Final Exam Blog: COMAC, Not Feared By The Duopoly, but The Russian Irkut MC-21 May Cause an Uproar

On Monday, November 2, 2015, the first Chinese large-airliner aircraft rolled out, namely the C919. This aircraft was built by COMAC (Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China), intended to compete against the A320 and the B737, and seats approximately 168 passengers. Although the C919 is striving to attain Western certification from the FAA, it has yet to do so, thereby limiting the countries where the aircraft can operate. However, the Russian Irkut MC-21, which made its debut in January 2016, may prove to be more of a contender than the C919. Contrary to popular belief, the Russian aircraft is not the ‘underdog’ of this discussion. Albeit the MC-21 is not scheduled to enter service until 2020, it not only has the potential to truly rival Airbus and Boeing, but also possesses a stronger chance at attaining FAA-certification than the C919.

1.     Provide some background on Russia and their affiliation with the UAC. Furthermore, briefly describe the background/history of the UAC.

The PJSC UAC came into existence on February 20^th, 2006, in accordance with RF Presidential Decree No. 140. The primary purpose of the company’s existence was to protect and develop the scientific and industrial sectors of the Russian aircraft industry (United Aircraft Corporation [UAC], 2017). This would be done in efforts to protect, develop, and enhance both the security and defense of the state (Russia) in addition to the concentration of the intellectual, industrial, and financial resources, thereby increasing the (successful) implementation of long-term aviation programs. According to the UAC (2017), In April 2015, the JSC UAC adopted a new name, rather, changed its full name to the Public Join-Stock Company “United Aircraft Corporation”, becoming known as the PJSC UAC. Presently, the UAC is one of the most prominent forces and key facilitators in the global aviation market, consisting of 30 enterprises, and holds rights to numerous world-renowned brands. Such brands include, but are not limited to, the following: Sukh, Yak, SSJ 100, and the MS-21 (UAC 2017).

According to the UAC (2017), the PJSC UAC’s primary priorities consist of the following: ensuring the production of goods/services are of top-quality, conducting timely execution of contracts under the State Defense Order, development of effective and full-scope international cooperation with foreign (aviation companies), and forming/developing technological advancement for the promotion of domestic products available on the global market.

Design, production, testing, operation, warranty, and service maintenance of aircraft for both civilian and military purposes comprise the bulk of the UAC priority activity areas. These service areas serve as important guidelines for the UAC as they provide structure (or principles) to the organization. According to the UAC (2017), these areas are primarily accomplished by the companies working and focusing on the spheres of modernization, repair and disposal of aircraft, and by means of emphasizing (proficiency) training and qualification upgrading of flight crewmembers. With the UAC being primarily owned by the Russian Government, it is no surprise the largest share in the UAC’s production structure is dedicated to the manufacture of military products. However, the military products being produced are for both the RF Ministry Defense (of Russia) as well as foreign buyers (UAC 2017). For this to occur, the UAC must be extremely efficient and effective in terms of production, quality, and assurance. This is denoted by the fact that in 2013, nine aircraft repair plants, which were previously owned by the RF Ministry of Defense, were transferred to the control of the UAC. According to UAC (2017), one year later, in 2014, the serviceability (i.e. product quality, assurance, and satisfaction) of the RF Air Force Fleet increased by 25% (from 40% to 65%). This 25% increase in the area of serviceability in only 12 months is significant and truly exemplifies the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the UAC. Albeit the PJSC UAC concentrates the majority of its focus on military production, the company intends to balance the scales by producing more civilian aircraft in the future. Specifically, the PJSC UAC hopes to substantially perpetuate its civilian market through the implementation of upgraded SSJ100s in conjunction with the launch of the MS-21 aircraft family (UAC 2017).

With respects to long-term viability, the company has developed a strategy extending to year 2025, in hopes to quadruple their current revenue. Subsequently, achieving such a revenue increase will empower the PJSC UAC to attain a sales-profitability level earning the company a minimum net profit of 10% (UAC 2017). Achieving a 10% (minimum) net profit is extraordinary, and the fact the company still has eight years to do so should instill fear in other manufacturers since the potential of increased competition and long-term viability are extremely plausible for the PJSC UAC.

The company is currently headquartered in Moscow, Russia, and has several assets located throughout the various regions of the country. However, the company also embarked in several business ventures with other companies within (foreign) countries, in attempts to grow, expand, and build relations to strengthen the PJSC UAC’s (aviation) presence and long-term viability (UAC 2017). Due to possessing working partnerships with companies operating out of India and Italy, the PJSC UAC employees over 98,000 individuals, which is quite remarkable for a company only 11 years old, relatively new to the industry, and not currently viewed as a contender by other aircraft manufacturers.

2.     What types of aircraft does the UAC currently make and/or specialize in? How does this differ from the types of aircraft COMAC manufactures?

The PJSC UAC currently manufacturers various aircraft in four main categories, which are as follows: Civil aviation, Military aviation, Transport (category) aircraft, and Special Purpose. The II-96-300, Tu-214, Tu-204SM, the Sukhoi Superjet 100, AN-148, and the MS-21 are the six aircraft that comprise the PJSC UAC’s civil aviation sector of production (UAC 2017). Of these six aircraft, the Sukhoi Superjet 100 is arguably the most successful because of its efficiency and prominence within the Russian industry. The newest aircraft in this lineup of civil aviation aircraft is the MS-21, which Russia intends to develop variants of and launch in efforts to begin balancing their military aviation production and perpetuate their global presence with respects to civil aviation. As I mentioned earlier, since the company came into existence in 2006, the majority of production efforts have focused on military production to not only enhance the RF Ministry of Defense, but also for the creation and later sale of military aircraft to foreign customers. According to the UAC (2017), the military aviation sector is composed of 14 aircraft with the most notable being the MiG-35, MiG-29K, and Yak 130. With respects to the category transport aircraft, the PJSC UAC only produces two aircraft, namely the MTS and II-76MD-90A. The Multi-Purpose Transport aircraft, or MTS, is currently in the design stage and is being developed by Hindustan Aeronautic Limited (HAL), which is based out of India (UAC 2017). The intended purpose of the MTS is mass transport, primarily transporting soldiers (or paratroopers), goods, technology, supplies, etc., for military purposes. The last category offered by the PJSC UAC is Special Purpose aircraft, which consist of only one aircraft, namely the Be-200. The Be-200 conducted its first flight in 1998, and is categorized as an amphibious type. According the UAC (2017), the primary function of this aircraft is to extinguish forest fires from either the water or air. When the Be-200 is not being used for special purposes (e.g. fighting forest fires), the aircraft can perform other functions including cargo transport, search and rescue missions, environmental monitoring, and patrol of the exclusive economic zone and maritime borders.

