. The quantities are a qua lified guess reflecting the 
assumption that the reporting probably to a la rge extent will consist in adjusting already 
reported data. This gives rise to € 120,000 Eu ros in administrative costs as a central 
estimate. As there is considerable uncerta inty around the assumptions a safer estimate 
would be between € 100,000 and € 250,000 (1.a in Table 18). Around 30% of the cost is 
estimated to fall on the private sector. The deviation from the 25% is due to the involvement of airlines a nd aircraft manufacturers. 
10. The annual update of the database is assumed to  comprise the same number of units and it 
is assumed consisting in relatively uncompli cated minor adjustments to already existing 
reporting obligations. An informed guess woul d give a time consumption of 10 hours on 
average. This gives a central estimate for a nnual administrative cost for business around € 
40,000 and a safe interval between € 25,000 and 100,000. (1. b in Table 18). Around 30% 
of the cost is estimated to fall on the private sector. 
11. The services of the support cell is supposed to reduce costs for airports preparing a 
balanced approach analysis, as a result  of proposals for introducing new operative 
restrictions or changing exis ting, compared to the baseline.  In the calculation of the 
average annual savings it is assumed 20 air ports on average would prepare a Balanced 
Approach analysis and could save 40 hours of wo rk at an average rate of € 25. (1.c in 
Table 18). On average 25% of this cost reduction  will fall on the priv ate sector and 75% on 
public organisations, corresponding to the compos ition of ownership of Europe's Airports. 
12. The assumption of 20 airports is due to the f act that it is assume d that around 100 airports 
in Europe would work with ope rating restrictions in the future and that they on average 
every 5 years have to major reassessment of their noise abatement programme due to the 
environmental noise directive. The fi gures of 40 hours and € 25 are assumption. 
13. Mandatory utilisation of a noise  modelling tool in assessing the impacts of the different 
noise abatement measures in all Policy Options will increase th e costs. It is assumed that 
this will imply an average cost of € 50,000 for each assessment. This corresponds to the estimated cost of procuring this service from  a consultant who woul d tailor the EU tool 
provided by the support cell to local conditions. (1.d. in Table 18). On average 25% of this 
cost will fall on the private sect or and 75% on public organisations. 
2.2.2. Stakeholder consultation 
                                                
 
140 "The ownership of Europe's Airports 2010", Airports Council International (ACI), 2010, p.7 
 
EN 79   EN 14. All Policy Options foresee a widening and deepening of the scope of stakeholder 
consultation. This measure would imply mo re specific demands on the existing national 
rules, and would increase the cost per assessme nt for authorities in Member States due to 
information obligation, assessment of contributions and decision-making. 
2.2.3. Change in notification procedure 15. The change in procedures in Policy Option 3 and Policy Option 4 compared to the Policy 
Option 1 will raise the quality of the analys is which the authorities have to deliver.  
16. It is assumed that the Policy Option 3 (scrutin y) would give rise to extra cost for public 
authorities due to information exchange w ith Commission, preparation of supplementary 
material, meetings in Brussels etc. Thes e activities would probably involve different 
specialists and management levels from th e Member States, hence a close to average 
hourly rate can be assumed. 
17. Policy Option 4 (prior authorisati on) is assumed to give rise to  the same type of extra costs 
as mentioned above, but it clearly would be more demanding on the Member States. The 
Commission would take greater responsibility an d would probably have to ensure that the 
information and analysis supporting the decisions are correct. This will  imply that Member 
States have to provide more detailed information and eventu ally independent validation of 
essential parts of the documentation. 
18. In addition to a change in the annual costs, all Policy Options would imply a very modest 
initial data collection aiming at adjusting alre ady existing data for th is specific purpose, 
refinement of existing Eurocontrol data, and the validation and update of this information 
on a recurrent basis. Data has to be s upplied by airports, airc raft manufacturers, 
international organisations and public authorities in Member St ates. The baseline scenario 
does not contain administrative costs for this pur pose. The one time cost is assumed to be € 
120,000. Around 30% of the cost is estimat ed to fall on the private sector. 
Table 16: Administrative costs in Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 
  Annual  One time 
Policy Option 2 1,800,000 120,000 
Policy Option 3 3,000,000 120,000 
Policy Option 4 4,200,000 120,000 
 
19. The distribution of administrati ve cost between the private a nd the public sector is shown 
in the table below. The number s are based on the assumptions  described above and reflect 
primarily the organisational form of airport activity in 2010. It is expected that the present 
trend for increased airport privatisation will continue in the future. This would influence the distribution of the administ rative burden in the future.  
Table 17: Distribution of administrative costs in Policy Options 2, 3 and 4  
Euros/year Policy option 2 Policy option 3 Policy option 4 
        
