KLM Flying Dutchman - Read it and weep: the ecotax is here

Introduction of Ecotax by Dutch Government for travel on/after July 1st 2008

The Dutch government requires KLM & NWA to apply an Air Passenger Tax for all departures on/after July 1st 2008. The tax applies for every passenger departing from the Netherlands, thus for all 3/4th traffic, for all tickets issued worldwide on/after January 16th 2008.

The tax amounts are:

- for all destinations within the EU or < 2500km: € 11,25
- for all destinations outside the EU or > 2500km: € 45,00

The following exceptions apply from AMS:
Turkey: €11,25 / Russia: € 11,25 / Libya: €11,25 / Morocco&Algiers: € 45,- / Canary Islands/Azores/Madeira: € 45,-

For example:
AMSFRAAMS / FRAAMSFRA: € 11,25
AMSISTAMS / ISTAMSIST: € 11,25
AMSNYCAMS / NYCAMSNYC: € 45,00
AMSBKKAMS / BKKAMSBKK: € 45,00


If I'm not mistaken, this means that KLM tickets just went up by $120 for people connecting in AMS from the US on a return flight.

So, it is for NL-originating traffic, not transfer pax, right? I must say that I am surprised that 75% of AMS traffic is NL-originating. I would have expected a higher proportion of transfer pax.

The tax amounts are on departure from Amsterdam, so you just pay the tax once for a AMSXXXAMS or XXXAMSXXX itinerary.
If I am not mistaken, KL/NW/AF traffic into/from AMS is more than 50% transit in AMS. AS KL/NW/AF have close to 50% market share and most other airlines' flights to AMS are O/D (few passengers on other airlines connecting in AMS), it is about right that 75% of AMS passengers will be exposed to the tax.

So, it is for NL-originating traffic, not transfer pax, right? .

Right. XXXAMSYYY doesn't incur this tax.

I have discovered the joys of the Dusseldorf airport these last two years.
Train connections, compact, efficient, convenient and great flight connections to the Maldives! LTU and Emirates also both have KL beat in Y.

Amsterdam Schiphol is nice, but less and less worth the price. I know I am not the only one actively looking for alternatives.

Hopefully there will be a dramatic drop in passengers at Schiphol this year and the Dutch government will reverse this onerous tax.

A couple of issues that will need clarification:
1) is it the final destination that counts, regardless of whether the pax connects elsewhere? i.e.: do you pay €11.25 or €45 if you fly, say, AMS-LHR-JFK on a single ticket? (By way of comparison, for UK APD, it is the final destination that counts, not the destination of the first leg)
2) What are the rules on transit: is it the standard 24 hours before next leg or is some other rule applied and do both legs need to be on the same ticket? Again, taking the UK example, there are different connection time allowed depending on destination, and both flights have to be on same ticket (unlike US rules on domestic air tax, where you can avoid said tax even if your international flight is on a separate ticket).

Excellent! Let's keep those poor people at home. How dare they think that they deserve to go abroad for a vacation! If they do, then we'll make them pay a fortune for the privilege. They should only be allowed outside of NL if they are wearing a uniform and carrying a M-16. :D

Very often flights from Germany via AMS on KL are much cheaper, than from AMS directly. Another reason for people living in the East of NL to drive to DUS or CGN ( often as near as AMS ) and start their journey in Germany.

Hopefully this will happen and KLc changes at least to a F 70 :D

A couple of issues that will need clarification:
1) is it the final destination that counts, regardless of whether the pax connects elsewhere? i.e.: do you pay €11.25 or €45 if you fly, say, AMS-LHR-JFK on a single ticket? (By way of comparison, for UK APD, it is the final destination that counts, not the destination of the first leg)

The final destination determines the level of the air passenger tax. If this is outside of the EU or further than 2500 km you will be charged the higher rate. AMS-LHR-JFK will be € 45.

2) What are the rules on transit: is it the standard 24 hours before next leg or is some other rule applied and do both legs need to be on the same ticket? Again, taking the UK example, there are different connection time allowed depending on destination, and both flights have to be on same ticket (unlike US rules on domestic air tax, where you can avoid said tax even if your international flight is on a separate ticket).

Transit must be within 24 hours.

Right. XXXAMSYYY doesn't incur this tax.

Except of course MSTAMSYYY (KL) or GRQAMSLCY (VG), I think this will kill domestic air travel in the Netherlands and possibly kill MST airport completely (not sure about GRQ), it's too easy for those in MST to head to Belgium or Germany and avoid this stupid tax.

What if your itinerary starts/ends at Antwerp rail station (on a KL coded Thalys train (http://jfctravelclub.com/travelblog/2007/03/26/klm-air-rail-service-to-antwerp/))? Will that be classed as starting in Belgium or the Netherlands?

What will this do for me? Visits to the Netherlands will probably be only on the rare business trip, it'll put a quite a few people off the idea too. I will still use it for transfers unless 'Terminal 5 fixes everything' and BA from LHR starts to be more attractive (I'd have to fly Club Europe to maintain BA Gold as opposed to flying cheap economy fares on KL but at least I'd be getting something for the C class fare).

