Sectorial Report Sri Glo Air Transport v2

Life cycle inventories of global air
freight - Global
for the SRI project
Philippa Notten1, Hans-Jörg Althaus2 and Matthew Burke1

Cape Town, May 2018
Name of associations
1
The Green House
2
INFRAS
Background
The creation of reliable, consistent and transparent regionalised Life Cycle
Inventories (LCI) represents a core purpose of the SRI programme. The LCI component of
the SRI project provides a basis for informed decision-making on the sustainability of
products and developments in other components of SRI project. The main goal is to
establish and provide regional LCIs for the use in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies,
environmental product declarations, carbon foot-printing and similar assessment tools.
The ecoinvent Association, as the leading global supplier of transparent LCI data, is in
charge of developing the basis for national LCI data in South America (Brazil, Colombia,
Peru), South Africa, and India.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared as part of the Sustainable Recycling Industries programme
(SRI). The SRI programme has built on the success of implementing ewaste recycling
systems with various developing countries for more than ten years. SRI is funded by the
Swiss State Secretariat of Economic Affairs (SECO) and is implemented by the Institute for
Materials Science & Technology (Empa), the World Resources Forum (WRF) and the
ecoinvent Association.
2
Data provider details
Data Provider is here defined as the association/s that created and submitted
datasets to the ecoinvent Database in the context of the SRI project. The Data Provider are
the authors of this report in collaboration of the ecoinvent Association.
The Green House

info@tgh.co.za
Ubunye House, 70 Rosmead Avenue
Kenilworth, 7708
Cape Town, South Africa
Project team
Philippa Notten, Director and project manager, pippa@tgh.co.za
Matthew Burke, Consultant and data supplier, matt@tgh.co.za
INFRAS
bern@infras.ch
22 Seenweg, 3012
Bern, Switzerland
Project team
Hans-Jörg Althaus, Associate Partner, hans-joerg.althaus@infras.ch
Alexander Läderach, Consultant, alexander.laederach@infras.ch
Cornelia Graf, Consultant, cornelia.grad@infras.ch
3
report name:
Life cycle inventories of global air freight
key words:
air transport, air freight, belly-freight, dedicated freight
ownership:
This report has been prepared by the author in close collaboration with the ecoinvent
Association. Nevertheless, ownership of the contents, data and conclusions in this report
(“Content”) remains with the authors of this report.
end user license agreement (EULA):
Access grant to the Content as well as the use of this report is subject to the
"ecoinvent Association - SRI Open Data License Agreement", which can be downloaded from:
www.ecoinvent.org.
disclaimer:
The Content contained herein has been compiled and/or derived from sources
believed to be reliable. Nevertheless, this report is provided “as is” without any
representations or warranty. It is within the responsibility of the user of this report to verify
and to assess the validity and integrity of the Content. The user uses this report and its
Content at his/her own risk. The ecoinvent Association, the authors of this report and their
auxiliary persons disclaim any and all representations and warranties, expressed or implied,
such as, but without limitation, merchantability, fitness for any particular purpose,
accuracy, completeness, correctness, infringement of third party intellectual property
rights.
To the extent permitted by applicable law, the ecoinvent Association, the authors
of this report and their auxiliary persons disclaim any and all liability for direct damages
and/or indirect damages (e.g. consequential damages, loss of income, business or profit,
reputation) occurring from the use of this report.
citation:
Notten P.J., Althaus H-J. and Burke M., (2018) Life cycle inventories of global air freight -
Global. ecoinvent Association, Zürich, Switzerland.
4
Table of Contents
1 Background and overarching data .............................................................. 1

1.1.1 Introduction to global air freight .................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Overarching air freight data ............................................................................................ 2
2 Aircraft production .............................................................................. 14

2.1 Introduction to aircraft production ...................................................... 14
2.1.1 Introduction to global aircraft production .................................................................... 14
2.1.2 Aircraft production data ............................................................................................... 14
2.2 Modelling approach ......................................................................... 16
2.2.1 System boundaries ........................................................................................................ 16
2.2.2 Material use .................................................................................................................. 16
2.2.3 Production consumable and energy use....................................................................... 17
2.2.4 Production waste and emissions .................................................................................. 18
2.2.5 Transport performance ................................................................................................. 18
2.2.6 Production volumes ...................................................................................................... 19
2.2.7 Uncertainty ................................................................................................................... 20
3 Air transport ...................................................................................... 20

3.1 Introduction to air transport .............................................................. 20
3.2 Modelling approach ......................................................................... 20
3.2.1 System boundaries ........................................................................................................ 20
3.2.2 Allocation between passengers and freight ................................................................. 21
3.2.3 Fuel use and emissions ................................................................................................. 21
3.2.4 Demand for equipment................................................................................................. 22
3.2.5 Demand for infrastructure ............................................................................................ 23
3.2.6 Uncertainty ................................................................................................................... 25
4 Overall modelling approach .................................................................... 25

4.1 Time and geographical boundaries ....................................................... 25
4.2 Technology level ............................................................................ 26
4.3 Activity and markets ....................................................................... 26
4.4 Summary of key parameters .............................................................. 26
5 Results .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6 References ........................................................................................ 27
7 Appendix 1 ........................................................................................ 29
5
1 Background and overarching data
1.1.1 Introduction to global air freight
Global air freight accounts for 170,508 million tonne.kms of freight movement annually
(ICAO, 2016), accounting for approximately 2% of global freight transport (UNCTAD, 2017,
Szakonyi, 2014). Although this is a small percentage of global freight, the freight typically
consists of high-value items (Freightos, 2018, Szakonyi, 2014), which allows air freight to
move more than 30-35% of total cargo value annually (Szakonyi, 2014, Shepard et al., 2016).
The volume of goods moved by air freight also continues to grow, with the industry having
experienced a 5.4% and 9% increase in freight tonne.kms during 2016 and 2017 respectively
(IATA, 2017).
Air transport can be seen to occur in three segments, namely (OAG, 2016):
• Passenger transport: Passengers transported in aircraft operated purely for the

transport of passengers (these flights are typically operated by low-cost operators,
such as easyJet, who only transport passengers as part of their operating policy) and
passengers transported in aircraft also carrying freight. These flights carrying both
passengers and freight simultaneously are named belly-freight flights.
• Belly-freight transport: Freight transport in belly-freight aircraft. This freight is
transported in the hold, along with passenger luggage. The freight loading is
therefore relatively small (2-7 tonnes per flight).
• Dedicated freight transport: Freight transport in aircraft used exclusively for freight
movements. The freight loading is therefore much greater (42-51 tonnes) than in
belly-freight aircraft.
Air transport can also be disaggregated depending on the haulage distance over which
freight and passengers are moved. Although no clear boundaries exist on which to separate
haulage distance, for the purposes of this project the haulage distances classes were chosen
based on typical ranges of different aircraft types (typically small narrow body aircraft have
a flight distance of below 4,000 km (Cox et al., 2018)). A further category was also added
due to the fact that for distances below 800 km air transport can easily be substituted by
other means of transport, while for longer distances there is often no viable alternative to
air transport. Therefore, 800 km was seen as an interesting boundary for many LCA
applications. As such, the four haulage distances for this project were defined as:
• Very short haul: Under 800 km

