Schiphol raggiunge un nuovo traguardo, 50mln pax


Bel colpo per AMS che consolida la quarta posizione su MAD.

Tra le frasi di Peter Hartman, Presidente e CEO di KLM, riportate nell'articolo, viene sottolineato come si sia mantenuta l'influenza olandese all'interno del gruppo AF-KLM. La prendo un po' come una stoccatina verso chi considerava l'allenza franco-olandese sbilanciata verso Parigi.
 
Riesumo questo thread per segnalare che nel mese di maggio, per la prima volta, Amsterdam Schiphol ha superato (e anche non di poco) quello che storicamente è il secondo scalo europeo per traffico, Roissy CDG di Parigi.


Questi i primi 9 aeroporti europei nel mese di maggio :

LHR Londra-Heathrow: 6.476.024 (+2,9%)
AMS Amsterdam : 6.215.960 (+8,1%)
CDG Parigi-Charles de Gaulle: 5.956.534 (+3,7%)
FRA Francoforte: 5.604.362 (+5,7%)
IST Istanbul-Atatürk: 5.394.938 (-1,7%)
MAD Madrid : 4.525.608 (+5,4%)
BCN Barcellona : 4.325.970 (+6,8%)
LGW Londra-Gatwick: 4.087.890 (+6,7%)
MUC Monaco: 3.938.878 (+6,5%)




Nel 2016 AMS ha inoltre sorpassato FRA (e anche IST) piazzandosi al terzo posto, e quest'anno sta riducendo sensibilmente le distanze con CDG.
Nel dato progressivo giugno 2016-maggio 2017 i dati mostrano entrambi gli aeroporti in crescita (CDG 67.189.208 // AMS 65.805.541) ma con lo scalo olandese che cresce decisamente di più.
In soli 5 mesi del 2017, su proiezione annuale, Schiphol ha ridotto la distanza da Roissy di quasi 1 milione di pax rispetto all'anno scorso.

Differenza CDG-AMS 2014 : 8.835.733
Differenza CDG-AMS 2015 : 7.482.138
Differenza CDG-AMS 2016 : 2.307.481
Differenza CDG-AMS giu16-mag17 : 1.383.667

E' verosimile che fine anno chiudano con poche centinaia di miglia di pax di distanza, con prospettiva di sorpasso (possibile) nel 2018.
 
Grazie per i dati, DusCgn

Differenza CDG-AMS 2014 : 8.835.733
Differenza CDG-AMS 2015 : 7.482.138
Differenza CDG-AMS 2016 : 2.307.481
Differenza CDG-AMS giu16-mag17 : 1.383.667

Come mai questa enorme differenza (tra le differenze :)...) tra 2015 e 2016?
Cos'è successo?
 
Grazie per i dati, DusCgn



Come mai questa enorme differenza (tra le differenze :)...) tra 2015 e 2016?
Cos'è successo?

Perchè nel 2016 CDG è stato praticamente fermo (+0,3%) mentre AMS è andato molto forte (+9,2%).
I motivi, banalmente, sono arrivati diversi nuovi voli soprattutto di corto/medio ma anche di lungo raggio
Vueling, easyJet, KLM, Tuifly NL, Transavia NL, Norwegian, Delta, il trasferimento di Jet Airways da BRU, le nuove Xiamen Air, China Eastern, China Southern per CAN, Aeroméxico etc i principali attori della crescita.
E' cresciuto comunque molto di più il mercato p2p (O/D) di quello in connessione.

AMS publishes its traffic flows in great detail, so here we go:

- Local O&D pax = 39.497.377 +12.2%
- Transfer pax = 24.036.333 +4.4%
- Transito (Jet Airways) = 91.954 +134%

of this passenger traffic:

- Europe = 45.121.520 +10.9%
- Intercontinental = 18.412.190 +4.8%

So we can conclude that the local Netherlands market is driving traffic growth, due to expansion of both LCCs and the SKYTEAM carriers.
The data also indicate that the airport is becoming less dependent on transfer traffic.
Jet Airways has pushed transito traffic, but these are relatively low numbers.
Long haul expansion is in line with general market growth.

Expect continued growth in 2017 as at 478.000 air transport movements, AMS is still some 32.000 movements away from its poltical maximum of 510.000 air transport movements.
Please note that these 478.000 movements are not the TOTAL aircraft movements for AMS. This stands at 496.256 movements and includes General Aviation and Government flights.

Thus far, for S17 a total of 16.000 new movements have been announced. In 2016 the airport reports 132 passengers per movement.
This translate in at least some 2 Million additional passengers, so it is reasonable to expect AMS to reach 66 Million in 2017.


Lo scalo inoltre è il n° 1 in Europa per quanto concerne il n° movimenti annui, e ciò lo sta portando a saturazione .


Big increase in passengers in AMS is caused by growth by all airlines at AMS. KLM passed the 30 million passengers mark in 2016 for the first time, which is a big increase. Also EasyJet is expanding rapidly. But lets not forget the impact of Jet Airways moving all their operations to Schiphol, AeroMexico started flights, China Eastern started ops. So there was also a lot of new longhaul traffic.

If you count aircraft movements, Amsterdam was even the number 1 in Europe, having passed LHR, CDG and FRA. As mentioned earlier, there is a political maximum number of flights (500.000 per year) allowed. So Amsterdam has pretty much reached that number. For the moment, the only way to increase passenger numbers is by operating bigger aircraft. However different parties are still negotiating about solutions to increase the number in flights. KLM is not pleased to say the least about the way the airport attracted airlines like EasyJet, Ryanair and Norwegian. The general idea is that Schiphol should be an airport with as many as possible different connections in order to be the best hub airport. Flights going to holiday destinations in Turkey and Spain do not contribute to that. For that reason Lelystad airport is to be developed, but none of the airlines are happy to move to Lelystad once it is open. So to make a long story shorter, like in many other European countries, politics will temper the growth at Amsterdam for the coming years. As for now, nothing major has been announced yet for new airlines or new services for the summer season. Only American Airlines who will be operating a seasonal DFW daily flight.

Inoltre il Onderzoeksraad Voor Veiligheid (Dutch Safety Board) ha pubblicato questo documento interessante due mesi fa

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol has expanded to become one of Europe’s main civil aviation hubs. It is a complex airport, both in terms of its infrastructure and in terms of how air traffic is handled. This complexity entails certain risks for air traffic. Schiphol is approaching the limits of its ability to handle air traffic safely within the current operational system. The investigation found no evidence to suggest that safety at Schiphol is inadequate. However, the investigation did reveal a number of safety risks that need to be tackled. The Dutch Safety Board notes that further growth of Schiphol will require more than marginal adjustments to the existing policy. This calls for a fundamental debate on the future of aviation in the Netherlands and on the options and limitations regarding Schiphol’s further growth. The Dutch State has final responsibility for the integral safety of air traffic at and around the airport.

[....]

https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploa...69ae1esummary-schiphol-air-traffic-safety.pdf