amsterdam schiphol: the most sustainable airport hub of
TRANSCRIPT
0
Amsterdam Schiphol: The most sustainable airport hub of Europe?
A policy evaluation of policies related to enhancing the sustainability of the Dutch
aviation sector and to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol.
1
Colophon Amsterdam Schiphol: The most sustainable airport hub of Europe? A policy evaluation of policies related to enhance the sustainability of the Dutch aviation sector and to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol Airport.
Author: Tim (T.) van Donselaar s1021464 Master’s thesis Spatial Planning Specialisation Urban and Regional Mobility Radboud University Supervisor Dr. S. Lenferink Second Reader: Dr. Ir. D.A.A. Samsura Data 22 July 2020
Credits photos Tim van Donselaar Word Count: 65.658 words (total document) 32.286 words (excluding appendix, preface, summary etc.) Key words Multi-level Governance, Policy Evaluation, Hub Function, Sustainability
2
Preface The presentation of this master’s thesis Amsterdam Schiphol: the most sustainable airport in Europe? A policy evaluation of policies related to enhance the sustainability of the Dutch aviation sector and to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol Airport means the end of my two year master thesis programme and the end of my education programme of four years university of applied science and two years of university to become a spatial planner. A great way to end this is by combining spatial planning with my passion for civil aviation. It was interesting to work each day on two things I like. In addition, it also enlarged my knowledge about the aviation sector itself and the important link of the sector with spatial planning. I would like to thank Sander Lenferink, my supervisor, for the time and support he provided during the process. The several brainstorm sessions, e-mail conversations and other meetings together has provided some suitable input for the research itself, the interpretation of particular things and moral support if necessary. At the same time, I would like to thank everyone else which (in)directly helped me to make this research better, in terms of providing input about the structure of the research, aviation related discussions and more. I will end with a reference to a famous quote of Nelson Mandela: ‘A winner is a dreamer who never gives up’. I would like to refer to Mandela’s quote because its indirectly refers to my own life. Nobody, including myself, would have expected that I should reach the point I am now. However, just like Mandela said, if you have an ambition (dreamer) and you never give up, which I did, you will reach your ambitions (winner). Hopefully, you will enjoy reading this research. Tim van Donselaar, Scherpenzeel, July 22, 2020
3
Summary The Dutch aviation sector is dealing with a ‘conflict’. The sector wants to expand Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function as well to become more sustainable. However, finding a suitable balance between both goals is difficult. The aim of the research is to evaluate the policies established by the main actors (Dutch Government, Royal Schiphol Group and KLM Group), focussing on Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and sustainability, since the establishment of the Aviation Policy Note 2009. This will contribute to answer the main research question: “Evaluating the current policies on regional and national level, which lessons can be learned for new policies to enhance the sustainability of the Amsterdam Schiphol as well as to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol?” The policies have been analysed to see which policies has been established to enhance the sustainability of Dutch aviation sector, and especially Amsterdam Schiphol, as well as to strengthen Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and if they were successful? The research will combine multi-level governance and policy evaluation. Those theories have been used to select the main actors and to evaluate their policies. The results have shown several outcomes. First, Amsterdam Schiphol’s position has been strengthened due to the growing demand of air travel (higher passenger volumes and more movements) while the airport’s hub function became stronger in terms of direct and hub connectivity. However, due to factors such as capacity limits, larger competition and the rise of low-cost carriers, the pressure on the airport’s hub function has been increased. Simultaneously, the sector has worked hard to make the sector more sustainable. Multiple policy measures (fleet modernisation, regulations to demotivate the use of polluted/noisy aircraft and developing/implementing sustainable innovations) has been used to enhance the sustainability. However, the total amount of CO2-emissions and the nuisance for (local) residents has increased due to the growing demand of air travel. This shows that the sector still needs to make a major step forward. Twelve returning policies has been differentiated, including corresponding policy measures. The evaluation of those returning policies has resulted into an advice for the (main) actors to implement several additional policy measures to improve/strength those returning policies (see table 1). Some policies have already been implemented by the Dutch government into the new Aviation Policy Note 2020 – 2050, while the remaining policy measures are still suitable for implementation to establish a more complete and extensive policy measure toolbox.
Returning policies
#1 Applying selective development policy at Amsterdam Schiphol
#7 Making airport and flight operations more sustainable
#2 Apply biofuel in aviation sector #8 Improving cargo operations at Amsterdam Schiphol
#3 Fleet Modernisation #9 Improving facilities/procedures for passengers at Amsterdam Schiphol
#4 Creating a Single European Sky (S2ES) #10 Using innovations to make the aviation sector more sustainable
#5 Restrictions of the number of movements. #11 Realizing alternative transport modalities for short-haul flights (< 700 km).
#6 Improving the living environment of local residents
#12 Optimize route network
Table 1: Overview returning policies
4
The results have shown that it is still difficult to establish suitable policies which provide a balanced way to gain the economic benefits as well to reduce the environmental impacts of air travel as much as possible. The new Aviation Policy Note provides tools, but collaboration between different stakeholders is essential. The main actors work already together, but more and large collaborations on multiple levels could result in better policies and measures to achieve the common goals. Next to starting/extending collaborations, the sector needs to focus, as a collaboration, to achieve three important steps forward into the reduction of CO2-emissions. Those measures are:
• Applying alternative transport modalities to reduce the large amount of (ultra-)short-haul flights.
• Applying biofuel instead of fossil fuels.
• Reducing emissions caused during the LTO-cycle. Additionally, applying those three measures could result into possible benefits for Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function. Replacing flights results into free slots for hub-related flights, which strengthen the hub function. Meanwhile, reducing CO2-emissions and future development of new aircraft types could result in additional yearly air traffic movements. In other words, a balance in establishing appropriate policies for strengthening Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and to enhance the sustainability of the aviation sector can be created, resulting in Amsterdam Schiphol as the most sustainable airport hub of Europe!
5
List of abbreviations and terminology
Abbreviations
ATMs Air Traffic Movements
LCCs Low-Cost Carriers
LTO-cycle Landing and take-off cycle
MoE Ministry of Economic Affairs
MoH Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment
MoI Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment
MoI&W Ministry of Infrastructure & Water Management
MoT Ministry of Transport and Water Management
Terminology
Airbus A320ceo Family Serie of aircraft types designed and build by Airbus since 1987. The series consists of the Airbus A318, A319, A320 and A321 (Airways Magazine, 2017)
Airbus A320neo Serie of aircraft types designed and build by Airbus since 2014 as successor of the Airbus A320ceo Family. The series consists of the Airbus A319neo, Airbus A320neo and Airbus A321neo (Airways Magazine, 2017).
Boeing 737 Classic Serie of aircraft types designed and build by Boeing between 1984 and 2006. This series consists of the Boeing 737-300, 400, and 500-series (Boeing, n.d.-a)
Boeing 737NG Serie of aircraft types designed and build by Boeing since 1997 as successor of the Boeing 737 Classis. The series consists of the Boeing 737-600, 700, 800 and 900-series (Boeing, n.d.-a).
Boeing 737 MAX Serie of aircraft types designed and build by Boeing since 2018 as successor of the Boeing 737NG. The series consists of the Boeing 737 MAX 7, 8, 9 and 10 (Boeing, n.d.-a).
Boeing 747-400COMBI Aircraft type which has the possibilities to carry 268 passengers and large amounts of cargo, which are not able to be carried at regular passenger aircraft such as the Boeing 747-400 (KLM, n.d.-c).
COVID-19 COVID-19 is an infectious disease which has caused a world pandemic after the outbreak in Wuhan, China (WHO, n.d.)
Feeder flights Feeder flights are flights operated by an airline or its subsidiary to support the mainline operations of the particular airline (Reynolds-Feighan, 2018). KLM and KLM Cityhopper operate feeder flights inside Europe to support the intercontinental network of the KLM.
LTO-cycle The period of a flight between the landing and the take-off, which also includes taxing and ground operations (Postorino, et al, 2019).
Passenger aircraft belly The belly of large passenger aircraft such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, Boeing 747 and Boeing 777 provides space to carry a large amount of cargo, together with carrying hundreds of passengers (Nahum et al., 2018).
6
List of figures and tables
Figures
Main document
Figure 1: Schematic view of the differences between point-to-point and hub-and-spoke traffic 18
Figure 2: Overview of KLM’s intercontinental and European in- and outbound peaks 21
Figure 3: Indication LTO-cycle (below the 3.000 feet line) 22
Figure 4: Schematic overview of the main carbon impacts produced by the airport transport function
23
Figure 5: Indication of the noise production of different aircraft types 24
Figure 6: Overview of the general noise contour around an airport area based on multiple movements operated by a Boeing 737-800
24
Figure 7: Implementation of the research topics into conceptual model 25
Figure 8: Overview of the four modes of governance 27
Figure 9: Example of the horizontal and vertical dimensions in multi-level governance 27
Figure 10: Overview implementation multi-level governance into conceptual model 30
Figure 11: Policy Cycle 30
Figure 12: Most used policy evaluation criteria 31
Figure 13: Overview Policy Evaluation Theory into conceptual model. 33
Figure 14: Conceptual model 34
Figure 15 Indication of fuel savings due fleet modernisation over the years by airlines part of the Air France – KLM Group
47
Figure 16: Indication of the noise energy reduction achieved by Air France – KLM between 2000-2019 by using more quiet aircraft types
51
Figure 17: Overview of aircraft categories based on noise and pollution level 54
Figure 18: Infographic Single European Sky 54
Figure 19: Indication of the reduction of CO2-emissions per flight/per year on short-haul flights for Amsterdam to several destinations
59
Figure 20: Indication of the development of total air traffic and CO2-emissions between 2005 and 2019
65
Appendix
Figure 21: Overview of Royal Schiphol Group’s point of view in terms of the airport as hub 98
Figure 22: Overview of the airports located in the Netherlands 121
Figure 23: Infographic Single European Sky 125
Figure 24: Overview of aircraft categories based on noise and pollution level 139
Figure 25: Overview of the seven action themes 141
Figure 26: Overview of the savings of CO2-emissions per action point in tonnes CO2 142
7
Tables
Main document
Table 1: Overview returning policies 3
Table 2: Overview aspects hub function to research into before-after measurement analysis 38
Table 3: Overview aspects sustainability to research into before-after measurement analysis 39
Table 4: Overview of type of actor groups defined by Royal Schiphol Group 41
Table 5: Overview selecting criteria plus main policies Dutch Government 42
Table 6: Overview selecting criteria plus main policies Royal Schiphol Group 43
Table 7: Overview selecting criteria plus main policies KLM Group 44
Table 8: Key figures hub function Amsterdam Schiphol Airport 2009-2019 46
Table 9: Key figures sustainability 2009 – 2019 48
Table 10: Overview goals/ambitions Dutch Government between 2009-2019 61
Table 11: Overview goals/ambitions Royal Schiphol Group between 2009-2019 62
Table 12: Overview goals/ambitions KLM Group between 2009-2019 62
Table 13: Overview of the returning policies, including existing policy measures and additional policy measures.
69
Table 14: Overview of returning policies established by the three main actors during the period 2009 – 2019 in multiple (policy documents), including existing and additional policy measures.
72
Table 15: Overview additional policies suitable to be implemented into the Aviation Policy Note 2020 - 2050
73
Table 16: Overview returning policies between 2009-2019 77
Table 17: Overview additional policy measures of returning policies between 2009-2019 77
Appendix
Table 18: Overview of types of actor groups defined by Royal Schiphol Group 95
Table 19: Overview key figures hub function 2009 102
Table 20: Overview complains submitted in 2009, including general information about complainers
103
Table 21: Overview specific and periodical hinder complaints 103
Table 22: Overview of the total number of movements per aircraft level 104
Table 23: Overview key figures sustainability 2009 105
Table 24: Overview movements per airline segment 2014 107
Table 25: Overview key figures hub function 2014 108
Table 26: Overview of complains submitted in 2014 109
Table 27: Overview of movements per aircraft level 2014 110
Table 28: Overview key figures sustainability 2014 111
Table 29: Overview of the movements per airline segment 113
Table 30: Overview key figures hub function 114
Table 31: Overview of complains submitted in 2019 115
Table 32: Overview of movements per aircraft level 116
Table 33: Overview key figures sustainability 117
8
Table of Content
1. Introduction 11
1.1 The Case 11
1.2 The current problems in the Dutch aviation sector 12
1.3 Aim and research question 13
1.4 Scientific Relevance 14
1.5 Societal Relevance 14
1.6 Reading Guide 15
2. Theoretical Framework 17
2.1 Central research topic 17
2.1.1 Hub function 17
2.1.2 Sustainability in the aviation sector 21
2.1.3 Operationalisation/implementation of the research topics into conceptual model 25
2.2 Multi-level Governance Theory 26
2.2.1 Introduction of the theory 26
2.2.2 Operationalisation/implementation of the theory into conceptual model 29
2.3 Policy Evaluation Theory 30
2.2.1 Introduction of the theory 30
2.2.2 Operationalisation/implementation of the theory into conceptual model 32
2.4 Conceptual model 33
3. Methods 36
3.1 Research Strategy 36
3.1.1 Advantages and disadvantages of evaluation research 36
3.2 Data Collection 36
3.2.1 Document analysis vs policy analysis 37
3.3 Single Case Study 37
3.4 Before-after measurement 38
3.5 Validity and reliability of the research 39
4. Results 41
4.1 Setting the stage – Actors 41
4.1.1 Which actors are involved 41
4.1.2 The three main actors 42
4.2 Comparison and evaluation of 10 years of Dutch aviation policies 44
4.2.1 Before-after measurement 44
4.2.2 Trends and developments 49
4.2.3 Returning policies 51
4.2.4 Ambitions set by the actors 60
4.2.5 Evaluation of policies 2009 – 2019 63
9
5. Looking at the future: Reflection on Draft Aviation Policy 2020 71
5.1 Summary of Draft Aviation Policy Note 2020 – 2050 71
5.2 Evaluation ambitions/policies in relation with evaluation policies 2009 - 2019 71
6. Conclusion 76
6.1 Sub conclusions 76
6.2 Main conclusion 78
7. Discussion and reflection 80
7.1 Implications for academia and the sector 80
7.1.1 Implications for academia 80
7.1.2 Implications for the (Dutch) aviation sector 80
7.2 Recommendations for future research 81
7.3 Reflection of the research 82
Literature list 85
Appendix
Appendix A – Setting the stage – actors 95
Appendix B – Profile sets 2009, 2014 and 2019 101
Appendix C – Goals and Policies 119
Appendix D – Before-after measurement 146
Appendix E – Slot Trading system 155
Appendix F – Summary Draft Aviation Policy Note 2020 – 2050 158
10
11
Introduction 1.1 – The case Amsterdam Schiphol is the largest airport in The Netherlands, and Europe’s third-largest airport in terms of the number of yearly travellers (Royal Schiphol Group, 2020a). In 2019, the airport handled 496.826 of the 500.000 allowed movements per year, which means around 1,370 take-offs or landings per day. However, the airport and the aviation sector want to increase the number of yearly slots to expand, although due to current legislation, it is currently not possible to increase the number of slots (Royal Schiphol Group, 2020a). Amsterdam Schiphol currently operates as a hub airport for multiple airports like KLM, EasyJet, Delta Air Lines and SkyTeam members1 (SkyTeam, n.d.). However, there are several definitions to define a ‘hub’. Holloway (2016) notice three definitions of a hub, defined by three different actors:
• FAA: Any (US) airports which generates 0.05% or more of the national enplanement, but which not load the term with any scheduling or other operational implications (Holloway, 2016).
• General: Airports which are the home base of particular airlines and/or airports which handle large volumes of traffic (Holloway, 2016).
• Airlines: A airport hub is a hub where airlines schedule inbound flights to arrive from outlying origins within a short period of time, disembarking passengers and/or freight for transfer to onward flights scheduled to leave shortly afterwards for a wide range of destinations (Holloway, 2016).
In this research, the third definition will be used. This research is partly focussing how Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function can be strengthen in terms of a larger and extended route network to connect the Netherlands with the world and attracting the maximum number of transfer passenger as possible, which is in line with the third definition. In the meantime, sustainability becomes more and more important, also in the aviation sector (KLM, 2019a; Royal Schiphol Group, n.d.-a). The sector has already started realising its sustainability ambition to become more sustainable by introducing modern and more fuel-efficient aircraft to replace older and less fuel-efficient aircraft and using electric vehicles at the airports (KLM, 2019a; NH Nieuws, 2019; Royal Schiphol Group, 2020a). Furthermore, the Air France – KLM Group, mother company of the KLM Group, currently stands first at the Dow Jones Sustainability Index in the category ‘Airlines’ for the most sustainable airline (group) across the world, while airline group already stands 15 years in the top three of this index (KLM, 2019c). However, the sector needs to take more steps to become sustainable. The two most common aspect to improve the aviation sector are reducing the CO2-emissions and nuisance of (local) residents. However, researches (McManners, 2016; Nijkamp, 1999) have shown that the aviation sector is one of the most difficult sectors to implement sustainable policies. This makes it more interesting for this research to explore which policies the different actors have established and applied to make the sector more sustainable and if it was successful or that changes are recommended. Lessons learned from the Dutch aviation sector could be applied at European or even global level, which could result in a European or global approach to make the aviation sector more sustainable. The Dutch aviation sector has already shows that the sector is very innovative by applying sustainable innovations to make the (Dutch) aviation sector more sustainable (Forbes, 2019), its large number of (aviation related) knowledge institutions (Broekel & Boschma, 2011) and the national government’s ambitions to take a leading role in the development of sustainable aviation (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Ministry of Transport and Water Management, 2009).
1 SkyTeam is an airline alliance, consisting of 19 members (airlines) across the world. Main goal of the alliance is to connect millions of passengers across the world on an easy and efficient way (SkyTeam, n.d.).
12
Amsterdam Schiphol, companies, and different levels of governments make their own (aviation related) policies for a longer time period. A perfect example is the Aviation Policy Note 2009, established by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (MoH) and the Ministry of Transport and Water Management (MoT) (2009). This policy document was established in 2009 for a 10 years-period until the new Aviation Policy Note 2020-2050 will be established by the Ministry of Infrastructure & Water Management (MoI&W) (n.d.). However, not each established policy works well. This research will take a closer look at the former and current policies established by several actors involved in the aviation sector. Those policies will be evaluated and discussed to see which policies and corresponding policy measures were successful and which policies/policy measures need some changes to become successful. The starting point for the research will be the Aviation Policy Note 2009, followed by other relevant policy documents established by the main actors of this research. Nevertheless, the research will be focussed on the policies itself, especially on the policies related to the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol and sustainability. Elements such as the policy-making process will not be addressed in this research. In this research, the connection between the multi-level governance theory and the policy evaluation theory will be made. Multi-level Governance can be defined as ‘the vertical (multiple levels) and horizontal (multiple actors) dispersion of central government authority and refers to both, political structures and decision-making process (Bache & Flinders, 2004; Schafer, 2010). Policy evaluation can be defined as applying ‘evaluation principles and methods to examine the content, implementation or impact of a policy’ (CDC, n.d.; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2009). As already mentioned, policies on several types of levels will be researched. According to Preston, Lee & Hooper (2012), multiple levels of institutions are involved in the aviation sector. Each institution makes its own policies on their own level(s). Conceivable levels are among others the local, regional, national, continental (EU) and intercontinental level. Looking at the research problem, the most suitable levels to research are the regional and national level, including a short look at the European level in terms of one or two particular policies. Most of the existing policies intendent for the aviation sector are designed for those two levels. Municipalities, provinces, and the national government establish policies on their own level. Furthermore , the Royal Schiphol Group, Amsterdam Schiphol’s owner, also establish its own policies mostly for those two levels. This is the reason why this research will mostly be focussed on the policies established on regional and national level. However, as already mentioned, the emphasis will mostly be on the regional and national level, because most of the relevant policies are written for those two levels. Additionally, the research will also look at the continental level because there are also policies established by the European Union. However, only some particular policies will be discussed such as the Single European Sky, instead of analysing the entire aviation related policies established on a continental level.
1.2 – The current problems in the Dutch aviation sector The Dutch aviation sector is dealing with a ‘conflict’. On one hand, the sector wants to expand, which results in a hub function under pressure, while on the other hand, the sector also wants to become more sustainable. However, with the current environmental awareness, it is more difficult to obtain both goals. People want to protect the environment by the reduction of (CO2-)emissions and nuisance caused by aircraft movements such as noise and pollution nuisance. However, weakening Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function results into negative impacts for the Netherlands connectivity and economic, something the Dutch government want to avoid (MoH & MoT, 2009). Finding solutions to solve both problems are more difficult due to the playing fields where the sector is ‘playing on.’ The sector is playing on different kind of levels (scales) such as the regional and national level, which make it more difficult to set certain goals/policies and achieve them. A clear example of
13
this is the Dutch Government system. This system can be divided into different levels, namely municipalities, regional corporations, provinces, and the national government. Each level has its own goals and ambitions with corresponding policies to achieve this. Those levels also established their own goals for Amsterdam Schiphol and the Dutch aviation sector. At the same time, those different levels work and coordinate together to help each other to achieve all goals, because some goals/policies are only possible to achieve on higher/lower levels (Maldonado et al, 2010). Daniell & Kay (2018) adds that ‘governance must operate at multiple scales in order to capture variations in the territorial reach of policy externalities’ (pg. 6). In other words, the interaction between decision-making on different scales is necessary to create working policies. This is also one of the reasons why the multi-level character of governance needs to analyse in this research. Otherwise, the differences of policy decisions on different levels cannot be found, which results in incorrect outcomes of the research. The research will look which policies, including corresponding policy measures, are successful and which policies need to change to become successful. At the same time, there are many different actors involved in the sector and not all actors can be analysed in this research. Because of that, a small number of actors will be selected, which together forms the basis of the Dutch aviation sector and which has enough power/tools to create suitable and working changes to achieve the overall goals of all actors active in the sector.
1.3 – Aim and research questions The aim of the research is to evaluate the most relevant policies of the three selected main actors involved in the Dutch aviation sector, since the establishment of the Aviation Policy Note 2009. The focus will be on two topics, namely strengthen Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and making the sector more sustainable. Due to the large number of actors, three main actors will be selected. Those main actors are selected following a couple of criteria, which will further be discussed in chapter 4. The research will answer questions, such as ‘How can the returning policies be improved to make them more suitable for the three main actors to achieve their future goals?’. With the evaluation of the relevant policies, the research could provide advice for the main actors for future policies to enhance the sustainability of the Dutch aviation sector, especially Amsterdam Schiphol, as well as strengthen the airport’s hub function. In addition to this, the research will also reflect the Draft Aviation Policy Note 2020 – 2050 briefly. The research will answer one main research question and multiple sub-research questions. The sub-research questions will contribute in answering the main research question. The main research question will be: “Evaluating the current policies on regional and national level, which lessons can be learned for new policies to enhance the sustainability of Amsterdam Schiphol as well as to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol?” To answer the main research question, the following sub-research questions will be used:
1. What is a hub function and how is this function incorporated in policies at the regional and national level?
2. What are the goals and ambitions on making Amsterdam Schiphol more sustainable and how are these incorporated into policies of the three main actors?
3. What is the performance of Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function at the regional, national, EU-level, and global level?
14
4. What are the ‘returning policies’ established by the three main actors and which consequences does this have for the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol and the sustainability ambitions of the airport and the sector?
5. How can the returning policies be improved to make them more suitable for the three main actors to achieve their future goals?
6. Which changes/additions at the Draft Aviation Policy Note 2020-2050 are recommended to enhance the sustainability of Amsterdam Schiphol as well as to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol.
1.4 – Scientific Relevance Doing research about existing policies in the Dutch aviation sector, including the Aviation Policy Note 2009, is one of the aims of this research. Additionally, the working connection between the different actors is also interesting to investigate. In the last years, the government working together with other actors (governance) increased in popularity (Asaduzzaman & Virtanen, 2016). Governance also plays an important role in the policy-making process of the (Dutch) aviation sector (ACM, 2020; Volkskrant, 2017). However, there are several types of governance. Example of types of governance are ‘public governance’, ‘regulatory governance’, ‘participatory governance’, ‘multi-level governance’ and ‘collaborative governance’. Looking at the aim of the research, a multi-level governance character should be the most suitable type of governance to use. A multi-level governance analysis makes it possible to analyse which actors are involved in the process, how they work (together) and on which levels they are involved. Are those actors only involved on one particular level? Or at more than one level? Which influence(s)/power(s) have those actors and which role do they play? In the current literature, there is low attendance for the connection between multi-level governance and the policy evaluation theory. Most of the literature concerns the connection between multi-level governance and policymaking or policy design, instead of evaluating current/former policies. There is an example of scientific literature talking about this connection, namely De Peuter and De Smedt (2005), which discussed the problem of policy evaluation in a European multi-level Governance context. However, much more scientific literature is currently not published about this connection. The theoretical input of this research could enrich the scientific literature in the context of connecting multi-level governance and policy evaluation, for example by providing an additional method to create a working link between both theories. In the meantime, the research can also provide more insight into how policies are being established at different levels and how they can be evaluated. This research can also contribute to provide government levels tools to implement sustainable policies. Nijkamp (1999) said that the aviation sector is one of the most difficult sectors to implement sustainable policies. The results of this research could contribute the scientific world by creating/finding better ways to implement sustainable policies overall and especially for the aviation sector.
