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.
19 CHAPTER 4 â FINDINGS The following questions were used to understand how NCRM was handled in the primary outreach. 1. How is NCRM handled (i.e., recycled, incinerated, landfilled, etc.)? 2. Does your organization follow existing government policy for NCRM? 3. Does your organization generate revenue from NCRM, if recovered? If so, which items? 4. Are there any initiatives either current or on the horizon with regards to how NCRM will be handled? 4.1 Scenarios As a result of the above outreach the following scenarios were uncovered. 4.1.1 In-Place QW Policy & High NCRM Recovery With in-place QW policy with high NCRM recovery, all stakeholders including AAFKs as well as ground operation and waste management worked in unison. Training programs were originally initiated by the airline. The success of the program was rooted in a highly motivated airline which looked to achieve the recycling of NCRM as a major corporate objective. Summary - Stakeholder collaboration was evident - Third-party NCRM waste management partner was on hand - Training of all stakeholders took place - Heightened level of corporate guidelines was evident 4.1.2 In-Place QW Policy & Low NCRM Recovery At destinations with in-place QW policy and with low NCRM recovery, a collection of hurdles was found. Airlines in this market had a corresponding lack of environmental initiatives as it pertained to recycling. Airports had high cost waste programs which deterred airline participation. Airlines in this market also were subjected to remote airports with limited and sparse geography and limited support programs. Summary - Lack of environmental programs/initiative - Low interest/corporate objectives - High cost of implementation - Sparse geography/multiple stations - Inconsistent airport support/programs 4.1.3 In-Place QW Policy & No NCRM Recovery Markets with QW policies and no NCRM recovery budgets and enforcement limitations are seen as significant challenges for implementation of advanced programs. Complex airport and airline operations with limited support mechanisms in-place for recovery of recyclables, in general, were also cited as issues. In some cases, some groups were satisfied with current recovery results and did not see the need to challenge these targets. Summary - Low budgets - Enforcement body limitations - High cost to implement - Not enough vision/corporate guidelines - Satisfied with progress
20 4.1.4 No QW Policy In-Place & No/Low NCRM Recovery Some markets had no QW policies in-place, and yet still displayed little to no NCRM recovery. These markets saw advanced programs as costly choices especially in light of low landfilling costs. Similar hurdles in these markets also saw real estate space as limited for separate collection areas for recycling. Summary - High throughput volume - Costly to execute - Limited real estate flexibility - Low landfill costs It should be noted that a market displaying an absence of QW policy in-place with high NCRM recovery was not found. 4.2 Generalized Findings Gaps Gaps in NCRM recovery from in-flight waste programs provide unique challenges given the complex chain of custody behind the sourcing and handling of materials on an international scale. Aviation industry professionals, supply and collection chains all had some degree of knowledge, although rarely did one group have intimate or clear command of all facets of recovery. Even those solely tasked with the management of waste within an organization sometimes had limits in fully comprehending program efficacy or outcomes. The challenge of these gaps appears to grow as the number of international destinations offered by an airline increases. Policy Harmonization The EU was found to have harmonized policies blending handling and recovery practices for QW. Previously recognized international borders within the current EU, with separately developed standards for recovery, are now merged. Countries operating independently now work under 1069/2009 of the European Parliament as of October 21, 2009. The standardization of these policies brought into effect similar handling requirements and procedures across all borders. Given the success of this model, the aviation industry has an excellent example from which to review the efficiency of these measures. Governments which are considering bans for single-use plastics, for example, should also consider adopting a similar framework for the future development of advanced recovery practices. Adoption of harmonization policies and recovery could also lead to the evolution of policies encouraging more advanced recovery practices. Station Inconsistency Station inconsistencies generally present operational challenges for all airline operators. While domestic recycling may or may not occur at different airports, NRCM recovery was more challenging. Airlines cite station inconsistency as a factor which dissuades or discourages recycling recovery. All US carriers, for example, cite airport inconsistencies as an issue for the collection of recyclables, not just NCRM. The availability of recycling reclamation, or waste providers, is cited as a factor that reduces recycling. Station inconsistency has been showed to be a challenge for airlines to manage and is difficult for airlines to handle on their own. Different practices and procedures at various airports also confuse cabin crews. Crews sometimes have no idea of recycling programs at airports at a particular destination. While cabin crews are certified by aviation authorities to operate aircraft for safety, they could also be qualified to carry out recycling practices in line with policies if given the proper training and support.
