On environmental grounds, the Dutch government has announced it will further cut the number of annual movements at Schiphol Airport from the current 500,000 to 440,000.

The revised cap is expected to come into effect in late 2023

https://apnews.com/article/netherlands- ... 9453b58f21

At this rate the Dutch will legislate AMS out of business in a matter of decades.

This is a terrible decision that will only ruin AMS for the future. Never seen an airport do something as bad as this.

What happened with Lelystad airport?

mercure1 wrote:

On environmental grounds, the Dutch government has announced it will further cut the number of annual movements at Schiphol Airport from the current 500,000 to 440,000.

The revised cap is expected to come into effect in late 2023

https://apnews.com/article/netherlands- ... 9453b58f21

At this rate the Dutch will legislate AMS out of business in a matter of decades.

Not entirely out of business maybe, for cargo its still a key hub.

Major pax carriers will think twice touching down here with everything going on there nowadays. AMS will lose out definitely on an international level, becoming more of regional European hub, like BER.

AF-KL would be smart putting up more trunk routes between CDG offering pax more better connection quality.

The big loser is KLM's CityHopper subsidiary. If a route can support a 737 2x daily, it will continue. Otherwise, it's under serious review.

AMS is not going to become like BER any time soon - the connection capability is too good for that in the immediate future

AMS is setting itself up to see lots of 777x / 350-1000 and 787-10 in the future.

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.

mercure1 wrote:

On environmental grounds, the Dutch government has announced it will further cut the number of annual movements at Schiphol Airport from the current 500,000 to 440,000.

The revised cap is expected to come into effect in late 2023

https://apnews.com/article/netherlands- ... 9453b58f21

At this rate the Dutch will legislate AMS out of business in a matter of decades.

Can't help but think this is a terrible decision and bad economically. I get the environmental purpose, but there are other ways to go about it. What I see is upgauging from KLM, but also a push to move LCCs to Rotterdam (as is kind of already happening) and maybe cargo as those "slots" become valuable for passengers.

Folks on these boards seem to focus almost exclusively on economic issues and seeing as many flights packed into one airport as possible. The Dutch have a different view. The reductions aren't horrific but may result in up gauging to transport folks out of AMS.

Europe has a lot more options than say the U.S. in getting around and the Dutch have made clear that they want shorter length trips to go via train than via air. It may mean an adjustment for KLM on their aircraft purchasing decisions in the future but changes like this will likely become more common as airports become more crowded and the science continues to point towards climate change taking a wrecking ball to the planet.

KLM warns of ‘dramatic consequences' and erode the ability to operate a competitive hub.

https://www.flightglobal.com/networks/k ... 67.article

To what degree can larger aircraft offset the reduction in number of flights at AMS?

Will airlines chasing the consumer’s desire for frequency come to a head at more airports around the world?

A reduction in movements by 600000 = 164 per day. they just put a lot of people out of a job.

tlecam wrote:

AMS is setting itself up to see lots of 777x / 350-1000 and 787-10 in the future.

And how will that not make the "environment" worse, thereby defeating the purpose of the Government's plan.

PhilipBass wrote:

A reduction in movements by 600000 = 164 per day. they just put a lot of people out of a job.

1. Which airlines will have to bear the loss in # of flights?

2. Will this mean airlines intending to start new flights to AMS for the first time, will be permanently shut out?

3. Do AMS slots trade like it is at LHR?

FlyingHonu001 wrote:

Not entirely out of business maybe, for cargo its still a key hub.

Since 2017, AMS was largely becoming a no go airport already for many freighter operators. Many of their slots were cancelled with the previous movement reductions which favored passenger operations so they have relocated to places like LGG, MST, BRU, CGN, FRA, etc.

Only during pandemic did unused slots become available for full freighter operators again on adhoc basis.

With further cap on movements, I fully expect freighters to again become unwanted.

Yikes. Even at 500,000 movements a year, AMS is well under capacity. What was the point of building the far runway?

What this would do is
1. drive up ticket price for people flying to or from Amsterdam as the origin or destination since those people have no other choices
2. connecting ticket price may not be affected if KLM wants to remain competitive

What the post-COVID summer (2022) prove is that people want to travel and they would no matter what. What the environmentalists are missing is a basic understanding of economics and psychology. Rich people will pay up to grab the reduced number of seats. People who now cannot afford will simply drive or take a train to an airport nearby to catch the flight. The total number of people traveling may decrease a bit but not by much. The reduction in carbon emission by less flight at AMS will be "compensated" by the carbon emission of people driving to Belgium or Germany to take their cheaper flights.

Climate change cannot be fought by measures like this. They are over-simplifying the world. It's tempting to simplify things but if that doesn't reflect how the world works, the over-simplification would not produce the result intended.

Instead of a plain reduction of slots, they could say 60,000 slots are now exclusively reserved for planes using sustainable fuel or planes that uses x% less fuel.

