Aisak wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

LAXintl wrote:

Does not bode well for KLM since a hub needs lots of spokes and frequency to maximize connectivity options.
Certainly, a good portion of KLM's longhaul network relies on connectivity to survive, so reducing the number of feed opportunities, chips away at the viability of the broader network.

And yet KLM bases lots of Transavia capacity at the airport, reducing connection options. Every HV flight instead of KL reduces de hub appeal.
Transavia model is a product for regional airports on p2p large routes not for a hub.

Transavia is getting transfer traffic to/from KLM. So not a purely p2p airline

Someone83 wrote:

Aisak wrote:

And yet KLM bases lots of Transavia capacity at the airport, reducing connection options. Every HV flight instead of KL reduces de hub appeal.
Transavia model is a product for regional airports on p2p large routes not for a hub.

Transavia is getting transfer traffic to/from KLM. So not a purely p2p airline

Correct, both KLM and Delta codeshare extensively on HV flights:

- 05.00 HV5361/KL2639 FAO
- 05.25 HV5673/KL2681 IBZ
- 05.40 HV5723/KL2630 HER
- 06.00 HV5131/KL2675 PMI
- 06.10 HV5617/KL2536 BRI
- 06.15 HV6673/KL2534 TFS
- 06.30 HV6917/KL2759 OLB
- 06.35 HV6727/KL2685/DL7517 SVQ
- 06.45 HV6115/KL2649/DL7481 AGP
- 06.45 HV6143/KL2641/DL7484 ALC
- 07.00 HV5805/KL2636/DL7487 SKG

etc, etc, etc,

Regarding freight - will there be an exemption for humanitarian purposes (covid vaccines, etc...)?

SEAorPWM wrote:

Regarding freight - will there be an exemption for humanitarian purposes (covid vaccines, etc...)?

Yes, if these are declared "Government" flights.

Only commercial movements are restricted, no restrictions on private or government movements (ICAO definitions).

Governments don't seem to realize that the lack of connecting traffic for major hub carriers will result in routes being dropped.

Many short haul routes could be cut, but worse of all long haul destinations could be axed because of less transfer traffic. It will happen not just for KLM, but for other SkyTeam airlines that co-operate with the flag carrier.

Royal Jordanian will be shifting some flights to Maastricht.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... maastricht

3D101CA wrote:

Governments don't seem to realize that the lack of connecting traffic for major hub carriers will result in routes being dropped.

The government does realize it but there are also other considerations (obeying current set of noise and pollution levels) to be made. Also with 440,000 movements there is a lot of connecting traffic to make money with.

Since about a bit over 25% of the Netherlands is already below sea level including the city of Amsterdam and the airport as well, the Dutch will face big challenges towards 2100, but maybe a lot earlier if things getting quickly out of control. So the intention of the Dutch government is understandable and accurate.

Ronaldo747 wrote:

Since about a bit over 25% of the Netherlands is already below sea level including the city of Amsterdam and the airport as well, the Dutch will face big challenges towards 2100, but maybe a lot earlier if things getting quickly out of control. So the intention of the Dutch government is understandable and accurate.

This has nothing to do with rising sea levels.

If there is any country that can deal with rising sea level it will be the Netherlands as they have done successfully for hundreds of years already. They gain land from the sea.

One thing that got me thinking is once certain airlines know the outcome of this, will their governments just stick their fingers up to the Dutch government in a tit-for-tat on rights for their own country. Take RJ for instance, I understand they have a cargo operation out of MST, but let's be honest, trying to service the city of Amsterdam for Pax from MST is stretching it. I mean it's a good 2.5hr drive. They could serve BRU or DUS instead and be the same distance from AMS, but with a bigger local catchment area. Obviously, that would require separate bilateral agreements with the Belgian/German governments, but agreements go two ways. If the Dutch government is making life so difficult for Jordan then who's to say they shouldn't reciprocate the difficulty? I know access to AMN doesn't equate in value to AMS, but there will be other, probably bigger, casualties in a 12% reduction in slots at AMS. Landing rights, and of course taking it further if 5th freedom etc, is often a major point in trade discussions between countries.

eurotrader85 wrote:

One thing that got me thinking is once certain airlines know the outcome of this, will their governments just stick their fingers up to the Dutch government in a tit-for-tat on rights for their own country. Take RJ for instance, I understand they have a cargo operation out of MST, but let's be honest, trying to service the city of Amsterdam for Pax from MST is stretching it. I mean it's a good 2.5hr drive. They could serve BRU or DUS instead and be the same distance from AMS, but with a bigger local catchment area. Obviously, that would require separate bilateral agreements with the Belgian/German governments, but agreements go two ways. If the Dutch government is making life so difficult for Jordan then who's to say they shouldn't reciprocate the difficulty? I know access to AMN doesn't equate in value to AMS, but there will be other, probably bigger, casualties in a 12% reduction in slots at AMS. Landing rights, and of course taking it further if 5th freedom etc, is often a major point in trade discussions between countries.

This will be a problem, besides the fact the European Council also has something to say about it.
This goes way farther than restricting KLM and other Dutch Airlines, the international ramifications are (potentially) vast.

eurotrader85 wrote:

One thing that got me thinking is once certain airlines know the outcome of this, will their governments just stick their fingers up to the Dutch government in a tit-for-tat on rights for their own country. Take RJ for instance, I understand they have a cargo operation out of MST, but let's be honest, trying to service the city of Amsterdam for Pax from MST is stretching it. I mean it's a good 2.5hr drive. They could serve BRU or DUS instead and be the same distance from AMS, but with a bigger local catchment area. Obviously, that would require separate bilateral agreements with the Belgian/German governments, but agreements go two ways. If the Dutch government is making life so difficult for Jordan then who's to say they shouldn't reciprocate the difficulty? I know access to AMN doesn't equate in value to AMS, but there will be other, probably bigger, casualties in a 12% reduction in slots at AMS. Landing rights, and of course taking it further if 5th freedom etc, is often a major point in trade discussions between countries.

You are confusing (1) short term measures and (2) long term measures here.

1. Short term measures = COVID Recovery Summer 2022:

Like many airports and airlines in Europe and the rest of the world, AMS is suffering staff shortages as Summer 2022 traffic has recovered much faster than predicted earlier this year.
In addition to taking on staff as quickly as possible in a tight labour market, AMS has requested airlines to reduce traffic for JULY and AUGUST 2022 ONLY.
So Royal Jordanian has responed by moving just 3x July flights from AMS to MST, no less, no more.

2. Long term measures = The intended NL Government capacity reduction of AMS from late 2023 to 440.000 annual movements.

First of all, this is by no means a done deal, as parliament and industry will have to agree with the suggested measures.
It involves complex elements, such as the potential transfer of (willing) LCC operators to Lelystad Airport, the opening of which is not certain due to political and licensing issues.
If sufficient LCC operators are willing to move to a more efficient and lower cost airport, to improve their productivity, than the NL Government hopes network carriers can remain at AMS.
At this time, it is way to early to speculate about the impact on individual carriers.

3D101CA wrote:

Governments don't seem to realize that the lack of connecting traffic for major hub carriers will result in routes being dropped.

Many short haul routes could be cut, but worse of all long haul destinations could be axed because of less transfer traffic. It will happen not just for KLM, but for other SkyTeam airlines that co-operate with the flag carrier.

Of course the goverment realizes this. Even if they didn't realize this on their own do you think the airlines aren't lobbying for themselves?

i was just at the ASME turbo expo in Rotterdam 2 weeks ago. there was an interesting keynote from a KLM exec who brought up the topic of "flight shaming" from environmentalists and how it will be a challenge going forward. His message to the attendees (turbomachinery engineering community) was to find a greener solution FAST because they are anxious. hydrogen, sustainable fuels, etc were all discussed. interesting conference. unrelated, i also got to tour KLMs engine overhaul facility which was really fascinating to me.

There are plenty of third level European routes that KLM can cut that would have minimal effects on the longhaul network.

eta unknown wrote:

There are plenty of third level European routes that KLM can cut that would have minimal effects on the longhaul network.

True, but it's not just KLM that's affected. It's every airline that uses Amsterdam. Like for example today it was announced that SunExpress moves flights from Amsterdam to Munster-Osnabruck airport in Germany. Air Malta somehow managed to get some slots at Rotterdam to move flights from Amsterdam there.

In the meanwhile, TUI had planned on moving some flights from Amsterdam to Liege but this isn't necessary. They overestimated the amount of flights to be scrapped.

Anyway, because of the capacity shortage at Amsterdam, other airports in the area are suddenly getting some love which they've never seen before except from the ULCCs. This also exposes a risk, if someday Amsterdam airport gets a total blackout, no way the rest of the region can take over the capacity of Amsterdam.

CDG and FRA would happily share the additional revenue.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

eta unknown wrote:

There are plenty of third level European routes that KLM can cut that would have minimal effects on the longhaul network.

True, but it's not just KLM that's affected. It's every airline that uses Amsterdam. Like for example today it was announced that SunExpress moves flights from Amsterdam to Munster-Osnabruck airport in Germany. Air Malta somehow managed to get some slots at Rotterdam to move flights from Amsterdam there.

In the meanwhile, TUI had planned on moving some flights from Amsterdam to Liege but this isn't necessary. They overestimated the amount of flights to be scrapped.

Anyway, because of the capacity shortage at Amsterdam, other airports in the area are suddenly getting some love which they've never seen before except from the ULCCs. This also exposes a risk, if someday Amsterdam airport gets a total blackout, no way the rest of the region can take over the capacity of Amsterdam.

Is Munster really an adequate replacement for AMS?

Certainly not but it's only a close distance from the Netherlands and ready to handle dutch language travellers.

Watching an upcoming flight Europe-AMS-Delta hub- home city in the USA and given klm on time performance of the flight within Europe it’s pretty much 100% that It will be a misconnect with no possibility to get to the USA on the day of origin in Europe. Are there enough hotel rooms in Amsterdam for the thousands upon thousands of travelers who must be in the same boat each evening?

ncflyer wrote:

Watching an upcoming flight Europe-AMS-Delta hub- home city in the USA and given klm on time performance of the flight within Europe it’s pretty much 100% that It will be a misconnect with no possibility to get to the USA on the day of origin in Europe. Are there enough hotel rooms in Amsterdam for the thousands upon thousands of travelers who must be in the same boat each evening?

A friend of mine flew with KL to Birmingham via AMS. On the way there she had a 45 minute connection which she made fine. On the way back it was an hour connection with a two hour delay from BHX. Once they landed in Amsterdam they were put in Hilton Hotel right next to the airport. She said that they were extremely professional.
However, she also told me that it seemed to her that KL's approach to passengers depended on what fare they were traveling on. She was on a high economy class fare so she didn't have to pay anything. Some who were on lower ones got email instructions and so on, basically they had to handle everything themselves.

This is akin to the French ban on domestic flights where there is an adequate rail alternative.

The Netherlands is too small to have domestic flights, there is a train from anywhere to everywhere leaving in 15 minutes - I exaggerate a little but am writing this from Rotterdam and it seems that way!

So the Dutch need a blunter instrument than the French to achieve the same objective.

I am surprised that they have internal flight in the Netherlands.

bennett123 wrote:

I am surprised that they have internal flight in the Netherlands.

There are no domestic flights.

So now we have the Dutch Infrastructure minister lauding that such a cap will end a lot of transfer traffic through AMS. As if this provides no benefit to the Netherlands and its residents. The AF side of AF-KLM must be popping the champaign as no more growth at the dutch side of the firm. I can't think of a country in the world that is doing more damage to its aviation industry, ultimately raising fares for the travelling public, slashing jobs, with negligible benefit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-26/dutch-say-airport-cap-will-bring-an-end-to-cheap-hub-flights?utm_content=bloomberguk&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0NrkY8nLQTN64Rd-l64URoxR-YkJbMuU1e6xmIHGkDUmDGoMrtiinO3uQ#xj4y7vzkg

eurotrader85 wrote:

So now we have the Dutch Infrastructure minister lauding that such a cap will end a lot of transfer traffic through AMS. As if this provides no benefit to the Netherlands and its residents. The AF side of AF-KLM must be popping the champaign as no more growth at the dutch side of the firm. I can't think of a country in the world that is doing more damage to its aviation industry, ultimately raising fares for the travelling public, slashing jobs, with negligible benefit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-26/dutch-say-airport-cap-will-bring-an-end-to-cheap-hub-flights?utm_content=bloomberguk&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0NrkY8nLQTN64Rd-l64URoxR-YkJbMuU1e6xmIHGkDUmDGoMrtiinO3uQ#xj4y7vzkg

For some reason the Dutch government is sabotaging the country as hard as they can.

Hopefully it is just because they are woefully inept and haven't got a clue what they are talking about, but if you look at what happened the last 5ish years, you wonder what the future of this, once nice, country will be.

eurotrader85 wrote:

So now we have the Dutch Infrastructure minister lauding that such a cap will end a lot of transfer traffic through AMS. As if this provides no benefit to the Netherlands and its residents. The AF side of AF-KLM must be popping the champaign as no more growth at the dutch side of the firm. I can't think of a country in the world that is doing more damage to its aviation industry, ultimately raising fares for the travelling public, slashing jobs, with negligible benefit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-26/dutch-say-airport-cap-will-bring-an-end-to-cheap-hub-flights?utm_content=bloomberguk&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0NrkY8nLQTN64Rd-l64URoxR-YkJbMuU1e6xmIHGkDUmDGoMrtiinO3uQ#xj4y7vzkg

Well said. The rationale in calling this an "environmental" issue while the traffic merely shifts to CDG or FRA defies logic. But I guess one shouldn't expect logic from politicians.

What about DL? They now have about 17-18 flights daily going in and out of AMS.
With the airport having their issues at the moment, does anyone think they will return to pre-pandamic levels with 22-23 daily flights anytime soon or will they hedge on CDG to be a better hub for them?

FlyingHonu001 wrote:

What about DL? They now have about 17-18 flights daily going in and out of AMS.
With the airport having their issues at the moment, does anyone think they will return to pre-pandamic levels with 22-23 daily flights anytime soon or will they hedge on CDG to be a better hub for them?

It all depends. Schiphol has to shrink compared to pre covid19 numbers, but if they really go through with the "no connecting flights", delta can fly whatever they want, as KLM will go bust, opening up tons of slots.

As will Qatar, Ryanair and all other non Dutch airline.

