Capacity - Netherlands

Download Report

PRB monitoring

  • Netherlands registered 0.13 minutes of average en route ATFM delay per flight during 2025, which has been adjusted to 0.14 during the post-ops adjustment process, thus achieving the local target value of 0.16. Delays in Netherlands increased by 0.06 minutes per flight year-on-year.

  • Delays were highest in June, August and September, mostly driven by other non-ATC causes but with notable contributions from weather and ATC capacity.

  • The share of delayed flights with delays longer than 15 minutes in Netherlands increased by 6 percentage points compared to 2024 but was lower than 2019 values.

  • The number of ATCOs in OPS was 79 FTEs in Amsterdam ACC, being below the 2025 plan by -2 FTEs.

  • The yearly total of sector opening hours in Amsterdam ACC was 39,701, showing a -1% decrease compared to 2024.

  • Amsterdam ACC registered 14.00 IFR movements per sector opening hour in 2025, 1% above the level recorded in 2024.

  • Netherlands registered an average airport arrival ATFM delay of 4.44 minutes per flight in 2025, thus not achieving the local target of 2.2 minutes. Compared to 2024, average arrival ATFM delays in Netherlands were 0.94 minutes per flight higher in 2025.

  • The main drivers of delays were weather, accounting for 2.35 of the total delays, and other non-ATC causes, responsible for 2.09.

En route performance

En route ATFM delay (KPI#1)

En route ATFM delay

  • The Netherlands had 1,239k flights in 2025, lower than the 1,254k flights in 2024.

  • En route ANSPs in the Netherlands: LVNL and MUAC (DECO sector group), applied en route ATFM regulations resulting in 96k minutes of delay in 2025, a decrease from the 119k minutes in 2024.

  • Following the NM post operations re-attributions process, the en route ANSPs in the Netherlands were responsible for 93k minutes of en route ATFM delay, compared to 115k minutes in 2024.

Regarding the reasons and circumstances resulting in the achieved level of actual performance of the en route ATFM delay per flight KPI, the NSA reports: “LVNL achieved the target in 2025, although performance was worse than in 2024. The main reasons were severe weather and special events. Re-routings associated with security measures for the NATO summit in June caused overdemand in adjacent centres, and the delay from their regulations was re-attributed to LVNL. Furthermore, severe thunderstroms in July and parajumping events in August caused a decrease in sector capacity, and hence significant delays.”

Regarding the description of the adjustments to the capacity plan included in adopted performance plan, the NSA reports: “For LVNL, the NOP 2025-2029 shows no bottleneck expected for Amsterdam ACC.

According to the Network Operations Plan (NOP) 2025-2029 no capacity bottlenecks were expected for Amsterdam ACC. Capacity can still be increased until the traffic demand reaches the 2019 levels. As such, it is consistent with the required performance and no adjustments are needed.”

Regarding remedial measures that have been / will be taken by the ANSP to rectify the situation, the NSA reports: “LVNL: Target met — no remedial measures required.”

En route capacity incentive scheme

The FABEC NSAs report neither a financial penalty, nor a financial bonus, for either of the en route ANSPs operating over the Netherlands, because of the 2025 performance.

Individual en route incentive targets were set for both LVNL and MUAC (global).

For LVNL, the local incentive target for en route ATFM delays, due to CRSTMP causes only, was set at 0.1 mins/flight, (with a deadband of +/- 0.02 mins).

The FABEC NSAs report an achieved CRSTMP performance, for LVNL, of 0.09 mins/flight using data from the ansperformance.eu dashboard including post ops adjustments. [NB The attribution of original delay causes on the ansperformance.eu dashboard is unverified.]

Although the local target was surpassed, the en route incentive capacity performance for LVNL fell inside the deadband, where no bonus is applicable.

For MUAC, the local incentive target for en route AFTM delays, due to CRSTMP causes only, was set at 0.19 mins/flight, (with a deadband of +/- 0.04 mins).

The FABEC NSAs report an achieved CRSTMP performance of 0.18 mins/flight using data from the ansperformance.eu dashboard including post ops adjustments. [NB The attribution of original delay causes on the ansperformance.eu dashboard is unverified.]

Although the local target was surpassed, the en route incentive capacity performance for MUAC fell inside the deadband, where no bonus is applicable.

En route performance indicators at ACC level (PI#4-5)

Percentage of total en route ATFM delay that occurred on days when the daily throughput was above the expected daily traffic

As background information on actual performance, the NSA reports: “As it is the first year of reporting on this PI, it is still difficult to provide a meaningful assessment of performance. The NSA will closely monitor the performance of this PI over the coming years.”