• Short haul: Between 800 km and 1,500 km
• Medium haul: Between 1,500 km and 4,000 km
• Long haul: Over 4,000 km
As discussed in further detail below (see Sections 1.1.2 and 2.1.2), the various transport
segments and haulage distances have significantly different transport volumes, splits
between the transport segments, aircraft demands (and associated production demands)
and operational demands. Therefore, this project disaggregated global air transport into 15
different categories. The modelling focussed on the production of the aircraft needed to
meet transport demand (production datasets) and the operation of these aircraft (transport
datasets).
1.1.2 Overarching air freight data
Air transport data was taken from OAG (2016) global flight plan data, which included the
carrier name, plane type, airport of departure, airport of arrival and the freight weight for
every scheduled flight in 2016. This ensures that the data was representative of the global
average for both passenger and freight movements.
The distances of 99.5% of all flights was calculated as the Great Circle Distance (GCD) using
coordinates of the destination airports and corrected using a distance dependent factor (74
km for distances below 926 km and 139 for distances above 926 km). For the 0.044% of the
flights for which no coordinates for one of the destinations was available, flight distance of
1,000 km was assumed.
In order to calculate the weights of individual flights in the yearly averages, the number of
executions of each flight needed to be known. Unfortunately, data on this was unavailable.
Therefore, a number was estimated using the total global aircraft.kms for 2015 from ICAO
(2016) (46,218 million aircraft.kms) for the calibration.
The number of passenger.kms was calculated using the typical number of seats per plane
type from EcoTransIT (2016) and an average passenger load factor of 0.80 (ICAO, 2016). The
calculated total yearly passenger.kms value is 91% of the value given by ICAO (2016) and
this is shown for the various transport segments and haulage categories in Table 1.
The number of tonne.kms was calculated from the aircraft.kms and the freight weight form
(OAG, 2016) and calibrated to the total freight transport (170,508 million tonne.kms)
reported in ICAO (2016). The total tonne.kms for the various transport segments and haulage
categories are presented in Table 1.
For passenger planes, allocation factors for passengers and belly-freight were calculated
according to EN 16’058, using the weight of the passengers and luggage (105 kg / passenger
according to EASA (2009)) and the weight of the freight on the flight. Depending on the
flight, passengers are thus allocated between 33% and 100% of the burdens of the flight.
The unweighted average allocation factor for passengers over all flights was 86%.
In all cases the calculations used weighted averages (weighted according to passenger.kms
for passenger transport and tonne.kms for belly-freight and dedicated freight transport) to
establish annual averages.
Table 1: Market share per haulage distance and aircraft category
Total Share of total freight

Total tonne.kms
Haulage passenger.kms transport
distance All passenger Belly- Dedicated Belly- Dedicated
transport freight freight freight freight
Very short haul 4.884E+11 6.774E+09 7.469E+08 90% 10%
Short haul 9.493E+11 1.518E+10 2.601E+09 85% 15%
Medium haul 2.562E+12 4.123E+10 1.360E+10 75% 25%
Long haul 2.009E+12 5.706E+10 5.064E+10 53% 47%
Unspecified
6.008E+12 1.203E+11 6.758E+10 64% 36%
distance1
1 Unspecified distance relates to the total of all haulage distances.

2
It may be noted that belly-freight accounts for 64% of total freight transport. However, the
share of freight transported by belly-freight is much greater for short haulage distances,
while dedicated freights have almost 50% market share for the movement of freight over
long haulage distances.
Using this data extraction and analysis, the market share of the 40 most relevant aircraft
models for the various distance classes and transport segments was established. The market
share was established in terms of passenger.kms for passenger transport and in terms of
tonne.kms for belly-freight and dedicated freight transport. This data is presented in Table
2 to Table 13.
It may be noted that flights of passenger planes not transporting freight are only accounted
for in passenger transport but not for belly-freight transport in passenger planes. Also,
weighting of flights to calculate the average data for passenger transport was done by the
share of the flights on total passenger.kms. However, the average data for belly-freight
transport was calculated using the share of the flights on total tonne.km transported in
passenger planes. Both facts lead to a situation in which the fleet and the shares of plane
types were different for passenger and belly-freight transports. Consequently, even though
the same plane transports passengers and freight, the results could not be generated by an
average plane operation and allocation to passengers and freight. Passenger and belly-
freight transport were therefore modelled separately.
3
Table 2: Most relevant aircraft models and market share for very short haul passenger transport
Passenger transport Share of top aircraft

Aircraft model
(million passenger.kms) models passenger.kms
Airbus A320 75,629 16.4%

Boeing 737-700 (winglets) Passenger 64,575 14.0%
Boeing 737-800 Passenger 37,609 8.2%
Airbus A319 35,318 7.7%
Airbus A321 21,806 4.7%
Canadair Regional Jet 900 17,087 3.7%
Canadair Regional Jet 16,320 3.5%
ATR 72 13,164 2.9%
Embraer 190 12,152 2.6%
Embraer 175 9,272 2.0%
Boeing 737 Passenger 8,778 1.9%
Boeing 717-200 8,582 1.9%
Boeing (douglas) MD-88 6,615 1.4%
Embraer RJ145 6,328 1.4%
Embraer 170 5,989 1.3%
Embraer RJ 135/140/145 4,943 1.1%
Embraer 195 4,755 1.0%
Airbus A330-300 3,718 0.8%
Embraer 175 (Enhanced Winglets) 3,468 0.8%
ATR42 /ATR72 3,438 0.7%
DHvilld-Bombardier DHC8 Dsh 8 3,009 0.7%
Airbus A330-200 2,726 0.6%
Airbus A318 /319 /320 /321 2,546 0.6%
Airbus A320 (sharklets) 2,443 0.5%
Boeing 777-200/200ER Passenger 2,103 0.5%
Boeing 777-300ER Passenger 1,997 0.4%
Canadair (Bombardier) Regional Jet 1000 1,615 0.4%
Airbus A330 1,519 0.3%
4
Table 3: Most relevant aircraft models and market share for short haul passenger transport

Aircraft model
Airbus A320 179,440 19.7%

Airbus A319 69,144 7.6%
Airbus A321 54,279 6.0%
Embraer 190 14,518 1.6%
Canadair Regional Jet 13,571 1.5%
Boeing 717-200 13,254 1.5%
Airbus A330-300 12,816 1.4%
Embraer 175 12,407 1.4%
Embraer 170 8,923 1.0%
Embraer RJ 135/140/145 7,322 0.8%
Embraer RJ145 7,311 0.8%
Airbus A330 6,868 0.8%
Boeing 757 (Passenger) 5,586 0.6%
Embraer 195 5,230 0.6%
Airbus A330-200 4,942 0.5%
Boeing 787 3,642 0.4%
Fokker 100 3,411 0.4%
Airbus A318 /319 /320 /321 2,671 0.3%
5
Table 4: Most relevant aircraft models and market share for medium haul passenger transport

Aircraft model
Airbus A320 427,978 17.4%

Airbus A321 184,861 7.5%
Airbus A319 128,711 5.2%
Airbus A330-300 62,412 2.5%
Airbus Industrie A321 (Sharklets) 52,711 2.1%
Airbus A330 31,918 1.3%
Airbus A330-200 28,051 1.1%
Embraer 190 16,810 0.7%
Embraer 175 13,167 0.5%
Airbus A300-600 Passenger 12,878 0.5%
Airbus A318 /319 /320 /321 9,835 0.4%
Boeing 787-8 8,762 0.4%
Embraer 170 8,673 0.4%
Boeing 787 8,496 0.3%
6
Table 5: Most relevant aircraft models and market share for long haul passenger transport