 
EN 80   EN Private sector 252,000 252,000 252,000
Public sector 1,548,000 2,748,000 3,948,000
 
EN 81   EN  
Table 18: Calculation of  administrative costs 
  
 Type of obligation Description of 
required action Affected Rate 
(euro/hour) Time 
(hours) Price 
(per 
action) Frequency  No of entities Total 
administrative 
costs(euro/year
) 
Support cell                   
Establish support cell Supply support cell 
with information Filling forms and 
tables Airports/ 
public authorities 20 30 600 One time 200 120.000 
Annual update of support 
cell Supply support cell 
with information Filling forms and 
tables Airports/ 
public authorities 20 10 200 Annual 200 40.000 
Reduction of costs due to 
support cell   Receive 
information Airports/ 
public authorities 25 -80 -2.000 Annual 20 -40.000 
Mandatory modelling    Modelling       50.000   20 1.000.000 
Stakeholder consultation Additional rules on 
the scope and content Information on 
new procedures Public 
authorities     40.000 Annual 20 800.000 
Notification procedure                   
 Change in notification 
procedures (policy option 
3) Increased quality   Airports/ 
public authorities 100 600 60.000 Annual 20 1.200.000 
Change in notification 
procedures (policy option 
4) Increased quality   Airports/ 
public authorities 100 1.200 120.000 Annual 20 2.400.000 
 
EN 82   EN Appendix 8: Impact of defining MCA  
Table 19: Impact of widening MCA definition in a major EU hub – list of most affected airlines 
  Ma
x 
PaxEngine Certified Levels Chapter 3 
Noise Limits Chapter 3 
Noise Margins Cumul
ative Ch 
2 Ch 3 
-5 Ch3 
- 8 Ch3 
-10 Ch3 
-12 
              13 28 58 27 23 
LIBYAN ARAB 
AIRLINES REGIONAL JET 900 75 CF34-8C5 89,0 94,3 98,3 89,0 94,3 98,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0  5    
IRAN AIR B747-100 Passenger 441 JT9D-7F 104,5 103,
5 104,5 105,2 102,3 105,0 0,7 -1,2 0,5 0,0  7    
EL AL ISRAEL 
AIRLINES B747-200 Freighter 0 JT9D-7Q 104,5 103,
2 105,8 105,9 102,8 105,0 1,4 -0,4 -0,8 0,2  10    
IBERIA AIRLINES A320-100/200 171 CFM56-
5C4 95,4 96,1 96,9 91,4 96,7 100,5 -4,0 0,6 3,6 0,3  11    
ISRAIR A320-100/200 180 CFM56-5-
A1 91,7 96,9 100,1 91,7 96,9 100,7 0,0 0,0 0,6 0,6  12    
IRAN AIR B747-200 Combi 447 JT9D-7F 103,5 102,
0 106,9 105,5 102,5 105,0 2,0 0,5 -1,9 0,6  14    
CZECH AIR FORCE AN-26B/32 Freighter 38 AI-24VT 90,6 92,0 96,6 89,0 94,0 98,0 -1,6 2,0 1,4 1,8  18    
EL AL ISRAEL 
AIRLINES B747-200 Freighter 0 JT9D-7Q 103,2 103,
5 104,9 105,9 102,8 105,0 2,7 -0,7 0,1 2,1  19    
AIR CHARTER 
EXPRESS LTD DC-8-50 Freighter 0 JT3D-3B 97,8 101,
3 102,0 101,0 99,6 103,1 3,2 -1,7 1,1 2,6  26    
AIR CONTRACTORS L-100 
HERCULES(C130) 
Freighter0 Emissions 
matrix 95,4 93,9 98,8 96,2 96,6 100,3 0,8 2,7 1,5 5,0   2   
EL AL ISRAEL 
AIRLINES B767-200 ER 192 PW4060 95,4 96,2 102,2 96,0 99,7 103,2 0,6 3,5 1,0 5,1   3   
AIR BERLIN A321-100/200 210 CFM56-
5B3/P 90,4 97,9 96,8 92,1 97,2 100,9 1,7 -0,7 4,1 5,1   5   
BRITISH AIRWAYS 
PLC MD-82 167 JT8D-219 90,8 97,2 93,7 91,4 96,7 100,5 0,6 -0,5 6,8 6,8   21   
DUBROVNIK 
AIRLINES MD-83 167 JT8D-219 90,8 97,2 93,7 91,4 96,7 100,5 0,6 -0,5 6,8 6,8   22   
IRAN AIR B747SP 305 JT9D-7F 98,7 102,
3 103,8 104,6 102,0 105,0 5,9 -0,3 1,2 6,8   23   
 
