COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESMENT
Date: 2011-12-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: airport, noise level, noise pollution, noise protection

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} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
This  report  commits  only  the  Commission’s  services  involved  in  its  preparation  and  does  not 
prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties...............................................6 

Organisation and timing................................................................................................6 

Consultation and expertise............................................................................................6 

Results of the consultation of the Impact Assessment Board.......................................7 

Problem definition ........................................................................................................8 

Policy context ...............................................................................................................8 

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 restrictions are considered at 

airports with broadly comparable 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. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Objectives ...................................................................................................................29 

Policy objectives .........................................................................................................29 

Consistency with horizontal objectives of the European Union.................................31 

Description of Policy Options.....................................................................................31 

Establishing Policy Options........................................................................................31 

Discussing the legal instrument ..................................................................................34 

Impact analysis of Policy Options ..............................................................................36 

Impact on the implementation of the Balanced Approach .........................................36 

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 aircraft 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 

3 

   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. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Comparison of the options..........................................................................................49 

Effectiveness ...............................................................................................................50 

Efficiency....................................................................................................................51 

Coherence ...................................................................................................................51 

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................51 

Monitoring and evaluation..........................................................................................52 

Reference documents ..................................................................................................54 

Appendices..................................................................................................................56 

The European approach to noise.................................................................................61 

The phenomenon of aviation noise .............................................................................64 

Aviation as an engine to inclusive growth..................................................................65 

Health impacts of aviation noise and annoyance........................................................66 

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 

4 

   EN 

 
EN 

5 

   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 with regard to the introduction of noise-related 
operating  restrictions  at  EU  airports  which  will  repeal  Directive  2002/30/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 

1.1. 

Organisation and timing  

1. 

2. 

3. 

This  impact  assessment  (IA)  has  been  prepared  in  two  phases.  The  first  phase  started  in 
2007  with  an  external  report  assessing  the  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 cycle was initiated, consisting of the appropriate 
consultations  of  stakeholders,  the  establishment  of  a  Commission  Impact  Assessment 
Steering  Group  (IASG).  The  Impact  Assessment  Board  examined  two  draft  IA  reports 
already on 14 July 2008 and 9 October 2008 respectively.  

The current proposal forms part of a wider 'Airport Package' which is planned to include 
also  proposals  on  airport  slots,  and  groundhandling.  The  common  trait  of  all  of  these 
proposals is their impact on airport capacity and hence on the performance of the European 
transport network. 

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. 

– 

1 

2 

3 

4 

The  most  affected  stakeholders  concerning  noise  and  aviation  are  the  airlines  (with  air 
cargo  as  specific  niche),  aircraft  manufacturers,  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; 

MPD Group Ltd, (2007), "Study of Aircraft Noise Exposure at and around Community Airports: Evaluation of 
the Effect of Measures to Reduce Noise". 
COM(2008) 66, 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).  
The services involved in this group included the Secretariat-General, Legal Service, DG Climate Action, DG 
Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Equal  Opportunities,  DG  Enterprise  and  Industry,  DG  Environment,  DG 
Health and Consumers, and DG Research. 
The IASG met on 27 May 2010, on 6 July 2010, on 2 September 2010, 19 October 2010 and on 17 June 2011. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

in  2008  the  Commission  organised  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  contacted  to  see  whether  the  organisations 
wanted to endorse their 2008 positions 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  action  groups;  and  (3)  the  Aerospace  and 
Defence industries Association in Europe (ASD). 

5. 

All  in  all,  the  aviation  community,  including  the  relevant  community  groups,  have  been 
fully  able  to  contribute  to  the  current  proposal  for  the  review  of  Directive  2002/30/EC. 
Their  views  have  been  assessed  and  appropriately  taken  into  consideration.  Appendix  1 
demonstrates  that  the  general  principles  and  minimum  standards  for  consultation  of  the 
interested  parties  by  the  Commission  were  respected.  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. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

In the course of preparing this IA, the Impact 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. 

The report now explains the wider policy context 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  and  EU  policies  affecting  airport  noise.  The 
relationship  between  this  directive  and  the  preparation  of  noise  actions  plans  under  the 
Environmental  Noise  Directive  2002/49/EC  was  clarified.  The  information  requirements 
for assessing the impact of noise restrictions were also highlighted with particular attention 
to potential effects.  

The problem definition is more focused and more limited in scope, so as to make realistic 
progress  within  a  better-identified  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. 

Concerning the third main recommendation of the Board, the justification for the scrutiny 
right for the Commission is documented, pointing 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 

7 

   EN 

 
2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Policy context 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

5 
6 
7 

8 
9 

10 

In 2006, the European Council adopted the Renewed 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". 

On 28 March 2011, the Commission adopted the White Paper on Transport 'Roadmap to a 
Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport 
system'6. The White Paper recognised that airports play 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  called  for  a  more  efficient  use  of  airport 
capacity  to  tackle  the  expected  saturation  of  European  skies  and  airports.  In  this  respect, 
the  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  accompanying  the  White  Paper7  noted  that 
aircraft  noise  is often the reason for the difficulty of expanding airport capacity at major 
European hubs. 

Noise policy in the EU 

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  best  taken  at  local  level,  as 
sources of noise are not always of local origin. However, effective action is very dependent 
on strong local and national policies and these need to be more closely related to measures 
decided at Community level. 

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, and 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 European Union has laid down a common approach 
to avoiding, preventing or reducing on a prioritised basis the harmful effects of exposure to 
environmental noise. This approach is based on using common methods to map noise, on 
providing information to the public and on implementing action plans at local level.  

The  Environmental  Noise  Directive  2002/49/EC9  serves  as  a  basis  for  developing  EU 
measures  concerning  noise  sources.  Aircraft  noise  is  considered  to  be  one  of  the  major 
sources  of  noise.10  Directive  2002/49/EC  aims  to  define  a  common  approach  to  avoid, 
prevent  or  reduce  the  harmful  effects,  including  annoyance,  of  environmental  noise. 

European Council, June 2006 
COM(2011) 144. 
Commission  staff  working  document  accompanying  the  White  Paper  -  Roadmap  to  a  Single  European 
Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system (SEC(2011) 391 final). 
COM(96)540 
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. 
Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  concerning  existing  Community 
measures relating to sources of environmental noise, pursuant to article 10.1 of Directive 2002/49/EC relating 
to the assessment and management of environmental noise - COM(2004) 160 final. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Eventually it aims at developing European measures to reduce noise emitted by road, rail, 
aircraft,  industrial  equipment  and  mobile  machinery.  This  directive  covers  airports  with 
more than 50,000 movements. The noise assessments are based on harmonized indicators, 
assessment methods and noise mapping. For aviation, 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 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 1: Interaction between the Directive and other EU policies 

Balanced approach to aircraft noise management at international level 

In  2001,  the  International  Civil  Aviation  Organisation  (hereinafter  ICAO)  Assembly 
endorsed  the  concept  of  a  "balanced  approach"  to  aircraft  noise  management12,  13.  The 
Assembly in 2007 reaffirmed the "balanced approach" principle and called upon States to 
recognize ICAO’s role in dealing with the problems of aircraft noise.14 

The ICAO Balanced Approach offers a policy framework to reduce noise at airports in a 
cost-effective manner and using restrictions on operations15 not as a first resort, but only 
after consideration of other possible measures16. According to the definition adopted by the 

Appendix C of Assembly Resolution A35-5 
Additional information is provided on the Balanced Approach in 
Appendix 3: Overview of international and EU policies affecting airport noise. 
Appendix C of Assembly Resolution A36-22 
Operating restrictions mean noise related actions that limit or reduce access of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes to 
an airport.  
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 

16. 

17. 

12 
13 

14 
15 

16 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Organization,  "the  balanced  approach  to  noise  management  developed  by  ICAO  consists 
of  identifying  the  noise  problem  at  an  airport  and  then  analysing  the  various  measures 
available  to  reduce  noise  through  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  setting  out  a  framework  for  authorities  to 
pursue a consistent noise management policy, tailored 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  case  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 politicians 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  complete  night  ban  as  the  only  possible  remedy,  the 
French Directorate General for Civil Aviation (DGCA) started 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, for years, CDG had given equal attention to all four pillars of the ICAO 
Balanced Approach. The analysis showed that the potential of the reduction of noise at source and land use 
planning had already fully been utilized, together 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.  Reduction  at  source  means  noise  reduction  through  the  adoption  and 
implementation  of  the  noise  certification  standards.  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" 
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. 
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. 
As established in ICAO Assembly Resolution A33-7. 

17 

18 

19 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

20 

21 

22 
23 

In  this  respect,  it  is  worth  noting  that  ICAO  has  set  progressively  tighter  certification 
standards for noise emissions from civil aircraft. Aircraft operating in Member States must 
conform  to  these  standards,  which  are  known  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  aircraft  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 

In  this  context,  the  Directive,  acting  under  the  umbrella  of  the  Environmental  Noise 
Directive, implements one of the four main pillars 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  programmes  is  limited  further  for  subsidiarity  and 
proportionality considerations.  

Within the regulatory framework described above, the aim of the Directive is to facilitate 
the  introduction  of  operating  restrictions  in  a  consistent  manner  at  airport  level  so  as  to 
limit  or  reduce  the  number  of  people  significantly  affected  by  the  harmful  effects  of 
noise.21  

To this end, the Directive lays down a common framework of rules and procedures for the 
introduction  of  operating  restrictions  at  Community  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 operating restrictions at airports with broadly 
comparable  noise  problems.  The  common  framework  includes  assessment  of  the  noise 
impact at an airport and evaluation of the measures available to alleviate that impact, and 
selection of the appropriate mitigation measures with the goal of achieving the maximum 
environmental benefit most cost effectively.22  

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 defined as noise related actions 
that limit or reduce access 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 period. Operating restrictions or noise related restrictions of 

E.g. Council Directive 98/20/EC amending Directive 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. 
The objectives of Directive 2002/30/EC are set out in Article 1. In particular, states that "[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 reduce the number of people significantly 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-effective manner". Directive 2002/30/EC, Art. 1(a) and Art. 
1(e)  
See Recital 7 of the Directive. 
See Article 5 of the Directive. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
25. 

traffic  can  be  inter  alia  curfews  (limiting  operations  during  a  certain  period  of  time), 
quotas,  noise  budget,  noise  level  limits  and  restrictions  on  the  operations  of  Chapter  3 
aircrafts24. 

In  addition,  the  Directive  also  sets  up  specific  rules  on  the  introduction  of  operating 
restrictions aimed at the withdrawal of marginally compliant aircraft (hereinafter MCA). 
The latter are defined by the Directive as aeroplanes 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 certified noise standards from operations at 
specific  airports  is  a  strong  policy  instrument  which  could  have  far  reaching  economic 
consequences for airlines, unless an appropriate 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  aircraft  and  at  the  same  time 
protect the legitimate economic interests 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  information  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 Directive and the Balanced Approach 

28. 

The  interaction  between  the  Directive  and  the  Balanced  Approach  is  schematically 
presented  in  Figure  2.  While  instruments  such  as  land-use  planning  and  operational 
procedures  are  not  directly  covered  in  the  Directive  for  subsidiarity  and  proportionality 
reasons,  their  interaction  with  operating  restrictions  must  be  recognised.  This  is  because 
the Balanced Approach requires all other measures to be first taken into account before an 
operating restriction is implemented25. Reduction of noise at source is indirectly linked to 
the  Directive,  because  the  legislation  defines  a  category  of  aircraft  (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 their stepwise withdrawal over 5 years.  

24 

25 

Further  explanation  is  provided  in  Appendix  5:  Explanation  on  noise  abatement  measures  applied  at  EU 
airports. 
Ibid footnote 16. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 2: Interaction between ICAO's Balanced Approach and the Directive26 

2.2. 

Description and scope of the problem  

29. 

30. 

31. 

26 

27 
28 

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  ensuing  stakeholder  consultation,  the  Commission  has 
come to the conclusion that, taking into account the intrinsic limitations to EU action set 
out  above,  the  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 limited28. 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.  

This is confirmed not  only  by  the results of the stakeholder consultation, but also by the 
results of a comparative analysis undertaken by the Commission.  

As  shown  in  Figure  3,  the  measures  primarily  applied  at  European  airports  are  noise 
abatement procedures. However, in addition, operating restrictions are used. Regarding the 
latter, the following restrictions have been introduced at the 224 EU airports assessed29 for 

Further  explanation  is  provided  in  Section  6  in  Appendix  3:  Overview  of  international  and  EU  policies 
affecting airport noise. 
COM(2008) 66 final. 
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 
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/commercial/noise/listcountry.html.  Although  only  69  airports  are 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
this  report:  116  curfews30,  52  noise  limits,  51  restrictions  targeted  aircraft  of  the  noise 
standard "Chapter 3", 38 noise 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  the  nature  of  the  most  prevalent  operating 
restriction, curfew. As shown in Table 1, among the 69 airports currently covered by the 
Directive, approximately 70% operate curfews. Out of these 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 

Number of 
curfews 

Number of 
night bans 

224 

100% 

116 

52% 

61 

27% 

69 

49 

17 

100% 

229 

100% 

19 

100% 

71% 

25% 

53 

11 

23% 

5% 

3 

3 

16% 

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 fall within its scope with increased traffic foreseen for 
the future. Therefore an overview of all 224 airports is also provided. 
Curfews limit operations during a certain period of time (noise related restrictions of traffic). 
Further  explanation  is  provided  in  Appendix  5:  Explanation  on  noise  abatement  measures  applied  at  EU 
airports. 
Ibid footnote 29. 

30 
31 

32 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                  
the same number of airports 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 implemented too often as a first resort.  

2.2.1.  The specific rules on MCA are no longer effective  

34. 

35. 

36. 

33 

34 
35 

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  comparatively  small  due  to  their  natural  replacement 
following technological development. 

