Why is it being maintained, do they have to reach some agreement with China to drop it, like Japan did, and why are other carriers exempted from this Asia thing? only the Japanese, west Europea and Australia had this.

If other European carriers return to Taiwan, will they have to revive the Asia brand as they used before?

Despite having the Asia thing KLM and previously Air France, JAL and ANA have operated flights using their main liveried aircraft there often. Did BA and Swissair also, what about Lufthansa?

British Airways had British Asia Airways that operated LHR-HKG-TPE (BA025/BA026).




Swssair had Swissair Asia.

Frankly, I have ALWAYS wondered why KLM had "ASIA" on certain aircraft in the first place, and until you posted these other images of BA and SWISS, I didn't even realize others did too (shocking as I often notice these things, and I am in the branding business)...but, can someone explain this very confusing (seemingly political) thing? Why didn't the USA airlines have to do it (unless Northwest Orient was an example of this?) I never saw UNITED ASIA or even PanAm Asia? THANKS SO MUCH!

Don't forget that Qantas had Australian Asia Airways and JAL had Japan Asia Airways:

China was a strictly communist country. The crown on KLM s tail and the monarchy it represented was seen as subversive.

Airlines set up a special Asia brand because national airlines operating flights to the People's Republic of China were not permitted to fly to Taiwan. Therefore they established subsidiaries with their office in the People's Repbulic of China. I think KLM still maintains the Asia brand because they are as far as I know the only European carrier that offers direct flights to Taipei.

I am not too familiar with these (mostly) former subsidiaries formed to operate into ROC (Taiwan). Did rhey have crew based in TPE to operate these flights or was it your regular crew? I am assuming PROC relaxed this restriction as mainline JAL, ANA and numerous other flag carriers fly into both Taiwan and majnland China.

I know this topic has come up before, but it still confuses the heck out of me.

I know I have seen KLM aircraft in both the KLM Asia and KLM "Crown" liveries in mainland China, so I doubt this had anything to do with the image of the Crown or any representation of the Dutch monarchy being "subversive". Was the rule that any KLM aircraft could fly to the PRC and only the KLM Asia aircraft could fly to Taiwan?

A search of the photo database shows both liveries in both the PRC and Taiwan. What was the rule?

B2468 wrote:

I know this topic has come up before, but it still confuses the heck out of me.

I know I have seen KLM aircraft in both the KLM Asia and KLM "Crown" liveries in mainland China, so I doubt this had anything to do with the image of the Crown or any representation of the Dutch monarchy being "subversive". Was the rule that any KLM aircraft could fly to the PRC and only the KLM Asia aircraft could fly to Taiwan?

A search of the photo database shows both liveries in both the PRC and Taiwan. What was the rule?

Well, as far as I know you had to set up a subsidiary in the PROC to allow your airline to operates flights to both mainland china and taiwan. So as soon as KLM asia was established the 'mainstream' airline KLM could operate to both mainland china and taiwan.

VCEflyboy wrote:

China was a strictly communist country. The crown on KLM s tail and the monarchy it represented was seen as subversive.

The crown is a protected image in the Netherlands and can only be used by companies designated 'royal' (Dutch: koninklijke) by the king. Hence the crown had to go for the Asia subsidiary.

To answer the question about Lufthansa, they temporarily sent a pair (or maybe more; correct me if I'm wrong) of 744s to Condor to get around the restrictions. There are a few pictures in the DB, though I can't find them at the moment.

B2468 wrote:

I know this topic has come up before, but it still confuses the heck out of me.

I know I have seen KLM aircraft in both the KLM Asia and KLM "Crown" liveries in mainland China, so I doubt this had anything to do with the image of the Crown or any representation of the Dutch monarchy being "subversive". Was the rule that any KLM aircraft could fly to the PRC and only the KLM Asia aircraft could fly to Taiwan?

A search of the photo database shows both liveries in both the PRC and Taiwan. What was the rule?

These liveries date back to 30+ years ago when china was ruled by a communist regime. Of course now they are free to operate though which ever brand name they please. That was not the case in the past.

Jetty wrote:

VCEflyboy wrote:

China was a strictly communist country. The crown on KLM s tail and the monarchy it represented was seen as subversive.

The crown is a protected image in the Netherlands and can only be used by companies designated 'royal' (Dutch: koninklijke) by the king. Hence the crown had to go for the Asia subsidiary.

It's the other way around. Any symbol or royalty had to be removed to operate in china. That went for KLM as for BA that at that time had the royal crown on the tail. That's why the Asia subsidiaries and liveries were set up.

Right now KLM is part of a French holding company. Should the crown not be gone now it is not Royal (Koninklijk) anymore? I think KLM Asia still exists solely for tax reasons.

UltimateDelta wrote:

To answer the question about Lufthansa, they temporarily sent a pair (or maybe more; correct me if I'm wrong) of 744s to Condor to get around the restrictions. There are a few pictures in the DB, though I can't find them at the moment.

IOne of them was D-ABTD, the former Hamburg.

lijnden wrote:

Right now KLM is part of a French holding company. Should the crown not be gone now it is not Royal (Koninklijk) anymore? I think KLM Asia still exists solely for tax reasons.

They got special dispensation, so they are still Royal.

Some history about the "crownless KLM Asia livery":

I happened to be one of the cockpit crew members on the first (route proving) stretch DXB-PEK-DXB in 1980 with one of our JT9D powered 742's.
Magnificant trip : Beijing : most Chinese men were still in Mao Suits, large amount of bikes, cars only for the "happy few" and a tour to the forbidden city with personal security escort.
The plan was to start up regular flights to Mainland China (People's Republic of China).
However the Dutch government permitted a few months later the export of two to be built submarines to the Republic of China (ROC) -Taiwan.
Consequently the Dutch embassy at Being was closed and relation between the Netherlands and the People's Republic of China (PRC) fell far below freezing point.

A few years later Martinair (Non state airline - KLM helt a minority stake) obtained route permits towards TPE (Taipei-Taiwan)
KLM started to use this new destination with 747-200M aircraft and the stretch BKK-TPE was integrated in KLM's large FAR East network., however the callsign of the flight was MP i.s.o. KL. Also the titles "KLM ASIA" was added and the crown ( state carrier) was removed.
At first only dedicated KLM ASIA 747-200M's were operated at TPE, later also aircraft with normal KLM titles were substituted.
After several years the callsign "KL'' was used again, but the KLM asia titles remained on some aircraft and even some 744's were painted in the new livery.
Political tensions dropped over time.
Finally KLM received permission to start AMS-PEK flights in 1996.

KL didnt serve China till the 90s, never knew that.

No one has answered the question did British, Swiss , Lufthansa and Qantas ever sub their regular livery aircraft to Taiwan in place of the Asia subsidiaries? would they need ro revive that if they restart Taiwan flights?

CanadaFair wrote:

KL didnt serve China till the 90s, never knew that.

No one has answered the question did British, Swiss , Lufthansa and Qantas ever sub their regular livery aircraft to Taiwan in place of the Asia subsidiaries? would they need ro revive that if they restart Taiwan flights?

No now e issue is no longer there. All airlines can operate to Taiwan albeit airlines from mainland China have restrictions.
The KLM Asia planes are not solely use for Taiwan. You can spot them around the world according to their allocation. The livery and ownership remain under KLM Asia.

Thanks for the interesting background story, 747Classic.

But is KLM Asia still an issue? Unless I'm mistaken, KLM painted several 777's in the KLM Asia livery when the route to TPE was changed to AMS-TPE-MNL a couple of years ago.

BTW, this is my first post here, but I've been reading this forum for a long time.

VCEflyboy wrote:

Jetty wrote:

VCEflyboy wrote:

China was a strictly communist country. The crown on KLM s tail and the monarchy it represented was seen as subversive.

The crown is a protected image in the Netherlands and can only be used by companies designated 'royal' (Dutch: koninklijke) by the king. Hence the crown had to go for the Asia subsidiary.

It's the other way around. Any symbol or royalty had to be removed to operate in china. That went for KLM as for BA that at that time had the royal crown on the tail. That's why the Asia subsidiaries and liveries were set up.

Pretty sure it was to do with being able to operate flights to Taiwan without losing the rights to fly to mainland China than it does about the symbols on aircraft. Those subsidiaries never flew to mainland China, only Taiwan.

VCEflyboy wrote:

B2468 wrote:

These liveries date back to 30+ years ago when china was ruled by a communist regime. Of course now they are free to operate though which ever brand name they please. That was not the case in the past.

China is still ruled by a communist regime. From wikipedia: "The Communist Party of China (CPC)[a] is the founding and ruling political party of the People's Republic of China (PRC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China. In case you don't trust wikipedia, from the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/ch.html)

Parties:
Chinese Communist Party or CCP [XI Jinping]
note: China has eight nominally independent small parties ultimately controlled by the CCP

These liveries came into being well after China opened itself to trade. If they are only now "free to operate under which ever brand name they please", why does KLM still operate an Asia branch, especially when other foreign airlines (Air Canada, Emirates, Turkish, etc) serve both Taiwan and the PRC. Also, where did you get the idea that the crown was banned because it was 'subversive'? Can you cite your source for that? All 'Asia' subsidiaries had altered or removed tail logos, including the decidedly un-subversive Qantas Kangaroo or JAL Tsurumaru. As far as I can see it's a way to distinguish the Asia brand from the main brand.

So at the moment and for the future they will still need the KLM Asia brand?

Another question I have is if Turkish Airlines flies to China and Taiwan, then why would KLM need the KLM Asia brand?

NichCage wrote:

So at the moment and for the future they will still need the KLM Asia brand?

Another question I have is if Turkish Airlines flies to China and Taiwan, then why would KLM need the KLM Asia brand?

Air France and KLM fly to a lot more destinations in China than THY does. I imagine they would prefer to not incur the potential wrath of the Chinese government and shoot the Goose laying the eggs.

On the other side, Turkish-Chinese relations have been occasionally strained, especially over the conflict in Xinjiang in north east China where Muslim Uyghurs are fighting against the Chinese government. Since Erdogan is a rather gung-ho chap he arguably doesn't care about whether THY can fly to China or not.

There's still 1 thing that makes KLM unique regarding to their Taipei flights, making them even stand out to Air China and EVA. And that is that they are the only non PRC airline that flies through PRC airspace on their flights to and from Taipei (since 2012). They are the only airline that can fly the most direct route between Europe and Taipei. It's possible that one of the reasons why the PRC allowed KLM Asia to use their airspace for the direct flights is that KLM was the only airline that always kept KLM Asia alive after it wasn't needed anymore to use it to fly to both China and Taipei. Giving KLM the diplomatic advantage over other European airlines that might also want to start direct flights to Taipei.

When TK starts Taipei they will most likely avoid PRC airspace, using a southern route. EVA uses the northern route on their direct flights between Taipei and Europe.

I would presume KLM Asia is still in use because it is still a wholly owned subsidiary of KLM and still operational, I don't believe (from what I understand) that it is still used for traffic rights anymore, which can just leave the fact that it is a company of KLM and for that purpose they are keeping it alive! I know the Asia aircraft are used on flights that aren't to Asia. I flew AMS-JFK on an Asia 744 couple of years ago!

Don't forget Air France Asie.
The reason cited for KLM's royal crest deletion is not quite true. The Chinese stipulated that a subsidiary carrier set up to operate Taiwan flights had to have different markings with no govt. references- this does not necessarily mean KLM's livery was subversive. Qantas Asia substituted a kangaroo. JAL dropped a crane for JAA.

VCEflyboy wrote:

B2468 wrote:

I know this topic has come up before, but it still confuses the heck out of me.

I know I have seen KLM aircraft in both the KLM Asia and KLM "Crown" liveries in mainland China, so I doubt this had anything to do with the image of the Crown or any representation of the Dutch monarchy being "subversive". Was the rule that any KLM aircraft could fly to the PRC and only the KLM Asia aircraft could fly to Taiwan?

