The dutch government has declared their intention to increase their stock holding in the KL-AF group.

They increased their holding to 12.68% and are increasing this to 14% to almost match the French government’s holding (14.3%).

The dutch government just spend 680 million euro to get to 12.68%. It is not yet clear how much more money is needed to get to the desired 14%.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2273610-nederlan ... e-klm.html

This comes across to me as a pretty stern rebuke of French involvement in the airline. I also can’t imagine the French government won’t want to be the one driving the bus here so I won’t be shocked if they look to buy more.

Very good move, finally the Dutch government is acting.
This is the only way to gain more influence in the holding.

747classic wrote:

Very good move, finally the Dutch government is acting.
This is the only way to gain more influence in the holding.

The strange part of this is that the Dutch government, for a relative pittance due to AF having a low market capitalization, buy control equal to or if the French government doesn’t intervene in excess of France even though the AF portion is significantly bigger in terms of airline size.

It’s almost like government ownership of companies operating in a multi-national fashion may be a bad idea...

I don't think the (primary) goal is to gain a share in excess of the French, if they intervene or not.

bigjku wrote:

This comes across to me as a pretty stern rebuke of French involvement in the airline. I also can’t imagine the French government won’t want to be the one driving the bus here so I won’t be shocked if they look to buy more.

I really don't think the Macron government wants to put any additional money into AF. Frankly the Dutch neutralizing the French stake is a good result for Macron. The French government initially signaled that they were getting ready to sell off their stake in Air France and they've readily acknowledged that AF is a basket case. There was a lot of anger in response so the government backed off but this hopefully will strike some stronger balance that will emphasize KL's financial strength relative to AF. Its also worth noting that Delta owns 10% of the company as well and they have the same vested interests in lowering costs and ensuring balance between AF and KL.

Title is slightly wrong: the Dutch government had no stock holding in AF/KL before, that was just in KL. Thus if the Dutch buy an equal share in AF/KL they have a larger overall stake than the French.

Mr. Smith probably told the Dutch government not to interfer, because they do not own the company, (unlike the french government). Business is business.. he didn't know what he triggered.

Mr. Smith gave the AF side of the company a pay rise, while trying to behead the more efficient, profitable KLM side of the company. KLM went through painfull costcuts to stay up with the best. Employees gave in & supported.

Maybe Mr Smith in his Paris HQ felt it was easiest to play along with the AF management, french government and french unions.

Successful and widely respected Elbers had to get out of the way, to get access to KLM capital to invest elsewhere.

Not. Mr Smith damaged trust. Don't try to drain the cooperative, profitable part of the company to support the more striking, inefficient part. Hopefully some reality kicks in now.

The dutch government doesn't want play a role in company matters. They want to secure business infrastructure in the Netherlands and prevent KLM becoming a playing ball / cash source.

In France industry and politics are traditionally alligned to do the best for France.

Jetty wrote:

Title is slightly wrong: the Dutch government had no stock holding in AF/KL before, that was just in KL. Thus if the Dutch buy an equal share in AF/KL they have a larger overall stake than the French.

How is the actual shareholder structure in KLM? I understand it is not 100% owned by the Air France-KLM Group and there is some sort of a confusing ownership structure?

Someone83 wrote:

Jetty wrote:

Title is slightly wrong: the Dutch government had no stock holding in AF/KL before, that was just in KL. Thus if the Dutch buy an equal share in AF/KL they have a larger overall stake than the French.

How is the actual shareholder structure in KLM? I understand it is not 100% owned by the Air France-KLM Group and there is some sort of a confusing ownership structure?

AF/KL own 93% of shares, the Dutch government 6% and individual shareholders that didn’t want to sell when AF and KL merged 1%. A meaningful 1% though, they went to court more than once to claim AF/KL abused their majority and won.

Then there is a couple of Dutch foundations that could issue non-dividend paying shares that combined with the shares of the Dutch government would make a majority, but that plays no role other that a lingering threat to the French.

It is obviously a war declaration.

Jetty wrote:

Someone83 wrote:

Jetty wrote:

Title is slightly wrong: the Dutch government had no stock holding in AF/KL before, that was just in KL. Thus if the Dutch buy an equal share in AF/KL they have a larger overall stake than the French.

How is the actual shareholder structure in KLM? I understand it is not 100% owned by the Air France-KLM Group and there is some sort of a confusing ownership structure?

