National Academies Press: OpenBook

Recovering International Recyclables from In-Flight Service (2020)

Chapter: Chapter 2 Industry Practices

« Previous: Chapter 1 Introduction and Background
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Industry Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Recovering International Recyclables from In-Flight Service. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25813.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Industry Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Recovering International Recyclables from In-Flight Service. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25813.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Industry Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Recovering International Recyclables from In-Flight Service. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25813.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Industry Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Recovering International Recyclables from In-Flight Service. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25813.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Industry Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Recovering International Recyclables from In-Flight Service. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25813.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Industry Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Recovering International Recyclables from In-Flight Service. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25813.
×
Page 22

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

11 CHAPTER 2 – INDUSTRY PRACTICES Airline operations are highly complex and provide a seamless global mode of transportation; however, the industry itself is subject to uncertainties. Disruption for a scheduled or even an unscheduled airline can occur. Daily, the traveling public numbers in the millions, with some carriers reaching a few hundred thousand each day. IATA currently forecasts 4.358 billion travelers per year (IATA 2018). NCRM Recovery Practice NCRM recovery was mostly handled by airlines and not airports, although airports can get involved. Airlines reviewed displayed either a low, medium, or high adherence to on-board recycling and separation. Cabin crews on flights which demonstrated little to no NCRM recovery also had little evidence of corporate guidelines on the topic. On flights displaying medium adherence, corporate direction was evident, although not consistently amongst crews reviewed on the same flight. Airlines reviewed, which had high adherence to NCRM recovery, displayed both a consistent and significant knowledge of separation techniques. These airlines also had the highest self-reported diversion rates. Notably, these airlines operated from airports where collecting NCRM was mandated by law or had programs originated at an airline base. 2.1 On-board Practices and Ground Operations On-board sorting and ground operations teams were both found to be necessary to ensure NCRM recovery. Without on-board in-flight sorting, ground operators interviewed were not permitted to extract recyclables from quarantine items. Handling support was essential to ensure the continued isolation and ultimate recovery of NCRM on the ground. On-board practices and ground operations were, therefore, significant factors in successful NCRM recovery. For airlines reviewed and polled, on-board in-flight sorting added to higher diversion. Airlines that had on-board compactors exhibited high NCRM extraction from in-flight service. Airlines using on-board compactors also showed higher sorting efficiency, given the ability to have a well-known, consistent, and dedicated collection point for the placement and storage of NCRM. 2.1.1 Waste Logistics Aviation industry waste logistics are complex, given multiple separate stakeholders who are charged with handling and managing recovery at different stages. NCRM and QW also carry increased liability and exposure to risk if breaching handling protocols. For the purpose of the study, international in-flight service can be separated into two categories: QW which includes recyclables contaminated by food, and Non-Contaminated Recyclable Materials from International In-flight Service (NCRM from IIFS). QW Practices For QW, generally, a linear flow of handling methods and procedures took place. The processes included: - Items were typically placed in identifiable (color coded) bags; - Provisions were made for ensuring items were placed in quarantine or quarantined storage; - Provisions were made to ensure no contamination of the localized region; - Items were placed directly in incineration or steam sterilization on-site; - Items were transported to incineration or steam sterilization off-site; and - Assurance was made that an approved path to deep-bury landfill or ash disposal was followed.

12 NCRM Airlines, airports and flight kitchens handled NCRM as regular recyclables. For groups that dealt with these materials, the handling processes included some or all of the following: - Items were marked as NCRM, - Items were kept separate from quarantined items, and - Items were either baled or sent off-site for processing. 2.2 Airline Practices Airlines and their waste programs are managed by third parties such as flight kitchens, facility managers or waste handlers. Opportunities exist for stakeholders to implement programs for NCRM recovery and QW reduction. In instances where flight kitchens were directly controlled or managed by the airline, and where recycling was deemed a priority, a higher degree of influence and recovery was evident over that of their non-airline owned counterparts. These areas may affect how NCRM is collected by airport operators. 2.2.1 Cabin Crew Procedures In general, airline cabin crews provide passengers with food and beverages throughout a flight. Their dissemination can range depending on the length of the flight, from ‘buying on-board’ on short-haul international flights to providing complimentary meals for passengers for long-haul international flights. Airline cabin crews that displayed NCRM diversion were more educated on the topic than their non- participating colleagues. Crews who managed NCRM understood the composition of materials as well as the practices needed to keep items separate. This suggests that, for airlines with no NCRM recovery programs in place, increased knowledge of material composition and separation techniques would likely enhance recovery. 2.2.2 Aircraft Storage Design Aircraft storage techniques are limited to trolleys and safe stowage as directed by regulators. Airline manufacturers contacted for input and insight provided existing and future outlooks on the issue of a zero waste cabin. Existing aircraft trolleys are designed for food and beverage dissemination, and designs for separate NCRM recovery were not readily evident. In recent years, Airbus has been involved in more advanced trolley designs through their BizLab projects. In addition, a number of unique storage techniques are currently available in the marketplace including compaction units which reduce storage requirements. 2.2.3 Space Constraints Aircraft storage space is limited. Space constraints can be a greater issue on longer transoceanic or transcontinental flights, where storage for a more significant amount of food and waste is required. Increased storage is also required for different recycling streams if NCRM is being recovered. In this situation, the recyclable material must be kept separate to ensure reduced contamination and therefore housed in a different location, ultimately using more valuable space. Other studies in the area of airline recycling also cited space constraints as a challenge for storing materials for recycling (Cascadia Consulting Group et al., 2014). Those with elevated recycling processes in the aviation industry featured ground diversion practices to ensure successful NCRM recovery. Crews also received training and were provided with the necessary infrastructure and tools, for example, on-site sorting practices, ISO 14001 certification, and the formation of stakeholder partnerships.

13 2.3 Costs, Savings, and Revenue Recycling brings with it the potential to uncover revenue through partnerships with waste collection firms and supply chain stakeholders. Airport operators could realize savings through recovering NCRM or devising recovery programs with their airline customers. Additionally, the costs associated with QW would be reduced through volume reduction from the extraction of NCRM. In the aviation industry, QW handling generally represents high processing costs. These costs are mostly attributed to steam sterilization, incineration, and specialized handling procedures would be reduced. By extracting a higher level of recyclables and ensuring NCRM recovery, the volume and therefore costs of QW handling would decrease. The waste industry provides services to both airlines and airports carrying with them the potential liability of QW. The waste industry ensures their handling practices meet strict regulations. To ensure these obligations are met, waste companies embed increased handling costs into their service agreements. Additionally, waste companies offset their cost through revenue from recyclables. NCRM collection, therefore, when handled per the law, can bring with it the prospect to increase recycling and reduce operating costs by the sheer reduction in the volume of QW. 2.4 Case Studies The German Act called Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz, or KrWG, is an example of recycling promotion which assists in facilitating NCRM recovery. The Act’s purpose is “to promote the recycling of natural resources and to ensure the protection of man and the environment in the production and management of waste." The success of recycling practices in Germany may be due to the clarity of the law, and airlines in Germany are able to recycle more than their North American counterparts. Even further steps are being taken in Germany to increase diversion in collaboration with airport operators. While highlighted in Germany, a general trend in the EU points towards a direct relationship between the regard for materials and the effectiveness of NCRM programs. Similar results are found in Japan, where there is a culturally higher regard for resource preservation. This perspective perhaps points to why stakeholders in Japan work together to support more effective diversion practices. As regard for materials is increased, the recovery rate was found to also increase. 2.4.1 Case Study A - Policies did allow for NCRM collection - NCRM programs were not executed by airlines - Airlines worked together to elevate current practices - Enforcement office cited low budget for enforcement of policy - Short NCRM pilot initiated, but canceled Case Study A was a review of three major international airports operating under the same policy. The airports are significantly distant from each other, and each has different owners and operators. The regulator for these airports was the same, given that the airports were located within the same geographical border. In one of the airports reviewed, domestic and international flights often shared airline boarding gates, posing a challenge in executing an NCRM program which could adhere to the law, as cited by the regulator. At this airport, in particular, the body managing the enforcement of the policy had challenges with regards to allocating additional resources for recycling enforcement initiatives. That is, the enforcement officers did not have the time or manpower to ensure protocols were being followed.