Obsolete definition of MCA 

As indicated above, a MCA is currently defined 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-decision  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 taken out of circulation due to autonomous fleet 
development  and  noise  management  policies.  This  leads  to  a  situation  where  the  current 
definition  only  covers  a  marginal  fraction  of  the  fleet  and  the  measure  has  lost  its 
effectiveness.  

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 aircraft are however systematically higher than 
day movements due to their relatively larger share in freight operations. 

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 application for a noise restriction per year. 
Effective Perceived Noise in decibels. 
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 the figure expressed in EPNdB obtained by adding the individual margins 
(i.e. the differences between the certificated noise level and the maximum permitted noise 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 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 2: Movements by aircraft in the EU according to noise standard – evolution 2002-1036 

2002 
Day 

2.63% 

0.41% 

Ch3 -5 

Ch3 -8 

Ch3 -10 

8.22% 

2002 
Night 

3.03% 

0.35% 

9.32% 

Ch3 -U 

9.67% 

11.01% 

2006 
Day 

0.86% 

0.30% 

6.71% 

7.63% 

2006 
Night 

1.40% 

0.25% 

8.23% 

8.65% 

Ch3 

20,94% 

23,71% 

15.51% 

18.52% 

2010 
Day 

0.28% 

0.17% 

5.09% 

3.83% 

9.37% 

2010 
Night 

0.54% 

0.13% 

6.90% 

4.60% 

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 schedule 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 

37 

38 

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  certification  levels,  the  lowest  falling 
within  the  chapter 3  band.  A  considerable  proportion  of  these  aircraft  may  satisfy  chapter 4.  Source: 
Eurocontrol. Further explanation is provided in Appendix 6: Data sources and limitations on information. 
COM (2008) 66 provides the following interpretation: "Article 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 ‘last resort’ withdrawal of marginal Chapter 3 aircraft". 
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 affecting airport noise. EPNdB refers to Effective Perceived Noise in decibels. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
38. 

However,  this  phase-out  period  for  operating  restrictions  on  MCA  has  now  become  too 
long so as to render the targeting of operating restrictions on the noisiest aircrafts attractive 
and  effective.  To  achieve  the  noise  objectives,  airports  often  apparently  have  to  use  the 
remaining  possibilities,  i.e.  putting  operating  restrictions  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  are  suboptimal  in  terms  of  cost-effectiveness, 
countering  the  objective  of  the  Directive  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 measures on the noisiest aircraft.  

2.2.2.  The existing legal framework does not ensure that operating restrictions are considered at 

airports with broadly comparable noise problems in a consistent manner 

39. 

40. 

Stakeholders  reported  that,  in  the  current  legal  framework,  operating  restrictions  are 
considered  differently  at  airports  with  broadly  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. 

Given that the current legal framework implements 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 adjacent 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 microphone 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 grounds 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 based on complaints, and not noise impact and therefore reflect 
the incorrect application of the Balanced Approach. 

39 

40 
41 

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." 
Ibid footnote 21. 
Ibid footnote 16. 

EN 

18 

   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 annoyance. 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 procedures 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 outcomes means that more people are being unnecessarily 
impacted by noise and it is not in line with the Balanced Approach. 

41. 

42. 

The  principal  risks  associated  with  this  situation  are  the  lack  of  consistency  and  cost-
effectiveness  of  introducing  operating  restrictions.  In  other  words,  reduction  of  noise 
pollution  is  achieved  at  a  higher  cost  than  necessary  for  the  airports  undertaking  the 
operating  restrictions,  for  the  airlines  obliged to  comply  with  such  measures,  and  for  the 
surrounding communities which depend on these airports. 

Indirectly,  this  situation  also  harms  regional  development  and  has  repercussions  for  the 
European transport system as a whole by limiting airport capacity. It may also accelerate 
the  need  for  investment  in  new  airport  infrastructure  (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 initiative is therefore to improve the functioning 
of  the  existing  Directive  and,  more  specifically,  the  functioning  of  the  two  main 
instruments  of  the  Directive  (i.e.  the  set  of  rules  and  procedures  for  the  introduction  of 
operating  restrictions  at  Community  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. 

42 

43 

Over the last 10 years, EU legislation has evolved and Member States are now required to 
deal  with  a  range  of  EU  instruments  relating  to  noise43.  Furthermore  complexity  in 
assessing  noise  issues  has  grown  as  markets  have  completely  opened  up,  widening  and 
deepening the European air transport network. The steps in the (national) noise assessment 
process are explained in Box . 

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. 
A brief overview of existing legislation in the field is provided in 
Appendix 3: Overview of international and EU policies affecting airport noise. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Box 3: Description of noise assessment process  

The  noise  assessment  process  may  be  triggered  on  a  regular  basis  by  national  or  EU  legislative 
requirements  (like  the  Environmental  Noise  Directive  or  performance  plan  under  the  Single 
European  Sky  legislation)  or  by  particular  events,  e.g.  a  decision  on  a  building  a  new  runway. 
Normally, the  process starts with a declaration by the competent authorities setting the objectives 
for noise reduction in a wider context of regional development.44  

As  a  second  step,  in  light  of  the  declared  objectives  for  noise  reduction,  the  authority  should 
consider a range of noise abatement measures during the preparation phase to achieve the aims. The 
technical measures should ideally be prepared in full collaboration between airports, airlines and air 
navigation service providers. The impact of alternative measures should thereafter be assessed using 
evidence  from  noise  mapping:  a  model  calculates  the  noise  contours  in  light  of  existing  and 
projected aircraft noise performance and traffic volumes. Experts views suggest that the preparation 
phase is often incomplete: either because only a limited number of noise abatement instruments are 
considered,  because  not  all  affected  airlines  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  operating  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 competent Member State authorities. Member States usually take 
around  several  months  to  take  a  decision,  depending  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/news/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 
46 

That is why the bilateral air services agreements contain a clause on appropriate consultation and notification. 
The cost of Environmental Impact Assessments due to new infrastructure or programmes (e.g. change in air 
space structure above an agglomeration) are of another magnitude. The mapping requirements, also stemming 
from the Environmental Noise Directive, have a much smaller cost burden. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

Forecasts  related  to  airport  development  and  expected  impacts  on  noise  in 
comparison with a do noting option; 

Assessment of additional noise measures (detailed 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). 

According  to  stakeholders,  the  existing  rules  on  noise  assessment  process  are  not 
sufficiently precise so as to ensure that the assessment of the noise impact and evaluation 
of  the  measures  available  to  alleviate  that  impact  is  made  on  a  uniform  way  across  EU 
airports. 

At  this  time  of  growing  technical  and  legal  complexity  of  aviation  noise  assessments,  it 
appears that the Directive does not equip stakeholders with sufficient assessment tools to 
ensure  the  correct  application  of  the  Balanced  Approach.  Although  ICAO  produced  a 
revised  guidance  document  as  recently  as  in  200847,  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. 

In  addition  the  scope  of  the  assessment  is  open  to  interpretation  as  to  when  it  must  be 
applied and whether it covers all significant effects from a proposed noise related action or 
whether it is restricted to the effects on parties specifically named in the clause. The lack of 
clarity  on  noise  assessment  process  may  conceivably  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. 

45. 

46. 

47. 

48. 

The  stakeholder  consultation  and  discussions  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-social  and  socio-economic 
impacts and interdependencies. 

Failure to consult interested parties properly and to involve local expertise in noise 
rule development. 

•  Many  stakeholders  had  the  impression  that  local  decisions  (e.g.  total  curfews  and 
land-use  planning  restriction  exemptions)  were  made  on  the  basis  of  political 
expediency and without full transparency of their effects or benefits. 

• 

• 

• 

Failure to consider the impacts of local decisions on the wider ATM system. 

Lack of awareness of existing and emerging aircraft capabilities. 

Adopting rules that exist for 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 

21 

   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  protections  but  also  allows  for  continual 
improvement and the adoption of new techniques. 

The existing procedure to introduce operating restrictions is too weak 

49. 

Finally, the Directive is not clear as to whether the assessment should also link with other 
elements of the balanced approach, 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 introducing 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  explanation  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  the  other  Member  States  and  the 
Commission of any new operating restriction; 

Right of appeal: Member States shall ensure the right to appeal against the measures 
taken before an appeal body other than the authority that has adopted the contested 
measure, in accordance with national legislation and procedures. 

The existing possibility of infringement procedures 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.  

While the Commission launched infringement procedures 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 measure is substantial and new, the process is to 
be applied "as far is appropriate and possible" and "for the characteristics of the airport". 
Though the spirit of the Balanced Approach is clear, the wording of the Directive does not 
provide the sufficient legal clarity for court proceedings. 

51. 

52. 

48 

49 

Further  details  on  the  how  various  stakeholders  are  affected  by  cost-ineffective  operating  restrictions  are 
provided in Section 2.3.  
Over  the  course  of  2007-2010,  the  Commission  did  not  receive  any  notification  on  a  newly  introduced 
operating restriction while there have been a number of cases, such at Paris CDG or at Frankfurt airport. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
53. 

Moreover  the  Directive  does  not  allow  temporary  suspension  of  the  implementation  of 
measures  restricting  operations50  in  the  event  where  the  cost-effectiveness  of  these 
measures is contested by stakeholders, and where there is demonstrated that the impacts on 
noise, safety, competition or network efficiency have not been properly 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 affects 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. 

56. 

50 

51 

52 

53 

Airports certainly lose revenue as a result of operating restrictions. Attempts to offset such 
loss of capacity by increasing the 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,  maximising  existing  airport  capacity  to  the  extent  sustainably 
possible  delays  the  need  for  new  infrastructure  and  optimises  the  economic  benefit  from 
existing investment and helps European competitiveness (economies of scale). 

Airlines are significantly affected as operating restrictions have a substantial impact on the 
flexibility of organising their business. 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-
cargo53  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 

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". 
Box  gives a range of real-world examples for the incorrect application of the Balanced Approach at a number 
of European airports. 
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 most favourable scenario 
and 25% in the most challenging one. 19 airports will function at full capacity 8 hours/day in the former case; 
39 airports in the latter. Source: Eurocontrol, (2008), Long-Term Forecast: IFR Flight Movements 2008-2030. 
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  always  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. However, 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 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
competition among aircraft operators if decisions on noise measures are motivated by bias 
towards a particular, mostly home-based, operator.  

Figure 5: Traffic during night by market 
segment54

57. 

58. 

59. 

54 
55 
56 

57 
58 

Consumers will be adversely affected by suboptimal noise policies leading to unnecessary 
operating restrictions. Operating restrictions limiting the choice of the consumer could lead 
to higher prices due to increase in costs of airlines. Moreover there have been cases where 
operating restrictions have negatively influenced the safety of air travel55. 

Citizens  in  the  vicinity  of  airports  are  directly  affected  by  the  various  noise  mitigation 
options. The impact may be quite differing for 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 may 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  focusing  on  the  reduction  of  the  global  noise 
impact – or impact on citizens of a neighbouring country. 56 

The development of areas surrounding airports is also affected as airports are essential to 
boost  the  local  economy57.  Industry  has  become  increasingly  reliant  on  overnight/24h 
delivery and dispatch of high-value documents, products and components to feed the 'just 
in  time'  production  chain58.  Operating  restrictions  may  prevent  the  satisfaction  of  this 

Reproduced in DLR (2011) based on Eurocontrol (2009) Trends in Air Traffic, Vol. 5, Fig. 16, p. 30. 
See Box . 
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. 
York Aviation, 2004, The social and economic impact of airports in Europe. 
MPD Group Ltd, (2005), 'Assessing the economic costs of night flight restrictions', London, p. 24. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
demand. As shown in Figure 6, the transport of high value goods is principally 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 the 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 restrictions of a given 
airport.  Depending  on  the  characteristics  of  the  airport  (hub,  regional  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  increase  in  costs  for  airlines  and  in  unnecessary 
emissions  from  aircraft.  Figure  7  shows  the  impact  of  the  closure  of  three  (out  of  six) 
runways  at  Amsterdam  airport,  after  the  noise  limits  were  reached  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 departures and up to 50 minutes for arrivals. The 
cost of this measure can be estimated to be in the range of €1bn 61.  

59 
60 

Oxford Economic Forecasting (2004). 
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/assets/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  they  hide  the  huge  number  of  missed 
connections, cancelled meetings and shortened holidays. 

EN 

25 

   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

y
a
l
e
D
s
e
t
u
n
M

i

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1-
août

4-
août

7-
août

10-
août

13-
août

16-
août

19-
août

22-
août

25-
août

28-
août

31-
août

3-
sept

6-
sept

9-
sept

12-
sept

15-
sept

18-
sept

21-
sept

24-
sept

27-
sept

30-
sept

3-oct

2.4.  What if present trends continue?  

Arrivals

Departures

61. 

62. 

The Commission has carried out an analysis of possible future developments in a scenario 
based on unchanged policies, the so-called ‘baseline scenario’. 

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,  together  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  effects  make  a  strong  case  for  integrating 
these aspects into active noise management policies. 

Table 3: ICAO forecasts of number of people affected by noise (in Million) in Europe – without substantial 
operational and technological improvements64 

Noise level/Year 

> 55 DNL 

> 60 DNL 

> 65 DNL 

2006 

2.63 

0.799 

0.23 

2016 

3.47 

1.14 

0.32 

2026 

4.48 

1.53 

0.43 

2036 

5.79 

2.12 

0.66 

63. 

Excessive introduction of operating restrictions (curfews, night bans etc.) not targeting the 
noisiest  aircraft  due  to  obsolete  definition  of  MCA  and  an  extended  phasing  out  period 
(further  exacerbate  the  already  challenging  capacity  crunch  of  the  current  air  transport 

62 
63 
64 

Ibid footnote 61. 
As shown in the Impact Assessment accompanying the White Paper on Transport (SEC(2011) 358 final). 
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 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
64. 