As mentioned previously, the PJSC UAC manufacturers aircraft to fulfill four main categories. This differs largely from the types of aircraft the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC) manufacturers primarily because COMAC only manufacturers one category (or type) of aircraft. That said, the only type of aircraft COMAC manufactures is for commercial transport. To facilitate commercial transport services, COMAC utilizes two aircraft, namely the ARJ21 and C919. The ARJ21 is a regional jet aircraft produced by COMAC and is akin to that of the CRJ-200 and -900 series. This aircraft seats approximately 78 to 90 passengers, has a range of 1201 nautical miles (or 2225km) to 1997 nautical miles (or 3,700km), and is the first short-medium range turbofan aircraft to be developed by China in accordance with regulations established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (Commercial Aircraft Corporation [COMAC], 2017). On December 30^th, 2014, the ARJ21 obtained type certification from the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), but has yet to attain certification from the FAA despite submitting the appropriate certification paperwork described under FAR Part 25 (COMAC 2017). Albeit the ARJ21 was the CAAC’s first aircraft to be manufactured (and apply for Part 25 certification), it is not COMAC’s most notable or prominent aircraft. The C919 is COMAC’s pride and joy (more or less) and can seat approximately 158 to 174 passengers, has a range of 2200 to 2999 nautical miles (or 4075 to 5555km), and was created to compete against the Airbus 320 and Boeing 737 (COMAC 2017). The aircraft made its first debut on November 2^nd, 2015, and recently received dual-simultaneous type certificates from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and FAA. Albeit the C919 has been more successful in terms of Chinese certification than its regional jet counterpart, the C919 has yet to receive (full) FAA certification, thereby limiting where the aircraft can be flown. Essentially, the PJSC UAC differs from COMAC in the fact that the UAC produces aircraft in four categories as opposed to COMAC who only produces one. Furthermore, the UAC currently manufactures six aircraft within the civil aviation sector, which is four more than that of COMAC.

3.     Describe the specifications of the Irkut MC-21. What makes this aircraft more of a viable threat to the Airbus NEO and Boeing 737 Max than the C919?

The MC-21 will come in two variants, the MC-21-200 and MC-21-300. Since the MC-21-300 is the base model of the Irkut MC program, it will be manufactured first followed by the MC-21-200 variant once the -300 model enters Russian air carrier service (Bhaskara 2017). The MC-21-200 variant, which is akin in size to the Airbus A320, will seat approximately 140 passengers in a traditional two-class configuration. The larger, MC-21-300 variant will seat approximately 170 passengers in the same traditional two-class configuration, and is similar in size to that of the Boeing 737-900ER (Bhaskara 2017). Additionally both the -200 and -300 variant aircraft are capable of flight over 3,000 nautical miles. Specifically, the -200 is capable of flying approximately 3,500 nautical miles while the larger, -300 possesses the capability to fly approximately 3,200 nautical miles (Bhaskara 2017). This 3,000 plus nautical mile range provides these aircraft with the capability to conduct transcontinental routes similar to those typically flown by Airbus and Boeing aircraft in the U.S. Consequently, when/if Russia enters these aircraft into service and/or attains the appropriate certifications, their MC-21 fleet will gain an advantage and become more of threat to Airbus and Boeing in terms of U.S. competition.

According to Russian Aviation Insider (2016), in a standard two-class configuration, the MC-21-200 and MC-21-300 are designed to accommodate 132 and 163 passengers, respectively. In this same two-class configuration, the maximum number of passengers the MC-21-200 and MC-21-300 can hold are 165 and 211, respectively. The Maximum Take-off Weight (MTOW), Maximum Landing Weight (MLW), and Maximum payload of the MC-21-200 are 159,967lbs. (72,560kg), 139,111lbs. (63,100kg), and 41,667lbs. (18,900kg), respectively. These same parameters in their respective order for the MC-21-300 are 174,716lbs. (79,250kg), 152,339lbs. (69,100kg), and 49,824lbs. (22,600kg). The maximum fuel for both the MC-21-200 and -300 is the same at 44,974lbs. (20,400kg) (Russian Aviation Insider 2016). With respects to aircraft dimensions, the MC-21-200 and -300 aircraft share the same wingspan (117ft. and 7in. or 35.9m), height (37ft. and 7in. or 11.5m), and fuselage width (13ft. and 3in. or 4.06m). According to Russian Aviation Insider (2016), the only measurement in which the MC-21-200 and -300 differ is in their aircraft length, in which the -200 is 110ft. and 8in. long (33.8 m), while the -300 is 29ft. and 6in. longer than the -200 series at 140ft. and 4in in length. In regards to the aircraft’s power plant, the new Irkut MC-21-300 will come equipped with two Pratt & Whitney 1400 Gear Turbo Fan (GTF) engines, empowering the aircraft to be achieve a maximum range of 3,239 nautical miles (or 6,000km). As an added bonus, the aircraft purchaser will have the option to outfit the MC-21-300 (or -200) with the traditional Russian-made PD-14 engines for the power plant system (Russian Aviation Insider 2016). The Pratt & Whitney power plant option is the most (fuel) efficient, but the fact the aircraft comes with a second power plant option only increases the viability of the new Russian aircraft, thereby making it more of a threat to the new aircraft made by Airbus, Boeing, and COMAC.

There are several factors, specifically pertaining to aircraft performance parameters, which make the Russian Irkut MC-21-300 aircraft much more of a viable threat (in terms of competition) to the Airbus NEO and Boeing 737 Max than the C919.

The first of these parameters is the power plant system. According to Russian Aviation Insider (2016), the COMAC C919 is equipped with two CFM LEAP-1C engines. Although these engines are fuel-efficient and recently received a dual-simultaneous type certification from the EASA and FAA, they do not provide adequate flight range. The CFM LEAP-1C engines only provide the C919 with a maximum range capability of 2200 nautical miles (or 4075km), which is 1309 nautical miles (or 2425km) less than what the power plant systems of the Boeing 737MAX and Airbus A320neo provide. However, the two PW 1400 GTF engines composing the power plant of the Irkut MC-21-300 provide the aircraft with a nautical range of 3239 nautical miles (or 6000km), which is 1039 nautical miles (or 1925km) more than the range of the C919 (Russian Aviation Insider 2016). The fact the MC-21-300’s power plant only provides 270 nautical miles less than that of the Airbus A320neo and Boeing 737MAX, but 1039 miles more than the C919 is a prime reason why the MC-21-300 is more of a viable threat.

The seating capacity of the MC-21-300 is yet another parameter in which this aircraft showcases its superiority to the C919. According to Russian Aviation Insider (2016), the number of passengers (in a traditional two-class configuration) the C919 can hold is 156, which is 6 and 9 less than that of the Boeing 737MAX and Airbus A320neo, respectively. The MC-21-300 however, can accommodate 163 passengers, meaning the MC-21-300 is the second-highest passenger seating aircraft in comparison to the Boeing 737MAX, Airbus A320neo, and the C919. In fact, the MC-21-300 not only seats 7 more passengers than the C919, but also seats 1 more than Boeing 737MAX, and only 2 less than the Airbus A320neo. Thus, not only can the MC-21-300 fly farther than the C919, this aircraft can also carry more passengers than both the C919 and the Boeing 737MAX. Consequently, the nautical range coupled with seating capacity makes the MC-21-300 aircraft more of a competitive threat to the new Boeing and Airbus aircraft than the C919.