I can see it affecting the other LCC's more than KL though, perhaps KL is hoping it'll get the likes of Easyjet to cut down on services so they'll still gain on pax that want to visit AMS (although the total number of pax will drop, there could be less competition so the ones that do still come will choose KL).

Except of course MSTAMSYYY (KL) or GRQAMSLCY (VG), I think this will kill domestic air travel in the Netherlands and possibly kill MST airport completely (not sure about GRQ), it's too easy for those in MST to head to Belgium or Germany and avoid this stupid tax.

I've never understood why a tiny country like the Netherlands has domestic flights at all - especially when there is such an excellent rail network. Flying internally probably just about makes sense if you are a connecting passenger, but apart from connecting flights I really don't understand why anyone would want to fly from Amsterdam to Maastricht, Eindhoven or Groningen.

And why should this tax kill MST? I'm sure that the tax works out a lot cheaper than driving or catching a train to the nearest airport in Belgium or Germany.

EUR 11.25 for a short-haul flight is slightly annoying, but I doubt anybody is going to lose much sleep over it, or change their travel plans. It certainly won't cause me to stop visiting the Netherlands, or to change my mode of transport from air to sea. The EUR 45.00 for long-haul, on the other hand, may well cause travellers to cross the border and fly from elsewhere, and is likely to hurt the likes of Martinair as well as Dutch package tour operators.

The EUR 45.00 for long-haul, on the other hand, may well cause travellers to cross the border and fly from elsewhere, and is likely to hurt the likes of Martinair as well as Dutch package tour operators.

They call it eco tax. The aim obviously is to discourage people to fly. 45 euro on a cheapo package holiday surely has an impact. it can increase the price of a package deal with more than 10%. Considerable I'd say! Same or even higher impact to be expected on low fares to the US for example.
By the way, the tax will go straight on the big pile and will not be used for the benefit of the environment.
Guess the government will get what they want, a bit less flying, and a bit more money.

Excellent! Let's keep those poor people at home. How dare they think that they deserve to go abroad for a vacation! If they do, then we'll make them pay a fortune for the privilege. They should only be allowed outside of NL if they are wearing a uniform and carrying a M-16. :D

There are enough ski resorts in Austria and beach bars in Marbella that would agree with you in a minute!

What will this do for me? Visits to the Netherlands will probably be only on the rare business trip,

€ 11.25 is going to stop you from visiting? The UK has one of the highest airport taxes in the world (much higher than the Netherlands) and I haven't heard about a drastic decline in tourism after these UK taxes were introduced a few years ago. Likewise, people will complain about these new Dutch taxes and soon they will have forgotten about them and travel just like before. If you can afford a € 200 ticket to London you can also afford a €211.25 ticket, if you can afford a € 500 ticket to New York you can also afford a €545 ticket.

For a family of four flying long haul, it will add 180 EUR to the ticket. Therefore it will be much cheaper for them to travel to Brussels or Germany. Ironic really, as it's meant to be an "environmental" tax, it will now encourage people to drive their car more to airports further away.

:td: to this new tax from a frequent visitor to AMS and a very frequent customer of KLM and NW.

The very hefty taxes that were imposed upon travel to the UK last year have resulted in me not visiting London recently; now I fear that Amsterdam and the Netherlands are destined to join that list as well. Given the awful Euro-dollar exchange rate and substantial fuel surcharges, the last thing a leisure traveler like myself needs is yet another hike in the cost of visiting Europe.

Ironic really, as it's meant to be an "environmental" tax, it will now encourage people to drive their car more to airports further away.

That, and the fact that connecting flights will, I believe, be exempt from this new tax. In what alternate universe does it make sense to tax AMS-DTW more heavily than DXB-AMS-DTW if the objective is to offer a disincentive to passengers contributing to environmental damage by flying on commercial airplanes?

That, and the fact that connecting flights will, I believe, be exempt from this new tax. In what alternate universe does it make sense to tax AMS-DTW more heavily than DXB-AMS-DTW if the objective is to offer a disincentive to passengers contributing to environmental damage by flying on commercial airplanes?Of course protecting the environment is the most important thing to do. Except when it has a negative impact on the local economy as pax will transfer at other airports than AMS ;) :rolleyes:

If you can afford a € 200 ticket to London you can also afford a €211.25 ticket, if you can afford a € 500 ticket to New York you can also afford a €545 ticket.

I agree - but where it will hit people are holiday flights to places like Morocco and the Canary Islands. Charging the lower rate for Libya and the higher rate for the Canary Islands seems rather inconsistent, and EUR 45 does make a difference when you're on a budget trip to the Canaries, especially when you're taking the whole family... and I suspect that the Dutch government's decision to include the Canaries in the higher fee band will affect the Dutch leisure travel market as it is quite likely that many people will now bundle their families into the car to start their two weeks in the sun from DUS or BRU rather than AMS. (And of course by bundling the family into the car they are causing more pollution...)

For a family of four flying long haul, it will add 180 EUR to the ticket. Therefore it will be much cheaper for them to travel to Brussels or Germany. Ironic really, as it's meant to be an "environmental" tax, it will now encourage people to drive their car more to airports further away.

