By Niall Buissing, Aviation Law Expert and Managing Director at Lexavia
Opinions and thoughts expressed in this piece reflect only the author’s views.
In a July 12, 2024, ruling, the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that the government could not cut flights at Schiphol Airport using an Experimental Scheme without applying international and EU rules, specifically the “Balanced Approach” for noise-related measures. Two months later, on September 3, the government unexpectedly announced a smaller-than-expected reduction in Schiphol’s capacity. These are only the latest episodes in a much longer saga.
Wait, There’s More?
In 2022, the then-government announced reducing the airport’s size via three ‘tracks’ to balance its economic benefits with a healthier living environment. The first track aimed to cut flights from 500,000 to 460,000 annually by circumventing the (EU) Balanced Approach. However, it quickly faced backlash and was shelved after threats of retaliation from the US and a possible infringement procedure from the European Commission. The Supreme Court decision sealed its fate permanently.
The second track, which aligns with the EU’s Balanced Approach, requires public consultations and notification to the European Commission. However, the first two attempts (mid-2023 and May 2024) were flawed, with high noise reduction targets and incorrect metrics. In a surprising plot twist, on September 3, the new Minister for Infrastructure will notify Brussels of a new set of measures, limiting flight capacity to 475,000–485,000 per year. Since this represents an increase from the current reduced levels but remains below pre-COVID figures, this could invite further legal challenges.
Opening Pandora’s Box
Whatever one thinks of this turbulent process, it has let the genie out of the bottle. Suggesting the government could unilaterally cut airport capacity has ignited a broader debate over Schiphol’s future. Political parties and interest groups tumbled over one another, proposing cuts to as low as 250,000 flights, often without considering legal, political or practical feasibility.
What started as a noise issue has become a battleground for other agendas: blocking Schiphol’s new environmental permit over emissions, municipalities’ limited options for housing development around the airport, preventing the opening of Lelystad Airport to take over flights from Schiphol, and opposing a fourth, eastern flight approach to distribute air traffic more evenly.
The result is a whirlwind of conflicting interests, competing narratives, and a lot of noise. Whether unintentionally naive or deliberately spreading disinformation, the myriad studies and their selective use blur the line between facts and subjective perceptions, particularly on the inherently subjective nature of noise annoyance.
The Perception Problem
While raising awareness of noise issues might seem beneficial, it can also intensify the problem. When attention is constantly drawn to a sound and the existence of a sound issue, it can become increasingly irritating, making it more difficult to ignore. The question is whether a modest capacity reduction — a few fewer planes flying overhead per hour — would meaningfully reduce perceived noise nuisance without accompanying measures, like altering runway use or aircraft type. Spoiler alert: it will likely not.
From a Balanced Approach Towards a ‘Fair’ Balance
A new ‘storyline’ has further complicated matters. In March 2024, another court found the State violating the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to offer residents adequate legal protection from noise pollution in national legislation for decades. The government has had to appeal the decision after being given just one year to address the issue.
Incorporating the newly notified measures into law will offer residents legal recourse, but it falls short of the noise protection they were led to expect and hope for. Residents use the lower court’s argument that these measures fail to provide a ‘fair balance’ between their ‘systematically subordinated’ interests and those of aviation.
Developing a new system to limit noise and emissions by 2027 under the government’s third track offers an opportunity to address these concerns. However, in the meantime, the battle over Schiphol’s capacity reduction is far from over.
What’s Next?
We have been pushed into an increasingly polarised debate that has spiralled out of control through legal proceedings and framing. Over the past two years, the focus has been on a short-term political goal—reducing capacity at any cost—rather than pursuing a sustainable solution.
To move forward, the government must restart consultations with all stakeholders — industry and residents alike— to develop a legally sound, long-term plan that objectively reduces noise levels in line with EU and international practices. Transparency, grounded in science-based facts, managing expectations and acknowledging feelings but not being led by emotions, is crucial. While this won’t be easy, the current dynamics may present the best opportunity.
A New Season Begins
For insiders, the Supreme Court ruling felt like an anticlimax to a prolonged season finale. With new leadership at the Dutch government, Schiphol, and the European Commission, the stage is set for a new season that officially kicked off with the September 3 announcement. Unfortunately, this seemingly unresolvable script of deeply entrenched interests and high expectations will require multiple plot twists to provoke a breakthrough.
A happy ending still seems distant.
By Niall Buissing, Aviation Law Expert and Managing Director at Lexavia
Opinions and thoughts expressed in this piece reflect only the author’s views.
