'The Owl and the Pussy-cat went to sea in a beautiful, pea-green boat'. Unlikely, yes, but a lot more realistic than millions of passengers, an airport and all Dutch airlines shifting to the middle of the North Sea.
Yet a new airport to be built on an artificial island off the coast is one of the more popular ideas being pushed forward to maintain aviation development at Amsterdam. Other alternatives now being mooted include a hub system to be built in Ijseel lake near Schiphol, and a short, parallel runway to be built at the existing airport, to complement a fifth runway scheduled for opening in 2003.
The expansion ideas are typically Dutch efforts to combat the stringent noise restriction plans set to be introduced by the country's government. Growth at Schiphol will be severely fettered by new noise restrictions, proposed under the Airport Utilisation Plan for 1998, released on 6 November. The government was due to make a final decision on the proposals on 15 December.
The plan's main suggestions include a ban between 1800 and 0800 on Chapter II aircraft with engines having a bypass ratio of 2 or less, plus the Tupolev Tu-154M and Ilyushin Il-76. New Chapter II flights will not be permitted between 2300 and 0600, and only previously scheduled Chapter II flights will be permitted during the day. There will also be surcharges on landing fees for Chapter II operations.
To add to the bill of misfortune, Schiphol is to become a slot-restricted airport from 1 April 1998, with landing slots apportioned by an independent administrator. Unlike other slot-restricted airports, such as London/Heathrow and Frankfurt, the restrictive system at Schiphol will be based on environmental and not capacity grounds. 'Schiphol will be the first European airport to impose slot control to control noise and not capacity,' says SH&E's Frank Wade, who advises Schiphol.
The proposed restrictions are causing commotion among KLM, its affiliates Martinair and Transavia Airlines, and Dutch independent Air Holland. KLM estimates that at least 4,000 travellers on its own and its partner systems will be delayed by the limits each day. 'KLM certainly cannot develop - this is a major barrier to KLM growth,' declares Wade.
The four airlines consider the plan 'with considerable alarm'. Some five KLM aircraft as well as foreign airlines' aircraft will be grounded in the summer and charter fares will soar. 'The current enforcement methods will generate an irreversible downward spiral, barring Schiphol's further development as a mainport and affecting the quality of the product offered to passengers and shippers, since connections will be fewer and less convenient,' says KLM.
Poor KLM. The restrictions are the Wicked Witch set to spoil the airline's fairy tale development at Schiphol. Some 60 per cent of KLM's business comes from transfer passengers and the airline has developed a sophisticated hubbing system at Schiphol, becoming 'a master at developing hub schedules', says Wade. KLM coordinates feeder schedules with international flights in a system using four major waves and two smaller waves per day. The airport has undergone dramatic growth, with 27.8 million passengers, 1,080,000 tons of air cargo and 322,000 air transport movements in 1996, expected to increase to 31.5 million passengers and 353,000 air transport movements in 1997. The hub serves 120 European and 110 intercontinental destinations.
Further expansion is underway. Schiphol hopes to accelerate construction of its fifth runway, with approaches and climb-outs over sparsely populated areas, prior to the scheduled 2003 date, and new piers and lounges are being built while existing facilities are expanded.
All this adds up to an 'efficient factory that you can't use to its full extent but still have to pay for,' says Wade. 'Why we are going to build all this if we can't expand any more?' queries Léon Verhallen, director passenger marketing at Schiphol.
Regardless of the expansion plan, the new proposals will mean far fewer flights in and out of Amsterdam than KLM and other airlines have applied for. The interim flight coordinator, KLM's H Wijkhuizen, is to issue 360,000 flight movements for 1998 - 10 per cent less than the 400,000 permits requested by airlines. Not only does this translate into 800 flights per month fewer than airlines had planned, but national carriers will have to bear the brunt of the damage. 'Foreign airlines' grandfather rights will allow them to keep at least the same number of flights as in the previous year. The home carrier will have to make the sacrifices,' explains a KLM spokesman.
The restrictions are even putting KLM's partnership with Northwest Airlines under strain. Northwest has publicly pointed out that a clause in KLM and Northwest's new 10 year partnership allows Northwest to withdraw if Schiphol cannot serve as a 'functional hub'.
So how do KLM and its partners mean to stop this potential nightmare? Talking, or 'constructive dialogue', is the first step. 'We're trying to talk sense into the Ministries. The Ministry of Environment doesn't realise the economic ramifications of their quasi-decisions,' says Peter Legro, Transavia's president and CEO. Legro vehemently objects to the Environment Minister Annemarie Jorritsma's 'well that's too bad then' reply to the questions of the economic and employment problems the plan would create. 'The whole Dutch economy would suffer, not just KLM,' says a London-based analyst. 'The economic benefit of Schiphol's development has yet to be put against the economic impact of constraining the airport,' says Wade.
