Netherlands National Airline Encourages People Not to Fly | Hacker News Reader

Netherlands National Airline Encourages People Not to Fly

qz.com

This looks a lot like an attempt at greenwashing by Air France-KLM (of which KLM is one brand) — although anything that ends up decreasing our global footprint is okay with me.

What Air France-KLM wants is a reduction in short distance flights in order to remain competitive on long distance ones (which are presumably more profitable). Air France-KLM uses Schiphol Amsterdam Airport as the hub for the majority of their KLM flights, but Schiphol has reached the ceiling in terms of allowed flight movements.

The plan was to offload Schiphol's low-cost holiday flights to the newly built Lelystad Airport, which should have been opened by now. However, Lelystad Airport's opening has just been postponed for the third time (and may never open at all), because it will likely exceed legal limits of nitrogen oxide emissions (amongst other issues, not all environmental).

Instead, they appear to wish to replace short distance flights with long haul ones (at least at Schiphol).

Why can’t they just reduce supply for short distance flights, rather than trying to decrease demand?

KLM is decoupled from Schiphol. Other airliners will step in, often they are very price competitive, KLM is not. Something like EasyYet is.

So what you’re saying that KLM’s strategy is to reduce the overall share of short distance flights, in order for Schiphol to allocate more flights for long distance, and KLM will profit?

Not only are they green washing, they're also trying to blame the consumer for using their polluting products by telling them they should fly less. Like they're being responsible, but it's just those pesky consumers who can't behave them selfs.

Spare me.

But it is the customers fault, isn't it? There are lots of good reasons to fly somewhere, so I don't think it is unethical to offer flights, the problem is with customers flying unneccesarily. I think the best solution is to have some kind of carbon tax on these flights, so the cost of the pollution from them is accounted for, shaming people into avoiding flying isn't a great solution imo.

Nitpick: KLM is not the national Dutch airline (although it used to be in the twentieth century). KLM is just one brand of the Air France-KLM multinational (of which the Dutch government does own 14% of the stock).

I would take the train, but it's vastly more expensive than flying, almost always. It takes more time, but that's often not a problem; the price is. I mean it's literally 3-10x more expensive to go by train. With the added loss of time, I cannot see many people doing that.

Also when you take business flights, and the company paying for it (I am a freelancer so the companies pay me to fly directly) would be not amused if I add on CO2 there. So I have to do that personally to fly for business?

The loss of time is minimal for small distances (< 500km) as you don't have check-in and don't have to travel to the airport first.

For longer distance flights: Wake up at 07:00, take the train to the airport at 08:00, take the 10:30 flight from Schiphol to Barcelona and get out of the airport at 15:00. Take a taxi to the city center and arrive at 15:30. Or take the 08:00 train, sit back, relax and get off right in the center of the city at 20:00. You have may lost a couple of hours but you could sit down and read a book the entire time. Luggage is easier. Nobody groping you or giving you troubles about fluids. And good food in the trains too.

Ever better: Night trains. Take the 21:00 train. Fall asleep. Wake up at 09:00 having passed two countries.

According to Google Maps, every train itinerary from Amsterdam to Barcelona in the morning has 2-3 transfers, with the last one being a bus. And the shortest possible duration is just over 13.5 hours, not 12 like you said.

The transfers and bus are still required if you go with a night train.

The last bus bit is only necessary if you absolutely must go to the Barcelona Estació de França station. The train from Toulouse stops in Barcelona Sants station.

The fastest train connection from Amsterdam Centraal to Bercelona Sants takes 11:15.

The night train option means you leave Amsterdam at 17:15, and end up in Barcelona before noon. That's not too bad, and you get to see a lot of nice scenery in the train from Amsterdam to Paris and Toulouse to Barcelona (the Paris to Toulouse being the night train).

(Edit: you can check the itinerary on sncf.fr, amongst others)

I looked it up for tomorrow. 11:15 Amsterdam - 14:35 Paris Nord. Then 16:07 Paris Gare de Lyon - 22:44 Barcelona Sants. From Nord to Gare de Lyon you can walk, take a train or bus, depending on the weather. Have some late lunch or early dinner at a cafe and enjoy Paris for a bit. The total journey will take you 11 hours and 29 minutes.

I'm not sure about the night trains and if they are still an option. Perhaps there are some improvements possible there, yes.

Google Maps does not have all the trains. Use a dedicated train planner like https://www.thetrainline.com/ which works great for EU trains.

Yes, I am not bothered by that. I'm bothered by the price. The time is usually fine; there are plugs in the train and it's comfortable. But for trips I do Malaga-Amsterdam or Malaga-London return we are talking 400-600 for train vs <150 for a flight. Bus is the same price as a plane ticket but unsafer (than both train & flight), longer and vastly more uncomfortable (I am Dutch; tall and not a spring chicken).

