Aviation carbon footprint of global scheduled domestic passenger flights - 2012

1
This report provides a detailed breakdown of CO2
emissions from global scheduled domestic passenger
aircraft operations in 2012. The carbon footprint of the
operations is disaggregated at the country, airport and
airline level. The document also provides a breakdown
of the carbon costs and revenues associated with
scheduled domestic passenger operations.
Comparisons are made with the carbon footprint of
scheduled global international flights to provide a
picture of the total carbon footprint for global
scheduled passenger aviation in 2012.
Dave Southgate
August 2013
Aviation Carbon Footprint
Global Scheduled Domestic
Passenger Flights - 2012

2
FOREWORD
This is the third book in a trilogy I have published over the past year on the carbon footprinting of
aviation. This book, which is focused on global domestic aviation, builds on the earlier work to
complete a picture of the carbon footprint of global scheduled passenger flights in 2012.
In order to facilitate cross comparison between the books I have tried as far as possible in this
document to retain the style and feel of the earlier books by applying the same data analysis
approaches and by presenting the information using similar visualisations.
In common with the second book in the trilogy, the coverage of this book is constrained by data
availability and it therefore relates solely to global scheduled domestic passenger operations. It is
estimated that this captures about 85% of the total carbon footprint for global domestic aircraft
operations.
While this document is focused on global domestic aviation, throughout the text the domestic
carbon footprint is compared to the international footprint and the two sectors are combined in
many places to provide a picture of aviation’s total carbon footprint. Conventionally, domestic and
international aviation footprints are examined separately for jurisdictional reasons – providing an
insight on the total footprint gives a useful industry wide perspective.
In common with the earlier books, this document does not suggest policy options for managing
aviation’s carbon footprint but rather is intended as a data resource to assist deliberations on
options for addressing the issue. One of my key aims in writing the books has been to stimulate
thought and discussion on ways in which simple carbon footprinting techniques can be used track
and transparently report global aviation’s evolving carbon footprint.
The information in the document has been generated from a publicly available dataset of global
scheduled passenger services in 2012. The data analysis and report generation has been carried out
using widely available software applications.
Dave Southgate
Canberra
August 2013
©dgsouthgate 2013
Any material in this document may be freely reproduced and distributed without acknowledgement.

3
CONTENTS
[These are live tiles – click a tile to navigate to the desired location]
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Page 9
Page 3
CHAPTER 2
COUNTRIES
Page 13
CHAPTER 3
AIRPORTS
Page 39
CHAPTER 5
MONEY
Page 62
CHAPTER 4
AIRLINES
Page 52
Author
Page 196
OBSERVATIONS
Page 4
Page 3
CHAPTER 6
COMPUTATION & VALIDATION
Page 67
77
FOOTPRINT PROFILES
Page 81

4
Observations/Thoughts on Carbon
Footprinting
I have now published three books (including this one) which together provide a picture of the total
carbon footprint of global scheduled passenger flights for 20121,2
– I will refer to this as my carbon
footprinting trilogy throughout this document. Having got to this point I have included this short
chapter to put forward some personal thoughts on the carbon footprinting exercise I have
undertaken; in particular I am interested in how ‘simple’ carbon footprinting can be expanded and
how it can find a place in the long term management of aviation’s carbon footprint.
The following dot points capture some of my key thoughts – they are not intended to be in any order
of priority and I must emphasise they are my own subjective conclusions; the trilogy is not intended
to be an academic treatise but rather an attempt to communicate information and trigger ideas
which I hope will assist policy development discussions:
 The carbon footprinting of aviation using great circle techniques is not difficult. The input data
required to carbon footprint the global aviation system with a reasonable level of confidence is
readily available to the public and is not expensive. The computations are straightforward;
graphical carbon footprint reports can be rapidly generated using ‘standard’ non-expert
software. For most aviation bodies the resources required to carry out a carbon footprinting
exercise would be minimal.
 Validation of carbon footprinting is currently difficult due to a range of issues (see the next
Section – ‘Current Situation’). Having said that, great circle computation appears to provide
carbon footprint results which lie within 5-10% of the ‘true’ answer. Great circle computation
techniques are not suitable for determining carbon liabilities in legislated regimes such as
emissions trading schemes (ETS) but would appear to be well suited to environmental reporting
(eg ongoing reporting of carbon trends, carbon analysis in environmental assessment processes,
etc).
 I have found the exercise of producing the three books very instructive and now have a much
better grasp of the nature of aviation’s carbon footprint. While much of this new information
falls in the territory of ‘background knowledge/understanding’ (essential terrain for awareness
of potential carbon management options/impacts) there were a number of issues which caught
the attention of both myself and/or the readers; these include:
 the bulk of aviation’s global carbon footprint is generated by a relatively small number of
(long haul) flights (this contrasts for example with private motor vehicles where the carbon
footprint is primarily generated by a very large number of short trips);
 the bulk of aviation’s global carbon footprint is generated by a very small number of
aircraft types;
1 The carbon footprint of aircraft operations in Australia – 2011, D Southgate, 2012:
http://southgateaviation.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/aviation-carbon-footprint-reporting/
2 Aviation Carbon Footprint: Global Scheduled International Passenger Flights – 2012, D Southgate, 2013:
http://southgateaviation.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/76/
CONTENTS: Observations Introduction Countries Airports Airlines Money Validation Profiles Author

5
 the United States aviation carbon footprint dwarfs that of most other countries (it is almost
three times the size of the footprint of the country with the second largest footprint –
China); the US aviation footprint makes up about 25% of the total global aviation footprint;
 London (Heathrow) Airport stands out as the prime carbon footprint node of global
international aviation (its footprint also dominates the global airport total carbon footprint
(domestic + international) hierarchy);
 Australia’s aviation CO2/capita footprint is significantly higher than that for other countries
(except for some small nations which are major international aviation hubs), for example
while Australia’s domestic aviation CO2/capita footprint is the same as that for the US its
total CO2/capita figure is about 25% larger.
 There is a surprising lack of consolidated aviation carbon footprint reports at the country level.
While negotiations on finding ways to manage aviation’s carbon footprint are primarily focused
on discussions between officials from United Nations member states, these countries for the
most part have not been forthcoming in releasing national aviation carbon footprint reports.
The notable exception is India3
and its leadership in aviation carbon footprinting is highly
commended.
Current Situation
Carbon footprinting underpins the management of aviation’s contribution to climate change. There
is likely to be little confidence in any internationally agreed climate change management program if
its CO2 outcomes cannot be independently tracked and validated. At the present time the
confidence that can be placed in the validation of global aviation’s carbon footprint is weakened due
to a number of issues:
 There are no published consolidated reports, derived from a common base of computation,
which provide verified carbon footprint information for the global aviation network.
 There are a number of ‘official’ published sources of fuel use and/or CO2 generation for
aviation, both international and domestic, but they are not consistent. For example:
 it is often not clear what aviation sub-sectors are covered by the published data – the lack
of clarity relates to differentiating between, for example, scheduled and non-scheduled
operations, freight and passenger traffic, freight carried in dedicated freighters compared
to freight carried in the belly of passenger aircraft, military and non-military aviation;
 some datasets allocate CO2 between ‘domestic’ and ‘international’ on the basis of the ICAO
approach (a ‘domestic’ leg of an international flight is treated as ‘international’) while
other datasets use the UNFCCC allocation approach (a ‘domestic’ leg of an international
flight is treated as ‘domestic’) – the distinction is often not explicitly stated;
 allocation of CO2 between countries is sometimes based on aircraft country of registration
and sometimes on the basis of the territory where the fuel is uplifted – again it is often not
clear which approach has been used;
 there are significant data gaps which are often not identified – freight, military, business
aviation are prime examples;
3 Carbon Footprint of Indian Aviation 2011, Government of India: http://dgca.nic.in/env/carbon_ind.htm

6
 time periods covered by datasets are sometimes based on calendar years sometimes on
financial years (which vary from country to country).
Where to from here?
If a carbon management regime for aviation involves the acquittal of financial carbon liabilities this
will need to have some form of detailed formal verifiable tracking regime (eg based on fuel sales
data). Such verification systems are by necessity complex and have significant time lags between
CO2 emission and reporting; they are non –transparent except at an aggregated level (fuel use data
is usually ‘commercial in confidence’); and hence they are not open to detailed independent
scrutiny. Verification systems solely based on non-transparent reporting are likely to generate
mistrust and to ultimately be challenged.
Footprint transparency could be introduced by running some form of parallel carbon footprint
reporting/tracking regime based on great circle analysis. This would facilitate open, and rapid, third
party verification of aviation carbon footprints. In order for this to take place key aviation bodies
would need to play an active role. The following is a listing of the sorts of actions that could be
taken by these bodies to develop an open carbon footprinting regime for aviation. Adoption of the
suggested actions would be unlikely to involve the outlay of significant resources.
ICAO
Great circle carbon footprinting techniques rely on some form of distance/fuel use conversion table
for different aircraft types. ICAO has published such a table4
(the CORINAIR dataset) – this table
underpins the carbon computations in this report (the computations also use the great circle
adjustment table embedded in the ICAO Carbon Calculator). Against this background, the
establishment of a robust global carbon footprinting regime would be greatly assisted if ICAO were
to:
 maintain the CORINAIR (or equivalent) dataset on an ongoing basis and make it prominently
available on its website;
 develop a carbon footprinting protocol that permits footprinting to be carried out on a standard
basis (eg agreed method to allocate the aviation footprint between international and domestic,
agreed method to allocate the carbon footprint of freight);
 produce a global aviation carbon footprint report, at least for international aviation, say on a
three yearly basis to coincide with the ICAO Assembly.
Countries
National governments are the key players. Countries are leading the discussion within ICAO on the
management of international aviation’s carbon footprint and are also imposing climate change
management regimes on their own domestic aviation sectors. Actions which national governments
could take to advance carbon footprinting include:
 publishing annual comprehensive country carbon footprinting reports (these could feed into the
ICAO report);
4ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator Methodology, ICAO, 2012, Appendix C: http://www.icao.int/environmental-
protection/CarbonOffset/Documents/Methodology%20ICAO%20Carbon%20Calculator_v5-2012.Revised.pdf

