Overview
For my MSc in Engineering Management at De Montfort University (Leicester, UK) I carried out a full cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment (LCA) and carbon footprint analysis of the Airbus A320 family, the most common narrow-body aircraft in the world. The dissertation was awarded a Distinction.
The question
Most aircraft studies look at one slice of the problem, usually fuel burn. I wanted a single, repeatable model that connects manufacturing, operation, maintenance and end of life, so the trade-offs between phases can be compared on the same scale: grams of CO₂-equivalent per passenger-kilometre.
Method
- Framework: ISO 14040/44 LCA, with a 20-year service life and a functional unit of emissions per aircraft lifetime and per passenger-kilometre.
- Data collection guided by the PRISMA framework to keep the literature screening transparent and repeatable.
- Production phase: raw-material extraction and processing, assembly and transport, with a focus on aluminium alloys and carbon-fibre composites (CFRP).
- Operation phase: tank-to-wake, well-to-tank and well-to-wake emissions across landing/take-off and cruise, plus maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO).
- End of life: recycling credits by material.
- Engine comparison: CFM56-5B5/3 (A320ceo) against LEAP-1A26/26E1 and PW1127G-JM (A320neo) under the same mission profile.
Key results
- 470,612 tCO₂-eq over the aircraft lifetime, equal to 71.3 g CO₂-eq/pkm.
- Operation dominates: fuel accounts for about 99% of the total (468,105 tCO₂-eq).
- Production adds 1,295.5 tCO₂-eq, MRO 1,539 tCO₂-eq, and recycling returns a credit of −327.5 tCO₂-eq.
- Newer engines cut well-to-wake emissions by about 11% (LEAP-1A) and 18.9% (PW1127G) compared with the CFM56 baseline.
- Scaling sustainable aviation fuel with 70% lower life cycle emissions could bring the intensity toward roughly 25–30 g CO₂-eq/pkm.
What I learned
Quantifying the “small” phases, such as MRO and end of life, matters even when they are minor, because they are where design and material decisions can still make a difference. The study also showed how sensitive results are to assumptions (load factor, stage length, recycling rates), which is why I documented every input. Limitations: secondary datasets, a single aircraft family, and non-CO₂ effects such as NOx and contrails were not fully covered.
The charts and tables below summarize the results.
Comments are closed