1.5 – Societal Relevance Amsterdam Schiphol is dealing with two conflicting aspects. On the one hand, the airport is one of the economic powers of the Netherlands. Around 65.000 people are working directly for the airport, while around 45.000 people work indirectly for the airport (Manshanden & Bus, 2019; MoI&W, 2020a). Meanwhile, the sector provides around 9 billion of euros for the Dutch economy each year (SEO, 2015). However, that is only the economic interest. The main idea of an airport hub is a place where airlines schedule inbound flights to arrive from outlying origins within a short period of time, disembarking
15
passengers and/or freight for transfer to onward flights scheduled to leave shortly afterwards for a wide range of destinations (Holloway, 2016). Amsterdam Schiphol needs those flights to ‘protect’ its hub function and to strengthen it. In the current situation, the airport is not able to protect its hub function, with all the consequences (IATA, 2019). On the other hand, the aviation sector is, just like many other sectors, dealing with the current attention for sustainable and environment problems/developments in combination with the current noise and nuisance issues (AD, 2020; Nieuwe Oogst, 2020; Royal Schiphol Group, 2020c). Meanwhile, the demand for air travel is still rising, although there are almost no free slots available for expanding the number of flights at the airport (IATA, 2020; Royal Schiphol Group, 2020a). The airport needs to create a balance between making the airport more sustainable and to strengthen the hub function of the airport. The most important policy document for the Dutch aviation sector is the national aviation policy note. The latest version has been established in 2009, which means that this document is not very actual. However, the Dutch government is currently working on the new Aviation Policy Note 2020-2050. The draft document has been published already, while the final document will be established in the second half of 2020 (MoI&W, n.d.). The establishment of a new national policy document for the Dutch aviation sector provides the actors new tools and input for their own policies. At the same time, the results of this research could provide input for this new national policy document in terms of additional policies and policy measures. During the research period, the world was in the grips of the COVID-19 crisis. Direct consequence of this crisis was an extremely decreasing demand for air travel. Most scheduled flights were cancelled by airlines, flight were banned from countries, passenger numbers decreased extremely, thousands of aircraft were temporary stored at airports during the crisis, more than hundred thousands of people lost their job and airlines needed billions of euros to be saved from bankruptcy (Luchtvaartnieuws, 2020a, 2020b). At least, the COVID-19-crisis give the opportunity for an ‘evaluation moment’. With the current situation in mind, opportunities are provided to really change things. Which elements can be changed in the current policies to strength Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and how can the airport become more sustainable? Nevertheless, this kind of situations, in words of a moment for change, happened before. People already used evaluation methods during crisis periods in the past, but the outcomes of those researches are not always used to really change something (Nohrstedt et al., 2010). Despite this, looking at the large impact of the COVID-19 crisis, using the findings of this research could be an opportunity to reach the earlier mentioned goals. Due to the crisis, the aviation sector has been pushed back and experts do not think that the sector will become back on the same level as before the COVID-19-crisis before 2023 (Trouw, 2020b). This means that the sector, Amsterdam Schiphol and the government get the opportunity to ‘start all over again’.
1.6 – Reading Guide This research is divided in a couple of chapters. In the next chapter, the theoretical framework will be discussed. This theoretical framework will outline the different theories used for this research, in combination with explaining the general meaning of the involved research topics: hub function and sustainability in the aviation sector. After this, the methodology of this research will shortly be explained and discussed. Chapter 4 will present the results of the research: Who are the main actors of this research? Which goals and ambitions has been set? Which policies and policy measures has been established to achieve this and what are the results of this? Afterwards, the future Aviation Policy Note 2020-2050 will briefly be summarized and reflected. At the end, the conclusion of this research will be given, and a short discussion and reflection will be done.
16
17
Theoretical Framework The research will make use of two main theories: the multi-level governance theory and the policy evaluation theory. In this chapter, both theories will be explained by using scientific literature. In addition to discussing both theories, also the two central research topics hub function and sustainability in the aviation sector will be explained and defined in this chapter.
2.1 – Central research topics
2.1.1 – Hub function One of the two central research topics is the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol. However, what is the definition of a hub function? Looking at an airport like Amsterdam Schiphol, it is possible to distinguish between a hub function as multimodal (transport)network and a hub function for airlines and their flight network.
Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function: multimodal network vs flight network
Amsterdam Schiphol can be defined as a hub for the Dutch multimodal network as also as a hub for airlines and their flight network. However, the research only focusses on one of those two types of a hub. Before we can select which type is the most suitable for the research, a short overview of both types will be given. The multimodal (transport)network refers to the combination of three travel modes ‘auto mode’, ‘transit mode’ and ‘P&R mode’ (Liu & Meng, 2012). A hub for a multimodal (transport)network is a place where those three travel modes come together. To travel from/to the hub, it is possible to use the car or transit mode (bus, train, metro) and where it is possible to switch from mobility. For a multimodal hub like an airport, an additional aspect can be added, namely the air transport mode. At airport hubs, travellers are not only able to select the car or transit as its next mobility, but also air travel. Airports can also be defined as a hub for airlines and their flight network. In the introduction, the definition of this second type of a hub has already been discussed briefly. Holloway (2016) notice three definitions of a hub, defined by three different actors:
1. FAA: Any (US) airports which generates 0.05% or more of the national enplanement, but which not load the term with any scheduling or other operational implications (Holloway, 2016).
2. General: Airports which are the home base of particular airlines and/or airports which handle large volumes of traffic (Holloway, 2016).
3. Airlines: A airport hub is a hub where airlines schedule inbound flights to arrive from outlying origins within a short period of time, disembarking passengers and/or freight for transfer to onward flights scheduled to leave shortly afterwards for a wide range of destinations (Holloway, 2016).
In the case of Amsterdam Schiphol, definition two and three are the most suitable definitions. The airport is the home base of airlines such as KLM, Transavia and TUI Airlines NL while other airlines such as EasyJet and Delta Air Lines uses the airport as base (SEO, 2018; Van Donselaar, 2019). Meanwhile, KLM uses Amsterdam Schiphol as its hub airport for incoming and outcoming flights to transfer passengers (KLM Group, 2018). However, looking at the research purpose and aim, the third definition expresses the definition which will also been used in this research. How do airlines use the airport and for which purpose? Amsterdam Schiphol, the national government and the airlines want to expand / strength the airport’s hub function for reasons as increasing connectivity and economic purpose.
18
In the next paragraphs, several aspects about the hub function will be described, namely:
• Identify the hub function – In the parts above, the definition of the hub function has already been discussed. However, to understand the concept of the hub function better, a closer look at the concept will be given.
• Strategies of hubs – There are different strategies to improve and operate hubs. In this paragraph, several strategies for hubs will be defined.
• Market power – The power of the market is very important for the hub function. The market has a big influence on the aviation sector and on airports.
• Hub competition – Across the world, many airports classify itself as an airport hub. This results in a large competition between those airports. How does this competition look like?
Identify Hub Function
The definition of a hub function used for this research has already been mentioned several times: A airport hub is a hub where airlines schedule inbound flights to arrive from outlying origins within a short period of time, disembarking passengers and/or freight for transfer to onward flights scheduled to leave shortly afterwards for a wide range of destinations (Holloway, 2016). However, this is just a brief introduction to the concept of ‘hub function’. Holloway is not the only person which has written a lot about airports and hubs. O’Kelly (1998) said that hubs are specials nodes, which are part of a network. Those hubs are located at particular places to facilitate connectivity between interacting places. Those nodes can associate with one or more of four functions, namely hub, points or origins, gateway and destinations (Pearce, 2001). In the case of airports, the function of hubs is the most suitable. Costa et al. (2010) adds that airport/airline networks are a set of links (routes) and nodes (interchanges or terminals), which are connected. The number of links a node has determines the accessibility and interconnection of a hub. How higher the number, how higher the accessibility and interconnection. Meanwhile, hub airports know several in- and outbound period when (inter)continental flights arrives and departs. Using multiple arriving/departing peaks provide passengers more options for travel, which makes an airline and airport more attractive (Cornelisse, 2016).
Figure 1: Overview of KLM’s intercontinental and European in- and outbound peaks (Cornelisse, 2016) created by (Troquette, 2020)
Another aspect for a good location for a hub is centrality. Airports with a central location compared to other airports has more potential to be a hub than airports which are not located centrally. Together with concentration-distribution characteristics, centrality forms two of the key terms associated with hubs. (Shaw, 1993). Examples of airports which uses the centrality are for example the Gulf Region airports of Abu Dhabi (AUH), Dubai (DXB) and Doha (DOH), which are centrally located between Africa/Europe and Asia/Australia or Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, which mostly are used as hubs for flights between Europe/North America and Australia. In Europe, Amsterdam Schiphol profiles itself as the gateway from North America to Europe and Asia (KLM, 2020; Van Donselaar, 2019). However, airlines also use other criteria to select a particular hub. Dennis (1994) has identified three critical operational factors used by airlines for their decision-making to operate from hubs. Those
19
three factors are the geographical location in relation to the markets, coordination of schedules and good airport facilities. In addition to this, two other aspects are also important for airports with hub ambitions: direct and hub connectivity. Direct connectivity stands for the total direct weekly flights while hub connectivity stands for the number (number and quality) of reasonable indirect connections offered through the assessed transfers at an airport. Airports with a high direct and hub connectivity preforms better as hub airports than other airports (ACI, 2015; International Transport Forum, 2018).
Strategies of hubs
There are hundreds, perhaps even thousands of strategies to realize a hub. Most of those strategies are based on a couple of ideas, designed by a few people. So can most hubs be defined as a clustered area, following the principle of Porter. Porter (2000) defines a cluster as ‘a geographically proximate group of interconnected companies and associated institutions in a particular field, linked by commonalities and complementarities” (p. 16). As already mentioned, hub airports provide facilities and services appropriate for hubbing. (Lee & Mo Yang, 2013). However, to get the airlines to the airports, it is necessary to use the right strategies. Two types of strategies which are particularly useful for improving the hub function are management and marketing strategies. Lee & Mo Yang (2013) discussed several strategies about improving the hub function of airports, with Seoul Incheon Int. Airport (South Korea) as example. Lee & Mo Yang talks also about the marketing and management strategies. For example, Lee & Mo Yang underline that transport time is currently most of the time the critical factor for choosing a particular route. In addition to that, also costs, quality use and marketing capability are major sources for competitive advantages. Lee & Mo Yang says that it is important for hubs to support their customers in their efforts to reduce costs and to improve customer service by making the total time of the logistics cycle shorter and less uncertain. However, it is also important for airports to maintain and secure their position of a hub. Important ways to do that is by robust forecasting of capacity requirements and by doing continuous pre-emptive investments. By doing this, the facilities at the airport stayed high, also during bad times in the aviation sector (Lee & Mo Yang, 2013). As already mentioned, Lee & Mo Yang (2013) uses Seoul Incheon Int. Airport as ‘case study’. The Korean airport already has used some successful strategies to become a major hub for not only air transport, but also for logistics and international economic exchange. In the paper, the writers shortly discuss a couple of ‘critical’ success factors the airport used by their strategies. First, Incheon airport invested a lot in good infrastructure to offer good inter-connectivity of transport modes in combination with integrating the logistics facilities. Second, policies and regulations defined by the government need to afford satisfaction and convenience for the users of facilities and services at the airport hub. Third, airports need to adopt intensive competitive strategies and aggressive marketing strategies to be running the hub. Fourth, adaptation of e-commerce can be a critical tool for the logistics industry. According to Chin & Tongzon (2001), the need for extensive logistics, trade-related databases and the core of information networks to facilitate trade in the region is important for hubs. Last, foreign investments can be attracted by a tenant-friendly atmosphere, where foreign enterprises can operate without restrictions, with possible resulting in the establishing of several foreign companies.
Market Power
As already mentioned, the market has a lot of power at airports. The market determines which airlines are flying, where they fly from/to and how the money will be earned. Polk & Bilotkach (2013) say about this that airports are serving airlines by offering passenger transportation and cargo services.
20
However, although the market has a lot over power, several factors are affecting the power of the market. Polk & Bilotkach (2013) discussed four factors, namely:
• Switching costs: Airlines pays charges to airports to operate routes from/to the particular airport. Due to different factors/influences, the prices can increase or decrease. Another factor of gaining/losing market power by switching costs are the number of competitions between airlines for transfer passengers. How larger the competition, how higher the cost could be.
• Capacity and congestion: Capacity at airports, possible resulting in congestion, could influence the market power. Bottlenecks for airports are terminal capacity, slot availability, runway capacity and noise restrictions. Those bottlenecks could result into degradation of the market power and the hub function of the particular airport.
• Network effects: Airlines operates a large network of destinations. Positive or negative effects on this route network could result in increasing or decreasing market power. Another aspect to consider about this is the fact that larger airline groups like Air France-KLM, the International Aviation Group and the Lufthansa Group operates from multiple hubs, which could result in spread of flights to increase the market power.
• Intermodal competition: The market can also be influences by other types of transport modes, for example the high-speed railway. If those types of transport modes become a serious alternative for flying, airlines and airports could lose their market power.
Another reason why airports can lose/maybe limit its market power is competition among the airlines, in combination with the possibility of airlines to leave the airport and/or deciding to close their hub. Because of that, Polk & Bilotkach (2013) advices to consider the following issues:
• Overlap in destinations served by the current and the competing airports, separately for all defined markets
• Likelihood of hub closure by the hub operator(s)
• Likelihood of non-hubbing airlines serving the area via an alternative airport
• Present and projected future competition between air travel and surface transportation. (2013, pg. 34).
At the end, Polk & Bilotkach (2013) gives an advice for airport hubs and their market power. They said that a careful analysis of the airport-airline relationship is from crucial importance, especially for congested airports like Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. In addition to that, they also say that time dimensions are also important to maintain. The networks of airlines do not change overnight. The nature of competition in the aviation sector may change due to mergers and bankruptcies in the airline industry while infrastructure projects could affect an airport several years.
Hub competition
In the previous paragraph, hub competition between several airports has been discussed already shortly. Redondi et. al (2011) says that hub competition or inter airport competition is based on the competition between different airlines. The competition between hubs goes mostly between neighbouring airports which compete to attract airline services for passengers whose travels originate or terminate in the region. Looking at Amsterdam Schiphol, you can say that the airport is competing with Brussel Airport and Düsseldorf Airport on regional level while it also is competing with London Heathrow, Paris Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt Am Main Airport on European level. The hub competition really started after the liberalization of the air transport market. Carriers decided to spread their hub-and-spoke networks. This means that flights from different origins goes to the same destination and vice versa (point-to-point) are now concentrated by passing through intermediated ‘nodes (also known as hubs) (Redondi et.al, 2011). Together with liberalization, also economic factors and competitive dynamic were the cause that airlines decided to change their operations into a hub-and-spoke system. The advantage of a hub-and-spoke system is that an airline
21
needs a smaller amount of flights to connect each node of the network. This results in a more efficient use of transportation resources and gives airlines the opportunity to use larger aircraft and higher flight frequentations (Borestein, 1989; Pai, 2010). The popularity of the hub-and-spoke system resulted in the increasing number of hubs and also in the increasing hub competition. Each hub has his own main player(s). This could be one airline, several different airlines which uses the same airport as a hub or a hub where airlines from the same airline alliance works together, like SkyTeam does e.g. at Amsterdam Schiphol and Paris CDG. The ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (MoI) and Ministry of Economic Affairs (MoE) (2016) has created a schematic view to illustrate the differences between point-to-point and hub-and-spoke traffic:
Figure 2: Schematic view of the differences between point-to-point and hub-and-spoke traffic (MoI & MoE, 2016) Earlier, the conditions/criteria to be a suitable hub have been discussed. Those conditions/criteria could also be influencing the hub competition. Redondi et al. (2011) said that airports with a hub function loses passengers when the distance and travel time of a journey, compared to a direct connection, increased too much. The task for airports is to limit the additional distance and time travel to keep passenger using the hub. An exception for this is when there are higher frequencies of services of airlines. To increase the usage of the airport by passengers instead of selecting direct connections, hub airports need to meet three criteria. Those three criteria are:
1) The connectivity offered by a specific path 2) The total cost of the travel from the origin to the final destination 3) The quality of service at the airport
Hub competition gives not only benefits to airlines and airports but could also be relevant for local authorities and regulators. The additional demand from transfer passengers, which is the results of creating hubs, could possibly lead to more destinations and higher frequencies to offer by a hub airport. Those additional frequencies and increasing number of destinations could also benefit passengers living in the region of the airport (Redondi et. al, 2011).
2.1.2 – Sustainability in the aviation sector The second research topic is sustainability in the aviation sector. One of the aims of this research is to analyse the goals and policies established by actors to make the aviation sector more sustainable. But with which aspects can the sustainability in the aviation sector be described and researched?
Sustainability and policymaking
As already mentioned, implementing sustainability into policymaking in terms of establishing policies and corresponding policy measures are very difficult in the aviation sector (Nijkamp, 1999). McManners (2016) substantiated this by saying that the aviation sector is a perfect example of a sector
22
which faces the direct clash between economic and environmental policies. Making a balance in focusing on both fields to establish appropriate policies results mostly on focussing on one of the two fields, while the other field become second and less important. McManners stresses also that the dilemma between continuing to gain the economic benefits of the sector in combination with reducing the environmental impacts as much as possible is difficult to achieve. McManners (2016) also discussed the period needed to implemented policies to make the enhance the sustainability and environmental aspects of the aviation sector. The best way to implement those policies is by establishing a long-term strategic policy plan which created a balance between sustainability and the economic benefits of the sector. McManners explains that ‘sustainability is about long-term balanced policy so it is fundamental that the thinking used to formulate such policy must be strategic and long term (2016, pg. 88) Next to establishing a long-term strategical policy plan, the government also need to support innovation. The aviation sector is one of the world’s most innovated sector, but it deals with substantial research and developments costs. An innovated sector like the aviation sector can provide a large contribution to enhance the sustainability performance of the sector, but the government need to support his, for example with providing financial resources, but also by establishing a framework which provides innovators reasons to search and develop solutions to solve the negative impacts of the aviation sector for the environment (McManners, 2016).
CO2-emissions
The aviation sector produces a lot of CO2-emissions per year, which has a negative impact for the environment and climate. Most of those emissions are produced by aircraft engines and are causing bad air quality conditions, mostly around airport areas. Most emissions are produced on the ground when the engines operate on the lowest combustion efficiency possible. Furthermore, the production of CO2-emissions per air traffic movement is also dependent from several factors, such as aircraft type, flight time, flight destination and flight mode (Pagoni et al, 2016). The take-off and landing phase produces for example more emissions than flying on cruising height. Researches has showed that the most important aircraft operations (landing, take-off and in/out taxiing, also known as the LTO cycle) has the highest contribution to the airport carbon emissions (Postorino et al, 2019).
Figure 3: Indication LTO-cycle (below the 3.000 feet line) (Postorino et al, 2019)
In the last years, the scientific world has done multiple researches about the negative impacts for the environment caused by air travel and to find solutions to reduce the emissions, especially for the reduction of emissions on the ground. As already mentioned, most emission are produced during the LTO-cycle. For example, a standard narrow body aircraft (Airbus A320ceo, Boeing 737NG) uses already 5-10% of its fuel during taxiing, which is around 15% of the total flight time. This example shows that improvements on the ground, for example making taxi-procedures more efficient, could result in lower CO2-emissions, which is better for the environment and the climate. Improvements at airports with
23
more movements, like Amsterdam Schiphol, will show more positive results than smaller airports with low number of movements, partly because of the total production of emissions depends on the number of movements on an airport. Also, airports with a high airport congestion and high number of delays has a higher contribution of emissions (Postorino et. al., 2019). Postorino et al. (2019) created a scheme indicating the main carbon impacts produced by the airport transport function. Which factors are the main cause for the carbon impact and which factors already contributes to reduce the impacts? According to Postorino et al. (2019), the total production of CO2-emissions during the LTO-cycle can be calculated by three measures:
1) flight operations and environmental issues, 2) catchment area and airport - related environmental issues 3) reducing airport carbon impacts.
The ‘influence’ of those three measures determines how much CO2-emissions are produced at an airport during the LTO-cycle.
Figure 4: Schematic overview of the main carbon impacts produced by the airport transport function (Postorino et al, 2019)
24
(Noise) Nuisance
The reduction of air pollution (CO2-emissions, noise) is not the only example of making the living environment more sustainable. Airports and aircraft movements have a large negative impact for the (local) residents in terms of nuisance. The most common form of nuisance caused by the aviation sector is noise nuisance. Researches (Lu & Morrel, 2006) has indicated that noise nuisance also results in negative health effects. Because of the negative impacts, governments forces airports more and more to reduce the (noise) nuisance of airport operations and aircraft movements by applying e.g. limited noise regulations and noise reduction measures. The noise production of each movement is dependent of a couple of factors, namely aircraft type, number of engines, engine types and (maximum) take-off weight. Older aircraft like the Boeing 747-400 and Boeing 737-300 produces much more noise than newer and modern aircraft such as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A320neo (Grampella et al, 2013). The figure below shows the development of the noise reduction by aircraft types over the year. Figure 5: Indication of the noise production of different aircraft types (Air France – KLM, n.d.-c)
At the same time, aircraft produces the most noise during the landing and take-off procedures. The NASA (2008) names the landing gear of an aircraft as the primary source of noise production by aircraft. At the same time, wing flaps and slats also has a large contribution to the noise production during take-off and landing. Additionally, the noise production during take-offs and landings are also higher than during the flights because the engine are mostly on full power during the take-off to generate enough lift to take-off, while the thrust reverse of engines used by aircraft to brake after touch-down also produce a lot of noise (Civil Aviation Authority, 2010). Figure 6 shows an example of the general noise contour around an airport area, based on multiple movements operated by a Boeing 737-800, which indicates the possible noise nuisance cause by aircraft movements during the take-off and the landing. This figure shows that the most noise nuisance is caused during the take-off. Figure 6: Overview of the general noise contour around an airport area based on multiple movements operated by a Boeing 737-800 (Filippone, 2014).
25
To reduce the (noise) nuisance produced by airport operations and aircraft movements, the ICAO has aligned a balanced approach, which includes four types of measurements, namely:
• Reduce noise at the source (f.e. aircraft and engines)
• Applying improvements in the urban developments and land use
• Applying improvements of the flight procedures
• Setting restrictions on total number of operations (quatas) Meanwhile, the aviation sector continues to work on the developments of new and modern aircraft types, such as the Airbus A320neo, Airbus A350, Boeing 737 MAX and Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which all are lighter, more energy-efficient and quieter, which all contributes to the reduction of nuisance (Filippone, 2014).
2.1.3 – Operationalisation/implementation of the research topics into conceptual model The research topics hub function and sustainability in the aviation sector stands central into this research. The evaluation of the selected policies will mostly be focussing on both research topics. In the previous paragraph, several aspects about both topics has been discussed. However, not all aspects will directly be used into the research. If we are looking at the topic hub function, the following aspects will come back into the research:
• Connectivity: How well is the hub connected with other places/regions across the world in terms of direct and hub connectivity?
• Hub conditions: How does the hub conditions of the hub looks like in terms of passenger and cargo volumes,
• Hub competition
• Network development/effects From the research topic sustainability of the aviation, the following aspects will come back into the research
• CO2-emissions
• (Noise) nuisance Most of the aspects discussed above will come back in(directly) into the selected policies as well in the before-after measurement analysis, especially the topics about sustainability. The topics part of the hub function and sustainability are mostly to clarify both research topics. Both research topics are the starting point of the conceptual model and the research. On the basis of both research topics will be determined which actors are the most important to become one of the main actors. In the figure below, an overview of this part of the framework is visible.
Figure 7: Implementation of the research topics into the conceptual model
26
2.2 – Multi-level Governance Theory
2.2.1 – Introduction of the theory The multi-level governance theory is one of the two main theories used in the research, together with the policy evaluation theory. The multi-level governance theory can be defined as the ‘vertical (multiple levels) and the horizontal (multiple actors) dispersion of central government authority and refers to political structures and the decision-making process (Bache & Flinders, 2004; Schafer, 2010). In general, three main aspects can be distinguished, namely the aspects of governance, the multi-level character (horizontal/vertical dimensions) and policy objectives.
Governance
Governance plays a central role in the multi-level governance theory. Because of that, it is important to understand the aspect of governance. Stoker (1998) discusses that there are a variety of ways and meanings used in (scientific) literature to define governance. However, Stoker said that people made a baseline agreement to use one particular definition: ‘Governance refers to the development of governing styles in which boundaries between and within public and private sectors have become blurred’ (pg. 1). Stoker (1998) continues his explanation with mentioning the essences of governance. He uses a citation from Kooiman and Van Vliet (1993), which says that ‘the governance concept points to the creation of a structure or an order which cannot be externally imposed but is the result of the interaction of a multiplicity of governing and each other influencing actors’ (pg. 64). The statement of Kooiman and Van Vliet shows the main idea of governance and can be used as a starting point to understand governance better, and later-on also multi-level governance. Stoker (1998) explains governance by means of five propositions. Those five propositions are:
1) Governance refers to a set of institutions and actors that are drawn from but also beyond government
2) Governance identifies the blurring of boundaries and responsibilities for tackling social and economic issues.
3) Governance identifies the power dependence involved in the relationships between institutions involved in collective action.