Wow. KLM will have no choice but to upguage flights. I think Cityhooper will suffer the most. I wonder will Delta shift more of their flights to CDG for connections to the rest of Europe.

SCQ83 wrote:

What happened with Lelystad airport?

The opening has postponed to 2024. There are some irregularities with the environmental permits and that has to be cleared out first. There is a possibility it won’t be used at all.

Stupid decision that will only hurt the Dutch economy and put a lot of people out of work. OH well, I guess at least CDG and the French will benefit so maybe not all bad.

Sadly I fear this is another example of a decision made by governments/organisations in Europe who are chasing a net zero agenda and want to be seen to be doing something, ie virtue signalling. In the process, European economies a likely to be harmed, for little overall gain.

In this instance, the proposed reduction will have a significant effect on AMS and the wider Dutch economy, but zero impact on what is, after all, a global issue. A massive act of self-harm.

I know this is an aviation forum but people here seems to have difficulties looking at the broader picture.
First, environment is not just CO2 emissions. A reduction in the number of movement is also a reduction in disturbance to the whole region.
Then, Amsterdam is in the heart of Europe. There are tons of possibilities to travel to relatively close destinations by other means, especially trains.
Also, I see people here fearing the job lost at the airport. I guess this is one the most valid concern. I will start by pointing out that the recent difficulties at AMS tend to indicate that people are not exactly running to work there. Then, all form of public transport are relatively short of worker. Probably some airport worker can transfer to train or bus companies. (In fact, in Switzerland, former plane pilots retrained during the pandemic to become train drivers. From what I hear, not many are wanting to move back...)
Last, many people complain that it will mean some reduction in connectivity or frequency. Probably, this is true to some extant. But guess what? World is changing like it always did. People will adapt. You may not like this part of change but I'm sure you won't like what is coming if we keep going this way (and will probably come even if we act sadly).

PS: I did not care to answer to the classic political and climate change denial answers. Don't have time for that, scientists already did for the past decades.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

Folks on these boards seem to focus almost exclusively on economic issues and seeing as many flights packed into one airport as possible. The Dutch have a different view. The reductions aren't horrific but may result in up gauging to transport folks out of AMS.

Europe has a lot more options than say the U.S. in getting around and the Dutch have made clear that they want shorter length trips to go via train than via air. It may mean an adjustment for KLM on their aircraft purchasing decisions in the future but changes like this will likely become more common as airports become more crowded and the science continues to point towards climate change taking a wrecking ball to the planet.

Yes and that same Europe has a very expensive social welfare system. How do you pay for it? Well from having a strong and profitable economy. With them harming KLM, the government will just reduce their tax income. Transfer passengers are still going to be there but I see them moving to other hubs such as Paris, Frankfurt, Zurich or Munich.

Pretty stupid and shortsighted move by the government. Then again, eco-friendly politicians were never good when it came to the economy.

Blerg wrote:

Then again, eco-friendly politicians were never good when it came to the economy.

The contrary is also true I guess.

mercure1 wrote:

On environmental grounds, the Dutch government has announced it will further cut the number of annual movements at Schiphol Airport from the current 500,000 to 440,000.

The revised cap is expected to come into effect in late 2023

https://apnews.com/article/netherlands- ... 9453b58f21

At this rate the Dutch will legislate AMS out of business in a matter of decades.

Unfortunately, this article doesn’t tell the complete story and IMO this was an accident waiting to happen.

There are two issues: noise and pollution levels in the immediate vicinity of Schiphol.

Long story short:
Maximum allowable noise standards around Schiphol have already been exceeded for years and this has been tolerated by the authorities.
A new set of noise standard (to allow 500,000 flights)has been worked on from 2015, but those can’t be implemented unless a new environmental permit has been issued. Unfortunately, to allow 500,000 flights within the scope of the environmental permit, especially in regard to nitrogen compounds -a huge issue in the Netherlands- some costly measures have to be introduced. Without those measures, a maximum of approximately 460,000 flights is allowed. It will take some years before all is said and done, so Schiphol will exceed permitted noise levels for the forseeable future.
This isn’t acceptable for a lot of people living in the vicinity of Schiphol and they have threatened to open a court case to oblige the authorities to enforce the permitted noise levels. It’s clear the authorities will lose this case and that is why they are going to reduce the amount of flights. To make it clear: a lot of those people aren’t NIMBY’s, but have to deal with Schiphol and government which are “unreliable”. Previous Minister of Transport even wanted to allow even 40,000 more flights (to 540,000) knowing about all the issues.

Blerg wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

Folks on these boards seem to focus almost exclusively on economic issues and seeing as many flights packed into one airport as possible. The Dutch have a different view. The reductions aren't horrific but may result in up gauging to transport folks out of AMS.

Europe has a lot more options than say the U.S. in getting around and the Dutch have made clear that they want shorter length trips to go via train than via air. It may mean an adjustment for KLM on their aircraft purchasing decisions in the future but changes like this will likely become more common as airports become more crowded and the science continues to point towards climate change taking a wrecking ball to the planet.

Yes and that same Europe has a very expensive social welfare system. How do you pay for it? Well from having a strong and profitable economy. With them harming KLM, the government will just reduce their tax income. Transfer passengers are still going to be there but I see them moving to other hubs such as Paris, Frankfurt, Zurich or Munich.

Pretty stupid and shortsighted move by the government. Then again, eco-friendly politicians were never good when it came to the economy.

Read my previous post and you will see it has nothing to do with “eco-friendly politicians”, but all with a government which doesn’t oblige to it’s own rules.

Blerg wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

Folks on these boards seem to focus almost exclusively on economic issues and seeing as many flights packed into one airport as possible. The Dutch have a different view. The reductions aren't horrific but may result in up gauging to transport folks out of AMS.

Europe has a lot more options than say the U.S. in getting around and the Dutch have made clear that they want shorter length trips to go via train than via air. It may mean an adjustment for KLM on their aircraft purchasing decisions in the future but changes like this will likely become more common as airports become more crowded and the science continues to point towards climate change taking a wrecking ball to the planet.

Yes and that same Europe has a very expensive social welfare system. How do you pay for it? Well from having a strong and profitable economy. With them harming KLM, the government will just reduce their tax income. Transfer passengers are still going to be there but I see them moving to other hubs such as Paris, Frankfurt, Zurich or Munich.

Pretty stupid and shortsighted move by the government. Then again, eco-friendly politicians were never good when it came to the economy.

The problem is too many people flying on leisure flights for less than 50 euro on a short return trip to get drunk in another city. You are not going to tell me that that is the pillar of the economy. LCCs and ULCC drive a lot of traffic, but while they make money for Ireland, the contribution to the local economy is minimal. They employ people on zero-hours contracts and now those workers have found out they can make a better living working somewhere else in the economy. You are also not going convince me the 30+ daily flights from AMS to London is absolutely essential for the economy and it can not be done with 25.
While the Dutch government has an overly simplistic way of addressing green challenges, they do so because it has the support of the general population even if they are hitting some selected groups very hard while other big polluters are not addressed at all. But there is lots of space for optimisation (other than bean counting) in the aviation sector.

Even IATA issued a press release, basically saying the government made a stupid decision

https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2022- ... -06-24-01/

loofaman wrote:

Sadly I fear this is another example of a decision made by governments/organisations in Europe who are chasing a net zero agenda and want to be seen to be doing something, ie virtue signalling. In the process, European economies a likely to be harmed, for little overall gain.

In this instance, the proposed reduction will have a significant effect on AMS and the wider Dutch economy, but zero impact on what is, after all, a global issue. A massive act of self-harm.

Understandably, there are strong initial reactions on A.net to this decision by the Netherlands Government.

But on closer analysis the self-harm could be relatively minor, as airport capacity restrictions are nothing new - they exist at many large airports around the world.

Let's consider some of the air transport economic responses to such measures:

- AMS airport slots will get more valuable, even though AMS does not (yet) prize or trade them.
- Growth will be accomodated by larger aircraft, reducing the cost per seat, thus maintaining fare competitiveness.
- Excessive frequencies will be reduced to open new routes = AMS-CPH 17x daily (KL 7x, SK 5x, U2 2x, VY 1x, D8 2x).
- Holiday and charter flights are likely to move to regional airports or be operated with larger aircraft.
- The Government will decide about the license and opening of Lelystad Airport in 2024, which could result in up to 40.000 movements opening up for network carriers at AMS.
- Dedicated freighter flights are likely to continue to move to the dedicted freighter hubs, belly cargo will remain.

In the current climate debate, the notion that air transport has an unchallenged right to unlimited airport capacity is for A.net only.

A.net will have to get used to the fact, that air transport will receive stricter environmental regulations.

Toinou wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Then again, eco-friendly politicians were never good when it came to the economy.

The contrary is also true I guess.

Not really especially if we look at post-WW2 Europe. Eco-friendly groups tend to be extremely autistic when it comes to the economy and we are seeing more of that as the world becomes increasingly multipolar.

edealinfo wrote:

3. Do AMS slots trade like it is at LHR?

No, there is no trade allowed, and AMS has had a very weird policy of controlling who can fly to and from it, basically by locking out any competitor to KLM by restricting where destinations can be, which has seen challenges to it from IATA. Discussed on another thread, but utterly protectionist.

Again the only people losing out in this will be the public who would have used AMS and the Dutch state ultimately. The effect will be less convenient connections, fewer destinations, and higher fares. The business will divert to other hubs, and there will be no reduction in emissions because of this. LHR, CDG, FRA, BRU are probably high-fiving themselves from reading this. This misses the same point when environmentalists block the construction of new roads or the ongoing saga of the third runway at LHR etc. It's not the infrastructure that is the issue, it's cleaning up the machines using it. If the entire fleet of cars on a road are fully electric, getting their energy from renewable sources, what's your issue with another lane on the M25 motorway or wherever? if the aeroplanes taking off have fully offset any carbon emissions what's the issue of having as many destinations and frequency that an airport can physically and wants to provide? Further aeroplanes are cleaner now than they have ever been in the past and will only get cleaner going forwards.

If the Dutch government really wants to go down the misguided route of cutting the aviation sector back at its main hub, it could have just raised the taxes on flying to a level that made it prohibitive for a lot of people and used that money raised on those who do fly for environmental initiatives. What it should do is target aeroplanes on the emissions produced, so old clunky 747s are taxed more than neo's, 787s and those using SAF, again giving market incentive to airlines to clean up their fleets, while still providing the desired service to the public.

The Dutch government have got themselves in an utter mess with AMS. They have a silly policy of trying to protect KLM, at the expense of the travelling public, trying to limit growth to specific weird destinations no one apart from KLM can or maybe will ever be able to fly, rather than allowing any airline to fly to wherever makes the market sense, again at the expense of the travelling public, and instead of using the market to engineer a perverse cutback in pax ultimately, where they could at least raise state revenue that could be used for green initiatives, a slapstick cut which will do nothing apart from move pax to other airports, ensure local job cuts, and weaken KLM, the very airline it keeps trying to defend with its anti-competitive policies anyway.

marcelh wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

On environmental grounds, the Dutch government has announced it will further cut the number of annual movements at Schiphol Airport from the current 500,000 to 440,000.

The revised cap is expected to come into effect in late 2023

https://apnews.com/article/netherlands- ... 9453b58f21

At this rate the Dutch will legislate AMS out of business in a matter of decades.

Unfortunately, this article doesn’t tell the complete story and IMO this was an accident waiting to happen.

There are two issues: noise and pollution levels in the immediate vicinity of Schiphol.

Long story short:
Maximum allowable noise standards around Schiphol have already been exceeded for years and this has been tolerated by the authorities.
A new set of noise standard (to allow 500,000 flights)has been worked on from 2015, but those can’t be implemented unless a new environmental permit has been issued. Unfortunately, to allow 500,000 flights within the scope of the environmental permit, especially in regard to nitrogen compounds -a huge issue in the Netherlands- some costly measures have to be introduced. Without those measures, a maximum of approximately 460,000 flights is allowed. It will take some years before all is said and done, so Schiphol will exceed permitted noise levels for the forseeable future.
This isn’t acceptable for a lot of people living in the vicinity of Schiphol and they have threatened to open a court case to oblige the authorities to enforce the permitted noise levels. It’s clear the authorities will lose this case and that is why they are going to reduce the amount of flights. To make it clear: a lot of those people aren’t NIMBY’s, but have to deal with Schiphol and government which are “unreliable”. Previous Minister of Transport even wanted to allow even 40,000 more flights (to 540,000) knowing about all the issues.

And who is supposed to issue this environmental permit? I suppose it's yet another government institution.

As for the people living close to AMS, well we also have to take into consideration that many of them willingly moved to an area close to the airport. They should have known there was going to be a lot of noise from overflying aircraft. Personally I never understood people who live close to airports complain of the noise. You literally moved to live under an existing flight path! If you don't like it then move elsewhere. It's not like AMS was built a few years ago, it has been there for decades now.

AngMoh wrote:

Blerg wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

Folks on these boards seem to focus almost exclusively on economic issues and seeing as many flights packed into one airport as possible. The Dutch have a different view. The reductions aren't horrific but may result in up gauging to transport folks out of AMS.

Europe has a lot more options than say the U.S. in getting around and the Dutch have made clear that they want shorter length trips to go via train than via air. It may mean an adjustment for KLM on their aircraft purchasing decisions in the future but changes like this will likely become more common as airports become more crowded and the science continues to point towards climate change taking a wrecking ball to the planet.

Yes and that same Europe has a very expensive social welfare system. How do you pay for it? Well from having a strong and profitable economy. With them harming KLM, the government will just reduce their tax income. Transfer passengers are still going to be there but I see them moving to other hubs such as Paris, Frankfurt, Zurich or Munich.

Pretty stupid and shortsighted move by the government. Then again, eco-friendly politicians were never good when it came to the economy.

The problem is too many people flying on leisure flights for less than 50 euro on a short return trip to get drunk in another city. You are not going to tell me that that is the pillar of the economy. LCCs and ULCC drive a lot of traffic, but while they make money for Ireland, the contribution to the local economy is minimal. They employ people on zero-hours contracts and now those workers have found out they can make a better living working somewhere else in the economy. You are also not going convince me the 30+ daily flights from AMS to London is absolutely essential for the economy and it can not be done with 25.
While the Dutch government has an overly simplistic way of addressing green challenges, they do so because it has the support of the general population even if they are hitting some selected groups very hard while other big polluters are not addressed at all. But there is lots of space for optimisation (other than bean counting) in the aviation sector.

We are talking about AMS here. What percentage of their flights are made up of those €50 party shuttles?
As for frequencies on other routes, well, if all those flights to London are full then it means that all those flights are justified.

Blerg wrote:

marcelh wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

On environmental grounds, the Dutch government has announced it will further cut the number of annual movements at Schiphol Airport from the current 500,000 to 440,000.

The revised cap is expected to come into effect in late 2023

https://apnews.com/article/netherlands- ... 9453b58f21

At this rate the Dutch will legislate AMS out of business in a matter of decades.

Unfortunately, this article doesn’t tell the complete story and IMO this was an accident waiting to happen.

There are two issues: noise and pollution levels in the immediate vicinity of Schiphol.

Long story short:
Maximum allowable noise standards around Schiphol have already been exceeded for years and this has been tolerated by the authorities.
A new set of noise standard (to allow 500,000 flights)has been worked on from 2015, but those can’t be implemented unless a new environmental permit has been issued. Unfortunately, to allow 500,000 flights within the scope of the environmental permit, especially in regard to nitrogen compounds -a huge issue in the Netherlands- some costly measures have to be introduced. Without those measures, a maximum of approximately 460,000 flights is allowed. It will take some years before all is said and done, so Schiphol will exceed permitted noise levels for the forseeable future.
This isn’t acceptable for a lot of people living in the vicinity of Schiphol and they have threatened to open a court case to oblige the authorities to enforce the permitted noise levels. It’s clear the authorities will lose this case and that is why they are going to reduce the amount of flights. To make it clear: a lot of those people aren’t NIMBY’s, but have to deal with Schiphol and government which are “unreliable”. Previous Minister of Transport even wanted to allow even 40,000 more flights (to 540,000) knowing about all the issues.

And who is supposed to issue this environmental permit? I suppose it's yet another government institution.

As for the people living close to AMS, well we also have to take into consideration that many of them willingly moved to an area close to the airport. They should have known there was going to be a lot of noise from overflying aircraft. Personally I never understood people who live close to airports complain of the noise. You literally moved to live under an existing flight path! If you don't like it then move elsewhere. It's not like AMS was built a few years ago, it has been there for decades now.

So you accept a government which doen’t oblige to their own set of standards? Because that is the real issue. Also people have been told the 500,000 flights a year was a maximum, but nevertheless Schiphol/government tried to change that.

You are playing that old record of complaining people who know where they live, but you ignore the facts because it probably doesn’t suit your personal POV

Blerg wrote:

AngMoh wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Yes and that same Europe has a very expensive social welfare system. How do you pay for it? Well from having a strong and profitable economy. With them harming KLM, the government will just reduce their tax income. Transfer passengers are still going to be there but I see them moving to other hubs such as Paris, Frankfurt, Zurich or Munich.

Pretty stupid and shortsighted move by the government. Then again, eco-friendly politicians were never good when it came to the economy.

The problem is too many people flying on leisure flights for less than 50 euro on a short return trip to get drunk in another city. You are not going to tell me that that is the pillar of the economy. LCCs and ULCC drive a lot of traffic, but while they make money for Ireland, the contribution to the local economy is minimal. They employ people on zero-hours contracts and now those workers have found out they can make a better living working somewhere else in the economy. You are also not going convince me the 30+ daily flights from AMS to London is absolutely essential for the economy and it can not be done with 25.
While the Dutch government has an overly simplistic way of addressing green challenges, they do so because it has the support of the general population even if they are hitting some selected groups very hard while other big polluters are not addressed at all. But there is lots of space for optimisation (other than bean counting) in the aviation sector.

We are talking about AMS here. What percentage of their flights are made up of those €50 party shuttles?
As for frequencies on other routes, well, if all those flights to London are full then it means that all those flights are justified.

Looking at the KLM fleet they have a huge cattle class with relatively cheap tickets.
And those flights to London are “full” because KLM is also using E175 and E190’s…. Yep, “justified”….

marcelh wrote:

Blerg wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Unfortunately, this article doesn’t tell the complete story and IMO this was an accident waiting to happen.

There are two issues: noise and pollution levels in the immediate vicinity of Schiphol.

Long story short:
Maximum allowable noise standards around Schiphol have already been exceeded for years and this has been tolerated by the authorities.
A new set of noise standard (to allow 500,000 flights)has been worked on from 2015, but those can’t be implemented unless a new environmental permit has been issued. Unfortunately, to allow 500,000 flights within the scope of the environmental permit, especially in regard to nitrogen compounds -a huge issue in the Netherlands- some costly measures have to be introduced. Without those measures, a maximum of approximately 460,000 flights is allowed. It will take some years before all is said and done, so Schiphol will exceed permitted noise levels for the forseeable future.
This isn’t acceptable for a lot of people living in the vicinity of Schiphol and they have threatened to open a court case to oblige the authorities to enforce the permitted noise levels. It’s clear the authorities will lose this case and that is why they are going to reduce the amount of flights. To make it clear: a lot of those people aren’t NIMBY’s, but have to deal with Schiphol and government which are “unreliable”. Previous Minister of Transport even wanted to allow even 40,000 more flights (to 540,000) knowing about all the issues.

And who is supposed to issue this environmental permit? I suppose it's yet another government institution.

As for the people living close to AMS, well we also have to take into consideration that many of them willingly moved to an area close to the airport. They should have known there was going to be a lot of noise from overflying aircraft. Personally I never understood people who live close to airports complain of the noise. You literally moved to live under an existing flight path! If you don't like it then move elsewhere. It's not like AMS was built a few years ago, it has been there for decades now.

So you accept a government which doen’t oblige to their own set of standards? Because that is the real issue. Also people have been told the 500,000 flights a year was a maximum, but nevertheless Schiphol/government tried to change that.

You are playing that old record of complaining people who know where they live, but you ignore the facts because it probably doesn’t suit your personal POV

No government follows their own standards because their standards are subject to change depending on the circumstances they are in. KLM is a major contributor to the Dutch economy and a large part of their success comes from carrying so many transfers. The government should not forget that.

It's an old record that is still being played because it makes sense. I am sorry but if someone willingly moves into a house that is close to the airport, then they should not complain of the downsides like the noise.

marcelh wrote:

Blerg wrote:

AngMoh wrote:

The problem is too many people flying on leisure flights for less than 50 euro on a short return trip to get drunk in another city. You are not going to tell me that that is the pillar of the economy. LCCs and ULCC drive a lot of traffic, but while they make money for Ireland, the contribution to the local economy is minimal. They employ people on zero-hours contracts and now those workers have found out they can make a better living working somewhere else in the economy. You are also not going convince me the 30+ daily flights from AMS to London is absolutely essential for the economy and it can not be done with 25.
While the Dutch government has an overly simplistic way of addressing green challenges, they do so because it has the support of the general population even if they are hitting some selected groups very hard while other big polluters are not addressed at all. But there is lots of space for optimisation (other than bean counting) in the aviation sector.

We are talking about AMS here. What percentage of their flights are made up of those €50 party shuttles?
As for frequencies on other routes, well, if all those flights to London are full then it means that all those flights are justified.

Looking at the KLM fleet they have a huge cattle class with relatively cheap tickets.
And those flights to London are “full” because KLM is also using E175 and E190’s…. Yep, “justified”….

Do you have a source to back your claim that flights are full because they are cheap? Also what does it matter what planes they are using if they are full. Full flights mean that people are buying tickets and KL can make money from that set up. No one is forcing you to fly just like you shouldn't force anyone not to.

DCA350 wrote:

Wow. KLM will have no choice but to upguage flights. I think Cityhooper will suffer the most. I wonder will Delta shift more of their flights to CDG for connections to the rest of Europe.

Why upgauge? It seems their model of hubbing was dependent on that fleet of embraers. without them the bigger planes fly emptier.
More likely they will be forced to shrink to size and become a fleet of 737-10s, A321lr, A330, A350 and 787 or something simlar while more traffic gets diverted to Air France although the relationship between KLM and AF has been strained.
I do expect that where possible the Government will look the other way while the incumbent airlines of which KLM is one are favoured in allocation of scarce airport resources.

BTW AF/KLM Market capitalization is only 3 billion euro. I expect that to shrink if Air Travel in those nations is being actively discouraged.

marcelh wrote:

Unfortunately, this article doesn’t tell the complete story and IMO this was an accident waiting to happen.

There are two issues: noise and pollution levels in the immediate vicinity of Schiphol.

Long story short:
Maximum allowable noise standards around Schiphol have already been exceeded for years and this has been tolerated by the authorities.
A new set of noise standard (to allow 500,000 flights)has been worked on from 2015, but those can’t be implemented unless a new environmental permit has been issued. Unfortunately, to allow 500,000 flights within the scope of the environmental permit, especially in regard to nitrogen compounds -a huge issue in the Netherlands- some costly measures have to be introduced. Without those measures, a maximum of approximately 460,000 flights is allowed. It will take some years before all is said and done, so Schiphol will exceed permitted noise levels for the forseeable future.
This isn’t acceptable for a lot of people living in the vicinity of Schiphol and they have threatened to open a court case to oblige the authorities to enforce the permitted noise levels. It’s clear the authorities will lose this case and that is why they are going to reduce the amount of flights. To make it clear: a lot of those people aren’t NIMBY’s, but have to deal with Schiphol and government which are “unreliable”. Previous Minister of Transport even wanted to allow even 40,000 more flights (to 540,000) knowing about all the issues.

How is getting rid of economic, quiet Embraers going to help with that.
This prohibition is a blunt instrument which won't achieve the desired goal without undue pain to the people and economy of the Netherlands.

marcelh wrote:

Looking at the KLM fleet they have a huge cattle class with relatively cheap tickets.
And those flights to London are “full” because KLM is also using E175 and E190’s…. Yep, “justified”….

When you look at today's departures, AMS is far from optimised, specially considering that there are a few airports around (RTM, EIN and likely LEY soon).

- KLM Cityhopper all over the place. KLM must be one of the European legacies that relies the most on regional aviation. That is what allows them to serve every other small airport in the UK or Scandinavia. When there was the meltdown a few days ago, I was taking a look at KLM's Twitter, and most people complaining about missing connections were flying stuff like ABZ-AMS-FCO or MAN-AMS-ALC. Flying British tourists to Southern European beaches. Very few people something like LPI-AMS-DEL, BHX-AMS-MEX or stuff like that. Short European connections (sometimes with available non-stops) that people use because KLM discount them. They will need to become more like British Airways to focus on larger markets and short-to-long haul.

- Low-cost carriers. Specially easyJet which doesn't fly anywhere else in the Netherlands. Maybe they will need to set shop in RTM/EIN/LEY and move there some frequencies.

- Regional carriers like FlyBe.

- Trains. KLM still flies to BRU and CDG where there is a competitive train. Specially AMS-BRU. London is now less than 4 hours so it makes you wonder if they need all those easyJet flights.

- Leisure flights (Corendon, etc) they can also move to RTM/EIN/LEY.

- Private aviation. Can't they go somewhere else?

- Cargo flights. Same.

AngMoh wrote:

Blerg wrote:

The problem is too many people flying on leisure flights for less than 50 euro on a short return trip to get drunk in another city. You are not going to tell me that that is the pillar of the economy. LCCs and ULCC drive a lot of traffic, but while they make money for Ireland, the contribution to the local economy is minimal. They employ people on zero-hours contracts and now those workers have found out they can make a better living working somewhere else in the economy.

You are not even trying to conceal your prejudices there.

Blerg wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Blerg wrote:

And who is supposed to issue this environmental permit? I suppose it's yet another government institution.

As for the people living close to AMS, well we also have to take into consideration that many of them willingly moved to an area close to the airport. They should have known there was going to be a lot of noise from overflying aircraft. Personally I never understood people who live close to airports complain of the noise. You literally moved to live under an existing flight path! If you don't like it then move elsewhere. It's not like AMS was built a few years ago, it has been there for decades now.

So you accept a government which doen’t oblige to their own set of standards? Because that is the real issue. Also people have been told the 500,000 flights a year was a maximum, but nevertheless Schiphol/government tried to change that.

You are playing that old record of complaining people who know where they live, but you ignore the facts because it probably doesn’t suit your personal POV

No government follows their own standards because their standards are subject to change depending on the circumstances they are in.

In a civilized world a government is accountable for obliging the set of rules they have imposed. In this case they tried to have the cake and eat it. If they can set a new set of rules about noise and pollution which makes it possible to sustain the 500,000 they don’t have to cut.

KLM is a major contributor to the Dutch economy and a large part of their success comes from carrying so many transfers. The government should not forget that.

What is “major” according to you and what will be the “less growth” when Schiphol reduces their flights from 500,000 to 440,000? It’s a 12 percent reduction which can/will be compensated by using bigger planes (195-E2 and A321neo iso E175 and B738)

It's an old record that is still being played because it makes sense. I am sorry but if someone willingly moves into a house that is close to the airport, then they should not complain of the downsides like the noise.

Fun part is most people living in the neighborhood are living there for decades. They have been told in 2003 when Polderbaan opened Schiphol could expand to 500,000 flights, not 540,000 as proposed a few years ago. If you are changing the rules during the game, you are cheating and that’s what happened.

SCQ83 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Looking at the KLM fleet they have a huge cattle class with relatively cheap tickets.
And those flights to London are “full” because KLM is also using E175 and E190’s…. Yep, “justified”….

When you look at today's departures, AMS is far from optimised, specially considering that there are a few airports around (RTM, EIN and likely LEY soon).

- KLM Cityhopper all over the place. KLM must be one of the European legacies that relies the most on regional aviation. That is what allows them to serve every other small airport in the UK or Scandinavia. When there was the meltdown a few days ago, I was taking a look at KLM's Twitter, and most people complaining about missing connections were flying stuff like ABZ-AMS-FCO or MAN-AMS-ALC. Flying British tourists to Southern European beaches. Very few people something like LPI-AMS-DEL, BHX-AMS-MEX or stuff like that. Short European connections (sometimes with available non-stops) that people use because KLM discount them. They will need to become more like British Airways to focus on larger markets and short-to-long haul.

Exactly. I’ve flown with KLM in Europe a lot of times and often found myself sitting next to a Scandinavian flying from somewhere in Europe via AMS to one of the many airports KLM serves in Scandinavia. KLM acting like a regional “Emirates” by funneling a lot of passengers via AMS.

Also a lot of people flying from AMS intercontinental have stated their trip outside Europe.

- Low-cost carriers. Specially easyJet which doesn't fly anywhere else in the Netherlands. Maybe they will need to set shop in RTM/EIN/LEY and move there some frequencies.

LEY should take those flights but due to the same environmental permit issues the opening has postponed again.

- Trains. KLM still flies to BRU and CDG where there is a competitive train. Specially AMS-BRU. London is now less than 4 hours so it makes you wonder if they need all those easyJet flights.

KLM is flying to DUS. When they have to start or land at the infamous Polderbaan the time to taxi at AMS is exceeding the actual flight time (wheels off/on the ground)….

- Leisure flights (Corendon, etc) they can also move to RTM/EIN/LEY.

A lot is f those flights are already flying from those airports (RTM and EIN). Also those were/are planned to go to LEY….

Blerg wrote:

Pretty stupid and shortsighted move by the government. Then again, eco-friendly politicians were never good when it came to the economy.

Just some background info !

Governments are there to balance the conflicting needs of society at large; i.e. economy, health, climate, etc.......as well as to stimulate alternative modes of transport.

AMS airport exceeded its allocated noise footprint multiple years in a row, without any penalty thus far.

The Dutch Government did not enforce the set noise regulations up to last Friday, giving industry time to meet the requirements themselves.

Like everybody else, the air transport industry has to stay within the law.

It didn't !!

So the Netherlands Government had to act.

So the Netherlands Government had to act. They needed to do "something" and the something is likely removal of quiet and efficient smaller planes. That is an Own Goal there.

PhilipBass wrote:

So the Netherlands Government had to act. They needed to do "something" and the something is likely removal of quiet and efficient smaller planes. That is an Own Goal there.

Goal is to meet the current limits set by the applicable legislation instead of breach them knowingly.

which others would achieve by incentivising planes which pollute less in terms of noise and air quality.

If you would have told me 10 years ago that I would have supported the idea of reducing flights at AMS I would have laughed at you. However after spending a good deal of my waking hours at AMS since 2010, my opinion has changed considerably. I do think 440k is rather low. However I believe the idea of 500.000+ flight at AMS is ridiculous.

Pre covid in 2018/2019 we were operating record numbers of flights. The only times available for more flights were in the late afternoon or at night, when apparently no airlines really want to operate. During the day the airport was operating close to or at maximum capacity. Very efficiently I will say, but it put a massive strain on staff and resources.

Right now with staff shortages to the extreme, we aren't even able to handle nearly as many flights in 2019. The results are the now infamous queues for security, unsafe situations on the ramp, and massive flight cancellations. There is no end in sight for this problem as the companies operating at the airport refuse to offer a living wage to attract more staff.

And yet at the same time we now have things like 5 airlines operating the AMS-CPH route. KL, SK and D8 have been operating there for years. More recently we've gotten EZY and now even VY on the same route. I ask myself if that is really a good allocation of capacity? Personally I would like to see a more LHR-style situation where scarce slots actually go to flights that make a profit.

As to the idea of flying bigger aircraft to keep up the seat capacity, this will also quickly reach a point where the infrastructure can't handle it. For decades the "One terminal concept" was the pride and joy of AMS. But lately it's coming back to bite them in the ass because there's few room to expand. It's already becoming increasingly difficult to plan the latest generation aircraft (295, 339 and 359 for example) because of their massive wing spans.

Mark my words, in a few years the cap will be increased.

They’ll say that it will generate jobs.
Right now, that argument can not be used. Schiphol already can’t fill the openings.

They’ll also say that the planes at KLM and HV are much more quiet and environmentally friendly. The upcoming NEO’s and E2s, as well as the gradual retirement of 737s and 330s, make this a fair assumption.

Sure, the greens will complain, but they complain about everything. It’s increasingly hard to take them serious, and that is an opinion that is on the rise. Especially now that much needed infrastructure projects and especially housing projects are postponed.

People do not realise that banning or restriction do not work effectively as they forget the alternatives. A full 737 to NCE from AMS is a lot more environment friendly than those families taking their cars and drive all the way. And the trains are almost always full so untill they build more high speed trainlines and add more trains (that also do not cost 300€ return fair per person), planes are the only viable option that are balanced in the economical as well as environmental effect.

I will agree that flights less than an hour should be discouraged if they have high speed trains between them (typically takes 3.5 hours) and airlines should work with the train operators to code share.