AF/KL own 93% of shares, the Dutch government 6% and individual shareholders that didn’t want to sell when AF and KL merged 1%. A meaningful 1% though, they went to court more than once to claim AF/KL abused their majority and won.

Then there is a couple of Dutch foundations that could issue non-dividend paying shares that combined with the shares of the Dutch government would make a majority, but that plays no role other that a lingering threat to the French.

Not entirely true. To be precise it is as follow:
AF/KL owns 49% of the shares in KL. The Dutch government owns 5.9%, Stichting Administratiekantoor KLM owns 32.9%, Stichting Administratiekantoor Cumulatief Preferente Aandelen C KLM owns 11,3% and 1% of the shares are owned by individual shareholders.

The french government owns 14.3% of the shares of AF/KLM. The dutch strive to get 14%.

When Delta and China Eastern got 10% each, the dutch government was informed afterwards.

In recent weeks the AF side tried to remove successful KLM CEO Elbers. Unexplainable from a dutch perspective.

That raised question marks on the mutual respect & interests.

MrBren wrote:

It is obviously a war declaration.

Love it

MrBren wrote:

It is obviously a war declaration.

More like an insurance policy.

MrBren wrote:

It is obviously a war declaration.

I agree. Not the smartest move from the Dutch. This move would be perceived very negatively by the French, especially if they have not been informed before. The Dutch have certainly increased their influence, but this will definitely increase the tension with the French. I bet that the French are already working on their next move (meaning they will retaliate not in a nice way).

How can you manage the group when each party doesn't trust each other? It's terrible for AF-KLM future. Maybe, they should just demerge.

keesje wrote:

The french government owns 14.3% of the shares of AF/KLM. The dutch strive to get 14%.

When Delta and China Eastern got 10% each, the dutch government was informed afterwards.

In recent weeks the AF side tried to remove successful KLM CEO Elbers. Unexplainable from a dutch perspective.

That raised question marks on the mutual respect & interests.

Respect goes both ways. The Dutch move is an act of revenge, not mutual respect.

I got it. You don't trust any French involved in the management of Dutch companies. How surprising.

Some people don't think further than a monkey on a rock.

The french government refused to give up it's share in recent years. Why? I would love to see independent arbitrition here.

If the only way to make the AF side of the companyhappy is giving in, giving up one sided & be side lined in the end, a de-merge is probably the best way forward.

Reality is AF-KL would not be profitable without KL. AF won't divorce the goose with golden eggs.

KLM isn't about power, control and jobs in close cooperation with unions & politicians. They are focussed on profitability and long term growth.

What‘s next? Will the Dutch put on their orange t-shirts and join the yellow vests to fight the Macron regime? If so, I wish good luck to them all.

keesje wrote:

In France industry and politics are traditionally alligned to do the best for France.

That could be said of every country in the world. Every state actor is concerned with their own interests only. How is this move not any different for the Dutch government?

intotheair wrote:

keesje wrote:

In France industry and politics are traditionally alligned to do the best for France.

That could be said of every country in the world. Every state actor is concerned with their own interests only. How is this move not any different for the Dutch government?

The dutch government divested a long time ago from KLM and let other proud industries fall / sold off to foreign companies, without jumping in.

Now they concluded a (close to) level playing might be usefull as dutch interests apparently had fallen way down the AF-KL priority list.

keesje wrote:

The french government refused to give up it's share in recent years. Why? I would love to see independent arbitrition here.

If the only way to make the AF side of the companyhappy is giving in, giving up one sided & be side lined in the end, a de-merge is probably the best way forward.

Reality is AF-KL would not be profitable without KL. AF won't divorce the goose with golden eggs.

KLM isn't about power, control and jobs in close cooperation with unions & politicians. They are focussed on profitability and long term growth.

Do you really think that the French do not care about profitability and long term growth? The French government has no interest in bailing out AF as it has more pressing issues.

keesje wrote:

intotheair wrote:

keesje wrote:

In France industry and politics are traditionally alligned to do the best for France.

That could be said of every country in the world. Every state actor is concerned with their own interests only. How is this move not any different for the Dutch government?

The dutch government divested a long time ago from KLM and let other proud industries fall / sold off to foreigh companies, without jumping in. Now they concluded a (close to) level playing might be usefull as dutch interests apparently had fallen way down the AF-KL priority list.