Aircraft model

Airbus A330-200 204,056 10.3%
Airbus A330-300 195,622 9.8%
Boeing 787-8 92,637 4.7%
Boeing 747-400 (Passenger) 91,708 4.6%
Airbus A330 69,856 3.5%
Airbus A340-300 61,307 3.1%
Boeing 787 47,896 2.4%
Boeing 787-9 45,882 2.3%
Boeing 777-200LR 29,885 1.5%
Airbus A320 24,677 1.2%
Airbus A340-600 22,410 1.1%
Boeing 747-400 (Mixed Configuration) 18,268 0.9%
Airbus Industrie A350-900 13,074 0.7%
Airbus A340-500 12,999 0.7%
Airbus Industrie A321 (Sharklets) 10,091 0.5%
Airbus A321 9,539 0.5%
Airbus Industrie A380 Passenger 7,435 0.4%
Airbus A319 3,957 0.2%
Airbus A318 /319 /320 /321 3,466 0.2%
7
Table 6: Most relevant aircraft models and market share for very short haul belly-freight
transport
Freight transport Share of top aircraft

Aircraft model
(million tonne.kms) models tonne.kms
Airbus A320 2,785 42.0%

Airbus A319 985 14.8%
Boeing 737-800 Passenger 778 11.7%
Canadair Regional Jet 290 4.4%
Embraer 195 233 3.5%
ATR 72 164 2.5%
Airbus A330-200 151 2.3%
Airbus A321 131 2.0%
Airbus A330-300 92 1.4%
Canadair Regional Jet 700 84 1.3%
Boeing 777-300ER Passenger 77 1.2%
Embraer 190 60 0.9%
DHvilld-Bombardier DHC8 Dsh 8-400/8Q 59 0.9%
Boeing 717-200 52 0.8%
Boeing (douglas) MD-80 50 0.8%
Boeing 767 Passenger 48 0.7%
Airbus A330 43 0.6%
Airbus A318 43 0.6%
Boeing 757 (Passenger) 40 0.6%
Fokker 100 39 0.6%
Boeing 777-200/200ER Passenger 37 0.6%
DHvilld-Bombardier DHC8 Dsh 8 27 0.4%
Boeing 747-400 (Passenger) 23 0.3%
Fokker 70 23 0.3%
Embraer 170 17 0.3%
Embraer 175 12 0.2%
Airbus A310 Passenger 12 0.2%
Boeing 737-800 (winglets) Passenger 12 0.2%
DHvilld-Bombardier DHC8-200 Dsh 8/8Q 4 0.1%
Boeing 737-400 (Mixed Configuration) 4 0.1%
Embraer 120 Brasilia 4 0.1%
8
Table 7: Most relevant aircraft models and market share for short haul belly-freight transport
Freight transport Share of top aircraft

Aircraft model
(million tonne.kms) models tonne.kms
Airbus A320 8,119 54.5%

Airbus A319 1,914 12.8%
Airbus A330-300 303 2.0%
Airbus A330-200 253 1.7%
Airbus A321 249 1.7%
Embraer 195 248 1.7%
Canadair Regional Jet 241 1.6%
Boeing 777-300ER Passenger 239 1.6%
Airbus A330 188 1.3%
Fokker 100 98 0.7%
Boeing 717-200 75 0.5%
Embraer 190 61 0.4%
Embraer 175 42 0.3%
ATR 72 41 0.3%
Embraer 170 32 0.2%
Boeing 777-200LR 22 0.1%
DHvilld-Bombardier DHC8 Dsh 8-400/8Q 21 0.1%
Boeing 787 20 0.1%
Airbus A300-600 Passenger 20 0.1%
9
Table 8: Most relevant aircraft models and market share for medium haul belly-freight
transport
Freight transport (million Share of top aircraft

Aircraft model
tonne.kms) models tonne.kms
Airbus A320 19,766 48.6%

Airbus A319 3,706 9.1%
Airbus A330-300 1,638 4.0%
Airbus A330-200 1,317 3.2%
Airbus A321 1,059 2.6%
Airbus A330 932 2.3%
Boeing 747-400 (Mixed Configuration) 439 1.1%
Embraer 195 263 0.6%
Boeing 777-200LR 130 0.3%
Airbus A300B4 /A300C4 /A300F4 104 0.3%
Airbus A340-300 79 0.2%
10
Table 9: Most relevant aircraft models and market share for long haul belly-freight transport

Aircraft model
Airbus A330-200 10,850 19.0%

Airbus A330-300 5,015 8.8%
Boeing 747-400 (Passenger) 2,154 3.8%
Airbus A330 1,975 3.5%
Boeing 747-400 (Mixed Configuration) 1,922 3.4%
Airbus A340-300 1,654 2.9%
Airbus A320 1,059 1.9%
Boeing 777-200LR 991 1.7%
Airbus A340-600 315 0.6%
Boeing (douglas) MD-11 Passenger 213 0.4%
Airbus Industrie A380 Passenger 128 0.2%
Airbus A319 128 0.2%
Boeing 787 117 0.2%
Airbus A321 42 0.1%
11
Table 10: Most relevant aircraft models and market share for very short haul dedicated freight
transport

Aircraft model
Boeing 747-400F (Freighter) 278 37.6%

Boeing 767 Freighter 80 10.8%
Boeing 747 (Freighter) 60 8.1%
Airbus A330-200 Freighter 50 6.8%
Boeing (douglas) MD-11 (Freighter) 48 6.5%
Boeing 777-200F Freighter 43 5.8%
Boeing 747-8f (Freighter) 37 5.0%
Boeing 737-300 (Freighter) 21 2.8%
Boeing 757-200PF (Freighter) 19 2.6%
Airbus A300 (Freighter) 8 1.1%
Airbus A330 Freighter 4 0.5%
Boeing (douglas) DC6A /B /C Freighter 3 0.4%
Boeing (Douglas) DC9 Freighter 2 0.3%
Convair 440 /580 /600 /640 (Freighter) 1 0.1%
Canadair Regional Jet Freighter 1 0.1%
12
Table 11: Most relevant aircraft models and market share for short haul dedicated freight
transport
Freight transport (million Share of top aircraft models

Aircraft model
tonne.kms) tonne.kms
Boeing 747-400F (Freighter) 1,017 39.4%

Boeing 747-8f (Freighter) 203 7.9%
Boeing (Douglas) DC9 Freighter 3 0.1%
Table 12: Most relevant aircraft models and market share for medium haul dedicated freight
transport

Aircraft model

Boeing 747 (Freighter) 1,856 13.7%
Boeing 747-8f (Freighter) 1,433 10.6%
Boeing 767 Freighter 1,133 8.4%
Airbus A330-200 Freighter 1,033 7.6%
Boeing 767-200 Freighter 20 0.1%
13
Table 13: Most relevant aircraft models and market share for long haul dedicated freight
transport

