Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Jetty
Topic Author
Posts: 1284
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Fri May 15, 2020 9:35 pm

Today the Dutch government announced that they plan to allow AMS to grow to 540.000 flight movements a year, up from the current cap of 500.000. https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/kabinet ... ~b4e57ba0/ (Dutch)

The growth will be allowed gradually which I suspect is to facilitate KL without opening up to the possibility of a competitor opening a large base. With the opening of pier A within a year, the planned new terminal and the demise of FlyBe which was the only turboprop operator at AMS this means that AMS can grow to ~90 million pax without regulatory or infrastructure issues. The big question that remains is of course what post-Covid recovery will look like.
 
FlyingHonu001
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:33 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sat May 16, 2020 3:43 am

The construction of the new concourse was actually based on the increasing traffic of the last couple of years. It's basically redundant now. AMS is also considering postponing the opening. Those pre-crisis traffic figures will never be reached in the next two years imho, because it will take a while for the general public to regain the confidence in flying. It may give AMS a little breathing room to adjust accordingly when passenger traffic does go up again
 
cityshuttle
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 3:56 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sat May 16, 2020 2:46 pm

Well they could still open the concourse A and meanwhile close e.g. concourse B for renovations.
 
ahj2000
Posts: 1227
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:34 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sat May 16, 2020 10:07 pm

What are the odds that slots are opened for low-cost carriers (Easyjet, LEVEL)?
-Andrés Juánez
 
Jetty
Topic Author
Posts: 1284
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sat May 16, 2020 10:34 pm

ahj2000 wrote:
What are the odds that slots are opened for low-cost carriers (Easyjet, LEVEL)?

Slots are open to everyone per EU regulations and EasyJet is already the second largest user. The only thing the Dutch government can and will do is to not raise the flight movement cap more than needed to facilitate KL (which at the same time allows for extra slots for others).
 
airhansa
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:18 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 4:21 am

I floated the idea of having KLM buy SAS, and move the current SAS long-haul hub from CPH to AMS (essentially removing most current SAS long haul flights and moving the passengers onto KLM long haul flights), thereby using SAS as a feeder service for AMS KLM flights.

FYI, the vast majority of SAS long haul flights depart from CPH, but SAS has a more limited domestic network in Scandinavia compared to KLM apparently. I was also told on another thread that AMS had flight restrictions due to capacity which this new news should solve.
 
Blerg
Posts: 3996
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 4:59 am

airhansa wrote:
I floated the idea of having KLM buy SAS, and move the current SAS long-haul hub from CPH to AMS (essentially removing most current SAS long haul flights and moving the passengers onto KLM long haul flights), thereby using SAS as a feeder service for AMS KLM flights.

FYI, the vast majority of SAS long haul flights depart from CPH, but SAS has a more limited domestic network in Scandinavia compared to KLM apparently. I was also told on another thread that AMS had flight restrictions due to capacity which this new news should solve.


I don't think Danes would ever allow that to happen. They are pretty determined to keep SK in CPH as is and they even said so now during the corona virus crisis. If KL was to invest in SK I think they would insist on having a split hub operation.
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 5:06 am

Once AF and KL divorce, IAG may take over KL and move some of the long-haul flight and many regional flight from LHR to AMS.
LHR will become focus hub and KL will be the primary hub to UK and Europe.
 
Blerg
Posts: 3996
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 5:11 am

chunhimlai wrote:
Once AF and KL divorce, IAG may take over KL and move some of the long-haul flight and many regional flight from LHR to AMS.
LHR will become focus hub and KL will be the primary hub to UK and Europe.


Ugh it was discussed already a thousand times that AF and KL are nowhere near the split and even if they were they would still cooperate afterwards. You have an entire thread on this from a few weeks ago.
 
airhansa
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:18 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 5:59 am

chunhimlai wrote:
Once AF and KL divorce, IAG may take over KL and move some of the long-haul flight and many regional flight from LHR to AMS.
LHR will become focus hub and KL will be the primary hub to UK and Europe.


DUB would be a good hub for intercontinental flights from the UK due to its pre-clearance facilities, and turning EI into a competing "domestic" airline against BA after the demise of VS - of course this would require a competition ruling requiring IAG to divest of EI.

AMS would be a good hub for direct European and Asian flights from the UK (which I believe it already is to some extent considering it's the busiest non-Irish-UK destination from the UK) - KLM would be the main airline in this case.