The four airlines are pushing for the only criterion for noise evaluation to be the number of houses affected and not the shape of the noise zone around Schiphol. 'We may sometimes trespass the sound contours around the airport but the footprint of engine noise is outdated,' says Legro. 'The parabolic lines were drawn up years ago - the problem is that they have since been anchored into law.' A car park, a hamburger restaurant and an industrial park are some of the non-residential areas affected under the current noise zone limits.
The airlines further point out that their efforts, combined with those of Schiphol airport authority and air traffic control, have already reduced the number of houses affected in the so-called 35Ke noise monitoring zone around Schiphol (see box). If the maximum number of aircraft movements permitted in 1998 is set at 360,000, the number of houses affected by aircraft noise in the 35Ke zone would be 8,600, well below the 15,100 maximum set by the government, says KLM.
The plethora of problems at Schiphol is pushing KLM to look for an alternative hub, with current favourites being London/Stansted, Milan/Malpensa and Brussels.
While the likes of British Airways can successfully split operations, unlike KLM they are backed by vibrant home markets. Despite its proximity, Brussels 'would not make sense' as a second KLM hub, says Wade. 'KLM would be serving a similar home market and would have to split its operations, which is costly,' he continues.
Wade also dismisses Stansted as an option, despite KLM subsidiary Air UK's operation there. Feed from the UKhas been an important element of growth at Schiphol, he points out, and 'moving to Stansted would cripple KLM's capacity to operate from Schiphol. What's more, KLM would still be working with the same catchment area with the operating expense of two hubs,' says Wade.
Milan is viewed as a far better prospect, which would add a new catchment area and provide a distinct hub operation. KLM is currently in deep partnership discussions with Alitalia. The Italian flag carrier was expected to decide on an alliance partner from a shortlist of KLM, Air France and Swissair by the end of 1997.
A logical move for KLM would be to develop a hub in southern Europe to deepen its Asian reach. 'There is still a Spanish option. Barcelona is underutilised and KLM could even join with Spanair or Air Europa,' says Wade.
Staying closer to home, a number of expansion projects are under review to permit KLM, its partners and Schiphol to grow. The noise restrictions will be softened by the additional capacity provided by the fifth runway at Schiphol in 2003. Under current proposals, the 'remote airport model' would offer capacity of some 50 million passengers per year and would be connected to Schiphol via a high-speed magnetic train.
While the airport in the sea option would certainly not affect any houses, the development cost is high, at DFl 24-32 billion (US$12-16 billion) and would not be completed before 2014, leaving Schiphol in limbo until then. The private sector would have to foot the bill unless the government paid a subsidiary.
Yet the 'seaport' proposal is unearthing environmental and practical problems. While the creation of the artificial island would slow the erosion of the North Sea coast and encourage sealife, the airport would disturb the southerly migration of birds, whose flight path is directly over the Netherlands.
The magnetic train would also be unable to handle cargo because of the acceleration and deceleration, and loading and offloading time needed, points out Wade.
The government is also considering building a hub system in Ijssel lake, 10km north of Schiphol. A further alternative under review is a short, parallel runway at the existing Schiphol site. Although the runway would be built in unused cargo space, the land would have to be acquired by the state and would raise land-issue rights.
A far more attractive alternative, as far as KLM is concerned, is a change of government. The airline hopes that elections in May will oust Jorritsma, the most ardent advocate of the restrictions, from her post as environment minister and introduce ministers who are more amenable to their needs.
The final solution is for KLM to make the best of what's available and adapt its aircraft accordingly. The KLM group is adapting the engines on its Boeing 737s and adjusting flaps on its B737s and B747s to reduce noise.
Alexander ter Kuile of Amsterdam-based strategic research company Stratagem argues that 'growth is still very much a possibility' if KLM introduces the quietest aircraft available, such as Chapter III B737s or B757s. 'If KLM were to substitute quieter aircraft it would gain extra landing slots and could increase the number of seats per movement - it's fully possible to continue within the system,' says ter Kuile.
Whatever the final solution, KLM needs to act fast and make more noise to the right authorities about the impact which making less noise will have on one of Europe's leading flag carriers. 'KLM should be more aggressive in their attempts to change government regulation', says Wade. KLM's competitors should watch out, too, in case their governments try to follow the Dutch lead.
Source: Airline Business
