Assessment and Analysis of Aircraft Fuel Consumption in a Tropical Environment: The Case Study of the Maya-Maya International Airport, Republic of the Congo

Manasse Malame Kaboulou; Bienvenu Ondami; Henri Joel Ondze; Donatien Ngopaka-Yemba

doi:10.48084/etasr.19559

Authors

Manasse Malame Kaboulou Faculte des Sciences et Techniques, Universite Marien Ngouabi, Brazzaville, Congo
Bienvenu Ondami Faculte des Sciences et Techniques, Universite Marien Ngouabi, Brazzaville, Congo
Henri Joel Ondze ASECNA, Brazzaville, Congo
Donatien Ngopaka-Yemba ANAC, Brazzaville, Congo

Volume: 16 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 37732-37738 | August 2026 | https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.19559

Received: 25 April 2026 | Revised: 24 May 2026 | Accepted: 3 June 2026 | Online: 17 June 2026

Corresponding author: Bienvenu Ondami

Abstract

Fuel consumption at tropical airports in developing regions remains poorly documented, creating a significant empirical gap in both academic literature and operational guidance. This paper presents a comprehensive assessment and analysis of aircraft fuel consumption at Maya-Maya International Airport (FCBB), Republic of the Congo, using four years of operational data (2021–2024) covering 22,968 flight movements. Fuel consumption is estimated using the ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator (ICEC v13.1), and a distance-based allocation approach is introduced to decompose the total fuel consumption into airborne and ground operation components. A reproducible engineering methodology is developed, combining the ICAO calculator with a parametric ground fuel allocation and log-linear regression analysis. Over the study period, the total fuel consumption reached 183,010 tonnes, generating 578,313 tonnes of CO₂. Ground operations account for approximately 7.0% of the total fuel burn (12,780 tonnes). Delay analysis reveals average delays of 19.5 min per flight with a strongly right-skewed distribution — median nine min against a maximum of 521 min — indicating that extreme events disproportionately drive total fuel burn. Regression analysis identifies flight distance, aircraft generation, and operational delays (approximately 15 kg of additional fuel per min of delay) as the primary drivers of fuel consumption. A three-phase strategic framework combining operational improvements, fleet modernization, and integrated decision-support systems projects fuel savings of 15–23% under realistic implementation scenarios. The methodological framework is transparent, replicable, and directly transferable to other data-constrained tropical airports in Sub-Saharan Africa and beyond.

Keywords:

aircraft fuel consumption, tropical airports, ICAO methodology, ground operations, operational efficiency, CO2 emissions, delay analysis, developing regions

References

[1] International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), ICAO Environmental Report 2022, (2022), https://www.icao.int/icao-environmental-report-2022.

[2] T. Nikoleris, G. Gupta, and M. Kistler, "Detailed estimation of fuel consumption and emissions during aircraft taxi operations at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport," Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 302–308, June 2011.

[3] "Airports' Resilience and Adaptation to a Changing Climate." Airports Council International. https://store.aci.aero/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Policy_brief_airports_adaption_climate_change_V6_WEB.pdf.

[4] D. A. Pamplona and C. J. Pinto Alves, "Civil Aircraft Emissions Study and Pollutant Forecasting at a Brazilian Airport.," Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 10, no. 1, Feb. 2020, Art. no. 5217.

[5] International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator Methodology (Version 13.1), https://icec.icao.int/Documents/Methodology%20ICAO%20Carbon%20Emissions%20Calculator_v13_Final.pdf.

[6] M. Zhang, Q. Huang, S. Liu, and H. Li, "Assessment Method of Fuel Consumption and Emissions of Aircraft during Taxiing on Airport Surface under Given Meteorological Conditions," Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 21, 2019, Art. no. 6110.

[7] Federal Aviation Administration, Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT): Technical Manual, (2021), https://aedt.faa.gov/4a_information.aspx.

[8] A. Rudolph and Q. Wang, "Economies of Distance in Commercial Aviation: Emissions Intensity and Marginal Abatement Costs," Proceedings of the West Virginia Academy of Science, vol. 98, no. 1, 2026.

[9] R. Mirea, G. Cican, and M. Cretu, "Evaluation of Aircraft Emissions at Bucharest Henri Coanda Airport," Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 11829–11836, Oct. 2023.

[10] EUROCONTROL, Airport Collaborative Decision-Making (A-CDM) Implementation Manual, (2017), https://www.eurocontrol.int/publication/airport-collaborative-decision-making-cdm-implementation-manual.

[11] A. Kharina, D. Rutherford, and M. Zeinali, Cost Assessment of Near- and Mid-Term Technologies to Improve New Aircraft Fuel Efficiency, (2016), https://theicct.org/publication/cost-assessment-of-near-and-mid-term-technologies-to-improve-new-aircraft-fuel-efficiency/.

[12] M. Lukic, P. Giangrande, A. Hebala, S. Nuzzo, and M. Galea, "Review, Challenges, and Future Developments of Electric Taxiing Systems," IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1441–1457, Dec. 2019.

[13] S. Ravizza, J. A. D. Atkin, and E. K. Burke, "A more realistic approach for airport ground movement optimisation with stand holding," Journal of Scheduling, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 507–520, 2014.

[14] Y. Tian, L. Wan, K. Han, and B. Ye, "Optimization of terminal airspace operation with environmental considerations," Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 63, pp. 872–889, Aug. 2018.

[15] G. S. Koudis, S. J. Hu, A. Majumdar, R. Jones, and M. E. J. Stettler, "Airport emissions reductions from reduced thrust takeoff operations," Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 52, pp. 15–28, May 2017.

[16] "Carbon Emissions Calculator." ICAO. https://icec.icao.int/.