4) Governance is about autonomous self-governing networks of actors 5) Governance recognizes the capacity to get things done which does not rest on the power of
government to command or use its authority. It sees Government as able to use new tools and techniques to steer and guide (Stoker, 1998, pg. 2).
It is also possible to differentiate four different type of governance modes. Howlett (2009) did summarized those four modes, including adding the corresponding overall governance aim and implementation preferences. Looking at the research topics, the legal governance and network governance modes should be the two most suitable modes. The government aims to achieve goals by using the legal system (legal governance) but in collaboration with other stakeholders (network governance).
27
Figure 8: Overview of the four modes of governance (Howlett, 2009)
Horizontal (actors) and vertical dimensions (scales)
One of the aspects of the multi-level governance theory is the horizontal and vertical dimensions, which already had been mentioned in the definition of multi-level governance. According to Daniell & Kay (2017), multi-level governance can be described as a system of ‘continuous negotiation among nested governments at several territorial tiers’ (pg. 6). In this system, the authority is not only dispersed between levels of administration (vertical dimension), but also across different sectors of interests and spheres of influence like markets, non-government actors and civil society (horizontal dimensions). Figure 9: Example of the horizontal and vertical dimensions in multi-level governance (Jänicke, 2015)
Figure 9 shows a model created by Jänicke (2015) which shows an example how the horizontal and
vertical dimensions of multi-level governance work. On the vertical axis, the different types of scales
are visible (from local level to global level), while the arrows indicate the interaction between the
different scales. The horizontal axis shows the different sectors of interests and spheres of influences,
which also can be describes as actors. Also, the horizontal arrows show that interaction between
different actors are possible.
28
The research will evaluate the policies and policy measures of three main actors. However, those three main actors need to be selected first. To select the correct main actors, a set of criteria will be determined based on three criteria Mitchell et al (1997) has defined: Power, legitimacy and urgency. The writers have defined those three criteria as follows:
• Power stands for ´the relationship among social actors in which one social actor (A) can get another social actor (B) to do something that B would not have otherwise done (1997, pg. 869).
• Legitimacy stands for ‘a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed systems of norms, values, beliefs and definitions (1997, pg. 869).
• Urgency stands for ‘the degree to which stakeholders claims call for immediate attention (1997, pg. 869).
Based on these three criteria, the following three criteria has been determined to select the correct main actors for the analysis of this research:
• The main actor has a big influence by establishing their policies, for example due to the size of the company, the power to change things and the possible impact changes could have (Power)
• The main actor is active on different levels. Does the main actor only work on one particular level or has the main actor the ability to work on different scales of levels (Legitimacy)?
• Has the main actors the ability to make big/large (policy) changes quick without or with less help of other actors/stakeholders (Urgency)?
Collaborative governance
Collaborative governance can be defined as ´a governing arrangement where one or more public
agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal,
consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage
public programs or assets’ (Ansell and Gash, 2007, pg. 544). In other words, the government works
together with non-government related stakeholders to establish collective policies to achieve common
goals.
One of the main theories used in this research is multi-level governance. However, also collaborative
governance is an aspect which could be relevant for the research. Although actors mostly establish
their own policies, the interest of collaboration between multiple actors including the government has
increased in the last decades (Brisbois, 2015). Looking at the aviation sector, multiple actors are
involved, each with their own interests. We already saw that McManners (2016) stated that the
aviation sector is one of the most difficult sectors to establish (working) sustainability policies.
Collaboration between the government and other stakeholders in terms of collaborative governance
could support the policymaking in the aviation sector, which could result in more successful policies.
Policy objectives
Governments, (private) companies, associations and other types of actors mostly creates new policies to achieve their objectives/goals. Hoogerwerf et. al (2014) said that the aim of policies is to achieve certain objectives with certain means and time choices. In other words, organisations define new policies to achieve their goals. You can also say that organisations use policies as a tool to achieve their objectives. At the same time, governments sets objectives mostly for two reasons, namely to correct a real or perceived market failure in which private economic actors fail to autonomously deliver optimal social welfare outcomes or to correct governance failure, in which public or private actors fails to delivery an optimal policy formulation or implementation process and outcome from a collective or state-wide perspective (Howlett, 2009, pg.79)
29
In 1971, Harold D. Lasswell already discussed this in his book A preview of policy sciences. Lasswell (1971) said that the policy practitioner is meant to improve the quality of decision-making to achieve goals. In 2001, Deleon and Steelman used Lasswell’s statement to support their idea that, from the perspective of policy science, the quality of decision-making is assessed on the degree to help citizens and to meet specific goals (Deleon & Steelman, 2001). In other words, you could say that help citizens and meeting specific goals/objectives are inextricably linked with policymaking. The relationship between governance and policy objectives can be described as difficult. One of the aims of governance is to create collaboration between different stakeholders to create policies to achieve goals. However, collaboration between multiple stakeholders (on multiple levels) could result in conflicts by defining the common policy goals and into competing and unclear goals during negotiations among network stakeholders. However, collaboration between multiple stakeholders at multiple levels (governance) is necessary to establish goals/objectives with corresponding policies to achieve large and important common goals of stakeholders active on multiple levels (Sorensen & Torfing, 2009).
2.2.2 – Operationalisation/implementation of the theory into conceptual model In the previous part, different aspects of the multi-level governance theory have been discussed. However, not each of the different aspects are relevant for this research. Only a couple of them will be used. In this paragraph, from each of the discussed aspects will be discussed why the aspect will/will not be used for the research and fit in the conceptual model. As already mentioned, one of the main aims of the research is to indicate which actors/stakeholders are working together to create policies for the different levels. As mentioned by scholars like Stoker (1998), Kooiman and Van Vliet (1993), governance created the possibility for the development of governing styles where public (governments) and private sectors could together to create policies. For this research, the aspect of governance will be used on the same way to indicate the corporation between the several actors and the way they make policies together. To evaluate existing policies, three main actors will be selected from the large list of actors involved into the sector. To select those main actors, several criteria will be set based on the horizontal and vertical dimensions and the criteria defined by Mitchel et al (1997). Using both aspects to determine criteria contributes to select three main actors which covers (almost) the complete Dutch aviation sector, resulting into an integral and valid research. The policy objectives of the involved actors, in combination with the policies made to achieve them, are two of the aspects in this research. After identifying the main actors, the current policies and goals of those actors need to be inventoried. Without this inventory of the goals and policies, it will be impossible to analyse the current policies of the actors, evaluate those policies on the basis of the goals set by those actors, which by end results in an advice to support the current policies and/or providing advice to change those policy/policies. The conceptual model has been divided in three parts, namely ‘research topics’, ‘Multi-Level Governance’ and ‘Policy Evaluation. The four aspects earlier mentioned Will be part of the ‘Multi-level governance’-part of the framework. In the figure 10, the section of this part of the conceptual model is visible.
30
Figure 10: Overview implementation multi-level governance into conceptual model
2.3 – Policy Evaluation Theory
2.3.1 – Introduction of the theory Next to the multi-level governance theory, the policy evaluation theory will be used in this research. This theory will be used to evaluate the policies found through the multi-level governance analysis. However, before this theory can be used, it necessary to understand this theory first. The definition of the policy evaluation theory has already been discussed shortly in the introduction. The CDC (n.d.) defines the theory as a theory which ‘applies evaluation principles and methods to examine the content, implementation or impact of a policy’. This is just a short definition of the theory, which consists of several types of aspects.
Policy Evaluation
Policy evaluation is one of the five elements which together forms the policy cycle (figure 11). Evaluating the policy/policies is the last step into cycle. The aim of policy evaluation is to evaluate the defined policies which has been implemented in the fourth phase of the cycle to provide policy-makers input for the new agenda, when phase one of the policy cycle starts again (Howlett & Ramesh, 1995)
Figure 11: Policy Cycle (Howlett & Ramesh, 1995) designed by Hofmänner (2018)
During the years, multiple scholars used or applied the policy evaluation theory in their papers. Korsten (2013) defines policy evaluation as a systematic assessment of government policies. Korsten especially mentioned ‘systematic’ to make a differentiation between impressionistic and impulsive evaluation. Korsten also adds that policy evaluation is assessing policy process. Korsten continues with talking about the different types of policy evaluations. The most well-known type is the classic policy evaluation, which gets the most attention of Korsten. The classic policy evaluation is an ex post evaluation method, which evaluate the results and effects of policy programs and tries to provide an answer to the question of whether these effects are achieved by the policy program itself or by events,
31
circumstances or orientations outside (pg. 17). Korsten calls the classic policy evaluation also an effectivity study, which consists two types of analysis, namely goal-attainment analysis and causation analysis. Furthermore, Korsten gives nine requirements to create the most ideal situation to do a classic policy evaluation:
1. There need to be a before-after measurement, to see if particular policies caused noticeable changes.
2. The before-after measurement needs to be performed at a control group and one or more experimental groups.
3. There need to be goals/objectives behind the policies which are evaluated. 4. The goals are the current goals. No new goals will be added. 5. Those goals are stable, they are not changing by the time. 6. The goals are formulated SMART (Specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound) 7. The government is an unicentric government. 8. Researchers are the ideal professionals. They are operating independent, has knowledge
about field knowledge, government board and ability of mythologies and research methods. 9. Users are looking forward to the findings of the policy evaluation (Korsten, 2013).
In addition to that, Korsten also provides a step-by-step plan for evaluation:
• Step 1 – Inventory the existing information.
• Step 2 – Map out the information of the existing policy program.
• Step 3 – Conduct interviews with relevant actors to further outline the policy program and execution of it.
• Step 4 – The evaluation assignment and a possible evaluation plan.
• Step 5 – The choices and content of the evaluation purpose
• Step 6 – Reconstruction of the policy content
• Step 7 – Presentation and effect measurement
• Step 8 – Implementation analysis
• Step 9 – Rapportage (Korsten, 2013) Korsten provides each step with additional steps and tips to improve evaluation research. The policy evaluation theory provides several criteria to evaluate policies. Huitema et al. (2011) has created an overview of the most used criteria by scholars talking about policy evaluation theory. Some of those criteria has also been mentioned by Korsten, like Goal attainment and effectiveness for example, but the overview of figure 12 provides additional criteria which can be used to evaluate the established policies by several stakeholders.
Figure 12: Most used policy evaluation criteria (Huitema et al, 2011)
32
Before – after measurement
Korsten mentioned a before-after measurement as the first step of classic policy evaluation. The idea of a before-after measurement is that the situation before the policies has been implemented can be compared with the situation after the policies has been implemented. How does the situation look like now, compared with the early situation? (Lessof, Woodfield & Bryson, 2001) The before-after measurement analysis has strengths and weaknesses. Lessof et al. (2001) talks about the key strength and key weakness of a before-after study/measurement. They said that the key strength of the before-after measurement is that it is possible to implement a policy and yet still obtain a measure of the impact that policy has (pg. 27). However, the key weakness is that ‘change brought about by the policy cannot be separated out from change that would have happened anyway (i.e. natural changes or change brought about the introduction of other policies at about the same time) (pg. 27).
Goal attainment and causation analysis
The two types of analyses for the classic evaluation theory has been already shortly mentioned: goal attainment analysis and causation analysis. Korsten (2013) does not only mention those two terms briefly, but also explain them later-on in his paper. The goal attachment analysis is an important part of the effectiveness research (classic evaluation research). According to Korsten, the goal attachment analysis is justified by the fact that a policy can be judged on the basis of what has been officially pronounced and democratically established and decided. The idea of doing a goal attachment analysis to get an answer of the question ‘Do I achieve what I want to achieve with this policy? (Korsten, 2013). However, an effectiveness research also has a second part: a causation analysis. The aim of this type of analysis is answer the following question: ‘Do I achieve what I want to achieve because of the policies itself or due to other factors or circumstances?’. The idea of this type of analysis is to make assumptions and to consider whether they are correct turns out (Korsten, 2013)
2.3.2 – Operationalisation/implementation of the theory into conceptual model In the previous part, different aspects of the policy evaluation theory have been discussed. However, not each of the different aspects are suitable for this research. Only a couple of them will be used. In this paragraph, from each aspect will be discussed why this particular aspect can / cannot be used for the research and fit in the conceptual model. To evaluate the current policies, it is better to do a before-after measurement. With doing a before-after measurement, the situation before and after the implementation of particular policies can be assessed. One of the aims of the research is to evaluate current policies to discover which policies were successful and need to continue and which policies were less successful and need some adjustments to make the policies successful. By comparing the situation in 2009 (before) and 2019 (after), it is possible to detect which impact established policies and policy measures has. Due to this, it will be possible to see which policies/policy measurements did not have the intended results, plus which could possibly need to be changes to get the intended results. Example of changing policies/policy measures after 10 years could be easing or tightening of measures, providing additional financial support or setting additional restrictions. Korsten (2013) provides two types of analyses related to the classic policy evaluation: goal attainment analysis and causation analysis. In relation with the research aim, the decision has been made to use only the goal attainment analysis, instead of both analyses. Each analysis has its own advantages, but the goal attainment analyses suits better into the research setup of evaluating the policies by determining if the goals set by the main actors has been attaint. The research will not focusing on determining if particular goals has been achieved due to particular policies or (partly) by external factors. In addition to that, policy evaluation has more often the character of a goal attachment
33
evaluation than the character of a causation evaluation (Bressers & Hoogerwerf, 1993; Bongers & Den Hartog, 2007). The conceptual framework has been divided in three parts, namely ‘research topics’, ‘Multi-Level Governance’ and ‘Policy evaluation’. The three aspects earlier mentioned will be part of the ‘Policy evaluation’-part of the framework, together with the result of the policy evaluation: ‘Which policies were successful, and which were less successful?’ In the figure 13, the section of this part of the conceptual model is visible.
Figure 13: Overview Policy Evaluation Theory into conceptual model
2.4 – Conceptual model In the previous three paragraphs, the research topics, multi-level governance theory and policy evaluation theory has been discussed and explained on the basis of scientific literature. On basis of those findings, a conceptual model has been created. The model starts at the top with the problem statement. The problem is well-known and need to be solved. The problem statement consists of two research topics: hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol Airport and Sustainability of the aviation sector. For the research, two theories have been selected: Multi-level governance theory (yellow) and Policy evaluation theory (orange). The first theory which will be used, is the multi-level governance theory. By the means of the two research theories, first will be indicated who are the relevant actors/stakeholders, making use of horizontal and vertical dimensions and the criteria defined by Mitchell et al (1997). After determining this, the goals and policies of each actor will be gathered. After this, the switch from multi-level governance to the policy evaluation theory will be made. Before the policies can be analysed, it is necessary to do a before-after measurement. The before-after measurement is necessary because the different situations before and after the implementation of policies need to be identified. After the before-after measurement, the inventoried goals from the MLG-theory will be analysed using the goal attachment analysis. Which goals are achieved and which not? This brings us to the second aspect, the evaluation of the several policies of the different actors. In this part, the different policies will be evaluated and assessed to determine if the policies were successful or not. After all policies are evaluated, an overview of the lessons to learn for new agenda setting will be given.
34
Figure 14: conceptual model
35
36
Methods In this chapter, the research strategy and methods will be discussed.
3.1 – Research Strategy This research will have an evaluative character. Van Thiel (2014) defines an evaluation research as a research which aims to gauging ‘whether a certain policy or arrangement has helped to realize the specified targets’ (chapter 2, pg. 16). Van Thiel (2014) also mentioned that there are three dimensions / shapes in evaluative research, namely:
1) The research can be a formative evaluation, which concentrate on how processes develop. 2) An evaluative research can be varied according to when evaluation takes place: before (ex-
ante) of after (ex post) the policy has been introduced 3) Evaluation research can be serving different purposes, namely normative in character or
strictly empirical purpose (Van Thiel, 2014, chapter 1, pg. 9).
In the contrast of this research, the second dimension is the most suitable dimension to use. The idea of the research is to evaluate the current policies intended for the (Dutch) aviation sector. Those policies have already been introduced in the past, which means that this research will be an ‘Ex Post evaluation’. As Van Thiel (2014) said that this type of evaluation (Ex post evaluations) can be used to ‘support the decision to continue on the policy course set out, or to make certain adaptions on the way, or even to terminate a policy measure’ chapter 1, pg. 9). Just as van Thiel stated, the idea of the research is to provide the three main actors the answers if their current policies are successful or that the need to be changes and/or improved.
3.1.1 – Advantages and disadvantages of evaluation research. An advantages of evaluation research is that most of the information and knowledge to research has already been accessible. Take the several policy documents of the different actors as example. Those documents are accessible for everyone to read. In combination with doing interviews with involving actors/stakeholders, it makes it possible to deepening more into the policy documents and to understand those policy decisions better. A disadvantages of evaluation research, especially evaluation policies, is the fact that most policies are out-dating. Most of the policies are intended as long-term policy for 10 years (PEP the Hague, n.d.), like the current ‘Aviation Policy Note’, which was established in 2009. The disadvantage of out-dating policies is that a lot of changes could be happened during the time. Take the COVID-19 crisis for example. None of the current policies have taken this into account. But aspects like new innovations or ideas are not concerned by the policy decision. However, this disadvantage could also turn over into an advantage. The ‘new situation’ gives the opportunity to reflect/evaluate the defined policies and, as van Thiel (2014) said, to determine which policies/policy decisions can be supported to continue and which policy/policies need to be terminated or changes. In the end, this is the aim of the research. This research will look for the connection between the multi-level governance theory and the policy evaluation theory. The first step of the research is to collect the existing information plus understanding the theories. The next step is to collect additional information to combine existing information with unknown information and opinions. After completing both steps, all information will be used in combination with the two used theories to answer the main and sub-questions
3.2 – Data Collection In this research, qualitative methods will be used. Qualitative methods could be defined as follows: “Qualitative research begins with assumptions and the use of interpretive/theoretical frameworks that inform the study of research problem addressing the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social
37
or human problem. To study this problem, qualitative researchers use an emerging qualitative approach to inquiry, the collection of data in a natural setting sensitive to the people and places under study, and data analysis that is both inductive and deductive and establishes patterns or themes.” (Creswell, 2013, pg. 44). Qualitative methods have been selected for this research because of the character of the research. One of the main objectives of the research is analysing and evaluating the current policies of governments, Amsterdam Schiphol and airlines. This will be combined with additional information such as traffic reviews and additional information. Those two ways of research are characteristics of qualitative research. To gather information, different types of data collection will be used. Examples of data collection are:
• Document analysis - Document analysis is a form of qualitative research in which documents are interpreted by the researcher to give voice and meaning around an assessment topic (Bowen, 2009).
• Policy Analysis - Policy analysis in representative government can play a valuable role in specifying and predicting the consequences of alternative policies (Vining & Wiemer, 2015).
3.2.1 – Document analysis vs policy analysis Document and Policy analysis are two familiar types of analysis. In a way, policy analysis is a form of document analysis. You need to read policy documents to analyse the current and former policies. However, document analysis is more than only analysing policy documents. Because of that, in combination with the fact that analysing policies is an important part of the research, policy analysis is especially noticed.
3.3 – Single Case Study In this research, the method of case studies will be used. There are several ways to define the case study method. However, Creswell (2013) summarized the ins and outs of the case study method by his definition about case studies: “The case study method “explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information and reports a case description and case themes” (p. 97). Within the method, there are two types of case studies you can use: the single case study or the multiple case study. As the names already says, with a single case study, you are analysing one particular case, while you are analysing multiple cases with a multiple case study. One of the reasons selecting a single or multiple case study is if the researcher want to research the differences and similarities between the particular cases while another reason to select one of the types is that the researcher is able to analyse the data both within each situation and across situations (Gustafsson, 2017). The single case study method will be used for this research. The aim of the research is to evaluate the policies made for Amsterdam Schiphol to strengthen the hub function of the airport and to make the airport more sustainable. The research focussing only on Amsterdam Schiphol, instead of focussing on multiple airports like Amsterdam Schiphol, London Heathrow and Frankfurt Airport. Because of this, a single case study method has been selected.
38
3.4 – Before-after measurement Before the goal attainment analysis and policy evaluation can be done, a before-after measurement needs to be done. The aim of the before-after measurement is to indicate the situation before and after the implementation of particular policies. In this case, the reference points of the before-after measurement are the implementation of the ‘Aviation Policy Note’ 2009 and the end of 2019 (31 December). Although February was the last ‘regular’ month for the Dutch aviation sector before the COVID-19 crisis started, most of the evaluations/annual reports are made for the situation until 31 December 2019. Using the situation during the COVID-19 crisis, a not representative situation can be sketches. None of the defined policies have considered a global pandemic which is wrecking the world economic. Because of that, the decision has been made to take the situation in December 2019 as measurement point. Both periods of time will be analysed by the means of general statistic and the reasons why policies have been designed by the means of the research topics: Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and the sustainability of the Dutch aviation sector. In other words, the situation of the Dutch aviation sector, especially Amsterdam Schiphol, in 2009 will be compared with the situation in 2019. Examples of methods which will be used to inventory this are for instance historical data, the overviews by the different actors, statistics and other data. By the end, an overview table can be made with the different situation in 2009 and 2019. In this overview, it is necessary to distinguishing and appoint different aspects, divided over the two research topics:
Hub function: How did the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol developed?
Number of passengers How many passengers travelled via one of the Dutch airports and how many passengers used Amsterdam Schiphol Airport each year?
Number of flights How many flights were operated from/to Amsterdam Schiphol?
Number of passengers per movement
How many passengers were on average on board per movement?
Load factor How many seat (%) were occupied per flight?
Transfer passengers How many passengers used the airport for a transit and what is the share in relation with the total number of passengers?
Connectivity How was the connectivity of Amsterdam Schiphol each year? This aspect can be distinguished into direct connectivity and hub connectivity.
Fleet modernisation Did airlines use modern aircraft instead of older aircraft on the routes to Amsterdam Schiphol.
Network development How did the network of Amsterdam Schiphol develop?
ICA-destinations Important for the hub function is the number of ICA-destinations (intercontinental destinations). How many intercontinental destinations are directly connected with Amsterdam Schiphol?
Cargo development Next to passenger flights, Amsterdam Schiphol also carriers cargo flights. How did this develop over the years?
Market development How did the market of Amsterdam Schiphol develop in terms of passenger volumes to particular continents?
Movements per airline segment
How were the movements per airline segment distributed at Amsterdam Schiphol?
Table 2: overview aspects hub function to research into before-after measurement analysis.
39
Sustainability How did the sustainability of the sector develop?
CO-Emissions How developed the production of CO2-emission caused by the Dutch aviation sector, Dutch airlines and Amsterdam Schiphol over the years?
Hinder nuisance How did the nuisance measurements develop in terms of complains?
Fleet modernisation Did the fleet modernisation of airlines results in more movements operated by more sustainable and quieter aircraft?
Table 3: overview aspects sustainability to research into before-after measurement analysis.
3.5 – Validity and reliability of the research Important for a research is that the research is valid and reliable. Valid (or validity) could be defined as how “the integrity and application of the methods undertaken and the precision in which the findings accurately reflect the data” (Noble & Smith, 2015, pg. 34). The internal validity of this research will be ensured by using all relevant aspects part of the research topics hub function and sustainability in the aviation sector by analysing the existing policies/policy measures of the three actors. Analysing the complete ‘story’ provides an integral view of the current situation and if (policy) changes are needed to achieve the goals and ambitions set by the actors. However, this does not mean that all aspects will be equally analysed. Some aspects get more attention from the actors than others, which could result into lower attention in this research for particular aspects. The research always tries to avoid low attention for particular aspects, but that is not always possible. The research is not able to analyse all actors involved into the Dutch aviation sector and policies/policy measures established by those actors. Because of that, three main actors will be selected to represent the complete sector. The research aims to involve the general goals and policies of the complete sector to strengthen Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and to make the Dutch aviation sector more sustainable, by analysing three main actors. (external validity). Reliable (or reliability) can be defined as the way we describe the consistency inside the employed analytical procedures of research (Noble & Smith, 2015, pg. 34). For this research, the political documents (policies, nota’s) are (almost) all public accessible for everyone, which makes it also verifiable by everyone. About the research should be mentioned that the researcher is independent. None of the involved actors will be directly involved in the research. The writer is not working together with one or more of the involved actors, which means that involved actors cannot directly influences the results of the research. Nevertheless, policy documents and similar documents written by the actors will be used for the analysis, but personal interests of involved actors will not be incorporated into this research to provide an independent research with independent results and advices. Additionally, the writers’ opinion, especially focusing on the aviation sector as aviation enthusiastic, will also be avoided. The research will provide a transparent analysis instead of only analysing particular aspects which confirms the writer’s opinion/point of view about the aviation sector. The aim of the research is to find answers which could help the different actors in the right way, instead of giving advice based on personal opinions/preferences.
40
41
Results In this chapter, the results of this research will be appointed and discussed. The chapter will start with indicating the three main actors from the different horizontal and vertical dimensions which are involved in the aviation sector. After this, the situation of the Dutch aviation sector and Amsterdam Schiphol in 2009, 2014 and 2019 will be discussed by the means of a before-after measurement analysis. Afterwards, the trend & developments and the returning policies will be outlined. The chapter will end with an evaluation of the returning policies and there will be looked if the ambitions has been achieved, both to see which lessons can be learned from this for establishing future policies like the Aviation Policy Note 2020 – 2050.