I'm not bothered by the price. As a freelancer, I run a business. And businesses should be held accountable for their actions and their impact on the climate. It would be hypocritical for me to complain about Shell using their corporate structure to ruin the earth while my own business is buying plane tickets for European destinations.

So I have no problem with having a little less profit at the end of the year if it means that my business operates with zero-emissions.

If you are truly trying to reduce emissions, it is probably far more effective to buy the $150 plane ticket, and then buy $300 in carbon credits, or solar power or something like that.

You seem to be spot on. According to ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) the carbon footprint of a flight from Malaga -> Amsterdam for 1 person is about 0.161t (metric ton) [1]. One carbon credit gives you the right to release 1t carbon dioxide and according to the NYT (2019) one 1 carbon credit is worth no more than $30 [2]. So, in taking the plane you release 0.16t, but you can prevent the release of up to $300/$30 = 10t with the money you save.

So sure, the train releases less CO2, but if you instead fly and buy carbon credits you prevent 62 times your carbon footprint from the plane ever being released into the atmosphere. But I'm starting to wonder, does my math really check out here? These numbers seem kinda absurd.

1: https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/P...

2: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/02/climate/prici...

EDIT: I made some edits to a better source, my inital source reported a flight would release 0.4t when in reality it's closer to 0.2

Great, so now we have more trees in a country that I will likely not visit. Meanwhile the people in my own country are suffering from the local pollution caused by planes and corresponding infrastructure. The noise a plane makes. The gigantic space that the airport needs. The local wildlife that suffers.

I was under the impression that carbon dioxide was largely a global problem. I don't have the knowledge to comment on that, or the other problems you brought up - in fact, I don't have much of an established opinion on the topic at all. I just wanted to present some math on how you could theoretically contribute to there being 62 times less CO2 in the atmosphere overall - if that's in your interests. I can't comment on the other intricacies (I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.)

Trains aren't that great either, unfortunately. Airports are a stain on a place, but railways cut huge stretches of habitats in two. Wildlife passes can help, but it's expensive to build a lot of them, and they're not a panacea. Plus, in some places you have to destroy valuable natural areas if you need to build more rail.

Still, until we have planes that pollute dramatically less (both in gases and in noise), they're the best we have.

You would probably have less trees in that country actually, give that trees need carbon dioxide to grow.

I wish I could upvote this more. And thanks for sharing this. It’s good to know I’m not alone and not the only “lunatic”.

So you're one of those Dutch people living in Andalusia, flying out to work in the Netherlands or other places during the week?

I can understand why someone would do that, but it is affordable only because aviation is mostly untaxed and very inexpensive compared to any other transportation modes. And it is, imo, not a very sustainable lifestyle.

Aviation should be taxed like other transportation (fuel, vat), I do not understand why it is taking forever for politics to come around to doing this. Airplane tickets need to cost at least twice what they are now, the tax income used for sustainable energy investments, that would work much better than that CO2 add-on that they try to shame you into buying at KLM.

I fly to NL twice a year :) I fly mostly to Asia for clients. But I would do that twice a year by train if it were cheaper as that's (usually) not for business.

And yes, I agree they should add it on. I am not bothered with paying a bit more and making it more sustainable, so I try to convince clients to do more via video conferencing, but it is just not as good. I suffer from terrible tinnitus and I found that a lot of (men) suffer from that as well but don't talk about it (shame?) so in conference calls often just no-one can understand anything and politeness/shame prevents anyone (but me) from saying anything about it. Face to face that issue is just not there.

Edit: also I would Find it a better idea if the gov subsidizes the NS like they used to; you want cars of the streets and people travel less by air; make trains really really cheap. Inside NL it's often cheaper (and definitely more convenient) to take the car as well. To me that makes no sense really. I take the train usually in NL because I don't have a car there, but everyone I know just takes their car everywhere unless they live in the center of Amsterdam and travel inside Amsterdam.

Edit:

> I can understand why someone would do that, but it is affordable only because aviation is mostly untaxed and very inexpensive compared to any other transportation modes.

I understand this point that yes, that is not fair. And I understand it is not a viable model if I would just fly where I work (which I don't; I work 90% from home) and I know others do though. But the non sustainable model comes from the fact there are too many emissions which are not covered; as a consumer, why would I care, in any other way but that, about how these prices are formed? I see they are (a lot cheaper), so if I cover the emissions, they are still cheaper. So it's far better than taking the train if you look at it like that. And it does not seem to change soon either so seems quite sustainable too.

> you don't have check-in and don't have to travel to the airport first.

Tou do have to travel to the train station first, though. Which, depending on where you live relative to the city may take longer than getting to the airport.

Traveling by Eurostar train between countries also require airport-like security check.