Annual weighted average of the daily peak throughput

As background information on actual performance, the NSA reports: “The daily peak throughput of Amsterdam ACC slightly increased in 2025 compared to 2024, but no specific measures were taken. The increase was caused by the traffic demand.”

Other en route information

ATCOs in operations

As additional comments to ATCOs in the scope of the performance scheme, the NSA reports: “The actual ATCO figures are slightly lower than assumed in the performance plan. LVNL was able to deliver the required operational performance and stayed within the target for en-route delay.”

“The return on training investments and the impact of the additional training effort is clearly reflected in the training results and the total number of trainees in the training program. The outflow of ATCOs is higher than foreseen in the plan. The outflow figures are also impacted by the increased use of unplanned leave, such as parental leave and maternity leave.”

Regarding the training process, including details on the effective failure rate and the process used to allocate newly qualified ATCOs between ACC, APP and TWR positions, the NSA reports: “The return on training investments and the impact of the additional training effort is clearly reflected in the training results and the total number of trainees in the training program.”

Terminal performance

Arrival ATFM delay (KPI#2)

Arrival ATFM delay

Average ATFM arrival delay in Netherlands was 4.44 min/arr in 2025, the first year of RP4. The performance has worsened compared to 2024, last year of RP3, when there were 3.50 min/arr.

The ATFM arrival delay value is the second highest among RP4 states, and is mostly driven by the main airport, Amsterdam Schiphol, which showed 4.83 min/arr. Amsterdam Schiphol delay is almost exclusively caused by Aerodrome Capacity and Weather regulations.

The remaining airports (Groningen, Maastricht-Aachen and Rotterdam) all had results below 0.05 min/arr.

The average for RP4 airports subject to monitoring of ATFM Arrival delay across Member States in 2025 was 0.97 min/arr.

Regarding the reasons and circumstances resulting in the achieved level of actual performance of the arrival ATFM delay per flight KPI, the NSA reports: “The performance in 2025 was significantly above the target, almost exclusively due to the performance at Amsterdam; for the other airports ATFM delays were nearly non-existent. The main reason for the delays at Amsterdam was a demand higher than the declared capacity, both during inbound peaks and outbound peaks. Like in 2024 delays during the latter were amplified by the non-availability of a fourth runway (only 2+1/1+2 runway usage) due to controller shortages at Schiphol. Hence, daily variations in the traffic demand around peak transitions could not be efficiently handled. Furthermore, there were significant delays due to severe weather, either strong winds or poor visibility, in January, May, September and October, which increased in May due to unavailability of a runway due to heavy maintenance. Finally, the security measures associated with the NATO summit caused additional delays.”

Regarding the identification and analysis by the NSA of the underlying reasons or circumstances having led to the performance target not being achieved, the NSA reports: “The Airport ATFM delay per flight was not met in 2025, primarily due to aerodrome capacity and weather related incidents. Additionally, runway maintenance, the ATCO shortages, and the NATO summit in June of 2025 had an impact on the airport ATFM delay target. It should be noted that the CRSTMP delay target remained below the target values.”

Regarding recommendations to the ANSP to rectify the situation, the NSA reports: “Long term corrective measures are expected to be feasible and LVNL is working with AAS, the main airline operators at schiphol and the slot coordinator to better spread traffic demand, possibly by improving the slot allocation. This with the aim of reducing bunch forming for inbound for inbound aircraft since this is one of the major causes of airport delay at schiphol. With the envisaged growth in traffic volume at schiphol this delay cause will gain importance in the coming years. LVNL is working on increasing their ATCO capacity with additional training for which the first effects will start to show at the end of 2025. It is expected that 2+2 runway usage will be partially available again as of summer 2026, this is expected to reduce delays.”

Regarding remedial measures that have been / will be taken by the ANSP to rectify the situation, the NSA reports: “For measures that have been taken, see under point 3 below. The sector partners continue to work on reducing delays. The peak shaving is planned to be progressively extended to the rest of the day. Additionally, LVNL is trialing with dynamic capacity/rates, to improve the effectiveness of regulations and reduce delays in case regulations are needed.”

Regarding follow up of the remedial measures indicated in the previous monitoring report(s), the NSA reports: “The Netherlands NSA: LVNL is working with AAS, the main airline operators at Schiphol and the slot coordinator to better spread traffic demand. The first step was implemented at the start of Summer 2026, for the first inbound peak period of the day. Moreover, LVNL has increased its ATCO capacity with additional training, making 2+2 runway usage possible again in the early morning, also from the beginning of the Summer season 2026.”

