• Home
  • SES view
  • State view
    • Austria
    • Belgium
    • Bulgaria
    • Croatia
    • Cyprus
    • Czech Republic
    • Denmark
    • Estonia
    • Finland
    • France
    • Germany
    • Greece
    • Hungary
    • Ireland
    • Italy
    • Latvia
    • Lithuania
    • Luxembourg
    • Malta
    • MUAC
    • Netherlands
    • Norway
    • Poland
    • Portugal
    • Romania
    • Slovakia
    • Slovenia
    • Spain
    • Sweden
    • Switzerland
  • NM View
  • Investments
    • SES RP3

    • Austria
    • Belgium
    • Bulgaria
    • Croatia
    • Cyprus
    • Czech Republic
    • Denmark
    • Estonia
    • Finland
    • France
    • Germany
    • Greece
    • Hungary
    • Ireland
    • Italy
    • Latvia
    • Lithuania
    • Luxembourg
    • Malta
    • MUAC
    • Netherlands
    • Norway
    • Poland
    • Portugal
    • Romania
    • Slovakia
    • Slovenia
    • Spain
    • Sweden
    • Switzerland
  • About
  • Download
  • Data Portal
  • Publications
  1. Environment
  • Year report
    • RP3
    • 2024 ✓
    • 2023
    • 2022
    • 2021
    • 2020

  • Netherlands
  • Overview
    • Contextual information
    • Traffic
    • Safety
    • Environment
    • Capacity
    • Cost-efficiency

  • Safety
    • PRB monitoring
    • EoSM
    • Safety occurrences
      • Runway incursions
      • Separation minima infringements
      • Occurrences reporting
    • ASDRS

  • Environment
    • PRB monitoring
    • En route performance
      • Horizontal flight efficiency
    • Terminal performance
      • AXOT & ASMA
      • CDO
    • CIV-MIL

  • Capacity
    • PRB monitoring
    • En route performance
      • En route ATFM delay
      • Other indicators
    • Terminal performance
      • Arrival ATFM delay
      • Other performance indicators

  • Cost-efficiency
    • PRB monitoring
    • En route CZ
      • Unit cost
      • AUCU
      • Regulatory Result
    • Terminal CZ
      • Unit cost
      • AUCU
      • Regulatory Result

Environment - Netherlands

Download Report

PRB monitoring

▪ The Netherlands achieved a KEA performance of 2.84% compared to its target of 2.62% and did not contribute positively towards achieving the Union-wide target.

▪ The NSA states that the worsening environmental performance was due to internal and external issues such as weather effects and maintenance at Schiphol airport.

▪ Both KEP and SCR values improved compared to 2023. Despite the KEA target being missed, KEA improved in 2024. Additionally, the improvement in SCR shows that The Netherlands has enhanced the environmental efficiency of its airspace when accounting for impacts outside of its control.

▪ The share of CDO flights remained stable in 2024.

▪ Additional taxi out time increased from 3.13 to 3.56 min/flight, while additional time in terminal airspace increased from 1.10 to 1.23min/flight in 2024 compared to 2023.

En route performance

Horizontal flight efficiency of the actual trajectory (KEA) (KPI#1), of the last filed flight plan (KEP) (PI#1) & shortest constrained route (SCR) (PI#2)

Terminal performance

Additional taxi-out time (AXOT) (PI#3) & Arrival Sequencing and Metering Area (ASMA) time (PI#4)

Focus on ASMA & AXOT

AXOT

Additional taxi-out times at Amsterdam (EHAM; 2019: 3.11 min/dep; 2020: 1.78 min/dep.; 2021: 2.19 min/dep.; 2022: 2.77 min/dep.; 2023: 3.13 min/dep.; 2024: 3.56 min/dep.) increased in 2024 by 14% with respect to 2023, resulting in an annual value significantly above the SES average 2.91 min/dep and also above the pre-COVID value in 2019.

According to the Dutch monitoring report: No specific measures have been implemented or are planned. Performance very much depends on the runways in use, which depends on the weather conditions.

E.g. the higher the share of flights departing from runway 36L, the higher the taxi-out additional time. This is because the absolute taxi-out time for this runway is high, which means that the additional time is relatively large in an absolute sense. Moreover, taxi times to this runway may be negatively influenced by the taxi route, as with some runway combinations departures 36L have to taxi around runway 18C/36C to avoid crossing an active runway. The reference time is determined by traffic that can cross the (inactive) runway.