4.1 – Setting the stage – Actors The aviation sectors know many different actors/stakeholders. The diversity of those actors’ forms together the chain which create our aviation sector. The several actors are active on different levels, also known as the horizontal and vertical dimensions. The definition of those dimension has already been discussed, but in short terms, the vertical dimensions indicate the different types of scales (from local to global level) while the horizontal dimension shows the different sectors of interest and spheres of influences (Jänicke, 2015). Looking at the different actors/stakeholders, most of them are active on the regional and national level (see also appendix A).
4.1.1 – Which actors are involved? As already mentioned, multiple actors are (in)directly involved in the aviation sector. Together, those actors make the sector how we know them and together they can change it. Although there are many different actors, it is possible to differentiate those actors is various groups. The Royal Schiphol Group has already differentiated those various groups in their annual report (2020a). Those groups are:
Table 4: Overview of type of actor groups defined by Royal Schiphol Group (2020a).
Although the overview in table 4 shows the Royal Schiphol Group’s view of the involved actors and actor groups, it gives a clear overall view of the most important actors/actor groups in the sector. Airports or in this case Amsterdam Schiphol (Royal Schiphol Group) could be defined as the eleventh actor group in the list.
42
4.1.2 – The three main actors The eleventh ‘actor groups’ and related actors forms together the list of actors which are playing a role in the aviation sector. However, as already mentioned, each actor plays its own role on one or more scales/levels. To evaluate the current policies made for strengthen Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function as well to make the Dutch aviation sector more sustainable, it is important to select some main actors. However, not each of the actors can be defined as one of the main actors. There are a couple of ‘criteria’ which could be used to select the correct main actors2.
Those criteria have already been discussed in the theoretical framework (page 28). However, the actor groups, discussed in the previous paragraph, consists of multiple actors. Because of that, a fourth criteria have been added to select the largest actor of each group:
• Is the main actor (one of) the largest player(s) into its ‘actor group’ inside the aviation sector? Examples are the largest airlines, government institutions or airports.
Using those four criteria makes it possible to determine which actors can be identified as main actors. Furthermore, it is also important not to select too much main actors. For this research, the decision has been made to select three different main actors. Looking at the four criteria described above in combination with the 11 actor groups identified earlier, three main actors will provide enough usable input to evaluate the current policies in the (Dutch) aviation sector. Table 5, 6 & 7 shows why the Dutch Government, the Royal Schiphol Group and the KLM Group has been selected as the three main actors.
Dutch Government3
Power The Dutch government is the national policy organ which determine the (long-term) policies for The Netherlands. The government has also the ability to steer at other levels like the regional (provinces) and local level (municipalities) (Planning Agency for the living environment, 2013). In addition to that, the government is also one of the shareholders of the Royal Schiphol Group (69,77%), Air France – KLM Group (14%) and the KLM Group (5,95%) (Air France – KLM, n.d.-a; KLM, n.d.-a; Royal Schiphol Group, n.d.-f).
Legitimacy Although the government is the national government organ (national level), it also plays a role on all other scale levels. As already mentioned, the government is also able to steer at local and regional level while they also have influences on European (European Union) and global level (United Nations and ICAO) (ICAO, n.d.-a).
Urgency The government defines/establish its own policies for different sectors (aviation, finance, spatial planning, health) on national levels. Although the government are consulting information from several involved actors to receive input for changing/establishing policies, the government is not dependent of other actors to establish its policies.
Largest player
The government is the Dutch national policy organ. Because of that, the Dutch government is the largest actor inside the actor group ‘government bodies’.
Main policies
General goal: Make a strong country even better for everyone, especially for people which currently has the feeling that the government does not exist for them. The government want to invest in everyone’s chances and to strength the collective (VVD et al, 2017). General goals aviation sector: Create an innovative, competitive and entrepreneurial economy in combination with a sustainable living environment. Key aspects for the government are:
• Creating a strong and qualitative international connected network in combination with a competitive and sustainable aviation sector.
• Creating a connection place in Europe where national and international companies can realize their global ambitions.
• Find solutions to make the aviation sector more sustainable (MoT & MoH, 2009) Table 5: Overview selecting criteria plus main policies Dutch Government
2 This is a summary of the actor analysis part of the multi-level governance analysis, which can be in appendix A 3 The Dutch government will further be appointed as government. Other types of government will be specifically appointed.
43
Royal Schiphol Group
Power The Royal Schiphol Group is the owner of Amsterdam Schiphol and has the direct power to establish new goals and aims with corresponding policies. In the meantime, the group also has control over other Dutch airports like Rotterdam The Hague Airport and Lelystad Airport.
Legitimacy The Royal Schiphol Group plays a role on different scales of levels. As owner of Amsterdam Schiphol, the Group plays a role on local, regional, national, European and on a global level. However, the group mainly focussing on the local, regional, and national level by establishing goals, aims and policies.
Urgency For the airport itself, the Royal Schiphol Group sets its own goals and policies. The group is not or less dependent of help from other actors. However, the group works together with other actors like the government and the KLM group to achieve their goals together.
Largest player
In this research, Amsterdam Schiphol has been selected as the single case in this case study research. As owner of the airport, the Royal Schiphol Group is the largest and only actor of its actor group.
Main policies
General goal: Connecting the Netherlands by facilitating optimal links with the rest of the world and contributing to prosperity and well-being both in the Netherlands and beyond (Royal Schiphol Group, n.d.-b). General goals hub function: Strengthen the network of destinations to maintain and strengthen the benefits of large network of destinations:
• The contribution to prosperity and well-being in the metropolitan region of the Netherlands and nationwide.
• The network puts the Netherlands in direct contact with key economy centres across the globe while other economies comes in direct contact with the Netherlands. With this network, Dutch entrepreneurs has the possibilities to conduct business worldwide while the network provides an attractive business environment for international companies, which creates a competitive marketplace.
• The network provides a network for people to connect, bridge cultural differences and to share knowledge. Schiphol contributes to social networks and social wealth in the form of cultural and personal enrichment (Royal Schiphol Group, n.d.-b).
General goals Sustainability: To improve the quality of life in/around the region, the group works constantly with its stakeholders to minimise the drawbacks of the airport (noise & inconvenience) (Royal Schiphol Group, n.d.-b).
Table 6: Overview selecting criteria plus main policies Royal Schiphol Group
KLM Group
Power As the mother company of four airlines (KLM, KLM Cityhopper, Transavia and Martinair Cargo) plus several smaller aviation related companies, the KLM Group is one of the largest companies active in the Dutch aviation sector. Due to the size of the airline group in combination with the major presences at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, the group can have large impact when changing policies/goals.
Legitimacy The KLM Group consists of different types of companies active into the aviation sector. However, all those companies are playing on different scales of levels. However, the KLM Group itself can be set on all different scales of levels. For example, the airline group is member of the IATA which is the world’s largest trade association carrying the interests of airlines all around the world (IATA, n.d.). On the same time, the airline group is also active on the local levels to help local residents by reduction the local environmental problems like noise pollution (KLM Group, 2015).
Urgency KLM is one of the largest players in the Dutch aviation sector. When the groups establish new goals and policies, it (possible) has large impact. However, the airline group need to work together with its mother company (Air France – KLM group) and it needs approval from its shareholders. Nevertheless, the KLM Group is not dependent from other large stakeholders to determine its goals and policies.
Largest player
The KLM group is one of the largest companies active in the Dutch aviation sector and one of the largest private employers of the Netherlands (KLM, 2020). In the meantime, the airlines part of the group are more than the half of all movements and the total passenger volumes per year at Amsterdam Schiphol. Those numbers show that the KLM group is the largest player of its ‘actor group’
44
Main policies
General goal: To play a pioneering role in the European air transport industry (KLM, n.d.-a). General goal hub function: To improve the quality of its network by seeking to gain access to markets which improves this quality (KLM, n.d.-a). General goal sustainability: Profiling sustainable growth at home base Amsterdam Schiphol to enhance aviation sector’s sustainability (KLM, n.d.-a).
Table 7: Overview selecting criteria plus main policies KLM Group
4.2 – Comparison and evaluation of 10 years of Dutch aviation policies In this paragraph, the situation of the Dutch aviation sector between 2009 and 2019 will be compared and evaluated. How did the Dutch aviation sector change in general terms? How did Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function develop and became the sector more sustainable? Which trends and development were visible in the sector and which policies returned over the years? And did those policies work? Are changes of existing policies necessary or do the main actors need to establish additional policies? Al those questions will be answered in this paragraph.
4.2.1 – Before-after measurement Profile sets have been made to see how the (Dutch) aviation sector has been developed. This development will be analysed by means of a before-after measurement, which compared the situation in 2009 with the situation of 2019, while the year 2014 will be used as a mid-term measurement. Possible explanations for particular developments will be given if possible4.
Hub function In table 8, an overview of all key figures related to the hub function between 2009 and 2019 is represented.
The Dutch aviation sector and Amsterdam Schiphol saws a positive growth after the end of the crisis. But how developed Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function? A short summary about this development:
General key figures
Air travel has growth in popularity since 2009. While over 46,4 million passengers travelled by one of the Dutch airports in 2009, over 81,1 million passengers (+74,7%) did the same in 2019. Amsterdam Schiphol was the Netherlands busiest airport with 43,57 million and 71,7 million passengers (+64,6%) in respectively 2009 and 2019. The growing demand for air travel is also visible in the total number of movements at Schiphol. While 406.975 movements were counted in 2009, 496.826 movements (+22,1%) were counted in 2019. The growing demand and number of movements were also visible in the number of passengers per movement and load factor. Per aircraft, the number of passengers increased from 107 to 144 passengers per aircraft (+34,8%), while the load factor increased from 74,1% to 85% (+10,9%).
Transfer passengers
Between 2009 and 2019, the absolute number of transfer passengers traveling via Amsterdam Schiphol has increased from over 18,8 million to over 25,8 million passengers (+37,2%). However, the share of transfer passengers in relation with the total number of passengers has declined from 43,3% to 36,1%, which is a decline of 7,2% over ten years.
4 This is a summary of the before-after measurement. A complete before-after measurement analyse can be found in appendix B and D.
45
Connectivity
Amsterdam Schiphol strengthened its route network, resulting in a higher direct and hub connectivity. The direct connectivity (total direct weekly flights) growth from 3.667 to 4.869 direct weekly flights (+32,8%), becoming Europe’s second airport in terms of highest direct connectivity. Meanwhile, the hub connectivity (number of transfers per week) increased from 33.737 to 58.263 transfers (+72,7%) becoming the world’s third airport in terms of highest hub connectivity, after three years standing even second. Meanwhile, Amsterdam Schiphol also enlarged its market share in Europe by 1,0% to 11.4%.
Network development
The figures about connectivity already showed that Amsterdam Schiphol’s route network has increased. Looking at the route network, the total number of destinations has increased from 284 to 332 destinations (+16,9%), while the intercontinental destinations (ICA) has increased from 129 to 138 destinations (+7%). Looking at the hub-related flights in relation with the non-hub related flights, the total movements of hub related movements has increased from 365.871 to 384.046 movements (+5,0%). However, the share of hub-related flights compared with the total number of movements had declined by 9,8% to 80,1%.
Cargo development
The cargo division is even important for Amsterdam Schiphol as the passenger division. However, a serious decline is visible at Amsterdam Schiphol. Although the volume of cargo handled via the airport has increased by 21,7% to 1.57 million tonnes, a decline of cargo volumes is visible since 2015 (Royal Schiphol Group, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2019, 2020b). The airport also lost over 3,8% of its market share in Europe, looking at the top 10 European Cargo airports.
Market development
The route network of Amsterdam Schiphol consists of European and intercontinental destinations. In the last 10 years, most passengers travelled to destinations across Europe. The passenger volumes of passengers traveling inside Europe increased from 29,0 to 50,5 million passenger (+74,2%). The intercontinental travel also faced a positive growth. North America stayed the most popular continent, followed by Asia and Latin-America. Overall, the largest growth in passenger numbers were the Middle East (136,4%) and Latin America (75,9%).
Movements per airline segment
To indicate the performance of a hub airport, it is possible to look at the total movements at the airport per airline segment. SkyTeam (including KLM) and partners operates the largest amount of movements, which also increased over the years. The total number of movements increased from 258.836 to 316.975 movements (+22,5%), but this only result into a 0,2% growth of market share, to 63,8%, in relation with the total number of movements. In 2019, low-cost carriers became the second largest segment at the airport with a market share of 16,1% followed by European Legacy Carriers (10,7%). The remaining 8,7% is operated by the remaining segments Leisure-carriers (3,7%), Full Freighter carriers (2,8%) and Intercontinental Legacy Carriers (2,8%).
46
Table 8: Key figures hub function Amsterdam Schiphol Airport 2009-2019 (Royal Schiphol Group, 2010b, 2015b, 2020b ; CBS Stateline, 2020b; ACI Europe, 2015, 2020)
47
Sustainability In table 9, an overview of all key figures related to the hub function between 2009 and 2019 is represented.
The Dutch aviation sector growth in terms of passengers and movements. But which consequences had this for the sustainability issues from the sector. How did the sustainability aspects develop over the years? A short summary about this development:
CO2-emissions
Between 2009 and 2019, the total amount of CO2-emissions in million kilos produced by the Dutch aviation sector has increased from 10.880 to 12.698 million kilos (+16,7%). However, the CO2-emissions per passengers has saw a positive decline of 31,9% from 234,2 kilo to 159,5 kilo per person. The same thing is also visible at Amsterdam Schiphol. Just like the complete Dutch aviation sector, the total amount of CO2-emissions produced by the Royal Schiphol Group has increased from 139.233 tonnes kilos to 169.000 tonnes kilos (+21.4%), while the CO2—emissions per passenger decreased from 3,19 kilo to 2,35 kilo per passenger. Positive note is visible at the CO2-production of the Dutch Airlines, which reduced from 39 million kilos to 32 million kilos (-17,9%).
Hinder & (noise) pollution
The number of complains submitted has extremely increased since 2009. While ‘only’ 160.706 complaints were submitted in 2009, 298.438 complains were submitted ten years later. Looking at the types of complains, most complaints submitted are related to noise pollution. However, also the number of complaints related to fear and pollution has increased over the years.
Fleet modernisation
Airlines has put a lot of effort in the modernisation of their fleet. The most common reason for fleet modernisation is to make the sector more sustainable and to improve the on-board products. Looking at the usage of modern aircraft at Amsterdam Schiphol, a growing line in using more sustainable/more quiet aircraft is visible. The Royal Schiphol Group has differentiated all aircraft types into seven levels, based on energy-efficiency and noise levels (Royal Schiphol Group, n.d.-c). Looking at those levels, the share of S1- and S2-aircraft (noisiest/less sustainable aircraft) has declined from 44,17% to 8,83%. At the same time, the presence of the most sustainable aircraft (S6 and S7-aircraft) has increased from 0% to 6,33%. This looks low, but many airlines will deploy the Airbus A320neo-family, Boeing 737 MAX, Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 Dreamliner in their fleet in the coming years. However, the largest change will be visible when the KLM Group will make her decision for the replacement of its Boeing 737 Next Generation fleet, which currently forms the backbone of KLM’s European fleet and Transavia’s entire fleet. Both fleets forms a large part of the total number of yearly movements at Amsterdam Schiphol.
Figure 15: Indication of fuel savings due fleet modernisation over the years by airlines part of the Air France – KLM Group
(Air France – KLM, n.d.-b)
48
Overview key figures Sustainability 2009 – 20195678
Table 9: Key figures sustainability 2009-2019 (Royal Schiphol Group, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b, n.d.-c; BAS, 2010, 2015, 2020; CBS Stateline, 2019, 2020a, 2020b).
5 The total amount of C02-emissions produced by the Dutch Aviation sector of 2019 where not known already. Due to this, 2018 has been selected as compare date 6 The total amount of C02-emissions produced by the Dutch Airlines of 2019 where not known already. Due to this, 2018 has been selected as compare date 7 The total number of hinder complains are lower than the sum of complains about noise, fear and pollution because each complain could consists of more than only one of those three aspects.
49
4.2.2 – Trends and developments In this paragraph, the most notable trends and developments between 2009 and 2019 in the (Dutch) aviation sector will be discussed. Those trends and developments are divided in the usual categories: hub function and sustainability.
Hub function
Limited slot capacity
The ceiling of 500.000 ATM’s at Amsterdam Schiphol per year has been reached. Due to environmental issues, the government has, together with the Alders Table, decided to limit the total ATM’s per year. Consequences for hub function: Due to the limited capacity, airlines are not able to start new routes and/or add additional flights on existing routes from/to Amsterdam Schiphol. The KLM Group has large growth ambitions/potentials, but the lack of capacity limits this. This has not only negative impact for the airport’s route network, but also on the airport’s direct and hub connectivity. Meanwhile, free space for full freighter airlines declines due to all negative consequences.
Decline percentage transfer passengers
The percentage of transfer passengers has decreased. The absolute number of transfer passengers increased, but the number of O&D-passengers has growth much higher, resulting in a lower percentage of transfer passenger related to the total passenger volumes. Consequences for hub function: The idea of a hub is to handle as much transfer passengers as possible. The growth of absolute number of transfer passengers in relation with the share of transfer passenger shows possible negative consequences. The position of Amsterdam Schiphol as hub airport as well KLM as home carrier could be in danger without any changes.
Improvement of direct and hub connectivity
Amsterdam Schiphol saw a large growth in terms of direct and hub connectivity, resulting in top 3 notations into the European and global ranking. However, the current downgrade at the global ranking of hub connectivity (place 3 instead of 2) show that without any changes the direct and especially hub connectivity stays under pressure. Consequences for hub function: The growth of the airport in terms of direct and hub connectivity in relation with other European/global airports shows that the airport has worked hard to improve and strengthen its route network. However, the limited free capacity limits airlines to open (additional) route to the airport while other (hub) airports are still able to expand, which can possibly lead into falling down in the rankings.
Rise of mega hubs
The rise of mega hub airports in the Gulf Region (Abu Dhabi, Doha and Dubai in particular) and Turkey (Istanbul) and their home carriers is visible. The combination of a good geographical location (located between North- and Latin America, Africa and Europe on one site and Asia and Australia on the other site) and lower prices for flights tickets attracts passenger to travel via those airports instead of the ‘traditional’ hub airports in Europe and South East Asia. Consequences for hub function: Amsterdam Schiphol and home carrier KLM are dealing with larger competition. Next to the mega hubs, also the traditional European hubs (London, Frankfurt and Paris) and their home carriers remains large competitors of the airport.
8 The are no concrete number known about the exact amount of CO2-emission produced by the Royal Schiphol Group over the year of 2009. Because of that, the number of 2010 are used for this comparison.
50
The rise of Low-Cost Carriers:
Just like the mega hub airports in the Gulf Region and Turkey, also the rise of low-cost carriers (LCCs) is clearly visible in the aviation sector. In Europe, airlines like EasyJet, Ryanair, Vueling and Wizz Air plays a large role in O&D-travel across Europe. Most of the European LCCs are also evident present at Amsterdam Schiphol. Consequences for hub function: The presence of LCCs at Amsterdam Schiphol hinders the growth opportunities of the KLM Group, her partners and other intercontinental and European legacy carriers, which all contributes to the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol. The combination of the limitations of ATMs and the growth of LCC-movements reduces the free slots for hub related flights.
Declining cargo market
The cargo market has faced large issues and declining/changing markets. Amsterdam Schiphol has also dealt with those changes. Most significant change for the Dutch air cargo market was the KLM Group’s decision to focus on air cargo transport using passenger aircraft instead of full freighter aircraft, which automatically resulted into less full freighter movements. At the same time, the capacity limits have negative consequence for full-freighter operations, because not enough slots are available and/or airlines decided to use the slots for passenger flights, which are more profitable (Luchtvaartnieuws, 2018b). Consequences of hub function: The cargo division at Amsterdam Schiphol is very important for the airport and the Dutch economy, providing a lot of money. A declining cargo division could result in lower money generated, people losing their jobs and companies which goes bankrupt or decided to move to other airports.
Sustainability
Growth of CO2-emissions
The total amount of CO2-emission produced by the Dutch aviation sector continued to growth overall, partly due to the growth of air travel in number of passengers and movements. However, the CO2-emissions per passenger per kilo has reduced in terms of the total CO2-emissions caused by the Dutch aviation sector and specified caused by the Royal Schiphol Group. Consequences sustainability: The growth of the total production of CO2-emissions shows that although the different solutions to reduce CO2-emissions in the sector, the growth of passengers/movements has resulted into more CO2-emissions. The positive side of this is that the changes shows that current solutions helps and that also the CO2-emissions per passenger has reduced. In other words, the current solutions to reduce CO2-emission are currently masked by the growing demand of air travel in number of passengers and movements.
Increasing number of complains
The number of complains about air traffic departing/arriving at Amsterdam Schiphol has extremely increased, although multiple actions to reduce the nuisance are taken by the three main actors. Most complaints relate to noise hinder, but the largest increase is visible for fear and pollution-reasons. Consequences sustainability: The increase of complaints shows that the (local) residents experiences more nuisance due to aircraft movements and airport operations. More actions from the main actors are required to stop and potentially reverse this increase. However, the increasing number of complains can be related to the high increase of movements over the years. More movements mean more potential cases of nuisance caused by an aircraft movement, which could result into more complains.
51
Fleet modernisation
The modernisation of the fleet by airlines operating flight from/to Amsterdam Schiphol is clearly visible. Looking at the aircraft scales in term of sustainability and noise (as defined by the Royal Schiphol Group for determining airport charges), the use of aircraft part of the two less sustainable/quiet aircraft levels (S1 and S2) has almost completely declined to only 8,8% of all movements while the use of the most energy-efficient and quiet aircraft (S6 and S7 level aircraft) has small but clear growth which will further growth in the next decade. Figure 16: Indication of the noise energy reduction achieved by Air France – KLM between 2000-2019 by using more quiet aircraft types (Air France – KLM, n.d.-c)
Consequences sustainability: The use of modern, energy-efficient and quieter aircraft instead of older, less energy-efficient and more noisier aircraft helps the aviation sector to become more sustainable in terms of reducing CO2-emissions, noise and pollution. The fleet modernisation of airlines contributes the reduction of a sector where the total amount of CO2-emission increased due to growing demand of air travel in terms of passengers and movements.
4.2.3 – Returning policies Between 2009 and 2019, many different policies have been established by the three main actors to achieve their goals. However, some of those policies has been used for multiple times and/or are labelled as the main policies. In this paragraph, twelve returning policies will briefly discusses and examples of policy measures used by one or more of the main actors will be given9.
Returning policy #1 – Applying selective development policy at Amsterdam Schiphol
Responsible actor(s): Dutch Government Supported by: Royal Schiphol Group, KLM Group Related research concept: Hub function
With the selective development policy, the government aims to apply a policy which make selective development of the sector possible. The government’s idea of selective development is to let the supply (airport capacity) and demand (for flight connections) are geared to each other in combination with promoting sustainable aviation. The idea of the policy is to focus hub-related flights at Amsterdam Schiphol while non-hub related flights will mostly be focused on the regional airports at Eindhoven and Lelystad. Improvements at those regional airports are necessary to accommodate those additional flights (MoT & MoH, 2009; Royal Schiphol Group, 2015a).
9 A comprehensive analysis of the goals and policies, including corresponding policy measures, can be found in appendix C
52
The Dutch Government has set eight measures which make it possible to realise a selective allocation of air traffic:
1) Expanding of the airport capacity at regional airports 2) Changing of the air space layout to support selectivity 3) Operational measures to support selectivity 4) Restrictive development of Amsterdam Schiphol in terms of a maximized capacity of 510.000
movements per year (500.000 in 2019) and a maximum of 32.000 night flights per year. 5) Stimulation of airlines 6) Stimulation of non-main port related traffic to move to regional airports 7) Stimulation of main port related traffic 8) Monitoring (MoT & MoH, 2009).
The government wants this to allows airlines to start new routes from/to Amsterdam Schiphol and to maintain existing routes, both to strengthen Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and the Dutch economy to be able to compete with its existing European competitors and the new competitors in the Gulf Region/Turkey. To realize this, the government made plans to accommodate 70.000 ATMs at Lelystad and Eindhoven airport (MoT & MoH, 2009; MoI & MoE, 2016). The Royal Schiphol Group and the KLM Group both support the selective development policy of the government. As owner of both airports, the Royal Schiphol Group has made a business plan for the Lelystad airport which outlines the proposed development while several developments have undergone at both airports to accommodate the additional flights (Royal Schiphol Group, 2015a). However, one important condition set by the government is that the accommodation should be occur in balance with the existing frameworks for safety, sustainability and protecting the environment (MoI & MoE, 2016). The airline group is also responsible to motivate airlines to move their operations to Eindhoven and Lelystad (MoI & MoE, 2016). The KLM Group supports the selective development policy to establish a balanced growth of the (Dutch) aviation sector, e.g. to reduce the ecological footprint and to create space for feeder flights and the development of the intercontinental network (KLM Group, 2018).