The UK doesn't need to save VS or Jet2.
 
ranbidaraxflo
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:54 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 6:23 am

I think AMS have seen the UK and LHR dithering again on the 3rd runway and see more UK hub traffic heading their way!
 
eurotrader85
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:45 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 6:33 am

What does this mean for the upgrading/moving of flights to LEY?
 
User avatar
MrBren
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 11:44 am

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 6:41 am

This growth was not authorised when needed, it is now when absolutely not needed.
 
devron
Posts: 363
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:56 am

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 7:30 am

MrBren wrote:
This growth was not authorised when needed, it is now when absolutely not needed.


I guess now it is easier to sell as no one in the sceptical population will worry. In the long term this will help KL and its now large stakeholder the state.
 
Toinou
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:21 am

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 8:07 am

devron wrote:
MrBren wrote:
This growth was not authorised when needed, it is now when absolutely not needed.


I guess now it is easier to sell as no one in the sceptical population will worry. In the long term this will help KL and its now large stakeholder the state.


True but on the other hand, it will probably become a political topic once again before it's needed. And from what I understand of Dutch politics, I'm not sure many parties will take the risk to support that position which seems to be rather unpopular.
 
LJ
Posts: 5285
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 8:20 am

Jetty wrote:
ahj2000 wrote:
What are the odds that slots are opened for low-cost carriers (Easyjet, LEVEL)?

Slots are open to everyone per EU regulations and EasyJet is already the second largest user. The only thing the Dutch government can and will do is to not raise the flight movement cap more than needed to facilitate KL (which at the same time allows for extra slots for others).


The government made clear that it doesn't want to increase the maximum number of movements for these types of flights. As such it will seek ways to change the slot allocation system is uch a way that it can ensure that slot requests which have a low added value for the Dutch economy can be refused. This means that growth is not unconditional. Moreover, it's a change from the current policy which doesn't take added value for the Dutch economy into account. As a result one can assume that it doesn't need the extra 40k slots.
 
76er
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:04 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 8:38 am

LJ wrote:
The government made clear that it doesn't want to increase the maximum number of movements for these types of flights. As such it will seek ways to change the slot allocation system is uch a way that it can ensure that slot requests which have a low added value for the Dutch economy can be refused.


It remains to be seen if such a move would hold up in court.
 
Fuling
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:41 am

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 9:08 am

I get that it might take a while, but what kind of additions might we see from KL?
 
AMS18C36C
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:11 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 9:21 am

That's what I was wondering a as well. Are there any gaping holes in KL's network? Is raising the movement cap to 540k really necessary? AMS is already a well-connected airport.
 
Blerg
Posts: 3996
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 10:45 am

I think KLM won't profit from this increase as much as other carriers will. I heard many struggled to increase their presence there.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4257
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 11:12 am

So the Embraer E2s will be used to replace the 737-700s now?
 
Jetty
Topic Author
Posts: 1284
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 11:31 am

Fuling wrote:
I get that it might take a while, but what kind of additions might we see from KL?

There are discontinued destinations in the past few years of which KL mentioned that the flights were profitable but given lack of slots those were better used for another destination, Southampton i.e. They mentioned a lack of slots as reason for limited India expansion as well. Those would be logical additions when slots are available.

AMS18C36C wrote:
That's what I was wondering a as well. Are there any gaping holes in KL's network? Is raising the movement cap to 540k really necessary? AMS is already a well-connected airport.

Not ‘really necessary’ I guess, but AMS was already at maximum capacity for a few years so it’s clear there is demand for extra slots (pre Covid at least).
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 970
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 12:21 pm

VSMUT wrote:
So the Embraer E2s will be used to replace the 737-700s now?

How come?

Some 737-700's were to be replaced by 737-800's.

Why would this news change that?
 
LJ
Posts: 5285
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 12:24 pm

76er wrote:
LJ wrote:
The government made clear that it doesn't want to increase the maximum number of movements for these types of flights. As such it will seek ways to change the slot allocation system is uch a way that it can ensure that slot requests which have a low added value for the Dutch economy can be refused.


It remains to be seen if such a move would hold up in court.


Hence why they're intending changing the slot allocation regulation on EU level (they see possibilities). Moreover, they're going to explore possibilities to use airport charges to steer on "network quality";

AMS18C36C wrote:
That's what I was wondering a as well. Are there any gaping holes in KL's network? Is raising the movement cap to 540k really necessary? AMS is already a well-connected airport.


This is not only about KLM, but also about other ailrines. The government identifies that capacity constraints impact the relative competitiveness of AMS, which it wants to remain equal or improve. This is valid for both passengers and cargo.


The actual vision of the Dutch government (thus not only the highlighted growth as mentioned in the media) in Dutch only (the thing about "network quality" is on page 36 - 39).
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2020/05/15/bijlage-1-ontwerp-luchtvaartnota-2020-2050
 
FlyingHollander
Posts: 429
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:50 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 2:52 pm

Jetty wrote:
Fuling wrote:
I get that it might take a while, but what kind of additions might we see from KL?

There are discontinued destinations in the past few years of which KL mentioned that the flights were profitable but given lack of slots those were better used for another destination, Southampton i.e.

The Monrovia/Freetown triangle is another such route.
If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4257
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 3:18 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
So the Embraer E2s will be used to replace the 737-700s now?

How come?

Some 737-700's were to be replaced by 737-800's.

Why would this news change that?


Because with more slots and less demand in the post-Corona environment, upsizing from 737-700s to -800s makes less sense. And they just happen to have 21 Embraer E2s on order that are pretty much the exact same size as a 737-700.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19757
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 6:14 pm

MrBren wrote:
This growth was not authorised when needed, it is now when absolutely not needed.

If will be needed within 5 years. Probably earlier as AMS wasn't allowed to grow to the boom time potential.

However, I cannot get excited about 8% growth. That is in the noise. Two years of the prior economy.

Economies grow with air traffic. I'm all for being an environmentalist, but I'm not an alarmist. We'll just say the UN treaty needs to have a plan for growth and include all high polluters.

We need to grow. That that is grown fuel?

AMS needs another runway and more terminal space. Don't but me in charge of the LHR bulldozzers. :devil:

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
marcelh
Posts: 1011
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 7:21 pm

lightsaber wrote:
MrBren wrote:
This growth was not authorised when needed, it is now when absolutely not needed.

If will be needed within 5 years. Probably earlier as AMS wasn't allowed to grow to the boom time potential.

However, I cannot get excited about 8% growth. That is in the noise. Two years of the prior economy.

Economies grow with air traffic. I'm all for being an environmentalist, but I'm not an alarmist. We'll just say the UN treaty needs to have a plan for growth and include all high polluters.

We need to grow. That that is grown fuel?

AMS needs another runway and more terminal space. Don't but me in charge of the LHR bulldozzers. :devil:

Lightsaber

AMS can grow further by moving the holiday charters and LCC to LEY.
 
LJ
Posts: 5285
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 7:48 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Economies grow with air traffic. I'm all for being an environmentalist, but I'm not an alarmist. We'll just say the UN treaty needs to have a plan for growth and include all high polluters.


The unique situation in The Netherlands is that the government is forced to reduce NOx in the air. Given the political situation, Dutch aviation will have to do something. Most of it has to come from reducing the population on the ground (less taxing with engines on), but it's already clear theat the extra 40k of slots will only come when there is a reduction in polution (cue KLM 320NEO and 737MAX discussion).
 
Jetty
Topic Author
Posts: 1284
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 8:38 pm

lightsaber wrote:
AMS needs another runway and more terminal space. Don't but me in charge of the LHR bulldozzers. :devil:

Decision about an extra runway is delayed till next year. No bulldozers needed though, they already reserved the space.
 
davidjohnson6
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Sun May 17, 2020 9:08 pm

I know that Lelystad is intended for the beach flights, but how does AMS intend to move the existing beach or leisure centric flights to Lelystad ? Presumably any airline flying to the beach from Amsterdam will already have a slot and insist on being able to continue to use that slot.
 
Dieuwer
Posts: 2413
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Fri May 22, 2020 1:47 am

JetBlue would love some AMS slots.
 
eurotrader85
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:45 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Fri May 22, 2020 4:02 am

LJ wrote:
76er wrote:
LJ wrote:
The government made clear that it doesn't want to increase the maximum number of movements for these types of flights. As such it will seek ways to change the slot allocation system is such a way that it can ensure that slot requests which have a low added value for the Dutch economy can be refused.


It remains to be seen if such a move would hold up in court.