Eikie wrote:

FlyingHonu001 wrote:

What about DL? They now have about 17-18 flights daily going in and out of AMS.
With the airport having their issues at the moment, does anyone think they will return to pre-pandamic levels with 22-23 daily flights anytime soon or will they hedge on CDG to be a better hub for them?

It all depends. Schiphol has to shrink compared to pre covid19 numbers, but if they really go through with the "no connecting flights", delta can fly whatever they want, as KLM will go bust, opening up tons of slots.

As will Qatar, Ryanair and all other non Dutch airline.

I think the government will reconsider their position once they have less income from taxes paid by AMS and KL.

Blerg wrote:

Eikie wrote:

FlyingHonu001 wrote:

What about DL? They now have about 17-18 flights daily going in and out of AMS.
With the airport having their issues at the moment, does anyone think they will return to pre-pandamic levels with 22-23 daily flights anytime soon or will they hedge on CDG to be a better hub for them?

It all depends. Schiphol has to shrink compared to pre covid19 numbers, but if they really go through with the "no connecting flights", delta can fly whatever they want, as KLM will go bust, opening up tons of slots.

As will Qatar, Ryanair and all other non Dutch airline.

I think the government will reconsider their position once they have less income from taxes paid by AMS and KL.

No they won't. The entire discussion is highly political and given that other industries must reduce emissions as well, there is no reason to make exemptions for AMS. Moreover, it's highly likely AMS needs to shrink even more due to the fact the reduction is purely due to noise restriction, not emission (that will be dealt with later this year when AMS applies for its environmental permit (which it currently does not have).

I can understand that from a non-Dutch perspective the reduction sounds strange, but it isn't. The country faces some issues of which housing (or better the availability of land to construct houses in the Randstad) is a very important one. Needless to say, the airport restricts the land on where one can built houses especially in the vicinity of Amsterdam (where many want to live). Moreover, as I mentioned before, every line of industry has to take it's cut in the lowering of emissions. The idea that aviation should be exempted is unexplainable towards the other lines of industry (for example farming, steel industry) and thus politically unacceptable. To be honest, one should be able to live with the current platform. There're still 440,000 slots available and the added value of connecting passengers is debatable, though one should ask if certain spokes would be there if not for the connecting passenger. Personally, I'm in favour of looking at the added value of flights instead of just for growth. The company I work for (large multinational) has seriously reduced corporate travel (and this will remain so for the foreseeable future) and if so, preferably by train/car for destinations like Frankfurt and Paris (air travel only allowed after approval from senior management or if the train are full).Not that anyone prefers to take the plane to Frankfurt or Paris anyway for business (at least not in the company I work for).

I have to agree it is pretty strange to have a global trade nation like the Netherlands fight their own hub airport and airline in a way like this. They could limit flights to cleanest aircraft types or quietest or both. But they seem to want to intentionally destroy the entire feeder system by just cutting the slots permitted. It will be worst for KLM that needs feeders and that constantly has to "fight" Air France wanting to move KLM long range flights to Paris. Paris and Frankfurt will pick up their business.
I think it could be done smarter and still improve ecology and efficiency.

LJ wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Eikie wrote:

It all depends. Schiphol has to shrink compared to pre covid19 numbers, but if they really go through with the "no connecting flights", delta can fly whatever they want, as KLM will go bust, opening up tons of slots.

As will Qatar, Ryanair and all other non Dutch airline.

I think the government will reconsider their position once they have less income from taxes paid by AMS and KL.

No they won't. The entire discussion is highly political and given that other industries must reduce emissions as well, there is no reason to make exemptions for AMS. Moreover, it's highly likely AMS needs to shrink even more due to the fact the reduction is purely due to noise restriction, not emission (that will be dealt with later this year when AMS applies for its environmental permit (which it currently does not have).

I can understand that from a non-Dutch perspective the reduction sounds strange, but it isn't. The country faces some issues of which housing (or better the availability of land to construct houses in the Randstad) is a very important one. Needless to say, the airport restricts the land on where one can built houses especially in the vicinity of Amsterdam (where many want to live). Moreover, as I mentioned before, every line of industry has to take it's cut in the lowering of emissions. The idea that aviation should be exempted is unexplainable towards the other lines of industry (for example farming, steel industry) and thus politically unacceptable. To be honest, one should be able to live with the current platform. There're still 440,000 slots available and the added value of connecting passengers is debatable, though one should ask if certain spokes would be there if not for the connecting passenger. Personally, I'm in favour of looking at the added value of flights instead of just for growth. The company I work for (large multinational) has seriously reduced corporate travel (and this will remain so for the foreseeable future) and if so, preferably by train/car for destinations like Frankfurt and Paris (air travel only allowed after approval from senior management or if the train are full).Not that anyone prefers to take the plane to Frankfurt or Paris anyway for business (at least not in the company I work for).

It seems most people in this discussion have been ignoring anyone that is presenting facts or the Dutch point of view.

People also seem to think air travel is a God given right. It isn’t.

[/quote]For some reason the Dutch government is sabotaging the country as hard as they can.