Returning policy #2 – Applying Biofuel into the aviation sector
Responsible actor(s): The KLM Group Supported by: Royal Schiphol Group, Dutch Government Related research concept: Sustainability
The KLM Group is one of the first airlines which are actively working on the development and usage of biofuels instead of fossil fuels. The use of biofuels can reduce the CO2-emissions up to 85% related to fossil fuels. The KLM Group has started in 2009 with test flights using bio kerosene and continued with the development of bio kerosene to create a product which airline can use as alternative for fossil kerosene in the future (KLM Group, 2010; KLM, 2019b). The KLM group thinks that the greatest potential in reducing CO2-emissions will be the use of biofuels. Currently, the group is working together with several companies, such as the government, Amsterdam Schiphol and knowledge organisations like the TU Delft, to realize a breakthrough in the use of biofuels (KLM Group, 2010; KLM, 2019b; Royal Schiphol Group, 2015a; TU Delft, 2017). Part of the development process was operating a sixth month pilot of biofuel flights from Amsterdam to Aruba and Bonaire to explore the use of biofuel (KLM Group, 2018) The government and the Royal Schiphol Group both support the development of biofuels (MoI & MoE, 2016; VVD et. al, 2017; Royal Schiphol Group, 2015a, 2020a). The Royal Schiphol Group contributes the development in terms of resources, participating by attending in scientific researches and pilots
53
and financial support (Royal Schiphol Group, 2015a) while, the government has took some action to support and promote the use of biofuel instead of fossil fuel:
• The government joins KLM’s Corporate Biofuel programme plus making a financial contribution to compensate the current price difference of bio kerosene.
• The collaboration between the fuel and aviation sector will continue while the government will, if necessary and possible, support this financially.
• The use of sustainable biokerosene will counts towards the national achievements of the national renewable energy objectives.
• The ministry of Infrastructure and Environment and the ministry of Economic Affairs will explore whether and, if so, how the unprofitable top segment of sustainable biokerosene sold in tanks can be covered in the context of efficiency, realising the gaols of 14% renewable energy by 2020 (MoI & MoE, 2016).
The development and deployment of sustainable fuels is also part of the action plan Smart and Sustainable, which has signed for example by the Royal Schiphol Group and the KLM Group. In the action plan, the different participants have committed to develop and deploy the use of sustainable fuels in the aviation sector (Luchtvaart Nederland, 2018).
Returning policy #3 – Fleet Modernisation
Responsible actor(s): The KLM Group & Royal Schiphol Group Supported by: Dutch Government Related research concept: Hub Function & Sustainability
The modernisation of the fleet results in new modern aircraft which are lighter, more energy-efficient and quieter than the existing aircraft in the fleet. The modernisation of the fleet helps the sector to become more sustainable in terms of reducing CO2-emissions and noise pollution. At the same time, new aircraft provides airlines also the opportunity to renewal the on-board/cabin products to attract passengers. The KLM Group determines the fleet renewal programme for their four airlines. The fleet renewal program is part of the KLM Takes Care Strategy, which has resulted into investments of hundreds of millions into its fleet renewal programme to renew its fleet by modern, quieter and more efficient aircraft. Aircraft such as the Boeing 737 Classis, Fokker 70 and 100 (European fleet), the Boeing 747-400 and McDonnell Douglas MD-11 (Intercontinental fleet) has been replaced by more energy-efficient and quieter aircraft such as the Boeing 737 Next Generation, Embraer 175/190 (European fleet), Boeing 777-300ER and Boeing 787 Dreamliner (intercontinental fleet). The fleet renewal program of KLM contributes to achieve the sustainable goals set by the airline group. In the coming years, the airline will receive additional Boeing 777 and Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft and also the Embraer 195-E2 (KLM Group, 2010, 2015, 2020). However, the KLM Group can only control the fleet of its own airlines. To support airlines to use more sustainable and quieter aircraft types, the government and the Royal Schiphol Group has established new policies in terms of restrictions and price instruments (MoT & MoH, 2009; Royal Schiphol Group, n.d.-c.). The Royal Schiphol group has applied different airport charges to motivate airlines to use quieter and more efficient aircraft on routes from/to Amsterdam. By giving airlines a financial incentive to use more sustainable aircraft while giving airlines a financial disincentive when using older and noisy aircraft, the airport group hopes to stimulate airlines to select quieter and cleaner aircraft. Operating flights by the most noisiest and most polluting aircraft will results in airlines paying 180% of the basic fees, while airline only pay 45% of the basic fees if those flights are operated by the cleanest and quietest aircraft (Royal Schiphol Group, 2010, n.d.-c.). The stimulation of cleaner aircraft via airport
54
charges is also one of the main actions set by the Action plan Smart and Sustainable (Luchtvaart Nederland, 2018) Figure 17: Overview of aircraft categories based on noise and pollution level (Royal Schiphol Group, n.d.-c)
Returning policy #4 – Creating a Single European Sky (SES)
Responsible actor(s): Dutch Government Supported by: The KLM Group & Royal Schiphol Group Related research concept: Sustainability
The government, supported by inter alia the other two main actors, aims to establish a Single European Sky (SES) together with the other EU-members. Creating a SES provides the aviation sector not only a way to reducing CO2-emissions, but also in higher capacity and reducing nuisance by optimizing flights routes in terms of shorter and direct flight routes (MoT & MoH, 2009). The KLM Group and the Royal Schiphol Group are also supporters of creating a Single European Sky. The KLM Group wants to play an active role into the policy decision-making process while the Royal Schiphol Group supports a quick introduction of the Single European Sky to create shorter flights and less CO2-emissions (KLM Group, 2010; Royal Schiphol Group, 2015a). The support of both actors is also visible into the action plan Smart and Sustainable, which has signed by multiple stakeholders including both actors. Figure 18: Infographic Single European Sky (European Commission, n.d.)
55
Returning policy #5 – Restrictions of the number of movements
Responsible actor(s): Dutch Government Supported by: - Related research concept: Hub Function & Sustainability
To limit the hinder/noise pollution for (local) residents, the government has set, following the advice of the Alders Table, a limit of the number of movements at Amsterdam Schiphol per year. The government allows Amsterdam Schiphol to handle 500.000 movements per year (first 510.000), including only 32.000 late-evening and night movements. Setting the restrictions of the total capacity at Amsterdam Schiphol is part of the governments’ ambition to focus on the selective development of sustainable aviation. (Alders, 2008, 2019; MoT & MoH, 2009).
Returning policy #6 – Improving the living environment of local residents
Responsible actor(s): Royal Schiphol Group & Dutch Government Supported by: KLM Group Related research concept: Sustainability
The local residents are daily facing with the negative impact of Amsterdam Schiphol in terms of noise and pollution. The Royal Schiphol Group and the government applies active policies to reduce the negative impact of local residents caused by the airport. To reduce the nuisance caused by the airport operations and aircraft movements and to improve the living environment, the Royal Schiphol Group takes part is multiple structural consultants on provincial and municipal level to keep in touch with the different levels, including local residents, to make it possible to change problems as soon as possible. The company also create, together with the local residents, innovative ways to reduce the noise pollution in the surrounding. One of the examples is the realisation of ‘Park Buitenschot. This park consists of ground ridges, which reflects the noise of starting aircraft at the Polderbaan. With creating this park, the local resident received a new meeting place while also the noise nuisance has reduced (Royal Schiphol Group, 2015a, n.d.-d). At the same time, the government has in collaboration with other parties like the Royal Schiphol Group, KLM, Air Traffic Control NL and local residents, established the Alders agreement. In this agreement, the following things has been determined:
• Reduction in the number of seriously affected residents, from approximately 170.000 in 2000 to nearly 120.000 in 2015 (decrease of some 30%) and a reduction in the number of serious sleep disruptions among residents from more than 25.000 in 2000 to 17.000 in 2015 (decrease of some 32%)
• Establishment of a quality-of-life fund for the region to the amount of 30 million, financed by the national government, the province and Schiphol
• In order to improve local air quality, specifically by reducing emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NOx), Schiphol Airport has installed permanent sources of fixed electrical ground power for aircraft at the gate (Alders Table, 2008; MoI & MoE, 2016).
Meanwhile, the KLM Group is searching to find a balance between its own interest and those of the local community. Because of that, the KLM Group takes part in consultative bodies such as the Schiphol Local Community Council (CROS), which includes local authorities, local residents, Amsterdam Schiphol and Air Traffic Control NL. In this council, the KLM Group and the Royal Schiphol Group invites mayors, executives and councillors of the municipalities around Amsterdam Schiphol to exchange their thoughts on the airline industry. Next to that, the KLM Group also tries at much as possible to guarantee a responsible growth of the number of air traffic movements at Amsterdam Schiphol (KLM Group, 2015).
56
Returning policy #7 – Making airport and flight operations more sustainable
Responsible actor(s): Royal Schiphol Group & the KLM Group Supported by: Dutch Government Related research concept: Sustainability
The Royal Schiphol Group and the KLM Group are working to make the airport and flight operations more sustainable to reduce the CO2-emissions. The Royal Schiphol Group has, for example, set-up two ambitious programs to achieve their sustainability goals: the 2020 Energy Strategy and a sustainable mobility plan, which defines/described the different actions per component. Examples of actions the airport group defined and already temporary achieved are:
• The energy consumption at and around the airport has been reduced by replacing existing lamps for energy-efficient LED-lamps which are 50% more efficient.
• The airport group will connect aircraft stands to shore power facilities and pre-conditioned air for climate control in aircraft to improve the air quality in areas where aircraft are stationed.
• The Royal Schiphol Group want to increase the number of public movements to get more people traveling by public transport instead of by cars to reduce the CO2-emissions caused by car traffic
• The aviation group use more sustainable versions of vehicles (electric, biofuel) to replace the current vehicle parks (Royal Schiphol Group, 2010a).
At the same time, the KLM Group tries to become more sustainable by reducing the total weight on board during the flight. The KLM group tries to achieve this by using less heavier trolleys, pillows and blankets in combination with using a new painting process of the aircraft which helps to reduce the use of fuel and the CO2-emissions. The KLM group has also started with a pilot to collect all catering garbage for all flights operated by the airlines part of the airline group, and to transform it into renewable energy which can be used for airport operations (KLM Group, 2010). The group has also replaced its ground operation’s help sources driving on diesel for electric versions while also renewable energy is used by the airline group. In collaboration with the Royal Schiphol Group and other aviation partners, the airline also started a pilot to develop new and more fuel-efficient flight routes in combination with new start and landing procedures, all to reduce the amount of CO2-emissions (KLM Group, 2018, 2020).
Returning policy #8 – Improving cargo operations at Amsterdam Schiphol
Responsible actor(s): Royal Schiphol Group & the KLM Group Supported by: Dutch Government Related research concept: Hub Function & Sustainability
Amsterdam Schiphol is currently the third largest cargo hub in Europe. Due to the limit capacity and changing marked, the Royal Schiphol Group and KLM Group decided to the improve the cargo operations at the airport. Declining demand and changing behaviours of customers has resulted into a changing market. Both main actors changed their policies to make improvements for the Dutch cargo sector with also attention for ways to make the cargo sector more sustainable and efficient. The Royal Schiphol Group has defined some policies to maintain and improve the airport’s position as cargo and distribution hub in Europe. One of the improvements is to continue with innovating the logistic processes. The company has explored the possibility to handle cargo paperless. Meanwhile, the airport began to work with a new procedure: SmartGate Cargo. SmartGate Cargo consists of a fast and integral customs clearance procedure which makes it easier for cargo to enter/leave the country (Royal Schiphol Group, 2015a). Furthermore, to provide full freighter carriers enough slots for their operations, the group works together with the government and the independent slot coordinator to reserve enough slots for this segment (Royal Schiphol Group, 2020a).
57
However, the KLM Group has made big changes at her cargo division. Mother company Air France–KLM has made several major decisions about the future of their cargo carriers. The decision has been made to restructure the complete cargo organisation, which will be based on market conditions. The demand for air freight has been declined since the beginning of the crisis, while the capacity of (belly) cargo on passenger aircraft has showed a large increasement. Because of this, the group has decided to explore the possibilities to deal with the current issues into the cargo sector (KLM Group, 2015). This has resulted in restructuring the cargo division. The airline’s new strategy consists of the further specialisation of the cargo transportation in profitable niches at the top of the market. Currently, the KLM Group is one of the largest niche players in the sector and uses the opportunities to expand further. Most of the cargo will be transported into the cargo bellies of passenger aircraft, while larger cargo will be transported into the Boeing 747-400COMBI10. The changing strategy means that only 5-10% of all cargo need to be transported by a full freighter aircraft, which has resulted in the reduction of the cargo-fleet to four Boeing 747-400ERF aircraft (KLM Group, 2018). To achieve this, KLM will carrier more cargo in passenger aircraft’s belly, instead of using full-freighter aircraft (KLM Group, 2015). Together with changing their strategy, the KLM Group has taken several initiatives to improve the profitability of their cargo business. Over the years, the group has implemented new systems to improve the cargo handling process. Examples of systems implemented are CargoBus, which combines the booking and inventory system while a second system is a new hub improvement program which helps the airline to work smarter and more efficient (KLM Group, 2015). The KLM Cargo group has also extended its alliance with Delta Air Lines called ‘Columbus’. KLM Cargo, Martinair Cargo and Delta Air Lines Cargo extends the collaboration in operational and commercial areas, which results in saving costs, delivering benefits for customers and to strengthen KLM’s competitiveness. With Columbus, the different airlines want to increase their presenting as a single fact to the market as the preferred cargo carrier for transportation to/from the United States (KLM Group, 2015). The government works together with the Dutch air cargo sector to make the air cargo handling at Amsterdam Schiphol as efficient as possible. To achieve this, the several parties need to work together to create good airport infrastructures and efficient chain processes. Furthermore, the promotion of Amsterdam Schiphol’s high quality of air cargo services is crucial to maintain and strengthen the airport’s position in the air cargo sector. To maintain and strengthen the air cargo sector at Amsterdam Schiphol, the government wants to improve the cargo handling process by innovation of the supply and transport of air cargo between Amsterdam Schiphol and the EU-hinterland, targeting the deployment of inspection teams and to improve the chain information. (MoI & MoE, 2016).
Returning policy #9 – Improving facilities/procedures for passengers at Amsterdam Schiphol
Responsible actor(s): Royal Schiphol Group Supported by: Dutch Government & the KLM Group Related research concept: Hub Function
The Royal Schiphol Group aims to be Europe’s preferred airport. To achieve this, the airport group uses several policies to improve the facilities/procedures at the airport to improve the residence of passenger at the airport. The group works closely with the KLM group to achieve this. The Royal Schiphol Group invested in improving Amsterdam Schiphol’s quality and capacity, such as modernisation and expansion of the terminal areas, security, baggage handling an
10 The position paper KLM 2018 was established a long period before COVD-19. During the COVID-19 crisis, the KLM decided to phase-out the Boeing 747-400COMBI in March 2020, instead of 2021 (NH Nieuws, 2020)
58
expanding/renewing the airport area to make it possible to serve large passenger flows plus to accommodate the growing number of larger aircraft (Royal Schiphol Group, 2010a, 2015a). The KLM Group has set the goals to improve the passengers’ comfort, increasing Amsterdam Schiphol’s capacity and to create a more efficient security process. Improving those elements could convince passenger to select one of the airlines from the KLM Group/Amsterdam Schiphol for their journey, which can benefit the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol. The group works closely together with the Royal Schiphol Group and multiple industry associations to achieve this. The largest improvement has already happened by the decision-making to build a new A-pier to accommodate aircraft parking facilities and boarding and transfer lounges (KLM Group, 2015).
Returning policy #10 – Using innovations to make the aviation sector more sustainable
Responsible actor(s): Royal Schiphol Group & the KLM Group Supported by: Dutch Government Related research concept: Sustainability
The total production of CO2-emissions can be reduced on several ways. The Royal Schiphol Group and the KLM Group has active policies to do research and later applying innovations to make the aviation sector more sustainable, while the government have closely attention for knowledge and innovation in the aviation sector. The Dutch aviation sector has a leading position in terms of making the aviation sector more sustainable and innovative. The Netherlands knows several high ranked research institutions which are working together with the aviation sector to create new innovations. The governments recognize the join efforts and aims to strengthen those collaborations to make its better, resulting is more innovations to make the aviation sector more innovative and sustainable in combination with strengthen the leading position of the Netherlands and the sector in this field (MoI & MoE, 2016). Meanwhile, the government works together with the ICAO (United Nations agency for civil aviation) to create a global CO2-emission compensation system for airlines, which will set an emission ceiling. The idea of this system is that if the aviation sector produces higher emission than set by the system, the sector should compensate this. With using this system, the developers aim to reduce the total CO2-emissions (MoI & MoE, 2016). The best example of using innovations is using biofuels (see returning policy #2). Using biofuel on a large scale if currently impossible. To reduce the carbon dioxide emissions, the KLM Group has decided to start pilots to fly with lighter materials and to use more energy-efficient aircraft. Other pilots were to use lighter and recyclable meal trays, which save fuel consumption and help to avoid waste, using 3D-printers at the engineering and maintenance division, which are used by maintenance procedures and let cockpit crews flying paperless, which means that KLM Cityhopper replaced on board flight bags by Ipads, resulting in saving fuels due to lighter aircraft. Meanwhile, the airlines part of the KLM group has started a new take-off procedure at Amsterdam Schiphol, which has resulted into a reduction of emissions and noise levels (KLM Group, 2015, 2018, 2020). Perhaps the largest ‘pilot’ KLM is participating in, is the development of the Flying V. The Flying V is a radical new aircraft, which the TU Delft is currently designing together with several partners. The TU Delft aims to design an aircraft which has a 20% smaller footprint than one of the most sustainable long-haul aircraft currently flying around, the Airbus A350 (KLM Group, 2018, 2020). The development of this radical new aircraft follows the line set in the action program Smart and Sustainable, which has been signed by the KLM Group, Royal Schiphol Group and multiple other actors to make the Dutch aviation sector more sustainable (Luchtvaart Nederland, 2018).
59
Returning policy #11 – Realizing alternative transport modalities for short-haul flights (< 700 km)
Responsible actor(s): Dutch Government Supported by: Royal Schiphol Group & the KLM Group Related research concept: Hub Function & Sustainability
The government wants to replace air travel for alternative transport modalities at short-haul routes shorter than 700 km. The other two main actors are supporting these policies, but also want that the government contributes by creating good facilities at airports to make air & rail transport possible on a good and workable way. Realizing alternative transport modalities for short-haul flights is in line with one of the action points of the action program Smart and Sustainable. This action point aims to apply an attractive alternative for an aircraft, for example high-speed trains, on short-haul routes shorter than 700 km, which will result into a large reduction of emissions (Luchtvaart Nederland, 2018). Figure 19: Indication of the reduction of CO2-emissions per flight/per year on short-haul flights for Amsterdam to several destinations (Luchvaart Nederland, 2018)
The KLM Group sees the development of alternative transport modalities as another way to reduce CO2-emissions. The group is one of the supporters of the development of high-speed trains and hyperloop, which could replace air travel in Europe for destinations until 500-700 kilometres (KLM, 2018). The group has already set the first step by replacing one of its five daily flights on the Amsterdam-Brussels route for a one-daily high-speed connection. This is part of the airline group’s collaboration with the Dutch Railways (NS) and Thalys to combine air and rail transport to make it possible to use the train as replacement for air travel on short European routes such as Berlin, Brussels, London and Paris. In the coming years, the KLM does not rule out to add more high-speed connection to replace daily short-haul flights (KLM Group, 2018, 2020). However, the KLM recognize the difficulties to apply this. The government and market stakeholders need to collaborate to connect the ground transport inside Europe. Otherwise, alternative transport modalities are not able to replace air travel. In KLM’s case, the airline’s hub Amsterdam Schiphol need to be connected with the ‘ground transport’ to make transits possible. Meanwhile, the (Dutch) government need to establish a vision to realize qualitative high mobility in Europe. Otherwise, it will be not possible to replace airplanes by alternative transport modalities (KLM Group, 2018).
60
Returning policy #12 – Optimize route network
Responsible actor(s): KLM Group Supported by: Royal Schiphol Group Related research concept: Hub Function
Due to the lack of capacity at Amsterdam Schiphol, the KLM uses active policies to optimize its route network. The airline is active looking how the existing network can be extend and strengthen with the available number of slots. The KLM group recognize the importance of strong partnerships with other airlines across the globe to maintain and strengthen its current route network. In terms of catch areas, the KLM Group aims to focus particular on North America and China, but other (economic) interesting destinations are also attractive for the airline group. The airline group has formed a Joint-Venture partnership with Air France, Delta Air Lines and Virgin Atlantic to strengthen the position of the airlines on the overcrowded Trans-Atlantic market. The airlines also aim to retain the current position of Amsterdam Schiphol as the most profitable hub of the Joint Venture. Furthermore, Air France and KLM also make agreements to maintain and expand their current position in mainland China as the largest European operators in terms of number of destinations and connections (KLM Group, 2010, 2015). Meanwhile, the KLM Group also maintain its joint ventures with Kenya Airways, Alitalia, Ukraine International Airlines and China Southern Airlines, which remains of strategic importance to maintain and strengthen KLM’s existing route network (KLM Group, 2015). The KLM Group has also optimize its route network by replacing one of its five daily flights on the route Amsterdam-Brussel by a daily high-speed connection This is the first short-haul flight KLM selected where a daily flight has been replaced by a high-speed connection, while more short-haul flights in the network could be replaced by high-speed connections in the future. Replacing those daily flights for high-speed connection reduce emissions, but the free slots can also be used for new routes. Additionally, the KLM group also created another creative solution to optimize the route network. Instead of only fly direct connections, KLM also operates so-called fifth freedom flights11 and stop-over flights. With combing two destinations at one flight, more destinations/passengers can be carried on the same movement, which could result in a larger direct and/or hub connectivity. Meanwhile, KLM and Transavia has started to work together on network alignment and slot optimisation To expand the route network, the Royal Schiphol Group has a collaboration with Aeroports de Paris (owner of Paris CDG and Paris Orly) to work together to expand the route networks of both airports, although Schiphol’s efforts are highly dependent on market development and airline policies (Royal Schiphol Group, 2010a).
4.2.4 – Ambitions set by the actors The three main actors have defined several goals and ambitions to strengthen Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and to make the sector more sustainable. The following goals/ambitions has been set over the years:
11 5th freedom flights are, according to ICAO (n.d.-b) ‘the right or privilege, in respect of scheduled international air services, granted by one State to another State to put down and to take on, in the territory of the first State, traffic coming from or destined to a third state’
61
Achieved Unknown / still active Not achieved
Dutch Government Achieved?
Aviation Policy Note 2009
Ambitions until 2012:
After the economic crisis, the Dutch Aviation sector will get a relative lead.
Ambitions until 2020:
On the field of safety, the Netherlands will be part of the Mondial top 5.
On the field of the quality of the service of passengers and cargo, the Dutch aviation sector will be part of the top.
The Dutch aviation sector will stay international competitive and responds good on relevant (international) developments.
The Netherlands will take a leading position by applying an optimal/flexible use of the air space for civil and military aviation
The network of Amsterdam Schiphol becomes into the top 5 of Europe.
The airport’s network consists the connectivity which is suitable for the appropriate spatial-economic development of the region.
The network will connect the Netherlands with important (new) economic centra in the world
Amsterdam Schiphol and her uses will become the leader on the field of environment friendly aviation in terms of emissions, noise and fuel use.
The Netherlands will help the EU to help other parts of the world to create a Mondial Emission Trading system.
The current level of relative serious noise nuisance, compared with other large European airports will be maintained and improve where possible by Amsterdam Schiphol.
The Netherlands will help to create the (inter)national connection for a fully integrated European air space with an efficient and effective ATM-system.
Schiphol Action Program
Protect the role of the airport and even further strengthen its position
Create a situation where the Dutch aviation sector, and especially Amsterdam Schiphol and its home carrier, can realize continued growth while the negative impacts will be reduced as much as possible.
To expand the airport’s potential for international accessibility
Apply a selective development policy to maintain and strengthen Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function
Create the best competitive cost level possible for airlines
Defend the interests of the Dutch aviation sector on European level
Maintain and strengthen the air cargo sector at Amsterdam Schiphol
Reduce the noise pollution and CO2-emission while Amsterdam Schiphol and Lelystad Airport gets the possibilities for further development.
Table 10: Overview goals/ambitions Dutch Government between 2009-2019
Achieved Unknown / still active Not achieved
Royal Schiphol Group Achieved?
Annual Report 2009
Maintain and strengthen the position of Europe’s preferred airport
Maintain and strengthen the competitive position as a hub for continental and intercontinental air traffic and the position as a hub.
To make Amsterdam Schiphol CO2 neutral by 2012.
Let Amsterdam Schiphol generate at least 20% of the airport’s energy requirement on site by sustainable means before 2020.
To improve Amsterdam Schiphol’s energy efficiency in terms of daily energy consumption by at least 2% of the airport’s total energy consumption each year
62
Annual Report 2014
Maintain and strengthen the position of Europe’s preferred airport
Maintain its current hub function while it also looks for the opportunities to strengthen it
Prepare Amsterdam Schiphol for the possible rise of passenger numbers in the coming years
Maintain and improve the airport’s position as cargo and distribution hub in Europe
Handling more passengers, aircraft and cargo with using proportionally less energy.
Generate at least 20% of its own energy requirements by sustainable means
Annual Report 2019
Connect the world by its divers and large route network
To make Amsterdam Schiphol the world’s most sustainable and high qualitative airport, which allows international tourism, trade and knowledge exchange
To become a zero-emission and zero waste airport by 2030
Stimulating airlines to select quieter and cleaner aircraft on routes from/to Amsterdam Schiphol?
to improve the quality of the living environment Table 11: Overview goals/ambitions Royal Schiphol Group between 2009-2019
Achieved Unknown / still active Not achieved
KLM Group Achieved?