7
 ensuring (whole of flight) carbon footprint analysis becomes part of formal environmental
assessment processes for proposed aviation projects (eg new runways, new aircraft types);
 ensuring (whole of flight) CO2 analysis is factored into airport master planning assessment and
approval processes.
Airports
Airports are the nodes of an aviation network and an understanding of the quantum of CO2
generation associated with flights from each airport in the network is fundamental to examination of
the management of aviation’s carbon footprint. Airports are commonly the interface between the
aviation industry and the community and airports are often best placed to establish the collaborative
engagements needed to ensure a sustainable aviation industry. Against this background the
industry would be well served by airports:
 adopting comprehensive carbon footprint reporting regimes based on whole of flight carbon
footprints (whole of flight footprinting is recommended by the Airports Coordination
International (ACI)5
) – reports could be placed on airport web sites and regularly updated;
 including whole of flight CO2 emissions analyses in both Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
and master planning studies.
Airlines
Fuel use data - the ‘gold plated’ information of carbon footprinting – is owned by the airlines. This
data is usually confidential and is only released with high levels of aggregation. In recent years some
airlines have incorporated carbon footprint reporting in their annual and/or sustainability reports –
these reports have been invaluable sources of validation for the three books in the trilogy. This
reporting has been a very positive initiative and could be taken further by the airlines:
 being more explicit about the carbon footprints of the airline sub-components (eg the footprint
of freight carried in the belly of passenger aircraft versus that carried in dedicated freighters);
 working within ICAO on the continual updating of the distance/fuel use tables (eg the CORINAIR
(or equivalent) datasets) which underpin great circle carbon footprint computations.
Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs)
The ANSPs generate and own comprehensive operational datasets which contain details of every
flight handled (eg aircraft type; origin/destination; distance travelled; etc). These datasets are
fundamental input for the computation of great circle carbon footprints. This data is very important
both for generating carbon footprint reports and also for validating carbon footprint information
derived from other sources. The ANSPs could play an important role in carbon footprinting by:
 routinely collating and providing operational datasets to government departments for the
production of annual footprint reports and to academics and other researchers to improve the
knowledge/understanding of aviation network carbon footprints;
 producing real time, or close to real time, aviation system carbon footprint reports and
publishing these on ANSP websites.
5
Airports Council International (ACI), p19, para 4.7.6: http://www.aci.aero/Publications/Full-Publications-
Listing/Guidance-Manual-Airport-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-Management

8
PART I
DISCUSSION
& ANALYSIS

9
Introduction
This report is based on the author’s earlier carbon footprinting books: The Carbon Footprint of
Aircraft Operations in Australia – 2011, released in October 20126
; and Aviation Carbon Footprinting;
Global Scheduled International Passenger Flights-2012, released in April 2013.7
This book is aimed at
filling in the gap left by the previous books – the carbon footprint of global scheduled domestic
passenger operations. This document therefore completes a trilogy which provides an overview of
the total carbon footprint of global scheduled passenger aviation and an example of a country based
aviation network carbon footprint report.
To supplement the second book in the trilogy the author has released three ‘carbon footprint profile
generators’ which allow the user to interrogate Microsoft Excel pivot tables to gain information on
the carbon footprints of all the countries, airports and airlines contained within the global scheduled
international passenger flights dataset for 2012.8
This book uses the previous work as a template and hence this document has a similar structure to
the other books. An identical great circle carbon footprinting methodology has been used to
compute the carbon footprint information in all three documents. As far as possible, in order to
facilitate cross referencing between the documents the same form of graphics has been used in all
the books and parts of the text are common between the documents where a particular message
applies equally across the reports. The broad style of presentation has been retained and the
footprint examination from the perspective of identifiable sub-sectors such as country, airport and
the airline has also been retained.
Like the earlier books, this document is designed as a data resource for researchers, aviation
professionals, decision makers and members of the public. As such it is directed at describing the
carbon footprint of global domestic aviation and is not aimed at discussing or promoting particular
policy options for managing that footprint.
An important aim of the first book in the trilogy was to test the application and robustness of great
circle carbon footprinting techniques to the carbon footprinting of an aviation network. That
exercise generated results that gave good agreement with the available validation points at the
aggregated level and indicated that great circle techniques can be used to generate a good indicative
carbon footprint picture for aviation. While the first report generated confidence in the
computational methodology, a key chapter in all the books has been entitled ‘Computation and
Validation’ – Chapter 6 in this report. The reader is strongly encouraged to read this chapter to gain
an appreciation of the robustness of the data presented throughout this document.
A prime driver behind the production of this report has been the author’s longstanding interest in
public access to data and in transparency in environmental decision making. If there is to be an
effective response to climate change, decision makers need to be provided with information they
can understand and trust. If there is to be public support for those decisions, members of the public
6 The carbon footprint of aircraft operations in Australia – 2011, D Southgate, 2012:
http://southgateaviation.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/aviation-carbon-footprint-reporting/
7 Aviation Carbon Footprinting: Global Scheduled International Passenger Flights-2012
http://southgateaviation.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/76/
8 Carbon Footprint Profile Generators, D Southgate, 2013: http://southgateaviation.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/carbon-
footprint-profile-generators/

10
need to be in a position which enables them to understand why decisions have been made and to
easily track whether the outcomes of decisions are achieving proclaimed goals.
In order to fit in with transparency principles, the work in this report has been based on publicly
available data and on the use of inexpensive non-expert data analysis and reporting software (see
Chapter 6).
1.1 Differentiating Between International and Domestic Aviation
Given that the previous book in the trilogy looked solely at the carbon footprint of international
aviation this book focuses on global domestic aviation in order to complete the picture of the
footprint of global aviation.
The rationale for constraining the second book in the trilogy to international operations was
explained in Section 1.2 in that book. In essence it is important to differentiate between
international and domestic CO2 emissions when carbon accounting since the international aviation
emissions fall under the responsibilities of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) while
domestic aviation emissions are treated as part of country greenhouse gas emissions under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
While the carbon footprint of domestic aviation is not of direct interest in the discussions currently
taking place within ICAO on the future management of international aviation’s carbon footprint, it is
not unrelated. Many of the initiatives to reduce the carbon footprint of aviation capture both
domestic and international aviation (eg more efficient aircraft, improvements in the efficiency of
ATM and airports, etc) and many government officials involved in the discussions have
responsibilities for both domestic and international aviation. Furthermore, it is useful when
discussing the management of international aviation’s carbon footprint to have an understanding of
domestic aviation’s carbon footprint to ensure that action in one sub-sector does not adversely
affect the other.
While the focus of this book is on global domestic aviation, throughout the report when the
domestic CO2 contribution by a particular entity/element is being examined detailed comparisons
are, wherever possible, also made with equivalent international CO2 emissions. In particular, the
carbon ‘footprint profiles’ (dashboard style presentations used to summarise carbon footprint in all
the trilogy books) in this book capture both domestic and international for at least some of the
components of the footprint being examined.
Ideally this report would capture all of the carbon footprint of global domestic aviation but, In
common with the previous work on footprinting international passenger flights, there are significant
data gaps which make this impractical at the present time (see Section 6.4). The analysis in
Chapter 6 tentatively suggests that the footprint of scheduled domestic passenger operations makes
up about 85% of the total carbon footprint of domestic aircraft operations.
1.3 Methodology
The carbon footprint information in this report has been derived by computing and aggregating the
carbon footprints of individual flights contained in a database of global scheduled passenger aircraft
operations carried out in 20129
. The flight by flight carbon footprints have been computed using a
great circle computation tool –TNIP Carbon Counter- developed by the Australian Government
9 The database used for the computations in this report is an updated version of that used to develop the information for
international aviation in the second book in the trilogy. This results in minor differences in the quantum of the reported
international footprint between this and the earlier book.

11
Department of Infrastructure and Transport.10
The algorithms in this software tool are based on
those contained in the ICAO Carbon Calculator.11
The reader is encouraged to examine Chapter 6 to learn about the methodology adopted to
compute the CO2 data in this report and to compare this data against the published validation
points.
Input Data
All the CO2 computations in this report are based on a database sourced from Innovata, a provider of
data for global aviation.12
This dataset is discussed further in Chapter 6.
Scope
The carbon footprint computations relate only to the CO2 generated by scheduled domestic
passenger services in the year 2012. The footprinting does not extend to ground based non-aircraft
activities such as the operation of ground service equipment or energy use associated with the
operation of airport terminals.
The carbon computations for any given entity (eg country, airport, etc) are confined solely to
departing aircraft to avoid double counting of carbon. This methodology, which effectively
computes notional global aviation fuel uplifted for scheduled domestic passenger services, is
consistent with the UNFCCC carbon reporting regime.13
The UNFCCC carbon accounting regime is
based on computing the weight of six greenhouse gases.14
When reporting total greenhouse gases,
the six gases are converted to CO2 equivalent (CO2-e). However, the accepted practice within ICAO
when carbon footprinting aviation is to only compute and report CO2 emissions since the quantity of
the other five UNFCCC greenhouse gases produced by aviation is small compared to the quantity of
CO2.
The literature commonly raises the question of whether, or how, to include the non-CO2 impacts of
aviation in carbon footprint reporting. These impacts are taken into account by the incorporation of
a multiplier, usually referred to as the ‘Radiative Forcing Index (RFI)’, into carbon computations. At
the present time there is no agreement on how the RFI should be applied and accordingly the
accepted ICAO practice is to use ‘RFI=1’ when carbon footprinting.15
This is the approach adopted in
this document. Should the reader wish to incorporate a different RFI value into the results in this
report, this can be done simply by multiplying any of the reported CO2 values by the RFI value.
Interesting discussion on the RFI can be found in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere.16
10 TNIP Carbon Counter: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/transparent_noise/tnip_CC.aspx
11 ICAO Carbon Calculator: http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx
12 Innovata: http://www.innovata-llc.com/
13 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, p1.6: http://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/guidelin/ch1ref1.pdf
14 UNFCCC Fact Sheet: http://unfccc.int/files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf/press_factsh_mitigation.pdf
15 ICAO Carbon Calculator. FAQ No 1: http://www.icao.int/environmental-
protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/FAQCarbonCalculator.aspx
16 Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. IPCC. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.php?idp=64

