Welcome to the Air France KLM News and Discussion Thread 2021. Please continue to post your news and your discussion here.

Link to previous thread:

Air France KLM News and Discussion Thread - 2020

After months of discussions, the negotiations concerning the restructuring plan of Hop! is opposed by unions.

The main pilots' union, SNPL has already announced its refusal to sign the plan, which targets 317 out of 747 job cuts in cockpits, 286 for cabin crew and 404 for ground personnel. Refusal will not prevent management from submitting its plan to the Direccte (labour directorate) at the beginning of January, for the start of implementation at the end of January.

https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-servi ... op-1276076

On 12/31, KL896 PVG - AMS with PH-BVA (77W) did a 180 over Russia and was diverted to PEK due to unspecified engine troubles.

Source:
http://avherald.com/h?article=4e1382b3&opt=0
https://fr24.com/data/flights/kl896#2673b05c

KL scheduling additional cargo runs for AMS - LHR with A332

01/09 KL1011 1155 AMS - LHR 1215
01/09 KL1012 1345 LHR - AMS 1600

01/10 KL1011 1155 AMS - LHR 1215
01/10 KL1012 1345 LHR - AMS 1600

Brexit is causing some interesting problems for customers.

For example now citizens from multiple nations(list below) that travel to/from UK to require to obtain reintroduced airport transit visa for airports in EU.

This seem to be impacting AF/KL the most on routes to Africa (such as Nigeria) that historically saw strong demand from the UK.

(Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Central Africa Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Senegal, Syria, Palestinians, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, and Sri Lanka.)

mercure1 wrote:

Brexit is causing some interesting problems for customers.

For example now citizens from multiple nations(list below) that travel to/from UK to require to obtain reintroduced airport transit visa for airports in EU.

This seem to be impacting AF/KL the most on routes to Africa (such as Nigeria) that historically saw strong demand from the UK.

(Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Central Africa Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Senegal, Syria, Palestinians, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, and Sri Lanka.)

How does one get the airport visa? Also what is the airport visa exactly? Why do they need one if they are just transiting at an EU airport like AMS or CDG?

Blerg wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Brexit is causing some interesting problems for customers.

For example now citizens from multiple nations(list below) that travel to/from UK to require to obtain reintroduced airport transit visa for airports in EU.

This seem to be impacting AF/KL the most on routes to Africa (such as Nigeria) that historically saw strong demand from the UK.

(Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Central Africa Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Senegal, Syria, Palestinians, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, and Sri Lanka.)

How does one get the airport visa? Also what is the airport visa exactly? Why do they need one if they are just transiting at an EU airport like AMS or CDG?

Usually through a consular service or embassy.
Anyone from above using AMS as point of transfer i.e. for any non-Schengen/UK destination are required to obtain such a visa in accordance to local law and regulations, which still applies even in transit areas within airport terminals

FlyingHonu001 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Brexit is causing some interesting problems for customers.

For example now citizens from multiple nations(list below) that travel to/from UK to require to obtain reintroduced airport transit visa for airports in EU.

This seem to be impacting AF/KL the most on routes to Africa (such as Nigeria) that historically saw strong demand from the UK.

(Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Central Africa Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Senegal, Syria, Palestinians, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, and Sri Lanka.)

How does one get the airport visa? Also what is the airport visa exactly? Why do they need one if they are just transiting at an EU airport like AMS or CDG?

Usually through a consular service or embassy.
Anyone from above using AMS as point of transfer i.e. for any non-Schengen/UK destination are required to obtain such a visa in accordance to local law and regulations, which still applies even in transit areas within airport terminals

Wow... that's absolutely horrible. I can see many switching to either non-stop flights or airlines such as TK or EK/QR dependng on where they are coming from.

Why would you need a transit visa for AMS if your route was lets say LHR-AMS-BKK?

You’re not entering the Schengen zone, and thus there’s no passport control?

