A couple of years ago, when KLM tried to strengthen the MH cooperation, they decided to route the Manila flight via Bangkok, making the KUL run a point-to-point flight. According to a friend of mine (who is in Revenue) KLM didn't do very well on that flight and even when the flights were full, most of the passengers were low yield.
Okay, let's forget the cargo. According to a friend of mine (Sales), KLM doing very very well on AMS-KUL-AMS. Try booking yourself on KLM WBC as "low yield passenger".
For a starter, a guy in Sales might not really know how the airline was doing yield wise on the route, whereas a guy in Revenue might have a better picture.
Fact is that KLM returned the AMS
routing after just one season, because, obviously the AMS
route wasn't a great success. One of the problems at the time was the schedule of the flight at that time, with the westbound flight being a daylight operation that had fewer connections ex KUL
available than MH
's midnight departure.
But even right now KUL
is not as important a station as it's hyped up to be in here as evidenced by the fact that SIN
and not KUL
received dedicated KLM service, whereas KUL
continues to share its flight with another station, just like before.
If anything, the recent network changes at KLM Asia point at the strength of the SIN
stations, with both MNL
receiving dedicated flights and CGK
receiving more guaranteed seats to Europe than during the time the station was linked to SIN
. Obviously, also MH
is operating a daily KUL
flight, but then again so is SQ
on the SIN
sector, albeit with a smaller aircraft.
The plain fact that one has a hard time finding seats on the AMS
sectors or that flights go out at full capacity, even in WBC, indicates very little about the actual financial performance of the route.