> Ever better: Night trains. Take the 21:00 train. Fall asleep. Wake up at 09:00 having passed two countries.

Get mugged while asleep. Also, train with a small child?

Also,

> The loss of time is minimal for small distances (< 500km) as you don't have check-in and don't have to travel to the airport first.

Depends. In like 2009 or so I had a train in Serbia. It went with 60 km/hour. It took me a whole day (24 hrs) to get to my destination. With plane and bus, it only took me half a day.

> Get mugged while asleep.

The overnight trains here (Scotland) have lockable cabins and lockers for those that choose to use the reclining seats. Not that crime is a problem anyway.

> Also, train with a small child

Travelling by plane with a small child seems equally irritating.

60kmh is pitifully slow. It certainly explains why plane is actually faster where you are. In the Blue Banana [1] high speed rail is a reality. The airlines have stakes in it, and discontinued regional flights for that reason.

The trains are cruising at 300kmh within 5 minutes of leaving the station.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Banana

> Travelling by plane with a small child seems equally irritating.

I experienced that first hand and I rather have a flight. For me it was 2 hours flight plus another 2 hours getting in and out of airport. That's nothing with 23h of train ride on the same route with couple train changes. From my experience any travel over 4 hours long is almost impossible with a small child especially if most part of that time require sitting in one place.

> The overnight trains here (Scotland) have lockable cabins and lockers for those that choose to use the reclining seats. Not that crime is a problem anyway.

I've had these long distance trains a couple of times and ICE of Deutsche Bahn (I went through Germany with ICE) did not have such coupes or lockers.

> It certainly explains why plane is actually faster where you are.

It was an example of a vacation in Serbia. Train is great here in The Netherlands. People moan they're not on time, but if you look at the density of the infrastructure its a prestige.

> Travelling by plane with a small child seems equally irritating.

True, but the thing is, that travel by train (as I described) is very long. Either way all you gotta do is keep them (relatively) silent. Either via asleep or by keeping them occupied.

Regardless now that I have a child, I have a lot more sympathy for other parents with their child. And dogs remain the most disgusting, for me.

It doesn't account for the full difference in price, but air travel is still widely unfairly subsidised compared to trains.

For example, jet fuel is not taxed for international flights, whereas diesel for international trains (almost the same actual fuel) is taxed.

Airports also enjoy very favourable planning and tax treatment.

You also don't pay VAT on flight tickets

Aren't trains mostly electric?

A lot of cross border trains are not, due to a lack of a common standard voltage, transmission, etc.

> would be not amused if I add on CO2 there

You are a freelancer - negotiate!

Excellent point.

This is very much true. Especially for private travel like city trips etc, I wouldn't mind at all if the trip took a little longer, for me the trip itself is part of the experience. But the prices for long-distance train trips are just insane. I can fly from the airport 10 minutes from my home to basically any city in europe for less than 100 euro, London or Paris often for less than 50. But a two-way train ticket to London for example could easily run over 400 euro's.

The problem is not so much with the price of train travel, even though I would not mind subsidizing it more so it could be cheaper. The problem is simply that plane tickets are way, way too cheap. I get that people like to fly and free market capitalism pretty much dictates making it cheaper is a good thing, but right now air fares are not including the hidden, socialized cost of air travel (pollution, noise, need for infrastructure, spoiling of touristic destinations, etc) of everyone being able to take flights on a whimsy just because it's so cheap. I would be fully in favor of taxing air travel heavily to compensate for these things, even more so if the proceeds could be used to make train travel cheaper.

Yup, the difference is mostly in personnel cost - in a train you need to pay a staff for the whole x hours, while a plane does the same distance in a fraction of the time.

It’s even simpler: Trains are powered by taxed energy sources. Planes are powered by untaxed kerosine.

I'm not convinced. According to [1], fuel costs make up 25% of airline expenditures. Elsewhere in the thread [2] someone says that plane tickets cost less than 100 euro compared to over 400 Euro for comparable train tickets. This difference simply can not be accounted for using taxes. Even a 500% tax on aviation fuel wouldn't put plane tickets close to train tickets.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/591285/aviation-industry...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20361346

I think infrastructure plays a great role.

An airport is expensive, but once you have it, you basically don't need infrastructure to link it to other airports. (I guess there's a few beacons, lights and ATC centres, but compared to the price of thousands of kilometres of rail, this is nothing.)

Compare to rail where you have to build and maintain all those kilometres that must cost a ton long term.

From an article I read recently about trains in France, a high-speed rail line is in the €15B range on average. An airport is in the low billions (even Berlin new airport which is massively over budget is still only around 6B I think).

Maintenance of a rail line is €300k/y/km from the same article, when maintenance for the (empty) Berlin airport was in the 20M range.

Call me a cynic, but this is nothing more than an advert for their CO2ZERO programme:

https://flyresponsibly.klm.com/en#keypoints?article=WhatYoud...

