Berlin Brandenburg Airport (BER) is among the European airports that link part of their airport charges to the noise generated by aircraft. Berlin’s system goes a step further than the usual classification of aircraft into predefined noise categories: since September 2022, noise has been measured for every individual arrival and departure, with the measured result directly affecting the amount the airline has to pay.

For each flight, data are collected from three monitoring stations located along the relevant flight path. The measured values are adjusted and used to calculate an average maximum noise level, according to which the flight is assigned to one of 11 categories. BER says that, to its knowledge, this is the first system in the world in which the charge is determined not only by aircraft type, but by the actual measured noise of each individual flight.

The difference in price is far from symbolic. From 1 April 2026, an aircraft in the quietest, first category pays €42.85 per event, meaning separately for a landing and a take-off. Category five costs €112.48, category eight €546.32, category nine already €1,606.84, while the noisiest, eleventh category is charged €8,034.19 per event. Significant surcharges also apply during the night, ranging from 100 percent between 22:00 and 23:00 to as much as 500 percent between midnight and 06:00.

If a valid measurement cannot be obtained for an individual flight, a reference value for the relevant aircraft type is used instead. These tables illustrate particularly well how newer-generation aircraft benefit from the system. The Airbus A320neo is placed in category four for landing and category three for take-off, while the conventional A320ceo falls into category five for both landing and take-off. The Boeing 737-800 is also generally placed in category five.

Under the 2026 tariff, such a reference combination means that one arrival and one departure by an A320neo would cost €152.12, while an A320ceo would pay €224.96, almost €73 more. It is important to stress that at BER, an A320ceo is not automatically penalised simply because it does not carry the neo designation: if the actual measured flight is quieter, the fee will correspond to the measured category. Nevertheless, the reference classification clearly shows the direction in which the system is structured.

BER says the model is already producing results. Several airlines have changed their departure procedures and switched to NADP1, which allows aircraft to gain altitude more quickly after take-off and thereby reduce noise on the ground in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Measurements on a typical A320 showed a difference of up to two decibels compared with the less steep NADP2 procedure. At the same time, the share of latest-generation aircraft, including the A320neo, A350, Boeing 787 and Embraer E195-E2, has increased to more than 30 percent.

Berlin is not the only one

The concept of charging according to noise is by no means unique to Berlin. Frankfurt has linked airport charges to noise for decades, and Fraport says that charges based on effectively measured noise were introduced as early as 2001. Frankfurt’s current system uses 16 categories, with older and noisier aircraft facing additional financial penalties, especially during night-time operations.

Amsterdam Schiphol applies a similar policy and, from April 2025, further widened the difference between charges for quieter and noisier aircraft. The airport openly states that through its pricing structure it wants to encourage airlines to operate aircraft such as the A320neo, A321neo, A220, A350, Boeing 787 and other newer-generation types to Amsterdam. During 2025, around one third of operations belonged to the quietest categories, while in some months of 2026 that share reached around 40 percent. Heathrow also uses categories linked to aircraft noise and weight in the structure of its airport charges.

When environmental policy begins to shape market competition

From an environmental and public-health perspective, the logic of the system is easy to understand: those who generate less noise pay less. The problem arises when the same principle is viewed from the perspective of competition between airlines. An Airbus A320 that is around ten years old can hardly be considered obsolete today, yet technologically it belongs to the previous generation and will generally be noisier than an A320neo. An airline with the financial strength to order dozens of new aircraft therefore gains not only lower fuel consumption, but increasingly also more favourable regulatory and airport treatment.

The Croatian example is particularly illustrative. ETF Airways bases its operations on the Boeing 737-800, Trade Air currently lists a fleet of five Airbus A320s, while Fly Air41 operates four A319s and three A320s. None of these aircraft belongs to the A320neo, 737 MAX, A220 or E2 generation that today enjoys the greatest advantages under increasingly differentiated environmental charging systems.

For ACMI and charter operators, this is not a negligible issue. Their business models often rely precisely on proven previous-generation aircraft that have already passed through the steepest part of their initial depreciation and can therefore be acquired or leased at significantly lower capital cost. Expecting such an airline to move to the A320neo or 737 MAX simply to save several dozen or several hundred euros per rotation ignores the fact that such a change represents an investment worth tens of millions of euros per aircraft.

This also opens a broader question about European competitiveness. As the cost of fuel, crews, maintenance, leasing and traditional airport charges is gradually supplemented by noise fees, emissions charges and other environmental components, airlines with smaller fleets and more limited access to capital are proportionally more exposed than major airline groups operating hundreds of new aircraft and holding long-term agreements with manufacturers. The intention is to encourage technological renewal, but one side effect may be an acceleration of market consolidation and an even greater advantage for Europe’s largest airline groups.

Two things should also be clearly distinguished, as they are often treated as one and the same. BER’s noise charge is not an EU tax, nor does the money directly finance the administration in Brussels; it is an airport charge levied by Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg GmbH under the German system of airport charges. However, it fits into a broader European direction in which an increasing share of environmental policy is being implemented through the cost of doing business. For passengers, the end result is straightforward: costs incurred by the airline sooner or later have to be reflected in the price of the ticket.

The question, therefore, is no longer whether noise around major airports should be reduced — there is little serious dispute about that — but where to draw the line between justified incentives for technological progress and a system that financially penalises an aircraft that is fully certified, safe and, in many cases, barely ten years old. BER is particularly interesting because it attempts to address that issue by measuring the actual noise of each flight, which is fairer than simply penalising a particular aircraft type. Even so, the system clearly illustrates the direction in which European aviation is moving: newer and quieter aircraft are becoming not only operationally desirable, but increasingly financially necessary.