12
Limitations
It is important that the reader is aware of the limitations of, and the likely confidence that can be
placed on, the carbon footprint values reported in this document. This topic is discussed in some
detail in Chapter 6. At the top level the broad limitations which are likely to influence the
robustness of the reported CO2 values include:
 the reported carbon data is based on computation. Ideally the figures would be based on actual
fuel use data for every individual flight in 2012 but this information is owned by the airlines and
is commercial in confidence;
 the carbon results are derived from a great circle computation methodology which provides
average CO2 information;
 the dataset used to compute the carbon footprint is a scheduled passenger movements dataset
and does not contain information on other aviation operations such as unscheduled flights or
movements by dedicated freighters – these constiute a significant data gap (see Section 6.4);
 information expressed in ‘per passenger’ metrics (CO2/PAX) relies on assumptions relating to
both load factors and seat configurations and has greater uncertainty than the results solely
reporting CO2.
1.4 Report Structure
This document provides an example of the type of picture that can be presented of an aircraft
operations network carbon footprint through the use of ‘simple’ great circle techniques. It is divided
into two Parts. Part I is the main body of the report and contains the discussions and the prime data
analysis. Part II essentially contains carbon footprint datasheets for the network components
(eg country, airport, airline) introduced in Part I.
In Part I of the report the underlying dataset is filtered to generate subsets which capture the CO2
emissions of the key entities (‘entity’ being country, airport or airline) – notionally termed the
‘top 10’. Depending on the level of disaggregation and the component type, this involves in practice
providing footprint information for the top 5 to the top 30 entities. Footprint information on some
of the remaining entities is shown in Part II.
The report is structured in a way that progressively examines the carbon footprint of global
scheduled domestic passenger flights in 2012 by breaking down the global footprint into layers and
then by separately examining the footprint from the perspective of countries, airports and the
airlines.
Chapter 2 gives a disaggregated overview of the global domestic carbon footprint at the country
level. Chapters 3 and 4 respectively examine the global footprint from the perspective of the
airports and the airlines. In keeping with the current interest in Market Based Measures (MBMs)
Chapter 5 reports the carbon information presented in the early chapters in terms of monetary
values.
Chapter 6 is particularly important as it describes the computational approach used to generate the
information in Chapters 2 to 5 and assesses the robustness of the computations by comparison with
publicly available validation points.
Part II of the report – entitled ‘Footprint Profiles’ – is a data resource which provides about
110 pages of carbon footprint information for the key entities.

13
The Countries
2.1 Introduction
This chapter examines the carbon footprint of global scheduled domestic passenger aviation
operations in 2012 at the country level. The discussion also includes comparisons with global
scheduled international passenger flights over the same period in order to put the domestic
operations in context.
Figure 2.1 shows the magnitude of the computed domestic footprint and also its proportion of the
total global footprint for scheduled passenger flights in 2012. As indicated in the previous chapter
the reader is strongly encouraged to examine Chapter 6 to gain an appreciation of the reliance that
can be placed on this and subsequent data which appears throughout the report.
While the overall split between domestic and international aviation at the global level is about 40/60
there is significant variation in this split from country to country. This is discussed in Section 2.2;
subsequent sections examine the domestic footprint from the perspective of routes, aircraft type
and operation distance. The final section in this chapter examines the global scheduled passenger
aviation carbon footprint in terms of CO2 per capita for the top 30 countries in the world ranked by
total aviation carbon footprint.
In a similar manner to this book’s sister report on international aviation, carbon footprint overviews
are captured using ‘carbon footprint profiles’ – dashboards designed to show snapshots of key
discrete elements of the carbon footprint. The carbon footprint profile for the total carbon footprint
of global domestic scheduled passenger flights in 2012 is shown in Figure 2.2. In order to provide
context, four of the six elements in this profile show footprint information for both domestic and
international operations. More details on the footprints of international operations can be found in
the second book in the trilogy.
Total CO2 = 584 Mt
Figure 2.1: Domestic/International breakdown of global
scheduled passenger flights 2012
Domestic
39%
International
61%
Sector CO2 (kt)
Domestic 225,716
International 358,538
Total 584,254

14
Domestic
International
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Domestic/International CO2 Split
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000120,000140,000
B737
A320
B777
A330
B747
B767
A340
B757
DC9
CRJ
Other types
Footprint by Aircraft Type
Domestic CO2 (kt) International CO2 (kt)
-2,000,000
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
CO2 v Distance
Total CO2 (kt) Domestic Total CO2 (kt) International
Total Movements Domestic Total Movements International
Origin Airports (Domestic) CO2 (kt)
Chicago 5,503
Atlanta 5,382
Los Angeles 4,997
Beijing 4,503
Dallas-Fort Worth 4,269
Denver 3,696
San Francisco 3,641
Tokyo (Haneda) 3,553
Shanghai 3,532
Houston 3,130
Phoenix 3,061
Moscow 2,989
Las Vegas 2,920
New York (JFK) 2,764
Washington DC 2,697
Other Airports 169,080
Total 225,716
Airlines (Domestic) CO2 (kt)
Delta Air Lines 19,651
United Airlines 17,658
Southwest Airlines 15,557
American Airlines 14,946
US Airways 9,291
China Southern Airlines 8,152
China Eastern Airlines 6,171
Air China 5,562
All Nippon Airways 5,288
JetBlue Airways 3,952
TAM Airlines 3,712
Alaska Airlines 3,617
VRG Linhas Aereas 3,392
Qantas Airways 3,314
Japan Airlines 3,110
Other Airlines 102,344
Total 225,716
Global Footprint
Domestic International Total
225,716 358,538 584,254
Footprint CO2 (kt)
MvtsCO2 (kt)
CO2/capita (kg) 32
CO2/PAX (kg) 117
Distance/trip (km) 853
CO2/capita (kg) 51
CO2/PAX (kg) 302
Distance/trip (km) 2,125
CO2/capita (kg) 83
CO2/PAX (kg) 187
Other Indicators
Domestic
International
Total
Trip Distance
(km)

15
In addition to repeating the domestic/international split revealed in Figure 2.1, the profile shows
that:
 the B737 and A320 families of aircraft dominate the domestic footprint making up about
65% of the global domestic footprint; they also make an approximate 40% contribution to
the total footprint (ie domestic + international)
 United States airports dominate the domestic aviation airport hierarchy (11 of the top 15
airports are in the US) – the top 15 airports make up 25% of the total global domestic
footprint [the airports in the hierarchy are ‘grouped’ by city – see discussion in Section 6.2]
 in a similar manner, US airlines occupy the top 5 positions in the domestic footprint
hierarchy
 the data revealed by the CO2 v Distance element is not unexpected: there are many more
domestic operations than international; most of the domestic operations are in the short
haul end of the scale but this is not uniform – there is a significant number of international
operations in the 500-1000km range while there is also a significant number of domestic
operations travelling between 3,000km and 5,000km; the greatest contribution to the
domestic footprint comes from flights in the 500-1,000km range
 the ‘Other Indicators’ box shows generic information which facilitates interesting cross
comparisons between the different elements shown throughout the report – the CO2/capita
figure is discussed in Section 2.7; the CO2/PAX and distance/flight indicators are broadly
related to the route structures within countries (which are in turn related to country size and
geographical location). These indicators should not be used to cross compare efficiencies
between say countries or airlines since they are based on generic load factors and (adjusted)
great circle distances (see discussion in Section 6.2).
2.2 Country Footprint Overview
Figures 2.3 and 2.4 show hierarchies for the top 30 global airports by carbon footprint size.
Figure 2.3 shows the hierarchy for domestic operations and Figure 2.4 is a combined hierarchy for
both domestic and international flights ordered by total CO2.
It can be seen that for domestic operations the carbon footprint for the United States far exceeds
that for other countries being more than 2.5 times the size of the second country (China) and about
nine times the size of the third country (Japan).
The top 10 countries in the domestic operations hierarchy largely represent a suite of countries
which occupy large land masses and it is not surprising that there is a broad correlation between
land area and domestic carbon footprint. Japan is the exception – it is number 3 in the domestic
carbon footprint hierarchy but is only about the 60th
country in the world when ranked by land
area.17
The top 6 countries make up about 75% of global domestic operations carbon footprint; the top 15
countries make up about 90% of the global domestic operations footprint.
The combined hierarchy (Figure 2.4) shows some interesting relationships between the domestic
and international footprints. The Figure reveals that four of the top 5 countries in the domestic
hierarchy have domestic footprints that exceed their international footprints (Japan is the
17 Countries of the World. Worldatlas.com¨http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/ctyareal.htm

16
exception). The domestic footprint in China is about 2.5 times that of its international footprint. By
way of contrast there are a number of major aviation countries which have either no, or very small,
domestic carbon footprints – the UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore and the Netherlands are prominent
examples. About 70 countries in the database effectively have no domestic aviation carbon
footprint; in addition to the major hubs cited in the previous sentence these are typically small
countries such as island States.
The top 30 countries in the domestic operations hierarchy capture more than 95% of the total
domestic footprint. The top 30 countries in the combined hierarchy capture about 85% of the total
footprint.
Figure 2.5 is a thematic country map showing the complete global domestic operations carbon
footprint hierarchy. It can be seen that almost all countries in Africa have small domestic aviation
carbon footprints. Other country groupings with small domestic carbon footprints are Eastern
Europe and ‘the Stans’ countries in central Asia.

17
Country
Domestic
CO2 (kt)
CO2/PAX
(kg)
Cumulative
%
United States 96,956 144 43
China 36,806 121 59
Japan 10,533 100 64
Brazil 9,796 101 68
Russia 7,500 191 72
Australia 7,044 121 75
India 6,267 99 77
Indonesia 5,637 99 80
Canada 5,489 117 82
Mexico 3,404 110 84
Spain 2,765 77 85
Italy 2,547 83 86
Turkey 1,994 77 87
France 1,966 82 88
Germany 1,796 68 89
Saudi Arabia 1,725 103 90
Philippines 1,684 85 90
South Africa 1,551 110 91
Malaysia 1,511 82 92
United Kingdom 1,487 67 92
Thailand 1,464 86 93
Colombia 1,295 72 94
South Korea 1,247 59 94
Norway 1,231 69 95
Vietnam 1,156 94 95
Chile 997 121 96
Argentina 983 121 96
Iran 900 108 96
New Zealand 751 75 97
Peru 680 106 97
Other Countries 6,551 68 100
Total 225,716 117
Figure 2.3: Country hierarchy – global domestic scheduled
passenger movements 2012
Country
Domestic
CO2 (kt)
International
CO2 (kt)
Total CO2 (kt)
United States 96,956 47,871 144,827
China 36,806 13,899 50,706
United Kingdom 1,487 24,654 26,142
Japan 10,533 13,956 24,489
Germany 1,796 18,729 20,524
Australia 7,044 9,489 16,534
France 1,966 13,771 15,737
Brazil 9,796 5,929 15,725
United Arab Emirates 7 14,558 14,565
Canada 5,489 8,378 13,867
India 6,267 7,190 13,456
Spain 2,765 10,592 13,357
Russia 7,500 5,752 13,251
Hong Kong 10,386 10,386
Italy 2,547 7,460 10,007
Singapore 9,819 9,819
Thailand 1,464 8,207 9,671
South Korea 1,247 8,305 9,552
Indonesia 5,637 3,064 8,701
Netherlands 1 7,547 7,549
Mexico 3,404 3,936 7,340
Turkey 1,994 5,061 7,055
Malaysia 1,511 4,508 6,019
Saudi Arabia 1,725 3,857 5,582
South Africa 1,551 3,611 5,162
Taiwan 169 4,341 4,510
Switzerland 44 4,387 4,431
Philippines 1,684 2,652 4,335
Qatar 3,900 3,900
Argentina 983 2,480 3,463
Other Countries 13,342 70,250 83,592
Total 225,716 358,538 584,254
Figure 2.4: Country hierarchy – domestic/international footprint
comparison global scheduled passenger movements 2012

18
Figure 2.5: Country carbon footprints – scheduled domestic passenger flights 2012
This figure is a thematic map giving a visualisation of the global country domestic footprint hierarchy. The colour relates to the quantum of the country
footprint – the values are shown in the legend. There are three countries in the first category (> 10,000 kt of CO2); 6 countries in the second category;
16 countries in the third category and 8 countries in the fourth category. The remaining countries, with CO2 emissions of less than 500 kt, are in the last
category.

