As reported by Dutch media yesterday, Eindhoven Airport (EHEH) will start to ban business and general aviation from 2026. This decision was made, in order to reduce noise and CO2 pollution. Only exceptions will be made for full-electric general aviation flights. Out of the current 41.500 flights per year, Eindhoven handles only 1.000 private flights. Therefore, the airport expects to have 40.500 flights per year as from 2026. (Source)
The decision surprised me a bit, however, Amsterdam-Schiphol (EHAM) made a similar decision a few months ago. They want to reduce private jet movements by 40% already per April 2024 (source), and completely ban private jets by 2025 or 2026. Schiphol did however not state that it wants to ban all GA in general, it was seen as a clear sign against private jets and/or “small business traffic”. Possibly, they want to continue serving GA up to the scale of a PC-12 or so, but that is nowere stated officially. It is also not clear if Schiphol is allowed to ban private jets at all, as Dutch media have already reported that international aviation laws might prevent a complete ban on private jets and/or flights. (Source)
Eindhoven was never friendly to GA. The landing fees for small GA were extremely high, even higher than Amsterdam-Schiphol, so it might not be a real loss for us ‘small GA’. The airport is however the home of the Eindhovense Aeroclub. Their existence on EHEH is therefore endangered.
It seems that general aviation is in a kind of negative spiral in the Netherlands. I’m not sure how much Dutch GA is affected by these new “plans” in daily reality, but as seen from abroad, it feels that the Netherlands has become hostile against GA. How long would it take, until the first GA-field has to close down due to noise or CO2 pollution? Does the Dutch government thinks that electric GA is widely available from 2026?
Sounds like we need to aggressively work on our battery technology. Sadly these kinds of “mind viruses” spread quickly around the world.
Given the current state of Dutch politics and the likelihood that this months elections will most likely result in an anti aviation coalition I am afraid the future is not bright. Hilversum continues to be under threat, the Farmers Citizen Movement who are likely to do very well in the elections have said publicly that they think Lelystad should be closed and turned into housing. The New Social Contract party is anti aviation, the Christian Democrats are pro-farmer. The Greens are against everything. If it was not for my age I would probably be looking for a friendlier location
Peter_Mundy wrote:
If it was not for my age I would probably be looking for a friendlier location
That’s the best age for a relocation :)
Having said that, these days any location will give you one or two reasons for concern.
Goal: Reduce CO2 emissions.
Distribution of CO2 emissions: 99% Airline, 1% GA
Action: Ban GA
Result Public Relations: Eindhoven Airport is saving the planet
Result Actual: Nothing
👍👍👍
Probably the most BS hypocrisy ever in the aviation world ! Just a margin optimisation exercise masked behind a thin layer of green paint.
This political landscape described above is, let’s say, very interesting 
Snoopy wrote:
Result Actual: Nothing
You are absolutely right with one exception – it will show the public (most don’t understand anything about CO2 Aviation emissions) they are doing something to “save the planet” and improve their quality of life.
Of course, it won’t work. But meanwhile, people will think politicians actually care. This comes straight from politicians playbook.
Reminds me of the ban on plastic straws. Solved no problem. The public got really happy. Except that, now, people started to realise the problem is still there.
Snoopy wrote:
Goal: Reduce CO2 emissions.
Distribution of CO2 emissions: 99% Airline, 1% GAAction: Ban GA
Result Public Relations: Eindhoven Airport is saving the planet
Result Actual: Nothing
Global percentage of all aviation – Airlines and GA – is 2%.
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation
So we are 1% of 2% or .02%.
I’m guessing replacing one or two coal-fired power plants in China would result in a bigger reduction in CO2 output than all personal flying in Europe.
This problem is very easy to solve. Require all CO2 emissions to have offsets somewhere else on the planet. Make this happen at the source of the production of the fuel – be it coal, oil, wood, or gas. Easy! :)
Snoopy wrote:
Goal: Reduce CO2 emissions.
Distribution of CO2 emissions: 99% Airline, 1% GA
@Snoopy, I think you are exaggerating the %% for the GA! :)
If the public realises that there is a difference between General Aviation & Business Aviation (which actually operates under CAT rules!), then it would be even more “interesting”. If Eindhoven was to ban non-scheduled CAT or Transport-category aircraft on any rules, then I’d understand that they want kill off the traffic with most fuel burn per person. But I’m probably being naive thinking that someone made that analysis or even makes the distinction between the two…