65. 

system artificially. These operating restrictions create economic competitive disadvantages 
for aircraft operators as well as for the relevant airports and the regions.  

Moreover, they act as a considerably limiting and cost increasing factor as airlines need to 
preserve  sufficient  margin  to  cater  for  delayed  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  reduce  flight  efficiency  and  reduce  system 
resilience to perturbations (e.g. volcanic ash or severe weather). 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 practise and how stakeholders are involved in the decision process 
implies that, in addition to MCA problems mentioned 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. 

Finally, without the update of the definition of MCA, a signal would be lost for airframe 
and engine manufacturers, which further stimulates innovation in noise reduction at source 
by providing a predictable investment framework. This risks leading to a situation where 
aircraft  do  not  improve  their  noise  performance.  Indeed,  while  large  body  aircraft 
demonstrate substantial improvements in noise performance to satisfy local requirements, 
short and medium-range aircraft have not had significant noise improvement over the past 
two  decades.  The  noise  certification  levels  of  this  category  have  plateaued66.  The 
technology  is  proven  cost-effective,  but  there  is  not  sufficient  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 

66 
67 

A prominent example is DHL and the relocation of its European 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).  
Source: CAEP/8 – Working Paper 74, p; 3. 
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 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 8: Growth in airport noise 
restrictions68

2.5. 

The EU's right to act 

67. 

68. 

69. 

70. 

The  necessity  to  act  at  European  level  in  relation  to  noise-related  operation-related 
operating  restrictions  was  recognized  in  2002  with  the  adoption  of  Council  Directive 
2002/30/EC on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of 
noise-related  operating  restrictions  at  Community  airports.  This  Directive  contributes  to 
the  proper  functioning  of  the  European  air  transport  system.  It  responds  to  the  objective 
Articles 90 and 91 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

According  to  Article  4  of  the  TFEU,  EU  action  regarding  noise-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-related  operating  restrictions  at  EU  airports.  In  the  present 
case,  it  is  therefore  necessary  that  the  subsidiarity  principle  set  out  in  Article  5(3)  of  the 
Treaty on the European Union is respected. This involves assessing two aspects. 

Firstly, it has to be assessed if the objectives of the proposed action could not be achieved 
sufficiently by Member States in the framework of their national constitutional system, the 
so-called  "necessity  test".  In  the  present  case,  this  justification  centres  on  the  need  to 
ensure  that  international  rules  and  procedures  are  implemented  by  Member  States  in  a 
uniform  and  efficient  manner  in  order  to  provide  EU  and  non-EU  operators  with  a  level 
playing field.  

Secondly, it has to be considered whether and how the objectives 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 present initiative should consist of implementing measures that take into 
account the situation of different airports while, at same time, ensuring that noise-related 

68 

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/restrictions.pdf 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
operating restrictions are implemented in a cost-effective way at locations where the noise 
situation requires action and the appropriate, locally-tailored 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 functionality of the internal 
market. 

3.  OBJECTIVES 

71. 

Section 2 has shown that the 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 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  airports,  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 identified problems is provided in Table 4. 

3.1. 

Policy objectives 

General policy objective 

73. 

74. 

As  indicated  above,  the  proposed  initiative  should  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  proportionality  and  by  the  umbrella  Directive  on  EU  noise 
policy (i.e. the Environmental Noise Directive).. 

In this context, the general policy objective of this initiative is to 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,  thereby 
promoting  the  most  cost-effective  noise-related  solutions  to  merely  achieve  established 
noise quality objectives as established 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 provision70; 

69 

70 

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 
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 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(2) 

Ensure  that  operating  restrictions  are  considered  at  airports  with  broadly 
comparable noise problems in a consistent manner by: 

• 

• 

clarifying how to carry out a noise assessment process; 

strengthening  the  procedural  framework  leading  to  the  introduction  of 
operating restrictions. 

Operational policy objectives 

76. 

In order to evaluate the progress made towards achieving the general and specific policy 
objectives, the following operational policy objectives are proposed:  

• 

• 

The share of new curfews to total operating restrictions should be substantially 
reduced by 2020; 

To  achieve  the  noise  objectives,  airports  often  apparently  have  to  use  the 
remaining possibilities, i.e. putting operating restrictions on less noisy aircraft 
or  taking  action  such  as  noise  abatement  procedures,  land-use  planning. 
Therefore  all  new  operating  restrictions  should  include  measures  targeting 
MCA with the aim of maximising 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 

SO1  Target  operating  restrictions  on  the  noisiest  aircraft 

effective because: 

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 procedural framework leading to 
the introduction of operating restrictions 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2. 

Consistency with horizontal objectives of the European Union 

77. 

78. 

79. 

80. 

The ongoing revision of the Environmental Noise Directive (Directive 2002/49/EC)71 has 
set the scene for this initiative.  

The European aviation policy requires 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. 

Directive 2002/49/EC obliges Member States to identify industrial and transport sources of 
noise pollution, make noise mappings to identify the number of people affected, and take 
the required mitigating measures, especially in view of the long-term health effects.  

The Commission report72 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 recognised method and data, and drive towards 
the adoption of cost-effective noise mitigating measure, taking into account internationally 
agreed standards to streamline the relationship between the airport noise directive and the 
Environmental Noise Directive. It will also update the definition of noisy aircraft ("MCA") 
in line with the current composition 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 render the targeting of operating restrictions 
on  the  noisiest  aircrafts  attractive  and  effective.  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  example,  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 definition harmonized at a stricter level and a 
swifter  phase-out  of  the  most  annoying  aircraft  to  see  these  replaced  by  the  latest 
generation of aircraft which produce 75% less noise73. 

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 situation and the noise problems encountered. The noise climate could 

71 

72 
73 

Further  information  on  the  European  noise  policy  framework  is  provided  in  Appendix  3:  Overview  of 
international and EU policies affecting airport noise. 
COM(2011) 321 final. 
For  this  reason,  many  airports  impose  the  use  of  chapter 4  compliant  aircraft  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 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
83. 

be improved through a better analysis of the noise problem and a more thorough analysis 
of the contribution of each of the available measures.  

The Policy Options to be examined are constructed 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  business-as-usual  scenario  (Policy  Option  1),  in 
other words, to maintain existing noise protection standards. What distinguishes the Policy 
Options  is  not  the  noise  climate,  but  the  intensity  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 explained in Section 2, tackling the issues related to 
MCA (Problem 1) will enable fewer and/or better-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  identified  three  Policy  Options  –  besides  the 
baseline scenario – that combine specific EU actions across the two policy areas described 
above.  By  construction,  the  Policy  Options  described  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 Option are presented in Section 2.4. 

Policy Option 2 

86. 

87. 

Policy Option 2 includes the revision of Article 274 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  cumulative  margin  of  not  more  than  12  EPNdB75. 
This reflects the trend of the last 10 years where the number of movements performed by 
Chapter 3 aircraft in the EU has steadily fallen to about 10% in 2010. This lower margin 
would  mean  a  greater  coverage  of  aircraft  movements.  Article  6  on  the  phase-out 
requirements of MCA would be shortened by one year. 

Concerning  the  second  problem  identified  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 advice76 on how to best 
carry  out  the  appraisal  required  by  the  Balanced  Approach;  manage  central  databases  on 
aircraft noise performance to ensure consistent noise performance information for aircraft 
including certification margin  values for  use locally; and supply  the  necessary modelling 

74 
75 

76 

Ibid footnote 35. 
Please note that Chapter 3 -12 EPNdB is not necessarily compliant 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. 
The advice would inter alia relate to the noise mapping and cost-benefit analysis. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
software  and  related  technical  guidance  to  perform  noise  mapping  around  airports.  With 
the creation of this EU support cell, the Commission will be able to spread good practice in 
considering the most cost-effective measures. 

88. 

With the aim of ensuring that the existing procedure to introduce operating restrictions is 
sufficiently stringent, Policy Option 2 foresees the revision of the wording of the Directive 
so  that  sufficient  legal  clarity  for  court  proceedings  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  stakeholder  consultations  required  for  measures 
covered by the Directive 

Policy Option 3 

89. 

90. 

Policy Option 3 also includes the revision of Article 277 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 amended to allow for a complete phasing-out of 
marginally-compliant aircraft within 2 years. 

Concerning  the  second  problem  identified  in  Section  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 establishment of an EU-level support cell.  

In addition, with the aim of ensuring that the existing 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.  1008/200878.  In  addition,  the 
Policy  Option  foresees  an  additional  provision  on  the  scope  of  the  stakeholder  consultations 
required for measures covered by the Directive. Policy Option 4 

91. 

92. 

93. 

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 amended to allow for a complete phasing-out of 
marginally-compliant aircraft within 2 years. 

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 establishment of an EU-level support cell.  

In  addition,  with  the  aim  of  ensuring  that  the  existing  procedure  to  introduce  operating 
restrictions is sufficiently stringent, it foresees the need for the Commission to grant prior 
authorization  to  any  operating  restriction.  In  addition,  the  Policy  Option  foresees  an 
additional  provision  on  the  scope  of  the  stakeholder  consultations  required  for  measures 
covered by the Directive. 

77 
78 
79 

Ibid footnote 35. 
Ibid footnote 50.  
Ibid footnote 35. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
94. 

The  difference  compared  to  Policy  Option 3  is  that  under  the  latter  Commission  would 
review  the  noise  assessment  process  (appropriate  consultation,  adequate  noise  mapping 
methods and data used, fair cost-benefit analysis methods and values used). Under Policy 
Option 4, the Commission would effectively take a decision on a concrete noise operating 
restriction  (“grant  prior  authorization”).  Hence,  under  Option 3,  the  Commission  protects 
the assessment rules and procedures; under Policy Option 4 the Commission would assume 
the full political responsibility of confirming or refusing operating restrictions. The right to 
suspend the measure prior to its implementation is a necessity 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 actors 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. 

96. 

97. 

The European legislation on airport noise is currently in the form of a Directive (Directive 
2002/30/EC). This choice of the legal instrument has partly led to the large heterogeneity 
in the way operating restrictions are introduced in Europe, since the Directive in question 
leaves a wide margin of interpretation to the Member States in the implementation. One of 
the consequences of this heterogeneity, described above, is the excessive use of operating 
restrictions. 

In order to address the problems 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  criteria  would  need  to  be  established  on  the  possibility  of 
suspending an operating restriction. 

Moreover the fact that the Policy Options foresee an update of the definition of the MCA. 
This  definition  would  need  to  apply  equally  in  all  Member  States,  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,  all  Policy  Options  foresee  the  possibility  of 
updating  the  definition  of  MCA  through  delegated  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  probably  be  a  more 
appropriate tool for translating the policy changes into legislation. 80 

Table 5: Mapping objectives and Policy Options 

Specific Objectives 

Policy options 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

Make the specific rules on MCA 

80 

Airlines, including express carriers, favoured the transformation of the directive into a regulation, if legislative 
action was deemed necessary. 

EN 

34 

   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: 

procedural 
the 
-strengthening 
the 
to 
leading 
framework 
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 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POLICY OPTIONS  

99. 

This section provides an assessment of the economic, 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.  The  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 results of the assessment of impacts.  

5.1. 

Impact on the implementation of the Balanced Approach 

100. 

As  explained  in  previous  section  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 action with respect to certain type of measures 
such as land use planning, operational procedures or insulation programmes (Pillars 1 and 
2 of the Balanced Approach) is limited for subsidiarity 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 overall implementation of the 
ICAO Balanced Approach is assessed separately.81 

101. 

In  light  of  improved  EU-level  oversight  of  Policy  Option  4,  this  option  is  most  likely  to 
have the greatest positive effects on the implementation of Pillar 1 and 2. This is because it 
would  ensure  that  noise  management  instruments  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  movements82.  Reflecting  this 
trend, Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 propose revising the coverage of the definition of MCA, 
currently  set  at  Chapter  3  -5  EPNdB,  to  Chapter  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 likely 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  aviation  is  a  network  industry,  the 
wider  impact  of  operational  restrictions  at  a  particular  airport  could  in  principle  have 
consequences over the whole European network83. In addition to the effects on the affected 

81 

82 
83 

All industry stakeholders stressed the need for more  coherence between the different pillars of the Balanced 
Approach. 
See Table 2: Movements by aircraft in the EU according to noise standard – evolution 2002-10. 
See paragraph 60 for further details. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
airports  and  the  airlines  using  this  airport,  the  main  economic  impacts  to  be  assessed 
should include the effect on the efficient functioning of the aviation network as a whole.  

5.2.1. 

Impact on the efficient functioning of the European aviation network  

105. 

106. 

107. 

The  potential  effect  of  revising  the  possibility to target operating restrictions at  MCA on 
the  aviation  network  in  Europe  depends  basically  on  the  number  of  airports  resorting  to 
this instrument, which airports and which of the policy three options is implemented. If a 
large  number  of  airports  comprising  an  important  share  of  operations  with  MCA  are 
introducing  MCA  restrictions  it  would  put  serious  limitations  on  the  possible  traffic 
programmes which the airline industry could offer 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  airlines  if  the  operating  restrictions  were  put  in  place  in  the 
airports  functioning  as  important  nodes  in  their  traffic  programme.  These  restrictions 
would  probably  lead  to  increased  costs  for  these  companies,  but  create  opportunities  for 
airlines  with  less  noisy  fleet.  On  the  other  side  if  only  a  few  airports  comprising  only  a 
minor  share  of  the  operations  the  effects  on  potential  traffic  programmes,  the  choice  of 
customers and on the competition between airlines would be limited. 

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  influence  up  to  10%  of  movements  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  the  provision  of  the  current 
Directive, allowing sufficient time for the overall adaptation of the system.  

On the contrary, Policy Options 3 and 4 would 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% respectively. Moreover, while an 
operating restriction can be implemented far quicker, both Policy Options require a wider 
stakeholder consultation prior such a decision than Policy Option 1. 

