Schiphol bans 36 XR activists for up to 10 years over protest behind security checkpoint

Schiphol Airport has imposed long-term access bans on 36 Extinction Rebellion (XR) climate activists for entering a secure zone during a protest against KLM’s frequent flyer program. The bans, ranging from five to ten years, have triggered sharp criticism from XR, which called the decision a dangerous suppression of the right to protest.

The bans prohibit the activists from entering secured and protected parts of the airport, though public areas remain accessible. This effectively bars them from flying via Schiphol for the duration of the sanctions. The airport confirmed the decision after XR publicly disclosed it on Saturday.

“On March 8, 2025, 30 to 40 people attempted to gain unauthorized access to a secured area of Schiphol. This is punishable under the law and a serious violation of our house rules,” the airport said in a statement.

That day, XR held its twelfth protest at Schiphol against Flying Blue, the frequent flyer rewards program operated by KLM. The demonstration took place behind the airport’s security checkpoint, where 67 activists were arrested after refusing to leave the area.

A formal letter sent to the activists cited the March 8 protest as the basis for the decision. Some received five-year bans, others ten. Schiphol said the restrictions were necessary “to safeguard the safety of the airport, public order, and the interests of travelers.”

In an opinion piece published in Het Parool, XR campaigner and former KLM employee Simone Wiegman described the access bans as “a dangerous suppression of the right to protest” and “a disproportionate restriction of freedom of movement.” She argued that demonstrators must be allowed to protest within sight and sound of their target—even if that target is on private property. “The most logical place to protest is the Frequent Flyer Lounge, where KLM pampers ‘elite’ passengers with free snacks and drinks,” Wiegman wrote.

XR plans to challenge the sanctions in court. “What XR will undertake specifically is currently being examined,” attorney Willem Jebbink said on behalf of the group.

In the same opinion piece, Wiegman accused Schiphol of engaging in a broader campaign to obstruct protests. She noted the airport previously used screens to block visibility of XR protests and that in December, the mayor of Haarlemmermeer restricted an XR demonstration to beneath a viaduct, far from Schiphol Plaza. “Now Schiphol is taking it even further by banning protesters for years,” she said.

Schiphol, meanwhile, said it supports the right to protest—under certain conditions. “We respect the right to demonstrate and make this possible as long as protests take place within the rules and at agreed-upon locations,” the airport said. “The decision to impose access bans was not taken lightly. But in this case, we believe a clear boundary needed to be drawn.”

Wiegman rejected the airport’s rationale. “The disruptions have always been very minor. Our campaign is not aimed at passengers or staff but at a system that rewards excessive flying,” she said. “In this case, only a few frequent flyers were unable to get coffee in the lounge.”

She also questioned the claim that the protest posed a serious safety risk. According to Wiegman, activists entered the secure area using fully refundable tickets—sometimes without proper ID checks. “During the December protest, the Royal Marechaussee even wished several activists an enjoyable demonstration,” she said.

Schiphol has argued that air travel is a vital form of mobility. But Wiegman cited research from the Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid showing that half of the Dutch population does not fly, while just 25 percent of people are responsible for 75 percent of flights. “Schiphol is restricting activists’ mobility because they criticized the rewarding of excessive air travel,” she said.

In her opinion piece, Wiegman concluded that the bans were not about public safety, but about silencing criticism. “This week it was revealed that CO₂ emissions from Dutch aviation reached an all-time high,” she wrote. “Technological improvements promoted by KLM and Schiphol do not offset the emissions caused by continued growth. Even Schiphol admits: ‘If aviation keeps growing at the current pace, we will not meet our climate goals.’”

“The only real solution is shrinking the industry,” she added. “Flying Blue rewards people who already fly absurd amounts with even more free flights. The more CO₂ someone emits, the more benefits they receive.”