19
2.3 Carbon Footprint Profile - Top 5 Countries
This section briefly discusses the carbon footprint profiles for the top 5 domestic emitting countries
(ie those countries which have the greatest notional fuel uplift for domestic scheduled passenger
operations as shown in Figure 2.3). The profiles are shown in the pages accompanying the
discussion.
In the hierarchy boxes in the profiles it is important to be aware that
 airports have been grouped by city – see discussion in Section 6.2
 domestic operations are defined using the UNFCCC definition – a domestic flight is one that
lands and takes off within the same country – this means that foreign airlines appear in the
‘Airlines (Domestic)’ hierarchy [in this context ‘domestic’ refers to flights, not to the country
of registration of the airline].
United States
The United States carbon footprint profile shows:
 the US footprint for domestic flights significantly exceeds the footprint for international
operations – the ratio is about 2 to 1
 the B737 is the dominant aircraft type; single aisle aircraft make up around 90% of the
domestic footprint and about 70% of the total footprint
 the top 15 airports make up about 55% of the domestic footprint; there is no dominant
domestic hub
 the top 4 airlines have significantly larger footprints than the other airlines – between them
they make up about 70% of the domestic footprint
 the CO2 v Distance profile indicates that the domestic footprint is (not surprisingly)
concentrated in flights which travel less than 5,000km; there is very little contribution to the
international footprint from flights in this range; there is a significant number of flights
which travel <500km; flights in the range 3000-5000km make a substantial contribution to
the domestic footprint
 the ‘Other Indicators’ box demonstrates the approximate 2:1 domestic/international split
when expressed as CO2/capita – while the magnitude of the domestic CO2 footprint swamps
that of all other countries the per capita value of 307 kg of CO2 per US inhabitant is the same
figure as that for Australia (see Section 2.7 for detailed comparison).
China
The China carbon footprint profile shows:
 an even greater bias in the carbon footprint toward domestic operations than the US with
the domestic contribution being over 70% of the footprint
 in a similar manner to the US, single aisle aircraft make up about 85% of the domestic
footprint
 the top 3 airports – Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzou - make up about 35% of the footprint;
the top 15 airports make up about 65% of the domestic footprint

20
United States
96,956 47,871 144,827
Footprint CO2 (kt)
Domestic
International
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
B737
A320
B777
B757
MD80
B767
B747
CRJ
A330
RJ140
Other types
-500,000
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
CO2 v Distance
Chicago 5,503
Atlanta 5,382
Los Angeles 4,997
Dallas-Fort Worth 4,269
Denver 3,696
San Francisco 3,641
Houston 3,130
Phoenix 3,061
Las Vegas 2,920
New York (JFK) 2,764
Washington DC 2,697
Seattle 2,496
Orlando 2,307
Newark 2,238
Minneapolis 2,136
Total 96,956
Southwest Airlines 15,557
US Airways 9,291
JetBlue Airways 3,952
Alaska Airlines 3,617
AirTran Airways 2,923
Continental Airlines 2,013
Frontier Airlines 1,622
Virgin America 1,394
Hawaiian Airlines 1,291
Spirit Airlines 1,142
Allegiant Air 991
Philippine Airlines 257
Other Airlines 714
Total 96,956
MvtsCO2 (kt)
CO2/capita (kg) 307
CO2/PAX (kg) 144
CO2/capita (kg) 152
CO2/PAX (kg) 518
CO2/capita (kg) 459
CO2/PAX (kg) 189
Other Indicators
Domestic
International
Total
Trip Distance
(km)

21
China
36,806 13,899 50,706
Footprint CO2 (kt)
Domestic
International
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
B737
A320
A330
B777
B747
A340
B757
B767
Embraer 170/190
A380
Other types
-200,000
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
CO2 v Distance
Beijing 4,503
Shanghai 3,532
Guangzhou 2,503
Chengdu 1,794
Zhenzhen 1,780
Kunming 1,373
Xi'an 1,354
Chongqing 1,321
Urumqi 1,128
Hangzhou 1,064
Xiamen 837
Changsha 793
Wuhan 760
Nanjing 758
Zhengzhou 730
Total 36,806
China Southern Airlines 8,152
China Eastern Airlines 6,167
Air China 5,562
Hainan Airlines 2,650
Shenzhen Airlines 2,407
Xiamen Airlines 2,249
Sichuan Airlines 1,750
Shanghai Airlines 1,342
Shandong Airlines 1,328
Deer Jet 803
Spring Airlines 724
Grand China Express Air 664
Juneyao Airlines 643
Lucky Air 442
China United Airlines 417
Other Airlines 1,505
Total 36,806
MvtsCO2 (kt)
CO2/capita (kg) 27
CO2/PAX (kg) 121
CO2/capita (kg) 10
CO2/PAX (kg) 341
CO2/capita (kg) 37
CO2/PAX (kg) 147
Other Indicators
Domestic
International
Total
Trip Distance
(km)

22
China (continued)
 there are three dominant airlines which make up more than 25% of the domestic footprint;
the top 15 airlines make up more than 95% of the domestic footprint
 the CO2 v Distance profile indicates the domestic footprint is focused in the range
500-2,000km – this is a markedly different profile to the US domestic footprint which
contains a significant contribution from flights in the 2,000-5,000km range (presumably
driven by differences in distances between major cities in the two countries).
 the CO2/capita figures in the ‘Other Indicators’ box are consistent with the domestic v
international split in the total carbon footprint; the per capita value of China’s domestic
carbon footprint (27 kg of CO2 per China inhabitant) is broadly comparable to several other
countries but the total footprint per capita (37kg of CO2 per inhabitant) only exceeds that of
two other countries in the top 30 hierarchy (Indonesia and India).
Japan
The Japan carbon footprint profile shows:
 a somewhat different picture for the domestic/international split compared to the US and
China – domestic operations contribute about 40% of the total footprint
 in contrast to the US and China wide bodied aircraft make a significant contribution to the
domestic footprint (the B777 + the B767 make up about 50% of the domestic footprint)
 Tokyo (Haneda) is the dominant national hub for domestic operations – about 35% of the
domestic footprint is associated with Haneda
 the top 2 airlines generate about 80% of the domestic footprint;
 the CO2 v Distance profile shows that the domestic footprint is very focused on flights in the
500-1,000km range (close to 65% of the domestic footprint) – this presents a very different
profile to the US and China (again presumably determined by the geographical location of its
major cities)
 the domestic CO2/capita figure of 83 kg of CO2 per Japanese inhabitant is high compared to
most countries but significantly less than the US, Australia and Canada; the distance per trip
for domestic operations is, not surprisingly, smaller than for the other four countries in the
top 5; on the other hand the distance per trip for international operations is significantly
greater than the figure for China and is of similar magnitude to the US figure.

23
Japan
10,533 13,956 24,489
Footprint CO2 (kt)
Domestic
International
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
B777
B767
B737
A330
B747
A320
A340
B787
A380
CRJ
Other types
-100,000
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
CO2 v Distance
Tokyo (Haneda) 3,553
Sapporo/Chitose 1,007
Okinawa 973
Fukuoka 815
Itami 553
Nagoya 298
Osaka 284
Kagoshima 273
Tokyo (Narita) 216
Kumamoto 186
Nagasaki 183
Miyazaki 173
Sendai 144
Hiroshima 138
Kobe 134
Total 10,533
All Nippon Airways 5,288
Japan Airlines 3,110
Skymark Airlines 659
Hokkaido International Airlines329
Japan Transocean Air 303
Skynet Asia Airways 239
StarFlyer 170
Japan Air Commuter 113
Peach Aviation 76
Fuji Dream Airlines 71
Ibex Airlines 66
Go One Airways 61
Air Asia Japan 25
Qatar Airways 15
Oriental Air Bridge 8
Other Airlines 0
Total 10,533
MvtsCO2 (kt)
CO2/capita (kg) 83
CO2/PAX (kg) 100
CO2/capita (kg) 110
CO2/PAX (kg) 427
CO2/capita (kg) 194
CO2/PAX (kg) 178
Other Indicators
Domestic
International
Total
Trip Distance
(km)

24
Brazil
The Brazil carbon footprint profile shows:
 domestic operations make up more than 60% of the Brazil footprint
 in a similar manner to the US and China narrow bodied aircraft dominate the domestic
footprint (effectively 100% of the domestic footprint) but they only make a small
contribution to the international footprint (about 15%)
 there are three dominant airports which make up about 45% of the domestic footprint; the
top 15 airports make up about 85% of the domestic footprint
 the top 2 airlines are very prominent and contribute about 70% of the footprint; there are
effectively only 7 domestic operators
 the CO2 v Distance chart shows that the domestic footprint arises almost totally from flights
up to 2,500km in length with the peak contribution occurring in the 500-1,000km range; in a
similar manner to the US there are a significant number of flights of less than 500km
 the numbers in the ‘Other Indicators’ box reflect a lower than global average for CO2/PAX for
domestic of around 100kg (global average 117kg) – this is similar to the figure for Japan; the
domestic CO2/capita figure of 49 is of a similar magnitude to the figure for Russia; the
international distance per trip of greater than 5,000km is significantly further than the
distance for the US, China, Japan and Russia - presumably reflecting the relative geographic
isolation of Brazil from the main global population centres.
Russia
The Russia carbon footprint profile shows:
 a slight bias in favour of domestic over international (about 55% of the footprint is domestic)
 in line with all the other top 5 countries, except Japan, the B737 and A320 family aircraft
dominate the domestic footprint (more than 60% of the domestic footprint); these aircraft
types also contribute around 50% of the international footprint
 Moscow (grouped airports) totally dominates the domestic footprint (making up about 40%
of the domestic footprint); the top 15 airports contribute about 75% of the domestic
footprint
 the top 3 three airlines make up about 45% of the domestic footprint – the top 15 airlines
contribute about 90% of the domestic footprint
 the CO2 v Distance relationship is somewhat different to the other four countries; there is
virtually no carbon contribution from flights travelling less than 500km; there are significant
domestic footprint contributions from flights travelling between 3,000km and 7,000km – this
is consistent with the geographic spread of Russia and its major cities
 the numbers in ‘Other Indicators’ box indicates a CO2/PAX for domestic operations that is
around twice that of the other countries; the total CO2/capita figure of 93 is relatively low by
global standards; the international distance/trip is similar to the figure for China but is
significantly lower than the figures for the US, Japan and Brazil – this presumably reflects a
focus on Moscow, located in Europe, as the major aviation hub for Russia.