Hence why they're intending changing the slot allocation regulation on EU level (they see possibilities). Moreover, they're going to explore possibilities to use airport charges to steer on "network quality";



If they are able to change legislation at an EU level that they can basically pick and choose routes, and find ways to favour KLM at AMS, it makes a mockery of the single market. After all who will determine what is 'best for the Dutch economy'? Will that be the same government that has a stake in KLM? Ultimately those extra slots should be handed over to who pays the most. If AMS allowed the trade of slots like as happens in the UK then they would go to those who are willing to maximise value out of those slots, not just wasted on another 737 to a minuscule city that adds little. You might find a chunk of the cargo operators who may have decent slots cashing in and just setting up operations at one of the other numerous smaller airports around the country. I'm all for an expanded AMS, but i'm also a believer the present system in the Netherlands is supporting a degree of protectionist incumbent laziness in operators at the airport. More is good, but more could also be made of what is there. Opening of LEY commercially would also be a good way to spearhead some competition for the airport.
 
LJ
Posts: 5285
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Fri May 22, 2020 6:08 am

eurotrader85 wrote:
LJ wrote:
76er wrote:

It remains to be seen if such a move would hold up in court.


Hence why they're intending changing the slot allocation regulation on EU level (they see possibilities). Moreover, they're going to explore possibilities to use airport charges to steer on "network quality";



If they are able to change legislation at an EU level that they can basically pick and choose routes, and find ways to favour KLM at AMS, it makes a mockery of the single market. After all who will determine what is 'best for the Dutch economy'?


The aviation policy is written for the slots at the airport. If you've read it they've identified criteria which they think increase network quality. If these criteria are applied regardless of the airline, they do meet the criteria of the single market, as the the single market is not without any rules. It will be the EU which will provide a framework for the implementation of the criteria, not the Dutch (or any other EU) government.

eurotrader85 wrote:
Ultimately those extra slots should be handed over to who pays the most. If AMS allowed the trade of slots like as happens in the UK then they would go to those who are willing to maximise value out of those slots, not just wasted on another 737 to a minuscule city that adds little.


Why would AMS want to allow slottrading? The airport is majority owned by the Dutch and local governments of which the Dutch government (but also the local governments) clearly has a reason not to allow slottrading. I foresee that in the current reset of the slot allocation process the Dutch government will block the current proposal to allow more slottrading, and due to COVID-19 will have some support for that view in the EU.

eurotrader85 wrote:
You might find a chunk of the cargo operators who may have decent slots cashing in and just setting up operations at one of the other numerous smaller airports around the country


This is just the behavior the Dutch government wants to prevent and as such is against slottrading. Moreover, those airlines will go to LGG, OST or BRU, which is not helping making The Netherlands a hub. The only Dutch airport to handle cargo flights besides AMS is MST, but that's not helpful for many companies (better drive to LGG where you have no restrictions (apart from apron space)

eurotrader85 wrote:
Opening of LEY commercially would also be a good way to spearhead some competition for the airport.


You cannot argue against the Dutch aviation policy and suddenly argue that the Dutch government should open LEY to "spearhead some competition". Nobody wants to go to LEY, they all want to go to AMS. They can open LEY, but nobody will fly to it unless forced to do so (hence the aviation policy). The only alternative is to provide big subsidies, which they don't want to as this will increase aviation, which is not their goal.
 
eurotrader85
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:45 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Fri May 22, 2020 9:30 am

LJ wrote:
eurotrader85 wrote:
LJ wrote:

Hence why they're intending changing the slot allocation regulation on EU level (they see possibilities). Moreover, they're going to explore possibilities to use airport charges to steer on "network quality";



If they are able to change legislation at an EU level that they can basically pick and choose routes, and find ways to favour KLM at AMS, it makes a mockery of the single market. After all who will determine what is 'best for the Dutch economy'?


The aviation policy is written for the slots at the airport. If you've read it they've identified criteria which they think increase network quality. If these criteria are applied regardless of the airline, they do meet the criteria of the single market, as the the single market is not without any rules. It will be the EU which will provide a framework for the implementation of the criteria, not the Dutch (or any other EU) government.


Who are they to decide what 'network quality' is? What does that even mean? Or is it as mentioned higher up, the government will just concoct up rules which mean their KLM gets more slots at the expense of other competition who might give them a run for their money?

LJ wrote:
eurotrader85 wrote:
Ultimately those extra slots should be handed over to who pays the most. If AMS allowed the trade of slots like as happens in the UK then they would go to those who are willing to maximise value out of those slots, not just wasted on another 737 to a minuscule city that adds little.


