Story ID: 042
Bizav's Quandary over Eco-protests
By: Charles Alcock
Caption: Little fallout seen after bizav eco-protests
Word Count: 3431
Two pictures taken on the Mediterranean island of Ibiza tell you everything you need to know about business aviation’s vulnerability to direct-action protests by environmental groups.
The first, taken on July 14 at Ibiza Airport, shows a pair of activists from the Spain-based Futuro Vegetal (Vegetable Future) group proudly showing off the extensive damage they have just done to a Germany-registered Embraer Phenom 300E by covering it in yellow and black paint before gluing themselves to the fuselage.
The second, taken at Ibiza’s harbor just two days later, shows at least one member from the same group grinning in front of a super-yacht owned by Walmart heir Nancy Walton Laurie that Futuro Vegetal activists have just given an unwelcome paint job.
If Spanish police did arrest the protesters at the airport, they evidently determined that the activists should be swiftly released. This apparently ineffectual response to criminal activity helps explain the increasing sense in the business aviation industry that no one is looking to provide any meaningful protection for it.
The Ibiza attack repeated an all-too-familiar story about quick-witted, fearless protest groups running rings around airport security. In June, the German group Letze Generation (Last Generation) broke into the ramp of Sylt Airport and covered an Austria-registered Cessna Citation Mustang in orange paint. According to a security source close to the incident, speaking to AIN on condition of anonymity, the aircraft was deemed to be a complete write-off by insurers facing an untenable repair bill reported to be well in excess of $1 million.
In May, during the Cannes Film Festival, the French chapter of Extinction Rebellion used a remote-controlled car (electric, naturally) to block a private jet from taking off at Cannes-Mandelieu Airport, releasing green smoke as a decoy. “Thank goodness it was just a smoke bomb," said Alexandra James, an analysis output manager at security specialist Osprey Flight Solutions. "This was a major failure in airport perimeter security and we’re just not learning from incidents like this. These groups can cause a high level of disruption, and it also damages the reputation of the industry for aircraft operators and the facilities they use.”
During the same week in May, more trouble flared up at Geneva Airport on the static display for the annual European Business Aviation Exhibition and Convention (EBACE). Around 100 protesters from multiple groups easily broke through security controls and chained or glued themselves in place, causing significant damage to at least one aircraft on display. The airport was closed for an hour or more, with multiple flights diverted, needlessly burning more fossil fuels in the process.
This spate of protests targeting private aviation kicked off in September 2022 when the Signature Flight Support FBO at Paris Le Bourget Airport was spray-painted with graffiti. Then, in November, multiple groups targeted London-area airports Farnborough and Luton during the COP27 climate-change conference, and business aviation facilities across Europe including in Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. At least in the case of the UK airports, security managed to keep protesters on the right side of the entrance to the FBOs, but more protests followed in February 2023.
Damaging Attacks with Few Consequences
What do most of these attacks have in common? Well, based on research by AIN, it appears the protesters faced few or no consequences, either in terms of criminal prosecution or civil lawsuits in pursuit of compensation for the damage done.
GlobeAir’s insurance company has initiated legal action for damage to one of the Austrian charter company’s Cessna Citation Mustang C510 jets during a protest at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport last November. “We can claim compensation through our aircraft hull liability insurance policy, and the insurance company would claim the amount back from the one that caused the damage," GlobeAir founder and CEO Bernhard Fragner told AIN. "The legal process is ongoing.
“It is a painful process,” he added. “Ultimately, it was a Greenpeace protester who intentionally or unintentionally caused the damage, but what is the responsibility of the airport operator, the FBO, and the authorities?”
The Dutch police arrested some 400 members of Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion who took part in that climate protest at Schiphol on November 5. They cut through the airport’s fence and blocked 11 private jets. Another five jets en route to the airport were diverted, including a medical flight, and an aviation police helicopter could no longer be called upon.
Yet, the Netherlands Public Prosecution Service decided to prosecute just five people for unlawfully entering the airport’s secure area, which is a crime under Section 62a of the Aviation Act. The five had chained themselves to the landing gear of aircraft, including GlobeAir’s C510 and a Canadian C-130 Hercules, causing “considerable damage,” the Public Prosecution Service said. “That's where the Public Prosecution Service weighs in,” it explained.
The Public Prosecution Service decided to conditionally dismiss the cases of two suspects who had helped fellow protesters climb over the fence, reasoning that “it has not become clear that they [also] deliberately gave help to the persons who have chained themselves to aircraft.” Some 210 protesters could not be identified and walked away unpunished. The other 176 people who had been identified received a warning letter from the Public Prosecution Service, stating that they would not be criminally prosecuted even though their behavior is punishable because they walked and cycled on the site. “The Public Prosecution Service can imagine that these people may not have fully realized the risks,” it concluded.
Security experts agree that the apparently feeble response of authorities across Europe is a big part of the reason why private aviation continues to be a soft target for eco protesters. While there are laws making it illegal to invade secure areas at airports, there appears to be a blasé response to enforcing them. To many, the situation represents a stark contrast to the security experience for airline passengers in the main airport terminals where trying to board a scheduled flight can seem like checking in for a trip to Guantanamo Bay.
“The punishment is just not happening and there are no consequences in the courts,” Eric Schouten, CEO and founder of Dyami Security Services, told AIN. “Judges need to see that this [breaching airport security] is different from a sit-down protest on a highway in terms of the right to protest.”
Is European Airport Security a Legal Labyrinth?
Perimeter protection is regulated at European Union airports through EU aviation security regulations, which impose the presence of physical obstacles, patrol, and surveillance capacity that are defined based on local aviation security-oriented risk assessment approved by the authorities of the member states. “So, we do have a common EU baseline,” Olivier Jankovec, director general of the airports trade association ACI Europe, told AIN. “In this regard, it is important to note that green activism is not considered as an aviation security threat and does not as such fall within the scope of EU aviation security regulation."
EASA from its side notes that it is “of course” aware of the incidents where climate activists breach airport perimeters but “the core of this is security (rather than safety) and so is not within EASA’s remit [even though] there could potentially be a safety impact.”  
The EU rules and requirements for airport security EUR-Lex - tr0028 - EN - EUR-Lex—which also apply to Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland—are overseen by the EU Commission (EC), according to the Cologne, Germany-based EU aviation safety body.
The EU’s airport security rules, specifically ADR Safety Regulation 139/2014—which is commonly known as the EASA ADR on the management, certification, and operations of aerodromes—clearly state that a person must be trained and qualified to have unescorted access to the ADR. “Obviously, the protesters are neither authorized to be at the ADR nor are they adequately trained and qualified,” an EASA spokesperson observed.
The criminal or civil offenses that are committed when protesters enter an airport’s secure area and when an aircraft is damaged are penalized by national authorities, and these rules “vary from one country to another,” said Jankovec.
In a statement to AIN, the European Business Aviation Association (EBAA) pointed out that the EU, consisting of 27 member states, has a “complicated” legal and regulatory landscape. “The existence of different legal frameworks and their diverse interpretations within these countries adds further complexity to this scenario as each member state holds national competence over these matters,” it said.
Because green activists entering the airport perimeter are not an aviation security threat and the risks involved with it are thus not supposed to be mitigated by EU aviation security regulations, ACI Europe decided in 2021 to develop specific guidance on perimeter protection as regards green activism. That guidance has been shared with its membership, and also with the EC, ECAC, and national aviation authorities.
EBAA and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) are working on their own guidelines.
Schouten, a former Dutch intelligence services officer, provided advice to EBAA about security for the EBACE show and offered support to the industry. In his view, some European politicians are fanning the flames by cartoonishly characterizing the air transport industry as a scapegoat for climate change, as witnessed by recent measures in the Netherlands to drastically reduce traffic at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport.
Jason Hayward, general manager of Universal Aviation’s FBO at London Stansted Airport, takes a similar view in bemoaning the legal and political odds stacked against the industry. “Look at how groups like Extinction Rebellion are lawyered up and able to conduct workshops [in how to circumvent legal consequences],” he commented. “Many of these protesters don’t have regular jobs and there appear to be few consequences for their lives. Airside passes are really hard to get, so why are the laws [meant to protect airports] not being applied? I hope someone is pursuing civil cases.”
