NYC2theworld From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 662 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2352 times:
At this point no. There are two reasons for this I believe.
1-Ownership with respect to international bi-laterals. The ownership structure is such that all of KL's equity is owned by AF-KL however to preserve landing rights, KL's voting rights are controlled, (but not owned) by Dutch interests. Untill the EU renegotiates all bi-laterals that the Netherlands has to permit KL to be owned by outside interests, then they cannot take the next step in merging. So since they are still operating under two certificates, then no, KL will have to remain KL for now and AF will remain AF for now.
2-Culture. Which brand survives. Now that all AF-KL planes are have the group logo, more people recognize that AF and KL are almost one airline. Which brand has more value among various stakeholders (governments, customers, stockholders, general public). Do they keep one of the two brands, or do they go for a whole new brand?
Quote: To protect KLM's landing rights under existing agreements, a majority of the voting rights, though not the equity, in the KLM subsidiary would be held for three years by the Dutch government and two Dutch foundations, keeping it technically Dutch. Some analysts saw the seeds of future governance problems in the arrangement, but Mr. van Wijk said that there was no risk and that KLM's management had ''always been driven by economic interests.''