21 Some airports, however, could mandate recycling from airlines and assist them with the recovery. In global NCRM recovery examples like Kansai, Japan, where the airport consistently provides airports with NCRM recovery, airlines were more inclined to participate. Flight Kitchen Support International carriers compete with each other and operate many of the same routes. Some airlines own and operate their own catering company, while others utilize third parties. Flight kitchens are often responsible for serving multiple airlines with differing mandates, materials, and operating needs. These operational challenges complicate the NCRM recovery process. In some countries in the EU, NCRM is recovered seamlessly, and in other EU countries, recovery is completely absent. Some flight kitchens operating under the same policy or laws struggle while others excel. In others markets, adherence to NCRM diversion does not occur unless required by law. Airlines in North America recover NCRM in some cases, although their success typically depends on obtaining flight kitchen support. The flight kitchen system initiates at the point where the outbound flight begins. Trolleys are loaded with standardized items for both short-haul and long-haul international flights, and catering companies load products. Using a specialized distributor or logistics company allows the airline and caterer to better manage the flow of materials from aircraft to flight kitchen and back again. (Jones 2012) By understanding this inherent relationship, evidence of a specialized logistics contributes to NCRM recovery. Once the aircraft bound for departure is confirmed, trolleys are loaded into an airside vehicle which then loads the contents onto the plane slated for departure. Passengers enjoy an array of products and services from catering meals which are usually sourced locally. Hot and cold meals are stored in trolley units and packed with dry ice for temperature control. The meal service offered on international routes often varies between legacy and low-cost carriers and by the length of the flight. Low-cost carriers offer a limited variety of meal options for purchase on short-haul and long-haul international flights, while full-service, full fare long-haul flights typically offer meals at no additional cost and have a full array of offerings. Both types of meals create substantial waste streams, especially when individually packaged. Low-cost carriers often have food waste from unsold meals, where long-haul flights have a significant amount of package waste from a greater array of offerings. Waste total estimates run as high as 500 kg per flight, including food, galley and cabin waste. (Li, et al. 2003) From the surveying of international outbound flights, on-board recycling is nearly non-existent, except in some markets where it is mandated. Inbound flights, where aircraft are returning to their home base, typically have a significantly higher rate of NCRM recovery. Hence, it is the outbound flights which need additional encouragement to implement more NCRM. Fines Policies mandate the issuance of fines if a violation of the handling of QW is found in gathering NCRM. Stakeholders have therefore demonstrated significant caution in the recovery of NCRM around the world. If recyclables are contaminated and recovered or handled outside the general accordance of QW handling methods, the company or handler violating protocols could be subject to fines. These fines could be as high as $300,000 in the US and may also include imprisonment. Any person who knowingly violates the Plant Protection Act (PPA) (7 USC. §§ 7701 et. seq.) and/or the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) (7 USC. §§ 8301 et. seq.) may be criminally prosecuted and found guilty of a misdemeanor which can result in monetary penalties, a one-year prison term,
22 or both. Additionally, any person violating the PPA and/or the AHPA may be assessed civil penalties of up to $300,000 per violation or twice the gross gain or gross loss for any violation that results in the person deriving pecuniary gain or causing pecuniary loss to another, whichever is greater. (USDA, APHIS 2016). US policies allow for NCRM, yet the issue of fines due to mishandled QW is an impeding factor preventing stakeholdersâ participation. In Europe, some airlines have no issue with the fact that fines are present, they simply take greater care in the handling of NCRM. Airlines in Europe also involve other stakeholders to ensure an integrated management of NCRM. One airline, in particular, has initiatives that include training videos for its staff and funds a staging area in concert with a third party for the recovery and separation of NCRM. Contamination In cases where Non-Contaminated Recyclable Materials were not recovered, contamination of quarantined items was a major limiting factor in their lack of recovery. To ensure NCRM recovery, contamination must be avoided. Policies generally indicate that either food waste items or the collection of fluids are responsible for contaminating recyclables. For NCRM recovery to occur, QW policies generally state that materials must be kept separated from banned foods at all times for recovery consideration. While cabin crews can influence either positively or negatively the outcome of how materials are handled, there are instances where stakeholders lower down the value chain, can similarly contribute to adverse outcomes due to being misinformed regarding the status of various