While environmentalism is an important topic across the aviation industry, the Dutch government is taking some drastic action.
In mid-2022, plans were announced for a new “green” flight cap at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, whereby the country’s aviation hub would permanently see the maximum number of annual flights reduced.
We’ve now learned about some other changes coming to the airport, which will no doubt be controversial.
In this post:
Amsterdam Schiphol adds more flight restrictions
Ruud Sondag, the CEO of Royal Schiphol Group, has announced plans for more restrictions to be introduced at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. The intent is for this plan to help minimize noise around the airport:
- Schiphol Airport will add a curfew by 2025, though the goal is to implement it earlier; takeoffs won’t be allowed from 12AM until 6AM, while landings won’t be possible from 12AM until 5AM
- Schiphol Airport will ban private jets by 2025, in order to minimize traffic
- Schiphol Airport wants to ban “noisy” aircraft, including the Boeing 747, by 2025, though exact details remain to be seen
- Schiphol Airport won’t be getting an additional new runway, which was under consideration for quite some time
According to research from the airport, these changes will result in 17,500 people living around the airport experiencing less “serious nuisance,” and it’s expected to result in 13,000 fewer “serious sleep disturbances.”
The curfew is intended to eliminate 10,000 annual flights that would otherwise depart or arrive during those hours. Roughly half are operated by Air France-KLM low cost subsidiary Transavia.
My take on Amsterdam Schiphol Airport changes
Let me start by saying that I think Amsterdam Schiphol Airport’s new “green” flight cap doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. This will simply harm airlines in the Netherlands and reduce Amsterdam’s global connectivity. Ultimately travelers will instead just connect through other hubs, and pollution is a global problem.
If you ask me, it would make a lot more sense to create incentives for airlines to reduce their emissions, in the form of acquiring new aircraft, partnering on sustainable aviation fuel, etc.
That being said, if you are going to create an annual flight cap, then these additional restrictions don’t seem unreasonable. Schiphol Airport will be shrinking rather than growing over the coming years:
- Most major hubs in Europe have a curfew, so Schiphol Airport is just matching the competition there; if you’re going to decrease annual flights, you might as well create a quiet period at night
- If there’s going to be an annual flight cap, it seems fair that private jets would be the first to get banned, so that as many people as possible can at least use the airport
The topic of noise for people living around airports is also a tough one. On the one hand, I think if you choose to live somewhere near the airport, then you should expect that there will be noise. Furthermore, over the years aircraft have become significantly quieter, so I’d expect that people living near airports are dealing with less disruptive noise, rather than more disruptive noise.
On the other hand, many people live near an airport because it’s cheapest and not because they necessarily want to, so if you can make the lives of those people better (especially with limited downside), then that seems like a win-win.
Bottom line
Amsterdam Schiphol Airport has announced plans to add a curfew at night, and to ban private jets. The curfew simply matches the policy you’ll find at many other major European airports. Meanwhile the private jet ban is something you won’t find at many airports.
I don’t think the “green” flight cap makes much sense, but if there’s going to be a cap, then these latest initiatives seem like reasonable places to start cutting service.
I’m curious to see how this all plays out. Ultimately if this is what the people of the Netherlands support, then that’s of course their prerogative, and anyone else doesn’t have much room to talk. However, there’s certainly not much precedent for something like this, and I’m curious what the implications of this are a decade down the road.
What do you make of Schiphol Airport’s planned curfew and private jet ban?
By all means, let's be concerned about interrupted sleep. What about those that go to bed at 8, 9, 10 PM, because they have to rise at 4, 5, 6 AM? If you don't like it, move.
I say this because I live near a local airport that allows the smallest jet arrivals/departures without a control tower. The airport has been there for 60 some years. Over the past 30 years, development around the airport...
By all means, let's be concerned about interrupted sleep. What about those that go to bed at 8, 9, 10 PM, because they have to rise at 4, 5, 6 AM? If you don't like it, move.
I say this because I live near a local airport that allows the smallest jet arrivals/departures without a control tower. The airport has been there for 60 some years. Over the past 30 years, development around the airport has grown. Those residents whine about the airport. Gee, didn't you know that was an airport next door and airplanes make noise; it's a bit hard to miss. And of course, any serious effort to look at alternate locations becomes a NIMBY.
The environmental concerns are legit. But how does one weigh the environmental concerns against economics? Will airfares rise out of AMS? Will jobs be lost due to the reductions? Will those losing jobs be given incentives for retraining or maybe assist with moving and housing expenses at another location? Or will it be 'too bad, so sad, you lost your job'?
Are all private jets banned, or will 'special' people still have landing rights?
Some people are there before there was an airport, like those farmers who should be very well compensated rather than low ball an eminent domain.