EN 83   EN IRAN AIR A300F4 0 CF6-50C2 92,8 97,3 102,0 96,1 99,7 103,2 3,3 2,4 1,2 6,9   27   
EUROPEAN AIR 
TRANSPORT ABX 0 CF6-50C2 92,8 97,2 102,0 96,1 99,7 103,2 3,3 2,5 1,2 7,0   28   
BLUE PANORAMA 
AIRLINES B737-400 167 CFM56-
3C-1 87,1 93,1 100,2 91,0 96,5 100,2 3,9 3,4 0,0 7,3   32   
KUWAIT AIRWAYS A320-100/200 36 CFM56-
5A3 88,6 97,1 96,0 91,7 96,9 100,7 3,1 -0,2 4,7 7,6   38   
DUBROVNIK 
AIRLINES MD-82 167 JT8D-217 
series 90,0 96,4 93,1 90,9 96,4 100,2 0,9 0,0 7,1 7,9   55   
DUBROVNIK 
AIRLINES MD-82 167 JT8D-217 
series 90,0 96,4 93,1 90,9 96,4 100,2 0,9 0,0 7,1 7,9   56   
MONARCH 
AIRLINES LTD MD-83 167 JT8D-217 90,0 96,4 93,1 90,9 96,4 100,2 0,9 0,0 7,1 7,9   57   
LUFTHANSA B737-300 122 CFM56-
3C-1 85,7 91,9 100,0 90,0 95,8 99,7 4,3 3,9 -0,3 8,0    1  
LUFTHANSA B737-300 122 CFM56-
3C-1 85,7 91,9 100,0 90,0 95,8 99,7 4,3 3,9 -0,3 8,0    2  
MALAYSIAN 
AIRLINE SYSTEM B747-400 Passenger 359 PW4056 101,5 99,7 104,4 106,0 102,9 105,0 4,5 3,2 0,6 8,3    13  
CATHAY PACIFIC 
AIRWAYS B747-400 Freighter 0 RB211-
524G 100,6 98,1 104,1 106,0 102,9 105,0 5,4 4,9 0,9 11,2     1 
CATHAY PACIFIC 
AIRWAYS B747-400 Freighter 0 RB211-
524G 100,6 98,1 104,1 106,0 102,9 105,0 5,4 4,9 0,9 11,2     6 
AIR NEW ZEALAND 
LIMITED #N/A 369 RB211-
524G 101,1 98,1 103,5 106,0 103,0 105,0 4,9 4,9 1,5 11,3     7 
CARGOLUX 
AIRLINES INTL SA #N/A 0 RB211-
524H 99,6 98,8 104,0 106,0 103,0 105,0 6,4 4,2 1,0 11,6     13 
AEGEAN AIRLINES 
SA #N/A 112 LF507-1F, 
-1H 90,3 88,1 97,6 93,7 95,0 98,9 3,4 6,9 1,3 11,7     19 
AEGEAN AIRLINES 
SA #N/A 112 LF507-1F, 
-1H 90,3 88,1 97,6 93,7 95,0 98,9 3,4 6,9 1,3 11,7     23 
              ###
# 0,64% 1,33% 0,62% 0,53% 
5.1.1.  Parameters for the economic costs for airlines with th e extended definitio n of marginal compliant aircraft 
20. The economic impact of extending the definition of MCA cannot be  calculated, as the final outcome depends on how the competent 
authorities will use this instrument. As for now, the range of factors determining the impact can be described:  
 