Why would AMS want to allow slottrading? The airport is majority owned by the Dutch and local governments of which the Dutch government (but also the local governments) clearly has a reason not to allow slottrading. I foresee that in the current reset of the slot allocation process the Dutch government will block the current proposal to allow more slottrading, and due to COVID-19 will have some support for that view in the EU.


Because it’s a much more efficient measure to allocate slots. Companies who have to get a return on investment are going to maximise the yield they can out of the restrained commodity, that is the slot. If you have to pay $25mln for a pair you are not going to stick an Embraer on a flight to MME. You will put a WB and max out the value of it.

The only reason the Dutch government wouldn’t want to allow such slot trading is because it might put competition on their own KLM which would benefit the paying public. If anything COVID-19 is a bigger advocate for slot trading, If weaker airlines can monetise the asset it would help in reducing government bailouts, capitalise assets in order to seek private funds. It will pass slots to those who are financially more viable.

LJ wrote:
eurotrader85 wrote:
You might find a chunk of the cargo operators who may have decent slots cashing in and just setting up operations at one of the other numerous smaller airports around the country


This is just the behavior the Dutch government wants to prevent and as such is against slottrading. Moreover, those airlines will go to LGG, OST or BRU, which is not helping making The Netherlands a hub. The only Dutch airport to handle cargo flights besides AMS is MST, but that's not helpful for many companies (better drive to LGG where you have no restrictions (apart from apron space)


So at a capacity constrained airport, instead of letting cargo operators monetise their valuable asset, probably more valuable then they need, which they could use to develop operations at one of the other airports in the country, where they could expand operations and create more jobs, allow other airlines who have can drive more yield from the slot constraint at AMS to offer passengers more options, it is better to keep them hoarded into AMS? Who is that benefitting? Definitely not the Dutch economy or general public whom the capacity limit is there to benefit.

Cargo operators don’t care about ‘the Netherlands hub’ they set up operations at lowest cost that suits their business need. It doesn’t need to be at LGG, OST or BRU-it could be in the Netherlands if its allowed (and there is no doubt that it will of course have a cargo need in the country which operators would commercially value), but even if it is at one of those airports in Belgium, given it is all the single market does it even matter? Isn’t that the very point, that they should place the operations where it is most profitable, regardless of what side of a border it sits on and the economy as a whole is better off?

LJ wrote:
eurotrader85 wrote:
Opening of LEY commercially would also be a good way to spearhead some competition for the airport.


You cannot argue against the Dutch aviation policy and suddenly argue that the Dutch government should open LEY to "spearhead some competition". Nobody wants to go to LEY, they all want to go to AMS. They can open LEY, but nobody will fly to it unless forced to do so (hence the aviation policy). The only alternative is to provide big subsidies, which they don't want to as this will increase aviation, which is not their goal.


But they're increasing the slot constraint at AMS which by definition is increasing aviation? Further if they want to reduce aviation then why not 'outsource' cargo away, then you've achieved a goal of reducing aviation?

In any case, I believe Ryanair has expressed interest in setting an operation at LEY, given it cannot get enough slots at AMS, and why would it matter for a cargo outfit to be at LEY? All that matters to them is cost of operations, not some love for a major European hub. Like anywhere if airport A in a city is full, and they cannot get slots at such airport, airlines will review operations at airport B in the area, or those who already have slots at airport A will upgauge. Opening Lelystadt isn't any different to any other city around the world who has done the same when the main airport is full up. Sure it won't be as desirable as AMS, but it depends on the needs of the businesses that use it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all up for expansion of AMS, not just flight movements but capacity as well. It’s got six runways, expansion project on the go, great. But when you see some of the routes and planes, there is so much upgauging and route changes that could be done, but its hamstrung by political interference. It doesn't need an 'industrial policy' to make 'hub Amsterdam'. It needs the freedom to allow users to maximise their returns within the constraints that politicians allow (flight movement cap), and allow people to make market decisions. It certainly doesn't need some politically engineered policy to ensure KLM keeps a stranglehold on competition into the greater Amsterdam area ahead of those it labels ‘lower network quality’. Heaven forbid anyone would want to challenge KLM at 'hub Amsterdam'.
 
LJ
Posts: 5285
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Fri May 22, 2020 11:09 am

eurotrader85 wrote:
Who are they to decide what 'network quality' is? What does that even mean? Or is it as mentioned higher up, the government will just concoct up rules which mean their KLM gets more slots at the expense of other competition who might give them a run for their money?


