Maybe helpful to literally translate some of the highlights (or what I think are the highlights in any case!). Everyone can be their own judge! Not sure I like the idea of transfer buses to a new G-satellite, however. I would think a tunnel would be much more preferable; we don't want to catch the Heathrow busing disease. And does anybody know where this "G buffer" is located?

Here are the translations:

New gates and piers
Plans for the construction of two new piers (A and A') have been put on ice indefinitely. "Research about the passenger experience has consistently shown that two aspects always play a prominent role: queues at security checkpoints and the quality of the waiting areas at the gate. At the moment we are testing the Schiphol Innovative Gate on the G-pier (G7). This waiting area in a new style should improve the passenger experience before departure considerably. Not only will the furniture be completely renewed, but also the lighting and information screens will be tailored to the airlines using the gate and the phase of the boarding process. Dependent upon the test's results, this concept will be rolled out this summer."

Separating arriving/departing passengers and security
It seems obvious that this reconstruction will be substantial, taking several years and requiring a large investment roughly estimated at €300 million. The construction plans vary from building up into the air (a new level on top of the existing terminal building) to building parallel along the existing piers and building. Construction should start, according to current projections, in 2012.

British travelers and security
Of course one wants to avoid unnecessarily screening passengers, which is unfortunately the case at the moment. All traffic out of Great Britain arrives at the non-Schengen area and when transfering to a Schengen flight, must pass through the security filter, which is actually not required by EU rules. In the new design, we want to avoid these types of situations.

Cancelled plans for new A-pier
Expansion is certainly not permanently off the table. The problem is that increased demand is concentrated around peak hours. "We have plenty of capacity during the slow times and that should not change much. But most carriers, especially home carrier KLM, want extra freqeuencies to European destinations to seamlessly connect to the arriving masses of intercontinental passengers. And that is always during peak hours. Considering that transfer passenger constitute 43% of total volume, one cannot avoid an unequal distribution over the course of the day."

Satellite terminal in the G-buffer
Four widebodies will be able to park there. Departing passengers will wait in a comfortable lounge, while transfer buses will bring passengers to the main terminal.

Automated border passage
No-Q means automated border passage for EU passengers on the basis of biometric data found in (new) passports. In contrast to Privium (border passage with iris scan), it will not be necessary to enroll and there will be no additional costs. "From the upcoming winter until next year, we will install 100 machines."

Security and automated border passage for ELITES
Business travelers will be happy to know that priority lanes will be expanded considerably at security check-points. Both Previum members as well as first and business class passengers will be able to make use of this facility. "Currently, the line for Privium is sometimes longer than the regular queues, which obviously is not the intention."

Airport fees
A recurring sensitive issue for the airlines is the airport fees. Last year, these costs were frozen for the airlines, but with an eye to the planned investments, it seems unlikely they will be frozen again in April 2011. The reconstruction of the terminal must be financed somehow and while it will lead to substantially lower security costs, the return on investment is over twenty years. The airport fees consist of three parts: landing fees (per aircraft, dependent on weight), a security surcharge and a passenger service surcharge. "Some airlines want us to share part of the risk through the elimination of landing fees. But even if you land an empty aircraft, you still make use of the runways and other facilities, such as a fire brigade that is always on stand-by." Currently, a discussion is taking place about bringing variation to the security surcharge. "Flights that fall into so-called "high risk" categories (such as to the United States and Israel) demand extra security measures. I am of the opinion that it would not be unreasonable if the extra costs we incur for these flights are passed onto the airlines that service these destinations." The possibility that the government would finance a part of the infrastructure costs, as is currently the case for rail and road transport, is not realistic. "The ministry of finance is already critical about the dividend currently issued by the Schiphol Group to the government, never mind that they would be prepared to finance in our expansion plans."

New flying taxes
"We are closely watching the proposed German air tax. But also the environmental tax in England and the poverty surcharge in France are signs that do not make us uncomfortable. In the Netherlands the air tax was implemented to close a budget deficit of €350 million, but in the end it caused about €1.2 billion in damages to the economy. Let us hope Dutch politics have learned their lesson."