Aircraft model

Boeing 777-200F Freighter 8,856 17.5%
Boeing 747-8f (Freighter) 8,036 15.9%
Boeing 747 (Freighter) 7,452 14.7%
Boeing 777 Freighter 2,898 5.7%
Boeing (douglas) MD-11 (Freighter) 2,712 5.4%
Airbus A330-200 Freighter 1,204 2.4%
Boeing (douglas) DC10 (Freighter) 62 0.1%
Boeing 767-300 Freighter 33 0.1%
2 Aircraft production
2.1 Introduction to aircraft production
2.1.1 Introduction to global aircraft production
The aircraft production industry is dominated by Airbus and Boeing (Datamonitor, 2008,
Pearlstein, 2018), who have recently bought out or are in the process of buying out rivals,
such as Bombardier and Embraer (Pearlstein, 2018). Together these manufacturers delivered
1,436 (688 for Airbus and 748 for Boeing) commercial aircraft during 2016 (Airbus, 2018,
Boeing, 2018).
2.1.2 Aircraft production data
The nature of the aircraft production industry and the limited number of industrial players
has meant that data on the composition of aircraft is typically considered confidential
information and as such, any data or even estimates of this are difficult to obtain (Lopes,
2010, Jemiolo, 2015). As such, a recent journal article (based off the Jemiolo (2015) thesis)
was used as the source for information on empty operating weights (OEWs), material
breakdown, maximum seating capacities and lifetime distances (Cox et al., 2018). This
article combined available information from manufacturers and online sources to estimate:
• The material breakdown of aircraft (in terms of aluminium, titanium, nickel, steel
and composite material percentage of OEW) for each year since 1970;
• The OEWs, maximum seating capacities, body type (regional, narrow or wide bodied)
and production period for each aircraft model produced since 1970; and
14
• The maximum seating capacity and lifetime flight distance for each aircraft size
category (regional, small narrow bodied, large narrow bodied, small wide bodied and
large wide bodied).
This complete set of information is presented as supporting information to the journal
article (Cox et al., 2018).
Using this information and the market share of the various aircraft models (see Table 2 to
Table 13) the weighted average aircraft for each transport segment and haulage distance
was calculated. This information is presented Table 14, Table 15 and Table 16.
This calculation involved matching each aircraft listed in the market share tables with the
correlating aircraft in the data presented by Cox et al. (2018). In certain cases a direct
match could not be made and for these an applicable aircraft model (as listed in the by Cox
et al. (2018) data tables) was chosen (e.g. the market share tables had both “Boeing 737-
900” and “Airbus A318/319/320/321” as aircraft models and these were matched to “Boeing
737-800” and “Airbus A319” in the Cox et al. (2018) data). The material composition of each
aircraft model was calculated as the average of the material composition for the first and
last years of production (or current material composition for aircraft that are still
manufactured). The aircraft models were also matched to an applicable aircraft size
category using the body type and maximum seating capacities of each size category. This
was used to determine the lifetime flight distance of each aircraft model.
Table 14: Weighted average passenger aircraft
Lifetime
OEW Percentage composition Maximum distance
Flight type
(tonnes) seats (million
km)
Al Ti Ni Steel Composite
Very short haul 38.3 57% 4.7% 2.4% 11.6% 24% 163 49
Short haul 43.1 58% 4.7% 2.4% 11.6% 24% 184 51
Medium haul 52.4 57% 4.7% 2.4% 11.6% 24% 221 55
Long haul 134.9 57% 4.7% 2.4% 11.6% 25% 457 94
Unspecified length 78.0 57% 4.7% 2.4% 11.6% 24% 291 67
Table 15: Weighted average belly-freight aircraft
Lifetime
Flight type
km)
Very short haul 46.6 58% 4.7% 2.4% 11.6% 24% 191 52
Short haul 50.5 58% 4.7% 2.4% 11.6% 23% 204 54
Medium haul 65.3 59% 4.7% 2.3% 11.7% 22% 251 61
Long haul 142.2 57% 4.7% 2.4% 11.6% 24% 479 96
15
Table 16: Weighted average dedicated freight aircraft
Lifetime
Flight type
km)
Very short haul 137.8 67% 4.4% 1.8% 12.2% 14% 500 99
Short haul 145.0 67% 4.4% 1.8% 12.2% 14% 530 103
Medium haul 150.6 67% 4.4% 1.8% 12.2% 14% 545 105
Long haul 167.7 66% 4.5% 1.9% 12.1% 16% 605 112
It may be noted that larger, heavier aircraft are favoured for use as dedicated freights and
for longer haulage distances.
2.2 Modelling approach

Global aircraft production has up until this time been modelled as two datasets, namely
“aircraft production, long haul” and “aircraft production, medium haul”, which only
differentiated the production of aircraft based on haulage distance. However, as presented
above, the aircraft used for different transport segments and for different haulage distances
vary considerable in terms of operating empty weights, percentage compositions, maximum
seating capacities and lifetime distances. Therefore, due to the large differences between
the different categories, and to match the 15 transport dataset categories, it was decided
to disaggregate aircraft production into the datasets listed in Appendix 1.
2.2.1 System boundaries
The aircraft production process starts from obtaining the material inputs required for
construction.
The aircraft production process ends with the production of one aircraft. The dataset
includes the materials (aluminium, titanium, nickel, steel and composite material), energy
(electricity and heat), kerosene (for aircraft testing) and water used in the production.
Emissions of VOCs from aircraft manufacturing and painting processes are also included. The
material requirements for and emissions from the production of composite materials are
included via an input of carbon fibre reinforced plastic.
The dataset does not included information on the electronics or interior materials (plastics,
textiles etc.) used for production due to a lack of available information (as discussed in
Section 2.1.2).
2.2.2 Material use
Material use for aircraft production was calculated from the OEWs and material composition
of the average aircraft in each category (Table 14, Table 15 and Table 16). Composite
material was modelled in a separate dataset, as discussed below, and linked as an input
exchange.
2.2.2.1 Composite material
Carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) is a structural material formed from extremely thin
carbon fibres in a polymeric matrix. The composite has high tensile strength, low thermal
16
expansion and a very high strength-to-weight ratio. These properties have made it an
important structural material that is widely used in the aircraft manufacturing industry
(Uhlmann et al., 2014, Pramanik et al., 2017).
As such, the composite material used for aircraft manufacture was modelled as a separate
dataset, entitled “carbon fibre reinforce plastic, injection moulded”, based on the dataset
presented as supplementary data by Cox et al. (2018).
This data presented by Cox et al. (2018) included the material and energy required for the
production of carbon fibres, along with the waste and emissions associated with production.
The transformation of these fibres into the composite material was also considered. This
data is presented in Table 17.
Table 17: Requirements for the production of 1 kilogram of carbon fibre reinforced plastic
Item Units Value

Materials required
Organic chemicals kg 0.03
Acrylonitrile kg 2.31
Energy required
Heat MJ 237.3
Electricity kWh 58.4
Processing required
Injection moulding kg 1
Emissions and waste
Chemical oxygen demand kg 4.62e-5
Carbon dioxide kg 3.14
Waste heat MJ 756
Waste (modelled as waste kg
0.23
asphalt)
2.2.3 Production consumable and energy use

Production water and energy use was calculated from data on Airbus’ European
manufacturing facilities (Airbus, 2017). The breakdown of the total energy use in
manufacturing into different fuels and electricity was based on data for Airbus
internationally (Airbus, 2016).
The water and energy use was converted to a per seat value using the total number of seats
produced in the year (158,775), which was calculated from the total number of planes
delivered (688) (Airbus, 2017) and the average number of seats per aircraft. The average
number of seats per plane was calculated from available aircraft model delivery data (545
A320 family, 49 A350 family and 28 A380 family deliveries (Airbus, 2016)) and the maximum
seating capacity of aircraft models (Cox et al., 2018). This data is presented in Table 18.
Table 18: Water and energy use for production
Units for per seat Per seat