A search of the photo database shows both liveries in both the PRC and Taiwan. What was the rule?

These liveries date back to 30+ years ago when china was ruled by a communist regime. Of course now they are free to operate though which ever brand name they please. That was not the case in the past.

What world do you live in? China is still communist - has been continuously since the revolution in 1949.

Did any US airlines need the "Asia" titles? When did the first US airlines start serving Taiwan?

You can also still see KLM Asia planes in IAH, every day with the 747-400 combi!

Several posters here have come up with fairly far-fetched explanations here that have little, if any, grounding in reality.

The core reason behind the Asia subsidiary from these airlines is that the PRC government objected to monopoly flag-carriers and/or state-owned airlines of nations with which it had diplomatic relations flying to both the PRC and Taiwan, which it did and still does regard as a renegade province.

Face was saved from the PRC perspective by forcing said airlines to establish separate brands with which to serve TPE, even though said "separate" brands were basically wholly-owned subsidiaries with names and liveries identical to their parents.

Over time the issue has become somewhat less sensitive and most airlines originally affected have now either withdrawn TPE service or moved away from state control.

QF, for example, established Australia Asia Airlines in 1990 with the IATA code IM and a livery that, although still distinctly Qantas, did not display either the Australian flag or the Flying Kangaroo. From 1992 onwards QF was privatised and so the IM code was retired in 1994 and in 1996 the entire Australia Asia brand was withdrawn as QF proper resumed TPE service.

BA, having been privatised in 1987 strictly speaking didn't need to use the British Asia Airways brand but did anyway from 1993 onwards, using the BR code it inherited from British Caledonia. The brand remained in use until TPE services were terminated in 2001.

And so on and so forth.

Why doesn't this happen with the US3, especially UNITED which has so many fights from the USA to mainland China and Taiwan? I would assume that either the old legacy UA, now UCH has many discussions with the Chinese Gov in order to grow their non-stops in a way no other airlines (I know of) is doing.

VC10er wrote:

Why doesn't this happen with the US3, especially UNITED which has so many fights from the USA to mainland China and Taiwan?

Because they are not national flag carriers and not government-owned.

VCEflyboy,

Seeing that KLM Asia is still kept even in the new livery I assume the "Asia" is still necessary. Why would KLM keep the Asia titles/subsidiary even with their new livery? There still is a reason that KLM still had to keep the Asia subsidiary alive even nowadays. PH-BVB and PH-BVC both have been repainted with KLM Asia titles in the new livery. If this subsidiary wasn't necessary anymore, why has KLM still done it now with these two 777-300ER's?


A388

VCEflyboy wrote:

China was a strictly communist country. The crown on KLM s tail and the monarchy it represented was seen as subversive.

So confident and yet so incorrect as others kept trying to correct you.

Maybe it is a business/tax thing.

A388 wrote:

VCEflyboy,

Seeing that KLM Asia is still kept even in the new livery I assume the "Asia" is still necessary. Why would KLM keep the Asia titles/subsidiary even with their new livery? There still is a reason that KLM still had to keep the Asia subsidiary alive even nowadays. PH-BVB and PH-BVC both have been repainted with KLM Asia titles in the new livery. If this subsidiary wasn't necessary anymore, why has KLM still done it now with these two 777-300ER's?


A388

Could it be nothing more than a marketing thing now? Kind of like Northwest Orient?

VCEflyboy wrote:

Jetty wrote:

VCEflyboy wrote:

China was a strictly communist country. The crown on KLM s tail and the monarchy it represented was seen as subversive.

The crown is a protected image in the Netherlands and can only be used by companies designated 'royal' (Dutch: koninklijke) by the king. Hence the crown had to go for the Asia subsidiary.

It's the other way around. Any symbol or royalty had to be removed to operate in china. That went for KLM as for BA that at that time had the royal crown on the tail. That's why the Asia subsidiaries and liveries were set up.

Still doesn't make sense...