A person who buys a ticket LHR-AMS-BKK can board the flight from LHR to AMS, and then decide to accidentally miss the flight from AMS to BKK. Passenger can claim they do not have the money to buy a new ticket and possibly also destroy their passport (e.g. tear it apart and flush down the toilet) so making it impossible to find out their home country. Said passenger then becomes the problem of the Govt of the country of the transit airport.

A route like LHR-AMS-BKK is unlikely to see this kind of problem, but this might be more of an issue on a route from a low income country, via a rich country, to another low income country

pythoniels wrote:

Why would you need a transit visa for AMS if your route was lets say LHR-AMS-BKK?

You’re not entering the Schengen zone, and thus there’s no passport control?

Local (Dutch) law still apply in the international transit area's within AMS terminals. Depending on your nationality, such a visa might be required

Unless that changes anytime soon, I can indeed see AFKL losing transfer traffic over this one

mercure1 wrote:

After months of discussions, the negotiations concerning the restructuring plan of Hop! is opposed by unions.

The main pilots' union, SNPL has already announced its refusal to sign the plan, which targets 317 out of 747 job cuts in cockpits, 286 for cabin crew and 404 for ground personnel. Refusal will not prevent management from submitting its plan to the Direccte (labour directorate) at the beginning of January, for the start of implementation at the end of January.

https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-servi ... op-1276076

Do we know finally what Hop ! Routes will be ended and not flown by TO ?

ACI Europe published its study of European airport traffic connectivity. No surprise with COVID, destination and frequency reductions have greatly reduced connectivity on the continent.

The 2020 top connectivity pair airports on the continent were:
1. AMS 2324
2. CDG 1863
3. DME 1808
4. FRA 1660
5. IST 1624
6. SVO 1555
7. SAW 1534
8. LHR 1487
9. MUC 1276
10. ORY 1194

Quite positive outcome for AFKL where AMS and CDG knocked out FRA which historically held the number one spot.
Even with its long time closure during the year, ORY moved from number 17 connectivity spot in 2019 to number 10 in 2020.

French Minister of Transport Jean-Baptiste Djebbari reaffirmed the desire to renationalize AF and the capitalization project is on track.

Says talks are already underway with the other major group shareholder the Dutch State.

Also says the government "wishes to have a very clear vision of what the group will do in a post-Covid world".

https://www.air-journal.fr/2021-01-04-a ... 25072.html

...According to our information, the 2021 budget of the French company expects an operating loss of 2 billion euros. In February, the presentation of Air France-KLM's 2020 results will show an operating loss of 3.6 billion euros for Air France. Air France does not expect a recovery before next summer and forecasts a seat supply 40% lower than in 2019. The company expects traffic to be half as high as in 2019...

Source: https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-fi ... 69946.html

Recapitalization plans might mean another x million euro state aid package is coming up from both the French and Dutch governments this year

But won't recapitalization require another approval by the EU?

I guess as long as the French and the Dutch government would like to jointly nationalise AFKL it will not be a problem form the employees perspective. But if France does unilaterally nationalise AFKL as a French company I suspect that the reaction of the Dutch employees will not the most positive. Especially if AFKL tries to centralise more and more functions in Paris only.

I guess the ship regarding state aid has already sailed when the EU allows Italy to again and again "save" AZ by pumping money into it. So why should AFKL be treated harsher than AZ.

From what I gather France is speaking about nationalizing AF which is one of the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the group. How this is structured, I am not sure, but seems French state is focused on the French brands, not of the larger group.

And yes consolidation of functions should be a strong desire at the group level. As we have spoken about there is terrible duplication of many functions across airlines that should be combined and gain cost efficiencies. There is no better time to do it than now in the midst of a disaster.

mercure1 wrote:

From what I gather France is speaking about nationalizing AF which is one of the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the group. How this is structured, I am not sure, but seems French state is focused on the French brands, not of the larger group.

And yes consolidation of functions should be a strong desire at the group level. As we have spoken about there is terrible duplication of many functions across airlines that should be combined and gain cost efficiencies. There is no better time to do it than now in the midst of a disaster.