GlobeAir’s Fragner, however, calls for caution. “Rigorous legal measures should be in place to deter these unlawful actions," he said. "Damaging someone’s property is crossing the legal lines but we have to try to calm down the situation and prevent it from escalating. The response should not be merely reactive, but proactive. We, as an industry, need to engage in a dialogue with climate activists. Threatening each other and filing legal claims might not be supportive to create such an environment."
Fragner asserted that the industry should fight the root cause of these often violent protests rather than fighting the symptoms. “We have to educate these young people about the strides being taken towards sustainable aviation, about the consequences of having a criminal record, and teach them that there are other ways to raise awareness [than breaching airport perimeter security],” he said.
The pattern of protests has made it increasingly clear that climate change concerns are not the sole issue on the agenda for protesters. “It’s not just jet owners who are the target,” Schouten emphasized. “Anyone who appears to be spending a lot of money is a target, and that’s why protests have been staged at expensive nightclubs, super-yachts, museums, Formula 1 [car racing], and golf courses. The environmental protests draw in more people to the anti-rich movement and the pictures all over Instagram [of allegedly excessive consumption] don’t help the narrative [for private aviation].”
Fagner also believes that the protests against business aviation are not just about climate change. “It’s a complex issue, the wealth is shifting, and the younger generations are experiencing that the wealth of the middle and lower class is going down, particularly in Europe.”
Hayward, who chairs the FBO committee of the British Business and General Aviation Association, sees it the same way. “There is definitely a class-war element to what has happened, they refuse to see the value of business people investing [in the places they fly to] or the use of aircraft for medical emergencies,” he commented. “The BBGA is addressing this because it’s high on our list of concerns and we need help from the government in getting correct messaging [to counter the misconceptions about private aviation].”
Is the Industry’s Response to the Threat Adequate?
Some might say that the business aviation industry—the injured, embattled party—has been strangely restrained in addressing the attacks it has endured.
AIN spent weeks unsuccessfully trying to persuade aircraft operators and service providers to speak about the challenges they face.
That doesn’t surprise Dyami’s Eric Schouten, who has observed a tendency for companies and individuals to keep their heads down and hope the problem goes away. “Many have chosen to keep their mouths shut, but we’ve also seen some internal pressure such as when the children of wealthy aircraft owners tell them they should not fly, and that could result in less private jet use for some,” he commented.
At the same time, he has observed a reluctance to take firm action to improve security. “Some say they don’t have the money, and security has always been at the low end of investment priorities,” said Schouten. “The industry is looking at the authorities and airports and expecting them to do something, but they [aircraft operators and owners] are reluctant to invest in their own security by getting intelligence briefs and training; they are all looking to the government and not much is happening.”
His team provides risk assessments for operators but since the protests have spread all over Europe, just about every airport poses a potential risk. Dyami is now offering more training to help business aircraft crews deal with incidents. The abiding advice is not to get involved in confronting protesters, since confrontation is exactly what they want to happen.
At Osprey Flight Solutions, Alexandra James and her colleagues are scouring intelligence sources to help clients be aware of any potential trouble spots. “These spates in attacks have tended to happen in peak times [like the summer vacation season in Europe],” she said. “I could see it going quiet for a while and then flaring up again around the Christmas and New Year period. We’ve been tracking a prominent German activist who has been expelled from the country and is now in Austria and very likely to keep targeting aviation.”
James acknowledged that aircraft owners and operators taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint won’t necessarily be immune from protests and that this in part explains why few want much public visibility on the environmental issue. “Are they going to target companies that are trying to change things? Probably,” she said. “So [the dilemma] is if you are doing things like carbon offsetting, do you keep trying to play the game the right way and at the same time avoid any visibility for trying to do the right thing?”
In some instances, posting more visible security around aircraft can help, but it seems that in most cases protesters have targeted aircraft in a random way, looking to damage whichever jet they can most readily access after cutting through airport perimeter fences or walking through the entrance gates.
