Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
would be reduced to 2438. In addition, it is a simple administrative task to exclude
operations by the noisiest aircraft types during the night period. Any aircraft classi-
fied with a weight of, for example, 8 or 16 may not be scheduled to land or take off
between 23:00 and 07:00hrs.
What would this mean for an airport such as East Midlands and an operator
such as DHL? If the airport's noise regime was regulated as per the London airports
by government through its UK Department for Transport, Local Government and
the Regions (DTLR), it is clear that many of DHL's and other operators' movements
could run contrary to an agreed noise quota scheme - and with it the probability of
these operators having to withdraw. But what would be the implications for the
logistics industry and its customers? Clearly, it would require an in-depth strategic
re-evaluation of supply chains. Very many supply chains are focused upon next-morning
delivery as a
sine qua non.
It may be no bad thing to require proper end-to-end reas-
sessment of whether this is really so essential (Whitelegg, 1997). The trade-off
between speed and overall supply chain cost could be reconsidered and the road ver-
sus air mode decision re-evaluated. Given that it costs some ten times more to carry
cargo by air than by truck, maybe more freight could be trucked (Macbeth, 2001), a
move that may actually lower supply-chain costs.
This amounts to asking what the consequences would be for the supply chain if
the integrators no longer operated at night time but were forced to operate by day.
How much would this slow down the supply chain? Perhaps reliable delivery is really
the critical factor rather than 12-hour delivery times? What would be the impact of
shifting the air-freight element of the supply chain outside of the night-period time
window? Could genuinely time-critical material be flown in smaller, less noise-sensitive
aircraft? Of course, consideration of these options would need to take account of
increased journey times and transaction costs, as well as the environmental implica-
tions of an increase in truck journeys across congested European road networks.
Visions of the future (2) - the polluter pays
An alternative market-based scenario is that night-time operations are permitted to
continue, but that those responsible for generating the noise nuisance are charged
the full social cost for the nuisance they cause. There is already a precedent for this,
with the noisiest aircraft being charged additional landing fees. However, to date
there is little agreement as to what this full-cost recovery approach would amount to
and there is no agreed formula for calculating either its incidence or the likely addi-
tional cost (Whitelegg, 1997; Royal Commission, 1994; Maddison et al, 1996). In
addition, there is no guarantee that the monies accumulated would be hypothecated
and redirected to those directly affected by the noise nuisance in the form of direct
or indirect monetary compensation. If a market-based full-cost recovery solution is
proposed along the lines indicated above, then that solution must be a complete
market-based solution where some of the benefits are returned directly to those in
distress. The scheme proposed at East Midlands and outlined above goes part way in
this direction and is likely to set a trend as one of the first to link the generators of
noise (airlines) to the sufferers of the noise financially - albeit indirectly.
Clearly, this approach would increase the cost of night flights and, hence, would
increase the cost of time-sensitive delivery. This would again require many supply