Consolidation should be a priority, though be it a difficult one as neither side will want to lose anything. I’ve worked alongside a fair few airlines, but I found it interesting how this group has things divided. Two-load controls, help desks, IT departments, Operations control centers, crew scheduling...everything is double. I’ve got little experience with it, but I’ve heard the cargo department is even more duplicated right down to using completely separate systems for either airline.

mercure1 wrote:

And yes consolidation of functions should be a strong desire at the group level. As we have spoken about there is terrible duplication of many functions across airlines that should be combined and gain cost efficiencies. There is no better time to do it than now in the midst of a disaster.

I agree with this. It should be designed as a win-win outcome, i.e. some functions go to KL and some go to AF (probably the larger share as AF is the larger company). From a corporate viewpoint it might make more sense to centralise more functions at KL because of the more advantageous labor laws (Strict French Labour laws and strong Unions), but that would obviously not go down well at AF and thusly put the AFKL union in jeopardy.

IMO the AFKL union is challenged to some degree because of vastly different (economic) cultures that both entities operate in. That seems to sometimes cause frictions, apparently more so than at LHG or IAG (based on my subjective reading of aviation news).

mercure1 wrote:

And yes consolidation of functions should be a strong desire at the group level. As we have spoken about there is terrible duplication of many functions across airlines that should be combined and gain cost efficiencies. There is no better time to do it than now in the midst of a disaster.

Yes and no. With this disaster the Dutch state invested billions in KL, and possibly billions more to come. The Dutch government can't defend spending such amounts of money on a company that's about to be centralized in Paris.

AF-KL to divorce in that case ?

Jetty wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

And yes consolidation of functions should be a strong desire at the group level. As we have spoken about there is terrible duplication of many functions across airlines that should be combined and gain cost efficiencies. There is no better time to do it than now in the midst of a disaster.

Yes and no. With this disaster the Dutch state invested billions in KL, and possibly billions more to come. The Dutch government can't defend spending such amounts of money on a company that's about to be centralized in Paris.

But duplication must certainly cost many millions - hundred million annually.

If the Dutch want a healthy airline, and good return on their investment, things should change.

In my dealings with AFKL, its indeed very much like dealing with two airlines, not a single entity as their corporate structure would indicate. This largely defeats the purpose of their "merger".

Heck Lufthansa Group, where the companies are far more separate on paper, operate much more aligned from back-office support functions, to purchasing, to ground handling, etc

Not everything would end up in France, but suspect AF has the capacity to absorb the KL workload easier than KL taking on duties from a larger AF in many areas.
And its not all human. Heck, why do the airlines run so many different IT systems still nearly after 17 from their merger? They have clearly been allowed to do their own things without regard for the bigger group picture for too long.

Perhaps not the right time for fleet talk but nonetheless...

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/prob ... challenges

Angus Clarke, chief commercial officer at Air France—a major 777 operator—said at the CAPA Live summit in December that the A350-1000 will be the largest aircraft the airline plans to operate in the future.

Given that KL has been profitable over the past several years I can see them using this as an argument against consolidation. For many Dutch employees this would be some sort of a punishment for a job well done. In the end, if they can't agree then they should split but still keep close cooperation in terms of network like they do now.

Then again, AF app sells very few connections via AMS. It mostly routes you via Paris even if you have a 30 hour connection.

LAXintl wrote:

Jetty wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

And yes consolidation of functions should be a strong desire at the group level. As we have spoken about there is terrible duplication of many functions across airlines that should be combined and gain cost efficiencies. There is no better time to do it than now in the midst of a disaster.

Yes and no. With this disaster the Dutch state invested billions in KL, and possibly billions more to come. The Dutch government can't defend spending such amounts of money on a company that's about to be centralized in Paris.

But duplication must certainly cost many millions - hundred million annually.

If the Dutch want a healthy airline, and good return on their investment, things should change.

In my dealings with AFKL, its indeed very much like dealing with two airlines, not a single entity as their corporate structure would indicate. This largely defeats the purpose of their "merger".