Terminal capacity incentive scheme

In the first year of RP4, with an ATFM Arr delay of 4.44 min/arr, the Netherlands did not achieve the national target of 2.20 min/arr. However, the pivot value for incentives (0.10 min/arr) is limited to CRSTMP delay causes. As State-reported CRSTMP delay of 0.07* min/arr falls within the bonus sliding range for the incentive scheme, the NSA calculates a financial bonus of EUR 159,397.32.

*Note that PRB calculates a CRSTMP delay of 0.062 min/arr, which would result in a higher financial bonus for the Netherlands. PRB has not been able to verify the reported value of 0.07 min/arr.

Other terminal performance indicators (PI#1-3)

Airport level
Airport name
Avg arrival ATFM delay (KPI#2)
Slot adherence (PI#1)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Amsterdam 4.83 NA NA NA NA 98.6% NA NA NA NA
Beek 0.04 NA NA NA NA 97.4% NA NA NA NA
Eelde 0.01 NA NA NA NA 98.2% NA NA NA NA
Rotterdam 0.01 NA NA NA NA 98.5% NA NA NA NA
Airport name
ATC pre departure delay (PI#2)
All causes pre departure delay (PI#3)
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Amsterdam NA NA NA NA NA 19.58 NA NA NA NA

ATFM slot adherence

ATFM slot adherence in 2025 was equal to 98.6%, the same as 2024 value – last year of RP3. All individual airports had adherence above 97%. With regard to the 1.4% of flights that did not adhere, 0.5% were early and 0.9% were late.

The average for RP4 airports subject to monitoring of ATFM slot adherence across Member States in 2025 was 96.3%.

As background information on actual performance, the NSA reports: “Performance has been nearly 100% throughout the years (including 2025), with small deviations per year. No specific measures were taken or are planned, because they are not needed.”

ATC pre-departure delay

Amsterdam Schiphol is the only Dutch airport subject to the monitoring of this indicator.

The calculation of the ATC pre-departure delay is based on the data provided by the airport operators through the Airport Operator Data Flow (APDF).

However, there are several quality checks before EUROCONTROL can produce the final value which is established as the average minutes of pre-departure delay (delay in the actual off block time) associated to the IATA delay code 89 (through the APDF, for each delayed flight, the reasons for that delay have to be transmitted and coded according to IATA delay codes.

However, sometimes the airport operator has no information concerning the reasons for the delay in the off block, or they cannot convert the reasons to the IATA delay codes. In those cases, the airport operator might:

  • Not report any information about the reasons for the delay for that flight (unreported delay)

  • Report a special code to indicate they do not have the information (code ZZZ)

  • Report a special code to indicate they do not have the means to collect or translate the information (code 999)

To be able to calculate with a minimum of accuracy the PI for a given month, the minutes of delay that are not attributed to any IATA code reason should not exceed 40% of the total minutes of pre-departure delay observed at the airport.

As background information on actual performance, the NSA reports: “data gap noted.”

Regarding the absence of data at airport level, the NSA reports: “As was the case for RP3, this data should be provided by the airport, not the ANSP.”

All causes pre-departure delay

Amsterdam Schiphol is the only Dutch airport subject to the monitoring of this indicator.

Delay in 2025 decreased to 19.58 min/dep, 8% lower than 2024 value– last year of RP3 – of 21.20 min/dep.

The average for RP4 airports subject to monitoring of all causes pre-departure delay across Member States in 2025 was 16.47 min/dep.

As background information on actual performance, the NSA reports: “LVNL is working with AAS, the main airline operators at Schiphol to improve the outbound punctuality. The first step was to reduce reactionary delays, by reducing the delays for inbound flights. Further measures will focus on improving the turnaround performance and reducing the local start-up delays.”

Regarding the absence of data at airport level, the NSA reports: “All cause departure delay is very generic and ATFM delay is only a small contributor. Departure delay can be generated by ATFM en-route delay (not only local airport, but the complete Network) but also reactionary and turnaround delay, technical issues with the aircraft, airport operations, problems with passengers and or luggage, etc. In other words, it is not always possible to address a specific reason as this delay is quite generic. It would be more interesting to check the overall ANSP share against the share of the other network stakeholders (airports and AOs) and also show the weather induced subshare.”