Units Total use
value use
Total energy MWh 1,496,842 MWh/seat 9.43

Electricity MWh 558,564 MWh/seat 3.52
Stationary fuels MWh 536,430 MWh/seat 3.38
Natural gas MWh 513,388 MWh/seat 3.23
17
Stationary fuels other than natural gas MWh 15,124 MWh/seat 0.10
Mobile fuels MWh 401,848 MWh/seat 2.53
Jet fuel MWh 389,639 MWh/seat 2.45
Water consumed m3 1,366,154 m3/seat 8.60
Total water and energy use was calculated from the per seat value using the maximum
seating capacity of each average aircraft (Table 14, Table 15 and Table 16).
2.2.4 Production waste and emissions
Waste water discharge and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions were calculated from
data on Airbus’ European manufacturing facilities (Airbus, 2017). The values were converted
to a per seat value as for the production water and energy use values (Section 2.2.4).
Table 19: Waste water discharge and VOC emissions from production
Units Total use Units for per seat value Per seat use
Waste water discharge m3 153,061 m3/seat 0.96

VOC emissions tonnes 988 kg/seat 6.22
Total wastewater discharge and VOC emissions were calculated from the per seat value
using the maximum seating capacity of each average aircraft (Table 14, Table 15 and Table
16).
Remaining water discharge (i.e. total water use minus wastewater discharge) was assumed
to be emitted to air through evaporation and to surface water. It was assumed that 10% of
this water was emitted to air through evaporation.
All solids (aluminium, titanium, nickel, steel and carbon fibre reinforced plastic) used in
construction were assumed to be scrapped at aircraft end-of-life.
2.2.5 Transport performance
The total transport performances of the average aircrafts were calculated using the lifetime
kilometric performances (Table 14, Table 15 and Table 16) and the associated average load
factors. The average load factors were calculated for the various transport segments as
follows:
• Passenger transport: Passenger loading was determined from the maximum number
of seats and a passenger load factor of 80% (ICAO, 2016). The total mass per
passenger (passenger and luggage) was set at 105 kg (EASA, 2009).
• Belly-freight transport: Passenger loading was determined from the maximum
number of seats and a passenger load factor of 80% (ICAO, 2016). The total passenger
load was calculated using a passenger weight of 105 kg/occupied seat (EASA, 2009)
and this was assumed to equal 86% of the total load (see 1.1.2).
• Dedicated freight transport: FFligth specific freight loading was taken from oag
2016.
The total transport performance of each aircraft is presented in Table 20, Table 21 and
Table 22.
18
Table 20: Passenger aircraft transport performance
Very short Short Medium Long Unspecified

haul haul haul haul distance
Kilometric performance
49 51 55 94 67
(million km / vehicle)
Average number of
131 147 177 366 233
passengers
Passenger performance
6.4E+09 7.5E+09 9.7E+09 3.4E+10 1.6E+10
(passenger.km / vehicle)
Table 21: Belly-freight aircraft transport performance

52 54 61 96 77
Average number of
152 163 201 383 281
passengers
Average freight load
2.6 2.8 3.4 6.6 4.8
(tonnes)
Freight performance
1.4E+08 1.5E+08 2.1E+08 6.3E+08 3.7E+08
(tonne.km / vehicle)
Table 22: Dedicated freight aircraft transport performance

99 103 105 112 110
Average freight load
42.0 44.5 45.8 50.8 49.5
(tonnes)
Freight performance
4.2E+09 4.6E+09 4.8E+09 5.7E+09 5.4E+09
(tonne.km / vehicle)
2.2.6 Production volumes

The annual production volumes of the aircraft in each category cannot be directly
determined from available information, as aircraft are used for various categories
throughout their lifetime. The production volumes were therefore estimated using the total
annual transport values (passenger.kms or tonne.kms) and the lifetime transport
performance (passenger.kms or tonne.kms) of the various aircraft types. These production
volumes are presented in Table 23.
Table 23: Aircraft production volumes

Passenger aircraft 72 122 254 58 373
Belly-freight aircraft 49 98 193 90 324
Dedicated freight
0.2 1 3 9 12
aircraft
19
It may be noted that summing the production volumes for the four haulage categories results
in a total production volume of 949 aircraft. During 2016, Airbus and Boeing delivered 1,436
(688 for Airbus and 748 for Boeing) commercial aircraft (Airbus, 2018, Boeing, 2018).
2.2.7 Uncertainty
The production datasets are based on global air transport data, with the material of
construction data based on a comprehensive study of aircraft production between 1970 and
present. As such, the material of construction data is representative of global production
and a lognormal distribution with a pedigree matrix of 2, 1, 1, 1, 1 was applied to these
exchanges. Production consumables, energy use and emissions are based on data from one
manufacturer’s European facilities data. As such, these exchanges do not represent the
entire global production industry and are representative of only the European region.
Therefore, a lognormal distribution with a pedigree matrix of 3, 3, 1, 3, 2 was applied to
these exchanges.
3 Air transport
3.1 Introduction to air transport
As discussed above, global air transport accounts for 170,508 million tonne.kms and
6,008,120 million passenger.kms annually (Table 1). Currently approximately 64% and 57%
of airfreight tonne.kms are transported by belly-freight aircraft and over long distance
haulage respectively, while only 33% of passenger.kms are due to long distance haulage. A
detailed description of how information on global air transport was calculated is presented
in Section 1.1.2.
Differences in transport segment and haulage distance impact the types of aircraft used and
therefore the fuel usage and emissions generated (EcoTransIT, 2016, OAG, 2016, EEA, 2017).
Furthermore, the haulage distance impacts the percentage of flights spent in take-off and
descent, which impacts the average fuel use, emissions and location of emissions generated
by aircraft transport (EcoTransIT, 2016, eurocontrol, 2018).
3.2 Modelling approach

The transport of freight by air travel has up until this time been modelled by two datasets,
namely “transport, freight, aircraft, intercontinental” and “transport, freight, aircraft,
intracontinental”, which only differentiated aircraft freight transport based on haulage
distance. However, as presented above there are large variances in the transport
performances and aircraft used for different transport segments and haulage distances. As
such it was decided to disaggregate air transport into 15 datasets, as listed in Appendix 1.
3.2.1 System boundaries
The datasets developed followed the modelling approach of the existing air transport
datasets in ecoinvent i.e. they are divided into three components:
• Aircraft operation: This component contains all processes that are directly
connected with the operation of the aircraft;
• Aircraft equipment: Aircraft equipment contains the processes that are connected
with vehicle life cycle (other than operation), including manufacturing and disposal.
20
No maintenance processes are included as this information is not available and could
not be sourced;
• Aircraft infrastructure: Comprising airport construction, maintenance and disposal.
Aircraft operation and equipment datasets are updated in this project. Aircraft
infrastructure is not updated and uses the existing ecoinvent dataset, as insufficient data
and resources were available to update this dataset.
The air transport process starts with the demand for construction of an aircraft and the
consumption of fuel. The scope of the dataset includes the operation of the aircraft, with
the production of the aircraft and the airport facilities contained in linked datasets.
The air transport process ends with the service of transporting one tonne of freight over a
distance of one kilometre (for freight transport datasets) or one passenger over a distance
of one kilometre (for passenger transport datasets). The dataset includes the operation of
the aircraft, production of the aircraft and construction of the airport. The dataset includes
the consumption of fuel, airborne gaseous emissions, particulate emissions and heavy metal
emissions. Shares of emissions to the lower and upper part of the atmosphere are taken
from the shares of the distances covered in the flight phases below and above 7,315m
(FL240).
3.2.2 Allocation between passengers and freight
As discussed above in Section 1.1.2, allocation between freight and passengers was achieved
using passenger and freight loading data (OAG, 2016) and a passenger weighting (load of
passenger and baggage) of 105 kg (EASA, 2009).
3.2.3 Fuel use and emissions
Fuel consumption and most major emissions (non-methane volatile organic compounds
(NMVOCs), methane, sulphur dioxide, particulates, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides)
were calculated from OAG (2016) data covering 99.5% of all scheduled flights in 2016 and
data presented in the EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2016 (EEA,
2017). Linear regression fits were used to approximate fuel consumption and sulphur dioxide
emissions for all plane types, while third-degree polynomials were used to approximate
other emissions. The coefficient of determination (R2) values for the linear regression lines
were greater than 0.999, while the values were greater than 0.99 for almost all plane types
for the polynomial fit lines. The fuel consumption determined in this manner is presented
in Table 24.
Table 24: Fuel use per haulage distance and aircraft category
Average fuel consumption (kg / tonne.km or kg / passenger.km)

