TheChek News Flow

Open skies model for aviation is colliding with climate change

Dutch plans to reduce growth of Schiphol airport are a proxy for the debate over the future of the airline industry

Management at Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport should have been over the moon last week at news that the Dutch government was suspending plans for a substantial cut to flights from next summer on environmental grounds. 

The scheme was one of the most aggressive reductions to future growth faced by any airport in normal times; the government was proposing an 8 per cent cut in capacity at the world’s third-busiest airport, in order to bring it into line with national laws on noise and pollution limits. 

But instead of celebrating with airlines, which had spent the past year challenging the plan in court, Schiphol’s interim chief executive Ruud Sondag worried that the victory would be shortlived. Speaking at the weekend just days before the national election, he warned that some parties were looking for far more drastic cuts. And, as local residents get “angrier and angrier…things could end up much worse for Schiphol and [we could] end up with far fewer flights”, he said.

Sondag is right to be worried, and not just because of the ire of local residents. Dutch efforts to push ahead with the plan over the past year in the face of legal challenges have become a proxy for the debate over whether global aviation should continue to enjoy unfettered growth, even as its chances of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 recede.

It may even herald a succession of trade rows as international aviation agreements collide with Europe’s environmental ambitions and national laws. 

The Netherlands plan was ill-advised from the start, seeking to fast-forward established procedures on noise reduction by introducing an “experimental law” alongside the usual EU oversight. To be fair, the government was under pressure from regulators, as for many years, Schiphol violated rules on noise and nitrogen levels. But in attempting to accelerate the procedures the Dutch opened the door to retaliation, from the US in particular. 

Washington wasted no time in threatening to curtail KLM’s access to US airports after it emerged that American low-cost airline JetBlue would be squeezed out of Schiphol from April — along with 23 other international carriers.

It is conceivable US retaliation could even have extended to airlines beyond the Netherlands. It argued the Dutch had violated the collective EU-US Open Skies agreement by reducing capacity before exploring all options to reduce noise, as international aviation practice requires. 

And Washington was not alone. Canada and others complained too. No surprise that EU officials, fresh from a meeting with their US counterparts on Monday, warned the Dutch government they were minded to launch infringement procedures. Within 24 hours, the plan to cut capacity in April was shelved. 

This is not the first time that a US intervention has prompted a change to environmental measures in Europe. More than a decade ago the EU suspended plans to require all airlines flying into and out of the bloc to use its emissions trading scheme after Washington banned US airlines from participating.

But these incidents are not likely to be the last. In Europe the public and political mood on aviation seems to be hardening as the deadline for net zero promises approaches. It is clear that without a radical breakthrough in technology, an exponential rise in the production of sustainable aviation fuel, or strong action from governments, the sector will fall short of its promise. Climate Action Tracker, an independent scientific project, even suggests that given predictions for passenger growth, emissions from international aviation could double between 2019 and 2050 without concerted action. 

As a result, some politicians are increasingly inclined to discourage unnecessary flying. The Netherlands tripled its air passenger tax from this year to almost €30 per flight. Denmark is proposing a green tax on all flights. France where a recent survey suggested a majority of 18-24 year olds favour limiting flights to four a lifetime, has been particularly assertive. The transport minister earlier this year proposed a hefty fuel tax on private jets. More recently he has proposed a new tax on flights to raise funds for expanding the country’s rail service. And France, Belgium and the Netherlands are reported to be supporting proposals for a minimum fare on flights.

“This is why the Netherlands is so important. It sets a precedent across Europe and across the world,” says Keith Glatz, senior vice-president at lobby group Airlines for America.

Rich People’s Problems: The best things in life are anything but free

So how can you continue to enjoy the luxuries life has to offer?

I’m sorry to bring you bad news but the song lyrics “The best things in life are free” aren’t true. Much more accurate is the title of the song, made famous by the Beatles — “Money (That’s what I want)”.

In fact, nothing is free. Yes, the trees look amazing at this time of year. The autumnal hue with their spectrum of reds, oranges and golden yellow leaves. But who pays for the appalling leaf blowers, talented tree surgeons and grounds staff who make your local park presentable? Your council tax does.  

Seaside air? Yes, it’s lovely and invigorating, but most of you will pay to get there. Or, in my case, I’ll have the second home to enjoy — and maintain at some expense. 

The water from the tap outside my beach hut may be “free” but the hut’s ground rent pays for that. And who wants to have a beach hut unless you’re able to quaff a few bottles of fizz of an evening? Along with everything else, the price of a decent bottle of bubbly is on the up too. 

Being British, we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief. The NHS is free at the point of use. Behind the scenes of course, it hoovers up a big chunk of our taxes. And with those waiting lists, that’s why I choose to pay for private health insurance. I cut the cost in half by electing not to be able to use every hospital across the UK. 

