Easyjet to move operations from AMS to BRU?
Moderator: Latest news team
Easyjet to move operations from AMS to BRU?
I just read on Luchtvaartnieuws.nl that Easyjet would change about 25% of their operations out of AMS to BRU if there will be an ecotax in the Netherlands.
Would be nice for BRU, but I guess the Dutch government will find some kind of solution to keep Easyjet in AMS as they seem to be the second largest operator in AMS, after KLM-Air France.
Would be nice for BRU, but I guess the Dutch government will find some kind of solution to keep Easyjet in AMS as they seem to be the second largest operator in AMS, after KLM-Air France.
LX-LGX, easyJet is threatening to leave AMS. O'Leary had his moment of fame a few weeks ago when he bashed the Dutch government...and threatened to leave Eindhoven (only to say a few days lagter he saw growth potential for Eindhoven......).
BTW eayJets really wants to be in the news lately.... First the news they would consider Lelystad as a viable (partial) alternative to AMS..and now this news.
BTW eayJets really wants to be in the news lately.... First the news they would consider Lelystad as a viable (partial) alternative to AMS..and now this news.
-
- Posts: 3769
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 00:00
Since when does Ryanair fly to AMS ?LX-LGX wrote:Some will react to this post that I’m bashing Ryanair. Trust it's better for them not to read any further.
The treat to leave AMS is ridiculous. The reason why Ryanair is now treatening to leave AMS, is because it gives them media coverage. They will stay in AMS,
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: 19 Apr 2007, 11:52
- Location: Machelen, Belgium
Such a decison wouldn't really reflect the spirit of EasyJet in my opinion. The last few months they try to profile themselves as an evironmental friendly airline trying to do everything to reduce emissions..
Fleeing AMS due to an ecotax would just proof the contrary...
Chris
I wouldn't go as far as stating this....
Honnestly, and this is certainly a common thing in Belgium as well, governments are always seeking to fill up their financial gaps by inventing new taxes, etc.
If airlines would need to pay this tax, then the government should spend less on evironmental stuff, as this tax will be used for these purposes and will cover a part of it.
Therefore, being against this tax doesn't really mean that you are against ecology.
Looking at the state in which the Dutch government is actually (just think about pensions ass well), it is not strange for them to come up with this new tax.[/quote]
The Dutch government will cancel their ecotax-plans within few days. On 18th September, the Dutch budget must be presented to the Dutch parliament. By then, the government must advise if there will – or will not - be an ecotax. And the ecotax of 24 euro per passenger, planned many months ago, will not be introduced as it’s illegal for two reasons.
1) illegal because of international conventions
The Dutch minister for aviation matters (minister Eurlings, from "Verkeer en Waterstaat") is new in his job, and he probably has never heard before of the Chicago Convention (1944) on equal treatment in international aviation (international conventions have priority to national laws). Article 15, last paragraph states: “No fees, dues or other charges shall be imposed by any contracting State in respect solely of the right of transit over or entry into or exit from its territory of any aircraft of a contracting State or persons or property thereon.” Oeps: the honourable minister, unaware of international conventions, called his thing “ecotax”, thus not referring to a cost strictly related to the use of an airport facility. And now it’s too late to change the name: the thing has been named "ecotax".
2) illegal because of Dutch legislation
The minister has revealed that the tax will be booked in the budget as "WBM / Wet Belasting op Milieugrondslag”. Oeps: specialists say he has forgotten to send his proposal to the Raad van State (“State’s Council”), and also that a change of tax laws require a Parliament discussion. Thus impossible to introduce it in the forthcoming budget.
- - -
best legal publication (in my opinion) (sorry, Dutch only)
http://www.bdn.nl/images/pub/Luchtvrach ... 202007.pdf
- - -
This also answers the other question = will an ecotax also be introduced in Belgium? The answer is no, as Belgium also has signed the Chicago Convention. Although: untill our new government is installed, we still have a minister of Transport who also has never heard about the Chicago Convention.
- - -
Aviation lawyer Frans Vreede, Holland's top aviation specialist, announces in the above article that he's willing to take this matter to court, if someone asks him to do so.
1) illegal because of international conventions
The Dutch minister for aviation matters (minister Eurlings, from "Verkeer en Waterstaat") is new in his job, and he probably has never heard before of the Chicago Convention (1944) on equal treatment in international aviation (international conventions have priority to national laws). Article 15, last paragraph states: “No fees, dues or other charges shall be imposed by any contracting State in respect solely of the right of transit over or entry into or exit from its territory of any aircraft of a contracting State or persons or property thereon.” Oeps: the honourable minister, unaware of international conventions, called his thing “ecotax”, thus not referring to a cost strictly related to the use of an airport facility. And now it’s too late to change the name: the thing has been named "ecotax".
2) illegal because of Dutch legislation
The minister has revealed that the tax will be booked in the budget as "WBM / Wet Belasting op Milieugrondslag”. Oeps: specialists say he has forgotten to send his proposal to the Raad van State (“State’s Council”), and also that a change of tax laws require a Parliament discussion. Thus impossible to introduce it in the forthcoming budget.
- - -
best legal publication (in my opinion) (sorry, Dutch only)
http://www.bdn.nl/images/pub/Luchtvrach ... 202007.pdf
- - -
This also answers the other question = will an ecotax also be introduced in Belgium? The answer is no, as Belgium also has signed the Chicago Convention. Although: untill our new government is installed, we still have a minister of Transport who also has never heard about the Chicago Convention.
- - -
Aviation lawyer Frans Vreede, Holland's top aviation specialist, announces in the above article that he's willing to take this matter to court, if someone asks him to do so.
It's not fleeing AMS, it's just bussiness sense. If every ticket would be 48 euros more expensive, there would just be less people flying. Therefore they would move some aircraft to BRU and develope the market there.Avro wrote:Such a decison wouldn't really reflect the spirit of EasyJet in my opinion. The last few months they try to profile themselves as an evironmental friendly airline trying to do everything to reduce emissions..
Fleeing AMS due to an ecotax would just proof the contrary...
Chris
let them stay where they are
horrid experience.. decided to try their new BRU-GVA routes.. Flew 4 times in 1 week.. First flight was delayed over an hour.. second about 2:30 both ex BRU..third and fourth over an hour too. online check in does not work from BRU, hence a line of 45 mn at BRU just to check in. They start boarding before the aircraft is even at the gate, result all pax boarded but stuck at the entrance of the jetway (standing up) while pax arriving deplane, and poor crew cleaning the plane... HORROR ... I am willing to pay 100 euro more, and fly SN.
it's not because you're an environmental airline that you just accept to pay 24 euro per pax more...Avro wrote:Such a decison wouldn't really reflect the spirit of EasyJet in my opinion. The last few months they try to profile themselves as an evironmental friendly airline trying to do everything to reduce emissions..
Fleeing AMS due to an ecotax would just proof the contrary...
Chris
Easy complains (not only in AMS, but a lot more in STN where they have to pay the tax now) because they have higher loads and newer aircraft than a traditional airline (hence they transmit less CO² per pax) but still have to pay the same amount of eco tax as all the other airlines...
And a dirty old Cargo B747 with no pax doesn't have to pay the eco tax (This could be different in AMS, but it's like that in the UK)
This is just another way for the government to earn money...
-
- Posts: 454
- Joined: 01 May 2007, 22:13
- Location: Antwerp, Belgium
I first was very sceptical about this stuff, but if you think about it, it might become hard reality!!
I m sure BRU would give them a good deal.
I personally don t care about SN having a hard competition with Easy at BRU: SN can learn alot from them.
I m sure BRU would give them a good deal.
I personally don t care about SN having a hard competition with Easy at BRU: SN can learn alot from them.
Fly4hours, making the path to airline pilot affordable to all