Hopefully it is just because they are woefully inept and haven't got a clue what they are talking about, but if you look at what happened the last 5ish years, you wonder what the future of this, once nice, country will be.[/quote]

They've given in to the environmental brigade and shadowy elites who are buying up farmland.

LJ wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Eikie wrote:

It all depends. Schiphol has to shrink compared to pre covid19 numbers, but if they really go through with the "no connecting flights", delta can fly whatever they want, as KLM will go bust, opening up tons of slots.

As will Qatar, Ryanair and all other non Dutch airline.

I think the government will reconsider their position once they have less income from taxes paid by AMS and KL.

No they won't. The entire discussion is highly political and given that other industries must reduce emissions as well, there is no reason to make exemptions for AMS. Moreover, it's highly likely AMS needs to shrink even more due to the fact the reduction is purely due to noise restriction, not emission (that will be dealt with later this year when AMS applies for its environmental permit (which it currently does not have).

I can understand that from a non-Dutch perspective the reduction sounds strange, but it isn't. The country faces some issues of which housing (or better the availability of land to construct houses in the Randstad) is a very important one. Needless to say, the airport restricts the land on where one can built houses especially in the vicinity of Amsterdam (where many want to live). Moreover, as I mentioned before, every line of industry has to take it's cut in the lowering of emissions. The idea that aviation should be exempted is unexplainable towards the other lines of industry (for example farming, steel industry) and thus politically unacceptable. To be honest, one should be able to live with the current platform. There're still 440,000 slots available and the added value of connecting passengers is debatable, though one should ask if certain spokes would be there if not for the connecting passenger. Personally, I'm in favour of looking at the added value of flights instead of just for growth. The company I work for (large multinational) has seriously reduced corporate travel (and this will remain so for the foreseeable future) and if so, preferably by train/car for destinations like Frankfurt and Paris (air travel only allowed after approval from senior management or if the train are full).Not that anyone prefers to take the plane to Frankfurt or Paris anyway for business (at least not in the company I work for).

Very well said. It's refreshing to see a realistic point of view in this thread.

Let's not forget, AMS is nowhere near the cap of 440000 pax per year in 2022, and even this reduced number is way too much for the airport to handle. Just look at the queues any given day the past 2 months, 3,5 hours of waiting for security is nothing unusual. Just not enough people to get the work done. People don't want to work at AMS anymore, and they have no trouble finding jobs with far higher salaries elsewhere. So the argument that this cap leads to job losses is simply untrue.

And why does a small country like The Netherlands need to have an airport competing with LHR and FRA for the nr 1 position in Europe? If AMS is in a position behind LHR, FRA, IST, CDG or MAD but ahead of other airports in Europe, AMS will remain a cash cow for the government and a very attractive airport for international business - which it currently isn't, just look at the number of delays and cancellations, where AMS is in the top 10 of the world for quite a while now.

Don't misunderstand me, I love aviation, but do I need to see about every airline in the world at my home airport? Jet2 has said they won't come back to AMS. Is this the end of the world? Don't think so. Some destinations with hardly any o/d traffic won't return. Will the Dutch economy suffer? Doubt it. DL may shift one of their multiple daily frequencies to CDG, but will still keep AMS as their most important European hub. It's not the disaster some people say it is.

LAXBUR wrote:

LJ wrote:

Blerg wrote:

I think the government will reconsider their position once they have less income from taxes paid by AMS and KL.

No they won't. The entire discussion is highly political and given that other industries must reduce emissions as well, there is no reason to make exemptions for AMS. Moreover, it's highly likely AMS needs to shrink even more due to the fact the reduction is purely due to noise restriction, not emission (that will be dealt with later this year when AMS applies for its environmental permit (which it currently does not have).

I can understand that from a non-Dutch perspective the reduction sounds strange, but it isn't. The country faces some issues of which housing (or better the availability of land to construct houses in the Randstad) is a very important one. Needless to say, the airport restricts the land on where one can built houses especially in the vicinity of Amsterdam (where many want to live). Moreover, as I mentioned before, every line of industry has to take it's cut in the lowering of emissions. The idea that aviation should be exempted is unexplainable towards the other lines of industry (for example farming, steel industry) and thus politically unacceptable. To be honest, one should be able to live with the current platform. There're still 440,000 slots available and the added value of connecting passengers is debatable, though one should ask if certain spokes would be there if not for the connecting passenger. Personally, I'm in favour of looking at the added value of flights instead of just for growth. The company I work for (large multinational) has seriously reduced corporate travel (and this will remain so for the foreseeable future) and if so, preferably by train/car for destinations like Frankfurt and Paris (air travel only allowed after approval from senior management or if the train are full).Not that anyone prefers to take the plane to Frankfurt or Paris anyway for business (at least not in the company I work for).

It seems most people in this discussion have been ignoring anyone that is presenting facts or the Dutch point of view.

People also seem to think air travel is a God given right. It isn’t.