Heck Lufthansa Group, where the companies are far more separate on paper, operate much more aligned from back-office support functions, to purchasing, to ground handling, etc

Not everything would end up in France, but suspect AF has the capacity to absorb the KL workload easier than KL taking on duties from a larger AF in many areas.
And its not all human. Heck, why do the airlines run so many different IT systems still nearly after 17 from their merger? They have clearly been allowed to do their own things without regard for the bigger group picture for too long.

I don’t think the Lufthansa group has more separate entities on paper. The group AFKL doesn’t even own all shares of KL unlike Lufthansa and IAG with their subsidiaries.

I’m sure there is an acceptable compromise possible for KL and the Dutch government. That would probably include centralizing part of the departments at KL (doesn’t have to be half), an agreement between AF and staff on significant wage cuts and no wage increases until all debt is repaid (it’s very problematic that frequent AF strikes have cost the group hundreds of millions in a time without profit), no moving of flights from AMS to PAR. Otherwise The Dutch side probably prefers the status quo as the investments aren’t made to get a positive return through KL itself but to maintain AMS as a hub. If there is a risk of KL becoming inseparable from AF without assurances or favoring CDG as a hub the spending of billions isn’t justified.

xwb565 wrote:

Perhaps not the right time for fleet talk but nonetheless...

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/prob ... challenges

Angus Clarke, chief commercial officer at Air France—a major 777 operator—said at the CAPA Live summit in December that the A350-1000 will be the largest aircraft the airline plans to operate in the future.

There is a lot of questionability in that statement. Mostly that Air France has no current (public) plans to operate the A350-1000. Pretty shocking this journalist didn't even pick up on that fact.

Did KLM just remove the free cup of water from the snack box on short haul flights? It was missing on my last 3 flights.

jbs2886 wrote:

xwb565 wrote:

Perhaps not the right time for fleet talk but nonetheless...

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/prob ... challenges

Angus Clarke, chief commercial officer at Air France—a major 777 operator—said at the CAPA Live summit in December that the A350-1000 will be the largest aircraft the airline plans to operate in the future.

There is a lot of questionability in that statement. Mostly that Air France has no current (public) plans to operate the A350-1000. Pretty shocking this journalist didn't even pick up on that fact.

They posted seat layouts for various A350-1000 versions last year.

VSMUT wrote:

Did KLM just remove the free cup of water from the snack box on short haul flights? It was missing on my last 3 flights.

Yes, they are. Catering division is indeed streamlining their productline. You can expect noticable changes, for example C-class catering offerings both on European shorthaul and Cityhopper flights are going to be practically the same

VSMUT wrote:

There is a lot of questionability in that statement. Mostly that Air France has no current (public) plans to operate the A350-1000. Pretty shocking this journalist didn't even pick up on that fact.

They posted seat layouts for various A350-1000 versions last year.

Do we have any idea if these are likely to be new orders or conversions from -900 orders?

FlyingHonu001 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Did KLM just remove the free cup of water from the snack box on short haul flights? It was missing on my last 3 flights.

Yes, they are. Catering division is indeed streamlining their productline. You can expect noticable changes, for example C-class catering offerings both on European shorthaul and Cityhopper flights are going to be practically the same

Interesting, does that mean cardboard box business salads for mainline, or will Cityhopper be upgrading? How does KLM differ from Cityhopper in Economy, I haven't noticed any difference there before?

PM wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

There is a lot of questionability in that statement. Mostly that Air France has no current (public) plans to operate the A350-1000. Pretty shocking this journalist didn't even pick up on that fact.

They posted seat layouts for various A350-1000 versions last year.

Do we have any idea if these are likely to be new orders or conversions from -900 orders?

They need to order more aircraft. Once the 777-200ER fleet is retired, assuming a one-for-one basis, they will still have 7 A350-900 orders outstanding. They have a fleet of over 40 777-300ER's.

VSMUT wrote:

FlyingHonu001 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Did KLM just remove the free cup of water from the snack box on short haul flights? It was missing on my last 3 flights.

