Amsterdam Schiphol Airport Plans Curfew, Private Jet Ban

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.

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.

The night curfew would most impact 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.

Schiphol Airport will get less busy in years to come

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?

Conversations (44)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Steve Guest

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?

0
‼ 0
Ed Guest

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.

0
‼ 0
Lisa Guest

@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

0
‼ 0
Jeffrey Chang Guest

I hope they ban aircraft used by politicians, including Air Force One.

0
‼ 0
Mantis Guest

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.

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published