I don't have sympathies for those who move after there was an airport.
Ben, this is the second time this week you’ve betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. UK APD was the other one. You state that this change won’t have much effect…
Removing 27,000 flights reduces supply of seats at AMS, and yes there will be some leakage in terms of additional hub flying. However with AMS already slot constrained and supply of seats relatively inelastic in the short run - yes you can upgrade your flights...
Ben, this is the second time this week you’ve betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. UK APD was the other one. You state that this change won’t have much effect…
Removing 27,000 flights reduces supply of seats at AMS, and yes there will be some leakage in terms of additional hub flying. However with AMS already slot constrained and supply of seats relatively inelastic in the short run - yes you can upgrade your flights to MUC or CDG from an A319 to an A321 but your removing those seats from somewhere else until you can buy more aircraft.
Faced with a change reduction in supply, and the rise in price that goes along with this, people will make decisions to pay the increased cost, find a substitute or not travel.
You also state that the airline that will lose most is Transavia, so low cost point to point flights. Full service hub flying is an imperfect substitute for this. Faced with what may be a stark price difference between a Transavia flight in the middle of the night and a longer, more expensive flight through CDG, people will make other choices, including driving to another airport, taking the train, driving all the way, taking the bus etc. or not travelling at all.
The changes from removing what must be at least 5.4million seats from the market will be significant.
@Joaquin
Your two cents are classist. People don't want to live next to airports. But sure, let's let wealth dictate even being able to sleep peacefully, without disturbance. I'm all for a curfew
Lisa,
Please clarify why you think it is classist. If you research the construction / opening timeline of most major airports, you will find that when they were built, there was no development around. The main reason is that airports require a large amount of land and securing land near developed areas is extremely expensive. The land prices near new airport is understandably cheap and housing and commercial developers take advantage of it. Then, people...
Lisa,
Please clarify why you think it is classist. If you research the construction / opening timeline of most major airports, you will find that when they were built, there was no development around. The main reason is that airports require a large amount of land and securing land near developed areas is extremely expensive. The land prices near new airport is understandably cheap and housing and commercial developers take advantage of it. Then, people follow. People have free will, nobody forces them to move to a specific place. Again, airports do not just pop up in the middle of a city.
I hope they ban aircraft used by politicians, including Air Force One.
A curfew will increase emissions. More diversions and flight cancellations means flying to a further away airport, all the expense (and emissions) to get people back to AMS, and cancellations will result in people going back and forth to airport more aircraft taxiing more, etc.
In other words, when governments claim to do something "for the environment" the reality is usually the opposite.
Close the current airport and build a new one in the markermeer
Private jet ban means rather than flying in a CRJ size jet, corporates would just charter a 737 instead.
I'm also betting that government bureaucrat jets won't be impacted by this ban. Special waivers for Al Gore and other global elites to attend climate conferences will surely be offered as well.
Five years from the the environment will be unchanged, because we can't, and fools like this will double down with more stupidity, restrictions on people. Why doesn't anyone ask why all the measures imposed over the last 10 - 20 have not changed a thing? Would you keep going back to a doctor who couldn't cure your ailment or a mechanic that couldn't fix your car???
We (humanity) have changed the environment for the better several times during my lifetime. The 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air-Pollution has significantly reduced the incidence of acid rain by countries agreeing to reduce and remove sulphur from fuels and emissions. The 1987 Montreal Protocol lead to the elimination of ozone destroying CFCs and has lead to significant recovery in the holes in the ozone layer above the poles.
Global collective action can indeed...
We (humanity) have changed the environment for the better several times during my lifetime. The 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air-Pollution has significantly reduced the incidence of acid rain by countries agreeing to reduce and remove sulphur from fuels and emissions. The 1987 Montreal Protocol lead to the elimination of ozone destroying CFCs and has lead to significant recovery in the holes in the ozone layer above the poles.
Global collective action can indeed change the environment for the better.
David seems to be a mental (environmental) midget. Speaking of cars - look at the improvement in SoCal air quality over the past couple decades.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5737709/
"...and pollution is a global problem."
Yes, and a local problem. Schiphol is a disproportionately large airport for a city the size of Amsterdam (or a country the size of NL). Amsterdam has very poor air quality and Schiphol is one of the main reasons why.
There is no 'rule' that says your city's airport must correlate to your population. Hubs serve a purpose and are necessarily huge. If we took airport:city population as a 'rule', then Cairo airport would be truly gargantuan (which it isn't) and Singapore Changi would be tiny (it's massive).
Sure, there is no “rule” but the pollution is still a problem and the Dutch want to do something about it. So I say good on them.
Interesting to see some of the comments/arguments here...not sure I agree with "just move" folks here. Amsterdam was there first...Schiphol was built less than 6 miles from the city, with a number of suburbs right next to it. Compared to CDG, LHR, ARN, OSL, LGW, and other European airports, it's far more "conveniently located" to the city it serves, but as the population grows, it's not like there's any more room to spread out in...
Interesting to see some of the comments/arguments here...not sure I agree with "just move" folks here. Amsterdam was there first...Schiphol was built less than 6 miles from the city, with a number of suburbs right next to it. Compared to CDG, LHR, ARN, OSL, LGW, and other European airports, it's far more "conveniently located" to the city it serves, but as the population grows, it's not like there's any more room to spread out in Noord Holland or the rest of the country - where are people supposed to go? Maastricht? Germany? Belgium? We're talking about a country here that's had to reclaim land from the sea to exist, that is also one of the most densely populated in the world. So sure, it's great if you have the money and means to move, but many Dutch do not. Meanwhile, KLM has become massive when you compare it to the population of the country whose flag it is flying: in 2021, it was the 3rd busiest airport in the world by international passenger traffic (according to the ACI)...over 25,000,000 folks passed through AMS. It's not realistic to just let them keep flying as they are, let alone have private jets come and go as they please...especially with the rail connections Europe has.
@Ralph;
Thank you for mentioning me indirectly.
Back in time when AMS was built there were no houses in the direct vincinity. Just like any other airport. Quite sure those suburbs came later.
Not sure but I tend to think AMS is quite more a transit airport rather than a last halt, just like CDG, LHR, FRA, etc. so dont think your "conveniently located" is the right discription.
The country didn't...
@Ralph;
Thank you for mentioning me indirectly.
Back in time when AMS was built there were no houses in the direct vincinity. Just like any other airport. Quite sure those suburbs came later.
Not sure but I tend to think AMS is quite more a transit airport rather than a last halt, just like CDG, LHR, FRA, etc. so dont think your "conveniently located" is the right discription.
The country didn't "had" to reclaim land from the sea, they just did it. Just like they are still doing the same in some parts of the world.
There are countries much more populated -by far and with even much more airtraffic than the NL"s. Just look at some Asian countries.
About having the money or not, to move. Here I agree, but then again, don't complain about anything which is responsible for a big part of our economy. We just need it. Imagine skipping all the vessels, who besides are a much bigger problem regarding environment than all the A/C"s worldwide together.
And besides, don't think 2020 & 2021 are years you can make any viable comparison in about anything. In "normal" years AMS is far from #3 in the world.
Agree with the private jets, unfortunatly money buys that.
As I live most of the time in Belgium, I get your point.
I get wanting to protect the environment but I don’t agree with limiting the number of flights this substantially.
Another example of woke airport management!
More woke virtue signalling!
They should move their woke airport to Florida, where woke goes to die!
Just kidding!
I was trying to see what it feels like to be a selfish myopic prick. I can report that it feels shallow, stupid, and hateful.
Good for AMS for thinking bigger picture, and not just about €s.
You do a fine job of being a "selfish myopic prick" without trying, I can report from reading your aggressive and narrow-minded previous posts. Remember: when you point a finger, three fingers point back at you.
I wonder how many "serious" job losses are going to occur by this ridiculous virtue signaling. I wish these climate warriors would realize they are impacting people's livelihood.
Hold My Beer, says the melting planet while throwing up extreme weather events
Melting planet? Really? Let's stop the hyperbole please. The planet is not melting.
Look at sea level rises and future projections. Or ice cap melting. Or drying up of rivers. Or increasing extreme weather events.
Nope, too much to comprehend for a likely low information voter such as yourself.
Thanks for confirming you're an unthinking zealot. Sea level has been rising since the last ice age, with no detectable rate of increase. Arctic sea ice is still there, 20 years after Al Gore said it would be gone, and has recovered by 50% since the minimum a decade ago. So you don't know what you're talking about...but yeah, let's implement world socialism to save the planet anyway, right?
Ah another mouth breather…here’s my source. One of no doubt hundreds with similar conclusions. Where’s yours - flatearth.com?
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Drama queen.
Not a little piece of understanding for those living around and complaining about anything! Don't like it, just move. Most of the times the Airports where there first.
The Netherlands is a small country - it's not easy to choose not to live near the airport if you want to live in or around Amsterdam
It's small, but it's not the Vatican! Yes, there are plenty of options that are not near AMS is you're so bothered by jet noise. Just as many as there are in any other large metro with an airport.
@ Joel;
NL Small?? Try Luxemburg, or even worst LIS which is just bordering the city center and they were there first. Know many people over there and rarely heard one complaining. When you buy a house for half the price or even less I never heard anyone complain.
I don’t completely understand how landing fees are calculated, and no idea how that’s done at AMS. But if weighted by MTOW, there would be a financial incentive to limit smaller planes, like biz jets, as they look to reduce total takeoffs/landings.