25
Brazil
9,796 5,929 15,725
Footprint CO2 (kt)
Domestic
International
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
B737
A320
B777
A330
Embraer 170/190
B767
A340
B747
F100
ATR
Other types
-100,000
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
CO2 v Distance
Sao Paulo 1,994
Rio de Janeiro 1,205
Brasilia 1,001
Salvador 545
Belo Horizonte 480
Recife 456
Fortaleza 402
Porto Alegre 369
Campinas 349
Curitiba 306
Manaus 247
Belem 234
Natal 166
Cuiaba 162
Florianopolis 158
Total 9,796
TAM Airlines 3,707
VRG Linhas Aereas 3,392
Azul Brazilian Airlines 893
Avianca Brazil 614
WebJet Linhas Aereas 560
TRIP Linhas Aereas 488
Passaredo 115
United Airlines 15
LAN Airlines 5
American Airlines 5
Air Italy 1
PLUNA <1
TAP Portugal <1
Aerolineas Argentinas <1
Surinam Airways <1
Other Airlines 0
Total 9,796
MvtsCO2 (kt)
CO2/capita (kg) 49
CO2/PAX (kg) 101
CO2/capita (kg) 30
CO2/PAX (kg) 598
CO2/capita (kg) 79
CO2/PAX (kg) 147
Other Indicators
Domestic
International
Total
Trip Distance
(km)

26
`
Russia
7,500 5,752 13,251
Footprint CO2 (kt)
Domestic
International
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
A320
B737
A330
B767
B777
B747
B757
Yak 42
CRJ
Tupolev 204
Other types
-20,000
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
CO2 v Distance
Moscow 2,989
St. Petersburg 422
Khabarovsk 266
Vladivostok 258
Novosibirsk 257
Krasnoyarsk 176
Yekaterinburg 165
Krasnodar 163
Sochi 158
Irkutsk 149
Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy 129
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk 119
Tyumem 105
Ufa 100
Yakutsk 96
Total 7,500
Aeroflot Russian Airlines 1,429
S7 Airlines (Siberia Airlines) 1,099
UTair Aviation 1,070
Transaero Airlines 858
Rossiya - Russian Airlines 389
Vladivostok Air 338
Yakutia Airlines 311
Ural Airlines 257
Yamal Airlines 215
Orenair (Orenburg Airlines) 179
Taimyr Airlines 164
Aeroflot-Nord 146
Aeroflot-Don 138
VIM Airlines 125
Kuban Airlines 104
Other Airlines 676
Total 7,500
MvtsCO2 (kt)
CO2/capita (kg) 53
CO2/PAX (kg) 191
CO2/capita (kg) 40
CO2/PAX (kg) 264
CO2/capita (kg) 93
CO2/PAX (kg) 217
Other Indicators
Domestic
International
Total
Trip Distance
(km)

27
2.4 The Footprint by Route
One option commonly raised as a possible avenue to a global solution for managing aviation’s
contribution to climate change is to incrementally implement measures on a route by route basis.
For example, the construction of a high speed train or a major motorway may be proposed as a way
to reduce the aviation footprint for travel between two, or a number of, cities. Certain market
based mechanisms could be trialled on specific aviation routes where there are no issues around
competitive distortions.
Figure 2.6 shows the hierarchy for the top 30 global domestic routes for scheduled passenger
services in 2012. It can be seen that the top routes are contained in a range of countries – the
top 16 routes in the hierarchy occur in 8 different countries. The routes typically involve city pairs
between key commercial centres (eg Beijing-Shanghai, Melbourne-Sydney, Mumbai-Delhi, etc).
Figure 2.6: Global domestic route hierarchy 2012
Route
Domestic
CO2 (kt)
CO2/PAX
(kg)
New York (JFK)-Los Angeles 1,334 316
Sapporo/Chitose-Tokyo (Haneda) 1,141 118
Beijing-Shanghai 997 134
Fukuoka-Tokyo (Haneda) 958 131
New York (JFK)-San Francisco 927 334
Tokyo (Haneda)-Okinawa 828 181
Beijing-Guangzhou 786 205
Melbourne-Sydney 748 92
Los Angeles-Chicago 690 246
Los Angeles-Honolulu 675 357
Keku-Seoul 639 65
Vancouver-Toronto 639 283
Cape Town-Johannesburg 637 137
Chicago-San Francisco 633 256
Beijing-Zhenzhen 626 196
Mumbai-Delhi 602 116
Perth-Sydney 568 319
Hanoi-Ho Chi Minh City 565 143
Beijing-Chengdu 559 152
Jeddah-Riyadh 555 127
Melbourne-Perth 526 257
Rio de Janeiro-Sao Paulo 506 66
Zhenzhen-Shanghai 505 119
Guangzhou-Shanghai 469 127
New York (La Guardia)-Chicago 468 134
Jakarta-Medan 466 141
Washington DC-Los Angeles 464 317
Atlanta-Los Angeles 463 279
Washington DC-San Francisco 448 306
Itami-Tokyo (Haneda) 434 85
Other Routes 205,860 114
Total 225,716 117

28
There is also a noticeable diversity in the type of route – some are short range (eg Keku-Seoul which
has a footprint of 65 kg of CO2 /PAX) while others have CO2/PAX footprints which are around 5 times
those of the short routes.
Delving a little deeper, Figure 2.7 examines the carbon footprint of the top 15 routes in each of the
top 5 domestic countries discussed in the previous section. These are shown in the boxes in the top
half of the Figure. The bar graphic under the boxes shows the carbon distribution between airlines
on the top 10 domestic routes contained in the boxes.
It is interesting to note the differences between the route hierarchies in the five countries in
Figure 2.7. In Russia, Moscow (combined airports) is part of every route, in China, Japan and Brazil
one or two key domestic hubs dominate the hierarchy. The situation is somewhat different in the
United States were there is a much greater diversity in airports on the top routes. This presumably
reflects the greater geographical dispersion of population centres across the United States
compared to the other countries where the population centres tend to be concentrated in particular
regions.
The route graphic contained in the lower half of Figure 2.7 is an example of the type of information
that may be useful, for example, in filtering out routes which may have potential for the application
of some form of market based measure (MBM). This graphic gives the reader a rapid appreciation of
whether a route is likely to be open to competitive distortion if a differentiated MBM were to be
introduced.
The geographic distribution of the top 20 routes for each of the top 5 countries can be seen in the
quantity flow diagrams shown in Figure 2.8 to Figure 2.12.

29
Air China
Air China
All Nippon Airways
All Nippon Airways
All Nippon Airways
American Airlines
American Airlines
American Airlines
American Airlines
American Airlines
China Eastern Airlines China Southern Airlines
China Southern Airlines China United Airlines
ContinentalAirlines
ContinentalAirlines
Delta Air Lines
Delta Air Lines
Delta Air Lines
Hainan Airlines
Hainan Airlines
Hawaiian Airlines
Hokkaido International Airlines Japan Airlines
Japan Airlines
Japan Airlines Japan Transocean Air
JetBlue Airways
JetBlue Airways
Juneyao Airlines
Philippine Airlines
Qantas Airways
Shanghai Airlines
Skymark Airlines
Skymark Airlines
Skymark Airlines
Southwest Airlines
Southwest Airlines
Spirit Airlines
Spring Airlines
StarFlyer
United Airlines
United Airlines
United Airlines
United Airlines
United Airlines
Virgin America
Virgin America
Virgin America
Virgin America
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
New York (JFK)-Los Angeles
Sapporo/Chitose-Tokyo…
Beijing-Shanghai
Fukuoka-Tokyo (Haneda)
New York (JFK)-San Francisco
Tokyo (Haneda)-Okinawa
Beijing-Guangzhou
Los Angeles-Chicago
Los Angeles-Honolulu
Chicago-San Francisco
Route CO2 (kt)
New York (JFK)-Los Angeles 1,334
New York (JFK)-San Francisco 927
Los Angeles-Chicago 690
Los Angeles-Honolulu 675
Chicago-San Francisco 633
New York (La Guardia)-Chicago 468
Washington DC-Los Angeles 464
Atlanta-Los Angeles 463
Washington DC-San Francisco 448
Las Vegas-Chicago 421
Dallas-Fort Worth-Los Angeles 410
Boston-San Francisco 385
Los Angeles-Miami 367
Denver-Chicago 344
Chicago-Phoenix 343
Total 8,373
United States
Route CO2 (kt)
Rio de Janeiro-Sao Paulo 506
Sao Paulo-Salvador 361
Brasilia-Sao Paulo 357
Sao Paulo-Recife 297
Fortaleza-Sao Paulo 255
Brasilia-Rio de Janeiro 236
Rio de Janeiro-Salvador 195
Belo Horizonte-Sao Paulo 192
Sao Paulo-Porto Alegre 177
Rio de Janeiro-Recife 171
Curitiba-Sao Paulo 169
Porto Alegre-Sao Paulo 147
Florianopolis-Sao Paulo 138
Manaus-Sao Paulo 134
Rio de Janeiro-Porto Alegre 134
Total 3,467
Brazil
Route CO2 (kt)
Vladivostok-Moscow 409
Khabarovsk-Moscow 340
Novosibirsk-Moscow 264
St. Petersburg-Moscow 263
Krasnodar-Moscow 225
Krasnoyarsk-Moscow 219
Irkutsk-Moscow 204
Yekaterinburg-Moscow 199
Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy-Moscow 197
Sochi-Moscow 192
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk-Moscow 187
Mineralnyye Vody-Moscow 144
Yakutsk-Moscow 131
Rostov Na Donu-Moscow 125
Moscow-Ufa 120
Total 3,220
Russia
Route CO2 (kt)
Beijing-Shanghai 997
Beijing-Guangzhou 786
Beijing-Zhenzhen 626
Beijing-Chengdu 559
Zhenzhen-Shanghai 505
Guangzhou-Shanghai 469
Beijing-Kunming 375
Shanghai-Chengdu 368
Beijing-Urumqi 364
Beijing-Chongqing 289
Beijing-Hangzhou 279
Guangzhou-Chengdu 273
Shanghai-Chongqing 265
Beijing-Xi'an 261
Xiamen-Shanghai 253
Total 6,671
China
Route CO2 (kt)
Sapporo/Chitose-Tokyo (Haneda) 1,141
Fukuoka-Tokyo (Haneda) 958
Tokyo (Haneda)-Okinawa 828
Itami-Tokyo (Haneda) 434
Kagoshima-Tokyo (Haneda) 332
Kumamoto-Tokyo (Haneda) 288
Miyazaki-Tokyo (Haneda) 239
Kita Kyushu-Tokyo (Haneda) 235
Nagasaki-Tokyo (Haneda) 234
Hiroshima-Tokyo (Haneda) 220
Osaka-Sapporo/Chitose 183
Fukuoka-Okinawa 180
Oita-Tokyo (Haneda) 178
Matsuyama-Tokyo (Haneda) 170
Osaka-Okinawa 156
Total 5,776
Japan
Figure 2.7: Domestic route carbon footprint hierarchies for the top 5 countries
The five boxes at the top show the top 15 routes for the 5 countries with the greatest carbon footprint for scheduled domestic passenger
operations in 2012. The lower graphic analyses the top 10 routes from the country hierarchies and shows (albeit a little confused) the relative
CO2 contribution made by each of the airlines which operated on those routes.