Yes, they are. Catering division is indeed streamlining their productline. You can expect noticable changes, for example C-class catering offerings both on European shorthaul and Cityhopper flights are going to be practically the same

Interesting, does that mean cardboard box business salads for mainline, or will Cityhopper be upgrading? How does KLM differ from Cityhopper in Economy, I haven't noticed any difference there before?

PM wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

There is a lot of questionability in that statement. Mostly that Air France has no current (public) plans to operate the A350-1000. Pretty shocking this journalist didn't even pick up on that fact.

They posted seat layouts for various A350-1000 versions last year.

Do we have any idea if these are likely to be new orders or conversions from -900 orders?

They need to order more aircraft. Once the 777-200ER fleet is retired, assuming a one-for-one basis, they will still have 13 A350-900 orders outstanding. They have a fleet of over 40 777-300ER's.

So even if they allow their fleet to shrink a bit, they'll still need more A350s. Good news.

VSMUT wrote:

PM wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

There is a lot of questionability in that statement. Mostly that Air France has no current (public) plans to operate the A350-1000. Pretty shocking this journalist didn't even pick up on that fact.

They posted seat layouts for various A350-1000 versions last year.

Do we have any idea if these are likely to be new orders or conversions from -900 orders?

They need to order more aircraft. Once the 777-200ER fleet is retired, assuming a one-for-one basis, they will still have 7 A350-900 orders outstanding. They have a fleet of over 40 777-300ER's.

So I am guessing the 777X will not be considered then at AF? (not including KL) But it makes sense as France might end up being both an investor in AF as well as in AB.

VSMUT wrote:

FlyingHonu001 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Did KLM just remove the free cup of water from the snack box on short haul flights? It was missing on my last 3 flights.

Yes, they are. Catering division is indeed streamlining their productline. You can expect noticable changes, for example C-class catering offerings both on European shorthaul and Cityhopper flights are going to be practically the same

Interesting, does that mean cardboard box business salads for mainline, or will Cityhopper be upgrading? How does KLM differ from Cityhopper in Economy, I haven't noticed any difference there before?

Indeed its going to be those fancy boxes on all European 737 business flights, like the ones on Cityhopper. So no more trayed meals unfortunately

FlyingHonu001 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

FlyingHonu001 wrote:

Yes, they are. Catering division is indeed streamlining their productline. You can expect noticable changes, for example C-class catering offerings both on European shorthaul and Cityhopper flights are going to be practically the same

Interesting, does that mean cardboard box business salads for mainline, or will Cityhopper be upgrading? How does KLM differ from Cityhopper in Economy, I haven't noticed any difference there before?

Indeed its going to be those fancy boxes on all European 737 business flights, like the ones on Cityhopper. So no more trayed meals unfortunately

Service improvements, as Lufthansa would put it!

Capricorn wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

And yes consolidation of functions should be a strong desire at the group level. As we have spoken about there is terrible duplication of many functions across airlines that should be combined and gain cost efficiencies. There is no better time to do it than now in the midst of a disaster.

I agree with this. It should be designed as a win-win outcome, i.e. some functions go to KL and some go to AF (probably the larger share as AF is the larger company). From a corporate viewpoint it might make more sense to centralise more functions at KL because of the more advantageous labor laws (Strict French Labour laws and strong Unions), but that would obviously not go down well at AF and thusly put the AFKL union in jeopardy.

IMO the AFKL union is challenged to some degree because of vastly different (economic) cultures that both entities operate in. That seems to sometimes cause frictions, apparently more so than at LHG or IAG (based on my subjective reading of aviation news).

That appears to be the case. Further consolidation sounds logical but this is very difficult because neither side wants to give up jobs in favor of the other country. You have the KL side claiming they are the more profitable side, but there is the AF side claiming they are the larger one. And both sides (both management, unions and government) are convinced of their argument. As long as neither side do trust each other, this situation won't change.

Capricorn wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

PM wrote:

Do we have any idea if these are likely to be new orders or conversions from -900 orders?

They need to order more aircraft. Once the 777-200ER fleet is retired, assuming a one-for-one basis, they will still have 7 A350-900 orders outstanding. They have a fleet of over 40 777-300ER's.

So I am guessing the 777X will not be considered then at AF? (not including KL) But it makes sense as France might end up being both an investor in AF as well as in AB.

A359s are for replacement of the remaining A340s, A380s, some A330s and part of the 77E fleet at AF. So yes, there will be more A359s ordered eventually I expect, at least to replace all 77E's. And maybe the remaining A330s too, if AF decides to go for an all Airbus widebody fleet and skips the A330neo (likely). The 77W's won't need replacement until the second half of this decade, but I think the majority will be replaced by A359s too. The -1000 just for some high volume routes, and perhaps as replacement COI fleet, if AF decides to continue with these low yield routes.

777X was considered by KL as potential 77E replacement, but I don't know if post-COVID this still is an option. A combination of 787-9/10s may make more sense now.

frigatebird wrote:

Capricorn wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

They need to order more aircraft. Once the 777-200ER fleet is retired, assuming a one-for-one basis, they will still have 7 A350-900 orders outstanding. They have a fleet of over 40 777-300ER's.

So I am guessing the 777X will not be considered then at AF? (not including KL) But it makes sense as France might end up being both an investor in AF as well as in AB.

A359s are for replacement of the remaining A340s, A380s, some A330s and part of the 77E fleet at AF.

Make that the entire 77E fleet. The A340 and A380 already left. They have 25 77E's and 32 outstanding orders for the A350. They might not have said it officially yet, but it is obvious to anyone that the 77E's days are counted at AF. Also the fact that they recently refurbished the A330 fleet, but not the 77E.

frigatebird wrote:

And maybe the remaining A330s too, if AF decides to go for an all Airbus widebody fleet and skips the A330neo (likely).

Or more likely more of the 787-9.

frigatebird wrote:

The 77W's won't need replacement until the second half of this decade

Air France was the launch customer for the type. The 777-200ER needs to go first, but the oldest 777-300ER is already 17 years, quickly approaching a ripe age for retirement. By the time the last of the current 38 A350s delivered to AF in 2025, AF will have 12 777-300ERs older than 20 years.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but wasn’t much, if not all of the 772 fleet refurbished to the “best” seats just in last 4 or 5 years?

It does seem like its days are limited, but I think the 772s will be around for awhile longer overall

In an updated stock announcement AFKL says it forecast €2bil loss for 2021 assuming traffic recovery by summer to 60 percent production.(which is quite optomistic)
Group will require €4.5-5.0Bil capital injection.

mercure1 wrote:

From what I gather France is speaking about nationalizing AF which is one of the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the group. How this is structured, I am not sure, but seems French state is focused on the French brands, not of the larger group.

And yes consolidation of functions should be a strong desire at the group level. As we have spoken about there is terrible duplication of many functions across airlines that should be combined and gain cost efficiencies. There is no better time to do it than now in the midst of a disaster.

It is unclear to me as well how the French government could nationalize AF. Both gouvernements own each 14.3% of the group AFKL. So nationalizing a wholly owned subsidiary would mean taking it out of the group before nationalizing? How would this work?

ro1960 wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

From what I gather France is speaking about nationalizing AF which is one of the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the group. How this is structured, I am not sure, but seems French state is focused on the French brands, not of the larger group.

And yes consolidation of functions should be a strong desire at the group level. As we have spoken about there is terrible duplication of many functions across airlines that should be combined and gain cost efficiencies. There is no better time to do it than now in the midst of a disaster.

It is unclear to me as well how the French government could nationalize AF. Both gouvernements own each 14.3% of the group AFKL. So nationalizing a wholly owned subsidiary would mean taking it out of the group before nationalizing? How would this work?

Or perhaps both Dutch and French governments agree to a joint nationalization and operation of the group.

Aresxerexade wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

From what I gather France is speaking about nationalizing AF which is one of the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the group. How this is structured, I am not sure, but seems French state is focused on the French brands, not of the larger group.

And yes consolidation of functions should be a strong desire at the group level. As we have spoken about there is terrible duplication of many functions across airlines that should be combined and gain cost efficiencies. There is no better time to do it than now in the midst of a disaster.

It is unclear to me as well how the French government could nationalize AF. Both gouvernements own each 14.3% of the group AFKL. So nationalizing a wholly owned subsidiary would mean taking it out of the group before nationalizing? How would this work?

Or perhaps both Dutch and French governments agree to a joint nationalization and operation of the group.

What about all the other subsidiaries? Transavia FR, Transavia NL, Hop!, etc.

ro1960 wrote:

Aresxerexade wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

It is unclear to me as well how the French government could nationalize AF. Both gouvernements own each 14.3% of the group AFKL. So nationalizing a wholly owned subsidiary would mean taking it out of the group before nationalizing? How would this work?

Or perhaps both Dutch and French governments agree to a joint nationalization and operation of the group.

What about all the other subsidiaries? Transavia FR, Transavia NL, Hop!, etc.

If nationalization is being considered, not much will change imho.

AFAIK; HOP is currently being integrated into AF. The Transavia branches for example are very much operated locally. Other divisions such as Cityhopper and KL's catering division are also considered independent companies. Both respective governments will probably have more say in financial oversight as shareholder on a higher level than in operational technicalities.

How is the dispatch reliability of the A359's compared to the 77W's? At JFK we only see the 77W currently and it's an extremely reliable type.

Is PH-BVA still in PEK? I cannot find any data on her whereabouts

FlyingHonu001 wrote:

On 12/31, KL896 PVG - AMS with PH-BVA (77W) did a 180 over Russia and was diverted to PEK due to unspecified engine troubles.

Source:
http://avherald.com/h?article=4e1382b3&opt=0
https://fr24.com/data/flights/kl896#2673b05c

FlyingHonu001 wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

Aresxerexade wrote:

Or perhaps both Dutch and French governments agree to a joint nationalization and operation of the group.

What about all the other subsidiaries? Transavia FR, Transavia NL, Hop!, etc.

If nationalization is being considered, not much will change imho.

AFAIK; HOP is currently being integrated into AF. The Transavia branches for example are very much operated locally. Other divisions such as Cityhopper and KL's catering division are also considered independent companies. Both respective governments will probably have more say in financial oversight as shareholder on a higher level than in operational technicalities.

AFKL is a group with shares in the subsidiaries, two of which are AF and KL. I imagine the group has to be broken up so AF and KL can be nationalized, that is "purchased" by, respectively, the French and the Dutch governments. If the group is broken up, the other subs will have to be purchased. I imagine Transavia NL by KL, Transavia FR by AF.
I'm no economic expert and I'm trying to understand how this would work. I think it is a bit more than "operational technicalities".

ro1960 wrote:

FlyingHonu001 wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

What about all the other subsidiaries? Transavia FR, Transavia NL, Hop!, etc.

If nationalization is being considered, not much will change imho.

AFAIK; HOP is currently being integrated into AF. The Transavia branches for example are very much operated locally. Other divisions such as Cityhopper and KL's catering division are also considered independent companies. Both respective governments will probably have more say in financial oversight as shareholder on a higher level than in operational technicalities.

AFKL is a group with shares in the subsidiaries, two of which are AF and KL. I imagine the group has to be broken up so AF and KL can be nationalized, that is "purchased" by, respectively, the French and the Dutch governments. If the group is broken up, the other subs will have to be purchased. I imagine Transavia NL by KL, Transavia FR by AF.
I'm no economic expert and I'm trying to understand how this would work. I think it is a bit more than "operational technicalities".

AF and KL are already seperate companies, existing under the management of the Group so there is no need of breaking it up.
I dont think both governments will get their hands dirty of running an entire airline with taxpayer money. Well the French might, but the Dutch are a little more frugal on that matter

FlyingHonu001 wrote:

AF and KL are already seperate companies, existing under the management of the Group so there is no need of breaking it up.

I think you got it backward. Maybe someone with expertise can enlighten us.

Air France flights to Malabo were suspended by the African country for non-compliance with local COVID regulations.

https://www.financialafrik.com/2021/01/ ... ir-france/