Annual Report 2009
To create a strong and competitive route network for its passengers and for the cargo sector
The KLM Group want to stay the leader in the aviation sector in terms of best environmental performance and to improve their performance
To search for innovative solutions for the current and future sustainability issues.
Reduce the CO2-emissions per passengers by 17% before the end of 2020
Modernize the fleet to improve the on-board products and to make the fleet more energy-efficient, lighter and quieter.
Developing more sustainable types fuel
Annual Report 2014
Improve the passengers’ comfort, increasing Amsterdam Schiphol’s capacity and to create a more efficient security process
Modernize the fleet to improve the on-board products and to make the fleet more energy-efficient, lighter and quieter.
To become the most sustainable airline in the world
Playing a leading role at the development of sustainable fuel
To find a balance between its own interest and those of the local community
Position Paper KLM
Expand the network to stay competitive
To develop Amsterdam Schiphol on sustainable manner
Annual report 2019
Improve the route network and modernize the fleet on the best way possible, despite of the current challenges at the airport
Create a business model which reduces and compensate the CO2-emissions per passenger by using biofuel and commitments
Reduce the total emission caused by the airline by 50% in 2030, compared with 2015.
Contributing to the development of alternative transport mobilities to replace short-haul flights
Table 12: Overview goals/ambitions KLM Group between 2009-2019
63
4.2.5 – Evaluation of policies 2009 - 2019 Earlier, the twelve returning policies between 2009 and 2019 has been outlined and discussed. In this paragraph, those twelve returning policies will be evaluated to see how the three main actors can improve their returning policies to continue with achieving their goals and which improvements can be done into the Aviation Policy Note 2020 – 2040, which will further be discussed into the next chapter.
Evaluating the returning policies
Returning policy #1 - Applying selective development policy at Amsterdam Schiphol
The government aims to use selective development policy at Amsterdam Schiphol, which give priority to hub related flights. Looking at the development of the airport between 2009 and 2019, the conclusion can be made that the selective development policy in the current shape do not work on the right way. A lower share of transfer passengers in combination with an exceptional growth of low-cost flights are not the results of a working selective development policy. Applying a selective development policy for Amsterdam Schiphol is necessary to maintain and strengthen the current position the airport takes as a hub, national and international airport. However, changes in using the selective development policy is necessary. The government need to find ways to steer more which airlines / routes are hub-related and allowed at Amsterdam Schiphol and which airlines / routes are non-hub related and need to be accommodated at other airports. The government could realize this for example by establishing new regulations and/or laws. However, the government need to provide airlines which are operating the non-hub related flights similar (but smaller) conditions at the regional airports as Amsterdam Schiphol provides. Currently, applying this policy also become difficult, partly due to the delayed opening of Lelystad Airport, which is now planned for November 2021 although further delay due to the COVID-19-crisis is not unlikely (Dutch Government, 2020a; Trouw, 2020a). However, the declined demand for air travel gives the government the space to do the investments at and around both regional airports to accommodate the additional flights and passengers while also the living environment of the surroundings can be improved to restrict the increasing nuisance of air traffic at those airports. The government could invest in additional infrastructural measures such as public transport lines and roads in combination with nuisance reduction projects familiar as already did at Amsterdam Schiphol. A way to stimulate selective development at Amsterdam Schiphol, focusing on hub-related flights, could be apply secondary slot trading at the airport. Currently, the Dutch airports uses a primary slot system, which means that the slot coordinator of the airport provide airlines slots based on historical precedence. If an airline uses a series of slots during the previous equivalent season for at least 80% of the time, the airline has the rights to use those slots again at the new season. The differences with a secondary slot trading system is the fact that airlines are allowed to trade or sell their slots to other airlines to receive money or better slot times (De Wit & Burghouwt, 2008). Using a secondary slot trading system is not attractive for airline segments operating non-hub related flights, which could possibly result in moving to other airports and free space for hub-related flights12 (SEO, 2018). The situation in 2020, caused by the COVID-19 crisis, gives the government the opportunity to establish the new way of using Amsterdam Schiphol for hub related flights while Lelystad and Eindhoven Airport will be accommodate the non-hub related flights in combination with further investigation of applying secondary slot trading.
12 In appendix D, more information about the slot trading systems, including advantages and disadvantages, can be found.
64
Returning policy #2 – Apply biofuel in aviation sector
The Dutch aviation sector is currently one of the leading players in the field of developing biofuel, where the KLM group plays a prominent role. Since 2009, the KLM supported the development and usage of biofuels for example by doing test flights from Amsterdam to New York, Rio de Janeiro and the Dutch Caribbean. However, more than test flights did not happen yet. Although the main actor is actively working on the development of biofuels, a large step needs to be set by the sector itself. The main actors should extend their current policies for the development and usage of biofuels by attracting more parties into the development of biofuels, such as airlines, governments, airports and knowledge institutions across the globe. More actors involved in the process could results in additional resources and knowledge which can contribute to the development of biofuels and hopefully will result in the replacement of fossil kerosene on large scale.
Returning policy #3 – Fleet Modernisation
Fleet modernisation is one of the elements to make the sector more sustainable and to reduce nuisance for (local) residents. At the same time, it can also attract passengers to select a particular airline, which can contribute to the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol. The development of aircraft used in 2009 in relation with 2019 already shows the first steps of fleet modernisation. Different airlines have already switched their less sustainable aircraft for more sustainable aircraft. However, the largest growth will be visible when the KLM Group start its fleet modernisation process of the Boeing 737 Next Generation fleet (S3-aircraft) for the Airbus A320neo-family of Boeing 737 MAX-family (both S6/S7-aircraft). The policy applied by the Royal Schiphol Group for determining the airport charges based on the sustainability and noise presentations is a good manner to stimulate airlines to select their energy-efficient and less noisier aircraft types on routes from/to Amsterdam. In addition to the current policy, the airport group and the government could look for the opportunities to also connect airport charges of particular time slots (e.g. late-evening and night slots) to the noise level of aircraft. In other words, airlines play less airport charges for late-evening and nights slots if they operate with more quiet aircraft. The aim of this idea is to stimulate airlines which operates late-evening and nights slots to operate with more quiet aircraft to reduce the noise hinder of (local) resident13. Even more rational option could be to set restrictions on the use of the most nuisance aircraft types on night flights, which in the past already happened (Volkskrant, 1997)
Returning policy #4 – Creating a Single European Sky (SES)
The development of the Single European Sky already started in 2000. Twenty years later, the Single European Sky still did not be a fact. However, multiple actors such as the Royal Schiphol Group and multiple airlines are calling for the SES (Luchtvaartnieuws, 2019d). Different researches (Efthymiou & Papatheodorou, 2018; Luchtvaart Nederland, 2018) have already showed that the establishment of the SES will provide a large reduction of the CO2-emissions caused by the European aviation sector. It is almost as same that the SES is still not established after twenty years (Luchtvaart Nederland, 2018). The government aims to contribute by the establishing of the SES, but looking at the current situation, the government need to do more to achieve this. An idea could be to take a leading role in the establishing of the SES.
Returning policy #5 – Restrictions of the number of movements.
The restrictions of 500.000 movements per year, including a maximum of 32.000 night slots, has been set to restrict the nuisance of local residents nearby the airport. However, these limitations also restrict
13 Currently, most specific complaints related to noise has been submitted about movements operated between 21.00 and 00.00 hours, mostly operated by aircraft such as the Boeing 747-400 which produce a lot of noise.
65
the growth ambition of the airport and airlines, which indirectly also influence the position of the airport as a hub. However, the growth of an airport must not lead to more negative impacts for local residents, which currently happens looking at the increased number of complaints. An increase of the movement capacity at Amsterdam Schiphol looks only possible if the negative impact for local residents is not significantly anymore. However, this can only be reached when the main actors apply several manners to achieve this, for example by using more sustainable and quieter aircraft, environmental-friendly operations and changing flight routes. In the meantime, applying selective development policy at Amsterdam Schiphol should be the way to maintain and strengthen the hub function of the airport with the limited slots available in combination with further research for applying a second slot trading system at Amsterdam Schiphol.
Returning policy #6 - Improving the living environment of local residents
The three main actors had done different actions to improve the living environment of local residents. However, the increase of complaints submitted shows that the current improvements are not enough. This means that the three actors need, together with other stakeholders, to continue with improving the living environment. Next to continuing with the current actions, the main actors can do additional actions to improve the living environment such as reduce the number of night movements of 32.000 to a number between 20.000 and 27.500 movements per year14, setting restrictions for the usage of the most nuisance aircraft types on night flights and changing/optimize flight and taxi procedures.
Returning policy #7 - Making airport and flight operations more sustainable
The Royal Schiphol Group and KLM has put a lot of effort into making its airport and flights operations more sustainable. Those improvements have resulted in lower CO2-emissions per passenger, although the total amount of CO2-emissions has increased due to higher demand of air travel. Making the airport operations more sustainable could provide a large effort to the reduction of CO2-emissions. Postorino et al. (2019) had conclude the effect of airport operations and concluded that most of the emissions are produced during the LTO-cycle. The sector can contribute by the reduction to applying/implementing new and/or additional innovations and manners to make the airport and flight operations more sustainable. Figure 20: Indication of the development of total air traffic and CO2-emissions between 2005 and 2019 (Air France – KLM, n.d.-b)
14 After writing this chapter, the Dutch government decided to reduce the total number of night flights allowed at Amsterdam Schiphol from 32.000 to 25.000 flights per year (Dutch Government, 2020b).
66
Returning policy #8 - Improving cargo operations at Amsterdam Schiphol
The changing strategy of the KLM group in combination with the declining demand of air cargo at Amsterdam Schiphol has changed the cargo operations at the airport. However, the cargo division is even important for the Dutch economy as the passenger travel, which means that the existing cargo division need to maintain and even strengthen. KLM Group’s decision to focus more on the combination of passengers and cargo transport on the same aircraft has resulted into more profitable routes for the airline, which also strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol. At the same time, the reduction of full-freighter aircraft makes is more difficult to transport large pieces of cargo at the same time. However, with the change cargo market and large competition from other (full-freighter) operators, the current strategy of the KLM Group meets the goals to create a robust and more sustainable way to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol, earning money with cargo transport and finding new solutions/innovations to optimize the cargo operations while making it more sustainable too, for example by replacing the aging, noisier and less sustainable Boeing 747-400 freighters for the Boeing 777 Freighter. The Boeing 747-400 (Freighter) is currently the aircraft type with the most (noise) nuisance complaints submitted by complainers. Replacing this aircraft type for a less nuisance aircraft type could result in les nuisance for (local) residents.
Returning policy #9 - Improving facilities/procedures for passengers at Amsterdam Schiphol
As part of the Royal Schiphol Groups ambition to be Europe’s preferred airport, the airline group has worked together with the KLM Group to apply both policies to improve the facilities and procedures at the airport. Not only has the construction of a new terminal started to increase the passenger capacity at the airport, also investments have been done to create central security, refurbish lounges and gate areas. All those improvements have contributed to make the ‘living experiences’ of the airport better for passenger, in combination with attracting more passengers to select the airport for their journeys. Those improvements done by both main actors are necessary to stay competitive with the increasing competition from the traditional European and South East Asian hub airports on one hand and on the other hand the rise of new mega hub airports in the Gulf Region and Turkey. Without those improvements, Amsterdam Schiphol will be less competition, which will cause negative consequences for the airport as hub.
Returning policy #10 - Using innovations to make the aviation sector more sustainable
The KLM Group and Royal Schiphol Group has developed and implemented, together with several stakeholders, multiple innovation to make the sector more sustainable. The use of biofuels has already been mentioned, but also other innovations like the Flying V, paperless cockpits and lighter materials on board contributes to the reduction of CO2-emissions. However, the total amount of CO2-emissions is still growing due to the growing demand of air travel. This means that the main actors need to continue with the development, testing and implementation of innovations of existing and new innovations which contributes to making the sector more sustainable, also while the number of movements will continue to growth.
Returning policy #11 – Realizing alternative transport modalities for short-haul flights (< 700 km)
A large amount of flight movements departing/arriving at Amsterdam Schiphol , but also from other airports across Europe, has an origin/destination shorter than 700 km away from the destination/origin. Those large amount of flights results into a negative impact for the environment in terms of CO2-emissions. By developing alternative transport modalities for those short-haul
67
operations, for example high-speed rail networks or hyperloops, a large profit in terms of CO2-emissions can be realized. However, the government need, together with other stakeholders, work to establish this. As we take high-speed rail networks as example, several high-speed networks (Thalys, ICE, Eurostar, TGV) already exists. However, those high-speed networks are currently not able to take over the role of the (ultra)short-haul flights. The KLM has already started a pilot by replacing one of the five daily Amsterdam-Brussels flight for a high-speed rail connection, while Lufthansa already uses the Air&Rail-concept on ICE-routes between the large German cities and hub airports Frankfurt and Munich to connect air travel and rail travel (Lufthansa, n.d.). The tasks for the government is to work together with the other European governments to create, just like the Single European Sky, as continental high-speed railway, which connecting all large cities across Europe with each other to make using the train on short routes more attractive for passengers. At the same time, the government also need to look for the opportunities at Amsterdam Schiphol to make it for transfer passengers easier to transfer from aircraft to train and vice versa. Hub airports like Amsterdam are dependent from transfer passenger, while KLM’s European network consists for a large part of feeder flights. Without easy ways for transfer passengers to transfer easily from aircraft to train and vice versa at Amsterdam Schiphol, the airport will become less attractive for transfer passengers, resulting in lower number of (transfer) passengers and a deterioration of the airport’s hub function.
Returning policy #12 - Optimize route network
The KLM Group has worked to optimize its route network by changing/combining existing routes in combination with starting/extending joint ventures with several airlines across the globe, partly due to the lack of free slots at Amsterdam Schiphol. The best examples of KLM’s success in collaborating with other airlines is the airline’s membership of airline alliance SkyTeam and the Trans-Atlantic Joint Venture with Air France, Delta Airlines and Virgin Atlantic. The KLM takes the advantages of those collaborations to optimize its route network by offering additional destinations and routes for its passengers without adding additional movements at Amsterdam Schiphol by putting flights numbers on flights from its partners15 while the same partners does the same on KLM-flights. The collaboration of KLM with other (inter)continental airlines supports the route network of the KLM Group and Amsterdam Schiphol. At the same time, it provides the airline more (transfer) passengers which also contributes to the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol. The KLM needs to continue this policy to maintain and strengthen the airline’s position in the world together with Amsterdam Schiphol’s position as hub airport, especially at times when regular expansion at the airport is more difficult due to limited slots.
Synthesis The three main actors made some good progress to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol and making the Dutch aviation sector more sustainable. The returning policies provides the three main actors enough guidance to continuing this, although some additional measures can be added to those returning policies to help the main actors.
15 Example: KLM has co-share agreements with Skyteam members and other partners on routes which do not depart/arrives at Amsterdam Schiphol, (f.e. Atlanta – Boston). Passengers flying with a ticket with a KLM-flight number, but the flight is operated by one of KLM’s partners (KLM, n.d.-b).
68
A brief overview of the returning policies, including to additional measure to improve the existing policies:
Returning policies Existing policy measures Additional policy measures
#1 - Applying selective development policy at Amsterdam Schiphol
• To accommodate hub related flights at Amsterdam Schiphol
• To accommodate non-hub related flights at Lelystad and Eindhoven Airport
• Creating facilities at regional airport to accommodate additional flights
• Invest also in the living environment to reduce the (additional) nuisance of (local) residents
• Investing in infrastructure, but not only related to the airport itself, but also for the living environment.
• Applying secondary slot trading system.
#2 – Apply biofuel in aviation sector
• Developing/implementing the use of bio kerosene in aviation sector
• Involving more (global) stakeholders in the aviation sector to develop/implement bio kerosene
#3 – Fleet Modernisation
• Replace old, less energy-efficient and noisier aircraft for new, lighter, energy-efficient and quieter aircraft
• Supporting the use of energy-efficient and quieter aircraft by using different airport charges, based on the noise production and energy efficient
• Implement addition airport charges to demotivate airlines to use the noisiest aircraft for late-evening and night flights.
• Set restrictions / ban the most nuisance aircraft types on night flights.
#4 – Creating a Single European Sky (S2ES)
• Creating a Single European Sky to establish more direct and sustainable flights routes
• Taking a more leading role for the Netherlands in implementing the SES.
#5 – Restrictions of the number of movements.
• Restrictions of 500.000 movements per year, including 32.000 night slots
#6 - Improving the living environment of local residents
• Realizing several actions to improve the living environment of local residents
• Reduce the maximum number of night slots to reduce the number of night movements
• Setting restrictions for the usage of the most nuisance aircraft types (flying on night flights)
• Changing/optimizing flight and taxi procedures
#7 - Making airport and flight operations more sustainable
• Changing diesel powered ground vehicles for electric powered vehicles.
• Generating sustainable energy
• Replacing paper books for Ipads in cockpits
• Using lighter materials on board
#8 - Improving cargo operations at Amsterdam Schiphol
• Changing cargo strategy KLM Cargo: combining passenger and cargo at the same aircraft
• Using new cargo systems to optimize cargo handling services
• Replacing Boeing 747-400 Freighter from a more sustainable freighter aircraft by the KLM Group
#9 - Improving facilities/procedures for passengers at Amsterdam Schiphol
• Building new terminal
• Improving lounges
• Improving security procedures
#10 - Using innovations to make the aviation sector more sustainable
• Developing the Flying V
• Developing/implementing biofuels
• Using 3D-printing at maintenance division
69
#11 – Realizing alternative transport modalities for short-haul flights (< 700 km).
• Improving high-speed rail network to make train travel more attractive
• Developing alternative transport modalities next to high-speed rail
• Work together with other EU-members to establish a continental high-speed railway network.
• Making easy transfers from train to aircraft and vice versa possible at Amsterdam Schiphol
#12 - Optimize route network
• Maintain and strengthen existing collaborations and joint-ventures
• Starting new collaborations and joint ventures
Table 13: Overview of the returning policies, including existing policy measures and additional policy measures.
70
71
Looking at the future: Reflection on Draft Aviation Policy 2020 In the previous chapter, the results of the research have been outlined and discussed. At the end of the chapter, the returning policies established by the three main actors has been discussed and evaluated. In addition, some advice for improvements of the returning policies has been discussed. On May 15, 2020, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management presented the Draft Aviation policy 2020 – 2050. In this chapter, the new goals and policies defined in this new Aviation Policy Note 2050 will be briefly summarized. After this summary, the evaluation / advises from the previous paragraph will be used to give advice to make the Aviation Policy Note 2020 – 2050 better (Dutch Government, n.d.; MoI&W, 2020b).
5.1 – Summary Draft Aviation Policy Note 2020 – 2050 In the aviation policy note 2020 – 2050, the government has decided that the central theme of the aviation policies for the period 2020 – 2050 will be a follows: The government aims that ‘a well-functioning Amsterdam Schiphol Airport with a successful home carrier (KLM) is important for the Dutch economy and the attraction of the Netherlands as place of establishment for companies. At the same time, the aviation sector will be ready for the future in terms of producing less nuisance and emissions to protect the (living) environment (MoI&W, 2020b, pg. 7). With the new policy, the government switches its policies from supporting the growth of the aviation sector to creating a well-functioning hub airport and successful home carrier, but only one sustainable way. In other words, the government tries to find the balance between the quality of the international network of connections and the quality of the living environment. The government has based its long-term aviation policy on four public interests, namely:
1. The Netherlands become safe in the air and on the ground 2. The Netherlands will be well-connected 3. Creating an attractive and health living environment 4. The Netherlands become sustainable
(MoI&W, 2020b, pg. 7). In the aviation policy note (2020b), the government had differentiated six themes. Each theme represented one of the four public interests. Those six themes are safe aviation, good connections, healthy and attractive living environment, sustainable aviation, capacity and capacity distribution and innovation. For each theme, the government has determined goals, ambitions and policies. In appendix F is a comprehensive summary in the form of bullets displayed with additional and background information about decisions made in the draft aviation policy note.
5.2 – Evaluation ambitions/policies in relation with evaluation policies 2009 – 2019 With the Aviation Policy Note 2020 – 2050, the government shows their changing vision about the
future of the Dutch aviation sector, Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and sustainability. When
establishing the Aviation Policy Note 2009, the government aims to strengthen the Dutch aviation
sector and Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function together with making the sector more sustainable.
Over the years, sustainability became more and more important for the actors, resulting in the current
vision in which strengthen the Dutch aviation sector, including Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function, is
only possible if it will not be at the expense of the sustainability and (noise) nuisance.
In the previous chapter, the returning policies, established and implemented by the main actors, has
been outlined and evaluation.
72
Returning policies Existing policy measures Additional policy measures
#1 - Applying selective development policy at Amsterdam Schiphol
• To accommodate hub related flights at Amsterdam Schiphol
• To accommodate non-hub related flights at Lelystad and Eindhoven Airport
• Creating facilities at regional airport to accommodate additional flights
• Invest also in the living environment to reduce the (additional) nuisance of (local) residents
• Investing in infrastructure, but not only related to the regional airport itself, but also for the living environment.
• Applying secondary slot trading system.
#2 – Apply biofuel in aviation sector
• Developing/implementing the use of bio kerosene in aviation sector
• Involving more (global) stakeholders in the aviation sector to develop/implement bio kerosene
#3 – Fleet Modernisation
• Replace old, less energy-efficient and noisier aircraft for new, lighter, energy-efficient and quieter aircraft
• Supporting the use of energy-efficient and quieter aircraft by using different airport charges, based on the noise production and energy efficient
• Implement addition airport charges to demotivate airlines to use the noisiest aircraft for late-evening and night flights.
• Set restrictions / ban the most nuisance aircraft types on night flights.
#4 – Creating a Single European Sky (SES)
• Creating a Single European Sky to establish more direct and sustainable flights routes
• Taking a more leading role for the Netherlands in implementing the SES.
#5 – Restrictions of the number of movements.
• Restrictions of 500.000 movements per year, including 32.000 night slots
#6 - Improving the living environment of local residents
• Realizing several actions to improve the living environment of local residents
• Reduce the maximum number of night slots to reduce the number of night movements
• Setting restrictions for the usage of the most nuisance aircraft types (flying on night flights)
• Changing/optimizing flight and taxi procedures
#7 - Making airport and flight operations more sustainable
• Changing diesel powered ground vehicles for electric powered vehicles.
• Generating sustainable energy
• Replacing paper books for Ipads in cockpits
• Using lighter materials on board
#8 - Improving cargo operations at Amsterdam Schiphol
• Changing cargo strategy KLM Cargo: combining passenger and cargo at the same aircraft
• Using new cargo systems to optimize cargo handling services
• Replacing Boeing 747-400 Freighter from a more sustainable freighter aircraft by the KLM Group
#9 - Improving facilities/procedures for passengers at Amsterdam Schiphol
• Building new terminal
• Improving lounges
• Improving security procedures
#10 - Using innovations to make the aviation sector more sustainable
• Developing the Flying V
• Developing/implementing biofuels
• Using 3D-printing at maintenance division
73
#11 – Realizing alternative transport modalities for short-haul flights (< 700 km).
• Improving high-speed rail network to make train travel more attractive
• Developing alternative transport modalities next to high-speed rail
• Work together with other EU-members to establish a continental high-speed railway network.
• Making easy transfer from train to aircraft and vice versa possible at Amsterdam Schiphol
#12 - Optimize route network
• Maintain and strengthen existing collaborations and joint-ventures
• Starting new collaborations and joint ventures
Table 14: Overview of returning policies established by the three main actors during the period 2009 – 2019 in multiple (policy documents), including existing and additional policy measures.
With the six ‘action’ themes defined by the government into the Draft Aviation Policy Note 2020 – 2050, the government aims to continues its work started by establishing the Aviation Policy Note 2009, but with the knowledge from now. This has, as already mentioned, resulted into a more prominent role to make the aviation sector and the Netherlands more sustainable. However, several policies from the previous Aviation Policy Note are still relevant, whether or not adapted. Looking at the twelve returning policies (table 14), not all policies are established/suitable for the government to be part of their Aviation Policy Note 2020 – 2020. Some of the returning policies are mainly intended for the other two main actors with policies measures which ‘only’ can be achieved by the other two actors. However, the government can support both actors with different measures. The returning policies intended for the two other actors are:
#7 Making airport and flight operations more sustainable
#8 Improving cargo operations at Amsterdam Schiphol
#9 Improving facilities/procedures for passengers at Amsterdam Schiphol
#12 Optimize route network
The remaining eight returning policies has (partly) been established by the government and are important for the development of the Dutch aviation sector in terms of Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and/or sustainability. Because of that, all those eight policies are directly or indirectly presences in the new Aviation Policy Note, just like the points outlined in table 14. Nevertheless, some of the advises for additional policy measures has currently not be incorporated into the new Aviation Policy Document, although they could be especially useful to achieve the government’s goals and ambitions, divided over the various themes. Those additional policy measures are:
Related theme Draft Aviation policy note:
Additional policy measure
Theme 2: Good connections & Theme 4: Sustainable aviation
Making easy transfers from train to aircraft and vice versa possible at Amsterdam Schiphol
Theme 3: Healthy and attractive living environment
Invest also in the living environment to reduce the additional nuisance of (local) residents
Investing in infrastructure, but not only related to the regional airport itself, but also for the living environment
Setting restrictions for the usage of the most nuisance aircraft types (flying on night flights) residents
74
Theme 4: Sustainable aviation
Involving more (global) stakeholders in the aviation sector to develop/implement bio kerosene
Implement addition airport charges to demotivate airlines to use the noisiest aircraft for late-evening and night flights
Taking a more leading role for the Netherlands in implementing the SES
Theme 5: Capacity and capacity distribution
Applying secondary slot trading system
Table 15: Overview additional policies suitable to be implemented into the Aviation Policy Note 2020 - 2050
With adding those eight additional policy measures into the new Aviation Policy Note, the government will be able to establish a more complete and extensive policy measure toolbox. A larger policy measure toolbox provides the government more opportunities and more tools to achieve their goals. The proposed task of the government to find a balance in maintain and strengthen the Dutch Aviation sector, including Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function, without causing a deterioration of the environment in terms of CO2-emissions and nuisance will be not easy. However, the implementation of the eight additional policy measures could contribute to achieve this task and its corresponding goals and ambitions.