The MTOW of an aircraft is an important performance factor that should also be considered. The MTOW of the C919 is 170,417lbs. (or 77,300kg), which is 10,780lbs. (or 4890kg) and 3748lbs. (or 1700kg) less than the MTOW of the Boeing 737MAX and Airbus A320neo, respectively (Russian Aviation Insider 2016). The MTOW of the MC-21-300 however, is 174,716lbs. (or 79,250kg), meaning it has the second-highest MTOW in comparison to the Boeing 737MAX, Airbus A320neo, and C919. Furthermore, the MTOW of the is 4299lbs. (or 1950kg) more than the C919 and 551lbs. (or 250kg) more than the Airbus A320neo. This entails the MC-21-300 is second only to the Boeing 737MAX (in regards to MTOW) by 6481lbs. (or 2940kg). The fact the MC-21-300 can take off with a higher payload than that of the C919 and the Airbus A320neo only strengthens the notion that the Irkut MC-21-300 is more of a competitive threat to the new Boeing and Airbus aircraft than the C919 is.

4.     Do you think the Irkut MC-21 will receive FAA certification before the C919, and if so, would it pose a threat to the newly refined aircraft manufactured by Airbus and Boeing?

Yes, I firmly believe the Irkut MC-21 will receive (full) FAA certification before the C919 because Russia has had great aircraft manufacturing success in the past, primarily with their Sukhoi Superjet aircraft. According to Bhaskara (2016), the Sukhoi Superjet was arguably one of the most successful aircraft to be manufactured (and distributed) outside of the global “Big Four” manufacturers, namely Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, and Embraer. The success of the Superjet was denoted by its 368 orders, 100 of which originated outside of Russia from foreign air carriers (Bhaskara 2016). The fact the Sukhoi Superjet was such a success and attracted global popularity demonstrates the relatively new Russian aviation industry and its governing officials were on the right track with respects to their design, aircraft manufacturing quality, and global marketing. Russia’s initial success leads me to believe they know what they are doing and it is because of this why I believe the MC-21 will receive FAA certification before the C919.

The FAA certified the Pratt & Whitney 1400GFT engines in May 2016, only four months after the aircraft’s debut and with relative ease (since they were in the prototype phase). This coupled with the fact the PW 1400GFT engines are scheduled to be receive their Russian aviation authority certification in 2018, and certification from the EASA in 2019, exemplifies how quick, efficient, and knowledgeable the Russian aviation authority is with their aircraft certification application process (Russian Aviation Insider 2016). It has taken COMAC years (approximately nine) to get at least one part of the C919 certified by the FAA, specifically their CFM engines, while it has only taken Russia less than two. Furthermore, COMAC currently has two aircraft in the works, namely the C919 and ARJ21, of which the older ARJ21 has yet to be certified by the FAA. Thus, the fact the Russian MC-21 has already received certification of its power plant system with two more planned to occur within the next two years, is yet another reason why I believe the MC-21 will receive (full) FAA certification before the C919.

As stated previously, the Irkut MC-21 will come with two power plant options, which are the Pratt & Whitney 1400GFT and the (traditional) Russian PD-14 engines (Zhang 2016). Offering two types of power plants provides potential MC-21 customers with options, and no matter what the market, customers love having options, especially if one of those options will save them money long-term. The Pratt & Whitney 1400GFT will be the standard option equipped on the MC-21 because it is the more fuel-efficient option as opposed to the PD-14 Turbofan option, which is available if customers favor power (thrust) over fuel-efficiency. Albeit the power plants equipped on the Airbus NEO, Boeing 737MAX, and C919 aircraft were designed with fuel-efficiency and range in mind, the manufacturers did not offer more than one engine option. Therefore, the two power plant options provided by the Russian MC-21 is one aspect that makes it competitive against Airbus and Boeing, more so than the C919.

According to Zhang (2016), the MC-21 will be composed of a vast amount of lightweight materials such as carbon fiber reinforced plastic and fiberglass composite body panels. Consequently, the lighter parts will lessen the overall weight of the aircraft, thereby reducing the fuel used and saving the air carrier money when conducting flights. Additionally, since the MC-21 aircraft will be primarily composed of lightweight materials, it has the potential to carry a slightly heavier payload such as passengers and/or cargo, than its competitors (e.g. Airbus A320neo, Boeing 737Max, or C919). Furthermore, the cabin space of the MC-21 is also slightly wider than that of its competitors, ensuring the extra passengers the aircraft can carry are comfortable (Zhang 2016). Thus, if the MC-21 becomes FAA certified, I believe it will pose a threat to the newly refined aircraft manufactured by Airbus and Boeing because of its lighter-weight components, fuel-savings, and increased (passenger) cabin space.

One of the major selling or marketing points of the Irkut MC-21 conveyed by Russian manufacturers are how its unique design and layout will enhance passenger accessibility and ultimately increase (air carrier) operational speed. Anyone who travels (either frequently or infrequently) knows one of the most stressful aspects pertaining to commercial air travel are the processes of enplaning and deplaning. However, the Irkut MC-21 aims to mitigate the associated stress of deplaning by expediting this process through the use of pivot-type overhead bins (Zhang 2016). The goal of these pivot-type overhead bins is to enhance passenger accessibility, allowing passengers easy and quick access to their luggage, thereby preventing aisle congestion and pandemonium during the deplaning process. However, the true, broader aim of the Irkut MC-21 is to decrease the time it takes for an air carrier to complete a ‘turn’ by 20% (Zhang 2016). Based upon my previous work experience at a Part 121 air carrier, ‘turns’ for an aircraft akin to the size of the MC-21 were allotted 40 minutes for completion. The MC-21 will supposedly empower air carrier ground crew(s) to reduce this 40 minute ‘turn time’ by 20% (or 8 minutes), meaning the aircraft can be in and out of the gate in only 32 minutes, which is extraordinary. This 20% ‘turn time’ reduction will be facilitated not only through the use of pivot-type overhead bins, but also larger lavatories. These larger lavatories will grant aircraft cleaners’ enhanced maneuverability within the lavatory to clean and/or replace necessary items, resulting in a decreased cleaning time and faster boarding process. The fact the Irkut MC-21 was designed with a time-saving layout and includes amenities to reduce air carrier turn times by 20% is one of the more prominent reasons why I believe the MC-21 will pose a threat to aircraft manufacturers such as Airbus and Boeing if it were to receive FAA certification.

Essentially, I strongly believe the Irkut MC-21 will receive FAA certification before the C919 not only because Russia has had extreme success in the aviation industry with their Sukhoi Superjet, but also because the MC-21 has already received (engine) certification from the FAA. Furthermore, this certification from the FAA came within two years of the aircraft’s debut as opposed to the nine years it took COMAC for their C919. Additionally, there are several (performance) reasons why I believe the MC-21 would pose a viable threat to the newly refined Airbus and Boeing aircraft more so than the C919. These reasons include the following: the MC-21’s power plant system will consist of Gear Turbo Fan technology and be more fuel-efficient, customers will have the option between two power plant systems, the aircraft can carry more passengers and a heavier payload, possesses a higher MTOW, and can fly significantly further due to its nautical range.

References

Bhaskara, V. (2016). Farnborough: can the Irkut MC-21 follow in the superjet’s footsteps? Airways. Retrieved from https://airwaysmag.com/industry/farnborough-can-the-irkut-mc-21-follow-in-the-superjets-footsteps/

Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC). (2017). ARJ21. Products & Service. Retrieved from http://english.comac.cc/products/rj/

Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC). (2017). C919. Products & Service. Retrieved from http://english.comac.cc/products/ca/

Russian Aviation Insider. (2016). MC-21 Irkut: newest Russian narrow-body aircraft. Russian & CIS Commercial Aviation Insights. Retrieved from http://www.rusaviainsider.com/irkut-mc-21-russian-aircraft/

United Aircraft Corporation (UAC). (2017). History. United Aircraft Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/corporation/history/

United Aircraft Corporation (UAC). (2017). Products. United Aircraft Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.uacrussia.ru/ru/aircraft/

Zhang, B. (2016). Russia just unveiled its new Airbus and Boeing challenger. Business Insider. Retrieved from https://amp.businessinsider.com/russian-irkut-ms-21-airbus-boeing-2016-6 

Aviation Organizations

The topic is Aviation Organizations. Please answer the following questions: 

Do not use AOPA or ALPA in your answers.

1.     What associations will it be important to belong to when you are employed and engaged on your career path?  Identify at least two organizations. 

Two associations that will be important to belong to when I am employed and engaged on my aviation management and/or flight career path are the Michigan Association of Airport Executives (MAAE) and the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA).

2.     Research the associations that you identified. Discuss the mission and functions of each association. 3. Also discuss the role of these organizations in the overall industry, including their support for other sectors of the industry.

The mission/goal of the MAAE is to assist airport executives in fulfilling their responsibilities to the airports and communities they serve. The MAAE was founded in 1949, to represent airport management throughout Michigan (Michigan Association of Airport Executives [MAAE], 2017). The MAAE has been in constant pursuit of fulfilling its mission since its inception in 1949. According to MAAE (2017), the MAAE has primarily facilitated the accomplishment of their mission of assisting airport executives and their respective airports and communities through the continual development of various methods, of which aid Michigan-based airports in  developing expertise and leadership within their respective organizations. Additionally, by representing the state of Michigan at national association meetings, the MAAE works to ensure the regional needs of its members are addressed and acknowledged by governing bodies (MAAE 2017). Subsequently, the MAAE further accomplishes their mission of assisting Michigan-based airport executives with their various responsibilities bestowed upon them by the communities they serve through representation on a national level.

As mentioned previously, the primary mission or goal of the MAAE is to assist airport executives in fulfilling their responsibilities to the airports and communities they serve (MAAE 2017). However, according to the MAAE (2017), the MAAE was also established for the purpose of increasing the use and improving the facilities and services of Michigan airports. The MAAE facilitates this increase and improvement of various facilities and services provided by Michigan airports through four essential functions. These four functions are as follows: 1. Provide a medium for the exchange of ideas, methods, information, and experience for the operation of airports; 2. Promote and encourage the passing of legislation (both State and Federal), for the good of aviation; 3. Cooperate with the FAA and Michigan Aeronautics Commission in achieving their programs/goals for aviation and; 4. Promote and encourage better relations between airports and their users (MAAE 2017).

Since the MAAE offers membership to airport executives (or managers) from large, medium, and small airports, the four previously mentioned functions of the MAAE benefit and/or support the aviation industry in its entirety, but more specifically, the commercial and general aviation sectors. This benefit and support to the aviation industry is primarily facilitated in the form of memberships, which are open to all Michigan airports. The MAAE offers an ‘Airport Membership’, which allows each airport to appoint as many members as they please. The appointed members under said membership must include individuals who exercise active responsibility for the management, general superintendence, operation, or administration of an airport within the state of Michigan (MAAE 2017). The dues associated with an ‘Airport Membership’ are contingent upon its size and are broken down by category. The dues for a large hub (or commercial airport) are $3000, a medium hub is $1500, a small hub is $1000, non-hub is $600, an Essential Air Service (EAS) is $500, a large General Aviation (GA) airport is $500, and a small GA airport is $200 (MAAE 2017).

Additionally, the MAAE offers a ‘Corporate Membership’, which is open to both public or private corporations and individuals who are engaged in at least one of the following activities: Development or maintenance of an airport, the manufacture of sale of aircraft, aviation fuel, air navigation facilities, and/or equipment or materials used in the establishment of operation of an airport (MAAE 2017). The membership dues associated with the ‘Corporate Membership’ are based of the number of employees within said corporate organization. Specifically, if the organization consist of over 50 employees the cost is $600, under 50 employees is $300, and if the organization classifies as an Association and/or Government Agency, then the cost is $100 (MAAE 2017). Needless to say, this specific membership is meant to benefit and support the corporate/business (i.e. General Aviation) sector of the industry as opposed to the ‘Airport Membership’, which tends to provide a more direct benefit to the larger, commercial sector. The main disadvantage of this membership is that corporate members do not retain voting rights, while those holding an ‘Airport Membership’ do.

Now that I have outlined the two types of memberships offered by the MAAE and briefly explained their purpose, I can expound upon how the MAAE benefits and supports other sectors of the industry, especially the commercial and GA sectors. Being a member of the MAAE Membership allows both commercial and GA airport executives (or managers) such as those from Willow Run or Detroit Metropolitan to attend various conferences/seminars pertaining to the growth and development of Michigan Airports. Consequently, by attending said seminars, the attendees are able to converse with other airport executives and managers who share similar  responsibilities, and learn from their mistakes and experiences in efforts to better their respective (commercial or GA) airport, and subsequent industry sector. The MAAE typically holds two conferences/seminars per year, namely the Michigan Airport Conference and the MAAE Annual Fall Conference. The Michigan Airport Conference is co-sponsored with the MDOT and the Office of Aeronautics. According to the MAAE (2017), the Michigan Airport Conference provides an excellent opportunity for airport management staff, consultants, sponsors, and vendors to address issues concerning airport operations and administration. The MAAE Annual Fall Conference provides an excellent opportunity for Airport Managers, FAA, and State Office Aeronautics representatives, airport engineers, consultants, and airport equipment to meet, exchange ideas, and discuss problems and solutions facing Michigan airports (MAAE 2017). Both conferences benefit and support the commercial and GA sectors of aviation because they allow for executives and managers from both sectors to convene in a centralized location to discuss potential issues/problems, and more importantly, exchange viable solutions to said problems affecting the commercial and GA sectors. Furthermore, these conferences also include employees from prominent authoritative bodies such as the FAA, who oversee all aviation sectors. Since the FAA is an attendee at these conferences, they can provide specific attention, answers, and guidance to the various problems encountered by the executives from the commercial and GA airports.

Thus, the MAAE plays a monumental role in the industry overall, especially with respects to the Michigan-based commercial and GA sectors. The MAAE fulfills this role by offering membership to commercial, corporate, and GA airports/operations. This allows said organizations to enhance their operation, attain specified funding, and attend various seminars/conferences where they can receive assistance from governing officials (e.g. FAA) to address, combat, and implement corrective action to potential issues or problems facing all (e.g. commercial or GA) airports, ultimately improving their sectors.

The mission of the NBAA is to foster an environment that allows business aviation to thrive in the United States and around the world (National Business Aviation Association [NBAA], 2017). According to the NBAA (2017), the NBAA is the leading organization for companies that rely on GA aircraft to help make their business more efficient, productive and successful. Furthermore, since its founding in 1947, the NBAA has represented more than 11,000 companies and provided more than 100 products/services to the business (corporate) aviation sector.

The numerous functions provided on behalf of the NBAA are primarily focused on the promotion and enhancement of general aviation, specifically business (corporate) aviation. That said, the NBAA provides three essential functions to the business aviation sector. The first of function of the NBAA is to settle issues associated with business operations airspace access, airport utilizations, and aircraft noise. Additionally, the NBAA has focused their attention on and directed their efforts to settle prevalent issues pertaining to (business) aviation safety, operational efficiency, fair and equal (airport and airspace) access, FAA reform, nose and compatible land use, and several other issues (NBAA 2017). According to the NBAA (2017), the second function the NBAA provides is the discussion and management of prominent international issues such as international aviation policy as well as the improvement and standardization of global air traffic systems. The third, and final function of the NBAA is the collection, interpretation, and dissemination of operational and managerial data related to the safe, efficient, and cost-effective use of business aircraft within the GA sector (NBAA 2017). Analyzing said data empowers the NBAA to further identify and understand the continuously on-going advancements in (aviation) technology and procedures (e.g. NextGen) that could have a potential impact (either positive or negative) within the business (general) aviation sector.

The NBAA prides itself on serving the Business Aviation community since its inception in 1947, therefore it is not surprising to know the organization has been a monumental factor in making business/corporate aviation as prominent and significant as we know it to be today. That said, the NBAA does not possess a defined role within other industry sectors nor does it support other sectors because the NBAA is business aviation specific. The only role the NBAA has is to emphasize, promote, and sustain the viability of the business sector. However, in doing so, the NBAA also provides a strong sense of support for GA overall because business aviation is housed under GA. Subsequently, the NBAA aids in the perpetuation, enhancement, and viability of GA, which is one of the major (and more commonly used) facets of the industry, alongside commercial and military aviation.

3.     Discuss why is it important for you to belong to these associations.

Generally speaking, it is important for me to belong to these associations because they can provide various opportunities for employment and/or internships, offer career insight (from aviation-employed professionals), and allow me to network with aviation professionals who are where I am striving to be. Furthermore, by belonging to these two associations, I will not only be able to expand my network and make more (aviation) connections, but I will also be able to learn about more opportunities (some of which are membership exclusive) and attend various conferences/seminars to enhance my aviation (and general) knowledge. Additionally, belonging to these associations is important because being a member of them demonstrates that I am an active participant within the aviation industry, thereby denoting a keen interest in the aviation industry’s viability and long-term growth.

As an undergraduate student pursuing a degree in Aviation Management, it is important for me to belong to the MAAE organization because it promotes the professional development of both members and students who are actively engaged in the study of airport administration (or management) (MAAE 2017). The MAAE accomplishes this promotion and encouragement of aviation/airport management students through the use of free student memberships and several scholarship opportunities, which are MAAE member exclusive. Additionally, it is important I be a part of the MAAE because I can receive discounted (if not free) admission to the conferences and seminars hosted by the MAAE. It is at these conferences and seminars where I will have the opportunity to network, connect, and talk to airport executives and managers who may have a vacancy and/or internship opportunity within their organization that I would not be cognizant of otherwise.

As an undergraduate student pursuing a degree in Aviation Management, it is important for me to belong to the NBAA because they are an instrumental factor in the sustainability and promotion of business (corporate) aviation, which is where I plan to begin my flight career. Additionally, it is important I belong to the NBAA because they offer a vast amount of scholarship and internship opportunities to students (like myself). Specifically, the internship opportunities can provide me with the vital and necessary (business) or general aviation experience to either transfer into a permanent (i.e. full-time) position within the NBAA, or with an akin aviation organization. Furthermore, the NBAA offers numerous volunteer and career opportunities that I could take advantage of as a member, thereby allowing me to network with other business aviation professionals in efforts to perpetuate and/or solidify my aviation career. Since the NBAA is one of the most substantial and notable organizations within the sector of GA, being a member would indefinitely speak volumes regarding my knowledge of and commitment not only to the business sector, but to GA and the industry overall.

Therefore, it is important for me to belong to the MAAE and NBAA because of the discounted (and/or free) memberships they offer to students pursuing an aviation-related degree, the numerous scholarship and internship opportunities available, and the ability to expand my professional (aviation) network through the attendance of organization-specific conferences and seminars. It is also important to belong to these associations because they tend to ‘standout’ on a resume/CV, and more times than not, the employer (or individual reviewing my credentials) will also belong to these aviation organizations (if not more). Thus, belonging to not only these aviation organizations, but others as well will increase my chances of attaining an interview and/or employment because they denote commitment to and knowledge of the various facets/sectors, which compose the industry as a whole.

References

Michigan Association of Airport Executives (MAAE). (2017). About us. MAAE. Retrieved from http://www.michairports.org/index.php?pr=About_MAAE

Michigan Association of Airport Executives (MAAE). (2017). Conference information. MAAE. Retrieved from http://www.michairports.org/index.php?pr=Conferences_&_Seminars

Michigan Association of Airport Executives (MAAE). (2017). Membership information. MAAE. Retrieved from http://www.michairports.org/index.php?pr=Membership_Info

Michigan Association of Airport Executives (MAAE). (2017). Scholarship opportunities. MAAE. Retrieved from http://www.michairports.org/index.php?pr=Scholarship_Opportunities

Michigan Association of Airport Executives (MAAE). (2017). Welcome, members, and guests, to the Michigan Association of Airport Executives official website. MAAE. Retrieved from http://www.michairports.org/index.php?pr=Home_Page

National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). (2017). About NBAA. NBAA. Retrieved from https://www.nbaa.org/about/

National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). (2017). NBAA history. NBAA. Retrieved from https://www.nbaa.org/about/history/ 

Aviation Emissions, Concerning?