Aircraft type per noise limit 

Movements impacted on EU airports 

Table 6: Estimated movements of MCA85 

Chapter 3 minus 8dB 

Chapter 3 minus 10dB 

Chapter 3 minus 12dB 

0 – 2% 

2 – 8% 

6 – 10% 

108. 

Looking at individual aircraft, raising the margin even up to -12 EPNdB would not affect 
great  numbers  of  aircraft  and  hence  disrupt  the  network.  Raising  up  to  -8  would  affect 
older  versions  of  the  A321-100/200,  the  B737-400  and  the  MD82.  A  margin  set  at  -10 
would  also  affect  a  few  B737-300s  and  some  B747-400  (the  overwhelming  majority  of 

84 

85 

The decision to phase-out MCA is taken 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. 
Source: Eurocontrol – PRISME and CFMU data. 

EN 

37 

   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  aircraft  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 Options 2, 3 or 4. On the contrary 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. 

111. 

112. 

113. 

Demand  currently  exceeds  capacity  throughout  most  or  all  of  the  day  at  six  European 
airports  (London  Heathrow,  London  Gatwick,  Paris  Orly,  Milan  Linate,  Düsseldorf  and 
Frankfurt). Some of this shortfall in these highly congested airports 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. 

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. 

On  the  other  hand,  this  general  positive  economic  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 

Policy  Option 2  mitigates  this  administrative  burden  through  the  establishment  of  an  EU 
support cell which will provide central databases on aircraft noise  performance89 and the 
necessary software to perform 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 specified 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 would be achieved in particular 
in Policy Options 3 and 4. In these Policy Options, a wider stakeholder consultation would 
ensure the involvement of affected airlines in the establishment of noise-related operating 
restrictions  at  individual  airports.  In  addition,  the  right  of  scrutiny  for  the  Commission 

86 
87 
88 

89 
90 

ACI stressed this issue. 
Steer Davies Gleave, (2011), Supporting study for the impact assessment of revising Regulation 95/93. 
Many  stakeholders,  both  community  groups  of  citizens  living  in  the  surroundings  and  airlines,  complained 
about the lack of transparency of the noise management process. 
Currently airports need to ask for the noise certification for each and every aircraft using their facilities. 
Airlines stressed their willingness to invest in performing aircraft, but the standards should be harmonized and 
should not change overnight. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
115. 

116. 

117. 

118. 

119. 

(reinforced under Policy Option 4 to the requirement for prior authorisation) would enable 
temporary suspension of measures that are rightfully contested by stakeholders.  

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  normally  have  a  long  term  investment  programmes  to  steadily 
replace  older  (and  noisier)  aircraft91.  Any  change  in  the  regulatory  environment  will 
require  adaptation  of  these  programmes.  The  extent  of  this  adjustment  is  however  very 
much  dependent  on  the  particular  strategy  adapted  by  the  individual  airline.  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. 

Concerning the magnitude of the impacts caused by this adjustment, it is clear that Policy 
Option  2  would  most  heavily  affect  aircraft  operators  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  depend  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  aircraft,  in  many  cases  pensioned  off  passenger 
aircraft transformed into cargo carriers. The value of MCA would most likely drop through 
the anticipation of likely operating 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. 

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  B737-300  fleet  when  the 
margin is raised up to -10 EPNdB. Raising the margin up to -12 EPNdB does not have an 
additional impact.  

Cargo  operators  would  be  affected  more  if  the  margin  is  raised  up  to  -12  EPNdB,  in 
particular  some  parts  of  the B747-400  freighters 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 airlines have margins above -20. 

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 the 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 
92 

93 
94 

See e.g. http://corporate.airfrance.com/en/sustainable-development/environment-and-climate/ 
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. 
Ibid footnote 92. 
Eurocontrol, 2011, PRISME and CFMU data.  

EN 

39 

   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 

Air France 

Iberia Airlines 

Alitalia 

British Airways 

Monarch Airlines 

Spanair 

Turkish Airlines 

0 

21 

18 

23 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

10% 

0 

17 

18 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0% 

81% 

100% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

10% 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Absolute 
number 

% of B733 
fleet 

Absolute 
number 

% of B733 
fleet 

Absolute 
number 

% of B733 
fleet 

Lufthansa 

Norwegian Air Shuttle 

Bmibaby 

Jet2.com 

Europe Airpost 

KLM 

Air Baltic 

Jat Airways  

31 

6 

3 

16 

5 

5 

1 

10 

97% 

25% 

27% 

50% 

31% 

100% 

13% 

100% 

0 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0% 

8% 

9% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

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 forward the purchasing of less noisier aircraft. 95 
This  would  have  a  positive  effect  in  the  short  to  medium  term  on  the  turnover  and  sales 
figures  of  airframe  and  engine  manufacturers,  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 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
121. 

122. 

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 abatement technology already exists, but this needs 
to  'trickle  down'  from  the  large  airframes  to  the  medium-sized  and  smaller  models. 
Substantially  revising  the  definition  of  MCA,  as  foreseen  under  Policy  Options 2  and  3, 
would give a signal that reducing noise will remain an important aspect of future airframe 
and engine development. It will also incentivise the timely renewal of the fleet generating 
additional market demand for quieter aircraft. 

As for aircraft engines, there are now in principle major technologies97 to further improve 
their  noise  performance,  shown  on  Figure  9.  While  engine  manufacturers  will  likely  be 
impacted by more stringent noise measures in the longer run depending on their principal 
choice of technology investment, the Policy Options 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.  However,  it  is  clear  that  new  technology 
should  deliver  on  both  emissions  and  noise  performance,  and  that  they  should  not  cause 
additional environmental harm. 

Figure 9: Specific fuel consumption versus noise for open-rotor engine technology98 

96 
97 

98 

Depending on the exact Maximum Take-Off Weight. 
The  performance  of  the  so-called  “open  rotor”  engines  needs  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 increased journey times may be acceptable. Open-rotor technology is therefore 
affected by  operational  trade-offs  as well  as  “emissions  versus noise”  trade-offs.  Longhaul  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 the counter rotating blades. The exact noise performance of open rotor is 
not yet publicly known. In this example, interdependencies 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. 
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 

41 

   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 perceived noise to one half of current average levels". In 
line  with  this  goal,  substantial  R&D  and  deployment  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  incentivise  action  to  reduce  noise  at  source 
through updating the definition of MCA, Policy Option 3 would in addition guarantee that 
operational  measures  are  fully  recognised  and  taken  into  account  to  assess  the  cost-
effectiveness of operating restrictions through the Balanced Approach. 

5.2.6. 

Impact on administrative costs 

124. 

125. 

126. 

Administrative costs are defined as the costs incurred by different stakeholders in meeting 
legal  obligations  to  provide  information  on  their  action  or  production  either  to  public 
authorities or to private parties. Information is understood in a broad sense, i.e. including 
labelling,  reporting,  registration,  monitoring  and  assessment  needed  to  provide  the 
information.  

The  administrative  costs  are  calculated  as  changes  in  costs  compared  to  the  baseline 
scenario. Additional costs for public authorities and airports are all considered.  

The  identification  and  assessment  of  administrative  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 available in Appendix 7: Revision of the Directive - 
assessment of administrative costs. The calculations are based on best available estimates 

99 
100 

http://www.cleansky.eu/ 
http://www.sesarju.eu/ 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
and  assumptions.  It  should  be  stressed  there  is  a  considerable  uncertainty  in  the 
calculations. 

127. 

The estimated yearly change in administrative costs associated with each Policy Option is 
shown in Error! Reference source not found..  

Euros/year 

Policy option 2 

Policy option 3 

Policy option 4 

Table 8: Change in yearly administrative costs 

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  

3 b. Change in notification procedures  

 0 

0  

1,200,000 

0 

0  

2,400,000 

 Total 

Private sector 

Public sector 

1,800,000 

3,000,000 

4,200,000 

14 % 

86 % 

8 % 

92 % 

6 % 

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 the 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  would  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  more  specific  demands  on  the  existing  national 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
 
131. 

132. 

133. 

134. 

rules, and would increase the cost per assessment for authorities in Member States due to 
information obligation, assessment of contributions and decision-making. 

The change in notification and scrutiny procedure in Policy Option 3 and Policy Option 4 
compared to the Policy Option 1 will raise the quality of the analysis which the authorities 
have to deliver.  

It  is  assumed  that  the  Policy  Option  3  (scrutiny)  would  give  rise  extra  cost  for  public 
authorities  due  to  information  exchange  with  Commission,  preparation  of  supplementary 
material,  meetings  in  Brussels  etc.  These  activities  would  probably  involve  different 
specialists  and  management  levels  from  the  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 within the Commission at large. This would be 
in line with the current efforts to monitor the implementation of the directive and undertake 
noise related action. 

Policy Option 4 (prior authorisation) 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 and 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  operating  restriction  would  become  subject  to 
Commission analysis. 

In addition to a change in the annual administrative costs, all Policy Options would 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 
manufacturers,  international  organisations  and  public  authorities  in  Member  States.  The 
baseline scenario does not contain 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  Policy  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  supervision  (Policy  Option  3)  and  enhanced  control 
(Policy Option 4), being the lowest in Policy 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 data and the evaluation efforts have already 
been developed and will also be used for other purposes. Databases on noise performance, 
noise  mapping  software,  a  multi-airport  model101  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 feasibility of setting performance targets and monitoring them with 

101 

102 

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. 
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 

44 

   EN 

 
                                                 
136. 

137. 

138. 

appropriate  incentives.  The  Commission  has  control  over  these  tools. 103  In  general  these 
tools improve the environmental policy assessment capacity of the Commission. 

The costs to the EU budget which are associated with the set-up of the support cell, could 
be  quite  limited  if  the  cell  was  integrated  in an  existing  structure  like  Eurocontrol  or  the 
Performance Review Body, estimated at around €100,000 per year. This estimate includes 
the  cost  of  one  full-time  equivalent  Commission  official  as  well  as  IT  costs.  The  above-
mentioned  Commission-Eurocontrol  Framework  Agreement  already  foresees  support  to 
National Supervisory Authorities. 

In  addition  to  this  support  cell,  Policy  Option  3  foresees  the  right  of  scrutiny  for  the 
Commission in case of a substantiated 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  Commission  official  and  the  associated  overhead  cost.  Due  to 
the relatively modest demand on resources it is expected that the financing could be found 
within the existing budget. 

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  approach  does  not  follow  the  ICAO  resolutions104 
where Contracting States committed, at least for 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  harmonized  definition  of  MCA  going  beyond 
Chapter 3  as  envisaged  under  Policy  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 policy options in 
the fields which affect primarily people, namely governance and participation, employment 
level  and  conditions  and  safety.  The  impacts  of  variation  of  noise  pollution  on  human 
health are assessed in the section analysing environmental factors105. 

103 

104 
105 

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. 
Resolution 37-18 adopted during the ICAO Assembly of 2010. 
When assessing social impacts in transport 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 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.3.1. 

Impact on governance and participation 

142. 

Thanks to the strengthened procedure, an improvement is expected in the transparency of 
noise  assessments.  The  possibility  of  involvement  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  decisions  on  airport  noise 
management, irrespective of where they live. 

5.3.2. 

Impact on employment level and conditions 

143. 

144. 

145. 

Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 will likely have a positive impact on employment levels due to 
the positive effects outlined in Section 5.2.2, and 5.2.4106. The direct employment benefits 
in  the  air  transport  industry  can  be  estimated  to  be  around  1.53 million  jobs  in  the  EU; 
while indirect and induced employment is about 4.2 million in EU107.  

The  better  implementation  of  the  Balanced  Approach  will  provide  more  certainty  for 
investment  decisions,  and  will  enable  aircraft  operators  to  organize  their  businesses  in  a 
more  efficient  flexible  way.  In  particular  abrupt  and  costly  relocations  will  be  more 
certainly avoided under Policy Options 3 and 4.  

Concerning the profile of jobs provided, 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  safety  of  air  transport.  Despite  clear  ICAO 
requirements  to  give  absolute  priority  to  safety,  there  are  cases  where  noise  related 
measures interfere with safety decisions, namely if imposing specific characteristics on the 
final approach of the aircraft to airport, which 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 such 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  therefore  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  safety.  The  impacts  of  variation  of  noise  pollution  on 
human health are assessed in this section analysing environmental factors. 
air 
Further 
Appendix 3: Overview of international and EU policies affecting airport noise. 
Air Transport Action Group, (2008), The economic and social benefits of air transport 2008, Geneva, 26p. 

employment 

discussion 

described 

transport 

effects 

are 

the 

on 

of 

in 

46 

   EN 

106 

107 

EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
5.4.1. 

Impact on noise climate 

148. 

149. 

As explained in paragraph 81, the underlying logic when constructing the Policy Options 
was to maintain at least the same noise climate 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  introduce  operating  restrictions,  the  impact  of 
Policy  Options  2,  3  and  4  on  noise  contours  will  be  highly  dependent  on  the  particular 
noise abatement measures adopted by the individual airports. 

This dependence also holds for health impacts. Therefore the health impacts should be the 
principal  element  of  noise  assessments.  Appendix  3:  Overview  of  international  and  EU 
policies  affecting  airport  noise  highlights  the  crucial  importance  of  noise  impacts  on 
human health and the contribution 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 consumption 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 emissions) or for somewhat longer 
routes to avoid noise impact on the communities on the ground, or stack aircraft in the air 
as long as the night ban lasts).  

Manufacturers  need  to  be  incentivised  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 significantly 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 CO2. Moving Toward Sustainability. Chapter 7, Table 7-3.  

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                 
151. 

On the other hand, it is recognised that in certain cases, measures taken to improve the fuel 
efficiency  of  aircraft  and  hence  lower  their  emission,  may  negatively  affect  noise 
performance. Table 9 (and also Figure 9) highlights 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  improvement.  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,  which  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  increase  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 incentive and signal to develop and use quieter 
aircraft, and hence will necessitate more operating restrictions. 

