They put new taxes on flights – Labor

They are discussing the introduction of a minimum fare for air travel

Implement measures to reduce harmful emissions in transport

Management at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport should have been over the moon at the news that the Dutch government is scrapping its environmental plans to significantly cut flights from next summer, writes Financial Times international business editor Peggy Hollinger. The government was proposing to cut capacity at the world’s third-busiest airport by 8% to bring it into line with national laws on noise and pollution restrictions.

But rather than celebrate with the airlines that have spent the past year challenging the plan in court, Schiphol’s interim chief executive Ruud Sondach worries the victory will be short-lived. Speaking just days before parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, he warned that some parties were aiming for much more drastic cuts. And with locals getting “angrier and angrier … things could end up a lot worse for Schiphol and we could end up with a lot fewer flights,” Sondach said.

He is rightly worried, and not just because of the anger of the locals. The Netherlands’ plan was inappropriate from the start, seeking to fast-track established noise abatement procedures by introducing an “experimental law” alongside normal EU oversight. To be fair, the government has come under pressure from regulators as Schiphol has been breaching noise and nitrogen levels for many years. But in trying to speed up the proceedings, the Dutch opened the door to retaliation, particularly from the US.

Washington immediately threatened to restrict Dutch airline KLM’s access to US airports after it became clear that US low-cost carrier JetBlue would be forced out of Schiphol from next April – along with 23 other international carriers.

It is possible that the US response even covered airlines outside the Netherlands. It alleges that the Dutch violated the EU-US collective open skies agreement by cutting capacity before exploring all options to lower noise, as required by international aviation practice.

And Washington was not alone. Canada and others also complained. Unsurprisingly, EU officials, immediately after meeting their US counterparts, recently warned the Dutch government that they intended to launch infringement procedures. Within 24 hours, the April capacity reduction plan was frozen.

But these incidents are unlikely to be the last. In Europe, public and political sentiment regarding aviation appears to be hardening as the deadline for net zero pledges approaches. It is clear that without a radical breakthrough in technology, an exponential increase in sustainable jet fuel production or decisive action by governments, the sector will not deliver on its promises. The Climate Action Tracker (an independent science project tracking climate action) even suggests that, given passenger growth projections, international aviation emissions could double between 2019 and 2050 in the absence of 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 offers a green tax on all flights. France, where a recent poll showed a majority of 18- to 24-year-olds support limiting flights to four in a lifetime, is particularly insistent. Her transport minister earlier this year proposed a hefty tax on private jet fuel. More recently, he proposed a new flight tax to raise funds to expand rail service in the country. France, Belgium and the Netherlands are reported to support proposals for minimum flight fares.