30
Figure 2.8: United States domestic route carbon footprint hierarchy
This figure shows the top 20 domestic routes by CO2 footprint in 2012 for the US contiguous States (routes to Hawaii are not shown).
The thickness of the flow lines is proportional to the quantity of CO2 on the route. The blue lines represent the top 5 routes ranked by
carbon footprint; in the next group there are 7 red routes; the 8 green routes have the smallest carbon footprints. The CO2 quantum of
the top 15 routes is shown in Figure 2.7.

31
Figure 2.9: China domestic route carbon
footprint hierarchy
This figure shows the top 20 domestic routes by
CO2 footprint in 2012 for China. The thickness of
the flow lines is proportional to the quantity of
CO2 on the route. The blue lines represent the
top 5 routes ranked by carbon footprint; in the
next group there are 7 red routes; the 8 green
routes have the smallest carbon footprints. The
CO2 quantum of the top 15 routes is shown in
Figure 2.7.

32
Figure 2.10: Japan domestic route carbon footprint hierarchy
This figure shows the top 20 domestic routes by CO2 footprint in 2012 for Japan (routes to Okinawa are not
shown). The thickness of the flow lines is proportional to the quantity of CO2 on the route. The blue lines
represent the top 5 routes ranked by carbon footprint; in the next group there are 7 red routes; the 8 green
routes have the smallest carbon footprints. The CO2 quantum of the top 15 routes is shown in Figure 2.7.

33
Figure 2.11: Brazil domestic route carbon footprint hierarchy
This figure shows the top 20 domestic routes by CO2 footprint in 2012 for Brazil. The thickness of the flow
lines is proportional to the quantity of CO2 on the route. The blue lines represent the top 5 routes ranked
by carbon footprint; in the next group there are 7 red routes; the 8 green routes have the smallest carbon
footprints. The CO2 quantum of the top 15 routes is shown in Figure 2.7.

34
Figure 2.12: Russia domestic route carbon footprint hierarchy
This figure shows the top 20 domestic routes by CO2 footprint in 2012 for Russia. The thickness of the flow lines is proportional to the
quantity of CO2 on the route. The blue lines represent the top 5 routes ranked by carbon footprint; in the next group there are 7 red
routes; the 8 green routes have the smallest carbon footprints. The CO2 quantum of the top 15 routes is shown in Figure 2.7.

35
2.5 Aircraft Type
Figure 2.13 gives an overview of the contribution made by the top 30 aircraft types to the global
scheduled aviation carbon footprint. The hierarchy is ranked by decreasing total carbon
contribution. The figure breaks the carbon footprint down into the domestic and international
operations components. More detailed breakdowns of the aircraft type carbon footprint are
provided in the carbon footprint profiles which appear throughout the report. The aircraft types in
the Figure have been grouped into families – each family can contain many different versions of the
aircraft type.
Aircraft Type
Domestic
CO2 (kt)
International
CO2 (kt)
Total CO2 (kt)
Cumulative
%
B737 80,616 41,969 122,585 21
A320 63,856 52,492 116,347 41
B777 5,460 83,996 89,457 56
A330 4,652 56,229 60,880 67
B747 1,461 39,219 40,679 74
B767 7,506 25,058 32,564 79
A340 333 25,365 25,698 84
B757 13,443 6,983 20,426 87
MD80 11,851 2,264 14,116 89
CRJ 9,460 2,045 11,505 91
Embraer 170/190 7,455 3,687 11,143 93
A380 119 10,662 10,781 95
RJ140 6,317 1,083 7,400 96
Dash 8 3,694 949 4,643 97
B717 2,630 167 2,797 98
ATR 1,530 460 1,991 98
A310 172 1,663 1,835 98
F100 986 757 1,743 99
A300 645 797 1,442 99
BAe 146 333 938 1,270 99
B787 386 608 995 99
Embraer Brasilia 351 12 362 99
Yak 42 337 8 345 99
Saab 340 318 24 343 100
Tupolev 204 200 120 320 100
Beechcraft 233 29 262 100
Iluyshin IL96 16 234 251 100
Tupolev 154 176 60 236 100
F70 19 214 233 100
F50 153 73 227 100
Jetstream 31/32/41 156 13 169 100
Other Aircraft Types 852 358 1,210 100
Total 225,716 358,538 584,254 100
Figure 2.13: Global domestic CO2 footprint by aircraft type

36
It is interesting to note the relatively small number of aircraft types that make up the bulk of
aviation’s carbon footprint. It can be seen that the top 5 aircraft types (families) make up about 75%
of the total footprint. The top 10 aircraft types make up more than 90% of the footprint.
The top 2 contributors to the footprint (comprising about 40% of the footprint) are narrow bodied
aircraft. These two types – the B737 and A320 – not only dominate the domestic aviation footprint
but also make a significant contribution to the international aviation footprint.
The top 30 hierarchy contains a number of regional jets and props. It can be seen that the
contribution by these aircraft types is not large despite the relatively high number of movements
made by regional aircraft. The relationship between aircraft type, number of operations and carbon
contribution is discussed in the next section.
2.6 CO2 Emissions v Trip Distance
The carbon footprint profiles which are used as the basic footprint capture tool throughout this
report all include a ‘CO2 v Distance’ element. Figure 2.14 shows an expanded view of the domestic
component of the CO2 v Distance element in the Global Network profile shown in Figure 2.2.
This indicator provides a useful insight into which operations/routes are making the greatest
contribution to the global domestic carbon footprint. In simple terms there is a trade-off between
the number of movements and the distance travelled for any given aircraft type. Commonly a
relatively small number of flights (those engaged in long haul operations) will make an apparently
disproportionate contribution to the total footprint. This can be seen for example in the
3,000-5,000km range in the Figure. Conversely even a very large number of short haul movements
can make a surprisingly small contribution to the carbon footprint.
The data behind the Figure shows that 70% of scheduled domestic movements in 2012 travelled less
than 1,000km. These flights made up about 45% of the global domestic carbon footprint. About
40% of the movements travelled less than 500km – these ‘short haul’ flights made up about 15% of
the global domestic footprint.
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
CO2 Aicraft Movements
Figure 2.14: Relationship between CO2 footprint, trip distance and
number of operations for domestic operations
Trip Distance
(km)
MvtsCO2 (kt)

37
2.7 CO2 per capita
While consideration of the absolute magnitude of country carbon footprints is the common way to
consider the relative carbon contribution of different countries, it is instructive to normalise the
absolute data to per capita data to gain a different perspective on the contributions. This type of
technique is not uncommon and authoritative bodies such as the World Bank publish carbon
footprint information in this form.18
Figure 2.15 converts the top 30 country total carbon footprint hierarchy shown in Figure 2.4 into per
capita using country population data generated by the United Nations.19
The table shows values for both the domestic and international footprints and is ordered according
to decreasing total CO2/capita.
18
World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
19 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: http://esa.un.org/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm
Country
Domestic
CO2/capita (kg)
International
CO2/capita (kg)
Total
CO2/capita (kg)
Qatar - 2,011 2,011
Singapore - 1,868 1,868
United Arab Emirates 1 1,796 1,797
Hong Kong - 1,443 1,443
Australia 307 414 721
Switzerland 6 567 573
United States 307 152 459
Netherlands <1 452 452
United Kingdom 24 393 416
Canada 158 242 400
Spain 59 226 286
Germany 22 228 250
France 31 217 248
Malaysia 52 154 205
South Korea 26 171 197
Saudi Arabia 60 134 194
Taiwan 7 187 194
Japan 83 110 194
Italy 42 122 164
Thailand 21 117 138
South Africa 31 71 102
Turkey 27 68 95
Russia 53 40 93
Argentina 24 60 84
Brazil 49 30 79
Mexico 29 34 63
Philippines 17 27 45
China 27 10 37
Indonesia 23 13 36
India 5 6 11
Figure 2.15: Aviation CO2 per capita – top 30 ‘total footprint’ countries

38
It can be seen that the country ordering in the per capita hierarchy is significantly different to the
hierarchy based on the absolute footprint size. The top 4 countries in the Figure have significantly
greater per/capita total footprints than the other countries. These four countries have relatively
small populations and are active international aviation hubs (all of these countries effectively have
no domestic carbon footprint).
Australia is the first country in the hierarchy with a significant domestic carbon footprint. The per
capita domestic footprints of Australia, the United States, and to a lesser extent Canada, are
significantly greater than for any of the other countries. The total per capita aviation footprint for
Australia is also much greater than for other, what may be considered broadly comparable,
countries. This is presumably due to both the large distances between domestic centres in Australia
(which increases the domestic footprint) and also the geographic isolation of Australia from other
countries (which increases the international footprint). The relatively small population of Australia is
also presumably an important factor.

