There is a demand from the public that the airline industry should show good will to fly more environmentaly.
The public and the governments will support those airlines that adapt as many fuel/noise/carbon lowering measurements as possible. A small step as a whole, but a giant step in our business.
I also know that there are political discussions that atc will favour airlines with upgraded equipment to land in advance, if they use curbed approaches. And there is more to come...
Now, ten criterias to use, benchmarking airlines, finding out who does the most.
Donīt be a cynic.
Fuel vs noise is generally an either-or proposition. Hush kits and noise abatement profiles both use more fuel. New airplanes and engines cost too much to be an answer for many airlines.
Reducing full-flap use on approach also reduces safety margins due to faster landings, more tire wear, and longer rollouts. Is "green" a suitable substitute for safety margin? If so, how many additional mishaps, injuries, and fatalities are acceptable?
Turning off the air conditioning on the ground will save significant fuel. Where is the public support? Reducing the "smoothness" of transitions will reduce fuel consumption in many cases. Where is the public support?
What upgraded equipment is going to yield landing priority? Where? What happens to the other airplanes that are delayed? Won't they more than offset any reduction in fuel consumption? Please define a "curbed approach." I have no idea what that is.
Cynical?!? How about realistic and analytical instead of naive...