That's their perception. Ben Smith has not indicated in any way that KLM's role will be diminished. If he did, that would ridiculous as KLM is profitable and its hub plays an important role for both AF and KLM.

yoni wrote:

keesje wrote:

intotheair wrote:

That could be said of every country in the world. Every state actor is concerned with their own interests only. How is this move not any different for the Dutch government?

The dutch government divested a long time ago from KLM and let other proud industries fall / sold off to foreigh companies, without jumping in. Now they concluded a (close to) level playing might be usefull as dutch interests apparently had fallen way down the AF-KL priority list.

That's their perception. Ben Smith has not indicated in any way that KLM's role will be diminished. If he did, that would ridiculous as KLM is profitable and its hub plays an important role for both AF and KLM.

Yes, he did: he tried to get rid of Elbers. What for? Which might have worked anyway, I can see Elbers taking the helm at another big airline in the not to distant future.

Comment made by the Dutch Minister is that the main reason is to protect jobs at Schiphol Airport and protect its critical role in the Dutch economy. It seems the Dutch Government is under the improssion that one of the risks of the new management is to move flights from Amsterdam to Paris(from KLM to Air France). They quoted the example of what happened to Zurich (Swissair bust) and Brussels (Sabena dragged down by the Swissair collaps as they partnered with Swissair) and they expect 113,000 jobs to be at risk relating to the airport.

Ben Smith had a video message to all staff when he joined where he stated that he does not want AF/KL to be another Sabena, Pan Am or Olympic. The Dutch government response was that they don't want Amsterdam to be another Brussels Airport and they specifically referred to Sabena too in their press conference.

In dutch:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achter ... ~b133cbb9/

I think overall this is good for the AF/KL group as this makes it more difficult for the french unions to put pressure on the french government as the french government can now blame the dutch government for some difficult decisions.

yoni wrote:

keesje wrote:

The french government refused to give up it's share in recent years. Why? I would love to see independent arbitrition here.

If the only way to make the AF side of the companyhappy is giving in, giving up one sided & be side lined in the end, a de-merge is probably the best way forward.

Reality is AF-KL would not be profitable without KL. AF won't divorce the goose with golden eggs.

KLM isn't about power, control and jobs in close cooperation with unions & politicians. They are focussed on profitability and long term growth.

Do you really think that the French do not care about profitability and long term growth? The French government has no interest in bailing out AF as it has more pressing issues.

You are right that the government doesn’t want to do that. But the French unions have a ton of power and in the end I don’t believe any French government that gets sideways with them is long in power.

Dirigiste is a french invention, teached on the ecoles superieres. Strong influence of the french state. To protect french interest. Being surprized another party does the same would not be correct.

Maybe an opportunity for IAG to try and take KLM off of AF-KLM's hands. After all, Willie Walsh has said that this was a deal that BA and KLM "should have been done"

Breathe wrote:

Maybe an opportunity for IAG to try and take KLM off of AF-KLM's hands. After all, Willie Walsh has said that this was a deal that BA and KLM "should have been done"

BA had the opportunity to merge with KL and Swiss and screwed up both opportunities.

keesje wrote:

Yes, he did: he tried to get rid of Elbers. What for? Which might have worked anyway, I can see Elbers taking the helm at another big airline in the not to distant future.

I see you’re invested here, but maybe take a step back and look at what Smith’s done.

A. There was no trust between AF management and staff.Smith had two options: 1 break AF staff resistance by playing hardball. You go guess the costs in time and money. Easily billions of EUR and a year of strikes killing AF reputation. He chose door 2: give them money upfront and hope that will give him leverage in the future. May work, may not. Less management-by-handgranade as option 1.

B. I have heard he’s confronted management in both companies that on their watch integration was flat. Fair observation imho.

I don’t object to Elbers not giving an inch to French AFKL management as they gave little themselves. If - if!- Elbers treated Smith the same - and thus qualifying him basically as the next Frenchmen instead of the outsider who stands above both factions - I actually understand that Smith doubted his next term. He needs bridge-builders, not Dutch and French management staying in their trenches.

Even the official PR of the companies isn't aligned. KL stated that they're very happy with the intervention by the Dutch government, AFKL had no comment. Meanwhile KL also hired a French PR agency unrelated to AFKL.

keesje wrote:

yoni wrote:

keesje wrote:

The dutch government divested a long time ago from KLM and let other proud industries fall / sold off to foreigh companies, without jumping in. Now they concluded a (close to) level playing might be usefull as dutch interests apparently had fallen way down the AF-KL priority list.

That's their perception. Ben Smith has not indicated in any way that KLM's role will be diminished. If he did, that would ridiculous as KLM is profitable and its hub plays an important role for both AF and KLM.

Yes, he did: he tried to get rid of Elbers. What for? Which might have worked anyway, I can see Elbers taking the helm at another big airline in the not to distant future.

If the Dutch were so keen on improving the group's productivity and profit margin, why did they not increase their shares much earlier when AF had strike after strike and weak management? This shows that the Dutch did not care about the group as long as they could do their own thing. But being part of a group requires some synergies. IAG and Luthansa are doing that. Why should it be otherwise for KLM?

bigjku wrote:

yoni wrote:

keesje wrote:

The french government refused to give up it's share in recent years. Why? I would love to see independent arbitrition here.

If the only way to make the AF side of the companyhappy is giving in, giving up one sided & be side lined in the end, a de-merge is probably the best way forward.

Reality is AF-KL would not be profitable without KL. AF won't divorce the goose with golden eggs.

KLM isn't about power, control and jobs in close cooperation with unions & politicians. They are focussed on profitability and long term growth.

Do you really think that the French do not care about profitability and long term growth? The French government has no interest in bailing out AF as it has more pressing issues.

You are right that the government doesn’t want to do that. But the French unions have a ton of power and in the end I don’t believe any French government that gets sideways with them is long in power.

Things have changed in France. Unionization rate has decreased significantly. Major reforms have been adopted despite strong union protests. The government did not give in to their demands.

KLM is for 51% in Dutch hands.
That is the case since 2004.

Someone in this thread said the holding owns 93% of KLM.
That is not true.
AF-KLM owns 49% of the airline KLM.

Yes it is a striking costruction.
The holding is the boss, but at the same time it has only 49% of the shares of KLM.

Does anyone know how this is with Iberia within IAG or Austrian within LH Group?

I think it would be best if they went their separate ways. No need to pull KLM down the drain with AF. KLM might not be the flashiest airline but at least you can depend on them.

yoni wrote:

MrBren wrote:

It is obviously a war declaration.

I agree. Not the smartest move from the Dutch. This move would be perceived very negatively by the French, especially if they have not been informed before. The Dutch have certainly increased their influence, but this will definitely increase the tension with the French. I bet that the French are already working on their next move (meaning they will retaliate not in a nice way).

How can you manage the group when each party doesn't trust each other? It's terrible for AF-KLM future. Maybe, they should just demerge.

Very well put.

I love KLM, but we have to embrace that national airlines are a thing of the past. Narrowbodies and LCCs go TATL, Ryanair, Easyjet are the largest airlines in Europe. This is reality now. The highly paid 747/777 captain jobs and the stature of grandeur that came with flying are transforming. Everybody wants to fly, LCCs are here to stay.

If they are worried about Schiphol, they should have opened up a second airport. In the UK every medium size city has an airport. The Netherlands and the travel hungry Dutch can easily sustain 2-3 major airports but factually due to fear of this new reality, Schiphol group (perhaps influenced by KLM) has successfully stalled Lelystad, and growth of Rotterdam or Eindhoven airports. Trying to play the slot monopoly game won't work forever. If there were 3 major airports with a diverse set of 10+ airlines serving the Dutch (Wizz, Norwegian, even Lufthansa) then there would be no problem. The idea of this "asset" needing protection is flawed. People travel more than ever before. In a flexible market Schiphol cannot decline..... as the demand is just too high.
The concept that KLM-schiphol needs to be "saved" illustrates the immaturity of the Dutch market, both on the airline, as well as the airport level.

LH and IAG will enjoy this day as this step only ensures further continuation of the stalemate that is KL-AF.

nydutch wrote:

If they are worried about Schiphol, they should have opened up a second airport. In the UK every medium size city has an airport. The Netherlands and the travel hungry Dutch can easily sustain 2-3 major airports but factually due to fear of this new reality, Schiphol group (perhaps influenced by KLM) has successfully stalled Lelystad, and growth of Rotterdam or Eindhoven airports. Trying to play the slot monopoly game won't work forever. If there were 3 major airports with a diverse set of 10+ airlines serving the Dutch (Wizz, Norwegian, even Lufthansa) then there would be no problem. The idea of this "asset" needing protection is flawed. People travel more than ever before. In a flexible market Schiphol cannot decline..... as the demand is just too high.
The concept that KLM-schiphol needs to be "saved" illustrates the immaturity of the Dutch market, both on the airline, as well as the airport level.

