arj1 wrote:
If Eindhoven was to ban non-scheduled CAT or Transport-category aircraft on any rules, then I’d understand that they want kill off the traffic with most fuel burn per person.
Many years ago when Schiphol went anti GA it was explained that under the rules for noise control it was all based on the number of movements. 1 C172 = 1 B747. Get rid of the 172 and you can use the movement for something really noisy. Stopping sales of 100LL proved to be a pretty effective means of applying pressure at the time as well as buying out the company renting out those pesky Cessnas.
The tragedy with Eindhoven is that the yearly fly-in organised by the Eindhoven aero club was always an excellent day out. And ATC effortlessly accomodated all the visitors inbetween the Transavia, RyanAir and WizzAir 737s
Snoopy wrote:
Goal: Reduce CO2 emissions.
Distribution of CO2 emissions: 99% Airline, 1% GAAction: Ban GA
Result Public Relations: Eindhoven Airport is saving the planet
Result Actual: Nothing
Exactly. Translated to ordinary language: utter stupidity.
Peter_Mundy wrote:
Hilversum continues to be under threat, the Farmers Citizen Movement who are likely to do very well in the elections have said publicly that they think Lelystad should be closed and turned into housing.Oh dear, extremely sad to hear. That means, the worst-case scenario would be the closure of both Hilversum and Lelystad, so GA is practically banned from Amsterdam’s agglomeration… As I’m still a Dutch citizen, I’ve already voted by mail for a aviation friendly party, even though I’m not so into politics. I don’t think Lelystad will actually close down, but further restrictions might of course come into place, which is also extremely bad for that region.
Global percentage of all aviation – Airlines and GA – is 2%.I like what you’re saying, but be careful with that argumentation, as only 10% of the world’s population has ever flown, and most of them are living in the western world. Even less of the world’s population ever flew in a small GA aircraft, so that .02% of GA traffic in this example might be caused by just a few people.
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation
So we are 1% of 2% or .02%.
Action: Ban GAExactly. This also counts for this ridiculous speed limit on Dutch highways of 100 km/h during the entire day. This was done to reduce nitrogen pollution on paper, but in reality, it didn’t change a thing of course. It does however show that the Dutch government can take incredibly silly decisions and are a real threat to GA. Banning GA doesn’t even look good on paper, but out of envy and resentment, it’s indeed good for the public image. “We’re doing something to safe the planet.”
Result Public Relations: Eindhoven Airport is saving the planet
Result Actual: Nothing
Actually, it is worse.
Goal: Make more money.
Distribution of movements: 5% GA, 95% Airline
Distribution of revenue: 1% GA, 99% Airline
More movements make more work and/or annoy neighbours and/or exhaust capacity
Action: Ban GA so we can have more Airline movements.
PR Result: We are saving the planet
Actual result: Increased CO2 emissions.
Frans wrote:
If everybody is only putting their finger on someone else, nobody might take action after all.
That actually a common argument in the Swedish debate – and I would think in most small countries. That our contribution to the overall CO2 emission is so small that in the big picture it doesn’t matter what we do. Of course if everyone thinks so then nothing will happen.
It’s probably also through that no CO2 emissions are saved by this. Not even 0.02%. Because that traffic probably doesn’t cease to fly. Instead it will fly to a different airport and all that has happened is that the CO2 emissions is move to a different location.
It’s also possible that this other airport is further away from the destination, meaning additional fuel burn to get there, followed by additional ground transport emissions to get the passengers to their final destination. So it could result in ADDITIONAL emissions.
I do object to the “WhatAboutory” and passing the blame to someone else so that we can do nothing. But the simple fact is that GA doesn’t really had an alternative. Ground transportation can be electrified. There is no truly green alternative for GA. Electric planes just don’t have enough range and load carrying to be useable.
Until there is a realistic green alternative for GA, I think it should be accepted given its very low emissions.
Going back to airports in Holland, is there any news regarding C&I at Texel and Midden Zeeland? A couple of months ago Texel were relying on the paralysed Government to stave off the removal of Police attendance announced for the end of the summer, meaning the end of UK flights. Midden Zeeland, apparently under the same threat, were more bullish because of continuous Police presence in the locality. Texel is important for UK flights to Scandinavia, while MZ offer by far the best terms for prior notice going to central Europe.
Given we are on the eve of elections and the formation of a new government could take 12 – 18 months I would not think there is any immediate problem with TEXEL
Aveling wrote:
Midden Zeeland, apparently under the same threat
I spoke to MZ last month about this and they said that this was not an issue, lets hope that they are correct
