Aviation leaders have reacted with shock to a Dutch government decision to cap flights at Amsterdam Schiphol airport for environmental reasons.
The government announced on Friday (June 24) that flights to and from the Dutch hub will be limited to 440,000 a year from the start of 2023, 11% below the level of 2019 and 20% under the capacity set by the previous government.
The Dutch state is the majority shareholder in Schiphol. The government said the reduction in flights would cut noise and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions around the airport.
Iata denounced the decision as “crazy”, claiming it would “cut the airport off at its knees” while failing to achieve its environmental aims.
The move came after Schiphol imposed a temporary cap on passenger numbers amounting to a 16% reduction in current capacity to alleviate congestion, delays and cancellations caused by staff shortages.
Dutch transport minister Mark Harbers argued the cap on flights would restore “the balance between a well-operating international airport, the business climate, and the interests of a better and healthier living environment”.
He acknowledged: “This is a difficult message for the aviation sector that is still recovering from the coronavirus pandemic.”
Iata director general Willie Walsh described “the sudden decision” as “a shocking blow to aviation”.
He said: “It comes on top of a tripling of the passenger tax [in the Netherlands], and a 37% rise in airport charges [at Schiphol]. We’re seeing a throttling of air connectivity.”
Walsh said the justification for the cap, that it would reduce NOx emissions, “is not supported by facts”, arguing: “Aviation’s NOx contribution is around 1% of total NOx deposition in the Netherlands.”
He said: “Downsizing Schiphol will permanently destroy jobs. Businesses in the Netherlands will need to evaluate their future.”
Walsh added: “Schiphol has been struggling to cope with demand, which shows how important the airport is.
“This crazy decision to cut the airport off at its knees will achieve none of the stated environmental aims, but it will cause irreparable harm to jobs and prosperity. The government should reverse course.”
Iata pointed out: “In 2019, Amsterdam was the third-best internationally connected city in Europe, behind only London and Paris.”
KLM described the move as “highly detrimental”, warning it would harm the country’s reputation as a place to do business and said in a statement: “It does not tally with the desire to retain a strong hub function.”
European airports association ACI Europe warned the decision would “make the Netherlands smaller”.
It described Schiphol as “a leader in sustainability” despite being ranked number three in Europe for hub connectivity.
In a statement, ACI Europe argued Schiphol was of “massive benefit to the Netherlands, creating and supporting economic activity and jobs . . . and an essential factor in the attractiveness of the Netherlands as a place to do business”.
Olivier Jankovec, ACI Europe director general, said: “Amsterdam Schiphol makes the Netherlands bigger than it is. The decision of the government to significantly reduce the capacity of the airport will make the Netherlands smaller.”
However, environmental group Greenpeace, which lobbied for traffic at Schiphol to be reduced, hailed the decision as a “historic breakthrough”.
A Greenpeace spokesperson said: “The cabinet now realises Schiphol has been flying past all limits for years.”