LH and IAG will enjoy this day as this step only ensures further continuation of the stalemate that is KL-AF.

Quite funny the comments. The Dutch buying 12+% of a stockmarket listed AF/KL group is a "war declaration"? Qatar bought into IAG, CX and some others. A hedge fund could come in and try a full takeover (apart from the fact that there is no money to be made...) and sideline the French government overnight.It is still a stockmarket listed company and anyone can buy shares for any reason. A government to protect long term interests is still a lot better than a hedge fund whoch want to break it down and sell it in pieces.

You have a stockmarket listed company where the French government has an influence which is disproportional with their shareholding of around 14%. If the French want to fully control AF, fine, do a takeover and get 51% of the shares. Otherwise, anyone is free to invest. The Dutch government is doing so to protect Dutch interests. It is unusual for a government in Europe to do so but in many other countries is it normal. All the middle eastern counties do it, Singapore does it, other countries do it. Aviation is an enabler to the economy of the countries listed and therefore strategic. If Schiphol loses international/intercontinental connectivity due to AF/KL strategy, Amsterdam loses when trying global companies trying to set up their HQ.

IMO, taking option 2 was at best high risk.

The most likely outcome was simply increased demands.

Good move, if you are not informed properly/timely about a company that plays an important role in the prosperity of your country and in which you have a direct financial interest, you need to get a seat at the table to make sure you are.

Funny how some people find it OK for the French gov to keep and increase their share (some years ago), but do not approve of the Dutch gov doing the exact same.

What does get lost in the discussion is the explicit statement of the Dutch gov that, in their opinion, the combination of Air France and KLM is the best option for the future.

Ironically this move might, on the short term, increase the voting power of the French gov since after two years of shareholding, your voting power doubles. Assuming that at least part of the shares acquired by the Dutch gov were acquired from +2 year shareholders, this means that the voting power pool has decreased by these shares, meaning relatively more power for the incumbents (in the short term).

Montey wrote:

Jetty wrote:

Someone83 wrote:

How is the actual shareholder structure in KLM? I understand it is not 100% owned by the Air France-KLM Group and there is some sort of a confusing ownership structure?

AF/KL own 93% of shares, the Dutch government 6% and individual shareholders that didn’t want to sell when AF and KL merged 1%. A meaningful 1% though, they went to court more than once to claim AF/KL abused their majority and won.

Then there is a couple of Dutch foundations that could issue non-dividend paying shares that combined with the shares of the Dutch government would make a majority, but that plays no role other that a lingering threat to the French.

Not entirely true. To be precise it is as follow:
AF/KL owns 49% of the shares in KL. The Dutch government owns 5.9%, Stichting Administratiekantoor KLM owns 32.9%, Stichting Administratiekantoor Cumulatief Preferente Aandelen C KLM owns 11,3% and 1% of the shares are owned by individual shareholders.

Thanks for the input

How does these «foundations» work and how are they run and controlled

So those who denied the French state to protect the French interests in AF KLM are the same here who today claim the Dutch state is right to buy 13% of the group. I still think this is a war declaration like if it was an hostile takeover bid because the main stakeholders haven't been informed. Good luck Mister Smith, it was hard to have one state on board, but having two will be even harder. The French part wants more integration between the two companies while the Dutch one wants the exact contrary, that will be an unmanageable mess. Who will be the winners due to this war declaration? IAG and LH.

Visibly the Dutch move scares the markets because the AF KLM share drops, almost 10% at the opening.

My main question is - when Smith went to Holland two weeks ago to clarify the strategy and future organisation with Elbers. Did Elbers know this was going to happen and was Smith informed?

If he hid this information from Smith (who was then and is still now, basically his boss), that is deceitful and he clearly cannot be trusted in the AFKL group as it exists today and should be shown the door immediately.

If he was involved in the Dutch government taking this capital share after the meetings - that is also strange and certainly goes against the spirit of their agreements. Again I do not see how someone can remain in such a position under those circumstances.