39
The Airports
3.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a breakdown of the global scheduled domestic passenger flights carbon
footprint for 2012 from the perspective of the airports. It also puts this information into context by
providing a number of comparisons with the carbon footprint of international scheduled passenger
movements for the same time period.
The information in this chapter relates to aircraft operations and not to the carbon footprint of the
airports themselves. That is, this chapter does not compute or report on the carbon footprint
associated with airport buildings, ground transport or non-aircraft emissions. These latter emissions
are commonly referred to as ‘Scope 1’ emissions – the emissions directly in control of airport
companies.20
It is estimated that Scope 1 emissions for an airport are typically only a small
percentage (about 2%) of an airport’s carbon footprint if the whole-of-flight carbon footprint of
departing aircraft is taken into account.21
When developing a carbon inventory for an airport, aircraft emissions are referred to as
‘Scope 3’emissions – typically the greenhouse gases emitted in the LTO (landing and take-off) cycle
comprise about 8% of the total footprint while the whole-of-flight emissions make up about 90% of
the footprint. The ACI (Airports Council International) recommends emissions from entire flights be
included in airport inventories for ‘completeness and credibility’.22
When carrying out an aviation network carbon footprinting exercise the airports are the transport
nodes and an understanding of individual airport (aircraft flight) footprints is fundamental to an
understanding of potential carbon management measures and impacts. From an airport’s
perspective it is important that it has a clear understanding of its whole-of-flight departing aircraft
carbon footprint for a number of reasons. In particular, when an airport puts forward proposals for
new developments (eg a new runway) the decision makers need be able to ascertain the potential
increase in Scope 3 emissions that will be induced by the proposed infrastructure upgrade (for
example in environmental assessment or master planning processes). Clearly, expanding airport
infrastructure (eg a new runway) directly facilitates growth in an airport’s whole of flight carbon
footprint.
Reporting Scope 3 emissions is also important from the point of view of transparency and the
establishment of community support for airports. Local communities are interested in
understanding the full carbon implications of their airports. If airport carbon footprinting is solely
restricted to Scope 1 emissions there is likely to be a breakdown in trust - any perceived attempt to
grossly understate carbon emissions may act as a trigger for intense, and possibly hostile, public
scrutiny of an airport.
20 Greenhouse Gas Protocol: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/
21
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2006. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
http://www.airportattorneys.com/files/greenhousegas06.pdf
22 Airports Council International (ACI), p19, para 4.7.6: http://www.aci.aero/Publications/Full-Publications-
Listing/Guidance-Manual-Airport-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-Management

40
The computation of an aggregated carbon footprint for Scope 3 emissions is very straightforward for
an airport that is generating aircraft noise contours using the US Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Integrated Noise Model (INM) – these contours are commonly generated as part of EIA and
Master Planning processes. The INM files for an airport noise forecast contain all the operational
information that is required to compute an aggregated carbon footprint for the airport – the aircraft
type and stage length data in the INM input data can be translated into CO2 data by reference to the
distance/fuel use tables published on the ICAO website. This approach adopts an average distance
for each INM stage length rather than computing the actual great circle distance for any given
city-pair – this will induce errors but they are not likely to be significant in the context of a traffic
forecast (which inherently has large errors).
It is important to be aware that airport naming is deliberately not consistent throughout this report.
In some tables and charts airports have been grouped using city names to allow the user to gain an
appreciation of the carbon footprint of a city, rather than an airport, when comparing competing
transport options (eg when comparing air v rail the interest is usually in the number of passenger
movements between a city pair rather than an airport pair). However, throughout this chapter the
airports have been individually identified by their IATA codes to enable the user to examine airport
specific footprints. There is further discussion on this issue in Section 6.2
This Chapter, and Profile F2 in Part II of the report, provide carbon footprint profiles (essentially
whole of flight Scope 3 emissions) for the top 20 airports in the domestic operations carbon
footprint hierarchy. In addition, Profile F3 in Part II contains a carbon footprint listing for the top
1,000 global domestic airports.
3.2 Airport Footprint Overview
Figure 3.1 shows the ranking of the top 30 airports in the world by CO2 footprint of departing
domestic aircraft. Figure 3.2 puts the airports in Figure 3.1 in perspective by comparing the
domestic carbon footprints with the international and total footprints – this figure shows the top 30
airports ranked by total footprint.
The domestic hierarchy is not particularly diverse - 22 of the top 30 airports are in the United States,
6 are in China and there is 1 airport in both Japan and Indonesia. By way of contrast, when
considering the top 30 hierarchy for the total footprint eighteen different countries are represented
and there are only two United States airports in the top 11. The carbon footprint of many airports
appears to be heavily weighted toward either domestic or international operations – this is not
necessarily reflected in the numerical split of international/domestic operations since airports often
have large numbers of short haul operations which add very little to the total carbon footprint.
The top 30 airports in the domestic hierarchy make up about 35% of the global domestic footprint.
The total footprint hierarchy shown in Figure 3.2 clearly demonstrates the dominant carbon position
occupied by Heathrow (in both the ‘international’ and ‘total’ hierarchies) – no single airport
dominates the domestic hierarchy in the same way.
The maps in Figures 3.3 & 3.4 show the locations of the airports with the greatest carbon footprints
in North America and a large part of Asia. These figures show clear differences in the pattern of the
distribution of the key airports - in North America the airports are dispersed across the continent
while in Asia the top carbon footprint domestic airports are much more geographically
concentrated. Fifteen of the top global domestic airports (those with a domestic footprint > 2,000 kt
of CO2) are located in North America while only three are located in Asia.

41
Airport
Domestic
CO2 (kt)
International
CO2 (kt)
Total CO2 (kt)
London (Heathrow) 193 16,391 16,584
Los Angeles (LAX) 4,997 6,870 11,866
Dubai (DXB) 1 10,986 10,986
New York (JFK) 2,764 8,027 10,791
Frankfurt (FRA) 222 10,190 10,412
Hong Kong (HKG) 10,386 10,386
Paris (CDG) 206 10,120 10,326
Singapore (SIN) 9,819 9,819
Beijing (PEK) 4,297 5,074 9,371
Tokyo (Narita) 216 8,905 9,121
Bangkok (BKK) 533 7,517 8,050
Atlanta (ATL) 5,382 2,428 7,810
Chicago (ORD) 4,139 3,583 7,721
Seoul (ICN) 28 7,627 7,655
San Francisco (SFO) 3,641 3,797 7,438
Amsterdam (AMS) 0 7,298 7,298
Shanghai (PVG) 1,560 4,788 6,348
Sydney (SYD) 1,415 4,815 6,230
Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) 4,269 1,629 5,899
Newark (EWR) 2,238 3,418 5,656
Madrid (MAD) 729 4,741 5,470
Tokyo (Haneda) 3,553 1,575 5,128
Sao Paulo (GRU) 1,232 3,781 5,013
Miami (MIA) 1,572 3,343 4,915
Toronto (YYZ) 1,237 3,664 4,901
Kuala Lumpur (KUL) 591 4,233 4,824
Houston (IAH) 2,438 2,014 4,452
Istanbul (IST) 567 3,834 4,401
Guangzhou (CAN) 2,503 1,645 4,148
Denver (DEN) 3,696 287 3,983
Other Airports 171,497 185,754 357,251
Total 225,716 358,538 584,254
Airport
Domestic
CO2 (kt)
CO2/PAX
(kg)
Cumulative
%
Atlanta (ATL) 5,382 133 2
Los Angeles (LAX) 4,997 209 5
Beijing (PEK) 4,297 136 7
Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) 4,269 160 8
Chicago (ORD) 4,139 143 10
Denver (DEN) 3,696 151 12
San Francisco (SFO) 3,641 209 13
Tokyo (Haneda) 3,553 105 15
Phoenix (PHX) 2,959 158 16
Las Vegas (LAS) 2,920 163 18
New York (JFK) 2,764 209 19
Guangzhou (CAN) 2,503 127 20
Seattle (SEA) 2,495 180 21
Houston (IAH) 2,438 144 22
Newark (EWR) 2,238 167 23
Orlando (MCO) 2,206 152 24
Minneapolis (MSP) 2,136 143 25
Charlotte (CLT) 2,001 105 26
Boston (BOS) 1,972 156 27
Shanghai (SHA) 1,972 121 28
Jakarta (CGK) 1,888 105 29
New York (La Guardia) 1,866 130 29
Philadelphia (PHL) 1,861 138 30
Detroit (DTW) 1,815 130 31
Chengdu (CTU) 1,794 131 32
Zhenzhen (SZX) 1,780 128 33
Honolulu (HNL) 1,622 252 33
Miami (MIA) 1,572 166 34
Shanghai (PVG) 1,560 129 35
Fort Lauderdale (FLL) 1,488 162 35
Other Airports 145,893 105 100
Total 225,716 117
Figure 3.1: Airport hierarchy – global domestic
scheduled passenger movements 2012
Figure 3.2: Airport hierarchy – domestic/international footprint
comparison global scheduled passenger movements 2012

42
Figure 3.3: Domestic carbon footprint by airport – North America
This map shows the carbon footprint associated with domestic departures from airports in North America. The airports are
identified by the quantum of their carbon footprints – the details are shown in the legend.

43
Figure 3.4:
Domestic carbon footprint by
airport - Asia
This map shows the carbon
footprint associated with
domestic departures from
airports in a large part of Asia.
The airports are identified by
the quantum of their carbon
footprints – the details are
shown in the legend.