Yes, but since the 'file' / traffic jam problem in the Netherlands only causes several billion euros in damage to the economy now, all these extra, unnecessary miles in the car will just be another drop in the bucket paralyzing the highway system. And, soon the government will have implemented the currently planned "pay by the kilometer based on congestion" system to make the trip to Brussels or Dusseldorf just as expensive.

Soon, it will be impractical for anyone than the very rich to use another form of transport than their bicycle or to take a holiday anywhere more exotic or far away than their most closely located faux-sunny Center Parcs cell. We won't talk about how much energy is needed to keep those fake beach swimming pool domes heated drearily located next to the miles and miles of heated and heavily lit tomato greenhouses responsible for shipping perfectly formed, tasteless, heavily Co2 burdened tomatoes to the far corners of the world.

Of course protecting the environment is the most important thing to do. Except when it has a negative impact on the local economy as pax will transfer at other airports than AMS ;) :rolleyes:Arguably, taxing transiting pax would only result in their transiting on another airline through another hub than AMS and therefore generating a similar carbon footprint. From this PoV, there is little point in taxing transit pax, even from a purely ecological perspective, until such time as similar taxes become widespread among European states.

I've never understood why a tiny country like the Netherlands has domestic flights at all - especially when there is such an excellent rail network. Flying internally probably just about makes sense if you are a connecting passenger, but apart from connecting flights I really don't understand why anyone would want to fly from Amsterdam to Maastricht, Eindhoven or Groningen.

And why should this tax kill MST? I'm sure that the tax works out a lot cheaper than driving or catching a train to the nearest airport in Belgium or Germany.

I believe the domestic flights are really just for connecting pax (there's no AMS-EIN anymore), I quite like flying LCY-AMS-MST in the Fokkers for some reason, but last time I flew MST-AMS I detected a number of American accents so I guess a lot of people connect to a longhaul flight - these people would definitely save by starting their journey in a neighbouring country.

Apart from 3 KL flights a day there's not a lot else going on in MST - there's a few Ryanair flights (11.25 is significant addition to a Ryanair fare) and a Volaire flight to Milan. There's also summer charters. So the vast majority of the airports custom is price sensitive.

€ 11.25 is going to stop you from visiting? The UK has one of the highest airport taxes in the world (much higher than the Netherlands) and I haven't heard about a drastic decline in tourism after these UK taxes were introduced a few years ago. Likewise, people will complain about these new Dutch taxes and soon they will have forgotten about them and travel just like before. If you can afford a € 200 ticket to London you can also afford a €211.25 ticket, if you can afford a € 500 ticket to New York you can also afford a €545 ticket.

To be fair it probably won't stop me visiting but I'll probably cut down somewhat. It's more principle than price - it's a stupid tax and the best thing to do in these cases is to vote with your wallet. I know the UK is bad but I live here it's hard to avoid the tax if I want to travel, it's just annoying to see other countries following our lead - first we're to blame for the liquids rules and now for eco taxes :rolleyes:

Also although € 11.25 is nothing on its own, it soon adds up when you're also adding in the UK taxes, the airport fees and the ones KLM like to make up. For H pier residents the change will be more noticeable, it's a significant addition to a LCC fare.

To be fair it probably won't stop me visiting but I'll probably cut down somewhat. It's more principle than price - it's a stupid tax and the best thing to do in these cases is to vote with your wallet.

This tax is made up by the Dutch governement, and not by the airlines. I don't think the Dutch government cares about people voting with their wallet. You'll hit the airlines, and the airlines don't like this tax as much as us.

Charging the lower rate for Libya and the higher rate for the Canary Islands seems rather inconsistent, ...

Libya = oil (25% GDP) = Shell ... or am I just feeling cynical ;)

Apart from 3 KL flights a day there's not a lot else going on in MST - there's a few Ryanair flights (11.25 is significant addition to a Ryanair fare) and a Volaire flight to Milan.
The flights to Milan will soon be withdrawn. According to the airline (Volare) this is a direct consequence of the ecotax.

The flights to Milan will soon be withdrawn. According to the airline (Volare) this is a direct consequence of the ecotax.

Airlines are very fond of finding excuses to withdraw unprofitable routes. Some people may remember Ryanair cutting down their STN-NQY service, allegedly because of the GBP 5.00 Airport Development Fee at NQY. This year they suddenly launched several new routes from NQY, despite the ADP.

How can Volare be so sure that their passengers won't be prepared to pay an extra EUR 11-and-a-bit? I bet they'd been planning to withdraw the route for some time, and are using the new tax as a convenient excuse.

Dang, €45 = 65 Bush Pesos, that's at least 2 less trips to the "coffeeshop" while in Amsterdam.

Um.. have the booking engines updated yet?

I just priced out LBA AMS SVG both in June and July and they're the same fare + tax?

Or are AFKL using this as an excuse to bump fares/taxes up from earlier in the year?

Um.. have the booking engines updated yet?

I just priced out LBA AMS SVG both in June and July and they're the same fare + tax?



No eco tax for transfer at AMS flights.