Haulage distance Passenger Belly-freight Dedicated freight
transport transport transport
Very short haul 0.038 0.239 0.034
Short haul 0.031 0.176 0.040
Medium haul 0.026 0.142 0.058
Long haul 0.027 0.114 0.094
Unspecified
0.028 0.133 0.076
distance
21
The differences of the specific fuel consumption between the haulage distance classes is on
one hand the result of the decreasing weight of the start and climb phase with increasing
flight distance. On the other hand, and much more important, it is due to different plane
types being used in different classes. In the case of dedicated freight, these differences
even revers the effect of the decreasing specific fuel consumption caused by the lower share
of start and climb phase in a long flight.
Carbon dioxide emissions were calculated from fuel consumption and the assumption that
all carbon, which makes up 85% by mass, in kerosene is emitted as carbon dioxide (Spielmann
et al., 2007). Water vapour emissions were calculated from fuel consumption and the
assumption that all hydrogen in kerosene is emitted as water, resulting in an emission factor
of 7.65e-6 m3/kg kerosene (Spielmann et al., 2007)
Heavy metal emissions to air were extrapolated from the previous dataset (Spielmann et
al., 2007) on the basis of kerosene consumption.
The shares of emissions to the upper and lower parts of the atmosphere were calculated
from the shares of the distance covered in flight phases above and below 7,315 m (FL240).
A typical take-off and descent procedure for an Airbus A320 was used to model this distance
for all calculations (eurocontrol, 2018). As such, the shares of emissions to the upper and
lower atmosphere for each haulage distance are presented in Table 25.
Table 25: Emissions to upper and lower atmosphere by haulage distance
Fraction of emissions (%)

Haulage Mean distance
distance (km) Lower stratosphere and upper Non-urban air or from
troposphere high stacks
Very short haul 504 60% 40%
Short haul 1135 82% 18%
Medium haul 2265 91% 9%
Long haul 6559 97% 3%
Unspecified
1496 87% 13%
distance
Formaldehyde, nitrous oxide, methane, ethylene oxide and hydrogen chloride emissions
have been removed in the updated inventory because no reliable source could be found to
model them. Furthermore, benzene and butadiene are no longer inventoried separately but
included in the exchange "NMVOC", because accounting for them individually was deemed
too inaccurate.
3.2.4 Demand for equipment
Demand for aircraft is calculated from the relevant aircraft lifetime transport
performances, as shown in Table 20, and the applicable allocation factors. The allocation
factor for passenger aircraft is calculated from total annual passenger.kms, a passenger
weighting of 105 kg (EASA, 2009) and total annual belly-freight tonne.kms. The allocation
factor for belly-freight aircraft is based on the fact that 86% of belly-freight load is due to
passengers (see Section 1.1.2). This calculation is shown in Table 26, Table 27 and Table 28.
22
Table 26: Passenger aircraft demand

Aircraft demand per unit
1.6E-10 1.3E-10 1.0E-10 2.9E-11 6.4E-11
(vehicle / passenger.km)
Total passenger transport
4.88E+11 9.49E+11 2.56E+12 2.01E+12 6.01E+12
(passenger.kms)
Total passenger transport
5.13E+10 9.97E+10 2.69E+11 2.11E+11 6.31E+11
(tonne.kms)
Total belly-freight freight
6.77E+09 1.52E+10 4.12E+10 5.71E+10 1.20E+11
transport (tonne.kms)
Allocation factor (%) 88% 87% 87% 79% 84%
Allocated aircraft demand
1.38E-10 1.16E-10 8.96E-11 2.30E-11 5.39E-11
(vehicle / passenger.km)
Table 27: Belly-freight aircraft demand
Very short Short Medium Unspecified

Long haul
haul haul haul distance
7.3E-09 6.6E-09 4.7E-09 1.6E-09 2.7E-09
(vehicle / tonne.km)
Allocated aircraft demand 9.26E-
1.03E-09 6.63E-10 2.22E-10 3.81E-10
(vehicle / tonne.km) 10
Table 28: Dedicated freight aircraft demand
Very short Short Medium Unspecified

Long haul
haul haul haul distance
2.4E-10 2.2E-10 2.1E-10 1.8E-10 1.8E-10
(vehicle / tonne.km)
Allocated aircraft demand 2.19E-
2.39E-10 2.09E-10 1.76E-10 1.84E-10
(vehicle / tonne.km) 10
Aircraft maintenance is not included, due to a lack of available data to create a maintenance
dataset, although de-icing of aircraft is included in the airport operations.
3.2.5 Demand for infrastructure
The construction, operation, maintenance and disposal of airport facilities are described in
a previous global dataset. The dataset is representative of a medium-sized international
airport (Zurich) and have not been updated. Airport demand was allocated between
passenger and freight transport based on economic revenue data, as shown in Table 29.
23
Table 29: Zurich airport revenue streams for economic allocation of airport demand (Zurich
Airport, 2016)
Revenue (1000 Percentage of revenue directly related

CHF) to passengers or freight
Passenger related revenue 427,918 98.2%
Passenger charges 235,034 -
Security charges 173,934 -
PRM charges 12,887 -
Check-in 4,265 -
Gate and transfer desk 1,798 -
Freight related revenue 7,675 1.8%
Freight revenue 7,675 -
Aviation revenue related to both
184,809 N/A
passengers and freight
Total aviation revenue 620,402 N/A
Airport demand per passenger or tonne of freight transported was then calculated using
operational data (27.7 million passengers and 0.4 million tonnes of freight) for Zurich airport
in 2016 (Zurich Airport, 2016). It was assumed that each flight requires two airports and
that airports have a 100-year life span (Spielmann et al., 2007). This calculation is shown in
Table 30 and Table 31.
Table 30: Airport demand for passenger transport

Airport passenger capacity
27,666,428
(passengers / year)
Passengers transported
2,249,049 4,371,461 11,797,834 9,251,307 27,666,428
(passengers / year)
Allocation (%) 8% 16% 42% 33% 98%
Assumed transport
600 1,150 2,750 8,000 3,125
distance (km)
Transport performance
1.35E+09 5.03E+09 3.24E+10 7.40E+10 8.65E+10
(passenger.km / year)
Number of airports for
2 2 2 2 2
each good
Airport lifetime (years) 100 100 100 100 100
Demand of airport (airport
1.18E-12 6.17E-13 2.58E-13 8.88E-14 2.27E-13
/ passenger.km)
24
Table 31: Airport demand for freight transport

