Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Management at Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport should have been over the moon last week at news that the Dutch government was suspending plans for a substantial cut to flights from next summer on environmental grounds.
The scheme was one of the most aggressive reductions to future growth faced by any airport in normal times; the government was proposing an 8 per cent cut in capacity at the world’s third-busiest airport, in order to bring it into line with national laws on noise and pollution limits.
But instead of celebrating with airlines, which had spent the past year challenging the plan in court, Schiphol’s interim chief executive Ruud Sondag worried that the victory would be shortlived. Speaking at the weekend just days before the national election, he warned that some parties were looking for far more drastic cuts. And, as local residents get “angrier and angrier…things could end up much worse for Schiphol and [we could] end up with far fewer flights”, he said.
Sondag is right to be worried, and not just because of the ire of local residents. Dutch efforts to push ahead with the plan over the past year in the face of legal challenges have become a proxy for the debate over whether global aviation should continue to enjoy unfettered growth, even as its chances of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 recede.
It may even herald a succession of trade rows as international aviation agreements collide with Europe’s environmental ambitions and national laws.
The Netherlands plan was ill-advised from the start, seeking to fast-forward established procedures on noise reduction by introducing an “experimental law” alongside the usual EU oversight. To be fair, the government was under pressure from regulators, as for many years, Schiphol violated rules on noise and nitrogen levels. But in attempting to accelerate the procedures the Dutch opened the door to retaliation, from the US in particular.
Washington wasted no time in threatening to curtail KLM’s access to US airports after it emerged that American low-cost airline JetBlue would be squeezed out of Schiphol from April — along with 23 other international carriers.
It is conceivable US retaliation could even have extended to airlines beyond the Netherlands. It argued the Dutch had violated the collective EU-US Open Skies agreement by reducing capacity before exploring all options to reduce noise, as international aviation practice requires.
And Washington was not alone. Canada and others complained too. No surprise that EU officials, fresh from a meeting with their US counterparts on Monday, warned the Dutch government they were minded to launch infringement procedures. Within 24 hours, the plan to cut capacity in April was shelved.
This is not the first time that a US intervention has prompted a change to environmental measures in Europe. More than a decade ago the EU suspended plans to require all airlines flying into and out of the bloc to use its emissions trading scheme after Washington banned US airlines from participating.
But these incidents are not likely to be the last. In Europe the public and political mood on aviation seems to be hardening as the deadline for net zero promises approaches. It is clear that without a radical breakthrough in technology, an exponential rise in the production of sustainable aviation fuel, or strong action from governments, the sector will fall short of its promise. Climate Action Tracker, an independent scientific project, even suggests that given predictions for passenger growth, emissions from international aviation could double between 2019 and 2050 without concerted action.
As a result, some politicians are increasingly inclined to discourage unnecessary flying. The Netherlands tripled its air passenger tax from this year to almost €30 per flight. Denmark is proposing a green tax on all flights. France where a recent survey suggested a majority of 18-24 year olds favour limiting flights to four a lifetime, has been particularly assertive. The transport minister earlier this year proposed a hefty fuel tax on private jets. More recently he has proposed a new tax on flights to raise funds for expanding the country’s rail service. And France, Belgium and the Netherlands are reported to be supporting proposals for a minimum fare on flights.
“This is why the Netherlands is so important. It sets a precedent across Europe and across the world,” says Keith Glatz, senior vice-president at lobby group Airlines for America.
Read the full article here