If the Dutch government did this on their own, fair enough. But I find that unlikely....

"Declaration of war", "revenge". Let us put aside primal responses for a second...

This move is mainly three things:

1 A signal, a line in the sand. We are serious about our interests and we won't be fooled around with.

2 An insurance policy to make sure that agreements made during the merger can be upheld.

3 A commitment to AF-KLM. Let's not forget the Dutch government spend 680 million euro's to get an equal share. That is a serious commitment. Rather than a declaration of war this is also a signal that we believe in AF-KLM and we want to make it work. Otherwise you don't invest your money in it.

As said in de KLM CEO thread, I think AF-KLM could become more competitive in two ways:

1 Mainly AF get's more competitive
2 Further integration of both airlines.

For the second to happen, as far as KLM is concerned I reckon, the former must happen first. Now we see the first part being skipped and heading straight for the second. I think the Dutch are making very clear that that's not gonna happen. Yes, the investment without notice is not the most elegant move, but I reckon the Dutch just wanted to make sure they got what they were aiming for.

jsfr wrote:

My main question is - when Smith went to Holland two weeks ago to clarify the strategy and future organisation with Elbers. Did Elbers know this was going to happen and was Smith informed?

If he hid this information from Smith (who was then and is still now, basically his boss), that is deceitful and he clearly cannot be trusted in the AFKL group as it exists today and should be shown the door immediately.

If he was involved in the Dutch government taking this capital share after the meetings - that is also strange and certainly goes against the spirit of their agreements. Again I do not see how someone can remain in such a position under those circumstances.

If the Dutch government did this on their own, fair enough. But I find that unlikely....

Mr Smith had also talks with the Dutch Government (2 ministers, you can’t get much higher). And afterwards, the talks were described as “an intense conversation.”

Taxi645 wrote:

"Declaration of war", "revenge". Let us put aside primal responses for a second...

This move is mainly three things:

1 A signal, a line in the sand. We are serious about our interests and we won't be fooled around with.

2 An insurance policy to make sure that agreements made during the merger can be upheld.

3 A commitment to AF-KLM. Let's not forget the Dutch government spend 680 million euro's to get an equal share. That is a serious commitment. Rather than a declaration of war this is also a signal that we believe in AF-KLM and we want to make it work. Otherwise you don't invest your money in it.

As said in de KLM CEO thread, I think AF-KLM could become more competitive in two ways:

1 Mainly AF get's more competitive
2 Further integration of both airlines.

For the second to happen, as far as KLM is concerned I reckon, the former must happen first. Now we see the first part being skipped and heading straight for the second. I think the Dutch are making very clear that that's not gonna happen. Yes, the investment without notice is not the most elegant move, but I reckon the Dutch just wanted to make sure they got what they were aiming for.

Completely agree (and the current stock price also shows this is generally being seen as a good thing for the future.), I do worry about the level of honesty in doing this, now, without informing all involved in advance. It is not the sort of behaviour that honest positive business partnerships normally show...

I would add that the "agreements made during the merger" was 15 years ago - surely a modicum of change in 15 years is expected in any big company?

Your comment (and that of almost all Dutch posters) that AF nees to become more competitive is fair, but I think it is also fair to acknowledge the steps forward in teh past few months since Smith has started... For example:
- Getting rid of Joon
- Exceptional progress in French union relations
- Removing a number of the historical French (political) c-suite appointees
- Rationalising the A380 fleet...

Dutch government has stated French government (minister of Finance and prime minister) had been notified of the intention but had not replied before the transaction was complete. Meanwhile, French government now acts outraged, says there shouldn't be any national interference in the airline group but as recently as 2015 increased their stake to prevent a motion from passing that would reduce the voting power of their shares from double to just one-share-one-vote.

Talk about mixed signals from the French...

To me it seems perfectly reasonable that the Dutch government would want a seat at the table that is or will become equal to the French government. As stated before by others, governments will generally act in the best interest of the country they represent, so having the French involved in AF/KL but not the Dutch is a bit lopsided. How this will impact the airline further one can only speculate. However, if the French want to make a big issue about this, they are clearly operating on double standards. Dutch can't have what the French do have.

I think deep down every body knows what the french really wants.

keesje wrote:

I think deep down every body knows what the french really wants.

A succesful AF/KL?

In any case, we know what the Dutch on airliners.net want...