5.5. 

Conclusions 

153. 

The results of the previous sections give the following picture of the impacts of the various 
Policy Options relative to Policy Option 1. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
Table 10: Summary table of impacts compared to Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 4 

Impact  on  the  implementation  of  the  Balanced 
Approach 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

Economic impacts 

Impact on: 

The efficient functioning of the European aviation 
network 

Low 

Low 

Airports 

Medium 

Medium 

Aircraft operators 

Low 

Low 

Airframe and aircraft engine manufacturer 

Medium 

Medium 

Administrative costs 

Up to  

Up to  

Low 

Low 

Medium 

Neutral 

Up to  

€ 1,800,000/year  

€ 3,000,000/year  

€ 4,200,000/year 

EU budget 

International relations 

Social impacts 

Impact on governance and participation 

Impact on employment level and conditions 

Impact on safety 

Environmental impacts 

Impact on noise 

Impact on climate change 

Low 

High 

High 

Low 

Low 

Medium 

Low 

High 

Low 

High 

Low 

High 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

Neutral 

Medium 

Neutral 

Medium 

Neutral 

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 depend 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 international relations. Policy 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 Options 2, 3 and 4 have a similar impact. The 
only major difference in the effects stems from the extent to which operational measures 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
affecting the safety of aircraft are scrutinised. Policy Options 2 and 3 can be considered 
largely equivalent in this respect.  

–  With regard to environment, Policy Option 4 can clearly distinguished by the relatively 
high  potential  of  negative  impacts  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. 

157. 

158. 

Table 11 gives a synthetic overview of the policy options’ effectiveness with regard to the 
specific policy objectives defined in section 3. This 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. 

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, Policy 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,  Policy  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. 

As  regards  the  objective  related  to  the  consistent  introduction  of  operating  restrictions  at 
EU  airports,  the  effectiveness  of  the  envisaged  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 operating restrictions. The Commission 
will  indeed  be  in  charge  of  mandatory  scrutiny  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  problematic  operating  restrictions. 
Policy  Option  2  is  expected  to  be  by  far  the  least  effective  because  the  scrutiny  of  the 
quality  of  the  assessment  process  procedure  will  be  performed  ex  post  through 
infringement procedures.  

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
Table 11: Effectiveness of envisaged Policy Options 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: 

neutral 

high 

medium 

low 

- Revising obsolete definition of MCA 

- Choosing an adequate associated phasing-out period  

Ensure  that  similar  operating  restrictions  are  considered  at 
airports with broadly comparable noise problems in a consistent 
manner by: 

neutral 

low 

Medium - 
high 

high 

-  clarifying  and  specify  how  to  carry  out  a  noise  assessment 
process  

-  strengthening  the  procedural  framework  leading  to  the 
introduction of operating restrictions 

6.2. 

Efficiency  

159. 

160. 

Given  that  the  proposed  initiative  is  of  procedural  nature,  the  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). 

In light of the estimations detailed above, Policy Option 2 appears to be the most efficient 
as  it  would  bring  about  the  smallest  increase  in  administrative  costs.  However,  this 
assessment  does  not  take  account  the  potential  costs  of  an  international  dispute  in  the 
highly globalised aviation market, possibly negatively affecting EU aircraft operators.  

6.3. 

Coherence 

161. 

As shown on Table 10, Policy Option 3 is the most coherent, carefully balancing action to 
achieve the specific policy objectives. No significant negative impact is foreseen under this 
Policy  Option,  which  therefore  represents  lowest  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 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

neutral 

neutral 

low 

high 

medium  

high 

medium 

medium 

neutral 

medium 

high 

low 

EN 

51 

   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,  the  most  suitable  Policy  Option  to  achieve  the 
objectives identified in Section 3. 

7.  MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

163. 

(1) 

The  Commission  will  properly  evaluate  and  review  the  Regulation  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 Commission will constantly monitor a 
set of core indicators which will be updated to trace the effectiveness of the regulation.  

In particular, in line with the operational policy objective that all new operating restrictions 
should  include  measures  specifically targeting MCA, the evolution 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 performance, of all new aircraft types. 

•  Movements performed by MCA: Eurocontrol has information on all movements in the 
ECAC  region  (to  be  defined).  This  information  can  be  combined  with  their  PRISME 
data base, which is the Eurocontrol data warehouse holding information on movement 
numbers, aircraft types, airports, etc. 110 

(2) 

It  is  generally  observed  that  political  pressure  points  to  a  single  solution  to  the  noise 
problem – usually operating restrictions – while a thorough and 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 another operational policy objective requires that 
the share of new curfews to total operating restrictions should be substantially reduced by 
2020.  This  can  be  monitored  through  the  following  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  Performance  Plans  under  to  Single  European  Sky 
legislation; from National Noise Action Plans; to be delivered under the Environmental 
Noise Directive; and from specific noise performance trend reports. 

Key indicators 

Definition 

Relevance 

Table 13: Monitoring indicators 

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 
110 

http://easa.europa.eu/certification/type-certificates/noise.php 
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 would in any case be required to assess noise performance of 
the Single European Sky.  

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Number of movements of MCA 

Overview of operating restrictions 
and the mix of noise mitigating 
measures 

This  indicator  gives  the  number  of 
flights performed in the ECAC region 
of  MCA  (can  be  detailed  per  airport 
and airline). 

This  new  indicator  would  compile 
information  from  noise  action  plans 
and performance plans on the quality 
of noise mitigating measures. 

This indicator shows trends in the use 
of MCA. 

indicator  would 

This 
quality of noise assessment process. 

reveal 

the 

164. 

Beyond the existing sources, the Commission is building up its monitoring and modelling 
capacity,  including  by  gearing  existing  Eurocontrol  expertise  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 

53 

   EN 

 
8.  REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

Alders, Hans (2010), "Toekomst van Schiphol en de regio" 

Anotec  Consulting,  S.L,  (2003), "Study  on  Current  and  Future  Aircraft  Noise  Exposure  at 
and around Community Airports – Final Report", Madrid, 91p. 

Booz  &  co.,  (2009),  "Effects  of  EU  Liberalisation  on  Air  Transport  Employment  and 
Working Conditions", France, 186p. 

CE,  (2005),  "Sound  Noise  Limits  –  Options  for  a  uniform  noise  limiting  scheme  for  EU 
airports, Delft, 95p. 

Civil  Aviation  Authority  of  UK,  (2010),  "Environmental  Noise  and  Health:  A  review", 
Norwich, 46p. 

DLR,  (2011),  Study  on  the  Balanced  Approach  to  noise  management  and  its  influence  on 
the economic impact of air transportation, Köln, 86p. 

Environmental  Health  Perspectives,  Volume  113,  Number  11,  (2005),  "Hypertension  and 
to  Noise  near  Airports  (HYENA):  Study  Design  and  Noise  Exposure 
Exposure 
Assessment", USA, p. 1473 to 1478. 

Eurocontrol,  (2007),  "A  place  to  stand:  Airports  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  other  Night  Flights  in  European 

Airspace", Brussels, 92p. 

(12)  Eurocontrol,  (2011),  "Marginal  Chapter  3  Aircraft  –  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 Costs of night Flight Restrictions – Final 

Report", London, 138p. 

(16)  MPD Group Ltd, in association with 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 Noise", Final Report", London, 134p. + appendices. 

EN 

54 

   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  Paper  regarding  the  revision  of 

2002/30 – airport noise Directive, Brussels, 12p. 

(19)  Sofréavia,  (2004),  "Study  on  the  different  aspects  of  Noise  Limits  at  Airports  –  Final 

Report", Boulogne-Billancourt, 79p. 

(20)  Sourdine II, (2001), "Framework for Cost Benefit Analysis of NAPs", The Netherlands, 40p. 

(21)  World  Health  Organization,  (2011),  "Burden  of  disease  from  environmental  noise", 

Copenhagen, 106p.  

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
9.  APPENDICES 

Appendix 1: Assessment of the application of the minimum consultation standards 

• 

Clear content of the consultation process 

1. 

2. 

The evaluation of Directive 2002/30/EC started five years after its adoption. 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 

All relevant stakeholders, as specified in Appendix 2: Details of the consultation process 
and outcome, have been able to participate in the consultation process. These stakeholders 
can be deemed adequately representative for aviation noise issues. Beyond Member States 
and  aviation  industry,  also  community  groups  and  independent  'noise  councils'  were 
consulted. 

• 

Publication 

3. 

The results of the study and views of the stakeholders were reflected in COM(2008) 68. 

• 

Time limits for participation 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Stakeholders have been given three months time to provide written comments. 

During  2010  until  mid-2011  stakeholders  were  given  the  opportunity  to  confirm  their 
positions. In addition, the scope of the consulted stakeholders was widened to also include 
community groups. 

• 

Acknowledgement and feedback 

Responses from stakeholders following the public consultations and stakeholder meetings 
have  been  acknowledged  and  most  of  the  stakeholders’  responses  or  background 
documents are publicly available on their websites111. 

•  Main results and how these have been taken into account 

The Commission has analysed the comments made, and the results of the consultation have 
been taken into account in assessing the different possible actions to improve the quality of 
the noise assessment measures. In addition, Commission services were able to count on the 
appreciated  support  of  European  Aviation  Safety  Agency,  Eurocontrol  and  the  SESAR 
Joint Undertaking. 

111 
http://www.acnusa.fr/index.php/fr/qui-sommes-nous/publications/communiques/1384. 

See for instance: http://www.aea.be/assets/documents/positions/PP_00329.pdf; 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Appendix 2: Details of the consultation process and outcome 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

112 
113 
114 

The  most  affected  stakeholders  concerning  noise  and  aviation  are  airport  community 
groups,  airports,  airlines  (including  air  cargo),  aircraft  manufacturers  and  independent 
noise councils. These stakeholders were consulted in two phases. 

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  stakeholders  was  done  as  a 
central part of the preparation of this report.  

Interviews were conducted with 52 Community airports and a number of aviation industry 
representatives: 112 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Association  of  European  Airlines  (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  (IACA),  traditionally  representing  “leisure” 
(holiday/charter) airlines. 

Airports Council International 

The result of this consultation formed part of a more general background study performed 
by MPD Group Limited. The report from the Consultant 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. 

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  addition,  the  consultation  was  widened  to  the 
"Autorité  de  contrôle  des  nuisances  sonores  aéroportuaires"  (ACNUSA);  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), the European of equipment manufacturers.  

See especially chapter 5 of MPD Group Ltd (2007). 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/environment/aircraft_noise_en.htm 
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 are 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 

57 

   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 Balanced Approach should be correctly applied 
(on  an  airport-by-airport  basis;  operational  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 technical feasibility, environmental benefit 
and economical affordability; 

requested a further clarification of the Directive, what exactly it permits and what it 
prohibits; 

reiterated  the  need  to  consider  the  amendment  of  the  definition  of  noisy  aircraft 
(MCA) on basis of international regulation to avoid market distortions; and 

stated that the availability of new wide body aircraft which 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 process. 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, especially land use planning and 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 the Directive is deemed necessary, in such 
case  the  express  carriers  strongly  prefer  the  transformation  of  the  Directive  into  a 
regulation; 

8. 

The airports 117, represented by ACI, reiterated and updated their 2008 position: 

115 

116 

117 

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  exchanges  with  IATA,  the  International  Aviation  Trade 
Association,  took  place.  IATA  represents  the  aircraft  operators'  interests  at  the  global  scale.  IATA  was  in 
particularly  interested  in  the  follow-up  of  the  EU-US  second  stage  agreement  on  air  services  and  the 
consequences of the possible proposals on non-EU operators – including US carriers. 
Details of the EEA's contribution can be found at: 
http://www.europeanexpressassociation.eu/about_the_eea.php?section_id=1 
The Airports Council International ACI has a specific working group on the issue. 

EN 

58 

   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 definition of noisy aircraft up to "chapter 4" aircraft, but 
an overall EU ban is not appropriate; and  

clarification  of  exact  possibilities/obligations  would  be  greatly  appreciated,  paying 
particular  attention  to  the  burdensome  procedures  (which  should  not  become 
mandatory) and the need to have recognition 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, backed 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  regulate,  on  basis  of  a  noise  threshold,  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 technical working groups and focused on: 

• 

• 

the  need  to  consider  interdependencies  between  possibly  conflicting  objectives  like 
noise and CO2 reduction; 

the longer term view of standard development, where the rhythm of standard setting 
must keep pace of technological 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 

59 

   EN 

 
                                                 
12. 

The Member States were consulted at numerous 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. environmental assessments to be re-used) and fine-
tune the relation between 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 regard to the use of methods and measures. 

13. 

Finally,  the  local  authorities  were  consulted  in  a  technical  meeting  with  the  ARC  – 
Airports  Regions  Conference,  who  are  mainly  in  charge  for  land  use.  The  ARC 
participants approached the issue from an environmental capacity perspective of a region, 
which includes land use planning, use of appropriate indicators, a mediation process, and a 
need to better integrate the requirements under the environmental noise directive with the 
airport noise directive (2002/30/EC). 

119 

120 
121 

Meetings by the group "Abatement of Nuisances Caused by Air Traffic" took place in May and October 2010 
and in May 2011. In this group European Civil Aviation Conference members are represented together with 
industry. 
Only Member States participate. The most recent meeting took place in May 2011. 
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 

60 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Appendix 3: Overview of international and EU policies affecting airport noise 

1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

122 

123 
124 

THE EUROPEAN APPROACH TO NOISE 

Europe  is  working  within  the  international  framework  to  contribute  to  consistent  noise 
policies  where  each  governance  level  bears  responsibility  for  a  range  of  noise  mitigating 
actions. 

