Brussels is ‘very surprised’ about ‘sudden’ announcement about reduction of air traffic at Schiphol

The European Commission is asking critical questions about the way in which the Dutch cabinet intends to limit the number of flights at Schiphol. In this way, the cabinet wants to reduce noise nuisance for local residents. “We are not in favor of reducing air traffic by decree as a greening measure,” says Filip Cornelis, the highest official of the European Commission for aviation. “Greening aviation is possible without imposing a passenger cap or reducing the number of flights.”

Cornelis is Director of Aviation in the Commission’s Directorate General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE). During the international aviation conference Airspace World in Geneva, Cornelis says that the Commission was “very surprised about the sudden and drastic announcement” of the cabinet about Schiphol.

The Belgian strongly wonders whether the Dutch government will remain within European regulations when it comes to reducing the number of slotstake-off and landing fees at airports.

KLM, other airlines plus some aviation organizations have filed summary proceedings to get the first reduction measures for Schiphol off the table. They consider it illegal and unnecessary. Harbers must first follow EU rules and can only then announce any shrinkage. Moreover, says KLM, modern aircraft are already quieter than the aircraft on which the ministry would base its plans. The lawsuit will be heard in Haarlem on Tuesday.

Read also: The Netherlands will have a CO2 ceiling for international flights

Noise from Schiphol

In June 2022, Minister Mark Harbers (Infrastructure and Water Management, VVD) announced that Schiphol must shrink. For example, Harbers hopes to prevent the state from losing some lawsuits filed by residents living near the airport because of aircraft noise.

Now a (tolerated) maximum of 500,000 flights still applies, in November 2023 there may not be more than 460,000 per year. And a year later another 440,000. “Of course we have known for many years that the noise from Schiphol is an issue,” says Cornelis. “But until recently, not a single Dutch official spoke to us about such a scenario. It was more about the ceiling of 500,000 and how much more could be added, because aircraft are becoming quieter.”

The Netherlands says it will follow the procedure prescribed by the Commission. This ‘balanced approach’ is mandatory if aircraft noise is addressed. Does the Netherlands now follow the rules?

“We were not only surprised at how far the measure goes, but also that the new number of movements is announced in advance. Normally – with the balanced approach – this only comes at the end of the process. Then restrictive measures are a last resort.

“The EU procedure prescribes that it must first be examined what impact air traffic has on the environment and what measures are then possible. To finally arrive at any limitations.

Read also: Schiphol Airport has to shrink and that is for the first time

“Consultation with all parties involved is still ongoing. We are only officially notified at the end. Then the Commission will probably take a decision on that measure. A possible rejection does not have suspensive effect. We cannot stop a national measure. Any negative advice from the Commission can of course be used by private parties to go to court.”

KLM believes that Harbers should already follow the EU procedure for the first measure. What do you think?

“The first phase is now being implemented outside the balanced approach-regulation. As an implementation of an already existing law. The question that arises, for which the airlines have also gone to court, is whether that is correct. Can that reduction be made without going through EU rules? Thats not sure. I have asked the Dutch government for an explanation.”

Is this step by the Netherlands special in European aviation? Has the number of slots been reduced on such a large scale elsewhere?

“It is absolutely unique. Nowhere in our rules is it stated how to implement such a capacity reduction. There are only rules about what happens if there are more slots. The sector is concerned that this is an example for other countries. But that is not the case now.”

In Belgium, airports must also apply for new permits at this time. Does that look like Schiphol?

“It is complicated in Brussels. There you have noise standards of Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels that differ from each other. It makes a difference whether an aircraft turns left or right after take-off. Which region is being flown over. There are noise restrictions, but no cap on the total number of flights.”

“There are often restrictions on night flights at European airports. We recently covered notifications from France. But the extent of those restrictions cannot be compared to what is currently happening at Schiphol.”

The announced shrinkage of Schiphol should also benefit the environment. Isn’t that positive?

“Greening is possible in other ways. The measures proposed by the Commission in our ‘Fit for 55’ package are sufficient to ensure that aviation meets climate requirements.”

In the Fit for 55 programme, you want to oblige airlines to mix more sustainable kerosene, aviation will be fully included in the EU ETS emissions trading system, and there will be a kerosene tax. But that is not nearly enough to make flying climate neutral, is it?

“The result of Fit for 55 will be sufficient to ensure that aviation makes its contribution to a climate-neutral EU in 2050. In our calculations in the so-called ‘Climate Target’ plan [om de uitstoot van CO2 in de EU in 2030 met 55 procent te verminderen en om in 2050 ‘netto nul’ te zijn] we have included all sections of the economy.

“Aviation has a task to reduce emissions. It is not 100 percent by 2050 – the transport sector including aviation must reduce by 90 percent compared to 1990 – but that is enough to ensure that the entire economy is ‘net zero’ by 2050. Therefore, we see no need for curtailment by law of aviation as the Netherlands now wants.”

ttn-32