ASMA

Additional times in the terminal airspace of Amsterdam (EHAM; 2019: 1.78 min/arr.; 2020: 1.02 min/arr.; 2021: 0.86 min/arr.; 2022: 1.12 min/arr.; 2023: 1.1 min/arr.; 2024: 1.23 min/arr.) increased in 2024 by 12% resulting in an annual value just below the SES average 1.28 min/arr., and lower than the pre-COVID value in 2019.

According to the Dutch monitoring report: No specific measures are planned. Performance is significantly driven by usage of parallel runways, for which traffic is lined up further from the runway than for non-parallel approaches, to ensure vertical separation when turning to base leg.

The performance during non-parallel approaches determines the reference time. The runway combination itself depends largely on weather conditions and using noise preferent runways as much as possible.

Share of arrivals applying continuous descent operations (CDOs) (PI#5)

Focus CDOs

All airport have shares of CDO flights below the overall RP3 value in 2024 (29.3%). Amsterdam (EHAM) and Groningen (EHGG) have a lower share of CDO flights than in 2023 while it has increased at Maastricht-Aachen (EHBK) and Rotterdam (EHRD).

According to the Dutch monitoring report: Detailed monthly monitoring of performance has started for EHAM; the same is planned to be implemented for the other airports in 2025. Based on detailed analyses, measures to improve performance will be developed. These will focus on reducing the time in level flight, not specifically the share of CDOs.

Airport level
Airport
Additional taxi-out time (PI#3)
Additional ASMA time (PI#4)
Share of arrivals applying CDO (PI#5)
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Schiphol 1.78 2.19 2.77 3.13 3.56 1.02 0.86 1.12 1.10 1.23 30% 29% 27% 26% 25%
Beek NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 11% 9% 10% 12% 13%
Eelde NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26% 28% 27% 25% 24%
Rotterdam NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20% 22% 19% 18% 19%

Civil-Military dimension

Focus on Civil-Military dimension

Update on Military dimension of the plan

For obvious flight safety reasons, military activities must be segregated from civil flows which has an impact on both horizontal (HFE) and vertical flight efficiency (VFE). Because ASM manageable areas form an integral part of the nominal system, military airspace reservations shall be considered as part of the performance baseline rather than a key factor degrading environmental KPIs.

As a result of implementation of the FUA concept the impact of military activities using Restricted Airspace -RSA on civil performance is highly minored when associated with an efficient ASM process:
- At strategic level (HLAPB) by designing areas in accordance with A-FUA concept (MVPA/VGA structures), especially for congested airspaces.
- At pre-tactical level (AMC), by managing these areas in a dynamic way, with an associated level 2 CDM process, validated by HLAPB.
- At tactical level (ACC/Regional Military Control Centre) by activating/deactivating areas as close as possible to actual use and allowing crossing or direct routes when possible (in accordance with TRA status), with an associated level 3 CDM process validated by HLAPB.
- At each level, HLAPB, AMC or ACC/Regional Military Control Centre, a key factor of efficiency is a trust-driven civil-military cooperation. As a counterpart, AOs and CFSPs must be reactive and take efficiently into account available or released airspaces. At last, ANSP have also to adapt the route network to create more DCTs within military areas.

Finally, local circumstances (e.g. constrained airspace, proximity of international hubs, etc….) as well as a large number of military missions that differ from one State to another must be taken into account. Therefore, airspace needs (e.g. airspace requirements for the 5th generation fighters) and related ASM procedures of the States differ and standardized objectives cannot be defined.

Military - related measures implemented or planned to improve capacity

FABEC States are working on mid-term improvements regarding implementation of ASM level 1, 2, and 3 procedures. Some local initiatives regarding ASM/ATFCM convergence, like the traffic Light Scheme concept in France are promoted at FABEC level, as well as at ECAC level in the EUROCONTROL OEP framework.

Another major improvement is the interconnection of the existing ASM tools (e.g. LARA, STANLY_ACOS) at FABEC Level, to enhance regional coordination among FABEC AMCs as well as with the NM.

Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#6

For MUAC the ATMP will be used to propose improved routings to aircraft operators in pre-tract. The tool takes into account the expected airspace availability.

Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#7

NIL

Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#8

NIL

 
  • © European Union, 2025

  • Disclaimer

  • Website published by EUROCONTROL for the European Commission