Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:Could KL leave AF and merge "more" somehow with DL, leaving AF in the lurch?
mercure1 wrote:Closer integration is way overdue.
So much is wasted by duplication of functions at both airlines.
If they want to keep two brands, that is ok, but essentially all the back office functions should be one.
mercure1 wrote:Closer integration is way overdue.
So much is wasted by duplication of functions at both airlines.
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:Could KL leave AF and merge "more" somehow with DL, leaving AF in the lurch?
Flanker7 wrote:Unfortunately KLM cannot get out of this marriage.
5NFGS wrote:Oh dear, Elbers has done a wonderful job with KL so far, meddlers leave him be!
Monsieur Smith, welcome from Canada.
You were brought to fix the Air France bit of AIR FRANCE-KLM.
Just the Air France bit.
keesje wrote:Mr Smith shouldn't be charmed / bought into the position he's reorganizing the more cooperative / productive part of the company, the easy way. He might lose his job, blow up the merger doing so.
KLM did realize far reaching effiency operations, cutting costs and jobs over the years. AF unions striked their way out.
KLM wants to remain cooperative, but not at all costs / being used. If required the government can step in to protect local interest. Thank god they were smart enough to not completely hand over all the "golden share" rights at the time.
MrBren wrote:AF saved KLM. It's now time to be a true group, and keep both prides aside.
MrBren wrote:AF saved KLM. It's now time to be a true group, and keep both prides aside.
cv990Coronado wrote:My perception from the outside looking in and from the comments in this thread, this merger looks like a marriage made in hell. In contrast to Lufthansa's takeover of LX and OS which doesn't seem to generate venomous comments. Is this a cultural thing of a matter of execution I wonder?
LAXintl wrote:AFKL Group needs to become more like LH Group, where yes things are much more integrated.
Keeping the core brands is fine, but there indeed must be hundreds of million € that can be saved by consolidating functions, and removing duplication across all the different AOCs - AF mainline, AF regional, KL mainline, KL Cityhopper, Transavia Holland, Transavia France, Martinair, etc.
Waterbomber2 wrote:Imo KLM is a poorly run airline.
Poor product, poor service, low salaries. They can make a profit in this low fuel environment but nobody is happy. Not the customers, not the staff.
Their operations lack the slack.
There just isn't anything great with it.
AF is losing money due to poor management. KL may not be losing money but it has reached a dead end as an airline, there is no vision, no strategy, no willingness.
They might as well put a snowman as CEO, nobody would notice a difference.
mercure1 wrote:Closer integration is way overdue.
So much is wasted by duplication of functions at both airlines.
If they want to keep two brands, that is ok, but essentially all the back office functions should be one.
Jomar777 wrote:their Premium Economy is not that great (inexistent to say the least).
Jomar777 wrote:Waterbomber2 wrote:Imo KLM is a poorly run airline.
Poor product, poor service, low salaries. They can make a profit in this low fuel environment but nobody is happy. Not the customers, not the staff.
Their operations lack the slack.
There just isn't anything great with it.
AF is losing money due to poor management. KL may not be losing money but it has reached a dead end as an airline, there is no vision, no strategy, no willingness.
They might as well put a snowman as CEO, nobody would notice a difference.
Brand new aircrafts, aircrafts always clean and in good condition. Very effective service in terms of punctuality and quality. Their staff always look quite happy and smily contrary to what you sometimes see on AA, UA and DL, for example.
Their product is quite good and, the only thing you could consider, in comparison to Air France, is that somehow (maybe just an impression) their seat pitch is slightly cramped and their Premium Economy is not that great (inexistent to say the least).
You could add the fact that sometimes you may get a bit more of a stroppy treatment from their cabin crew but, having worked with a lot of Dutch and Flemish people, I kind get that they are like this but, having said that, this is beyond me saying that they ar enot great, efficient and corteous (I prefer the Air France Staff because they treat me well but, hey, I can speak French and people sometimes say OI look like one even though I am not so there might be somthing in it)
All in all, I fail to understand your comments on the state of KLM and their quality which is, at minimum, at level pair with AF and LH
Jomar777 wrote:with one interesting difference (between others...) - They DO NOT GO ON STRIKE
Waterbomber2 wrote:LAXintl wrote:AFKL Group needs to become more like LH Group, where yes things are much more integrated.
Keeping the core brands is fine, but there indeed must be hundreds of million € that can be saved by consolidating functions, and removing duplication across all the different AOCs - AF mainline, AF regional, KL mainline, KL Cityhopper, Transavia Holland, Transavia France, Martinair, etc.
LH fired the Belgian SN CEO and put a German lady in his stead, and staff were against all of this, resulting in poor morale. How is the LH Group different?
MrBren wrote:I always avoid KLM at any price, the food is just so untasty, almost junk food. And the seat pitch, just a nightmare. Easyjet is even better for the seats.
keesje wrote:MrBren wrote:AF saved KLM. It's now time to be a true group, and keep both prides aside.
Non-sense. KLM has always been profitable, also before the merge. AF is the one that had to be saved by the french state, every 4-5 years. They payed some 747s from the balance to suppress profits / taxes / salary demands in the nineties.
flyjohnnyt wrote:MrBren wrote:I always avoid KLM at any price, the food is just so untasty, almost junk food. And the seat pitch, just a nightmare. Easyjet is even better for the seats.
I have to agree with this somehow. I fly both KLM and AF on short hauls and long hauls (on business class). AF is far better in long haul catering and also their business class seats (if you are lucky to get the reverse herringbone) and their crew are elegant.
