United Could Move ‘the Bulk’ of its Operations from Newark if Jet Fuel Tax Increases
Sep 16, 2018, 7:31 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 14,884
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.
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
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.
Sep 16, 2018, 7:32 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,400
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.
Only in New Jersey does adding an extra tax that only applies to your biggest customer make sense.
Sep 16, 2018, 7:35 pm
#19
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AS MVP Gold 75K, UA Gold, Marriott LTT, Avis President's Club
Posts: 1,539
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?
Sep 16, 2018, 7:38 pm
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 14,884
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.
Sep 16, 2018, 7:43 pm
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,400
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.
Sep 16, 2018, 8:17 pm
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,762
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.
UA ain't leaving EWR over a few 10's of millions.
Sep 16, 2018, 8:39 pm
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,400
Sep 16, 2018, 8:46 pm
#25
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 339
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)
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, 2018 at 9:14 pm
Sep 16, 2018, 9:12 pm
#26
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,451
The bill as currently drafted contemplates regional affiliates of the major carrier with 8m+ annual enplanements.
Sep 16, 2018, 9:38 pm
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 16,901
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.
Sep 16, 2018, 10:25 pm
#29
Join Date: Mar 2018
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP. Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,134
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.
Sep 17, 2018, 12:30 am
#30
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,866
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.