What about the joy of owning a dog? Even that waggy tail costs a fortune. The price of dog food, poo bags, the vet’s bills and insurance all adds up. The hound needs regular grooming and wears a very smart collar from Mungo & Maud. 

But I’m not here to moan — well, not entirely. In these pressing times, how can one take better financial choices while still enjoying the best that life has to offer?

Start at home. Have two of everything, they used to say. Much has been written about the rise and rise of the two-dishwasher kitchen. I love this idea. Not because I want to show off. I just hate emptying the dishwasher. 

I want two so I can have one for clean and one for dirty. So I never have to unload it, avoiding domestic arguments with the other half. In every relationship one person will stack a dishwasher like a Swedish architect. And the other is like a raccoon on meth. I’m the raccoon in our relationship. 

To achieve the dishwasher double, you’re unlikely to pop online and buy the cheapest Beko for £239. Miele is the standard, setting you back around £950. Except no one with a half-decent kitchen wants a white machine. That, along with fluorescent strip lighting and Laura Ashley tiles, went out in the early eighties. So, you’ll either order the one with a matching front panel or stainless steel. Goodbye £1,769, times two. 

There is another way. The two-drawer, single unit Fisher & Paykel. A wonderful bit of kit. Two drawers can be put on independent cycles. £1,700 well spent. And remodelling costs avoided too. A double win! You can fill it quickly and put it on before the other half notices. 

Travel is another cash redistribution opportunity. I used to “Uber Exec” it everywhere. Why do that when you can use its “business comfort” options that are at least 10 per cent cheaper and usually a decent car (unless an awful MG or Kia slips through the net)? There’s more legroom, and it’s only around 20 per cent pricier than the basic service. 

Or better still — shudder — I can use public transport. I may as well save money and time by using the Tube, leaving more free cash for lunch. 

Money may be limited but it simply requires the deckchairs to be rearranged on occasion. Spend the same but do more.

James Max

However, it’s international travel where my attitudes have really changed. For years, British Airways really was the World’s Favourite Airline and mine too. These days it’s just a no-frills airline with higher ticket prices. 

The seats are supremely uncomfortable and, because I’m no longer a gold or silver loyalty card holder, I tend to be seated at the back of the plane, next to the rear gunner. Mountain air isn’t free either, but I need my annual fix. How much? BA want to charge me £798 for two return flights to the Alps — not even at the times I want to travel. 

To cut a long story short, on my last trip I booked easyJet at £143, return — at the times I wanted and with reserved seating. That’s for two of us. Leaving £655 to spend in the mountains — mostly on lunch.

Money may be limited but it simply requires the deckchairs to be rearranged on occasion. Spend the same but do more. Even the dog is economising by eating supermarket own-brand. He loves it!  

It saves at least £30 a year, going halfway towards that swanky collar. And we bought a set of dog clippers for £15 to save on the £40 groomer sessions. Followers of this column will know that my black American Express Centurion Card costs a fortune, annually. But use those points, take advantage of the extras and freebies and your cash will go further. 

Having splashed out on various “essentials” over the year, I will get my rental car for the mountain trip on points. The fizz at the beach hut will be funded by “free” credits at Clos19 and Harvey Nicks. But all of this takes work. Instead of simply having more money and hosing it around, finding ways to use what you have more efficiently is something I can buy into. 

I’m not about to give up the fancy lunches, champagne-fuelled parties or far-flung holidays. I don’t need to if I am a little wiser about the journey and the choices taken along the way. The best things in life can be affordable when you take good financial decisions. Thankfully, I’m a columnist, not a lyricist.

Apple CEO Tim Cook says that he is determined his successor will come from within the company, and is working to give the board several options.

Tim Cook said in 2021 that he will probably be leaving Apple in the next ten years, and it's been reported that of course the company has succession plans. Any corporation would, but Apple was famously criticized for how secretive it was about finding a successor to Steve Jobs, and the firm is still not talking publicly about Cook's replacement.

Now in an interview with BBC podcast "Dua Lipa: At Your Service," Tim Cook has revealed that there are multiple succession plans being worked on.

"Now we're a company that believes in working on succession plans," he said, "and so we have very detailed succession plans."

"Because something that's unpredictable can always happen," he continued. "I could step off the wrong kerb tomorrow. Hopefully that doesn't happen."

Interviewer Dua Lipa pressed Cook on who was in line for succession, but while he wouldn't name anyone, he revealed there is more than one possibility.

"I can't say [a name]," he said. "But I would say my job is to prepare several people for the ability to succeed."

"I really want the person to come from within Apple,the next CEO," he continued, "And so that's my role is to make sure that there's several for the board to pick from."

Cook wouldn't elaborate on his comment about leaving within ten years, and Lipa asked if he would be at Apple in 2050 to see the impact of the firm's environmental work.

"2050 might be a stretch," he said. "I don't know how long I'll be there."

"I love it there and I can't envision my life without being there," he continued. "And so I'll be there for a while."