44
3.3 Carbon Footprint Profile - Top 5 Domestic Airports
In a similar manner to the previous chapter, this chapter briefly discusses the carbon footprint
profiles of the top 5 domestic airports ranked by the whole of flight carbon footprint of departing
aircraft. Profiles of the top 20 global airports, ranked by total footprint, are contained in Profile F2 in
Part II.
In the hierarchy boxes in the profiles it is important to be aware that
 airports have been grouped by city – see discussion in Section 6.2
 domestic operations are defined using the UNFCCC definition – a domestic flight is one that
lands and takes off within the same country – this means that foreign airlines appear in the
‘Airlines (Domestic)’ hierarchy [in this context ‘domestic’ refers to flights, not to the country
of registration of the airline].
Atlanta (ATL)
The carbon footprint profile for Atlanta shows:
 a strong bias toward domestic operations – about 70% of the airport’s carbon footprint is
generated by domestic operations
 in contrast to the other aircraft types encountered so far, the MD80 and the B757 dominate
the domestic footprint (contributing about 55% of the footprint)
 there is a spread of destination airports, with broadly similar carbon footprints; the top 15
destination airports make up about 40% of the total domestic footprint
 Delta Airlines dominates the airport’s carbon footprint (making up about 75% of the
domestic footprint); only a limited number of airlines contributed to the domestic footprint
in 2012 – the top 4 airlines constitute about 95% of the domestic footprint
 the CO2 v Distance relationship shows a peak in the carbon footprint in the 500-1,000km
range which also correlates with a peak in movement numbers; the domestic footprint
contains flights up to the 3,000-5,000km range
 the ‘Other Indicators’ box indicates a CO2/PAX for domestic that is below the average for the
US but somewhat above the global average.
Los Angeles (LAX)
The Los Angeles carbon footprint profile shows:
 a carbon footprint breakdown between domestic and international which approximates to
the global split – 60% international and 40% domestic
 the B737, B757 and the A320 dominate the domestic footprint (contributing about 70% of
the total); a relatively small proportion of the domestic footprint is carried out in wide
bodied aircraft
 New York (JFK), the domestic destination airport with the greatest footprint, has a footprint
approaching twice that of the next airport (Chicago); three of the airports in the top 15
domestic destinations are located in the Pacific (Hawaii + Guam); the top 15 airports make
up about 65% of the LAX domestic footprint

45
Domestic
International
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
MD80
B757
B767
B737
B777
CRJ
B717
A330
A320
B747
Other types
-50,000
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
CO2 v Distance
Dest Airports (Domestic) CO2 (kt)
Los Angeles 231
New York (La Guardia) 168
Las Vegas 159
Chicago 155
San Francisco 148
Washington DC 143
Dallas-Fort Worth 142
Denver 133
Phoenix 127
Seattle 126
Fort Lauderdale 125
Houston 118
Orlando 114
Boston 107
Philadelphia 106
Total 5,382
AirTran Airways 758
Southwest Airlines 126
American Airlines 117
United Airlines 75
US Airways 74
Spirit Airlines 20
Frontier Airlines 20
Alaska Airlines 18
Continental Airlines 12
Island Air 2
Pacific Wings 0
Vision Airlines 0
Asiana Airlines 0
Hainan Airlines 0
Other Airlines 0
Total 5,382
Atlanta (ATL)
5,382 2,428 7,810
Footprint CO2 (kt)
CO2 (kt) Mvts
CO2/PAX(kg) 133
CO2/PAX(kg) 476
CO2/PAX(kg) 171
OtherIndicators
Domestic
International
Total
Trip Distance
(km)

46
Domestic
International
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
B777
B747
B737
B757
A320
B767
A380
A340
A330
CRJ
Other types
-10,000
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
CO2 v Distance
New York (JFK) 667
Chicago 351
Honolulu 339
Atlanta 232
Washington DC 228
Dallas-Fort Worth 207
Miami 180
Boston 162
Houston 160
Kahului 154
San Francisco 144
Newark 140
Agana 137
Denver 128
Philadelphia 107
Total 4,997
Delta Air Lines 857
Southwest Airlines 509
Virgin America 325
US Airways 148
Philippine Airlines 140
Alaska Airlines 131
JetBlue Airways 110
Hawaiian Airlines 90
AirTran Airways 53
Qantas Airways 44
Spirit Airlines 33
Other Airlines 40
Total 4,997
Los Angeles (LAX)
4,997 6,870 11,866
Footprint CO2 (kt)
CO2 (kt) Mvts
CO2/PAX(kg) 209
CO2/PAX(kg) 832
CO2/PAX(kg) 368
OtherIndicators
Domestic
International
Total
Trip Distance
(km)

47
Los Angeles (LAX) (continued)
 American and United Airlines are dominant – together they contribute about 50% of the
domestic footprint; the top 5 airlines make up about 80% of the footprint
 the CO2 v Distance element shows a high number of movements in the up to 500km range
(but these only make a small contribution to the domestic footprint); the bulk of the
domestic footprint is generated by flights in the 3,000—5,000km range
 the ‘Other Indicators’ box indicates the relatively long distance of the average domestic
flight from LAX (>1,700km); coupled with the long distance for the average international
flight (LAX is a hub for flights across the Pacific into SE Asia and Australiasia) gives a total
CO2/PAX which is significantly greater than the other top 5 airports and the global average.
Beijing (PEK)
The Beijing carbon footprint profile shows:
 that domestic operations contribute just under half of the airport’s carbon footprint
 narrow bodied aircraft dominate the domestic footprint (together the B737 and the A320
comprise about 65% of the domestic footprint); the A330 makes a significant contribution to
the domestic footprint
 the top 3 destination airports make up about 25% of the domestic footprint; the top 15
airports make up about 65% of the domestic footprint
 the domestic footprint of Air China, the top airline, is about twice that of the second airline
(China Southern Airlines); relatively few domestic airlines contribute significantly to the
domestic footprint – the top 6 airlines make up about 95% of the footprint
 the CO2 v Distance element reveals that the domestic footprint predominantly lies in the
range 500-2,500km; there are relatively few operations travelling less than 500km
 the ‘Other Indicators’ box shows a domestic CO2/PAX value which is somwhat above the
global average and similar to the figure for Atlanta.
Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW)
The Dallas-Fort Worth carbon footprint profile shows:
 the airport’s carbon footprint is heavily weighted toward domestic operations – more than
70% of the footprint derives from domestic operations
 the MD80 is overwhelming the No 1 aircraft type (about 50% of the domestic footprint); the
domestic footprint is almost exclusively generated by narrow bodied aircraft (>95% of the
total footprint)
 there is a relatively even spread of the domestic carbon footprint between destination
airports – the top 15 destination airports make up less than 50% of the footprint
 American Airlines dominates the footprint (about 85% of the DFW domestic footprint);
effectively only 10 airlines made significant contributions to the airport’s domestic footprint
in 2012

48
Domestic
International
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
A330
B737
B777
A320
B747
A340
B767
A380
B757
A300
Other types
-10,000
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
CO2 v Distance
Shanghai 498
Guangzhou 386
Zhenzhen 308
Chengdu 258
Kunming 188
Urumqi 176
Chongqing 139
Hangzhou 136
Xi'an 133
Xiamen 104
Sanya 103
Wuhan 96
Haikou 87
Changsha 87
Harbin 84
Total 4,297
Air China 1,790
China Southern Airlines 891
China Eastern Airlines 667
Hainan Airlines 439
Xiamen Airlines 129
Sichuan Airlines 102
Shenzhen Airlines 73
Shanghai Airlines 45
Shandong Airlines 42
Grand China Air 39
Deer Jet 38
Chongqing Airlines 12
Grand China Express Air 11
Lucky Air 9
Spring Airlines 5
Other Airlines 5
Total 4,297
Beijing (PEK)
4,297 5,074 9,371
Footprint CO2 (kt)
CO2 (kt) Mvts
CO2/PAX(kg) 136
CO2/PAX(kg) 504
CO2/PAX(kg) 225
OtherIndicators
Domestic
International
Total
Trip Distance
(km)

49
Domestic
International
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
MD80
B737
B777
RJ140
B767
B757
A320
B747
CRJ
A330
Other types
-10,000
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
CO2 v Distance
Los Angeles 203
New York (La Guardia) 165
San Francisco 152
Washington DC 149
Chicago 148
Atlanta 142
Boston 110
Seattle 108
Denver 106
Las Vegas 103
Miami 96
Phoenix 94
Philadelphia 93
Newark 92
Charlotte 89
Total 4,269
Delta Air Lines 164
United Airlines 127
US Airways 119
Spirit Airlines 93
Virgin America 47
Alaska Airlines 26
JetBlue Airways 15
Sun Country Airlines 4
Cathay Pacific 0
Other Airlines 0
Total 4,269
Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW)
4,269 1,629 5,899
Footprint CO2 (kt)
CO2 (kt) Mvts
CO2/PAX(kg) 160
CO2/PAX(kg) 507
CO2/PAX(kg) 197
OtherIndicators
Domestic
International
Total
Trip Distance
(km)

50
Dallas-Forth Worth (DFW) (continued)
 the CO2 v Distance element reveals a relatively high number of movements of less than
500km (but only making a small contribution to the domestic carbon footprint); most of the
domestic carbon footprint was generated by flights travelling between 500 and 2,500km
 the ‘Other Indicators’ box shows a domestic CO2/PAX which is broadly of the same
magnitude of the other airports (LAX is the exception).
Chicago (ORD)
The Chicago carbon footprint profile shows:
 an almost equal split between domestic and international contributions to the carbon
footprint
 the domestic footprint is almost totally derived from narrow bodied aircraft; ORD is the only
airport in the top 5 where the carbon footprint generated by the A320 exceeds that of the
B737
 there is a fairly even footprint spread across the top 15 destination airports – these airports
contribute about 50% of the domestic footprint
 two airlines – United and American – dominate the domestic footprint; together they make
up about 85% of the footprint; only 9 airlines made a significant contribution to the airport’s
domestic footprint in 2012
 the CO2 v Distance element reveals an interesting bimodal picture with prominent CO2 peaks
in the 1,000-1,500km and the 2,500-3,000km ranges; there were a significant number of
movements in the less than 500km range but, consistent with most other airports, these
made a relatively small contribution to the domestic footprint
 the ‘Other Indicators’ box shows a domestic CO2/PAX which is broadly of the same
magnitude of the other airports (LAX is the exception).

Aviation carbon footprint of global scheduled domestic passenger flights - 2012

Aviation carbon footprint of global scheduled domestic passenger flights - 2012

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Aviation carbon footprint of global scheduled domestic passenger flights - 2012

Similar to Aviation carbon footprint of global scheduled domestic passenger flights - 2012 (20)

More from Dave Southgate

More from Dave Southgate (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Aviation carbon footprint of global scheduled domestic passenger flights - 2012