14 In one example in North America, an NCRM recovery pilot was initially approved by the regulator but later canceled. The regulator cited a potential risk of contamination to the environment by NCRM and QW, due to a breach in established protocol. Bags of unidentified NCRM were left outside an established quarantined boundary, and therefore the project was canceled due to risk. A lack of similar protocols and procedures with waste recovery at airports posed a significant logistical challenge for airlines. Despite well-intentioned efforts, airlines were hard pressed in developing identical programs at all airports. Members of a multi-airline panel, for example, indicated that success in NCRM could occur with greater support from stakeholders, i.e., airports, regulators, and enforcement bodies. 2.4.2 Case Study B - Policies did allow for NCRM - NCRM programs present - Airlines cited low importance of NCRM recovery Case Study B features a region containing airports of various sizes and varying levels of passenger traffic. It is also bound by an extensive geographical range, including remote areas. The remoteness of some airports often stretched resources and equipment where it was not economical for NCRM recovery. In high passenger volume airports, airlines cited budget concerns for additional space that would be required for NCRM recovery. Discussion with airlines in this market indicated a limited amount of resources and manpower to execute NCRM recovery. Domestic diversion was stated as a much easier process to implement. International NCRM recovery efforts were complicated when airport programs were different from city to city. Where international and domestic flights were handled and the source of NCRM was unclear, flight kitchens did not wish to risk handling because of potential fines. Therefore NCRM was typically identified as QW and discarded. This case study found that a lack of consistency at airports contributed to the complexity of NCRM recovery abroad. Catering facilities found reduced NCRM programs due to space constraints within their facilities. Space constraints have also increasingly become an issue in this market due to climbing passenger volumes. 2.4.3 Case Study C - Developed and developing regions - Both high and low policy restrictions - Both high and low enforcement - Both high and low NCRM recovery This case study was unique in that it covered a market with emerging growth. This market relied predominantly on incineration for handing QW. A lack of available infrastructure and execution capital were stated as limiting factors as to why an increase in NCRM recovery was not found. This specific range of policy restrictions in this case study included the following findings. In cases where a high policy restriction was found or where no NCRM was recovered, almost all waste was incinerated. Conversely, in cases where low policy restrictions existed, a higher NCRM recovery was evident. The main reason why airlines recycled NCRM in this market was that it was mandated by law. Specifically in this market airlines were more inclined to follow a mandate by an airport, rather than being given a choice to recycle. In addition, airlines admitted to difficulty in implementing or adhering to programs for each airport. For a medium-sized airline operating to more than 100 cities, for example, having different procedures for each added to the complexity and contributed to the lack of participation. In markets where NCRM recovery was

15 mandated by law, airlines had no choice but to abide and therefore complied. Airlines, however, could not always allocate new resources each time a new initiative was presented. The case study also yielded the following with regards to enforcement. High enforcement of existing QW policies in conjunction with successful airport collection programs generally yielded positive results or high NCRM recovery rates while in areas of low enforcement of existing QW policies, or where policy existed with no enforcement, it was uncovered that adherence to policy was limited, or QW was landfilled without being treated. Case Study Summary In general, it was found that the larger the pool of stakeholders, the lower the probability of NCRM recovery. Extenuating circumstances coupled with operational challenges, for example, all affect recovery or lack thereof. Most markets do allow NCRM collection but only if certain conditions are met. Airport operators have their own unique challenges when creating NCRM recovery programs. Given that we are still at the dawn of the sustainability era, the airport industry, like many other industries, struggles with introducing new and effective programs that meet bottom-line corporate objectives. As an aside, airlines have been challenged to implement their own programs. A medium-sized airline operating to more than 100 cities is often tasked with managing waste streams and different procedures for each airport. These issues are part of the reason why airlines do not participate in individual airport programs. In markets where NCRM recovery was mandated by law, airlines had no choice but to comply. Airlines, however, could not always allocate new resources each time a new initiative was presented at an airport and often opted out. 2.5 EU Zero Waste Cabin An on-going study in the EU, ‘Zero Waste Cabin,’ and its interim report Tackling International Airline Catering Waste Management, has a project goal to decrease or eliminate QW entirely (Fullana-i-Palmer et al. 2018). The study was funded with USD $2,992,000 by the EU’s financial instrument for the environment and nature conservation LIFE (Environment and Climate Action Program). Preliminary findings from the study show the potential of reducing QW. This elimination could result in significant cost savings to the aviation industry and airport operators by combining recycling, NCRM, and QW handling. Eliminating QW could also reduce or limit handling costs while increasing diversion. It could also alleviate logistical challenges in managing both NCRM and QW separately. The prospect of such a significant policy change and the eradication or harmonization of QW policy, however, could take decades to be fully realized. While the goal of eliminating QW is ideal, many airlines reviewed struggle to implement basic recycling programs within their own operations due to gaps in supply and inconsistent collection chains. Similarly, airport retail stores are also not governed by QW policies, and also struggle to implement recycling programs. In the interim, the only way the aviation industry can reduce QW is through decreased contamination and increased NCRM recovery allowable and in line with existing global policies. Costs of Collecting NCRM Capital expenditures and operational costs related to the management of NCRM are part of the aviation industry’s cost of doing business. Handling and processing fees ensure compliance and may potentially mitigate risk and allow waste providers to recover NCRM. In many cases, flight kitchens can incorporate the recovery of NCRM by adding additional resources, workforces, and costs. These additional costs would include the separation of NCRM processing and handling fees associated with the handling of NCRM. For AAFKs who chose to recover NCRM, additional waste contracts increased costs. Despite the fact that NCRM reduces overall waste volume and reduces cost, QW handling is still also required. Services such

16 as steam sterilization, off-site incineration or approved landfill disposal are still necessary. Costs were generally low for AAFKs who utilized landfill in countries where no policies governed QW. Training for stakeholders to ensure proper procedures were followed added to NCRM recovery costs. In some island-based countries, QW incineration was a preferred handling method as it ensured the handling of QW was complete and also alleviated the logistical issue of having to recover and recycle NCRM. Incineration on-site also allowed some airports to keep operation costs low where landfill prices were high, or where options for QW were not available. In some markets, incineration was a more streamlined way to handle both QW, NCRM, and ensured the lowest cost for airlines and airports. For island-based airports, whose remoteness was a factor, incineration also was the most cost-effective strategy, especially where incineration was used to produce energy. In areas where landfill cost was expected to rise, AAFKs were exploring cost reduction strategies which included increased NCRM recovery. Procurement Savings Savings in procurement costs can be approved through the reuse of packaged goods as per the governing policy body. Some items, including certain food and beverage items, can remain on-board the aircraft as long as they are isolated from QW as per US guidelines. Items allowed to remain aboard, include some food items and beverages, provided those items have not come into contact with QW. Items exposed to QW must be handled as QW and placed in quarantine as per Foodstuffs on Aircraft Exempted from Removal as Regulated Garbage (USDA APHIS 2018). Synergy Savings Combining NCRM from airports and airlines can increase both NCRM recovery and savings. The mutual management of waste by airports and airlines could create a platform where small recovery facilities ensure increased recycling. Airports who have implemented this change have found reduced operating costs for the service rendered. Sterilization and Incineration Costs Increased NCRM recovery reduces QW. While increased recovery may require initial and upfront capital expenditure to ensure proper program development, it can contribute to increased savings and may decrease QW and its costly treatments.

Next: Chapter 3 Airports and the Circular Economy »
Recovering International Recyclables from In-Flight Service Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

When exposed to certain foods or fluids, recyclables arriving on international flights are required to be quarantined due to potential contaminants. As a result, almost every country worldwide prescribes sterilization, incineration, or other disposal methods for these contaminated recyclables.

The TRB Airport Cooperative Research Program's ACRP Web-Only Document 46: Recovering International Recyclables from In-Flight Service finds that supply chains, advanced stakeholder engagement, value chain collaboration, and a globally standardized and adopted approach may be needed to increase and better monetize the recovery of Non-Contaminated Recyclable Materials (NCRM).

With a multi-stakeholder approach, airports, airlines, and flight kitchens, along with support partners, can affect the recovery efficiency of NCRM. Through these collaborative efforts, gaps in supply and collection chains can be addressed.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!