I've avoided AMS the last couple of years due to the ineptness of the ground crew, the long lines, etc. With this decision, I'm done with any type of flight that would put me on KLM or near AMS. I'll stick with DL or AF and pay extra if it means avoiding AMS
@ Don;
Why? Do you find CDG or worst, LHR better for example regarding the waiting lines? Ineptness of Ground Crew you will find at any Airport. I suggest you try any Airport in Africa.
I didn't tell I like AMS, let alone KLM but the bigger the Airport the more certitude you will have to go through those 'problems.'
Yes, I do find CDG better than AMS over the last 5 years, in fact much better
Agree with Don. I'm Skyteam dependent (Delta for decades) and based out of C. Europe the last 6 years. Fly to NYC throughout the year including during the pandemic with Covid tests. The terminal walks at CDG (F to M, K, L) are formidable, but otherwise Paris has been empirically more pleasant and efficient than Schiphol.
Schiphol's staffing problems persist to this day. Took a chance transiting Amsterdam 3 weeks ago and the lines...
Agree with Don. I'm Skyteam dependent (Delta for decades) and based out of C. Europe the last 6 years. Fly to NYC throughout the year including during the pandemic with Covid tests. The terminal walks at CDG (F to M, K, L) are formidable, but otherwise Paris has been empirically more pleasant and efficient than Schiphol.
Schiphol's staffing problems persist to this day. Took a chance transiting Amsterdam 3 weeks ago and the lines at passport control were still comical, and the lounge was packed. Will pay premium to fly through Paris with AF. Still get uncrowded AF lounge access at JFK (T1) as well and avoid KLM/Delta's T4 post-covid lounge monstrosity...
People often move near airports that are let's say just outside the the lower flying area for landings. But as the airport's expand and create more and more runways intruding in those outer limits now creates new noise pollution for those residences. Now you see many airports that now have taxi runways crossing highways to get to the terminal. Schiphol airport has runways more then 5km away. Living in Amsterdam I see so many private...
People often move near airports that are let's say just outside the the lower flying area for landings. But as the airport's expand and create more and more runways intruding in those outer limits now creates new noise pollution for those residences. Now you see many airports that now have taxi runways crossing highways to get to the terminal. Schiphol airport has runways more then 5km away. Living in Amsterdam I see so many private jets coming into Schiphol so as far as global warming and energy etc. Seems like a lot of wasted full and emissions by private jets in the world. But that's ok there rich. There exempt.
HA HA HA! You can't make up this BS if you tried.
Years from now they'll be teaching this in aviation-focused business courses: "How to turn your leading airport hub into a really small regional airport by environmental virtue-signalling".
Stand up Amsterdam and receive a flood of gratitude from your (former) rivals for cutting your own throat! Dubai thanks you. Changi thanks you. Heathrow thanks you. Atlanta thanks you. Frankfurt & Munich thank...
HA HA HA! You can't make up this BS if you tried.
Years from now they'll be teaching this in aviation-focused business courses: "How to turn your leading airport hub into a really small regional airport by environmental virtue-signalling".
Stand up Amsterdam and receive a flood of gratitude from your (former) rivals for cutting your own throat! Dubai thanks you. Changi thanks you. Heathrow thanks you. Atlanta thanks you. Frankfurt & Munich thank you. Doha thanks you. Tokyo thanks you.
"Hey, let's not change planes in Amsterdam! Let's change planes in SINGAPORE!" said no one, ever.
This is sarcastic ? If not then SIN is a much better option for travel from Europe to Australasia and Asia.
Emirates has a very large number of flights from the U.K. and they even fly 2 x daily from Stansted. That takes traffic away from Amsterdam.
For good or wrong, private jet bans are such an easy sell for 99% of the population. I expect more such measures in the future.
People generally move close to airports and then complaint about the noise. Airports are not build around busy population areas. People move close to the airports. A very clear example, when Denver International Airport was built, it was in the middle of nowhere; I know, I lived in Denver at the time. There was a long road with empty fields all around. Last time I flew into Denver, I noticed that there were many, many...
People generally move close to airports and then complaint about the noise. Airports are not build around busy population areas. People move close to the airports. A very clear example, when Denver International Airport was built, it was in the middle of nowhere; I know, I lived in Denver at the time. There was a long road with empty fields all around. Last time I flew into Denver, I noticed that there were many, many residences around the airport. Other example, look at aerial pictures of Heathrow Airport from the 1950s, also empty fields. Well, if you move next to an airport, noise will happen. Just my two cents.
Since they’ve spent so much time getting this PR plan in order, I assume all their operational disasters have been fixed and this summer will be smooth sailing. Very good to know.