Yes, but it's a marker that the world is (too slowly) changing.

KLM is doing good things. For customers in Belgium, you can get a free train ticket from Brussels and Antwerp to Schiphol Airport. That way you don't need a connecting flight.

https://www.klm.com/travel/nl_en/plan_and_book/ticket_inform...

Afaik it's not a free train ticket, KLM cooperates with Thalys (high-speed trains) and part of the price for your flight ticket covers the train. It's still a nice and good option!

Indeed, you need to book the flight to/from ZYR.

In my fourth year of not flying, I keep finding the choice to stop flying one of the best of my life.

I originally challenged myself to go a year without flying, anticipating on day 366 I'd be on a flight since I love traveling. Also I wondered how long I could put off family and work obligations.

But in that year, the things I replaced flying with improved my life more than flying did, so I went for another year. Now I have some lingering sense that I'll fly again, but the interest decreases, particularly as people's claims for the necessity of their flying increasingly sound like justifications for addictions and cravings, beholden to the values of systems they think are universal but aren't.

Where do you live, where do your family and friends live, and where do you often travel to?

What did you replace flying with and how has this improved your life?

What did you replace flying with?

walking...

I look forward to the first airline to offer night train routes.

Super simple idea on how transportation should work:

https://youtu.be/zpkmGV9a6V0

https://youtu.be/GlBOqM99q5g

If we could change between cars, buses, trains, boats at speed; do we need plains? No stops and full speed all the way.

(Will try to make more complexed models and visualize between boats, buses, trains.. But the main idea is the same)

A decade ago, there was a Chinese proposal for a non-stop bullet train: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Ig19gYP9o

I don't think anything came out of that, but it's a cute idea, especially for high-speed stuff.

Don’t think changing between cars, buses, trains or boats at speed will make me stop using plains (sp).

But then again, crossing the Pacific or getting anywhere in the world from Australia requires some serious distance, unlike many European flights.

Crossing the Pacific will probably not work in a long time without one extremely long tunnel. But for a lot of 1-2hour flights and transportation with cars. With highspeed train maybe also 2-6 hour plain flights. Do the math, it can compete on time.

The Bering straight is not very wide.

How much does the externality of building and maintaining a railway factor into the net carbon emissions and ecological impact of train travel?

> encouraged customers to invest in the airline’s carbon offsetting scheme

Why isn't carbon offsetting enforced by regulations yet?

> pack lightly

This is marketing speak for "save us fuel costs" while we will not lower ticket prices.

That is the problem with all of this; all the airlines need to sound good but they are not very willing to help. Like why don't they add in the CO2 in the price and make less margin if they want to be so environmentally conscious? They don't want to do that because less profit. KLM did well last year and they are quite expensive anyway on most flights (they are never in the top 5 when I need to fly, inside EU or long haul where I need to go) so they could do that. But they want us to pack lighter, sit in shittier chairs and pay into their CO2 program, while they do not lower prices.

If the goal is about reducing the gaz consumption it's still one good advice. But indeed, I'm not sure they will lower their plane ticket :)

> Why isn't carbon offsetting enforced by regulations yet?

Because we, the people, didn't demand it yet.

We elect politicians to make good decisions for us. The onus is not on everyone to make the right decision every time, but rather on their elected leaders to make the right decisions.

And the consequences for making the wrong decisions are…?

I’ve been giving this idle thought recently—it feels like what we have worldwide right now is a scaling problem. Forms of government that worked great for small countries are not necessarily adapted to govern countries with tens or hundreds of millions of people. Especially in the era of specialization, there are people who specialize in hacking the government to their advantage. Our only response in modern democracies is—for everyone to make the right decision. Other systems so far are even worse, because they have a single point of failure (the ruler) or at most a few (the central committee, or whathaveyou).

I don’t know what defense-in-depth against government capture looks like, but it doesn’t look like anything we have.

And the consequences for making the wrong decisions are…?

Ultimately, death by famine.

Although not impossible, the EU-US Open Skies agreement makes regulation and taxation difficult.

I dunno. How did the journalist translate "we invite all air travelers to make responsible decisions about flying" (from the open letter linked in the article) into "Maybe don’t take that flight"?

I guess an airline CEO actively discouraging flying would be violating their fiduciary duties.

As the article says, the video asks: "Do meetings always have to take place face-to-face? Could you take the train instead?"

That seems to be quite clearly promoting not taking a flight.

Thnx. I watched the video now. But I maintain that a CEO will not do anything to deliberately hurt shareholder value. I believe Freak_NL's comment is correct (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20361619), they are trying to free up airport capacity from short flights to use it for long haul ones.

The journalist never claimed he was deliberately hurting shareholder value...

I will listen to them when politicians stop flying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com