The UN recently reached an agreement on aircraft emissions. Please answer the following questions in regards to this topic:

1) Summarize aviation's contribution to overall emissions. Please be specific, using statistics,  etc.. For example, how do aviation emissions compare to emissions from other industries?

Before I can begin explaining how the aviation industry has contributed to the world’s overall emissions, one must first explain which/what type of chemical compounds (i.e. emissions) transpire. Popular to contrary belief, aircraft produce emissions akin to those emitted from an automobile. Specifically, aircraft jet engines emit chemical compounds such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), water vapor (H20), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), and Sulfur Oxides (Sox) (AvStop.com 2015). However, it is the unburned or partially combusted Hydrocarbons (HC) amongst other minute compounds that truly harm the environment by worsening the air quality. These unburned hydrocarbons are known as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs); only a small subset are considered damaging, but the quantity of VOCs emitted into the environment (especially with the increase of air transport) has caused alarm. According to AvStop.com (2015), typical jet aircraft emissions are primarily comprised of three compounds: 70% CO2, 30% H20, and less than 1% of trace compounds such as CO, NOx, SOx, and VOCs. Unbeknownst to many, these compounds are termed differently depending upon where they are emitted: when expelled into the atmosphere at higher altitudes (e.g. during cruise flight) they are deemed ‘greenhouse gases’, but when emitted near the ground (e.g. during takeoff/landing), they are deemed ‘pollutants’.

The clear majority of jet aircraft emissions, specifically 90% of them, are produced at higher altitudes, or during cruise flight (AvStop.com 2015). When these compounds are expelled at the higher (cruise) altitudes, the water vapor in conjunction with other compounds tend to create ‘contrails’. These contrails are what individuals on the ground often see when they look in the sky as they have a ‘trail’ like appearance in the sky depicting the course of an aircraft. These contrails also create a ‘greenhouse’ effect within the atmosphere, thereby damaging the ozone layer in conjunction with the other VOCs emitted at this level of flight. The remaining 10% of aviation emissions occur on the ground during ground operations. These emissions are often generated by aircraft taking-off or landing, taxiing, and ground service equipment (e.g. fuel trucks, GPUs, etc.), and subsequently have the same negative effect on the environment (AvStop.com 2015).

Despite what people may believe based upon their own notions and/or minor research from reading bits and pieces of various articles, aviation does not contribute a large margin to the world’s overall emissions. In fact, aviation only contributes 2% to the world’s (manmade) CO2 emissions and only 12% to the CO2 emissions from all aviation related transport sources (e.g. aircraft, ground equipment, etc.) (Air Transport Action Group [ATAG], 2015). 2% and 12% emissions contribution are relatively minute in comparison to the number of aircraft being utilized for transport and the increase/growth of the industry. Albeit the aviation industry has experienced a notable (approximately 5%) increase in passenger travel each year over the past 10-20 years, air carriers, airports, and their governing bodies have made tremendous strides to mitigate their C02 and other emissions (ATAG 2015). It is because of the strides and joint efforts made by aviation officials and air carriers that the industry has reduced its (aircraft and ground operations) emissions growth to 3%. This emission reduction has primarily been facilitated by the upgrading and implementation of newer technology, policies, and procedures, which lessen the amount of time aircraft are on the ground (with engines running) and how much time they spend in the air during delays (e.g. holding patterns). The most significant improvement will come in the form of NextGen, which utilizes GPS technology to provide aircraft with more direct routes. By instituting more direct routes, aircraft flight time will be reduced, subsequently attenuating aircraft emissions and aviation’s overall emission contribution. According to ATAG (2015), the largest contributors to manmade (or human-induced) CO2 emissions are as follows: Power generation at 24% (which is primarily produced in the forms of coal/gas fire stations), followed by land use change at 18%, proceeded by the agricultural/industrial/transport (includes aviation at 2%) sectors at 14%, and lastly building/infrastructure and other energy related occupations at 8% and 5%, respectively. This means the aviation (or transport) industry is the third most (manmade) CO2 emission efficient industry since it contributes 6% and 9% more CO2 emissions than the building/infrastructure and other energy related industries, respectively. Additionally, this also means the aviation industry generates 12% and 4% less to manmade CO2 emissions (overall) than the power generation and land use industries, respectively, and is thereby more efficient.

Despite aviation emissions not having a large contribution percentage or impact on the overall environment, they still harm the environment and add to aviation’s overall contribution. Most individuals do not consider if there are any additional emission sources aside from the aircraft itself when discussing aviation emissions because they think the aircraft is large so it must produce the most exhaust. This notion however, is incorrect as a large portion of aviation emissions stem from the airport itself, specifically the ground equipment and other moving parts that maintain the airport’s business continuity. These sources include cars (e.g. airport police), catering trucks, shuttle buses and taxis, ground power units (GPUs), and other support vehicles. The primary chemical compounds composing the aviation emissions are CO2, H20 (water vapor), NOx, HC (hydrocarbons), CH4, and CO (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], 2015). CO2, H20 (water vapor that helps formulate contrails), and NOx adversely affect the global climate change, while the HCs, CH4, and CO adversely affect the local air quality since they are pollutants (composed of unburned components of jet fuel).

When compared to emissions generated by other industries, aviation does not contribute a large margin to the overall emissions generated (both in the U.S. and worldwide) as I have previously mentioned. However, these notions mean nothing unless statistical data is provided to back them. Emissions are often measured in BTUs, or British Thermal Units, which denotes the energy efficiency of a product such as an appliance, a vehicle, or a mode of transportation. For the purposes of this question, each mode of transportation will be measured in BTU per passenger-mile to evaluate efficiency and emission generation. Therefore, the more energy efficient a mode of transportation is, then the lower BTU per passenger-mile and emission generation it will have.

In the U.S., there are five largely used modes of transportation, which are as follows: Automobiles, personal trucks, transit (city) buses, commercial airlines (i.e. aviation), and rail; rail is comprised of three subcategories, namely intercity rail (Amtrak), transit rail (subway) and commuter rail. According to AvStop.com (2015), commercial airlines (aviation) is the third most efficient (or least BTU per passenger-mile generating) mode of transportation generating approximately 3,600 BTU per passenger-mile. The aviation industry’s emission contribution generates only 100 BTU per passenger-miles more than automobiles (which is the second most efficient mode of transportation), and only 850 BTU per passenger-miles more than the most efficient rail mode of transportation. Traveling by rail is the most efficient mode of transportation holistically speaking; as mentioned previously, it is composed of three sub-categories. The most efficient rail method is commuter rail generating 2,750 BTU per passenger-mile, followed by intercity rail (Amtrak) at 2,900 BTU per passenger-mile, and lastly, transit rail (subway) at 3,100 BTU per passenger-mile (AvStop.com 2015).

When comparing aviation to the most efficient mode of transportation (i.e. rail), aviation appears to be extremely efficient in terms of emission generation since it only generates 850 BTU per passenger-mile more than commuter rail, 700 BTU per passenger-mile more than intercity rail, and only 500 BTU per passenger-mile more than transit rail. This is a phenomenal feat and an exemplary demonstration of the aviation industry’s minute emission contribution considering how many aircraft operate each day globally. Additionally, aviation only generates 100 BTU per passenger-mile more than the second most efficient mode (automobile). This 100 BTU per passenger-mile difference truly highlights how efficient and low emission generating aircraft/airport operations are when you consider the amount of and how frequently automobiles are used in the world. Automobiles are one of (if not the) most common means of travel in both short- and long-distances. Thus, for the aviation industry to only produce 100 more BTU per passenger-mile than automobiles (which are in abundance and commonplace in the U.S.) is extraordinary.

Since commercial airlines (aviation) is ranked third in terms of efficiency and emission generation, this means there are two additional modes of transportation under it, which are personal trucks and transit (city) buses. According to AvStop.com (2015), personal trucks generate 4,300 BTU per passenger-mile, while transit buses are the least efficient (i.e. generate the most emissions) as they generate 4,800 BTU per passenger-mile. This means the aviation industry generates 800 and 1,200 BTU per passenger-mile less than personal trucks and transit buses, respectively. Considering the vast amount of personal trucks and city transit vehicles operated within the various cities and states, their large emission generation is no surprise. City transit, especially buses, have implemented upgrades to the engine and exhaust systems to become more fuel, emission, and eco-friendly/efficient. Despite these improvements, transit buses still produce a large amount of emissions and harm the environment, hence the reason why it is (statistically) the most inefficient mode of transport. However, despite these statistics, people still assume that since a commercial (jet) aircraft is larger than an automobile, personal truck, or bus, then it is extremely (emission) inefficient, which is not true at all as denoted by the above statistical breakdowns. Therefore, although aviation is the third most efficient mode of transportation, the industry only generates 3,600 BTU per passenger-mile and contributes only 2% to CO2 emissions overall, which is minute, relatively speaking, when compared to the other, vaster modes of transportation such as rail (average of 2,916 BTU per passenger-mile) or transit buses (4,300 BTU per passenger-mile).

2)The article in class confirmed that the UN had reached an agreement for the reduction of aviation emissions. What are the specifics of the proposed reduction plan?

The essential purpose of the UN agreement is to control and reduce the harmful emissions generated by international airline flights in efforts to mitigate the aviation industry’s adverse effect on global warming. The agreement was ratified and accepted by all 191 ICAO member states during a meeting in Montreal. This agreement however, is such a big deal because it is the first climate-change pact to establish worldwide limits on a single industry (Lowy 2016). Presumably, this agreement is based off and/or is thereby akin to that of plans to reduce emissions under the Paris Accord, which was also incepted in 2016, and aims to reduce emissions and control global warming. The proposed plan by the UN is an intrinsic, all-encompassing one that addresses the issue of global warming and aviation’s contributing role in it by setting ‘emission limits’ on international flights and implementing a ‘carbon credit’ concept to air carriers. Each individual country will be responsible for establishing and placing the ‘emission limit’ on their respective air carriers as outlined in the UN agreement (Lowy 2016).

One of the specifics outlined by the proposed plan marks the year 2020, as the upper limit of the amount of emissions air carriers will be allowed to generate. If an air carrier exceeds this set limit, of which is benchmarked from their emission amount in year 2020, then said air carrier(s) must rectify or offset the exceeded amount by means of ‘carbon credit’ (Lowy 2016). This notion of purchasing ‘credit’ entails air carrier(s) (that have exceeded their allotted emission production) buying carbon credits from other industries and companies that fund and/or facilitate projects focused on addressing, mitigating, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

As of right now, the proposed UN agreement appears to be composed of two phases, of which span over 15 years for countries to be within full compliance of the agreement. The beginnings or ‘pre-phase 1’ of the plan is set to begin in year 2020. The amount of emissions an air carrier generates within year 2020, will essentially serve as the upper ‘cap’ limit on the amount of emissions air carriers can produce in future years of operation (Lowy 2016). Phase 1 of the proposed UN airline agreement is set to begin in year 2021, and last until 2027. During this phase air carriers and their respective governing countries will be held responsible for abiding by their allocated emission limit (as benchmarked in year 2020). Albeit phase 1 is completely voluntary, the UN encourages countries to participate sooner rather than later. Phase two, which is set to begin in year 2028, and end in year 2035, requires mandatory participation, involvement, and abidance to the emission restrictions from all 191 ICAO member states (and their air carriers) (Lowy 2016). According to Lowy (2016), the Environmental Defense Fund calculated that full compliance and abidance to the established emission caps would reduce carbon emissions by 2.5 billion tons over the 15-year span of the proposed UN agreement. Reduction of carbon emissions by 2.5 billion tons roughly equates to removing 35 million cars off the road for every year the proposed UN agreement is in place, which in total (over the entire 15-year period), equates to 525 million cars off the road.

One more specific encompassed within proposed UN agreement is that participating governments must present national plans to control and lessen emissions in efforts to limit the global temperature rise less than 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) (Lowy 2016). This plan will essentially outline the necessary corrective changes each respective government will institute such as (aircraft and airport) equipment upgrades, and the implementation of new policies and procedures to be utilized within the aviation industry to maintain compliance with their air carrier(s)/county’s emission cap. An additional specific of the agreement is that it currently only applies to international flights since they account for approximately 60% of aviation and industry emission (Lowy 2016). However, the guidelines governing domestic flights, which account for the remaining 40% of aviation emissions, will be outlined within the Paris Accord (agreement), of which was instituted in December 2016. The primary purpose of the Paris Accord is akin to that of the proposed UN agreement. Specifically, the Paris Accord aims to unify rich and poor countries (with air carriers) to commit their involvement and actively participate in combating aviation’s effect on climate change, in addition to lessening the rise in global warming temperatures (Lowy 2016).

An additional specific pertinent to the proposed UN agreement, with respects to monetary funding, is the agreement is being funded (primarily) by participating air carriers within the industry. The estimated cost to implement and maintain the proposed UN agreement is $5.3 billion to $23.9 billion per year by year 2035 (Lowy 2016). This may seem like a substantial amount of money for air carriers to pay to fund a worldwide agreement, but in comparison to the $181 billion in fuel cost said carriers paid the following year, it is relatively minute. Therefore, as I mentioned earlier, the overall goal of this proposed UN agreement is to reduce emissions generated by the global aviation industry and limit the global temperature rise less than 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) through a joint-effort of all 191 ICAO member states.

3) It also appears that emission reductions are under the Paris Agreement. How might this play out under the newly elected administration?

The Paris Agreement (Accord) was adopted in December 2015, by 195 countries. This agreement is notable and making headlines because it is the first-ever universal, legally binding global climate deal to be in existence (European Commission 2017). The goal of the Paris Agreement is akin to that of the proposed UN agreement, but the Paris Agreement contains more stringent regulations to ensure they achieve their climate reduction goal. Specifically, the goal of the Paris Agreement is to implement an action plan (through the joint-efforts of 195 European countries) that will address, combat, and lessen the global climate change below 2 degrees Celsius. Essentially, the Paris Agreement serves as a bridge between the European policies and the attainment of climate-neutrality, with the end goal being emission and global warming and reduction (European Commission 2017).