EN 84   EN 21. As soon as the proposal becomes European la w, competent authorities ma y start a noise assessment pr ocess and a cost-effectivene ss process, 
consult interested parties, to use the revised definition. 
22. If a competent authority decides on introducing the MCA tool as the most cost-eff ective measure, the concrete impact depends on  the concrete 
modalities (day and/or night) and the phase -out regime. Also the difference between current practice and the new measure determ ines the 
impact. Some Member States already appl y minus 10 at night. At least introducing th e measure during the day will trigger a phas e-out of a 
few years. 
23. If the aircraft becomes marginally compliant, then the concrete  impact will depend on the partic ular situation. If the aircraft  still is relatively 
new and just below the standard, a recertification can be consider ed. If the aircraft is old – many aircraft types which would be affected date 
from the 80s- the aircraft could be used on airports wher e such measure is not applicable (or not at day time). 
24. Only when the number of airports which apply the harmonized MC A definition becomes critical, the limitations to the operational  flexibility 
of the aircraft may force the operators to  abandon EU operations of the aircraft. Depending on the airline activities those air craft may continue 
to operate outside the EU. In extreme cas es the aircraft may have to be sold. 
25. In any case, the proposal sets out  a clear framework and allows th e operators to adapt to expected  decisions. Looking at the ti me line, the 
effective phase-out for MCA for a critical number of airports may be between 201 7 and 2020. By then, the bulk of aircraft types  expected to 
become MCA have an age of about 30 years. 
26. The decision to renew the fleet depends on a range of factors, including noise. However,  looking at the order of magnitude, the  fuel and 
emissions savings from new aircraft are in  the range of 25%. Hence, the emissions re duction may turn out to be the stronger inc entive. The 
new noise standard may just be the trigger – not the cause. 
Appendix 9: Overview of airlines-fleet composition 
  Margin Air France British Airways Lufthansa Iberia 
Aircraft Type Range Margin Act Not act Hist Margin Act Not act Hist Margin Act Not act Hist Margin Act Not act Hist 
Airbus A300       6 22             2 25     8 2 
Airbus A300 B2/B4       6 22               11     8 2 
Airbus A300-600 13.7-18                 13.7-19.4   2 14         
Airbus A310         12               35         
Airbus A310-200 14.0 to 15.1      8             17        
Airbus A310-300 14.0 to 21.5       4               18         
 
EN 85   EN ATR 42/72                                   
ATR 42-300 15.8-17.4                                 
ATR 42-500 31.4-31.3                                 
ATR 72 15.8-31.8                                 
Airbus A318 23.9 to 25.4 23.9-25.4 18     23.9 2                     
Airbus A319 18.3 to 23.4 23.5-25.1 44   4 23.0-23.8 33     20.1-24.3 22   16   21 1 2 
Airbus A320   15.3-20.9 57 30 17 18.2-23.5 39 10 1 18.2 46 1 7 19.2-
20.9 29 6 81 
Airbus A320-100 14.7 to 21.4     14       5                   
Airbus A320-200 14.7 to 21.4   57 16 17   39 5 1   46 1 7   29 6 81 
Airbus A321     24   5 18.3 11     20.4 50   1 14.1-
23.7 19   5 
Airbus A321-100 13.5 to 23.7   5               20          
Airbus A321-200 13.5 to 23.7   19   5   11       30   1   19   5 
Airbus A330     15 1             15   5         
Airbus A330-200 18.3-18.7   15 1                 5         
Airbus A330-300 18.5 to 27.9                 23.8 15             
Airbus A340     16 2 12           50   13   36 1 11 
Airbus A340-200 22.8    1 5             9        
Airbus A340-300 20.5 to 23.0   16 1 7           26   4   19   11 
Airbus A340-600 22.9 to 24.2                 23.3 24       17 1   
Airbus A380 26,2 to 26,9   5                   7         
Boeing 737       1 68   19 4 121   63   115       10 
Boeing 737-100                         22         
Boeing 737-200       1 25       57       57         
Boeing 737-300 7.7 to 19,7       12 15.2   2 25 8.0-13.2 33   21       5 
Boeing 737-400 7.3 to 20         13.3 19   26       7       5 
Boeing 737-500 15.7 to 21       31 15.8   2 13 15.7 30   8         
Boeing 737 Next Gen 16.5 to 21.8                       2         
Boeing 737-700 18.3-21                       2         
Boeing 737-800 13.2-22.3                                 
Boeing 747     13 24 62   51 20 38   30 5 34     7 18 
Boeing 747-100 0     7 27     10 10     1 3     1 3 
Boeing 747-200 0.6-13.8     14 25     4 25     4 30     6 9 
Boeing 747-300         2                       4 
Boeing 747-400 8,3-20.6 12.4 13 3   13.4-14.3 51 6 3 12.6 30   1       2 
 
EN 86   EN Boeing 757               4 58               43 
Boeing 757-200 17.9-27.5         18.2-27.1   4 58               43 
Boeing 757-300 22.3-22.9                                
Boeing 767         9   21   10       3       2 
Boeing 767-200 15.8-26.1       2       3                 
Boeing 767-300 15.2-21.7       7 18.9-20.1 21   7       3       2 
Boeing 777     61   1   49 1 2                 
Boeing 777-200 20.2-27.9 26.0-27.3 25     20.3-27.9 46 1 2                 
Boeing 777-300 20.0-21.2   34       3                     
Boeing 777-Freighter 16.6   2                             
BAe 146 / Avro RJ                 5       1         
Avro RJ 16.4-17.6               1                 
Bae 146 14.4-20.6              4 17.8-20.6     1         
McDonnell Douglas DC-
10         4       11       16     8 5 
McDonnell Douglas MD-
11 15.0-15.5                 15.3 18 1           
McDonnell Douglas MD-
80/90                               20 48 
McDonnell Douglas MD-82 6.8-15.3                                 
McDonnell Douglas MD-83 6.8-28.4                               1 
McDonnell Douglas MD-87 15.1-15.5                             7 46 
McDonnell Douglas MD-88                               13 1 
Dash 8                 3                 
Dash 8-100                 2                 
Dash 8-300                 1                 
Dash 8-400 25.8-26.3                                 
Fokker 70/100         5                         
Fokker 70 29.1-40.2                                 
Fokker 100 14.1-20.7       5                         
Embraer                                   
E145 23.2-25.5                                 
E195 17.6-19.5                                 
Lockheed L-1011 TriStar         2       32               2 
Concorde       7 1     7                   
TOTAL     253 70 160   206 42 171   231 9 181   105 59 224 
 
EN 87   EN  
 Margin FEDEX  DHL  Thomas Cook  Flybe  
Aircraft Type Range Margin Act Not 
act Hist Margin Act Not 
act Hist Margin Act Not 
act Hist Margin Act Not 
act Hist 
Airbus A300   71  1             
Airbus A300 B2/B4                  
Airbus A300-600 13.7-18  29  1             
Airbus A310   43 26 1             
Airbus A310-200 14.0 to 15.1 14-15.1 26 23 1             
Airbus A310-300 14.0 to 21.5 14.0 17 3              
ATR 42/72   23 15 15             
ATR 42-300 15.8-17.4                 
ATR 42-500 31.4-31.3  8 14 8             
ATR 72 15.8-31.8  15 1 7         16.1-26.5    
Airbus A318 23.9 to 25.4                 
Airbus A319 18.3 to 23.4                 
Airbus A320           7 3 30     
Airbus A320-100 14.7 to 21.4                 
Airbus A320-200 14.7 to 21.4         24.1 7 3 30     
Airbus A321           4  1     
Airbus A321-100 13.5 to 23.7                 
Airbus A321-200 13.5 to 23.7         23.9 4  1     
Airbus A330           7  5     
Airbus A330-200 18.3-18.7         24.1 7  4     
Airbus A330-300 18.5 to 27.9          0  1     
Airbus A340                  
Airbus A340-200 22.8                 
Airbus A340-300 20.5 to 23.0                 
Airbus A340-600 22.9 to 24.2                 
Airbus A380 26,2 to 26,9                 
Boeing 737     5             
Boeing 737-100                  
Boeing 737-200     5             
Boeing 737-300 7.7 to 19,7            1    4 
Boeing 737-400 7.3 to 20                 
 
EN 88   EN Boeing 737-500 15.7 to 21                 
Boeing 737 Next Gen 16.5 to 21.8                 
Boeing 737-700 18.3-21                 
Boeing 737-800 13.2-22.3                 
Boeing 747     23             
Boeing 747-100 0    11             
Boeing 747-200 0.6-13.8    12             
Boeing 747-300                  
Boeing 747-400 8,3-20.6                 
Boeing 757   36 13 20  21  1  21       
Boeing 757-200 17.9-27.5  36 13 20 18.6 21  1 24.3-27.5 19       
Boeing 757-300 22.3-22.9         22.9 2       
Boeing 767       3    3       
Boeing 767-200 15.8-26.1                 
Boeing 767-300 15.2-21.7      3   20.2 3       
Boeing 777   13  1             
Boeing 777-200 20.2-27.9                 
Boeing 777-300 20.0-21.2                 
Boeing 777-Freighter 16.6 16.6 13  1             
BAe 146 / Avro RJ                  
Avro RJ 16.4-17.6                 
Bae 146 14.4-20.6 14-15.1            26  10  
McDonnell Douglas DC-10   68 25 11             
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 15.0-15.5 15.5 64 3 11             
McDonnell Douglas MD-
80/90                  
McDonnell Douglas MD-82 6.8-15.3                 
McDonnell Douglas MD-83 6.8-28.4                 
McDonnell Douglas MD-87 15.1-15.5                 
McDonnell Douglas MD-88                  
Dash 8                  
Dash 8-100                  
Dash 8-300                  
Dash 8-400 25.8-26.3             26 55 4  
Fokker 70/100                  
 
EN 89   EN Fokker 70 29.1-40.2                 
Fokker 100 14.1-20.7                 
Embraer                  
E145 23.2-25.5               6  
E195 17.6-19.5             19.5 14   
Lockheed L-1011 TriStar                  
Concorde                  
TOTAL   363 92 79  24 0 1  42 3 36  0 0 0