75
76
Conclusions The establishment of the Aviation Policy Note in 2009 can be clarified as the ‘starting point’ for the Dutch aviation sector in terms of developing and implementing new short-, medium and long-term policies to change the sector with common goals and ambitions: strengthen the Dutch aviation sector, especially the position of Amsterdam Schiphol, in combination with improving the sustainability of the sector.
At the end of 2020, the Dutch Government will establish its latest version of the Aviation Policy Document (2020 – 2050). The establishment of the new national aviation policy note provided an opportunity to evaluate the current policies of several actors involved into the Dutch aviation sector to see which policies are currently successful and which policies could have some changes to become successful. To find those answer, the following main research question has been used:
“Evaluating the current policies on regional and national level, which lessons can be learned for new policies to enhance the sustainability of Amsterdam Schiphol as well as to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol?”
6.1 – Sub conclusions To answer this main research question, the six subsequent research questions will be answered first:
What is a hub function and how is this function incorporated in policies at the regional and national level?
The definition of a hub function has already been discussed closely into this research’s theoretical framework. Nevertheless, the hub function has also been incorporated into the different policies of the three main actors, especially by the government and the Royal Schiphol Group. However, a common goal of each actor was clearly visible: maintain and strengthen Amsterdam Schiphol hub function by applying several policy measures such as ‘selective development policy’, improving facilities and optimizing the route networks.
What are the goals and ambitions on making Amsterdam Schiphol more sustainable and how are these incorporated into policies of the three main actors?
The increasing attention for sustainability was clearly visible over the years. Almost all stakeholders involved in the sector, including the three main actors, are working to achieve their personal sustainability goals to make the sector more sustainable. The most important goals/ambitions set by the main actors were to reduce the production of CO2-emissions by air traffic and airport operations, as well by reducing the nuisance and improving the living environment of residents living around Amsterdam Schiphol. To achieve this, the main actors has used several policy measures such as developing sustainable fuels, fleet modernisation and implementing innovations. Perhaps the most interesting and largest ‘policy document’ to make the Dutch aviation sector more sustainable is the Action plan ‘Smart and Sustainable’, which has been established by large amount of actors involved into the aviation sector which started a collaboration to reduce the CO2-emission production caused by the Dutch aviation sector by 35%.
What is the performance of Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function at the regional, national, EU-level, and global level?
Amsterdam Schiphol, just like the aviation sector overall, saws a growing demand of air travel and number of movements over the years. The airport growth into one of Europe’s busiest airports with 71,1 million passengers and almost 500.000 movements per year. Due to the growing demand, additional movements and growing route network, Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function became stronger in terms of direct (2nd in Europe) and hub connectivity (3rd in the world). Nevertheless, the
77
pressure of the hub function increased at the same time. Several factors such as the capacity limit, the rise of low-cost carriers and larger competition from other hub airports across the global. This means that it is important for future policies to maintain and strengthen the airport’s hub function to stay competitive with other hubs across the globe.
What are the ‘returning policies’ established by the three main actors and which consequences does this have for the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol and the sustainability ambitions of
the airport and the sector?
Over the years, twelve policies have returned into the policy document of the main actors:
Returning policies
#1 Applying selective development policy at Amsterdam Schiphol
#7 Making airport and flight operations more sustainable
#2 Apply biofuel in aviation sector #8 Improving cargo operations at Amsterdam Schiphol
#3 Fleet Modernisation #9 Improving facilities/procedures for passengers at Amsterdam Schiphol
#4 Creating a Single European Sky (S2ES) #10 Using innovations to make the aviation sector more sustainable
#5 Restrictions of the number of movements. #11 Realizing alternative transport modalities for short-haul flights (< 700 km).
#6 Improving the living environment of local residents
#12 Optimize route network
Table 16: Overview returning policies between 2009 and 2019.
Looking at those returning policies, a clear mix between policies focusing on the hub function and policies focussing on sustainability is visible. Fortunately, those returning policies has fewer negative consequences for the hub function and sustainability ambitions. From the twelve policies, only returning policy #5 has negative impact for Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function, because the limitation of slots obstructs the growth possibilities of the airport in terms of movements, route development and passenger & cargo volumes.
What are the ‘returning policies’ established by the three main actors and which consequences does this have for the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol and the sustainability ambitions of
the airport and the sector?
The profile sets and trends & developments in period 2009 and 2019 has shown that the returning policies provided positive contributions to the common goals of the sector to strengthen the hub function and making the Dutch aviation sector more sustainable as well. Nevertheless, some alternative policy measures are recommended to improve the returning policies.
Additional policy measures
#1 • Invest also in the living environment to reduce the (additional) nuisance of (local) residents
• Investing in infrastructure, but not only related to the regional airport itself, but also for the living environment.
• Applying secondary slot trading system.
#2 • Involving more (global) stakeholders in the aviation sector to develop/implement bio kerosene.
#3 • Implement addition airport charges to demotivate airlines to use the noisiest aircraft for late-evening and night flights.
• Set restrictions / ban the most nuisance aircraft types on night flights.
#4 • Taking a more leading role for the Netherlands in implementing the SES.
78
#6 • Reduce the maximum number of night slots to reduce the number of night movements
• Setting restrictions for the usage of the most nuisance aircraft types (flying on night flights)
• Changing/optimizing flight and taxi procedures
#8 • Replacing Boeing 747-400 Freighter from a more sustainable freighter aircraft by the KLM Group
#11 • Work together with other EU-members to establish a continental high-speed railway network.
• Making easy transfers from train to aircraft and vice versa possible at Amsterdam Schiphol Table 17: Overview additional policy measures
Which changes/additions at the Draft Aviation Policy Note 2020-2050 are recommended to enhance the sustainability of Amsterdam Schiphol as well as to strengthen the hub function of
Amsterdam Schiphol.
In the new policy note, the government continues to achieve their ambitions already set in the previous policy note, but there is more attention for making the sector more safe (in terms of cybercrime, air safety and drones) while the growth of the Dutch aviation sector and Amsterdam Schiphol must not result in a negative impact for the environments by means of higher CO2-emissions and more nuisance. Looking at this new route path set by the government, there can be concluded that the existing policies are still useful and/or are already incorporated into this new policy note, in combination with some new additional policy (measures) which can contribute to achieving the goals.
6.2 – Main conclusion Main research question: Evaluating the current policies on regional and national level, which
lessons can be learned for new policies to enhance the sustainability of Amsterdam Schiphol as well as to strengthen the hub function of Amsterdam Schiphol
The evaluation of the policies has shown interesting facts and lessons about the development of Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function as well as enhancing the sustainability of the sector and especially Amsterdam Schiphol. The current policies and policy measures provides a large positive contribution to achieve those goals/ambitions. However, the results of the research has shown that it is still very difficult to establishing suitable policies which provide a balanced way to gain the economic benefits of an airport, in this case strengthen the hub function, while on the same time the environmental impacts of air travel need to be reduced as much as possible. However, the government already aims this into its new Aviation Policy Note. Nevertheless, collaboration between the different stakeholders in essential to reach those goals. The government already said that they are mostly depended from other stakeholders to achieve their own goals, especially in the field of sustainability. The main actors have already some collaborations to achieve certain goals, but more and large collaborations on multiple levels could have a better result to establish working policies to achieve the common goals. In terms of enhance the aviation sector’s sustainability, three policy measures could provide the largest positive effects in terms of reducing CO2-emissions. The aviation sector needs, as a collaboration, to focus on realising three important steps to achieve a big step forward into the reduction of a large part of the total production of emissions. Those actions are:
• Applying alternative transport modalities to reduce the large amount of (ultra-)short-haul flights, including the realisation of easy transfer connections at airports between air and ground to support the feeder network of legacy carriers.
• Applying biofuel instead of fossil fuels on aircraft, ground vehicles and more. The sector needs to focus and collaborate to develop and apply a sustainable alternative for fossil fuels as soon as possible.
79
• Reducing the emissions caused during the LTO-cycle. Several researches have shown that a large amount of the CO2-emissions is produced during the LTO-cycle. Minimalizing the emission during this process by innovations such as more sustainable taxi procedures, electric vehicles/ground operations and generating sustainable energy instead of using fossil generated energy could provide a large contribution to the reduction of emissions caused by the LTO-cycle.
Applying those three actions could also have possible benefits for Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function. Replacing hundreds of (ultra-)short-haul flights could result into free slots at the airport for (inter)continental legacy carriers to extend route network with hub-related flights, which strengthen the hub function. At the same time, the reduction of CO2-emissions in combination with the future development of even quieter aircraft could result in an increasement of the available ATMs per year, if the market is asking for that. In other words, with some changes, a balance in establishing appropriate policies for strengthening Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and enhance the sustainability of the Dutch aviation sectors as well as Amsterdam Schiphol can be created, resulting in Amsterdam Schiphol as the most sustainable airport hub of Europe!
80
Discussion, recommendations and reflection This chapter will discuss the results and conclusions of this research as well as reflecting the research process and providing recommendations for further researches.
7.1 – Implications for academia and the sector This paragraph will talk about the implications for academia and the Dutch aviation sector.
7.1.1 – Implications for academia The scientific aim of this research was to find the connection between multi-level governance and policy evaluation. As already mentioned, the existing scientific literature provides low attention for this connection, unlike the attendance for the connection between multi-level governance and policy making/policy design. The research has showed that a multi-level governance analysis provides a good tool to determine which actors are the most useful to evaluate those actor’s existing policies to represent the complete Dutch aviation sector as much as possible. The missing key in establishing a workable connection between multi-level governance and policy evaluation could be using the power, legitimacy and urgent criteria of Mitchell et al. (1997). Those criteria could be one of the most important tools to determine the correct actors for a policy evaluation research. However, the scientific world could do more research about incorporating those criteria into a new framework which combines multi-level governance and policy evaluation. Nijkamp (1999) and McManners (2016) both said that the aviation sector is one of the most difficult sectors to implement sustainability policies, mostly due to the direct clash between economic and environmental interests. This research has confirmed those difficulties but has also shows that the main actors has worked hard to implement new policies with more focus on creating a suitable balance between the economic and environmental interests. Further scientific research about policymaking/policy design in the aviation sector, based on evaluated policies could contribute to find the correct balance between those aspects, which could result into better ways to implement sustainable policies in the aviation sector and overall. Postorino (2019) has shown that the LTO-cycle provides a large contribution to the production of CO2-emissions. The research has shown that the main actors are working hard to develop/implement new policies and innovations to reduce the amount of CO2-emissions. The actors already work together with scientific parties such as the TU Delft. Nevertheless, more scientific research could provide the aviation sector additional input for the developing of new policies, operational & flight operations and innovations, all enhance the sustainability of the sector even more.
7.1.2 – Implications for the (Dutch) aviation sector The conclusions have shown that the Dutch aviation sector has been working hard to come back after the global financial crisis. Amsterdam Schiphol became one of Europe’s busiest airports with an extended route network and a high direct and hub connectivity. Meanwhile, the actors have established multiple policies and corresponding measures to enhance the sector’s sustainability as well of Amsterdam Schiphol. The developments and innovations used by the different actors shows that the sector is able to take a leading role by applying new innovations to strengthen the Dutch aviation sector on different ways. In terms of enhancing the sustainability, multiple actors and collaboration such as the Royal Schiphol Group, KLM and the TU Delft, has created different innovation such as developing sustainable fuel, the Flying V and electronic taxiing. However, the aviation sector stays a difficult sector. Although several initiatives have contributed to make the aviation sector more sustainable, there are still multiple other factors/reasons why the sector enhance the sustainability less quickly, e.g. finding a balance between
81
economic and environmental interests. However, it is the question if the private sector needs to play the leading role in making the sector more sustainable? Perhaps the public sector (like the government) has to take-over this leading role. Further research about this could help the aviation sector to find out who will need to take the lead. The involved actors into the sector should use the new Aviation Policy Note 2020 – 2050 as their
toolbox to create a better balance between the economic and environmental interests of the sector.
It is important that the actors will work more together to find this balance, using the tools provided
into the new policy note together with their own tools. The sector has already showed that innovation
and collaboration lead into successful and positive results for the sector. Extending and strengthen this
will increase the chances of success. The current COVID-19-crisis could be the window of opportunity
to strength the collaborations between actors to really change the Dutch aviation sector, which could
lead into a global change in the future.
Furthermore, the findings have shown that changes need to be made in the number of flights operating by the sector. Reducing the number of flights, in combination with additional measures are the real game changers in reducing the production of CO2-emissions. Less movements means less additional emissions and nuisance. However, this is not only a task for the Dutch aviation sector. A small country like the Netherlands is just a small piece of the iceberg. If the different national aviation sectors collaborate, it will be possible to achieve this on a global level. However, this does not mean that all flights need to be scrapped. The world needs to be connected which each other to maintain and strengthen the world’s economy and connectivity. The focus of reducing flights need to be at the (ultra) short-haul flights. Those types of flights are the most polluted flights of them all and could provide a large contribution to the reduction of emissions. Of course, I recognize the importance of (ultra) short-haul flights for legacy network carriers to operate feeder flights for the intercontinental routes, but providing alternative modalities such as high-speed rail networks on those routes, which are easily connected on the intercontinental routes at the hub airports, could really contribute to the global aviation sector’s ambitions to reduce emissions. This has also associated benefits for hub airports with congestion problems and residents. Less (ultra-)short-haul flights provides free space/slots for airlines to extend the (inter)continental route network with hub-related flights while the nuisance of residents caused by ATM’S will reduce as well.
7.2 – Recommendations for further research The results of the research have shown that not all the (returning) policies are even successful, which shows that policy evaluation contributes by the agenda setting of new policy documents. Most of the time, policy makers evaluated their previous policies before setting their agenda for new policies. However, it is the question how much attention those policy makers give for the policies of other actors and where actors are able to work together to establish common policies. Because of that, I recommend the actors to evaluate not only their own policies, but also the policies of close-related partners could provide policy makers more tools to establish the most suitable policies/policy measures while it also make is easier to establish common policies in terms of ‘collaborative governance’ for example. This is in line with Daniell & Kay (2018), who said that the interaction between decision-making on different scales and actors is necessary to create working policies. The government did this already on low scale by establishing the (Draft) Aviation Policy Note 2020-2050, by asking input from other stakeholders such as the KLM Group, Air Traffic Control NL and the Royal Schiphol Group. However, doing this on higher scales could result in more concrete input and policy ideas Additionally, more in-depth research to the policy evaluation of the aviation sector is recommended by means of involving more actors and/or using long time periods of evaluation. This research has focussed on the period between the establishment of the two Aviation Policy Notes (2009 and 2020).
82
However, perhaps could evaluating policies over a longer time provide more information how particular policy types work/work not in sectors such as the aviation sector. Adding more actors into the research could provide a more in-depth research of policy evaluation on more levels than only on regional and national level, with a small eye on European level, which this research aims. Meanwhile, evaluating a longer time period could provide more in-depth knowledge about long-term policy strategies and the impacts of it, instead of only evaluation the short- and medium-term policies. McManners (2016) said that enhancing sustainability is about long-term balanced policy (pg.88), which means that a long-term evaluation is more suitable to indicate those particular changes. In other words, by evaluating long term policies, it will be possible to see which long-term changes has happened due to long-term policies, instead of only evaluation short- and medium-term policies to indicate short- and medium-term changes. A third recommendation is to look at the difference of policy established by different countries. This research consists of a single case-study (Amsterdam Schiphol, the Netherlands). Extending the research by selecting one or more different comparable airports in Europe (London Heathrow, UK, Frankfurt, Germany and Paris CDG, France) could result into a comparison between the policies of the different actors from different countries. What can actors learn from their equivalent in other countries. Do the actors make common mistake by establishing policies? Those type of question could be researched further to improve the policymaking of those actors.
7.3 – Reflection on the research The pitfall of being interested in the aviation sector as part of a hobby is the fact that you could be biased and/or thinking that the sector already do enough to strengthen Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function and enhance the sustainability of the sector. The results of the research have shown that the sector works hard to achieve the goals set, but that is more difficult than it looks like. A perfect example is the CO2-reduction by the sector. Looking at all measures already done by the sector to reduce the emissions, you could say that we are preforming well. But with the increasing number of flights, you could say that the effects of reducing CO2-emissions are insignificant. The only positive thing about this development is that the CO2-production did not increased extremely, but only a little bit. Additionally, I must acknowledge that some of my opinions about the aviation sector were not correct. A perfect example is my opinion about the restriction of total ATMs at Amsterdam Schiphol. I understand that people experience nuisance of the airport and its operations, but I did not understand why this should result in not increasing the total number of movements allowed per years. After finalizing this research, I have learned that this restriction is not only be set because of reducing the nuisance, but also to protect the environment by reducing emissions and to keep the air space safe. However, this does not mean that all my opinions have changed. I still think that people/complainers who decide to go to live nearby an airport and knowing that this will results into nuisance, does not have the ‘right’ to complain. I recognize the nuisance issues of residents living nearby airports, but if people want to live nearby an airport such as Amsterdam Schiphol, they need to deal with this nuisance. Otherwise, they need to move to an area without any nuisance. At the same time, it is a different story for people which already lived nearby an airport before changes (e.g. the opening of Lelystad Airport as civil airport) happened. From those people, I recognize that people are complaining about this and the actors need to reduce this nuisance as much as possible. Meanwhile, writing this essay has shown that things can changed extremely fast. When I started this research by thinking about a suitable and interesting subject to research for my master’s thesis, (almost) nobody has even heard about COVID-19. Almost nine months after making the decision to do research about Amsterdam Schiphol’s hub function, the world has completely changed and is currently not recognizable anymore.
83
The aviation sector has also dealt ridiculously hard with the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. Millions of flights have been cancelled, airlines went bankrupt and airports became parking places for aircraft. Looking at the situation of the Dutch aviation sector, the same view was visible. While hundreds of flights departed each day when I determined my research idea, nine months later (July) airlines are starting-up their route networks carefully again. The crisis has caused some difficult moments during the research period. Multiple times I has ask myself the question ‘Why am I still investigating this, everything I read and write is not relevant anymore and from the past?’. The same happened also when you are be overruled by reality. Due to the COVID-19 crisis, several measures which were originally planned to be made after the establishment of the Aviation Policy Note 2020-2050 were already made. A perfect example was the decision-making of the government to reduce the maximum number of night flights to 25.000 flights per year. Just a couple days earlier, I written a recommendation to reduce the number of night flights as policy measure to reduce the nuisance of residents: the reality has overruled me. To be honest, the input of the research itself could possibly be improved. In this research, I have mostly focussed on only three main actors, which were in my opinion the most important and most suitable actors to select. However, there are much more actors involved which had could evaluated in addition, such as the province North Holland and the municipality Haarlemmermeer. Applying those additional actors could have resulted into a more in-depth policy evaluation. However, with selecting the current main actors, the most important actor of the three most important ‘actor groups’ has been selected and investigate in this research. At the same time, the research was also a large learning process. Not particular in terms of theoretical aspects and aviation-related things, but more the process of doing research and the (dis)advantages of its. As already mentioned, sometimes I was dealing with some negative (psychological) problems by means of asking yourself why you are still doing this research or how will I even realize this on the correct way? Meanwhile, my ‘well-known’ problem of writing to much in terms of giving ‘too much’ information, for example in the results paragraph, was noticeable during the research. Fortunately, at the end, I managed with some support to create a document which is focussing on the essences of the research, instead of providing too many peripheral matters. Those difficult moments made it not easy to do this research, but at the end I am still happy that I did this research. Combining your passion for aviation with your education sometimes feels just like making your hobby your job. Furthermore, I think that the results of this research could provide the aviation sector and policy-makers additional tools for the future development of the Dutch aviation (policies) to establish Amsterdam Schiphol as a future proof and sustainable hub which help the Netherlands to stay connective with the world on a sustainable way.
84
85
Literature list ACI Europe (2015) Airport Industry Connectivity Report 2004-2014. Retrieved on May 1, 2020. ACI Europe (2016) Airport Industry Connectivity Report 2015. Retrieved on May 1, 2020. ACI Europe (2017) Airport Industry Connectivity Report 2016. Retrieved on May 1, 2020. ACI Europe (2018) Airport Industry Connectivity Report 2017. Retrieved on May 1, 2020. ACI Europe (2019) Airport Industry Connectivity Report 2018. Retrieved on May 1, 2020. ACI Europe (2020) Airport Industry Connectivity Report 2019. Retrieved on May 1, 2020. AD (2020) Remkes: Alleen groei Schiphol en opening Lelystad Airport bij minder stikstof. Retrieved from https://www.ad.nl/politiek/remkes-alleen-groei-schiphol-en-opening-lelystad-airport-bij-minder-stikstof~a2857a2b/ on March 9, 2020. ACM (2020) KLM en Schiphol houden zich aan de toezegginen voor gelijk speelveld luchtvaartmaatschappijen. Retrieved from https://www.acm.nl/nl/publicaties/klm-en-schiphol-houden-zich-aan-de-toezeggingen-voor-gelijk-speelveld-luchtvaartmaatschappijen on April 8, 2020. Ansell, C., Gash, A. (2007) Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mum032. Retrieved on July 1, 2020. Airbus (2014) Airbus launches the A330neo. Retrieved from https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2014/07/airbus-launches-the-a330neo.html on July 21, 2020. Air France – KLM (n.d.-a) Shareholding structure. Retrieved from https://www.airfranceklm.com/en/finance/financial-information/capital-structure on May 12, 2020 Air France – KLM Group (n.d.-b) Carbon Footprint. Retrieved from https://sustainabilityreport2019.airfranceklm.com/carbon-footprint/ on June 23, 2020. Air France – KLM Group (n.d.-c) Noise hinderance. Retrieved from https://sustainabilityreport2019.airfranceklm.com/noise-hindrance/ on June 23, 2020 Airways Magazine (2014) The Airbus A350 XWB: a timeline. Retrieved from https://airwaysmag.com/uncategorized/the-airbus-a350-xwb-a-timeline/ on July 21, 2020. Airways Magazine (2017) Flashback: the Airbus A320 Family. Retrieved from https://airwaysmag.com/airchive/airbus-a320-family/ on July 9, 2020. Alders, H. (2008) Brief aan ministers van V&W en VROM m.b.t. de toekomst van Schiphol en de regio voor de middellange termijn. Retrieved on April 29, 2020. Alders, H. (2019) Brief aan de minister van I&W over de toekomstige ontwikkeling van Schiphol. Retrieved on April 30, 2020. Asaduzzaman, M., Virtanen, P. (2016) Governance theories and models. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2612-1. Retrieved on April 8 , 2020. Bache, I. & Flinders, M. (2004). Themes and Issues in Multi-level Governance. DOI: 10.1093/0199259259.003.0001. Retrieved on March 11, 2020 BAS Bewoners aanspreekpunt Schiphol (2010) Jaarrapportage 2009. Retrieved on June 23, 2020 BAS Bewoners aanspreekpunt Schiphol (2015) Jaarrapportage 2014. Retrieved on June 23, 2020 BAS Bewoners aanspreekpunt Schiphol (2020) Jaarrapportage 2019. Retrieved on June 23, 2020 Boeing (n.d.-a) 737 commercial transport: historical snapshot. Retrieved from https://www.boeing.com/history/products/737-classic.page on July 9, 2020
86
Boeing (n.d.-b) 777 commercial transport: historical snapshot. Retrieved from https://www.boeing.com/history/products/777.page on July 9, 2020 Boeing (n.d.-c) 787 commercial transport: historical snapshot. Retrieved from https://www.boeing.com/history/products/787.page on July 21, 2020. Bongers, F.J., Den Hartog, P. (2007) Vernieuwing van methoden voor beleidsevaluatie. Retrieved on April 13, 2020. Borestein, S. (1989) Hub and high fares: dominance and market power in the U.S. airline industry. DOI: 10.2307/2555575. Retrieved on March 23, 2020. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. DOI: 10.3316/QRJ0902027. Retrieved on February 25, 2020 Bressers, J., Hoogerwerf, A. (1993) Beleidsevaluatie en beleidseffecten, in: Hoogerwerf, A. (1993) Overheidsbeleid. Retrieved on April 13, 2020. Brisbois, M.C. (2015) Natural resource industries and the state in collaborative approaches to water governance: a power-based analysis. Retrieved on July 1, 2020 Broekel, T., Boschma, R., (2011) Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: the proximity paradox. DOI: 10.1093/jeg/lbr010 . Retrieved on July 7, 2020. CBS Stateline (2019) Emissies naar lucht door de Nederlandse economie; nationale rekeningen. Retrieved on June 23, 2020 CBS Stateline (2020a) Emissies van broeikasgassen berekend volgens IPCC-voorschriften. Retrieved on June 23, 2020. CBS Stateline (2020b) Luchtvaart; maandcijfers Nederlandse luchthavens van nationaal belang. Retrieved on June 25, 2020 CDC (n.d.) Brief 1: Overview of Policy Evaluation. Retrieved on March 11, 2020 Chin, A., Tongzon J.L. (2001) Transport Infrastructure Management for Attracting Global & Regional Distribution Centers in Singapore. Civil Aviation Authority (2010) Noise measurements of reverse thrust at Heathrow and Stansted airports. Retrieved on March 10, 2020. Cornelisse, P. (2016) Networks in the airline environment. Retrieved on June 24, 2020. Costa, T., Lohmann, G., Oliviera, A. (2010) A model to identify airport hubs and their importance to tourism in Brazil. DOI: 10.1016/j.retrec.2009.10.002. Retrieved on February 28, 2020. Creswell, J.W. (2013) Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. Retrieved on February 25, 2020. Daniell, K., Kay, A. (2018) Multi-level Governance: an introduction. DOI: 10.22459/MG.11.2017.01. Retrieved on February 24, 2020. DeLeon, P., Steelman, T.A. (2001) Making public policy programs effective and relevant: The role of the policy sciences. DOI: 10.1002/1520-6688(200124)20:1<163::AID-PAM2011>3.0.CO;2-W. Retrieved on April 8, 2020 Delta Flight Museum (n.d.) Northwest Historical timeline. Retrieved from https://www.deltamuseum.org/exhibits/delta-history/family-tree/northwest-airlines/decades/2000s on July 20, 2020. Dennis, N. (1994) Airline hub operation in Europe. DOI: 10.1016/0966-6923(94)90047-7. Retrieved on March 23, 2020. De Peuter, B., De Smedt, J. (2005) The problem of policy evaluation in a European Multi-level governance context. Retrieved on March 11, 2020. De Wit, J., Burghouwt, G. (2008) Slot allocation and use at hub airports, perspectives for secondary trading. Retrieved on April 25, 2020.