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 activities cycles 2010-13 and 2013-16, expected to 
lead  to  a  new  standard  by  2016.  Secondly,  the  EU  is  also  investing  in  new  technologies 
through  the  Framework  Programmes  and  the  Clean  Sky  project122. Thirdly,  once  a  new 
standard  is  set 123,  the  older,  noisier  aircraft  should  be  phased  out  and  banned  from 
European  airspace.  This  is  done  through  directive  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 defined in the Directive as "chapter 3 minus 5" 124) 
on a airport by airport basis.  

Land use planning, together with the associated insulation and compensation programmes, 
is a national competence. This measure is mentioned here as relevant to assess the need for 
operating restrictions. Firstly, authorities should give planning guidance and could refuse 
planning  permission  for  housing  in  areas  exposed  to  high  noise  levels  (>57dB(A)  is  a 
general  standard).  Secondly,  land  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.  

Operational  noise  abatement  procedures  are  used  at  all  airports  and  may  take  different 
forms: noise preferential routes (where aircraft 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  navigation  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 descent approaches (not descending 
in  steps,  but  following  a  natural  descent  rate  to  minimize  thrust).  The  SESAR  project 
should in the medium term allow for such "green" flights, i.e. precise navigation ‘business 

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  Demonstrators,  contributing  to  fulfilling  the  objectives  set  by 
ACARE  (50%  less  CO2  emissions,  80%  less  NOx  emissions,  half  the  noise  levels  and  consider  the  full  life 
cycle of the product. Noise is covered through both engine and airframe improvements. 
Chapter 2 was adopted in 1977; chapter 3 in 1988; chapter 4 in 2001. 
Meaning the aircraft satisfies the ICAO chapter 3 requirements with at least 5 dBA difference, measured for 
the three measuring points cumulatively. See glossary for noise certification measuring points. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

trajectories’ with an optimized flight profile. The assessment tools under this programme 
will also provide evidence on the interdependencies between noise and CO2 emissions. 

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  fourth  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. 

In  1992,  in  order  to  cut  down  the  level  of  nuisance  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 Convention”) - were no longer allowed to operate 
in the European Union after April 2002. 

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 management around airports (see below). 

The  Directive  was  successful  to  avoid  an  open  row  with  major  aviation  partners  on  the 
hushkit regulation. In addition, the common definition of MCA led to the phasing-out of 
this  generation  of  aircraft  types.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Directive  was  less  successful  in 
establishing a strong noise management structure. 

In  addition  to  the  aviation  specific  legislation,  the  Environmental  Noise  Directive 
2002/49/EC125  provides  for  noise  protection  from  all  sources  of  environmental  sources 
(transport  and  industry),  obliging  Member  States  to  identify  the  main  sources  of  noise 
(including from aircraft around airports), to make regular assessments on noise nuisances 
in five years cycles, and then adopt noise action plans on a five yearly basis. 

Directive 2002/49/EC aims to define a common approach to avoid, prevent or reduce the 
harmful  effects,  including  annoyance,  of  environmental  noise.  Eventually  it  aims  at 
developing  European  measures  to  reduce  noise  emitted  by  road,  rail,  aircraft,  industrial 
equipment  and  mobile  machinery.  This  directive  covers  airports  with  more  than  50,000 
movements.  The  noise  assessments  are  based  on  harmonized  indicators,  assessment 
methods and noise mapping. For aviation, a reference is made to the relevant international 
guidance material126. 

125 

126 

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. 
ECAC document 29. – report on standard method of computing noise contours around civil airports. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 10: Interaction between the Directive and other EU policies 

11. 

Every  ICAO  Assembly  adopts  a  consolidated  resolution  on  environmental  policies.  The 
last Assembly adopted resolution A37-19. The European policy is strictly aligned with this 
ICAO policy. 

12. 

The most relevant clauses of this resolution are the following: 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

States are urged to refrain from environmental measures that would adversely affect 
the orderly and sustainable development of international civil aviation. 

It is ultimately the responsibility of individual states to develop appropriate solutions 
to the noise problems at their airports, with 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 obligation, 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 standards of chapters 3 and 4 (phase-out being a withdrawal of 
a noise-based category of aircraft from international operational at all airports in one 
or more states); 

States  are  urged  not  to  impose  any  operations  restrictions  on  chapter  3  compliant 
aircraft except as part of the balanced approach to noise management. 

It should be noted that ICAO respects current laws and practices, which includes in Europe 
particular  measures  focusing  on  the  noisiest  aircraft,  as  set  out  by  the  Directive  on 
'marginally compliant aircraft'. 

THE PHENOMENON OF AVIATION NOISE 

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.  

Noise is an important external cost generated 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 depends 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. 

Annoyance is also relative, in the sense that people who are used to a certain exposure to 
noise will react in function of this relative level. As a public consultation showed, "A whole 
new  group  of  people  suddenly  find  their  peace  shattered  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 affected 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 

13. 

2. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
17. 

18. 

19. 

3. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

noise  brings  the  feeling  that  there  is  no  escape  from  it,  and  for  some  this  leads  to 
desperation." 127 

Secondly,  in  order  to  adequately  address  the  challenges  of  noise,  technical  modelling  is 
needed. Modelling of noise impacts is becoming 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  need  to  assess  the  interdependence  with  GHG  and  pollutant 
emissions. 

Thirdly,  deciding  on  the  ways  to  address  noise  problems  generates  intense  discussions 
among stakeholders and is a standing issue on the local political agenda of communities in 
the vicinity of airports.  

Finally, the measures taken at the local level can have wider repercussions. 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 whole, or the operations 
of a neighbouring state in case an airport located near borders. Noise is therefore one of the 
standing issues in international (bilateral) discussions. 

AVIATION AS AN ENGINE TO INCLUSIVE GROWTH 

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. 

These  general  estimates  can  be  refined  per  specific  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 jobs (including indirect and induced employment).  

For freight transport, 12,300 jobs have been created 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 

128 

129 

Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign, 2011, "A response to the consultation on the future air space strategy", 
p. 3. 
MPD  Group  Ltd  in  association  with  ERM,(  2005),  Assessing  the  economic  costs  of  night  flight  restrictions, 
London, 138p. 
MPD Group Ltd in association with ERM,( 2005), p. 80. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                 
23. 

4. 

24. 

25. 

• 

24 tonnes of express cargo also creates three jobs; 

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.  

HEALTH IMPACTS OF AVIATION NOISE AND ANNOYANCE 

Noise is a serious public health threat in industrialised countries. More and more scientific 
evidence  becomes  available  demonstrating  the  link  between  serious  health  impacts  and 
excessive noise levels. Therefore, the abatement of noise is necessary not only for comfort, 
but  also  to  prevent  other  important  health  effects  such  as  cardiovascular  problems  and 
cognitive impairment130.  

In  this  context,  the  contribution  of  aviation  to  noise  pollution  is  important.  Taking  the 
55 dB Lden 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  transport  noise  (67 millions),  whereas  3.2 million 
citizens are daily exposed to aircraft noise of that level131. Concerning night exposure, the 
numbers of people affected by 50 dB Ln are shown in Table 14. 

Table 14: EU population exposed to Lnight > 50 dB, by source132 
Number of people exposed 

Source of Exposure 

Major Roads 

Major Railways 

Major Airports 

29,244,500 

5,616,800 

348,400 

26. 

The  WHO  has  recently  adopted  an  authoritative  report  on  the  burden  of  disease  from 
environmental noise. The burden of noise is expressed in 'Disability-Adjusted Life Years' 
(DALY) stemming from ischaemic heart disease, sleep disturbance, tinnitus and annoyance 
in general. Table 15 gives the estimated DALYs for air traffic. 

130 

131 
132 

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.) 
See glossary for the explanation of these terms. Information taken from the EEA Report 3/2009, 23pp. 
Source: Milieu-RPA-TNO, (2010), Impact Assessment and Proposal of Action Plan, p. 7. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Exposure 
Category 
< 55 dB(A) 
55 – 59 dB(A)  4,098 
2,176 

60 - 64 dB(A) 

30,237 

Table 15: Estimated Disability Adjusted Life Years for air traffic noise in the EU 133 
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 

29,244,500 

5,616,800 

348,400 

33,360 

11,679 

6,201 

66,719 

23,358 

12,401 

400,315 

140,147 

74,408 

65 - 69 dB(A) 

0 

27. 

28. 

5. 

29. 

30. 

31. 

133 

134 

135 
136 

Recent  studies  have  also  attempted  to  quantify  the  social  and  health  effects  of  aviation 
noise. Based on the value of a "disability adjusted life years" of €40,000, the cost of noise 
during the night would amount to about €690 per person. 134 

These effects should be compared with the health effects of unemployment due to missed 
employment  opportunities,  also  for  low-skilled  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 

THE ICAO NOISE STANDARD SETTING PROCESS 

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 community. The complexity of 
this  challenge  implies  that  noise  can  only  be  adequately  tackled  through  a  range  of 
measures within an international framework. 

The  International  Civil  Aviation  Organisation  (ICAO),  the  specific  UN  organisation 
dealing with civil aviation, ICAO, has since the 1970s been working on standard setting for 
aircraft  noise.  Firstly,  a  specific  annex  on  environmental  protection  was  attached  to  the 
Chicago Convention, specifying the noise standards and completed by a technical manual 
on noise certification, so as to ensure that the noise certification process is harmonized at 
the  global  level.  Specific  noise  standards  are  included  in  "chapters"  in  this  annex. 
Chapter 2 covers aircraft designed before 1977. 

Chapter 3 was adopted in 1988, improving the noise requirements 10dB(A) cumulatively 
(for  the  three  certification  points)  and  leading  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 aircraft. Meanwhile, ICAO has decided to develop 
a  new  noise  standards  ("chapter 5")  which  should  become  applicable  between  2017  and 
2020136.  

WHO-European  Commission,  (2010),  "Burden  of  disease  fromenironmental  noise",  p.  95.  DW  means  the 
'Disability Weight' and determines  
CE  Delft,  2011,  "Ban  on  night  flights  at  Heathrow  Airport  –  A  quick  scan  Social  Cost  Benefit  Analysis", 
(Delft), 47p. 
http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b829.full 
The  technical  group  CAEP  (Committee  on  Aviation  Environmental  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 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
32. 

This  continuous  process  of  noise  standards  has  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 the A380 is impressive for such 
big aircraft as the noise of the A380 at approach is comparable with a far smaller aircraft 
from the A320 family. Take-off causes much higher noise levels due to its 600 Tons take-
off weight (about 10 times the take-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 

68 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
33. 

The  improvements  in  engine  technology  could  be  well  combined  with  further  airframe 
technologies  and  new  operational  procedures.  This  combination  would  lead  to  up  to 
60dB(A) reductions, hence about 20dB(A) noise reduction per movement. 

Figure 13: Noise reduction potential of airframe technologies and operational measures 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
 
5. 

The ICAO Balanced Approach 

34. 

The progress in noise performance of aircraft could not offset the noise generated by the 
growing  air  traffic.  Increasing  noise  contours  have  created  more  annoyance  and  louder 
calls for more active noise policies. Operating restrictions mushroomed all over the globe. 
In  order  to  provide  for  a  coherent  approach  to  applying  operating  restrictions  and  noise 
mitigation  in  general,  ICAO  adopted  in  2001  a  framework  for  noise  decision-making, 
completing  its  traditional  standard  setting  role.  This  "Balanced  Approach"  is  an 
international requirement whereby ICAO Contracting States are: 

• 

• 

• 

To mitigate aviation noise through a range of measures (1) reducing noise at source 
(introduce  quieter  aircraft),  (2) making  best  use  of  land  (plan  and  manage  the  land 
surrounding airports, i.e. determine conditions for issuing building permits, provide 
financial assistance for insulation programmes etc.); (3) introduce operational noise 
abatement procedures (like using specific runways 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 restrictions, unless the authority is in a position, on basis 
of studies and consultations, to determine 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 decision-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  standard,  Contracting 
States  need  to  transpose  this  requirement  into  enforceable  national/EU  law  to  make  it 
binding, and taking due account of existing laws. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
EN 

71 

   EN 

 
Appendix 4: Glossary 

1. 

Aircraft noise certification: The effectively perceived aircraft noise is measured in dB(A) 
on  three  different  points  (approach,  lateral  and  fly-over,  e.g.  105,  95  and  100  dB)  and 
compared with noise standards (e.g. 108, 100 and 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. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Balanced  Approach:  ICAO  strategy  of  noise  mitigating  measures  to  deal  with  noise 
nuisances in a cost-effective way, adopted in 2001. 

Chapters  2,  3,  4:  Classification  of  aircraft  on  basis  of  'noise  levels',  referring  to  the 
corresponding Chapters in Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention which describes the noise 
standards and the certification process; a higher Chapter number corresponds to less noisy 
aircraft.  Chapter 2  aircraft  are  forbidden  in  European  airspace.  Currently  most  aircraft 
comply with chapter 4 or above. 

dB(A): Logarithmic scale to measure noise, i.e. the sound pressure impinging on the ear, 
expressed in decibel (dB), adapted to the human hearing capacities (A) (humans better hear 
mid-  and  high  frequency  noise).  Changes  of  less  than  3dB(A)  are  hardly  perceived;  an 
increase of between 6 and 10dB(A) is perceived as a doubling loudness. 

ICAO: International Civil Aviation Organisation, the UN body dealing with civil aviation, 
established  in  1944  through  the  Chicago  Convention,  to  which  annexes  are  attached 
describing  rules  and  guidance  by  topic.  Annex 16  concerns  environment  (noise  and 
emissions of aircraft).  

Lden:  Noise  indicator  which  represents  the  average  day-evening-night  noise  level  over  a 
period of one year, with a 5 dB weighting factor for evening and a 10 dB weighting factor 
for night. 

Lnight: Noise indicator which represents the average night noise level over a period of one 
year, where the night is an eight hour period. 

Lnight  -  outside: Noise indicators measure in principle outside 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 

72 

   EN 

 
 
9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

MCA:  Aircraft  which  only  marginally  (up  to  5  dB)  comply  with  the  noise  certification 
standard, currently Chapter 3 of annex 16.  

Noise  Maps:  Line  connecting  points  with  the  same  noise  levels  indicating  the  noise 
contour around airports, the number of people and dwellings affected by this noise level. 

Noise Operating Restriction: Any noise-related action that limits or reduces an aircraft's 
access to an airport.  

Standard  Instrument  Departure  (SID):  is  the  departure  procedure  from  an  airport  that 
has been established by air traffic control to simplify clearance delivery procedures. Such 
procedures may take noise abatement into account. 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
Appendix 5: Explanation on noise abatement measures applied at EU airports 

1. 

2. 

APU (Auxiliary Power Unit = device to help starting the aircraft engines): use of the APU 
can  be  limited  to  avoid  ground  noise,  with  the  necessary  exceptions  for  extremely  cold 
temperatures. 

Curfews  are  restrictions  during  a  defined  period  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 the norms according to the International 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 complies with the standards of Chapter 3 of the second part of 
the first volume of Appendix 16 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation dated 7th December 1944 with a 
cumulative margin lower than 13 EPNdB shall: 

138 

EN 

1. 
operating restrictions.  

The "Boeing Noise Restrictions" database is the most authoritative information source of worldwide 

74 

   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. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Run-ups are engine tests, which may be prohibited at specific times or places. 

NAP = noise action plans, adopted by nearly all European airports, give an overview of the 
measures in place. 

Noise Budget: the airport has to manage a -yearly- noise budget, where the authority gives 
every movement of an aircraft a noise classification. 139 

Noise  limits  restrict  the  use  of  particular  aircraft  in  function  of  their  noise  performance 
and/or particular period of the day. 

Noise  charges  are  airport  charges  that  are  increased  in  function  of  aircraft  noise 
performance. 

Operating Quota: the number of (night) movements is restricted. 

Preferential Runways: use of runways is restricted in function of time of the day. 

10. 

Quota count: aircraft are given points in function of noise levels, giving incentives to use 
quieter aircraft. 

11. 

Chapter 3 restrictions: specific restrictions 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 airlines to operate more quiet aircraft in exchange for less noisier aircraft. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Appendix 6: Data sources and limitations on information  

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

Information  on  aircraft  noise  performance  and  modelling  input  data  is  scattered  over 
several data banks.  

EASA has a publicly available data bank on noise certification, for all EASA certificated 
aircraft types. Hence, per aircraft type and variant (different engines, modifications, weight 
variants etc), three certification values are given, one per certification point, as measured in 
accordance  with  the  globally  harmonized  ICAO  certification  procedure.  It  covers  all 
aircraft  categories  (jets,  helicopters,  propeller  driven  etc)  to  which  noise  certification  is 
applicable. It is limited to those aircraft types variants that have obtained a Type Certificate 
in Europe. Its main purpose is to provide the data for individual aircraft on EU registers. 

NoisedB  –  Aircraft  Noise  Performance  is  a  database  with  global  noise  certification  data. 
The  French  DGCA  maintains  this  data  bank  on  behalf  of  ICAO.  It  has  for  many  ICAO 
Aircraft Type identifier the certified noise levels and several different records show a range 
(usually  low,  medium,  high)  of  certified  maximum  landing  and  take-off  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  rotorcraft  aircraft  are  not  covered  therein.  Its 
main  purpose  is  to  inform  the  public  and  a  subset  of  the  database  is  normally  used  in 
impact assessment studies done in the environmental group of ICAO (CAEP). 

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 performance data (NPD) data) For noise modelling, this basic 
information  is  widened  to  give  and  the  'noise'  flight  profiles'  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  aircraft  manufacturers,  validated  by 
VOLPE, a research centre attached to the US MoT. Eurocontrol maintains this database in 
its research centre in Brétigny. 

Eurocontrol  has  a  data  warehouse  (PRISME)  where  movement  numbers,  aircraft  types, 
airports etc. are held per individual aircraft. On noise, the warehouse only states whether 
chapter 3 compliant or not, and hence does not precise noise information. 

Airports  and  airlines  have  noise  certification  performance  information  per  individual 
aircraft. A single aircraft may at different times 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 lighter, hence quieter). 

The specific problem is that there is no common key to link individual aircraft movements 
to noise certification levels ("noise performance") per aircraft. The proposals on marginally 
compliant aircraft are based on the best possible 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. 

In order to allow more robust noise assessments, these databanks should be linked through 
a common key. This work could be undertaken, with a relatively minor financial effort, in 
the  framework  of  current  arrangements  between  the  Commission,  EASA,  SESAR  Joint 
Undertaking  and  Eurocontrol,  with  the  collaboration  of  airports,  airlines  and  national 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
authorities.  Airports  and  airlines  would  rationalize  in  the  administrative  burden,  as  they 
could  be  granted  access  to  this  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 administrative costs  

1. Introduction 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Administrative costs are defined as the costs incurred by different stakeholders in meeting 
legal  obligations  to  provide  information  on  their  action  or  production  either  to  public 
authorities or to private parties. Information is understood in a broad sense, i.e. including 
labelling,  reporting,  registration,  monitoring  and  assessment  needed  to  provide  the 
information.  

The  administrative  costs  are  calculated  as  changes  in  costs  compared  to  the  baseline 
scenario. 

The  identification  and  assessment  of  administrative  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 administrative cost in the Secretariat-General.  

2. Identification and calculation 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  first  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  improving  the  quality  of  the  Balanced  Approach 
analysis.  

2.1.First element 

5. 

Updating  the  definition  of  the  marginal  compliant  aircraft,  and  amending  the  associated 
phasing  out  period  would  not  imply  any  measurable  change  in  administrative  costs, 
because the change in definition does not imply 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  costs.  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  manufacturers,  international  organisations  and  public  authorities  in 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

Member  States.  The  baseline  scenario  does  not  contain  administrative  costs  for  this 
purpose.  

Impact on business: The EU support cell would need to collect information from primarily 
airports,  airlines,  aircraft  manufacturers  and  coordination  with  Eurocontrol.  Airlines  and 
aircraft  manufacturers  are  private  organisations,  while  approximately  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.  

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  large  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  uncertainty  around  the  assumptions  a  safer  estimate 
would be between € 100,000 and 
estimated  to  fall  on  the  private  sector.  The  deviation  from  the  25%  is  due  to  the 
involvement of airlines and aircraft manufacturers. 

€ 250,000 (1.a in Table 18). Around 30% of the cost is 

The annual update of the database is assumed to comprise the same number of units and it 
is  assumed  consisting  in  relatively  uncomplicated  minor  adjustments  to  already  existing 
reporting obligations. An informed guess would give a time consumption of 10 hours on 
average. This gives a central estimate for annual 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. 

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  existing,  compared  to  the  baseline.  In  the  calculation  of  the 
average  annual  savings  it  is  assumed  20  airports  on  average  would  prepare  a  Balanced 
Approach  analysis  and  could  save  40  hours  of  work  at  an  average  rate  of  €  25.  (1.c  in 
Table 18). On average 25% of this cost reduction will fall on the private sector and 75% on 
public organisations, corresponding to the composition of ownership of Europe's Airports. 

The assumption of 20 airports is due to the fact that it is assumed that around 100 airports 
in  Europe  would  work  with  operating  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 figures of 40 hours and € 25 are assumption. 

Mandatory  utilisation  of  a  noise  modelling  tool  in  assessing  the  impacts  of  the  different 
noise abatement measures in all Policy Options will increase the 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  would  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 sector 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 

78 

   EN 

 
                                                 
14. 

All  Policy  Options  foresee  a  widening  and  deepening  of  the  scope  of  stakeholder 
consultation.  This  measure  would  imply  more  specific  demands  on  the  existing  national 
rules, and would increase the cost per assessment for authorities in Member States due to 
information obligation, assessment of contributions and decision-making. 

2.2.3. Change in notification procedure 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

The change in procedures in Policy Option 3 and Policy Option 4 compared to the Policy 
Option 1 will raise the quality of the analysis which the authorities have to deliver.  

It  is  assumed  that  the  Policy  Option  3  (scrutiny)  would  give  rise  to  extra  cost  for  public 
authorities  due  to  information  exchange  with  Commission,  preparation  of  supplementary 
material,  meetings  in  Brussels  etc.  These  activities  would  probably  involve  different 
specialists  and  management  levels  from  the  Member  States,  hence  a  close  to  average 
hourly rate can be assumed. 

Policy Option 4 (prior authorisation) 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 and 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 eventually independent validation of 
essential parts of the documentation. 

In addition to a change in the annual costs, all Policy Options would 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  manufacturers, 
international organisations and public authorities in Member States. The baseline scenario 
does not contain administrative costs for this purpose. The one time cost is assumed to be € 
120,000. Around 30% of the cost is estimated to fall on the private sector. 

Table 16: Administrative costs in Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 4 

Annual  

1,800,000 

3,000,000 

4,200,000 

One time 

120,000 

120,000 

120,000 

19. 

The distribution of administrative cost between the private and the public sector is shown 
in the table below. The numbers 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 administrative 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 

79 

   EN 

 
  
 
  
  
  
  
Private sector 

Public sector 

252,000

252,000

252,000

1,548,000

2,748,000

3,948,000

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
Type of obligation 

Description 
required action 

of 

Affected 

Rate 
(euro/hour) 

Time 
(hours) 

Table 18: Calculation of administrative costs 

Frequency  

No of entities 

Price 
(per 
action) 

Total 
administrative 
costs(euro/year
) 

Support cell 

Establish support cell 

Supply support cell 
with information 

Filling forms and 
tables 

Airports/ 

20 

30 

600 

One time 

200 

120.000 

public authorities 

Annual update of support 
cell 

Supply support cell 
with information 

Filling forms and 
tables 

Airports/ 

20 

10 

200 

Annual 

200 

40.000 

public authorities 

Reduction of costs due to 
support cell 

Mandatory modelling  

Stakeholder consultation 

Notification procedure 

 Change in notification 
procedures (policy option 
3) 

Change in notification 
procedures (policy option 
4) 