You do realize that this has nothing to do with entitlement or God knows what else. AMS became what it is today because there is demand and economic/financial justification behind all that growth. Using entitlement as an argument makes no sense. If they want to restrict air travel then then should simply force KLM to put greater focus on local demand and to reduce the number of transfers. After all, airlines such as Lufthansa, British Airways, SAS, Air France... will simply boost their network to accommodate all this extra traffic that is being turned down by the Dutch.

The Netherlands might reduce its carbon footprint but overall it will still be there, just in other places.

Will the Dutch government fight Rotterdam harbor vessel movements as well?

LAXBUR wrote:

LJ wrote:

Blerg wrote:

I think the government will reconsider their position once they have less income from taxes paid by AMS and KL.

No they won't. The entire discussion is highly political and given that other industries must reduce emissions as well, there is no reason to make exemptions for AMS. Moreover, it's highly likely AMS needs to shrink even more due to the fact the reduction is purely due to noise restriction, not emission (that will be dealt with later this year when AMS applies for its environmental permit (which it currently does not have).

I can understand that from a non-Dutch perspective the reduction sounds strange, but it isn't. The country faces some issues of which housing (or better the availability of land to construct houses in the Randstad) is a very important one. Needless to say, the airport restricts the land on where one can built houses especially in the vicinity of Amsterdam (where many want to live). Moreover, as I mentioned before, every line of industry has to take it's cut in the lowering of emissions. The idea that aviation should be exempted is unexplainable towards the other lines of industry (for example farming, steel industry) and thus politically unacceptable. To be honest, one should be able to live with the current platform. There're still 440,000 slots available and the added value of connecting passengers is debatable, though one should ask if certain spokes would be there if not for the connecting passenger. Personally, I'm in favour of looking at the added value of flights instead of just for growth. The company I work for (large multinational) has seriously reduced corporate travel (and this will remain so for the foreseeable future) and if so, preferably by train/car for destinations like Frankfurt and Paris (air travel only allowed after approval from senior management or if the train are full).Not that anyone prefers to take the plane to Frankfurt or Paris anyway for business (at least not in the company I work for).

It seems most people in this discussion have been ignoring anyone that is presenting facts or the Dutch point of view.

People also seem to think air travel is a God given right. It isn’t.

Well, one way to cut a housing shortage is to slash jobs in your economy. Sure there will be some KLM pilots et al moving abroad for work in due course.

The point is that the method the Dutch government is using is completely uneconomic and ultimately not a way to fight what it's trying to achieve. A more efficient way to reduce emissions would have been to raise taxes dependent on aeroplane emission levels. I.e. weed out the uneconomic clunky gas guzzler aeroplanes and incentivise cleaner quieter aircraft to land at the hub. Maybe some uneconomic routes disappear but so deemed for the overall better. Climate change is a real thing, but if everyone is flying in quiet, zero-emission aircraft then what is the problem? Then why shouldn't it be a 'God given right' if you can afford the service someone is offering if it's not affecting anyone? Banning orders, in this case cap on aircraft movements, is again the same false, even if well-intentioned, BS argument given by the green lobby of no new roads/runways anywhere etc. It's not the infrastructure and its utilisation that is the problem, it's the machines using it. Incentivise people to clean up their machines or use less and then people can have their 'God given right' should they choose to utilise it with little impact on the public. In the meantime, the government can pick up extra taxes levied to pay for the negative externality of the emissions and apply those funds to emission reversing activities. Instead, the Dutch government is going to just shift traffic to other hubs, waste infrastructure resources paid for by the Dutch tax payer, raise the cost further for the travelling residents of the Netherlands, slash jobs in its economy and FRA, BRU, CDG thank you for the extra traffic and mmm mmm breath in that air blowing over.

CarbonFibre wrote:

They've given in to the environmental brigade and shadowy elites who are buying up farmland.

Simplistic view, not based on reality. Don't think I will convince you, though.

This is what the minister for infrastructure has to say about this.

Dutch Say Airport Cap Will Bring an End to Cheap Hub Flights

Dutch moves to cut noise and air pollution at Amsterdam Schiphol airport will signal an end to its status as a hub for price-sensitive travelers, Infrastructure Minister Mark Harbers said in an interview.

A capacity cap to be imposed next year means the airport will no longer be focused on luring passengers seeking the cheapest connecting flights between other cities without visiting the Netherlands, Harbers told Bloomberg.

“That’s no longer what this cabinet is aiming for,” he said in The Hague. “Schiphol has raised the rates for the airlines but we are also going to raise the flight tax. Through these measures you know that Schiphol will no longer be a cheap island.”

Basically means, that flights/passengers without additional benefits for the Netherlands - transferring - will not be encouraged to come to Schiphol. And perhaps some cheap flights as well, so passengers just coming to Amsterdam to get drunk and do drugs will go to other places. Both will not be bad for the Dutch.

Noshow wrote:

Will the Dutch government fight Rotterdam harbor vessel movements as well?

