Russian airlines granted breathing space through gradual, country-by-country approach (621 words)

Published: 10/24/2001

At its recent assembly, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) approved a resolution allowing greater flexibility in the schedule for the withdrawal of non-compliant aircraft under Chapter III. The concession was described as “a balanced approach to noise management”, delegating responsibility to individual countries regarding the application of the regulations. This suggests that the lobbying by Russian and other operators of large numbers of non-compliant aircraft may have succeeded in tempering the view of the international delegates. Russian airlines have welcomed the fact that the assembly has softened its previous blanket position, allowing them greater flexibility in the continued use of non-compliant aircraft into Europe. The gradual withdrawal of non- compliant aircraft is similar to the seven year period of grace due to be completed in the spring of next year, that postponed the withdrawal of aircraft that failed to make Chapter II standards in 1995. However, the changes leave individual countries to decide within a “balanced approach” which aircraft should or should not use facilities, dependent on local environmental conditions. Russian airlines believe this could allow an extension of the operation of the Tu-134, Il-86 and Il-76 to Europe for the foreseeable future. Alexander Sokolov, from KrasAir, called the decision a positive one for Russian airlines given that meeting ICAO's standards required sums of money that many Russian carriers do not have right now. In this context, the extended timetable was a much more practical way of enabling them eventually to meet the costs of between $3m and $15m for each aircraft. The less stringent regime makes little difference to KrasAir, given that the airline is already using its compliant aircraft for charter flights to Europe, but Sokolov confirmed that KrasAir would continue to modernise its fleet. Igor Tikhomirov, spokesman for East Line said that, while the decision was not unexpected, it was sensible to give some breathing space to airlines that without an extension may have gone out of business, being unable to fund the necessary upgrades. Prior to the meeting in Montreal, on 12th September, Alexander Neradko, head of the GSGA, met aviation authorities from the CIS to discuss their participation in the assembly, amid mounting rumours that the grouping's stance against the strict implementation of the ICAO Chapter III restrictions was closely coordinated to prevent the exclusion of the Tu-134, Il-86 or cargo Il-76 planes from European airspace. The Il-76, in particular, currently generates 60% of the revenues of Russian cargo operators and any disruption could cause a permanent loss of market share. In March 2001, the Russian Air Cargo Operators' Association (AGAK) organised a campaign to persuade the Russian government to fund cheaper compliance equipment for the Il-76, given that much of the equipment available was produced in the US and beyond the resources of operators. Financially stronger airlines have already made efforts to comply, such as Volga Dnepr which, in August 2001, signed an agreement with Perm Motors (PMZ) and Aviadvigatel to examine the re-equipment of its D-30KP-2 powered Il-76T with the PS-90A-76. In July 2001, Dr. Assad Kataite, President of the ICAO Council visited Russia to discuss specific problems with the Russian authorities, with resultant reports that the government had wrung some concessions on the noise and emissions restrictions due to be introduced on 1st April 2002. Kotaite stated then that he was unhappy with the initial draft of the report, in terms of the treatment of ageing aircraft fleets - including those in Russia - and had asked for them to be revised. He added that he felt the more sensible way to implementing Chapter III was on an airport-by-airport basis, rather than through a global ban.

Article ID: 2854