Receive 
information 

Modelling 

Airports/ 

25 

-80 

-2.000 

Annual 

public authorities 

50.000 

40.000 

Annual 

Additional rules on 
the scope and content 

Information on 
new procedures 

Public 
authorities 

Increased quality 

Airports/ 

100 

600 

60.000 

Annual 

public authorities 

Increased quality 

Airports/ 

100 

1.200 

120.000  Annual 

public authorities 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

-40.000 

1.000.000 

800.000 

1.200.000 

2.400.000 

EN 

81 

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 
Pax

Engine  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 

IRAN AIR 

B747-100 Passenger 

441 

JT9D-7F 

104,5 

EL AL ISRAEL 
AIRLINES 

B747-200 Freighter 

0 

JT9D-7Q 

104,5 

103,
5 

103,
2 

104,5 

105,2 

102,3 

105,0 

0,7 

-1,2 

0,5 

105,8 

105,9 

102,8 

105,0 

1,4 

-0,4 

-0,8 

IBERIA AIRLINES 

A320-100/200 

ISRAIR 

A320-100/200 

171 

180 

CFM56-
5C4 

CFM56-5-
A1 

95,4 

96,1 

96,9 

91,4 

96,7 

100,5 

-4,0 

0,6 

3,6 

91,7 

96,9 

100,1 

91,7 

96,9 

100,7 

0,0 

0,0 

0,6 

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 

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 

EL AL ISRAEL 
AIRLINES 

AIR CHARTER 
EXPRESS LTD 

AIR CONTRACTORS 

EL AL ISRAEL 
AIRLINES 

B747-200 Freighter 

DC-8-50 Freighter 

L-100 
HERCULES(C130) 
Freighter
B767-200 ER 

0 

0 

0 

JT9D-7Q 

103,2 

JT3D-3B 

97,8 

103,
5 

101,
3 

104,9 

105,9 

102,8 

105,0 

2,7 

-0,7 

0,1 

102,0 

101,0 

99,6 

103,1 

3,2 

-1,7 

1,1 

Emissions 
matrix 

95,4 

93,9 

98,8 

96,2 

96,6 

100,3 

0,8 

2,7 

1,5 

192 

PW4060 

95,4 

96,2 

102,2 

96,0 

99,7 

103,2 

0,6 

3,5 

1,0 

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 

BRITISH AIRWAYS 
PLC 

DUBROVNIK 
AIRLINES 

MD-82 

167 

JT8D-219 

90,8 

97,2 

93,7 

91,4 

96,7 

100,5 

0,6 

-0,5 

6,8 

MD-83 

167 

JT8D-219 

90,8 

97,2 

93,7 

91,4 

96,7 

100,5 

0,6 

-0,5 

6,8 

IRAN AIR 

B747SP 

305 

JT9D-7F 

98,7 

102,
3 

103,8 

104,6 

102,0 

105,0 

5,9 

-0,3 

1,2 

0,0 

0,0 

0,2 

0,3 

0,6 

0,6 

1,8 

2,1 

2,6 

5,0 

5,1 

5,1 

6,8 

6,8 

6,8 

5 

7 

10 

11 

12 

14 

18 

19 

26 

2 

3 

5 

21 

22 

23 

EN 

82 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KUWAIT AIRWAYS 

A320-100/200 

36 

IRAN AIR 

A300F4 

0 

0 

ABX 

B737-400 

167 

MD-82 

MD-82 

167 

167 

CF6-50C2 

92,8 

97,3 

102,0 

96,1 

99,7 

103,2 

3,3 

2,4 

1,2 

CF6-50C2 

92,8 

97,2 

102,0 

96,1 

99,7 

103,2 

3,3 

2,5 

1,2 

CFM56-
3C-1 

CFM56-
5A3 

JT8D-217 
series 

JT8D-217 
series 

87,1 

93,1 

100,2 

91,0 

96,5 

100,2 

3,9 

3,4 

0,0 

88,6 

97,1 

96,0 

91,7 

96,9 

100,7 

3,1 

-0,2 

4,7 

90,0 

96,4 

93,1 

90,9 

96,4 

100,2 

0,9 

0,0 

7,1 

90,0 

96,4 

93,1 

90,9 

96,4 

100,2 

0,9 

0,0 

7,1 

MD-83 

167 

JT8D-217 

90,0 

96,4 

93,1 

90,9 

96,4 

100,2 

0,9 

0,0 

7,1 

LUFTHANSA 

B737-300 

LUFTHANSA 

B737-300 

122 

122 

CFM56-
3C-1 

CFM56-
3C-1 

85,7 

91,9 

100,0 

90,0 

95,8 

99,7 

4,3 

3,9 

-0,3 

85,7 

91,9 

100,0 

90,0 

95,8 

99,7 

4,3 

3,9 

-0,3 

6,9 

7,0 

7,3 

7,6 

7,9 

7,9 

7,9 

8,0 

8,0 

8,3 

B747-400 Passenger 

359 

PW4056 

101,5 

99,7 

104,4 

106,0 

102,9 

105,0 

4,5 

3,2 

0,6 

B747-400 Freighter 

B747-400 Freighter 

#N/A 

#N/A 

#N/A 

#N/A 

0 

0 

369 

0 

112 

112 

RB211-
524G 

RB211-
524G 

RB211-
524G 

RB211-
524H 

LF507-1F, 
-1H 

LF507-1F, 
-1H 

100,6 

98,1 

104,1 

106,0 

102,9 

105,0 

5,4 

4,9 

0,9 

11,2 

100,6 

98,1 

104,1 

106,0 

102,9 

105,0 

5,4 

4,9 

0,9 

11,2 

101,1 

98,1 

103,5 

106,0 

103,0 

105,0 

4,9 

4,9 

1,5 

11,3 

99,6 

98,8 

104,0 

106,0 

103,0 

105,0 

6,4 

4,2 

1,0 

11,6 

90,3 

88,1 

97,6 

93,7 

95,0 

98,9 

3,4 

6,9 

1,3 

11,7 

90,3 

88,1 

97,6 

93,7 

95,0 

98,9 

3,4 

6,9 

1,3 

11,7 

EUROPEAN AIR 
TRANSPORT 

BLUE PANORAMA 
AIRLINES 

DUBROVNIK 
AIRLINES 

DUBROVNIK 
AIRLINES 

MONARCH 
AIRLINES LTD 

MALAYSIAN 
AIRLINE SYSTEM 

CATHAY PACIFIC 
AIRWAYS 

CATHAY PACIFIC 
AIRWAYS 

AIR NEW ZEALAND 
LIMITED 

CARGOLUX 
AIRLINES INTL SA 

AEGEAN AIRLINES 
SA 

AEGEAN AIRLINES 
SA 

27 

28 

32 

38 

55 

56 

57 

1 

2 

13 

1 

6 

7 

13 

19 

23 

5.1.1.  Parameters for the economic costs for airlines with the extended definition 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: 

###
# 

0,64% 

1,33% 

0,62% 

0,53% 

EN 

83 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

As soon as the proposal becomes European law, competent authorities may start a noise assessment process and a cost-effectiveness process, 
consult interested parties, to use the revised definition. 

If a competent authority decides on introducing the MCA tool as the most cost-effective 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  determines  the 
impact. Some Member States already apply minus 10 at night. At least introducing the measure during the day will trigger a phase-out of a 
few years. 

If the aircraft becomes marginally compliant, then the concrete impact will depend on the particular situation. If the aircraft still is relatively 
new and just below the standard, a recertification can be considered. If the aircraft is old – many aircraft types which would be affected date 
from the 80s- the aircraft could be used on airports where such measure is not applicable (or not at day time). 

Only when the number of airports which apply the harmonized MCA 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 aircraft may continue 
to operate outside the EU. In extreme cases the aircraft may have to be sold. 

In any case, the proposal sets out a clear framework and allows the operators to adapt to expected decisions. Looking at the time line, the 
effective phase-out for MCA for a critical number of airports may be between 2017 and 2020. By then, the bulk of aircraft types expected to 
become MCA have an age of about 30 years. 

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 reduction may turn out to be the stronger incentive. The 
new noise standard may just be the trigger – not the cause. 

Appendix 9: Overview of airlines-fleet composition 

Margin 
Range 

Air France 
Act 

Not act  Hist 

Margin 

British Airways 

Margin 

Act 

Not act  Hist 

Margin 

Lufthansa 
Act 

Not act  Hist 

Iberia 

Margin  Act 

Not act  Hist 

Aircraft Type 

Airbus A300 

Airbus A300 B2/B4 

Airbus A300-600 

13.7-18 

Airbus A310 

Airbus A310-200 

Airbus A310-300 

14.0 to 15.1 

14.0 to 21.5 

6 

6 

22 

22 

12 

8 

4 

13.7-19.4 

2 

2 

25 

11 

14 

35 

17 

18 

8 

8 

2 

2 

EN 

84 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
ATR 42/72 
ATR 42-300 

ATR 42-500 

ATR 72 

Airbus A318 

Airbus A319 

Airbus A320 

Airbus A320-100 

Airbus A320-200 

Airbus A321 

Airbus A321-100 

Airbus A321-200 

Airbus A330 

Airbus A330-200 

Airbus A330-300 

Airbus A340 

Airbus A340-200 

Airbus A340-300 

Airbus A340-600 

Airbus A380 

Boeing 737 

Boeing 737-100 

Boeing 737-200 

Boeing 737-300 

Boeing 737-400 

Boeing 737-500 

Boeing 737-700 

Boeing 737-800 

Boeing 747 

Boeing 747-100 

Boeing 747-200 

Boeing 747-300 

Boeing 747-400 

EN 

Boeing 737 Next Gen 

16.5 to 21.8 

15.8-17.4 

31.4-31.3 

15.8-31.8 

23.9 to 25.4 

23.9-25.4 

18.3 to 23.4 

23.5-25.1 

18 

44 

15.3-20.9 

57 

14.7 to 21.4 

14.7 to 21.4 

13.5 to 23.7 

13.5 to 23.7 

18.3-18.7 

18.5 to 27.9 

22.8 

20.5 to 23.0 

22.9 to 24.2 

26,2 to 26,9 

7.7 to 19,7 

7.3 to 20 

15.7 to 21 

18.3-21 

13.2-22.3 

0 

0.6-13.8 

23.9 

2 

23.0-23.8 

33 

18.2-23.5 

39 

18.3 

15.2 

13.3 

15.8 

39 

11 

11 

19 

19 

51 

30 

14 

16 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

24 

7 

14 

4 

17 

17 

5 

5 

12 

5 

7 

68 

25 

12 

31 

62 

27 

25 

2 

57 

24 

5 

19 

15 

15 

16 

16 

5 

13 

10 

5 

5 

1 

1 

4 

2 

2 

20 

10 

4 

121 

57 

25 

26 

13 

38 

10 

25 

3 

19.2-
20.9 

14.1-
23.7 

21 

29 

29 

19 

19 

36 

19 

17 

1 

1 

20.1-24.3 

22 

18.2 

46 

20.4 

23.8 

23.3 

46 

50 

20 

30 

15 

15 

50 

26 

24 

63 

8.0-13.2 

33 

15.7 

30 

30 

5 

1 

4 

12.6 

30 

16 

7 

7 

1 

1 

5 

5 

13 

9 

4 

7 

115 

22 

57 

21 

7 

8 

2 

2 

34 

3 

30 

1 

1 

6 

6 

1 

1 

7 

1 

6 

2 

81 

81 

5 

5 

11 

11 

10 

5 

5 

18 

3 

9 

4 

2 

8,3-20.6 

12.4 

13 

3 

13.4-14.3 

51 

6 

85 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
26.0-27.3 

61 

25 

34 

2 

Boeing 757 

Boeing 757-200 

Boeing 757-300 

Boeing 767 

Boeing 767-200 

Boeing 767-300 

Boeing 777 

Boeing 777-200 

Boeing 777-300 

17.9-27.5 

22.3-22.9 

15.8-26.1 

15.2-21.7 

20.2-27.9 

20.0-21.2 

Boeing 777-Freighter 

16.6 

BAe 146 / Avro RJ 

Avro RJ 

Bae 146 
McDonnell Douglas DC-
10 
McDonnell Douglas MD-
11 
McDonnell Douglas MD-
80/90 
McDonnell Douglas MD-82 

McDonnell Douglas MD-83 
McDonnell Douglas MD-87 
McDonnell Douglas MD-88 

Dash 8 

Dash 8-100 

Dash 8-300 

Dash 8-400 

Fokker 70/100 

Fokker 70 

Fokker 100 

Embraer 

E145 

E195 

16.4-17.6 

14.4-20.6 

15.0-15.5 

6.8-15.3 

6.8-28.4 
15.1-15.5 

25.8-26.3 

29.1-40.2 

14.1-20.7 

23.2-25.5 

17.6-19.5 

18.2-27.1 

18.9-20.1 

20.3-27.9 

21 

21 

49 

46 

3 

4 

4 

1 

1 

58 

58 

10 

3 

7 

2 

2 

5 

1 

4 

11 

3 

2 

1 

9 

2 

7 

1 

4 

5 

5 

3 

3 

1 

1 

16 

17.8-20.6 

15.3 

18 

1 

43 

43 

2 

2 

8 

5 

20 

48 

7 
13 

1 
46 
1 

Lockheed L-1011 TriStar 

Concorde 

TOTAL 

7 

70 

253 

2 

1 

160 

7 

42 

206 

32 

171 

231 

9 

181 

105 

59 

224 

2 

EN 

86 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Margin 

FEDEX 

DHL 

Thomas Cook 

Flybe 

Act 

71 

29 

43 

26 

17 

23 

8 

15 

Not 
act 

26 

23 

3 

15 

14 

1 

Aircraft Type 

Airbus A300 

Airbus A300 B2/B4 

Airbus A300-600 

Airbus A310 

Airbus A310-200 

Airbus A310-300 

ATR 42/72 

ATR 42-300 

ATR 42-500 

ATR 72 

Airbus A318 

Airbus A319 

Airbus A320 

Airbus A320-100 

Airbus A320-200 

Airbus A321 

Airbus A321-100 

Airbus A321-200 

Airbus A330 

Airbus A330-200 

Airbus A330-300 

Airbus A340 

Airbus A340-200 

Airbus A340-300 

Airbus A340-600 

Airbus A380 

Boeing 737 

Boeing 737-100 

Boeing 737-200 

Boeing 737-300 

Boeing 737-400 

Range 

Margin 

13.7-18 

14.0 to 15.1 

14.0 to 21.5 

14-15.1 

14.0 

15.8-17.4 

31.4-31.3 

15.8-31.8 

23.9 to 25.4 

18.3 to 23.4 

14.7 to 21.4 

14.7 to 21.4 

13.5 to 23.7 

13.5 to 23.7 

18.3-18.7 

18.5 to 27.9 

22.8 

20.5 to 23.0 

22.9 to 24.2 

26,2 to 26,9 

7.7 to 19,7 

7.3 to 20 

Hist 

Margin 

Act 

Not 
act 

Hist 

Margin 

Act 

Not 
act 

Hist 

Margin 

Act 

Not 
act 

Hist 

1 

1 

1 

1 

15 

8 

7 

5 

5 

16.1-26.5 

24.1 

23.9 

24.1 

7 

7 

4 

4 

7 

7 

0 

3 

3 

30 

30 

1 

1 

5 

4 

1 

1 

4 

EN 

87 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Boeing 737-500 

Boeing 737 Next Gen 

Boeing 737-700 

Boeing 737-800 

Boeing 747 

Boeing 747-100 

Boeing 747-200 

Boeing 747-300 

Boeing 747-400 

Boeing 757 

Boeing 757-200 

Boeing 757-300 

Boeing 767 

Boeing 767-200 

Boeing 767-300 

Boeing 777 

Boeing 777-200 

Boeing 777-300 

Boeing 777-Freighter 

BAe 146 / Avro RJ 

Avro RJ 

Bae 146 

McDonnell Douglas DC-10 

McDonnell Douglas MD-11 
McDonnell Douglas MD-
80/90 
McDonnell Douglas MD-82 

McDonnell Douglas MD-83 

15.7 to 21 

16.5 to 21.8 

18.3-21 

13.2-22.3 

0 

0.6-13.8 

8,3-20.6 

17.9-27.5 

22.3-22.9 

15.8-26.1 

15.2-21.7 

20.2-27.9 

20.0-21.2 

16.6 

16.4-17.6 

14.4-20.6 

23 

11 

12 

20 

20 

1 

1 

36 

36 

13 

13 

13 

16.6 

13 

14-15.1 

15.0-15.5 

15.5 

68 

64 

25 

3 

11 

11 

6.8-15.3 

6.8-28.4 

McDonnell Douglas MD-87 

15.1-15.5 

McDonnell Douglas MD-88 

18.6 

21 

21 

3 

3 

1 

1 

24.3-27.5 

22.9 

20.2 

21 

19 

2 

3 

3 

26 

10 

Dash 8 

Dash 8-100 

Dash 8-300 

Dash 8-400 

Fokker 70/100 

25.8-26.3 

26 

55 

4 

EN 

88 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fokker 70 

Fokker 100 

Embraer 

E145 

E195 

29.1-40.2 

14.1-20.7 

23.2-25.5 

17.6-19.5 

Lockheed L-1011 TriStar 

Concorde 

TOTAL 

363 

92 

79 

24 

0 

1 

42 

3 

36 

0 

0 

0 

6 

19.5 

14 

EN 

89 

EN