components. Recovery of NCRM in Europe is usually managed by third parties, who are subsidized by the value of the NCRM. These third parties are also often responsible for ensuring the collection, separation, and handling of NCRM and QW destruction. Having a third-party manager for QW and NCRM, while costly, can provide accountability and deliver positive recovery results and consistency. In some countries, where NCRM is the law, and where third parties manage NCRM, airlines generally state a higher NCRM recovery than at other destinations. Space Constraints Part of the issue with handling NCRM on-board aircraft is the fixed space available in-flight. Airlines are often challenged to ensure NCRM stays separate from food contaminants. While long-haul flights do have larger aircraft, they also have a larger number of travelers to serve resulting in more waste to contend with. A larger space allocation could be set aside on long-haul flights to handle both waste streams separately (i.e., QW and NCRM). Long-haul, wide-body aircraft have multiple galleys and separations are needed at each galley, compounding the space issue. Given the increased reliability and fuel performance of jet engines and the Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance (ETOPS), airlines are now operating single-aisle, narrow-body aircraft on longer routes. These smaller aircraft are now flying increased distances and carrying with them more food and beverages for these extended flights. These aircraft, however, have not been redesigned to increase galley spaces or waste collection. Aircraft manufacturers have assisted with promoting recycling initiatives. However, they have not developed any added galley components in their aircraft for increased recovery. Cabin and galley support mechanisms could assist in increasing separation of materials resulting in increased recovery. Airlines that use compactors take a more proactive approach and are ultimately more successful with NCRM recovery. Typically, airlines which were more advanced in NCRM recovery did overcome space constraints, while others, which did not, cited policy issues as challenges. Some airlines also store separated NCRM in lavatories for the landing phase, but this practice may not always be permitted.
23 Education Interviews with cabin crews found inconsistencies in their understanding of company protocol with regards to NCRM; specifically, a lack of information around material types and separation categories. Crews were also found to mix waste and recyclables, stating that they did not have any direction to do otherwise. In contrast, knowledge about NCRM recovery was higher in crews from countries where NCRM recovery was mandated. Sustainability Approach Given the emerging trend of advanced environmental programs, the size of sustainability teams is growing. Airline operations have matured over decades, and environmental and corporate sustainability initiatives have been adopted by the industry during this period. Airlines have had to develop and ensure reporting on key metrics. They are also just beginning to initiate sustainable processes around lifecycle elements, such as, product choice, sustainable procurement and, eventually, recycling. While NCRM recapture is regarded as important for airlines, these processes take time to implement. An airlinesâ waste team is often comprised of just a few waste professionals and therefore the additional cost and manpower required to elevate NCRM recovery would be difficult to justify. Additionally, the following were cited by environmental teams as potential challenges to developing NCRM recovery programs: - Too many destinations; - Lower on the scale of importance; and - Limited support from airports. Overall, airline environmental leaders cited recycling as a critical topic which could be addressed by airports, but not as important when compared to other environmental initiatives such as fuel saving initiatives or diminishing GHG production. This focus is likely justified given that typically 99% of GHG emission is derived from the operation of jet engines throughout the flight phases. Airlines were also sometimes challenged in allocating human resources to recycling initiatives given the wide geographic range of airline operations. Procurement and Supply Chains More intelligent procurement and supply chain practices may also shape eventual waste recovery. While procurement theoretically could contribute to the increased recovery of NCRM, existing collection practices may suggest that even with integrated supply chains, NCRM may still be disposed of. Specifically, even if all items were recyclable, NCRM recovery rates may remain the same, given that the root cause of QW is contamination from certain quarantined food items. Removal of the contaminant itself may be one way to increase NCRM. Airports could partner with AAFKs to address the opportunities and challenges of recycling on international flights. More collaboration is needed to create an agreement specifying which materials and which practices would be the basis of developing a global standard for recyclables from in-flight service. Based on airlines polled in the US, 80% indicated that NCRM recycling is still a significant challenge. For flight kitchens surveyed, 60% report difficulties with recycling due to the volume of material, impacting on time and space limitations required for extracting recyclables from mixed domestic and international trolleys arriving simultaneously.