Vessels do not create noise pollution as there are no houses anywhere near the main harbor. Moreover, the Maasvlakte is an additional piece of land just created to ensure the biggest vessels don't need to come close to Rotterdam ("Europort Rotterdam" is mostly located outside Rotterdam). As such your analogy doesn't make sense. One can argue that the only mistake made by the Dutch government was not to relocate the airport to the Markermeer years ago, but that ship has sailed long ago (note that the airline industry was against moving the airport at the time).

eurotrader85 wrote:

Well, one way to cut a housing shortage is to slash jobs in your economy. Sure there will be some KLM pilots et al moving abroad for work in due course.

You fail to see the fact that there are simply less people coming into the job market, and those who do, don't fancy a job at an airport and prefer delivering food and packages 9or something similar which doesn't require night shifts). If you look at the demographics of The Netherlands, the staff shortages were coming anyway, and not only to The Netherlands, but also to the rest of Western Europe. As such, why chase growth whilst you cannot staff it? It's a serious discussion as it's going to hit other industries as well. By focusing on flights which actually add value to the country one can retain the current value and ensure you're future proof. This now happens to aviation in The Netherlands, but we'll see the same in other lines of industries shortly.

BTW it doesn't help that KLM waited very long to replace its 737NGs. I prefer having an A350-900/787 flying over my house than a 737NG (I'm getting both during peak hour). Leaves the 747Fs to replace and it will become very quiet at AMS.

Dutchy wrote:

This is what the minister for infrastructure has to say about this.

Dutch Say Airport Cap Will Bring an End to Cheap Hub Flights

Dutch moves to cut noise and air pollution at Amsterdam Schiphol airport will signal an end to its status as a hub for price-sensitive travelers, Infrastructure Minister Mark Harbers said in an interview.

A capacity cap to be imposed next year means the airport will no longer be focused on luring passengers seeking the cheapest connecting flights between other cities without visiting the Netherlands, Harbers told Bloomberg.

“That’s no longer what this cabinet is aiming for,” he said in The Hague. “Schiphol has raised the rates for the airlines but we are also going to raise the flight tax. Through these measures you know that Schiphol will no longer be a cheap island.”

Basically means, that flights/passengers without additional benefits for the Netherlands - transferring - will not be encouraged to come to Schiphol. And perhaps some cheap flights as well, so passengers just coming to Amsterdam to get drunk and do drugs will go to other places. Both will not be bad for the Dutch.

Saying that The Netherlands doesn't profit from transfers is beyond hilarious and it couldn't be more wrong. Here are a few ways in which the country profits from it:

1. transfer passengers help sustain flights that could never work solely based on O&D demand. This helps in hiring more people both at the airline and the airport. The more passengers you have the more shops there are going to be at the airport.

2. transfer passengers are a great way to increase cash flow into the country. For example, someone flying BER-AMS-MAD spends a very short time in NL but the money he spent on the ticket stays on KL's accounts which are in the Netherlands. In such a way foreign capital is being accumulated in the Netherlands which has a great macroeconomic benefit.

At the end of the day, you can't tax your way out of climate change. If they really want to fight this phenomenon then they should invest more into research so that our equipment has less emissions. After all, aviation has made great progress as we are no longer flying around on DC-9s, DC-10s, B732s, B744s and so on.

This will backfire big time and I fear it's just the beginning of a new and dangerous trend.

At this rate, KLM is gonna have to fly widebodies everywhere

ikolkyo wrote:

At this rate, KLM is gonna have to fly widebodies everywhere

Perhaps an exaggeration to say widebodies only... but KLM Cityhopper may need to undergo a significant change of strategy

Blerg wrote:

Saying that The Netherlands doesn't profit from transfers is beyond hilarious and it couldn't be more wrong. Here are a few ways in which the country profits from it:

No, it isn't

Blerg wrote:

1. transfer passengers help sustain flights that could never work solely based on O&D demand. This helps in hiring more people both at the airline and the airport. The more passengers you have the more shops there are going to be at the airport.

sure, it helps the airline and the airport, not society at large.

Blerg wrote:

2. transfer passengers are a great way to increase cash flow into the country. For example, someone flying BER-AMS-MAD spends a very short time in NL but the money he spent on the ticket stays on KL's accounts which are in the Netherlands. In such a way foreign capital is being accumulated in the Netherlands which has a great macroeconomic benefit.

Seriously? A few Euros from a passenger traveling from Berlin to Madrid will help the macroeconomics of my country? And you call my comments beyond hilarious?

A real argument is that connection benefits a country. The easier influx of passengers to Amsterdam will spend some money or real money in the Dutch economy. So sustaining flights that do not work solely on O&D helps to increase connectivity, which helps to attract tourists and businesses alike. That is all true to a certain extent. Now that needs to be offset against the cons of air travel. According to the research agency CE Delft, the cost of having 540.000slots instead of 500.000 is up to 3bn in welfare to Dutch society.

