EC says Amsterdam aviation dike has HOLES!!!
As mentioned before here, As Dutch government collapses, it tries to turn AMS into an aircraft graveyard, the European Union might not agree with the Dutch government’s myopic approach to noise:
Without a vetted economical/operational impact study, the limitations may cause carriers to move flights away from Schiphol and that iterative withdrawal may end the airport’s role as a hub or worse. THAT may be the real goal of the proponents. A Balanced Approach study would reveal the consequences on GNP and jobs.
AMS action would only benefit the airport’s environs, but there would be little to no benefit to Europe’s environment.** This parochial perspective is why ICAO ‘s members adopted CORSIA and The Balanced Approach: GLOBAL IMPACTS ARE ESSENTIAL TO A TRUE REDUCTION. **
…
While the current government appears to be exiting the Hague, the issue may be moving 139 miles to the south and east, where EASA may determine whether the AMS restrictions violate the European Union laws.
As the article below reports, the European Commission found that the Government of the Netherlands failed to follow the policies of that continental organization. Specifically, it was found that the Hague did not properly apply:
“..‘BALANCED APPROACH’ for noise control, European Union member states must consider measures including reducing aircraft noise at source, land use and planning, and noise-abatement procedures, BEFORE LIMITING FLIGHTS.”
This ruling does not mean that AMS absolutely may not reduce flights, but that it did rule the Dutch assessment failed to explore significant alternatives—
- reconsideration of exemptions,
- recognition of the aircraft noise by virtue of improved quiet technology,
- redesign of flight paths and procedures to minimize noise impact,
- land use and planning rules to reduce, if not limit, community impact.
Although not mentioned in the report, the real problem here is looking at the noise on a micro rather than a macro basis. AMS may be able to “optimize” noise impact at one of Europe’s major aviation hubs—
It was the world’s third busiest airport by international passenger traffic in 2023. With almost 72 million passengers in 2019, it is the third-busiest airport in Europe in terms of passenger volume and THE BUSIEST IN EUROPE IN TERMS OF AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS. With an annual cargo tonnage of 1.74 million, it is the 4th busiest in Europe.
Widening the aperture of this assessment will show that DIKEing AMS just transfers the noise to other neighboring airports. AMS noise reduction likely = other EU airport noise increases!!! A macro analysis should be part of the next Netherlands policy review
Commission analysis identifies flaws in Schiphol noise-reduction plan
Dutch authorities are expected to review a controversial noise-reduction plan for Amsterdam Schiphol airport after a European Commission analysis found it had NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION TO POTENTIALLY INFLUENTIAL ASPECTS.
Part of the plan involves capping annual flight movements at 478,000.
Under a process known as ‘BALANCED APPROACH’ for noise control, European Union member states must consider measures including reducing aircraft noise at source, land use and planning, and noise-abatement procedures, BEFORE LIMITING FLIGHTS.
The Commission has examined the Dutch plan and states that, while authorities “largely” followed the correct procedures, there are “some shortcomings” – particularly the decision to exempt business and general aviation.
Treating commercial aviation differently from these other sectors, despite their noise contribution of 2.5%, is “discriminatory”, says the Commission.
“While these services are not in direct competition with each other, the discrimination stems from including both categories in calculating the noise situation around Schiphol,” it states.
While the EC decision does not preclude AMS’s creating a noise dike, it has but a crack in it.
Source: KLM
KLM had vehemently objected to the proposed Schiphol flight cap
The Commission adds that the plan only “partially” considered the effect of fleet renewal, even though there is a natural trend by carriers to modernise aircraft, and did not fully explore the potential of revised flight procedures.
Its verdict does not block the Dutch cap but is intended to prompt a rethink over the influence of fleet-renewal and operational procedures and consider whether business and general aviation affect the situation.
Dutch flag-carrier KLM, which last year described the 478,000-movement cap as “incomprehensible”, highlights the “concerns” raised by the Commission in its assessment.
“IT IS CLEAR FROM THIS DECISION THAT CAPACITY REDUCTION AT SCHIPHOL AIRPORT SHOULD NOT BE THE GOAL IN ITSELF,” says the airline. “The focus should be on achieving the government’s noise-reduction targets, which KLM supports.”
KLM says it expects the Dutch ministry of infrastructure to “take…to heart” the Commission’s findings and follow its recommendations before implementing capacity restrictions.