87
Dutch Government (2020a) Minister Van Nieuwenhuizen: Lelystad Airport jaar later open. Retrieved from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2020/03/31/minister-van-nieuwenhuizen-lelystad-airport-jaar-later-open on June 26, 2020 Dutch Government (2020b) Kabinet biedt financiële steun aan KLM als gevolg van de coronacrisis. Retrieved from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2020/06/26/kabinet-biedt-financiele-steun-aan-klm-als-gevolg-van-de-coronacrisis on June 26, 2020 Dutch Government (n.d.) Ontwikkeling Luchtvaart. Retrieved from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/luchtvaart/ontwikkeling-luchtvaart on June 26, 2020 Dutch Safety Board (2015) Crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. Retrieved on June 16, 2020 EasyJet (n.d.) Our Fleet. Retrieved from https://www.easyjet.com/en/help/boarding-and-flying/our-fleet on May 11, 2020 Essay, UK (2018) Global Financial Crisis: Aviation Industry Impact. Retrieved on May 8, 2020. Efthymiou, M., Papatheodorou, A. (2018) Environmental considerations in the Single European Sky: A Delphi approach. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.09.024. Retrieved on July 20, 2020. Embraer (n.d.) E2. The Next Generation. Retrieved from https://www.embraercommercialaviation.com/news/e2-next-generation/ on July 21, 2020. European Commission (n.d.) Transport infographics. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/infographics/zero-to-ten_en on July 2, 2020 Filippone, A. (2014) Aircraft noise prediction. Retrieved March 23, 2020. Fokker Services (n.d.-a) Fokker 50. Retrieved from https://www.fokkerservices.com/about/fokker-aircraft/fokker-50 on July 9, 2020. Fokker Services (n.d.-b) Fokker 100. Retrieved from https://www.fokkerservices.com/about/fokker-aircraft/fokker-100 on July 9, 2020 Forbes (2019) The Flying Dutchmen - How The Netherlands Wants To Make Aviation Sustainable. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidebanis/2019/06/17/the-flying-dutchmen-how-the-netherlands-wants-to-make-aviation-sustainable/#750f9b316160 on July 7, 2020. Ford, T. (1991) Meeting the Need — The A330/A340 Programme. DOI: 10.1108/eb037139. Retrieved on July 9, 2020. Gulf Business (2013) Etihad starting Amsterdam flights. Retrieved from https://gulfbusiness.com/etihad-starting-amsterdam-flights/ on May 11, 2020. Grampella, M., Martini, G., Scotti, D., Tassan Got, F. and Zambon, G. (2013) The environmental costs of airports’ aviation activities: a panel data econometric analysis of Italian airports. Retrieved on March 10, 2020. Gustafsson, J. (2017) Single case studies vs. multiple case studies: A comparative study. Retrieved on June 9, 2020. Hofmänner, A. (2018) New International Science and Technology Policies: Key Issues and Questions in Switzerland. Retrieved on July 21, 2020. Holloway, S. (2016) Straight and Level: Practical Airline economics. Retrieved on March 9, 2020. Hoogerwerf, A., Herweijer, M. (2014) Overheidsbeleid, een inleiding in de beleidswetenschap. Retrieved on April 9, 2020. Hossan, C. (2012) Sustainability and Growth of Low-Cost Airlines: An Industry Analysis in Global Perspective. Retrieved on May 8, 2020. Howlett, M. (2009) Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: a multi-level nested model of policy instruments choice and policy design. DOI: 10.1007/s11077-009-9079-1. Retrieved on July 1, 2020. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. (1995) Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. DOI: 10.2307/2952394. Retrieved on July 1, 2020.
88
Huitema, D., Jordan, A., Massey, E., Rayner, T., van Assel, H., Haug, C., Hildingsson, R., Monni, S., Stripple, J. (2011) The evaluation of climate policy: theory and emerging practice in Europe. DOI: 10.1007/s11077-011-9125-7. Retrieved on July 1, 2020. IATA (2019) Netherlands: Air Transport Regulatory Competitiveness Indicators. Retrieved on July 7, 2020. IATA (2020) Slower but Steady Growth in 2019. Retrieved from https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2020-02-06-01/ on March 9, 2020 IATA (n.d.) Mission & Vision. Retrieved from https://www.iata.org/en/about/mission/ on June 15, 2020. ICAO (n.d-a.) About us. Retrieved from h https://www.icao.int/RASGPA/Pages/About.aspx on June 15, 2020. ICAO (n.d.-b) Freedoms of the air. Retrieved from https://www.icao.int/Pages/freedomsAir.aspx on May 11, 2020 ICAO (n.d.-c) Low Cost Carriers (LCCs). Retrieved from https://www.icao.int/sustainability/Pages/Low-Cost-Carriers.aspx on May 8, 2020 International Airport Review (2020) How is the air cargo industry reacting and responding to the COVID-19 pandemic? Retrieved from https://www.internationalairportreview.com/article/115426/air-cargo-industry-reacting-responding-covid-19/ on May 11, 2020 International Transport Forum (2018) Defining, measuring and improving Air Connectivity. Retrieved on June 16, 2020. Jänicke, M. (2015) Horizontal and vertical reinforcement in global climate governance. DOI: 10.3390/en8065782. Retrieved on April 7, 2020 KLM Group (2010) Publieksverslag 2009. Retrieved on April 28, 2020 KLM Group (2015) Annual Report 2014. Retrieved on June 9, 2020. KLM Group (2018) Position Paper KLM: Het belang van mainport Schiphol. Retrieved on May 15, 2020 KLM Group (2020) Annual Report 2019. Retrieved on April 28, 2020 KLM (2019a) KLM pakt door met verduurzaming luchtvaart. Retrieved from https://nieuws.klm.com/klm-pakt-door-met-verduurzaming-luchtvaart/#:~:text=Met%20de%20ingebruikname%20van%2093,gezonde%20financi%C3%ABle%20positie%20van%20KLM. on March 9, 2020. KLM (2019b) KLM zet met Nestle weer verdere stap in duurzame vliegtuigbrandstof voor vluchten vanaf Schiphol. Retrieved from https://nieuws.klm.com/klm-pakt-door-met-verduurzaming-luchtvaart on July 1, 2020 KLM (2019c) KLM terug op eerste positive in Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Retrieved form https://nieuws.klm.com/klm-terug-op-eerste-positie-in-dow-jones-sustainability-index/ on July 21, 2020. KLM (2020) KLM, Air France, Delta en Virgin Atlantic breiden hun samenwerking uit. Retrieved from https://nieuws.klm.com/klm-air-france-delta-en-virgin-atlantic-breiden-hun-samenwerking-uit/ on May 11, 2020 KLM (n.d.-a) KLM’s company profile. Retrieved from https://www.klm.com/travel/nl_en/corporate/company_profile.htm on June 15, 2020. KLM (n.d.-b) Flying with KLM partners. Retrieved from https://www.klm.com/travel/nl_en/plan_and_book/ticket_information/flying_with_klm_partners/index.htm on July 5, 2020. KLM (n.d.-c) Boeing 747-400COMBI. Retrieved from https://www.klm.com/travel/bq_en/prepare_for_travel/on_board/our_aircraft/boeing_747_400_combi.htm on July 5, 2020. Kooiman, J., Van Vliet, M. (1993) Governance and Public Management. Retrieved on April 8, 2020. Korsten, A. (2013) Wat ervan terecht komt. Zicht op beleidsevaluatie. Retrieved on February 24, 2020. Lasswell, H.D. (1971) A Pre-view of policy science. DOI: 10.2307/1956564. Retrieved on April 8, 2020.
89
Lee, H., Mo Yang, H. (2013) Strategies for a global logistics and economic hub: Incheon International Airport. DOI: 10.1016/S0969-6997(02)00065-0. Retrieved on February 28, 2020. Lessof, C., Woodfield, K., Bryson, C. (2001) Research methods for policy evaluation. Retrieved on April 10, 2020. Liu, Z., Meng, Q. (2012) Bus-based park-and-ride system: a stochastic model on multimodal network with congestion pricing schemes. DOI: 10.1080/00207721.2012.743617. Retrieved on April 22, 2020. Lohmann, G., Albers, S., Koch, B., Pavlovich, K. (2009) From hub to tourist destination – An explorative study of Singapore and Dubai’s aviation-based transformation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2008.07.004. Retrieved on April 24, 2020. Lu, C., Morrell, P. (2006) Determination and application of environmental costs at different sized airports – Aircraft noise and engine emissions. DOI: 10.1007/s11116-005-2300-y. Retrieved on March 10, 2020. Luchtvaart Nederland (2018) Slim en Duurzaam: Actieplan Luchtvaart Nederland: 35% minder CO2 in 2035. Retrieved on June 21, 2020. Luchtvaartnieuws (2010) Garuda Indonesia landt na zes jaar weer op Schiphol (foto's). Retrieved from https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/2/airlines/garuda-indonesia-landt-na-zes-jaar-weer-op-schiphol-fotos on July 20, 2020 Luchtvaartnieuws (2015) Xiamen Airlines vanaf 26 juli naar Schiphol. Retrieved from https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/2/airlines/xiamen-airlines-vanaf-26-juli-naar-schiphol on July 20, 2020. Luchtvaartnieuws (2016a) Qatar Airways twee keer per dag vanaf Schiphol. Retrieved from https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/2/airlines/qatar-airways-twee-keer-per-dag-vanaf-schiphol on May 11, 2020. Luchtvaartnieuws (2016b) Schiphol verwelkomt drie nieuwe maatschappijen. Retrieved from https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/3/airports/schiphol-verwelkomt-drie-nieuwe-maatschappijen on July 20, 2020. Luchtvaartnieuws (2017) American Airlines geeft Schiphol flinke upgrade met Boeing 777. Retrieved from https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/2/airlines/american-airlines-geeft-schiphol-flinke-upgrade-met-boeing-777 on May 11, 2020. Luchtvaartnieuws (2018a) Turkish Airlines structureel met Boeing 777 naar Schiphol. Retrieved from https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/2/airlines/turkish-airlines-structureel-met-boeing-777-naar-schiphol on May 11, 2020 Luchtvaartnieuws (2018b) Emirates krijgt definitief derde dagelijkse vlucht op Schiphol. Retrieved from https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/2/airlines/emirates-krijgt-definitief-derde-dagelijkse-vlucht-op-schiphol on July 5, 2020 Luchtvaartnieuws (2019a) Air Europa alleen nog met groot materieel naar Schiphol. Retrieved from https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/2/airlines/air-europa-alleen-nog-met-groot-materieel-naar-schiphol on May 11, 2020. Luchtvaartnieuws (2019b) China Southern terug met A380 op Schiphol. Retrieved from https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/2/airlines/china-southern-met-a380-terug-op-schiphol on May 11, 2020. Luchtvaartnieuws (2019c) Emirates 10 jaar actief met passagiersvluchten op Schiphol. Retrieved from https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/2/airlines/emirates-tien-jaar-actief-met-passagiersvluchten-op-schiphol on May 11, 2020. Luchtvaartnieuws (2019d) Luchtvaartorganisaties dringen aan op single European sky. Retrieved from https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/72/algemeen/luchtvaartorganisaties-dringen-aan-op-single-european-sky on June 24, 2020 Luchtvaartnieuws (2020a) Ruim tienduizend verkeersvliegtuigen geparkeerd door coronacrisis. Retrieved from https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/2/airlines/ruim-tienduizend-verkeersvliegtuigen-geparkeerd-door-coronacrisis on April 1, 2020.
90
Luchtvaartnieuws (2020b) Vliegverkeer Nederland voor het eerst in zeven jaar afgenomen. Retrieved from https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/2/airlines/vliegverkeer-nederland-voor-het-eerst-in-zeven-jaar-afgenomen on April 1, 2020. Luchtvaartnieuws (2020c) Saudi Arabian Airlines stelt lijndienst Schiphol uit. Retrieved from https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/2/airlines/saudi-arabian-airlines-stelt-lijndienst-naar-schiphol-uit on July 20, 2020. Lufthansa (n.d.) Lufthansa rail & fly. Retrieved from https://www.lufthansa.com/us/en/lufthansa-express-rail-fly on July 5, 2020. Maldonado, E.A., Maitland, C.F., Tapia, A.H. (2010) Collaborative systems development in disaster relief: the impact of multi-level governance. DOI: 10.1007/s10796-009-9166-z. Retrieved on June 30, 2020 Manshanden, W., Bus, L. (2019) Luchtvaart uit Balans. Retrieved on February 24, 2020 McManners, P.J. (2016) Developing policy integrating sustainability: A case study into aviation. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.016. Retrieved on March 10, 2020. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2009) Evaluation policy and guidelines for evaluations. Retrieved on June 30, 2020 Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment & Ministry of Transport and Water Management (2009) Luchtvaartnota 2009. Retrieved on March 10, 2020. Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment & Ministry of Economic Affairs (2016) Schiphol Action Programme. Retrieved on May 13, 2020. Ministry of Infrastructure & Water Management (2020a) Kamerbrief ‘drie economische studies op het gebied van luchtvaart’. Retrieved on February 26, 2020. Ministry of infrastructure & Water Management (2020b) Aviation Policy Note 2020 – 2050. Retrieved on June 26, 2020 Ministry of Infrastructure & Water Management (n.d.) Luchtvaartnota 2020-2050. Retrieved on February 26, 2020 Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water management & Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (2009) Luchtvaartnota 2009. Retrieved on April 28, 2020 Mitchell, R., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J. (1997) Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principles of who and what really counts. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022105. Retrieved on June 11, 2020. Nahum, E., Hadas, Y., Kalish, A. (2018) A combined freight and passenger planes cargo allocation model. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2018.12.203. Retrieved on May 8, 2020. NASA (2008) NASA’s quiet aircraft technology program. Retrieved on March 10, 2020. NH Nieuws (2019) Is de oproep aan KLM om de Boeing 747 uit de vloot te halen haalbaar? Retrieved from https://www.nhnieuws.nl/nieuws/248566/is-de-oproep-aan-klm-om-de-boeing-747-uit-de-vloot-te-halen-haalbaar. on March 9, 2020 NH Nieuws (2020) Versneld einde voor KLM's Boeing 747 vanwege coronacrisis. Retrieved from https://www.nhnieuws.nl/nieuws/263635/versneld-einde-voor-klms-boeing-747-vanwege-coronacrisis on May 8, 2020. Nieuwe Oogst (2020) 'Luchtvaart mag alleen groeien als uitstoot stikstof daalt'. Retrieved from https://www.nieuweoogst.nl/nieuws/2020/01/15/luchtvaart-mag-alleen-groeien-als-uitstoot-stikstof-daalt on March 9, 2020. Nijkamp, P. (1999) Sustainable transport: new research and policy challenge for the next millennium. DOI: 10.1017/S1062798700004476. Retrieved on March 10, 2020 Noble, H., Smith, J. (2015) Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Retrieved on February 26, 2020. Nohrstedt D., Weible, C.M. (2010) The Logic of Policy Change after Crisis: Proximity and Subsystem Interaction. DOI: 10.2202/1944-4079.1035. Retrieved on June 30, 2020.
91
O’Kelly, M. (1998) A Geographer's Analysis of Hub-and-Spoke Networks. DOI: 10.1016/S0966-6923(98)00010-6. Retrieved on April 23, 2020. Pagoni, I., Psaraki-Kalouptsidi, V. (2016) The impact of carbon emissions fees on passenger demand and air fares: a game theoretic approach. DOI: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.04.004. Retrieved of March 10, 2020. Pai, V. (2010) On the factors that affect airline flight frequency and aircraft size. DOI: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2009.08.001. Retrieved on July 6, 2020. Parliament.com (n.d.-a) Kabinet Rutte I. Retrieved from https://www.parlement.com/id/vij7e8jky5lw/kabinet_rutte_i_2010_2012 on June 17, 2020. Parliament.com (n.d.-b) Kabinet Rutte II. Retrieved from https://www.parlement.com/id/vj47glycfix9/kabinet_rutte_ii_2012_2017 on June 17, 2020. Pearce, D.G. (2001) Towards a regional analysis of tourism in Southeast Asia. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-043695-1.50007-8. Retrieved on April 23, 2020. PEP The Hague (n.d.) De beleidstermijnen en de beleidscyclus. Retrieved on April 3, 2020 Planning Agency for the Living Environment (2013) Kennis maken met decentrale overheden. Retrieved on July 2, 2020 Polk, P., Bilotkach, V. (2013) The assessment of market power of hub airports. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2016126. Retrieved on February 28, 2020. Porter, M.E. (2000) Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. DOI: 10.1177/089124240001400105. Retrieved on June 30, 2020. Postorino, M.N., Mantecchini, L., Paganelli, F. (2019) Improving taxi-out operations at city airports to reduce CO2 emissions. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.09.002. Retrieved on March 10, 2020 Preston, H., Lee, S., Hooper, P., (2012) The inclusion of the aviation sector within the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme: What are the prospects for a more sustainable aviation industry? DOI: 10.1016/j.envdev.2012.03.008. Retrieved on February 28, 2020. Rendondi, R., Malighetti, P., Paleari, S. (2011) Hub competition and travel times in the world-wide airport network. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.11.010. Retrieved on February 28, 2020. Reynorlds-Feighan, A. (2018) US feeder airlines: industry structure, networks and performance. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.08.009, Retrieved on July 20, 2020. Royal Schiphol Group (2010a) Annual Report 2009. Retrieved on April 29, 2020 Royal Schiphol Group (2010b) Traffic Review 2009. Retrieved on May 1, 2020 Royal Schiphol Group (2011a) Annual Report 2010. Retrieved on May 19, 2020 Royal Schiphol Group (2011b) Facts and Figure 2010. Retrieved on June 23, 2020 Royal Schiphol Group (2015a) Annual Report 2014. Retrieved on June 6, 2020 Royal Schiphol Group (2015b) Traffic Review 2014. Retrieved on May 1, 2020 Royal Schiphol Group (2016) Traffic Review 2015: Retrieved on May 1, 2020 Royal Schiphol Group (2017) Traffic Review 2016: Retrieved on May 1, 2020 Royal Schiphol Group (2018) Traffic Review 2017: Retrieved on May 1, 2020 Royal Schiphol Group (2019) Traffic Review 2018: Retrieved on May 1, 2020 Royal Schiphol Group (2020a) Annual Report 2019. Retrieved on March 9, 2020.
92
Royal Schiphol Group (2020b) Traffic Review 2019. Retrieved on May 1, 2020 Royal Schiphol Group (2020c) Schiphol lanceert actieprogramma stikstof. Retrieved from https://nieuws.schiphol.nl/schiphol-lanceert-actieprogramma-stikstof on March 9, 2020 Royal Schiphol Group (n.d.-a) Promoting more sustainable aviation. Retrieved from https://www.schiphol.nl/en/schiphol-group/page/promoting-more-sustainable-aviation/ on March 9, 2020. Royal Schiphol Group (n.d.-b) Mission: connecting the Netherlands. Retrieved from https://www.schiphol.nl/en/schiphol-group/page/strategy/ on June 15, 2020. Royal Schiphol Group (n.d.-c) New airport charges at Schiphol encouraging cleaner, quieter aircraft. Retrieved from https://news.schiphol.com/new-airport-charges-at-schiphol-encouraging-cleaner-quieter-aircraft/ on June 21, 2020’ Royal Schiphol Group (n.d.-d) Ground ridges reflects noise. Retrieved from https://www.schiphol.nl/en/schiphol-as-a-neighbour/page/landscape-design-plan-to-combat-noise-nuisance/ on June 23, 2020. Royal Schiphol Group (n.d.-e) Royal Schiphol Group: Connecting your world. Retrieved from https://www.schiphol.nl/nl/schiphol-group/ on May 12, 2020. Royal Schiphol Group (n.d.-f) Shareholder Information. Retrieved from https://www.schiphol.nl/en/schiphol-group/page/shareholder-information/ on May 12, 2020 Schäfer, A. (2010). Multi-level governance. Retrieved on March 11, 2020. SEO (2015). Economisch belang van de hubfunctie van Amsterdam Schiphol. Retrieved on December 24, 2019. SEO (2018). Secundaire slothandel op Schiphol. Retrieved on March 11, 2020 Shaw, S. (1993) Airline marketing and management. Retrieved on April 23, 2020. SkyTeam (n.d.) About Us. Retrieved from https://www.skyteam.com/nl/about on March 4, 2020. Sorensen, E., Torfing, J. (2009) Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01753.x. Retrieved on July 1, 2020. Steer Davies Gleave (2011) Impact assessment of revisions to Regulation 95/93. Retrieved on April 25, 2020. Stoker, G. (1998) Governance as theory: five propositions. Retrieved on February 28, 2020. The Balance (2020) 2008 Financial Crisis: Causes, Costs, and Whether It Could Happen Again. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/2008-financial-crisis-3305679 on May 8, 2020. Troquete, R. (2020) Improving Airport Taxi Systems. Exploring challenges and opportunities based on the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol case. Retrieved on June 23, 2020. Trouw (2020a) De opening van vliegveld Lelystad raakt nog verder uit zicht. Retrieved from https://www.trouw.nl/politiek/de-opening-van-vliegveld-lelystad-raakt-nog-verder-uit-zicht~bab5b0cb/ on June 26, 2020 Trouw (2020b) Schipholbaas: Pas in 2023 weer maximaal aantal vluchten. Retrieved from https://www.trouw.nl/economie/schipholbaas-pas-in-2023-weer-maximaal-aantal-vluchten~b5ed111b/ on June 30, 2020. TU Delft (2017) KLM en TU Delft slaan handen ineen voor duurzame luchtvaart. Retrieved from https://www.tudelft.nl/2019/tu-delft/klm-en-tu-delft-slaan-handen-ineen-om-luchtvaart-verder-te-verduurzamen/ on July 1, 2020 Van Donselaar, T. (2019) Amsterdam Schiphol – Delta Air Lines’ European Gateway. Retrieved from https://aeronauticsonline.com/amsterdam-schiphol-delta-air-lines-european-gateway/ on April 24, 2020 Van Thiel, S. (2014). Research Methods in Public Adminstration and Public Management. An Introduction. Retrieved on April 2, 2020
93
Vidovic, A., Stimac, I., Vince, D. (2013) Development of Business Models of low-cost Airlines. DOI: 10.7708/ijtte.2013.3(1).07. Retrieved on May 8, 2020. Vining, A., Weimer, D. (2015) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). Retrieved on February 25, 2020 Volkskrant (1997) Schiphol ’s nachts gesloten voor lawaaivliegtuigen. Retrieved from https://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/schiphol-s-nachts-gesloten-voor-lawaaivliegtuigen~be923fa0/ on June 26, 2020. Volkskrant (2017) KLM en Schiphol werkten samen om concurrenten op luchthaven te dwarsbomen. Retrieved from https://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/klm-en-schiphol-werkten-samen-om-concurrenten-op-luchthaven-te-dwarsbomen on April 8 , 2020. VVD, CDA (2010) Vrijheid en verantwoordelijkheid. Retrieved on June 19, 2020 VVD, PVDA (2012) Bruggen Slaan. Retrieved on June 19, 2020. VVD, CDA, D66 & ChristenUnie (2017) Vertrouwen in de toekomst. Retrieved on June 15, 2020 WHO (n.d.) Q&A on coronavirus (COVID-19)? Retrieved from https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub on July 5, 2020.