This past week, I went to a Boeing recruiting info session on campus just to show face and learn about the application process. The presentation they gave was on sustainable initiatives the company has embarked on and their progress towards sustainable goals. For example, they’re developing technology from an acquired company that makes fully electric planes and finding sustainable alternatives for fossil fuels that result in less harmful emissions. Aviation is a major contributor to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, so I was pleased to see the people that make the planes are taking action. The presenter then broke down the flawed system of demands for sustainable aircraft encompassing airports, airlines, and themselves, the manufacturer.
Since Boeing makes the planes, they aren’t under the chopping block of federal regulations regarding air pollution and sustainability, it's the companies buying the planes. Airlines are held responsible for the pollution their planes emit, and thus demand sustainable technology from plane manufacturers. It gets tricky because airlines try to save as much money as possible while working towards meeting government regulations. Rather than spend billions on fleets of new sustainably designed planes, they make cheaper upgrades to the engines and powertrains of planes in their current fleet. Although new plane models have been designed and built, it isn’t profitable for Boeing to manufacture them since nobody will buy them. Today, the most common commercial airplane is the Boeing 737 which was first flown in 1967 and has an average operation lifespan of about 40 years. It is inevitable that environmental crises will pressure the government into imposing strict regulations that will give airlines no choice but to buy the newest and most sustainable airplanes rather than adding new fuel injectors on a bunch of 50 year old planes. I’m no strategist for Jetblue, but that seems like something they should probably get over with pretty soon.
The next industry down the chain are the airports which are very necessary for the travel and trade that keeps the economy going and are placed in the heart of highly populated areas, which make for an interesting dynamic of corporate social responsibility. Because airports have introduced traffic, air pollution, noise pollution, and reduced property values into the communities surrounding them, a big part of them being able to operate is by “making things right” with these communities.
Thinking back to my childhood in East Boston where I grew up about 400 yards away from the runways of Logan airport, this social corporate responsibility was all over the place. A company called Massport owns Logan and installed new soundproof windows on every house and building within a mile of the airport; they also renovated every community center in the area and funded Piers Park Sailing Center, a nonprofit program right on the inner harbor that teaches kids in the area how to sail for free where I attended every summer as a kid and worked as a teenager. I remember every year at Piers Park an executive from Massport would come, give a speech and present an oversized check to the sailing center. The director of the camp would then give a speech, thanking him and Massport for funding the program which is quite ironic given that Massport has to do things like fund Piers Park to make up for planes waking people up at night and sending grandmas that used to smoke to the ER due to the quality of the air.
From experience, I can say Logan does a pretty good job with CSR especially now that I’ve seen LAX. LAX sits in a valley that traps emissions creating smog and pollution that doesn’t go away with a sea breeze. Furthermore, due to Los Angeles’ past of redlining and discriminative law making, the areas affected most by airport pollution are primarily black and hispanic communities which is a social issue within itself. The map below shows that historically black and hispanic communities near LAX such as Inglewood and Carson are at the highest risk of respiratory illness due to airport pollution.
Obviously airports and airlines aren’t going anywhere, so their effects on communities and the environment are just going to have to be dealt with. The only way I see a solution being reached is for the government to crack down on airlines and incentivize and regulate them to use the most sustainable aircraft available; after all, it exists.
This is an incredibly interesting post, one that brings up a lot of great points. Coincidently a couple days ago, I saw this article explaining how the rich are a lot of the reason why the pollution is so bad and they should limited to how much they are able to travel. I didn't realize how much of it was actually an issue and I find it saddening that the 1% are able to travels much (via private aircrafts) whenever they please. This is of course is just another perspective in relation to your article and thought it was interesting. Great blog post!
This was a really interesting post. I never knew that more sustainable aircraft even existed. I think it'd be fair of the government to incentivize the use of this aircraft as long as it wouldn't make prices to travel skyrocket a ridiculous amount. It'd be unfortunate if air-travel became even more difficult for poorer demographics. It's already reserved to the financially comfortable, but I'd fear that forcing the use of sustainable aircraft would reserve air travel for only the richest of the rich.