Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Is The Point Of KLM Asia?  
User currently offlineKaiTak747 From Switzerland, joined Aug 2012, 158 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3831 times:

I have been wondering why KLM maintains a separate brand for Asia? Is it just for marketing purposes or perhaps for tax/crew/ops or anything else? Also, KLM Asia aircraft are used outside of Asia, and standard KLM aircraft in Asia.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM---Royal/Boeing-747-406M/2182696/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM-A...d=9b0b2c9f65723affc24a995534837991

I apologise if this has been discussed before.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

IIRC it is so they can overfly China and land in Taipei.


Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinetymnbalewne From Bermuda, joined Mar 2005, 953 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

In short, airlines couldn't fly to Taiwan if they also flew to the People's Rep. of China because the political sensitivities between the two and the requirements of the PRC. So, airlines would set up a "subsidiary" company to handle the flights to Taiwan. There used to be British Asia Airways, Air France Asie...

The "Asia" aircraft would be routed through other cities and were not restricted to the TPE flights but the flights to/from TPE would carry the "Asian" subsidiary's call-signs and flight numbers/

[Edited 2012-11-09 04:13:51]


Dewmanair...begins with Dew
User currently offlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1907 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

I think is to operate to Taipei.

At one point some other airlines they used to have also Asia divisions. Air France, Brithis Airways....

If you check the wikipedia page of KLM you can see a bit more explanation, it´s a registered airline in Hong Kong and they do so KLM rights to fly to China are not compromise. Also it says that the Netherlands flag and the crown are not display in the livery.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5011 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3835 times:

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 2):

You can add Australia Asia to the list...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.

EK413

[Edited 2012-11-09 04:31:35]


Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinelapper From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 1567 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3835 times:

Swissair also had an Asia subsidiary:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bjoern Schmitt - world-of-aviation



User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19259 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3835 times:

And BA:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carlos A. Morillo Doria




"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineKaiTak747 From Switzerland, joined Aug 2012, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 1):
Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 2):

Thank you very much for your explanation, that makes perfect sense! But are there still these sanctions in place by PRC? I thought tensions had subsided somewhat.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 4):
Quoting lapper (Reply 5):
Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 6):

Great photos!


User currently offlinevhtje From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 380 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3833 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 6):

The first BA World Tail?

Discuss...


User currently offlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1907 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

Quoting KaiTak747 (Reply 7):
Thank you very much for your explanation, that makes perfect sense! But are there still these sanctions in place by PRC? I thought tensions had subsided somewhat.

They are, i´m sure that otherwise we could see Emirates and Qatar flying to TPE as well.

What I don´t know is why airlines like Singapore Airlines can fly to TPE and China without any problem, but KLM, Swiss, BA, Australia Asia, they need to have the Asia division.


User currently offline777klm From China, joined Apr 2005, 532 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

Quoting KaiTak747 (Reply 7):
Thank you very much for your explanation, that makes perfect sense! But are there still these sanctions in place by PRC? I thought tensions had subsided somewhat.

Apperently Yes...

As stated by others, other airlines had 'Asia' brands in the past for the same reason:

Qantas - Australia Asia
British Airways - British Asia Airways
Swissair - Swissair Asia
Air France - Air France Asie
Lufthansa - used the Condor brand
JAL- Japan Asia Airways

QF, BA, SR (or LX) and AF no longer fly to Taipei, so there's no more need for a separate Asia brand. KL and JL however still do.

I was once told that the explanation why KL still needs a separate brand to fly to both PRC (Mainland China) and ROC (Taiwain) and other airlines don't (like JL) is in the company's name and logo. KLM ("Royal" Dutch Airlines) and the crown in its logo refer to the head of state of the Netherlands. Although the airline is not owned by state of the Netherlands, it is attached to its politics and head of state through its name and crown. That's why these regulations are still in place for KLM. Aside from this, the existence of KLM Asia also has something to do with taxes.


This explanation, however does not explain why both the regular KLM and KLM Asia brands are still flying randomly to Taiwan and Mainland China. But then again, these days it might just be as simple as being a tax-related issue.


I know this item being discussed every few weeks, but no one could provide a proper explanation for this.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 9):
What I don´t know is why airlines like Singapore Airlines can fly to TPE and China without any problem, but KLM, Swiss, BA, Australia Asia, they need to have the Asia division.

PRC and ASEAN have a special air transport agreement, or partially open skies. Airlines like SQ (and MH, TG) are from these ASEAN countries. It was somewhere in these agreements that these airlines do not need a separate brand. But again... not sure!



Next flight: AMS-PEK
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5157 posts, RR: 43
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

Quoting migair54 (Reply 9):
What I don´t know is why airlines like Singapore Airlines can fly to TPE and China without any problem, but KLM, Swiss, BA, Australia Asia, they need to have the Asia division.

That is a good question, as Canadi>n used to fly to TPE as well as China, without having to have an "Asian" brand.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

Quoting migair54 (Reply 9):
They are, i´m sure that otherwise we could see Emirates and Qatar flying to TPE as well.

I believe they were eliminated in a 2008 agreement? It was just referred to by a posted in this thread:

Why No Gulf Carriers In TPE? (by loveofflying Nov 7 2012 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

No North American airline has had an 'Asia' subsidiary. Neither have most south east Asian airlines. And as so many have pointed out, even KL and, in the past, other airlines have flown their "ordinary" aircraft to Taipei.

So here's one of my theories:

European airlines would prefer to fly over the PRC when operating to Taipei. By establishing an "Asia" subsidiary they obtained a separate call sign . The PRC were not too concerned what the specific overflying aircraft looked like. After all, who in the PRC would see them? Everything was therefore OK provided the call sign was different to that of aircraft flying in to PEK and other PRC airports. OK? Well, not quite. This would explain why no North American or most South East Asian airline "needed" an "Asia" subsidiary and all the European airlines did. But what about QF? And JL had an "Asian" subsidiary from August 1977 right through until 2008 when it was liquidated. And although British Asia Airways had its own IATA code, BR (that was originally the code for BCal), it used the "BAW" ICAO code and the "Speedbird" call sign used by British Airways Main Line,

Soi here is another of my theories:

The PRC government refused to authorise traffic rights to operate to the PRC to any airline operating to ROC by overflying the PRC. But why did JL and QF, unlike any North American airline, have Asia subsidiaries.

And here is my next theory:

We all blame the PRC for this anomalous situation. But could it be to appease the ROC government. Perhaps the boot was on the other foot. Perhaps they did not like airlines serving the PRC operating into the ROC. This could explain why the offices of the likes of British Asia Airways were in Taipei. So the tax theory comes into play. But why no American airlines with "Asia" subsidiaries? Perhaps as a trusted ally they were excluded from this requirement.

Then . . .

OMG! Does anyone know the real reason?        


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25999 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 13):
. But why no American airlines with "Asia" subsidiaries?

Canadian carriers also had no such requirement. CP served both mainland China and TPE (and HKG) for a while with no special arrangements. I think the requirement for a separate brand only affected airlines that were once wholly or partly government-owned.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25999 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

Quoting KaiTak747 (Thread starter):
I apologise if this has been discussed before.

It has, many times, including this thread just a month ago:
KL Asia: Chinese Characters Under Their Name? (by olddominion727 Oct 2 2012 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3833 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The "Asia" thing started with JL when Tokyo recognized the PRC and Beijing insisted on it (No carrier could fly to TPE and PRC and no ROC carrier could be at same airport as a PRC airline - why CI flew to Haneda for years after NRT was open). They tried to apply the same restrictions to other foreign carriers. Those nations who succumbed to Beijings pressure started these subsidiarys. Others told Beijing to get lost. Some could get away by having sufficient clout - US, others- the SE Asian ones in the 70s, early 80s had far greater economic ties to ROC than PRC and chose to ignore Beijing and not fly to PRC. After some years Beijing was less demanding and looked the other way and no longer cared.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25999 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 16):
After some years Beijing was less demanding and looked the other way and no longer cared.

If they no longer cared, why is KL still doing it? Somebody must still care.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6926 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 16):
Some could get away by having sufficient clout - US, others

It's the opposite of clout. US airlines have nothing to do with the US government so there is no problem. There is no private "flag carrier" either.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineSXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2442 posts, RR: 23
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3832 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 18):
US airlines have nothing to do with the US government

Unless they are bankrupt..

[Edited 2012-11-09 17:46:29]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinetommy525 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3834 times:

Its complex. This is my two cents on the various airlines. Japan Asia Airways birth was for a different reason. It actually was not about Japanese airlines flying to China. Japan airlines used to fly to Taiwan as Japan Airlines. But when Japan recognized the PRC over the ROC as the govt of China in the 70s, Taiwan banned Japan Airlines (the only Japanese airline operating to taiwan at the time) and also banned Japanese airlines from their airspace. This caused a lot of friction on both sides for a long while. But eventually the two govts smoothed each others feathers a bit and Tokyo and Taiwan agreed to resume flights. But the Japanese govt forbid China Airlines (then the only Taiwanese airline flying to Japan) from operating to Narita and instead insisted it fly to Haneda. China Airlines later was allowed to fly to Okinawa and Osaka and other Japanese cities, but it was restricted to Haneda in Tokyo as a symbolic kowtow to China. Because Haneda was only used as a domestic airport at the time after Narita opened as Tokyo's only international airport. China airlines meantime was making a mint because everyone actually preferred to fly to Haneda instead of Narita anyway.

And Japan Airlines set up a wholly owned subsidiary to fly to Taiwan and onwards to Hongkong as Japan Asia Airways. Which was later merged back into Japan Airlines when new air service agreements between TAiwan and Japan were drawn up allowing EVA Airways to fly to Japan and ANA to fly to Taiwan.

Currently Japan and Taiwan have an even more liberal virtually open skies policy regarding each others airlines.

And strangely enough. SungShan airport in TAipei city has once again resumed flights to Haneda (and Seoul) after decades of absence.

Meantime, American airlines were allowed to fly to China without too much interference from the Chinese govt and were not forced (or even asked) to set up subsidiaries to fly to China.

And other notable airlines like Singapore Airlines (the Chinese govt is always courting the Singapore govt because of its long term and long time relationship with TAiwan) were not asked to set up subs either.

Only the Europeans were willing apparently , to set up subs to serve Taiwan. I guess they felt it wasnt a battle worth fighting for, in view of all the trades they planned with China.


But alas the market really wasnt there and one by one they dropped out of direct Taiwan / Europe service. Except for the oldest and still operating KLM. One can say KLM is the ONLY successful European airline operating to Taiwan.

Qantas set up Australia Asia Airways, but that too fell by the wayside as there as not enough business. Even EVA and China Airlines have only limited flights to Australia from Taiwan.

It has been and still is very easy for TAiwanese to fly to Europe and Australia from the ever popular Hong Kong .

Nowadays one doesnt know why the european airlines still keep the old liveries. I dont think they are separate companies legally anymore though.

Especially in view British Asia does not fly to Taiwan anymore, Neither does Air France Asie (if they still have those liveries).


User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 2443 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3832 times:

Does KLM Asia only operate 744 combis? I see them pretty often in IAH.


A landing EVERYONE can walk away from, is a good landing.
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 6067 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3832 times:

KL operate 744Combi, 772 and 77W in asia livery.

JAL have done away with their asia subsidiary since 2008.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is The Point Of B787-300 And B787-800? posted Sat Mar 17 2007 02:12:33 by 8herveg
What Is The Point Of Austral? posted Tue Apr 4 2006 01:28:44 by Canadi>n
What Is The Point Of LCC Out Of SIN? posted Mon Feb 6 2006 16:11:18 by Zarniwoop
What Is The Point Of "check-in?" posted Thu Aug 26 2004 21:31:34 by Mats
What Is The Point Of Placing Options On Aircraft? posted Sat Jun 12 2004 21:44:18 by FrontierCPT
What Is The Point Of Going To MLE posted Sun Jan 4 2004 07:22:44 by KLM11
What Is The Point Of The 737-900 posted Sun Dec 1 2002 16:57:04 by BR715-A1-30
What Is The Point Of Chopping Up Planes posted Fri Oct 13 2000 08:19:14 by USAir_757
What Is The Point Of A 727? posted Thu Jun 8 2000 23:36:41 by Oozabooza
What Is The Status Of This 707-321B At TLV? posted Fri Jan 13 2012 20:56:43 by fanofjets