Not everything is black and white, if you want to say something about aviation, one needs to look at the benefits, but also at the drawbacks. We are all aviation enthusiasts here, but that doesn't mean we can close our eyes for the obvious drawbacks.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

At this rate, KLM is gonna have to fly widebodies everywhere

Perhaps an exaggeration to say widebodies only... but KLM Cityhopper may need to undergo a significant change of strategy

They are replacing their aircraft with larger ones, don't they?

Dutchy wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

At this rate, KLM is gonna have to fly widebodies everywhere

Perhaps an exaggeration to say widebodies only... but KLM Cityhopper may need to undergo a significant change of strategy

They are replacing their aircraft with larger ones, don't they?

Yes, but you might also find frequencies on some routes decrease a bit to allow other routes to be expanded. Maybe that 21x weekly Embraer route becomes a 14x weekly, with some of the lower yielding pax being priced out. Routes currently operated 14x weekly might have their long term future up for review

eurotrader85 wrote:

The point is that the method the Dutch government is using is completely uneconomic and ultimately not a way to fight what it's trying to achieve. A more efficient way to reduce emissions would have been to raise taxes dependent on aeroplane emission levels. I.e. weed out the uneconomic clunky gas guzzler aeroplanes and incentivise cleaner quieter aircraft to land at the hub.

This is already the case. For example AMS is taxing an 737NG heavier than an A320neo. It is part of the solution, but not THE solution.

eurotrader85 wrote:

Climate change is a real thing, but if everyone is flying in quiet, zero-emission aircraft then what is the problem?

Thing is, we're far from there yet.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Perhaps an exaggeration to say widebodies only... but KLM Cityhopper may need to undergo a significant change of strategy

They are replacing their aircraft with larger ones, don't they?

Yes, but you might also find frequencies on some routes decrease a bit to allow other routes to be expanded. Maybe that 21x weekly Embraer route becomes a 14x weekly, with some of the lower yielding pax being priced out. Routes currently operated 14x weekly might have their long term future up for review

Yes, KLM has already said this may have implications on their Embraer fleet. Pretty sure the E2-190 is now out of contention at KL, future will be E2-195 for KL Cityhopper but these won't replace the E190s 1 to 1 anymore. The E175s leases won't expire until around 2030, they will stay for quite a while still.

A sign on the wall is that KLM will take only A321neo's until 2027, so KL is already counting on less frequencies.

LJ wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Will the Dutch government fight Rotterdam harbor vessel movements as well?

Vessels do not create noise pollution as there are no houses anywhere near the main harbor. Moreover, the Maasvlakte is an additional piece of land just created to ensure the biggest vessels don't need to come close to Rotterdam ("Europort Rotterdam" is mostly located outside Rotterdam). As such your analogy doesn't make sense. One can argue that the only mistake made by the Dutch government was not to relocate the airport to the Markermeer years ago, but that ship has sailed long ago (note that the airline industry was against moving the airport at the time).

You do realise the pollution from vessels is substantially higher given the dirty bunker fuel it spouts? Sure there are measures now to clean them up like in aviation.

LJ wrote:

eurotrader85 wrote:

Well, one way to cut a housing shortage is to slash jobs in your economy. Sure there will be some KLM pilots et al moving abroad for work in due course.

You fail to see the fact that there are simply less people coming into the job market, and those who do, don't fancy a job at an airport and prefer delivering food and packages 9or something similar which doesn't require night shifts). If you look at the demographics of The Netherlands, the staff shortages were coming anyway, and not only to The Netherlands, but also to the rest of Western Europe. As such, why chase growth whilst you cannot staff it? It's a serious discussion as it's going to hit other industries as well. By focusing on flights which actually add value to the country one can retain the current value and ensure you're future proof. This now happens to aviation in The Netherlands, but we'll see the same in other lines of industries shortly.

Is this a serious statement? Long-term demographic changes mean we'll never man enough aeroplanes or staff airports again? If that was really true then again, no need to worry about that housing crisis mentioned prior and in any case, i'm sure KLM can work out how to adapt their network for the changing global and domestic society. Some routes up-gage, some down-gage depending best on how to add value. By the way, who is deciding what routes actually 'add value'. So far the Dutch government has tried to be a crazy travel agent, trying to block routes to airports apart from its select designated list, to defend KLM, but with nonsense routes that are uneconomic to far-flung corners of the planet which some politician thinks looks nice on a map. The free market choosing where people fly to and how much capacity is the best way for the Netherlands to add value to its infrastructure Dutch taxpayers paid for. Not one recent movement from the Dutch government has been positive for its aviation sector, nor the millions of travelling public who require it in the Netherlands. It is almost a textbook copy of how government interference can be detrimental to economic impact (and I don't say that as some neo-liberalist free marketeer). I can't see any country wanting to follow the same policies, as they make no sense, but Germany, France and Belgium thank you for the extra jobs and subsequent investment the Netherlands is passing over.