1. If the crown had to be removed to operate to PRC (mainland China), why did they remove the crown/put on the Asia titles for flights that were going to Taiwan??
2. Swissair and Switzerland is about as un-monarchistic as it gets (without being communist, just people democracy). So why did they have to put in place the Asia sub-brand? It looked great, but why?

b747400erf wrote:

VCEflyboy wrote:

China was a strictly communist country. The crown on KLM s tail and the monarchy it represented was seen as subversive.

So confident and yet so incorrect as others kept trying to correct you.

It may well have been part of the CPC thinking though, at the time.

Aircraft carrying the crown could have been regarded as giving Taiwan some kind of official or royal stamp of approval for its independence, therefore in back channels it would have been 'suggested' that such logos as that and the BA crest were to be removed or minituarised in the Asia livery. Such actions might seem petty in retrospect but face saving is immensely important in Asian culture; Communist or not.

LTU932 wrote:

UltimateDelta wrote:

To answer the question about Lufthansa, they temporarily sent a pair (or maybe more; correct me if I'm wrong) of 744s to Condor to get around the restrictions. There are a few pictures in the DB, though I can't find them at the moment.

IOne of them was D-ABTD, the former Hamburg.

D-ABTD was the one and only LH 744 in Condor colours.

The KLM- asia brand is kept because KLM as the official state carrier is still operating at the People's Republic China (PRC) and Taiwan simultaneously. (PAX and Cargo)

Despite the slowly relaxing relations, but seen the (submarine) difficulties in the past between the Netherlands and the PRC, KLM (and the Netherlands government) doesn't want to offend the PRC to protect their commerial interests (trade) in the PRC and is now "the best boy in class" and maintains two seperate entities (brands).

The KLM brand is allowed to carry the crown by Royal privilege, the KLM-ASIA brand doesn't have that privilege, conseq. no crown has been added above KLM- ASIA.

But many state owned Asian carriers served Taiwan without Asia brand, only Japanese carriers were imposed with this, of which ANA was always private yet had to fly through a subsidiary, so the argument that it was only imposed on state carriers dosent fit.

So if any of the European airlines were to resume TPE they can fly there without Asia brand now?

it is because of "one-China" policy.

TWA772LR wrote:

Did any US airlines need the "Asia" titles? When did the first US airlines start serving Taiwan?

You can also still see KLM Asia planes in IAH, every day with the 747-400 combi!

The US carriers (namely PA, NW and then UA after the PA route purchase) didn't need separate "Taiwan-only" operating units because the US doesn't have an official flag carrier whereas BA, AF, KL, SR, JL, etc. were all the official flag carriers of their respective governments.

I see people still answering posts that have recieved clear to the point replies, and ignoring unanswered ones.

Again why were other state owned Asian carriers exempted from having Asia subsidiary, only Japan had to, and even in Japan private ANA had to follow this ruling as well, though both used their own liveried aircraft often on the service as did AF and KL.

Did British, Swiss and Lufthansa ever use their mainline livery aircraft there once in a while?

jfidler wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Why doesn't this happen with the US3, especially UNITED which has so many fights from the USA to mainland China and Taiwan?

Because they are not national flag carriers and not government-owned.

When China started to "open up" in the 70s and Japan recognized Beijing the PRC insisted on no airlines flying to both Taiwan and mainland China. The US told Beijing to go f... themselves, similarly so did Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Philipines as all had stronger economic and political ties to Taipei then. The Europeans, Australians and Canadians caved.

This from the son of someone who worked in the US embassy in Taipei before 79 and then the equivalent after US recognized Beijing.

The US didn't tell the Chinese to go F themselves or there would still be an embassy in Taipei.

The US airlines are private entities. There's no more explanation needed.

delimit wrote:

The US didn't tell the Chinese to go F themselves or there would still be an embassy in Taipei.

The US airlines are private entities. There's no more explanation needed.

Explain SQ, TG etc etc

Also private companies.

SQ and TG were "private companies' in the 70s? Theyre still not private in the sense most people in the west consider it.

China might have had a more friendly stance towards the Asian countries that got spared this ruling, including South Korea and Hong Kong.

They also seem to have imposed it on countries they probably didnt trust as friends.