Airport freight capacity
433,577
(tonnes / year)
Freight transported
22,466 50,935 142,506 217,494 433,577
(tonnes / year)
Allocation (%) 0.091% 0.207% 0.579% 0.884% 1.763%
Assumed transport
600 1,150 2,750 8,000 3,125
distance (km)
Transport performance
1.35E+07 5.86E+07 3.92E+08 1.74E+09 1.35E+09
(tonne.km / year)
Number of airports for
2 2 2 2 2
each good
Airport lifetime (years) 100 100 100 100 100
Demand of airport (airport
1.36E-12 7.07E-13 2.96E-13 1.02E-13 2.60E-13
/ tonne.km)
3.2.6 Uncertainty
The transport datasets are based on global flight data and various emission factor sources.
Fuel consumption and major emissions (carbon dioxide, water vapour, non-methane volatile
organic compounds (NMVOCs), methane, sulphur dioxide, particulates, carbon monoxide and
nitrogen oxides) are based on EMEP/EEA data or directly calculated from the stoichiometry
of kerosene. This data can therefore be considered temporally, geographically and
technologically relevant. As such, a lognormal distribution with a pedigree matrix of 2, 1,
1, 1, 2 was applied to these exchanges.
Heavy metal emissions were extrapolated from the previous global dataset. Uncertainty
associated with these emission factors is discussed in detail by Spielmann et al. (2007). As
such, the lognormal distribution and associated pedigree matrix applied to the previous
dataset was used, with the temporal score updated.
Aircraft demand is based on global flight data and as such a lognormal distribution with a
pedigree matrix of 2, 1, 1, 1, 2 was applied to this exchange. Airport demand is based on a
single European airport and therefore lacks completeness or geographical context.
Therefore a lognormal distribution with a pedigree matrix of 1, 4, 1, 5, 1 was applied to this
exchange.
4 Overall modelling approach

The following section describes the temporal, geographical and technological considerations
that apply to the various datasets.
4.1 Time and geographical boundaries

The datasets are representative of 2016, as the primary variables (passenger.kms,
tonne.kms, aircraft usage and the calculation of kerosene usage) for both the production
and operational datasets are derived from data on all scheduled flights in 2016 (OAG, 2016).
The geographical boundaries are global air transport of both freight and passengers. The
market share for different aircraft models and operation of aircraft is representative of the
25
global situation, as data covers all scheduled flights globally. Aircraft production is modelled
using information on global aircraft weights and material breakdown, although production
consumables, energy use and emissions are based on European production site data. Airport
infrastructure was not updated and is based off the global dataset. The demand for
infrastructure is based on global data, however the dataset itself is derived from data on
Zurich international airport.
4.2 Technology level

The datasets are representative of air transport and aircraft production in 2016, as they are
derived from global statistics of all scheduled flights for this period. The operational
datasets considered the age distribution of the current global aircraft fleet. The production
datasets represented current production technology, as they took into account evolving
material composition data for aircraft manufacture. This was achieved through averaging
the material composition breakdown for the first and last years of aircraft production.
4.3 Activity and markets

The datasets are representative of the production of aircraft and air transport of passengers
and freight globally. They should therefore be used in this context. The datasets are
averages across all freight types. If the haulage distance is unknown, then the unspecified
distance dataset should be used, as this is the weighted average of all distance classes.
4.4 Summary of key parameters

The key parameters for global air freight are presented in Table 32.
Table 32: Summary of key global air freight parameters
Average fuel consumption (kg / tonne.km or kg /

