Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

United Could Move ‘the Bulk’ of its Operations from Newark if Jet Fuel Tax Increases

United Could Move ‘the Bulk’ of its Operations from Newark if Jet Fuel Tax Increases

Reply

Old Sep 16, 18, 8:08 pm
  #16  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York and Vienna
Programs: PA WorldPass Platinum, AA, DL, LH. GHA Black, SPG and HHonors Gold
Posts: 3,776
It's posturing, of course, but it can be effective.
drewguy likes this.
jspira is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 18, 8:31 pm
  #17  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: CVG/YYZ
Programs: UA Gold, AC, AA, DL, Marriott Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 11,047
Serious question here, and I’m just a laymen, not a lawyer, so apologize if this sounds silly.

Obviously, UA can’t just take its business out of one of its largest hubs and just move it elsewhere. But aren’t there legal questions here? If this passes, it seems to me, anyway, that this could be considered discriminatory based on only applying to airline(s) that carry 8 million or more passengers? Couldn’t UA sue to have this law struck down based on that? And likely win.

Also, aren’t there other ways that UA could fight this? For example, with no slot limits, couldn’t they, for example, just start splitting up much of its EWR operation and give it to multiple Express carriers, so that no one carries over 8 million pax. Or transfer some of its jets to another ‘carrier’ that could operate for them - maybe, say, Continental Airlines?

i also wonder why the state would want to start a fight with presumably one of its largest employers and a company that provides that much economic activities in the state? Is there something going on behind the scenes that UA did to get the ire of the NJ government? It seems to me a state wouldn’t wont to provoke this kind of fight with a major contributor to the economy in the state? Or are they trying to extract some sort of concession from UA to ‘drop’ this tax. Seems very strange to me that this would happen out of the blue - seems there is something missing to the story here.
emcampbe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 18, 8:32 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 6,227
Originally Posted by jspira View Post
It's posturing, of course, but it can be effective.
This is a dramatically unfair tax and I'm certain DL, AA, and B6 would love it if it were to be enacted into law. If it is, management will figure out some way to split United into four airlines (like Swiss does with Swiss International vs. Swiss Global).

Only in New Jersey does adding an extra tax that only applies to your biggest customer make sense.
jsloan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 18, 8:35 pm
  #19  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Platinum, Avis President's Club
Posts: 1,143
Originally Posted by emcampbe View Post
Also, aren’t there other ways that UA could fight this? For example, with no slot limits, couldn’t they, for example, just start splitting up much of its EWR operation and give it to multiple Express carriers, so that no one carries over 8 million pax. Or transfer some of its jets to another ‘carrier’ that could operate for them - maybe, say, Continental Airlines?
I read in another article that total traffic includes express and mainline.
JHake10 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 18, 8:38 pm
  #20  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Premier 1K, SPG Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 10,510
They could, they won't.
mduell is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 18, 8:38 pm
  #21  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: CVG/YYZ
Programs: UA Gold, AC, AA, DL, Marriott Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 11,047
Originally Posted by JHake10 View Post
I read in another article that total traffic includes express and mainline.
sure, but since it’s based on ‘carrier’, this wouldn’t apply to UAX flights, presumably, since those aren’t operated by ‘United’ but by ‘Skywest’, Expressjet’, ‘Mesa’, etc, all of which are different carriers.
emcampbe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 18, 8:43 pm
  #22  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 6,227
Originally Posted by emcampbe View Post
sure, but since it’s based on ‘carrier’, this wouldn’t apply to UAX flights, presumably, since those aren’t operated by ‘United’ but by ‘Skywest’, Expressjet’, ‘Mesa’, etc, all of which are different carriers.
Replacing mainline traffic with express traffic is a definite possibility that would satisfy nobody.

I'd also really enjoy it if UA decided to offer 45 daily flights from EWR to ABE, SWF, ISP, HVN, etc. (with continuing onward service, of course) in order to purchase fuel.
jsloan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 18, 9:17 pm
  #23  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,199
Its a dumb tax, just tax everyone. It'll all be a wash, and some airlines might fly a bit less to EWR, big deal.

UA ain't leaving EWR over a few 10's of millions.
sbm12 and Xyzzy like this.
entropy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 18, 9:39 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 6,227
Originally Posted by entropy View Post
UA ain't leaving EWR over a few 10's of millions.
No, but (a) airfares will go up to compensate, and (b) the next new TATL longhaul service might well be announced from ORD, IAD, or IAH instead of EWR.
jsloan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 18, 9:46 pm
  #25  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 331
EWR already has I believe the highest cost per enplanement in the US... so of course it only makes sense to make operating out of there even more expensive

The question of course is whether they’ve got the balls to do anything about it. Or whether a suit can be won alleging its discriminatory (and I think that’s a pretty fair possibility)

Last edited by jk88usa; Sep 16, 18 at 10:14 pm
jk88usa is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 18, 10:12 pm
  #26  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 6,339
Originally Posted by emcampbe View Post


sure, but since it’s based on ‘carrier’, this wouldn’t apply to UAX flights, presumably, since those aren’t operated by ‘United’ but by ‘Skywest’, Expressjet’, ‘Mesa’, etc, all of which are different carriers.
The bill as currently drafted contemplates regional affiliates of the major carrier with 8m+ annual enplanements.
JHake10 likes this.
EWR764 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 18, 10:38 pm
  #27  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 14,842
OK. I’ll say it. I hate every inch of tacky EWR. I hate every grumpy employee. I hate the lines. I hate the tortured acces roads. I hate the bad layout. I hate how there’s no there there. Convenient to nothing. Did I mention the grumpy employees? I don’t know where UA would go, but I’d dance a jog if I never had to endure EWR again.
milepig is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 18, 10:42 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Programs: Airline Free Agent, Hyatt, IHG, Hilton
Posts: 1,302
More likely UA would raise airfares at EWR.
Austin787 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 18, 11:25 pm
  #29  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Programs: UA 1K, AA Plat, Hilton Diamond, SPG Platinum
Posts: 139
Originally Posted by milepig View Post
OK. I’ll say it. I hate every inch of tacky EWR. I hate every grumpy employee. I hate the lines. I hate the tortured acces roads. I hate the bad layout. I hate how there’s no there there. Convenient to nothing. Did I mention the grumpy employees? I don’t know where UA would go, but I’d dance a jog if I never had to endure EWR again.
I'll take it one step further and say the same thing and lump all New York area airports in.
EWR764 and ExplorerWannabe like this.
gmt4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 18, 1:30 am
  #30  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,673
Originally Posted by milepig View Post
OK. I’ll say it. I hate every inch of tacky EWR. I hate every grumpy employee. ............. Did I mention the grumpy employees?

Chicago, SFO & LAX have some real bad employees also. I did have a few good EWR experiences over the years, but very few.

I never attacked a tax on constitutional grounds, but I have seen a lot of targeted laws struck down for one reason or another.
BF263533 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: