My goodness, the Netherlands’ war on aviation is continuing, with what could prove to be yet another setback for the airport and airlines. We already know that as of 2024, Amsterdam Schiphol Airport will get a new “green” flight cap, reducing the number of annual flights at the airport significantly. Now the government is planning on introducing a new tax for transfer passengers, which will make Amsterdam Europe’s least competitive hub.
In this post:
Transfer passengers in Amsterdam could pay ~$56 tax
A majority in the Netherlands’ House of Representatives has approved a motion that would greatly increase the cost of booking a flight itinerary connecting at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. Specifically, passengers connecting at the airport could pay a new Dutch state tax, with the proceeds being used to reduce energy taxes.
While this has strong support, it hasn’t yet been finalized, and we’ll see what happens in the coming weeks with regards to this becoming law.
For what it’s worth, currently passengers originating in the Netherlands pay a “Netherlands Dutch State Tax,” which comes out to $28.20 in each direction (this is in addition to the fare, other taxes, and carrier surcharges). 
Currently transfer passengers don’t have to pay that. In other words, you’d pay this if flying from Amsterdam to Frankfurt, but not if flying from Paris to Amsterdam to Frankfurt. If this were implemented, a passenger connecting roundtrip in Amsterdam would pay an extra $56.40 in taxes. That’s significant, especially when you consider the competitive landscape.
My take on this potential tax for transfer passengers
The Dutch government seems hell-bent on essentially killing KLM. The new flight cap that’s being implemented will make KLM less competitive in terms of its route network. Then if you add a $56 tax on every roundtrip connecting itinerary through Amsterdam, that would make KLM highly uncompetitive, since other European airports don’t charge the same tax for transfer passengers.
$56 is a huge tax, greater than the carrier’s margins in most situations. Aviation is highly competitive, and you see airlines matching one another to the exact dollar on many fares. It would be hard for KLM to find a way to not pass that tax on to consumers.
All that being said, let me acknowledge a couple of things. First of all, I respect that the government of the Netherlands has set a climate goal and is actually trying to take action to meet that goal. Other governments seem to be setting goals, and then are taking a “thoughts and prayers” approach.
That being said, I do think the government is going about this all wrong when it comes to aviation, as it’s somehow viewing emissions in a vacuum. Amsterdam Schiphol Airport shrinking will simply lead to other airports in the region growing, which doesn’t accomplish a whole lot. Furthermore, the Netherlands could see a greater reduction in emissions if it simply limited the type of aircraft that could fly to the airport, rather than just capping the total number of flights.
The other thing I want to acknowledge is that I have always found the way that airports tax passengers to be pretty backwards. Many flight taxes apply just to passengers who are originating at an airport, and not to those connecting. Is that really logical? Should those originating at an airport be subsidizing the cost of those connecting?
I understand why that is, ultimately. It’s just how things have long been, since historically airports have wanted to do everything they can to attract connecting passengers. With so many airports now at capacity, no country wants to rip off the band-aid and start taxing connecting passengers, since it would make an airport very uncompetitive.
So while I don’t want to see aviation taxes increase to this extent, I don’t totally disagree with the concept of having connecting passengers pay their fair share as well. Now, ideally that would come with a reduction in taxes for originating passengers, but not surprisingly, that isn’t on the table here. The government just wants more money.
Bottom line
The Dutch government is considering introducing a new transfer tax for passengers at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. Currently only passengers originating in Amsterdam pay this tax, while if this change is put into law, connecting passengers would pay this as well.
Historically airports don’t charge their typical fees for connecting passengers, so this would be very bad news for KLM. Each passenger would be on the hook for an extra $56 worth of taxes on a roundtrip connecting itinerary, which is significant, especially given how competitive airlines are.
What do you make of the Dutch government adding a new transfer tax for Schiphol Airport?
To my mind, this has nothing to do with climate change. Did you make this up or is it in their own declaration? Even if they said it, I believe it’s green washing. The Netherlands has been trying to reduce tourism. They are over loved by visitors and it affects their country adversely. Among many pain points, airport operations are overwhelmed. Discouraging transfers through Amsterdam with this transfer tax will relieve some of the traffic...
To my mind, this has nothing to do with climate change. Did you make this up or is it in their own declaration? Even if they said it, I believe it’s green washing. The Netherlands has been trying to reduce tourism. They are over loved by visitors and it affects their country adversely. Among many pain points, airport operations are overwhelmed. Discouraging transfers through Amsterdam with this transfer tax will relieve some of the traffic at the airport. I believe that is the fundamental goal.
Climat bullsh*** its another lie for particular individuals connected to governments to make huge money.
I think they expect the other EU countries to follow suit ... but I'm not sure if they will ... people here in Europe are more and more fed up with those climate activists and elections will be held sooner or later.
Pay higher plane taxes to the government which will subsidize EV purchases. There's a reason Europe is starting to shift right politically. Insane policies can only go so far.
I guess I will use either Paris , Brussels, Frankfurt or Munich in future. Pity I always enjoyed Amsterdam, but I disagree with this tax and therefore will spend my money elsewhere.
Amsterdam has a significant capacity issue with far too many flights and insufficient staffing to ensure on time departures and efficient arrivals. Air travel should be priced to reduce demand sufficient to better match capacity. To retain a hub status is not about pricing, it is about its ability to operate effectively.
I look at the total price. If they are going to include it in the ticket price I may actually not mind paying it and flying KLM if it is the most direct and/or cheapest option depending on my requirements for that trip. As others pointed out it is still much lower than others.
This is not different than cities taxing hotel stays and rental cars to raise revenue from non residents. It not about being greeen, it about generating revenue for the state from non residents.
If are flying J, the extra $56 maybe significantly less than the current fees at LHR, so most will just have to eat the cost as part of doing business.
A hotel stay means you’re staying at the destination and contributing to the local economy. In the case of transit you’re not remaining in the country. Visitors can also claim taxes when they depart some countries depending on the amount purchased. Perhaps that should stop.
> In the case of transit you’re not remaining in the country
But you are still making use of facilities built and operated by that country's government. Essentially you're paying a toll like you would for a freeway. IMO European governments should be doing all they can to encourage mode shift to rail transit. For foreign travelers coming in from the Americas or Asia, an extra 10-15% on the ticket price isn't going to break the bank.
Isn't this still much lower than the taxes/fees paid to transfer at Heathrow? Do you know how much they add up to?
It's weird that the "solutions" to climate change always involve regular people giving the government more money.
Very true!
I go to Amsterdam every year for 10 years for a trade show at the RAI, people from all over the world fly in. I guess it's time to move that show to a new location that wants our business!
Watch out the first stupid step AMS takes has multiple repercussions.
They should move it to Africa, where airport taxes are lowest.
Yeah, your comment is idiotic.
Is $56 really going to make you move a show out of a global logistics hub?
KLM's network will suffer a lot as AMS will lose its status as a hub.
What a mistake. They should be banning private jets instead.
Ha ha - but then how can you expect Al Gore and his band of climate crazies to travel to their ultra elite get togethers in the Swiss alps?
"First of all, I respect that the government of the Netherlands has set a climate goal and is actually trying to take action to meet that goal. "
For what purpose? Do you really think they can affect or control the climate with this stuff? You don't impress me as someone that naive.
Most transfers at AMS are of UK origin/destination to avoid the UK Passenger tax which are the highest in the world. The higher the class the further the distance you pay more in some long haul it's like 300+ plus other charges. Still hasn't slowed down the growth at UK airports in any metrix I have seen.
That's entirely beside the point. The issue here is the Netherlands govt actively curtailing their own aviation industry by (a) cutting down on flights, and now (b) proposing a hefty new tax. The point is the UK wants to squeeze more money out of aviation; while the Netherlands seem hell-bent on killing off aviation. Big difference.
So many commenters here are uncritically believing politicians' misdirection that this is somehow about the environment, but note that the revenue is earmarked to subsidize Dutch voters' energy consumption. It is a ploy to buy votes at the next election, paid for by foreigners and given a coat of green paint.
This is great news, it’s always been an anomaly that transfer passengers aren’t subject to the same fees as O&D leading to some perverse incentives to take inefficient routings.
This makes resource allocation fairer and I look forward to other jurisdictions following suit.
But this isn't subjecting transfer passengers to the same fees. The fees are much higher. So there will still be perverse incentives, merely different ones. By all means, level the playing field by subjecting both transfer and O&D to the same tax. Even better, let landing fees do that work for you.
Good for them. I support taxing directly users of resources to reduce wasteful behavior, and hope this sets a trend. However, I think we're paying too much attention to what minor "countries" like them are doing. Netherlands has less people and less than half the GDP of NY state. They, as well as most individual countries in Europe, are irrelevant.
Trust the constantly off-topic @Eskimoo to devolve this topic from a proposed tax to......World War II. She almost makes @Tim Dunce look somewhat functionally adult. Almost.
What's wrong with this country! Since 2020 they do everything to destroy Netherlands and their heritage.
ALL INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES SUCH AS KLM , AIR FRANCE ARE REQUESTED TO KINDLY START FLYING TO (ATQ) AMRITSAR , INDIA . THIS AIRPORT MOST UNDER SERVED AIRPORT IN INDIA . MORE THAN 10000 PASSENGERS TRAVEL TO NEW DELHI AIRPORT DAILY VIA FLIGHTS, BUSSES, TRAINS , TAXIES , TO CATCH INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS TO TORONTO , CANADA , VANCOUVER , CANADA , SAN FRANCISCO , LOS ANGELES , NEW JERSEY , LONDON HEATHROW AND ALL OVER WORLD .
To attain Amritsar service kindly respond with the above request in all capital letters every time you see a post from Mr Tim Dunn on this site. Mt Dunn is associated with social media marketing for Delta Air Lines.
1: No wonder AF-KLM is looking at buying TAP. They need another hub, and FAST.
2: I wonder if AF could sue or ask the EU for help since they merged under false pretenses. Now the GOV wants to destroy half of the alliance and harm the merged company.
3: Connecting traffic spends significantly at the airport in country and still pays landing fees/etc as part of their tickets. It's not being fully...
1: No wonder AF-KLM is looking at buying TAP. They need another hub, and FAST.
2: I wonder if AF could sue or ask the EU for help since they merged under false pretenses. Now the GOV wants to destroy half of the alliance and harm the merged company.
3: Connecting traffic spends significantly at the airport in country and still pays landing fees/etc as part of their tickets. It's not being fully subsidized by "locals" at all. Lose that traffic and watch the shops, restaurants, and lounges and JOBS dry up. Have fun cleaning up that mess!
2. I doubt, because it's aligned with eu agenda. On many terms- selfdestroying.
KLM is a lousy airline and Schiphol is a lousy airport but from the regional UK they do have some good connections to the rest of Europe even if they do seem to land Cityflyer planes near Rotterdam and park on such a remote part of Schiphol that you might as well be in Utrecht. Also checked bag delay is a given.
I hope this means that KLF AF put more through AF and CDG...
KLM is a lousy airline and Schiphol is a lousy airport but from the regional UK they do have some good connections to the rest of Europe even if they do seem to land Cityflyer planes near Rotterdam and park on such a remote part of Schiphol that you might as well be in Utrecht. Also checked bag delay is a given.
I hope this means that KLF AF put more through AF and CDG (never thought I'd be saying that) or there is a big opportunity for BA and especially Lufthansa unless they find another hub - Stansted or Brussels? I mean how many people use KLM to actually fly to the Netherlands even though it is a wonderful country with lovely people
KLM is a very good airline, and Schiphol is a better airport than many.
Instead of these non-systematic "solutions" we need to first remove the tax reliefs air transportation still gets for some unknown reason. Apply regular VAT on tickets, tax the aviation fuel like any other fuel, etc. These would be far more efficient and EU-wide solutions that are actually fair (aviation would be treated like any other sector), rather than these random taxes for nothing.
I can speak for the EU, but in the US, the taxes on airline tickets is significantly higher than the general sales tax rate that is applied to other consumer products.
I absolitely oppose the taxing and your view of "fare share" as this is just step by step in their agenda make people less mobile. Already seen result of reduction in tra sfer option in Ams and Dl flight from airport i depart are more routing trough Cdg which is not my favorite. Probably time to change the alliance.Only if Ua would not ise this dreadful small planes to Ord.
Transfer passengers hardly add any value to the Dutch economy, with the main benefit being greater connectivity for the country itself. But they do increase the environmental costs and have a significant contribution to pollution in the Netherlands.
https://apg.nl/en/publication/are-transfer-passengers-at-schiphol-airport-really-that-beneficial-to-the-dutch-economy/
So, with AMS at its capacity, the share of transfer pax needs to become lower, hence taxation makes sense.
Also, the Dutch government is definitely not trying 'to kill' KLM. They are a major shareholder, have...
Transfer passengers hardly add any value to the Dutch economy, with the main benefit being greater connectivity for the country itself. But they do increase the environmental costs and have a significant contribution to pollution in the Netherlands.
https://apg.nl/en/publication/are-transfer-passengers-at-schiphol-airport-really-that-beneficial-to-the-dutch-economy/
So, with AMS at its capacity, the share of transfer pax needs to become lower, hence taxation makes sense.
Also, the Dutch government is definitely not trying 'to kill' KLM. They are a major shareholder, have bailed them out massively during COVID and are as protectionist as the Australians when it comes to AMS slots and capacity restrictions that mainly hit foreign operators. It is just time that environmental costs also get reflected in the cost of travel.
Transfer passengers create an indirect benefit, but still a massive benefit, as the article you linked also points out. AMS is only at capacity with the government imposed slot restrictions, otherwise there is room for more flights.
I don't think it's as "logical" as you put it, it's rather a political issue. The Dutch government is taking stance: they'd rather see The Netherlands with much worse connectivity and less aviation jobs, in exchange for less...
Transfer passengers create an indirect benefit, but still a massive benefit, as the article you linked also points out. AMS is only at capacity with the government imposed slot restrictions, otherwise there is room for more flights.
I don't think it's as "logical" as you put it, it's rather a political issue. The Dutch government is taking stance: they'd rather see The Netherlands with much worse connectivity and less aviation jobs, in exchange for less pollution and a bit less nuisance to Schiphol's neighbours. Fair enough! They're politicians and they got elected to do this.
I disagree on three points with their decision:
- They are a "caretaker" government and should not take decisions with long term consequences
- The Netherlands is a country that relies on trade and immigration. I think shrinking its main connecting hub will have far reaching consequences
- Not everyone will be able to afford the new ticket prices, and for the poorest it will be even more difficult to meet family and friends.
Having connections to all corners of the earth adds value to the Dutch economy. By your logic, should the Netherlands tax all the cargo that comes into its seaport that is shipped to the rest of the EU? There are significant climate implications for shipping consumer products all the way from China and Asia.
They should not so this but instead encourage one daily flight on routes and larger planes to accommodate this.
KLM should try to move more flights to Brussels or Rotterdam.
Why do they keep charging these things in the hope of saving the environment.
Didn't they get the memo from Trump that these things don't exists, and even if they do, it really only effects poor people.
Us Americans are the highest emisson country by capita but do you see us needed to do anything? I'd say travel as much (we should all fly as much as Ben and family), change to a...
Why do they keep charging these things in the hope of saving the environment.
Didn't they get the memo from Trump that these things don't exists, and even if they do, it really only effects poor people.
Us Americans are the highest emisson country by capita but do you see us needed to do anything? I'd say travel as much (we should all fly as much as Ben and family), change to a new EV every year (because that makes me feel like I'm saving the world), and ultimately, it'll just be someone elses problem becuase we can always just pay and move somewhere else if it becomes a problem.
If that's your opinion of the author of this blog, then you have no reason to even be commenting here except to harass him.
They are becoming the North Korea of Europe
Keep descending Sky Team.
How long until France and the UK follow course under pressure from their "Green" constituents who, anyway, don't fly much?
So UK is out and AMS is out, CDG is a cluster. Great.
MAD, MUC, and FRA function reasonably well based upon my experience. MAD offers plenty of connection options for oneworld travelers. FRA and MUC have lots of *Alliance connection options.
ZUR is also a great, if smaller, airport for Star Alliance connections, and way more pleasant than Munich and especially Frankfurt (which is a bit of a dump).
Get ready for more absurd climate taxes.
As a Dutch, who pays these taxes every time I fly, I fully agree with the idea. It's simply unfair to tax locals, but not connecting passengers (which makes up around 70% of KLM's clientele).
Connecting traffic spends significantly at the airport (in country) and still pays things like landing fees/etc as part of their tickets. It's not being fully subsidized by "locals" at all. Lose that traffic and watch the shops, restaurants, lounges and JOBS dry up. Have fun cleaning up that mess!
With such dutch Citizens it's not surprising that Netherlands are declining.
Easily gullible and eating populist propaganda like a good eu citizen he is
If you were to lose those 70% of connecting clients, you'd lose some 2/3rds of the flights currently available to you from AMS. (Assuming planes are not downsized.)
Taxing non voters is a time honoured method. How is this any different than the nonsense added to car rentals or hotels in the US? I have paid for a football stadium, as an example, when renting a car in Houston.
KLM has survived for a 100 years and they will find a way to stay competitive.
Just like surrendering so easily in WW2.
If history repeats itself, after the surrender of Holland, next came the fall of France.
AF KL doesn't seem like a coincidence anymore.
I find your comment utterly disgusting and a total disregard for the suffering experienced by those citizens that actually experienced the atrocities of World War II. It was uncalled for and not relevant to the discussion. Your arrogance is over the top.
@eskimo what a bizarre and disgusting comment to make about a, checks notes, airport tax.
Eskimo, that comment is gross. And I'm not overly sensitive at all. Take that how You may.
All the response, that's why it's a mess these days.
Even historical fact piss people off.
Especially, "a total disregard for the suffering experienced by those citizens that actually experienced the atrocities".
Right. Didn't most of you also support Zelenskyy, which comes at the expense of innocent Ukrainians.
Had they surrendered like the Dutch, so many lives would have been saved.
Why not bring this up ever? Both Russians and Ukrainians suffers...
All the response, that's why it's a mess these days.
Even historical fact piss people off.
Especially, "a total disregard for the suffering experienced by those citizens that actually experienced the atrocities".
Right. Didn't most of you also support Zelenskyy, which comes at the expense of innocent Ukrainians.
Had they surrendered like the Dutch, so many lives would have been saved.
Why not bring this up ever? Both Russians and Ukrainians suffers from this war.
Argue all day long but at the end of any war, the innocent civilians always lose.
All of this "Taxing non voters" is where the problem lies, innocent civilians.
You have a crazy logic, why Ukraine need to surrender? If Russia gives up and remove it’s army the war will stop and nobody will have to suffer anymore
It's against my better judgment to get involved with this, but @eskimo's comments are not only off topic and offensive, but illogical. He criticizes Holland for "surrendering" (in reality being overrun) quickly during WWII and Ukraine for fighting, suggesting that civilians lose when countries fight. I can assure you that the millions of Dutch civilians who died in WWII and the tens or hundreds of thousands who have died or been deported during the Russian...
It's against my better judgment to get involved with this, but @eskimo's comments are not only off topic and offensive, but illogical. He criticizes Holland for "surrendering" (in reality being overrun) quickly during WWII and Ukraine for fighting, suggesting that civilians lose when countries fight. I can assure you that the millions of Dutch civilians who died in WWII and the tens or hundreds of thousands who have died or been deported during the Russian occupation, would beg to differ. The Dutch did what they could in WWII but were in no way a match for the Germans. The Ukrainians, by all accounts, shouldn't be a match for Russia, but have been holding their own for 19 months. You can be assured that things would not be better for the rest of the Ukrainian civilians if the Russians occupied the entire country. If you're not sure what civilians want, ask a Ukrainian, or one of the few remaining Dutch WWII survivors.
Eskimo, your comments are offensive and uninformed. Find someplace other than a travel blog to spew your garbage.
There is limited capacity at AMS. Taxation makes much sense than artificial caps. While connecting passengers help make more flights viable, the basic purpose of AMS is to serve travelers to/from the Netherlands. Transfer taxes are good.
Nope, capacity caps and the associated fare increases is how a free market works to distribute scarce resources. Here the government is still capping AND taxing transfer customer whom utilize significantly less of that airport’s facilities than an O and D customer….It’s just government theft from passengers that will never step foot on their soil, and apparently an attempt to kill off KLM as a viable option for connecting traffic.
It’s clear that the Dutch government has no interest in supporting one of its greatest assets. in the other hand the French government sees Air France as an important asset and flagship.
You mean cannabis, prostitution, Heineken, cheese, and tulips?
Or 'going Dutch' on carbon taxes.
And please don't compare with France. Their national icon Van Gogh even moved away from Netherlands to France. That says a lot.
Taxation without representation. You're represented; I'm not!
I attended conference at AMS back in April of 2023. The funny thing is they can continue to cap the daily flight numbers and try to limit the noise all they want . But what happens is they just keep flying bigger and bigger planes. More noise. More pollution. They are "solving" one problem by adding a tax and capping flight numbers but then airlines just turn around and fly larger aircraft. Pretty counter intuitive
But what happens is they just keep flying bigger and bigger planes. More noise.
Neither claim is accurate.
A 737-800 and A320CEO both make more total noise than a 787, A350, or even A380.
Also the emissions per seat is going to be worse on the narrowbodies than the widebodies, assuming the latter are filled.
It's so worth it. What could possibly be better for the environment than giving $56 more dollars to politicians?
Especially as fees and taxes more than double the cost of airfare , in the example shown .
The carrier imposed surcharges goes directly to the coffers of KLM, there are couple of good purposes as seen from the airline to keep the fare component lower and add surcharges later.
The carrier imposed surcharges goes directly to the coffers of KLM, there are couple of good purposes as seen from the airline to keep the fare component lower and add surcharges later. So the KLM part of the price is 102 out of 169.
"What could possibly be better for the environment than giving $56 more dollars to politicians?"
Even better is to earmark the money to subsidize energy consumption. So people use more energy and pollute more. To protect the environment, of course.
Well, it’s worth it because the Dutch have no other issues at Schiphol and it is always highly functional and efficient serving it’s customers with no problems…
I guess that’s sarcastic as schiphol is plagued with disruptions almost weekly caused by wind and low visibility. Don’t risk a short connection.