Haulage Mean distance passenger.km)
distance (km) Passenger Belly-freight Dedicated freight
transport transport transport
Very short haul 504 0.038 0.239 0.034
Short haul 1135 0.031 0.176 0.040
Medium haul 2265 0.026 0.142 0.058
Long haul 6559 0.027 0.114 0.094
Unspecified
1496 0.028 0.133 0.076
distance
26
5 References
Airbus (2016) Annual Report 2016, Airbus Group: Toulouse, France. Available at:
http://www.airbus.com/investors/financial-results-and-annual-reports.html
(Accessed: April 2018).
Airbus (2017) Blue5 - Sustainable Aviation Industrial Environmental Roadmap: 2017 Status,
Airbus International: Toulouse, France. Available at: http://blue5.airbus.com/ -
/page/0 (Accessed: April 2018).
Airbus (2018) Orders and Deliveries - Commercial Aircraft: Airbus. Available at:
http://www.airbus.com/aircraft/market/orders-deliveries.html (Accessed: 21 June
2018).
Boeing (2018) Orders & Deliveries: Boeing. Available at:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/ - /orders-deliveries (Accessed: 21 June
2018).
Cox, B., Jemiolo, W. and Mutel, C. (2018) Life cycle assessment of air transport and the
Swiss commercial air transport fleet, Transport Research Part D, 58, pp. 1-13.
Datamonitor (2008) Airlines Industry Profile: United States, Datamonitor.
EASA (2009) Survey on standard weights of passengers and baggage: Final Report, European
Aviation Safety Agency: Cologne, Germany. Available at:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Weight Survey R20090095
Final.pdf (Accessed: April 2018).
EcoTransIT (2016) Ecological Transport Information Tool for Worldwide Transports -
Methodology and Data Update, ifeu Heidelberg, INFRAS Berne and IVE Hannover for
EcoTransIT World Initiative (EWI): Berne, Switzerland. Available at:
https://www.ecotransit.org/download/ETW_Methodology_Background_Report_201
6.pdf (Accessed: May 2018).
EEA (2017) EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2016 - Update July 2017:
Category 1.A.3.a Aviation, European Environmental Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark.
Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2016
(Accessed: April 2018).
eurocontrol (2018) Aircraft Performance Database. Brussels, Belgium: eurocontrol. Available
at:
https://contentzone.eurocontrol.int/aircraftperformance/default.aspx?GroupFilter
=4 (Accessed: 15 May 2018).
Freightos (2018) International Air Freight Explained: Air Freight Charges, Rates and Costs:
Freightos. Available at: https://www.freightos.com/freight-resources/air-freight-
rates-cost-prices/ (Accessed: 20 June 2018).
IATA (2017) Air Freight Market Analysis 2017, IATA. Available at:
http://www.iata.org/publications/economics/Reports/freight-monthly-
analysis/freight-analysis-dec-2017.pdf (Accessed: June 2018).
ICAO (2016) ICAO Data+, International Civil Aviation Organization: Montreal, Canada.
Available at: https://www4.icao.int/newdataplus/ (Accessed: 2018).
Jemiolo, W. (2015) Life cycle assessment of current and future passenger air transport in
Switzerland. Masters, Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland Available at:
https://www.psi.ch/ta/PublicationTab/MSc_Wojciech_Jemiolo_2015.pdf
(Accessed: June 2018).
Lopes, J. (2010) Life Cycle Assessment of the Airbus A330-200 Aircraft. MSc, Universidade
Tecnica de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Available at:
https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/395142223995/Tese_JoaoVascoLope
s.pdf (Accessed: June 2018).
OAG (2016) OAG Analytics, OAG: Luton, England. Available at:
https://www.oag.com/analytics (Accessed: 2018).
Pearlstein, S. (2018) Boeing and Airbus, the new 'super duopoly'. Washington, USA: The
Washington Post. Available at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/04/25/boeing-and-airbus-
the-new-super-duopoly/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fede21abee70 (Accessed: 21
June 2018).
Pramanik, A., Basak, A., Dong, Y., Sarker, P., Uddin, M., Littlefair, G., Dixit, A. and
Chattopadhyaya, S. (2017) Joining of carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP)
composites and aluminium alloys - A review, Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Manufacturing, 101, pp. 1-29.
Shepard, B., Shingal, A. and Raj, A. (2016) Value of Air Cargo: Air Transport and Global
Value Chains, IATA. Available at: https://www.iata.org/publications/economic-
briefings/value-of-air-cargo-2016-report.pdf (Accessed: June 2018).
Spielmann, M., Bauer, C., Dones, R. and Tuchschmid, M. (2007) Transport Services -
ecoinvent report No. 14 Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories: Zurich, Switzerland.
Available at: https://db.ecoinvent.org/reports/14_transport.pdf (Accessed: May
2018).
Szakonyi, M. (2014) Changing Air Cargo Industry Fights to Kepp Market Share: JOC.com.
Available at: https://www.joc.com/air-cargo/international-air-freight/changing-
air-cargo-industry-fights-keep-market-share_20140404.html (Accessed: 20 June
2018).
Uhlmann, E., Sammler, F., Richarz, S., Heitmuller, F. and Bilz, M. (2014) Machining of
Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastics, Procedia CIRP: New Production Technologies in the
Aerospace Industry - 5th Machining Innovations Conference (MIC 2014), 24, pp. 19-
24.
UNCTAD (2017) Review of Maritime Transport - 2017, United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development: Geneva, Switzerland. Available at:
http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/rmt2017_en.pdf (Accessed: May 2018).
Zurich Airport (2016) Annual Report of 2016, Zurich Airport: Zurich, Switzerland. Available
at: https://www.zurich-
airport.com/~/media/flughafenzh/dokumente/das_unternehmen/investor_relation
s/fhzag_gb_2016_en_komplett.pdf (Accessed: May 2018).
28
6 Appendix 1
Activity name Geography Reference product
carbon fibre reinforced plastic, injection GLO carbon fibre reinforced plastic
moulded
aircraft production, passenger aircraft, GLO aircraft, passenger, very short
very short haul haul
aircraft production, passenger aircraft, GLO aircraft, passenger, short haul
short haul
aircraft production, passenger aircraft, GLO aircraft, passenger, medium
medium haul haul
aircraft production, passenger aircraft, GLO aircraft, passenger, long haul
long haul
aircraft production, passenger aircraft, GLO aircraft, passenger, unspecified
unspecified distance distance
aircraft production, belly-freight GLO aircraft, belly-freight, very short
aircraft, very short haul haul
aircraft production, belly-freight GLO aircraft, belly-freight, short haul
aircraft, short haul
aircraft production, belly-freight GLO aircraft, belly-freight, medium
aircraft, medium haul haul
aircraft production, belly-freight GLO aircraft, belly-freight, long haul
aircraft, long haul
aircraft production, belly-freight GLO aircraft, belly-freight,
aircraft, unspecified distance unspecified distance
aircraft production, dedicated freight GLO aircraft, dedicated freight, very
aircraft, very short haul short haul
aircraft production, dedicated freight GLO aircraft, dedicated freight, short
aircraft, short haul haul
aircraft production, dedicated freight GLO aircraft, dedicated freight,
aircraft, medium haul medium haul
aircraft production, dedicated freight GLO aircraft, dedicated freight, long
aircraft, long haul haul
aircraft production, dedicated freight GLO aircraft, dedicated freight,
transport, passengers, passenger GLO transport, passengers, aircraft,
aircraft, very short haul very short haul
aircraft, short haul short haul
aircraft, medium haul medium haul
aircraft, long haul long haul
transport, freight, aircraft, belly-freight, GLO transport, freight, aircraft, very
very short haul short haul
transport, freight, aircraft, belly-freight, GLO transport, freight, aircraft, short
short haul haul
transport, freight, aircraft, belly-freight, GLO transport, freight, aircraft,
medium haul medium haul
Activity name Geography Reference product
transport, freight, aircraft, belly-freight, GLO transport, freight, aircraft, long
long haul haul
transport, freight, aircraft, belly-freight, GLO transport, freight, aircraft,
unspecified distance unspecified distance
transport, freight, aircraft, dedicated GLO transport, freight, aircraft, very
freight, very short haul short haul
transport, freight, aircraft, dedicated GLO transport, freight, aircraft, short
freight, short haul haul
transport, freight, aircraft, dedicated GLO transport, freight, aircraft,
freight, medium haul medium haul
transport, freight, aircraft, dedicated GLO transport, freight, aircraft, long
freight, long haul haul
transport, freight, aircraft, dedicated GLO transport, freight, aircraft,
freight, unspecified distance unspecified distance
30

Sectorial Report Sri Glo Air Transport v2

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sectorial Report Sri Glo Air Transport v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sectorial Report Sri Glo Air Transport v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life cycle inventories of global air

Philippa Notten1, Hans-Jörg Althaus2 and Matthew Burke1

The Green House

Life cycle inventories of global air freight

air transport, air freight, belly-freight, dedicated freight

end user license agreement (EULA):

1 Background and overarching data .............................................................. 1

2 Aircraft production .............................................................................. 14

3 Air transport ...................................................................................... 20

4 Overall modelling approach .................................................................... 25

5 Results .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

• Passenger transport: Passengers transported in aircraft operated purely for the

• Very short haul: Under 800 km

Total Share of total freight

1 Unspecified distance relates to the total of all haulage distances.

Passenger transport Share of top aircraft

Airbus A320 75,629 16.4%

Passenger transport Share of top aircraft

Airbus A320 179,440 19.7%

Passenger transport Share of top aircraft

Airbus A320 427,978 17.4%

Passenger transport Share of top aircraft

Boeing 777-300ER Passenger 291,877 14.7%

Freight transport Share of top aircraft

Airbus A320 2,785 42.0%

Freight transport Share of top aircraft

Airbus A320 8,119 54.5%

Freight transport (million Share of top aircraft

Airbus A320 19,766 48.6%

Freight transport (million Share of top aircraft

Airbus A330-200 10,850 19.0%

Freight transport (million Share of top aircraft

Boeing 747-400F (Freighter) 278 37.6%

Freight transport (million Share of top aircraft models

Boeing 747-400F (Freighter) 1,017 39.4%

Freight transport (million Share of top aircraft models

Boeing 747-400F (Freighter) 5,149 38.0%

Freight transport (million Share of top aircraft models

Boeing 747-400F (Freighter) 17,806 35.2%

Table 15: Weighted average belly-freight aircraft

2.2 Modelling approach

Item Units Value

2.2.3 Production consumable and energy use

Units for per seat Per seat

Total energy MWh 1,496,842 MWh/seat 9.43

Waste water discharge m3 153,061 m3/seat 0.96

Very short Short Medium Long Unspecified

Table 21: Belly-freight aircraft transport performance

Very short Short Medium Long Unspecified

Table 22: Dedicated freight aircraft transport performance

Very short Short Medium Long Unspecified

2.2.6 Production volumes

Very short Short Medium Long Unspecified

3.2 Modelling approach

Average fuel consumption (kg / tonne.km or kg / passenger.km)

Fraction of emissions (%)

Very short Short Medium Long Unspecified