For decades, the same refrain has been heard in the Netherlands: Schiphol must remain large, otherwise our economy will collapse. It’s a message repeated so often that it’s almost become self-evident. But this narrative has never been tested against the facts.

Fewer flights would cost jobs, drive away businesses, and undermine our international position. But what if the disadvantages of a large airport have been glossed over for years, while the advantages have been exaggerated?

The Civic Advisory Board Schiphol (MRS) finally wanted clarity. Not based on assumptions or lobbying, but on independent research.

That’s why the council asked CE Delft to conduct a comprehensive analysis of what Schiphol Netherlands actually brings to the table – and what it costs us. The result is a report that fundamentally changes the discussion about Schiphol’s future.

Halving Schiphol
CE Delft investigated three possible sizes of Schiphol: the current size of about half a million flights, a smaller version with 375,000 flights and a compact airport with 250,000 flights.

What’s unique about this study is that it looks not only at economic impacts but also at broader prosperity. This means that health, living environment, climate, housing, the labor market, and accessibility are all taken into account.

Moreover, the report doesn’t focus on the transition to a smaller Schiphol, but rather on the situation in which the Netherlands has been accustomed to a new size for years. Therefore, it focuses on the final outcome, not the path to achieving it.

CE
Delft writes: “An honest discussion about the socially desirable size of Schiphol requires that all social impacts are fully considered.” This broad perspective provides a surprisingly clear picture.

One of the most persistent claims in the aviation debate is that the Netherlands will become inaccessible if Schiphol Airport shrinks. The research shows that this is untrue. Even with the smallest option, with 250,000 flights, the vast majority of Dutch travelers can still reach their destination directly or via a short detour.

The average additional travel time remains limited. CE Delft concludes that Schiphol can still function well as an international airport even at a much smaller size. The fear that the Netherlands will “fall off the map” appears to be a story the sector itself is keen to tell.

Schiphol’s hub
function is often presented as a kind of economic engine. But the report shows that the value of this hub function for the Netherlands is greatly overstated. Many destinations exist primarily for transfer passengers, not for Dutch citizens.

These transfers generate little benefit for our economy, while they do create additional noise, emissions, and congestion. CE Delft argues that the added value of transfer passengers for the Netherlands is limited. The myth that the hub function is indispensable doesn’t hold water when you look at the facts.

One of the most tangible benefits of a smaller Schiphol is the space it frees up for housing. Reduced noise and reduced footprint create space for tens of thousands of additional homes.

In the Amsterdam region, where the housing shortage has been acute for years, this could be a huge relief. CE Delft demonstrates that a smaller airport not only reduces disruption but also literally creates space for a livable region.

Shocking health figures
The health figures are perhaps the most shocking. Currently, 1.34 million people are exposed to aircraft noise levels exceeding the World Health Organization’s recommended limit.

Hundreds of thousands of people are experiencing serious discomfort. In addition, thousands of additional cases of high blood pressure, diabetes, lung disease, and even dementia are linked to ultrafine particles and other aircraft emissions.

When Schiphol is reduced in size, these numbers will drop dramatically. In the smallest scenario, the number of people experiencing severe inconvenience will be halved. The air will become cleaner, sleep will improve, and health risks will decrease.

CE Delft calls this a “significant improvement in the environment and living environment.” For hundreds of thousands of people, this simply means a healthier life.

Less climate damage.
Aviation at Schiphol is one of the largest emitters in the Netherlands. The smallest option reduces CO₂ and non-CO₂ emissions by more than half.

Even when diversion to foreign airports is taken into account, a significant net reduction remains. The MRS calculates this in monetary terms and arrives at a reduction in climate damage from €600 million to €1.7 billion per year. These are figures that can no longer be ignored in the political debate.

A smaller Schiphol airport means job losses in the aviation sector. However, the report shows that the Amsterdam region has a structural shortage of personnel. People who lose their jobs at Schiphol will find work elsewhere in the medium term.

Sectors
such as healthcare, education, ICT, and the energy transition are desperate for staff. CE Delft concludes that unemployment will remain largely unchanged in the long term. The aviation sector, however, is currently attracting labor from sectors experiencing significant shortages.

Perhaps the most striking conclusion is that the aviation sector contributes less to the Dutch economy than is often claimed. Many airline profits flow to foreign shareholders.

According to CE Delft, the sector’s contribution to Dutch prosperity is even slightly negative. The costs of noise, health damage, climate change, and land use far outweigh the economic benefits.

No economic reasons.
The Schiphol Social Council summarizes the research in clear language and hopes to stimulate a broad public debate. According to the council, the dominant narrative that Schiphol must remain large for the economy is no longer tenable.

The council points out that the disadvantages of the current size are enormous, while the advantages appear limited. The MRS concludes that Schiphol’s current size is beyond the optimum from the perspective of broad prosperity.

The council calls on politicians to no longer assume growth in the new Airport Traffic Decree, but rather a scale that matches what the Netherlands truly needs.

The CE Delft report and the MRS’s explanatory memorandum
together represent a turning point in the discussion about Schiphol. For the first time, a broad, independent study has demonstrated that a smaller Schiphol is not only possible but also desirable.

The Netherlands remains accessible, the economy remains strong, the living environment improves, the climate impact decreases, and space becomes available for tens of thousands of homes. A smaller Schiphol is not a loss, but an opportunity. An opportunity for a healthier, more livable, and more equitable Netherlands.

The question now is whether politicians have the courage to seize that opportunity.

This article is from SchipholWatch, an aviation critical Dutch website with a simple translate button for many languages.