At Medaire, another group providing support to the business aviation industry, global security manager Jeremy Knochel also views recent events as a major wake-up call for his clients. “It’s relatively easy to identify known security threats, but these protests have been very aggressive and disruptive and happening in places where we thought we were more secure, the free nations of the world where it appears protesters don’t suffer from legal ramifications,” he reflected.
Like other security experts, Knochel raised concerns that terrorist groups could be paying attention to how easily airport perimeters have been breached in private aviation enclaves and warned that the wider aviation industry should not be naïve about where this could lead.
Medaire’s security team provides support carefully tailored to operators’ specific travel profiles. Knochel said the general approach is, “Don’t wait until you get on the tarmac before taking action because that can create a lot of problems.”
In view of the recent attacks, Medaire has been advising clients to park aircraft as far from perimeter fences as possible and as close as possible to a building with ground support or security staff on hand. The company emphasizes the need to make the safety of passengers and crew paramount, with the strong recommendation that no attempts should be made to confront protesters, and certainly not in a physical way. “Generally speaking, we recommend a two-tier approach to security, which includes both doing things that are very visual [such as positioning security guards close to assets] and things that are more covert,” Knochel explained.
According to Fagner, the industry was caught by surprise by the intensity of the climate activism against private aviation. “The industry was not prepared," he said. "Maybe there were signals, maybe we ignored those signals. We are now in a reactive phase, we [the whole business aviation ecosystem] are learning how to deal with it."
Protest Wave Goes Beyond Europe
While much of the recent, unwelcome action has been in Europe, where climate change is probably one of the top two political issues, the business aviation industry seems to be under no illusions that the risks are confined to that continent. There have been protests in the U.S., for instance at East Hampton on New York’s Long Island, at the Atlantic Aviation FBO in Concord, Massachusetts, and most recently in August at the Burning Man event. Generally, these were not as disruptive as some of the direct actions seen in Europe.
Some airports in Australia and New Zealand have also had visits from environmental groups. But in other parts of the Asia Pacific rim, public protests are barely tolerated, which likely explains why business aviation has been undisturbed there.
At NBAA in Washington, D.C., COO Chris Rocheleau, who previously held leadership roles at the FAA and the Transportation Security Administration, said the industry group wants to have an open dialogue with those who share an interest in reducing carbon emissions. However, he expressed concern that some parties now misunderstand, or even misrepresent the industry’s position and appear to have little interest in a balanced conversation.
“We are advocates on the goal of decreasing the carbon footprint and support thoughtful and peaceful protest activity, but there is a way to do that legally and appropriately,” he told AIN. “Unfortunately, extremism has started to infect well-intentioned efforts to raise these issues. There is a place for thoughtful debate, and even peaceful, lawful demonstrations. That should not be confused for, or conflated with, actions that amount to eco-terrorism, which threaten the safety and security of aircraft, people, and infrastructure at airports.”
Regardless, even if business aviation doesn’t feel it is getting a fair hearing for its visible efforts to reduce carbon, NBAA feels compelled to make its case in part because policymakers will very likely get an audience with the other side of the argument. Over and above its efforts to push for increased availability and use of sustainable aviation fuel, the association maintains the industry is taking a lead in the greening of air transportation as a strong proponent of new propulsion systems and operating procedures.
“Our industry was the birthplace of lightweight composites, winglets, satellite-based avionics, and other carbon-cutting technologies,” Rocheleau said. “To reduce ground emissions, we routinely use single-engine taxi procedures and electrically powered tugs. While in flight, we’re using ever-more-fuel-efficient engines, as well as low-emission altitudes, power settings, and approaches. As a result, in some cases, new aircraft can be as much as 30 percent more efficient than the ones they replace.”
Beyond the rancor and fear raised by the protests targeting the industry is the very real prospect that they will further add to the cost pressure it faces. All the security experts interviewed by AIN said they expect insurance premiums on aircraft and other facilities to be inflated as insurers grapple with the implications of what has to be viewed as new and hard-to-mitigate risks.