yup - sounds like me that all it did was make it out of committee. Much different than it becoming law.

My my guess is UA will be lobbying hard to keep this from passing. Have no idea the political situation, but given the amount of jobs and economic activity they contribute to in the state, both directly and through other vendors that serve them (caterer/flight kitchen, airport support staff, etc.), they likely have a lot of lobbying leverage they can use. They can’t pull out of EWR, of course, but they could legitimately move a chunk of flights/business to other hubs - particularly IAD, that would be enough to worry the state.

I’d also guess that they are ready to threaten a lawsuit if they think it would help their case, and regardless of if they threaten, they probably should file one of it passes.

On another note, I’m still trying to figure out why NJ would want to pick a fight with one of its largest employers and the engine of how many millions or more of dollars a year in economic benefit to the State. Why would the state not make it easy and just apply this to all airlines? What is the downside to applying it to all. Did UA do something to make NJ mad? Is NJ trying to force UA concessions on something else?

and why should UA alone pay the costs needed for the PATH extension? Shouldn’t that be borne by all airlines or travelers? Or will the extension to EWR only be open to UA travellers - seems reasonable to me if they are the only ones paying into it?

Huh? Every other state penalizes the dominant carrier at their hub airports?

Georgia has DL pay more taxes on fuel (in relative terms, of course) than AA because of its mega-hub at ATL? N. Carolina taxes AA higher than B6 because if their position at CLT? Can you please cite a specific example. Dominant carriers will pay more because of their larger operations in a given place, of course, but usually they all pay tax on an equal footing - not you pay taxes based on your serving X million pax a year, but I don’t because I don’t serve X million passengers. That’s what they call discrimination (outside of government, of course, it’s usually the other way, with a discount for buying in volume).

If the train is going to benefit all carriers at the airport (which in the end, it will), then it should be applied to the carrier based on their share of flights (which it essentially would if the exemption was lifted for all carriers). Or just charge a surcharge fare to leave at the station, which is essentially the way it works with NJ Transit - you pay that extra in the fare to the airport.

If I’m going to pay higher fares to EWR because UA has to account for a larger tax bill (relatively, of course) compared to say, DL, then I’d expect riders to the airport should be required to show a UA ticket to access the train to the airport - or more realistically, to have a far lower fare - Those riders showing a UA ticket for that day can ride for 15% (for example) of fare that a non-flyer or DL Flyer has to pay. I realize that ain’t gonna happen, but that’s the way it should if it goes on like this.

My my guess is if this passes, it’s not going to be the end of the story.

Raising prices at UA isn’t helping the consumer and isn’t promoting competition. UA doesn’t pay the price, you and I do in higher fares. I’m all for UA fighting back, sue them, move jobs out of NJ, do everything possible to prove that UA has the power. The consequences of this new tax has to be a negative for NJ or it’s only a matter of time before the next new tax. Governments don’t create wealth, the private sector does. Once again the tail is wagging the dog.