If you've read the pages I've referred to in one of my previous replies you understand that they want to ensure that AMS remains in the top European airports when it comes to connectivity. However, they also prefer yearround service compared to seasonal. Finally, they also talk about the fact that cargo airlines should have more room and they identify that the current policies are not cargo friendly. For this you've to keep in mind that the current slot allocation rules discriminate against cargo airlines when it comes to handing out ad hoc slots and reallocation (the majority has to go to passenger service).

LJ wrote:
The actual vision of the Dutch government (thus not only the highlighted growth as mentioned in the media) in Dutch only (the thing about "network quality" is on page 36 - 39).
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten ... -2020-2050



eurotrader85 wrote:
Because it’s a much more efficient measure to allocate slots. Companies who have to get a return on investment are going to maximise the yield they can out of the restrained commodity, that is the slot. If you have to pay $25mln for a pair you are not going to stick an Embraer on a flight to MME. You will put a WB and max out the value of it.


Again, the owners of the Schiphol Group do not care about maximizing profits. Moreover, This would also mean that slots someone got for free should have been priced. Finally, slottrading would benefit KLM, as the largest holder of those slots, more than any other airline. Moreover, your logic doesn't make any sense as what we saw at LHR was that airlines put their smallest aircraft on some frequencies to LHR in order to ensure the slot wouldn't go away (hence why KLM send Embaers to LHR).

eurotrader85 wrote:
So at a capacity constrained airport, instead of letting cargo operators monetise their valuable asset, probably more valuable then they need, which they could use to develop operations at one of the other airports in the country, where they could expand operations and create more jobs, allow other airlines who have can drive more yield from the slot constraint at AMS to offer passengers more options, it is better to keep them hoarded into AMS? Who is that benefitting? Definitely not the Dutch economy or general public whom the capacity limit is there to benefit.


The problem is that cargo airlines are not able to get slots. This will become even worse when you monetise the slots as they'll always be outbid by passenger airlines. If you read the policy you understand that the Dutch government wants to create space for cargo airlines as they view this as beneficial for the Dutch economy. There is a reason why so many cargo operators left in recent years. It's odd that you argue that the Dutch government should not protect KLM, whereas limiting the ability for cargo airlines to enter AMS is actually protecting KLM....

eurotrader85 wrote:
Isn’t that the very point, that they should place the operations where it is most profitable, regardless of what side of a border it sits on and the economy as a whole is better off?


They moved to LGG and BRU out of necessity, not that they wanted. It seriously decreases their ability to get their hand on the, sometimes lucrative, cargo market at AMS. Ask Qatar who desperately wants to increase its cargo flights to AMS but are left out.

eurotrader85 wrote:
But they're increasing the slot constraint at AMS which by definition is increasing aviation? Further if they want to reduce aviation then why not 'outsource' cargo away, then you've achieved a goal of reducing aviation?


They won't if not all targets all met. The catch with the growth path is that's conditional.

eurotrader85 wrote:
In any case, I believe Ryanair has expressed interest in setting an operation at LEY, given it cannot get enough slots at AMS,


Which is not the plan (at least for the Dutch government). They want flights to move from AMS to LEY, which frees slots at AMS. They don't want additional flights (and certainly not from FR).

eurotrader85 wrote:
and why would it matter for a cargo outfit to be at LEY?


Because LEY cannot and is not allowed to handle widebodies flying fully loaded to places like Nairobi and Moscow. Your logic would make sense if LEY would be an actual replacement of AMS. However, it's not. Moreover, there is limited apron space.

eurotrader85 wrote:
Opening Lelystadt isn't any different to any other city around the world who has done the same when the main airport is full up. Sure it won't be as desirable as AMS, but it depends on the needs of the businesses that use it.


Opening LEY is a political landmine and creates issues and isn't as easy as you think it is.

eurotrader85 wrote:
It certainly doesn't need some politically engineered policy to ensure KLM keeps a stranglehold on competition into the greater Amsterdam area ahead of those it labels ‘lower network quality’. Heaven forbid anyone would want to challenge KLM at 'hub Amsterdam'.


This is the current situation and it does create undesirable effects. As the (majority) owner of Schiphol is the Dutch government, it's them who can decide on its future. If it feels that the laissez-faire ideology should be changed into a more controlled growth policy, so be it. As long as it means that it doesn't discriminate among airlines they've a right to do so.
 
eurotrader85
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:45 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Fri May 22, 2020 12:06 pm

LJ wrote:
eurotrader85 wrote:
Because it’s a much more efficient measure to allocate slots. Companies who have to get a return on investment are going to maximise the yield they can out of the restrained commodity, that is the slot. If you have to pay $25mln for a pair you are not going to stick an Embraer on a flight to MME. You will put a WB and max out the value of it.


Again, the owners of the Schiphol Group do not care about maximizing profits. Moreover, This would also mean that slots someone got for free should have been priced. Finally, slottrading would benefit KLM, as the largest holder of those slots, more than any other airline. Moreover, your logic doesn't make any sense as what we saw at LHR was that airlines put their smallest aircraft on some frequencies to LHR in order to ensure the slot wouldn't go away (hence why KLM send Embaers to LHR).


What we have seen at LHR is smaller airlines who were never making the best returns sold their slots to airlines who could make the pair work better. LHR, and the wider UK economy, has benefitted massively from small airlines selling to ME3 and US carriers who put in WB and VLAs, and then the smaller carriers using the proceeds in part to set up operations at LGW or STN instead, still serving the London market. It was AF/KLM who sold a LHR pair to Oman Air for $75Mln.

LJ wrote:
eurotrader85 wrote:
Isn’t that the very point, that they should place the operations where it is most profitable, regardless of what side of a border it sits on and the economy as a whole is better off?


They moved to LGG and BRU out of necessity, not that they wanted. It seriously decreases their ability to get their hand on the, sometimes lucrative, cargo market at AMS. Ask Qatar who desperately wants to increase its cargo flights to AMS but are left out.


If QR were that desperate then they can pay for a pair of slots at market value. They have the pockets. That is the point. They can make a rational commercial market decision to acquire or not acquire given the value of the slots verses the said lucrative cargo.

LJ wrote:
eurotrader85 wrote:
In any case, I believe Ryanair has expressed interest in setting an operation at LEY, given it cannot get enough slots at AMS,


Which is not the plan (at least for the Dutch government). They want flights to move from AMS to LEY, which frees slots at AMS. They don't want additional flights (and certainly not from FR).


And that just sums it all up. You can masquerade it however you like, try and change EU policy calling it an ‘industrial policy’, but it’s a BS policy being created to favour KLM and stifle competition against it. The government favouring its own airline over others.

Sure opening up LEY or wherever and developing it will have a political headache, more so if those development costs come from the government, all airport expansion has the same usual NIMBY effects, but the long and short of it is this. They are trying to create a one airport policy but restrict the amount of movements. That’s their prerogative, and you can argue the political merits to said policy. But then they also want to ensure there is a cargo element to it which doesn’t make any economic sense, otherwise it would be able to thrive on its own, while also selecting which airline gets any additional capacity against airlines which might challenge said incumbent. If this was communist China you would expect such idiotic policy, but this is The Netherlands. And ultimately it’s the Netherlands who loses out. Having their infrastructure asset not used to its potential, people paying higher fares with less choice, propping up industries which the free market wouldn’t support.
 
LJ
Posts: 5285
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: AMS Allowed to Grow to 540K Movements

Fri May 22, 2020 4:13 pm

eurotrader85 wrote:
If QR were that desperate then they can pay for a pair of slots at market value. They have the pockets. That is the point. They can make a rational commercial market decision to acquire or not acquire given the value of the slots verses the said lucrative cargo.


They cannot buy them because, even if slottarding was allowed, there wouldn't any for sale. Moreover, by your logic all cargo slots (excepr those from KLM) would have been bought by passenger airlines.....I doubt that's a good development.

eurotrader85 wrote:
And that just sums it all up. You can masquerade it however you like, try and change EU policy calling it an ‘industrial policy’, but it’s a BS policy being created to favour KLM and stifle competition against it. The government favouring its own airline over others.


It doesn't only favor KLM, it favors all those with historic rights at AMS.

eurotrader85 wrote:
Sure opening up LEY or wherever and developing it will have a political headache, more so if those development costs come from the government, all airport expansion has the same usual NIMBY effects, but the long and short of it is this.


You clearly don't live in The Netherlands as it's more than a political headache. The Dutch government couldn't simply do it given the legal constraints. In fact, it's quite possible that LEY may not open at all due to the current legal issues regardiing CO2 and NOx emmissions in The Netherlands. The last thing you want to do is ensuring a judge will prohibit openiing LEY.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos