Do we make this public, or does this disappear in a drawer? An investigation into the shrinkage of Schiphol last year led to conflict between the airport and airline KLM. Schiphol wanted to publish it, KLM absolutely did not. Under pressure from KLM, Schiphol ultimately decided to refrain from publication. The airline threatened to hold a Schiphol director personally liable for damages if the investigation became public.
De Volkskrant, who is in charge of the research, wrote about this this Saturday. A Schiphol spokesperson confirms otherwise NRC the state of affairs. KLM wrote in a statement that the study raised “many questions” and that “further research” was needed.
Aviation is under great pressure to reduce noise pollution for local residents – new calculations or insights into shrinkage are therefore relevant. The outgoing cabinet has wanted Schiphol to reduce its 500,000 flights per year by 10 percent since 2022. That hasn’t happened yet.
London or Sydney
Together with the aviation lobby club Barin, Schiphol and KLM commissioned a study into shrinkage in 2022, following the cabinet decision. Two research agencies, SEO and CE Delft, made a ‘social costs and benefits analysis’. It was finished early last year.
A solution, writes de Volkskrant, was that a special flight tax for passengers making long-distance journeys is a “much better” alternative to downsizing. This would lead to fewer long-distance flights and more short flights in smaller aircraft that make less noise. If the population shrinks, there would be relatively more large aircraft flying over, which would cause more noise pollution.
Now everyone who gets on a plane pays the same tax: 29 euros, whether you fly to London or Sydney. With a distance-dependent tax, the distance determines the amount. That is something that KLM, by far the largest airline at Schiphol, does not want, because then travelers would divert to airports in, for example, Brussels or Düsseldorf, where such a tax does not apply. “National taxes amount to travel, and that is not sustainable,” says a KLM spokesperson.
KLM believes that the research by SEO and CE Delft paid “no attention” to “the business climate and the leakage effect of Dutch people who cross the border to fly from there.” Instead of publication, KLM wanted a new investigation.
Also read
Schiphol Group returns to profit for the first time
‘Hub’ Schiphol
For KLM, long-distance flights are important for the revenue model. It uses Schiphol as a ‘hub’ to transfer passengers, and can therefore serve travelers from almost all over the world. Such a long-distance tax should also apply to transferring passengers.
Schiphol wanted to make the study public and is therefore not opposed to a long-distance tax. A spokesperson says: “We see better measures where the number of flights is not the determining factor. We can go to 440,000 flights, but then there will be larger aircraft.”
After “quite a lot of pressure” was put on one of Schiphol’s directors, the airport decided to refrain from publication. “Things are going well” with this director, the spokesperson said. “This happened some time ago, and it has been resolved between both parties.”
What do the residents of Schiphol, around whom the debate about shrinkage revolves, think about a new long-distance tax? Jan Boomhouwer lives in Aalsmeer and is a board member of the Right to Protection against Aircraft Nuisance foundation. “The numbers have to go down, people don’t have a second of rest now.” According to him, a tax instead of shrinkage is of no use to local residents. “Maybe smaller aircraft make less noise in the lab, but that is not something we notice here.”