However I think that where the advantage stops. KLM is far better in all their short haul flight - new planes, clean, friendly and helpful staff and efficient service (unlike AF short hauls). The let down of its long haul flight is the business class seat which despite being comfortable, lack privacy and direct aisle access. The service again is always friendly and you can just tell from a passenger's point of view this is a well run airlines.
MrBren wrote:I always avoid KLM at any price, the food is just so untasty, almost junk food. And the seat pitch, just a nightmare.
TYCOON wrote:keesje wrote:MrBren wrote:AF saved KLM. It's now time to be a true group, and keep both prides aside.
Non-sense. KLM has always been profitable, also before the merge. AF is the one that had to be saved by the french state, every 4-5 years. They payed some 747s from the balance to suppress profits / taxes / salary demands in the nineties.
Sorry, just not factually correct. Dutch fake news! I worked for many years in aviation finance in the 90s and during those years had KLM, Transavia AND Martinair as my clients. I successfully financed a number of KLMs widebodies in that period, and they were not very profitable and finding financing for them at that time was not easy. The margins they had to pay on their loans were double what Air France had to pay to reflect the perceived risk. The merger happened shortly thereafter...
Personally, I love both airlines and I have always found flight crew at both KL and AF to be very pleasant, as are the ground staff. But they really need to integrate more (back office etc) but definitely keep their respective brands.
Waterbomber2 wrote:Imo KLM is a poorly run airline.
Poor product, poor service, low salaries. They can make a profit in this low fuel environment but nobody is happy. Not the customers, not the staff.
Their operations lack the slack.
There just isn't anything great with it.
AF is losing money due to poor management. KL may not be losing money but it has reached a dead end as an airline, there is no vision, no strategy, no willingness.
They might as well put a snowman as CEO, nobody would notice a difference.
AF and KLM have a merged management.
Management positions are intertwined. For every AF VP there is a KL vice VP and vice versa.
At management level, AF and KLM are one and the same airline.
So KLM management is just as responsible for AF's losses as AF management.
https://www.airfranceklm.com/en/group-e ... -committee
It's also a known fact that Elbers wanted to call the shots at AF-KLM and not only KLM and hence yhere might be rivalry with Smith.
cv990Coronado wrote:My perception from the outside looking in and from the comments in this thread, this merger looks like a marriage made in hell. In contrast to Lufthansa's takeover of LX and OS which doesn't seem to generate venomous comments. Is this a cultural thing of a matter of execution I wonder?
Revelation wrote:The cultural element is a prominent one.
You can read the comments in this thread and learn the Dutch are thrifty and industrious whereas the French are profligate and lazy.
Meanwhile Germans, Swiss and Austrians are more of a mono-culture.
Clearly AF-KLM is a marriage of convenience.
Both partners have kept their old apartments as a hedge against the marriage failing, which is also a sign that both sides expect the marriage to fail.
The marriage hasn't failed yet for the same reason it was formed: both partners feel they can't make it on their own, yet both partners can't find more suitable partners.
So indeed the marriage from hell continues with the hallmark being indifference if not apathy, with skirmishes largely kept behind doors, with the exception of occasional public outbursts like this one.
Revelation wrote:Meanwhile Germans, Swiss and Austrians are more of a mono-culture.
76er wrote:(...)But at least the cabin crew do completely ignore you if your do not happen to speak the local language (...)
Waterbomber2 wrote:Imo KLM is a poorly run airline.
Poor product, poor service, low salaries. They can make a profit in this low fuel environment but nobody is happy. Not the customers, not the staff.
Their operations lack the slack.
There just isn't anything great with it.
AF is losing money due to poor management. KL may not be losing money but it has reached a dead end as an airline, there is no vision, no strategy, no willingness.
They might as well put a snowman as CEO, nobody would notice a difference.
AF and KLM have a merged management.
Management positions are intertwined. For every AF VP there is a KL vice VP and vice versa.
At management level, AF and KLM are one and the same airline.
So KLM management is just as responsible for AF's losses as AF management.
https://www.airfranceklm.com/en/group-e ... -committee
It's also a known fact that Elbers wanted to call the shots at AF-KLM and not only KLM and hence yhere might be rivalry with Smith.
TurboJet707 wrote:76er wrote:(...)But at least the cabin crew do completely ignore you if your do not happen to speak the local language (...)
I trust you meant to write "don't completely ignore you"
GCT64 wrote:The last time I compared the market cap of the Lufthansa Group, IAG and AF-KL it was pretty clear which one the investors didn't like, didn't believe in and didn't think would make money.
Waterbomber2 wrote:Imo KLM is a poorly run airline.
Poor product, poor service, low salaries. They can make a profit in this low fuel environment but nobody is happy. Not the customers, not the staff.
Their operations lack the slack.
There just isn't anything great with it.
AF is losing money due to poor management. KL may not be losing money but it has reached a dead end as an airline, there is no vision, no strategy, no willingness.
They might as well put a snowman as CEO, nobody would notice a difference.
AF and KLM have a merged management.
Management positions are intertwined. For every AF VP there is a KL vice VP and vice versa.
At management level, AF and KLM are one and the same airline.
So KLM management is just as responsible for AF's losses as AF management.
https://www.airfranceklm.com/en/group-e ... -committee
It's also a known fact that Elbers wanted to call the shots at AF-KLM and not only KLM and hence yhere might be rivalry with Smith.
GCT64 wrote:You don't need to change the brand, the cabin crew style etc. but you do need to get the efficiencies behind the scenes (in the way the IAG has or is doing: unify the cargo operation, purchasing, IT, fleet configuration etc.). You can't do this if both are trying to keep their structures intact.
The last time I compared the market cap of the Lufthansa Group, IAG and AF-KL it was pretty clear which one the investors didn't like, didn't believe in and didn't think would make money.