Obviously reduction of CO2 emissions is just an excuse here, and no one who can think straight will fall for it. The only thing needed to do is to show the public numbers of CO2 per flight, which will increase dramatically the next years. If they are stupid enough to take the bait, then they also have to explain publicly why this is so, and why they aren’t doing anything at all practically speaking. The real reason is to reduce cost. A small plane cost as much for the ATC as a big plane, but pays much less. It’s not cost effective.
They show you the finger. You show them the finger, and then some. It’s the only language they understand. Make them appear bad in the eyes of the public, again and again and again.
I would imagine that Midden Zeeland benefits from a permanent customs prescence in the port of Vlissingen – a short drive away. For Texel they would need to take the ferry from Den Helder and back – half a day gone.
Aveling wrote:
Midden Zeeland, apparently under the same threat
I spoke to MZ last month about this and they said that this was not an issue, lets hope that they are correct
Given we are on the eve of elections and the formation of a new government could take 12 – 18 months I would not think there is any immediate problem with TEXEL
Going back to airports in Holland, is there any news regarding C&I at Texel and Midden Zeeland? A couple of months ago Texel were relying on the paralysed Government to stave off the removal of Police attendance announced for the end of the summer, meaning the end of UK flights. Midden Zeeland, apparently under the same threat, were more bullish because of continuous Police presence in the locality. Texel is important for UK flights to Scandinavia, while MZ offer by far the best terms for prior notice going to central Europe.
It’s probably also through that no CO2 emissions are saved by this. Not even 0.02%. Because that traffic probably doesn’t cease to fly. Instead it will fly to a different airport and all that has happened is that the CO2 emissions is move to a different location.
It’s also possible that this other airport is further away from the destination, meaning additional fuel burn to get there, followed by additional ground transport emissions to get the passengers to their final destination. So it could result in ADDITIONAL emissions.
I do object to the “WhatAboutory” and passing the blame to someone else so that we can do nothing. But the simple fact is that GA doesn’t really had an alternative. Ground transportation can be electrified. There is no truly green alternative for GA. Electric planes just don’t have enough range and load carrying to be useable.
Until there is a realistic green alternative for GA, I think it should be accepted given its very low emissions.
Frans wrote:
If everybody is only putting their finger on someone else, nobody might take action after all.
That actually a common argument in the Swedish debate – and I would think in most small countries. That our contribution to the overall CO2 emission is so small that in the big picture it doesn’t matter what we do. Of course if everyone thinks so then nothing will happen.
Actually, it is worse.
Goal: Make more money.
Distribution of movements: 5% GA, 95% Airline
Distribution of revenue: 1% GA, 99% Airline
More movements make more work and/or annoy neighbours and/or exhaust capacity
Action: Ban GA so we can have more Airline movements.
PR Result: We are saving the planet
Actual result: Increased CO2 emissions.
Peter_Mundy wrote:
Hilversum continues to be under threat, the Farmers Citizen Movement who are likely to do very well in the elections have said publicly that they think Lelystad should be closed and turned into housing.Oh dear, extremely sad to hear. That means, the worst-case scenario would be the closure of both Hilversum and Lelystad, so GA is practically banned from Amsterdam’s agglomeration… As I’m still a Dutch citizen, I’ve already voted by mail for a aviation friendly party, even though I’m not so into politics. I don’t think Lelystad will actually close down, but further restrictions might of course come into place, which is also extremely bad for that region.
Global percentage of all aviation – Airlines and GA – is 2%.I like what you’re saying, but be careful with that argumentation, as only 10% of the world’s population has ever flown, and most of them are living in the western world. Even less of the world’s population ever flew in a small GA aircraft, so that .02% of GA traffic in this example might be caused by just a few people.
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation
So we are 1% of 2% or .02%.
Action: Ban GAExactly. This also counts for this ridiculous speed limit on Dutch highways of 100 km/h during the entire day. This was done to reduce nitrogen pollution on paper, but in reality, it didn’t change a thing of course. It does however show that the Dutch government can take incredibly silly decisions and are a real threat to GA. Banning GA doesn’t even look good on paper, but out of envy and resentment, it’s indeed good for the public image. “We’re doing something to safe the planet.”
Result Public Relations: Eindhoven Airport is saving the planet
Result Actual: Nothing