The Paris Agreement, at its essence, is comprised of five major components or sections, which are as follows: Mitigation (reducing emissions), transparency and global stock-take, adaptation, loss and damage, and the role of cities/regions/and local authorities. Under the mitigation component, the participating governments agreed to set the long-term goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. Additionally, said governments agreed to focus on limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius because doing so would notably reduce the risks and adverse impacts of climate change (European Commission 2017). In regards to the Transparency and global stock-take section, the participating governments agreed to convene every five years to set more ambitiously specific reduction goals in accordance with improvement data. Said governments also agreed to report to each other and their respective civilian bodies on the status and/or updates of the implemented plan in addition to tracking their progress towards the long-term goal via transparency and accountability system (European Commission 2017). With respects to the Adaptation section, the participating governments agreed to strengthen the societal ability and cognizance of the importance of climate change by means of educating their (respective) societies on how to deal with its adverse impacts. According to the European Commission (2017), the governments agreed to provide continued and enhance international (adaptation) support for developing (i.e. economically-disadvantaged) countries so that they too can abide by the stipulations set forth by the Paris Agreement. Under the Loss and Damage section, the agreement not only recognizes the importance of averting loss and damage related to the negative effect of climate change, but to also address and minimize any instances of it in a holistic manner. Furthermore, the agreement acknowledges the need to and importance of cooperating and enhancing the comprehension, action, and support of various facets (pertinent to the aviation industry) such as early warning systems, emergency preparedness, and risk insurance (European Commission 2017). Lastly, the agreement recognizes the role the cities, regions, and other local authorities can play in reducing emissions, and expounds upon it. Said parties are invited to increase their efforts to reduce emission, decrease susceptibility to the negative effects of climate change, and maintain and promote both regional and international cooperation (European Commission 2017).

Now that I have explained the pertinent essentials of the Paris Agreement and its relative similarity to that of the proposed UN agreement, I believe this may play out in favor of the newly elected administration. What I mean by this is that the Paris Agreement and the UN agreement have one common goal: reduce aviation emission to control global warming (i.e. climate change. The primary difference between the two is that the Paris Agreement is a tad more stringent than that of the UN because it regulates domestic flights as well. With that said, the primary purpose of privatizing ATC and implementing NextGen technology is to significantly enhance aircraft/airport operations. This enhancement will be accomplished with the utilization of GPS technology, thereby allowing aircraft to fly more direct routes, reduce flight and taxi times, and ultimately reduce aviation emissions from aircraft and airport ground equipment. President Trump has already expressed his sentiments and support for the privatization of ATC as he believes it will enhance the safety of the industry, improve airspace utilization, reduce costs and increase revenues, allow for more efficient air transportation, and reduce aviation-related emissions. Therefore, with the UN emission reduction agreement in conjunction with the Paris Agreement coming into play, President Trump and his newly elected administration may be more inclined to push (the bill) for the privatization of ATC as a façade to gather support for said bill. Thus, the newly elected administration may utilize the two agreements as a basis/motive to expedite their own agenda/plan of privatizing ATC as a means to bypass the support and lobby groups (e.g. EAA, Delta Air Lines, etc.) who are against ATC privatization.

4) What is your opinion about the validity of these upcoming aviation emissions reduction laws? Are they a necessity or overreaction? Why?

After conducting some extensive research and cross-referencing the credibility of the sources I accessed, I believe these upcoming aviation emissions reduction laws are valid and necessary. From what I have read, the Paris Accord appears to be more stringent in terms of emission regulation, control, reduction as opposed to the proposed UN agreement, but despite this, I still feel the Paris Accord is not an overreaction, but a necessary implementation. I think it is absolutely phenomenal that both of the emission agreements have essentially unified the vast majority, if not all, of the involved/affected countries in the fight to combat and reduce aviation emissions and the subsequent climate change (i.e. global warming). Furthermore, I am impressed by how the agreements have empowered the participating governments to work together in efforts to address a common cause.

With the climate change (increase) and emissions, specifically CO2 and hazardous pollutants, growing each year, an aggressively diligent effort needs to be made by those in power, and both the UN emissions agreement and the Paris Accord accomplish this rather well. I believe both agreements are valid because of their unique plan/strategy to control and reduce emissions from air carriers (and their governing countries). I say this because the agreements, specifically the UN agreement, has elected to make year 2020, the ‘benchmark’ year for air carriers; this year will serve as the ‘emission cap’ denoting the highest amount of emissions air carriers can generate before having to buy ‘credit’. I feel three years is a valid time frame for air carriers to adjust to the new plan, plus participation is voluntary until 2021. Additionally, if the air carriers and their governing countries abide by the established requirements of the proposed plan, then CO2 emissions will be reduced by approximately 2.5 billion tons. This equates to the removal of 35 million cars from the road for every year the proposed UN agreement is in place, totaling (over the entire 15-year period) to 525 million cars off the road. The fact the ‘credits’ air carriers will have to purchase if they exceed their emission cap goes towards funding emission control projects and related companies is a phenomenal and proactive concept. Therefore, I feel the ends of these proposed plans indefinitely justify their means. If implementing ‘emission caps’ and attacking this issue in a collaboratively, aggressive manner is what it will take to reduce the global temperature rise by 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) and preserve the Earth (and environment) within 15 years, then so be it. Thus, it is because of these previously mentioned reasons in addition to the long-term benefit that will stem from compliance of the agreements are why I feel they are both valid and necessary.

References

Air Transport Action Group (ATAG). (2017). Facts & figures. Air Transport Action Group Facts & Figures. Retrieved from http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html

Air Transport Action Group (ATAG). (2016). Like virtually every area of human activity, air transport has an impact on the environment. Aviation and climate change. Retrieved from http://aviationbenefits.org/environmental-efficiency/aviation-and-climate-change/

AvStop.com. (2015). How do aviation’s Greenhouse gas emissions compare to other transportation sources?. Aviation Online Magazine. Retrieved from http://avstop.com/aviation_emissions/How_do_aviations_greenhouse_gas_emissions.htm

AvStop.Com. (2015). What emissions come from aviation. Aviation Online Magazine. Retrieved from http://avstop.com/aviation_emissions/What_emissions_come_from_aviation.htm

European Commission. (2017). Paris Agreement. Climate Action. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris_en

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015). Aviation emissions, impacts, & mitigation: a primer. FAA Office of Environment and Energy. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/Primer_Jan2015.pdf

Lowy, J. (2016). UN agreement reached on aircraft climate-change emissions. AP News. Retrieved from http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6be5cb930f7b4ecbb24ec79219a74225/un-agreement-reached-aircraft-climate-change-emissions#