Compared to other European airlines, why does KLM continue to service certain Asian destinations like MNL, BKK, KUL, CGK, etc., while it's other European competitors like BA, AF, and LH can't in a similar way, and instead continued either reducing their presence or cutting their services in those markets entirely without resumption? I also wonder as to what gives KLM more advantages to continue serving MNL, BKK, KUL, and CGK compared to its other European competitors? Any answers are appreciated.

KLM has always had a slightly different business model compared to AF, BA and LH. They have a home airport with a lot of runways and a single terminal airport that makes connecting between flights easy... but a modest domestic population. That forces them to focus much more on connections, compared to point-to-point. The airside shops at AMS use English as their primary language because so many pax don't speak Dutch. The result is KLM are often the sole major European airline in some cities with limited demand to Europe. BA or LH could serve these cities but their business model means they can make more money on other routes instead - eg BA can make more profit by adding an extra flight to the USA.

CGK is slightly different again, due to historic colonial links with the Netherlands

Philippine333 wrote:

Compared to other European airlines, why does KLM continue to service some certain Asian destinations like MNL, BKK, KUL, CGK, etc., while it's other European competitors like BA, AF, and LH can't in a similar way, and instead continued either reducing their presence or cutting their services in those markets entirely without resumption? I also wonder as to what gives KLM more advantages to continue serving MNL, BKK, KUL, and CGK compared to its other European competitors? Any answers are appreciated.

I certainly don't have a complete answer, but the Netherlands & Indonesia [CGK & DPS] have historical ties plus along with KUL & SIN are served in in a oval pattern in a classic multi stop pattern which I suspect is connected with payload trade offs & traffic building.
See - https://www.airlineroutemaps.com/maps/K ... lines/Asia

According to the same web site BA serve BKK, SIN, KUL & SYD, some are indicated as suspended but that is out of date, SYD via SIN has restarted & I'm pretty sure BKK has also. These routes still flown for similar reasons mentioned above for KLM.
You may see major changes to these routes in 2 to 3 years when the Project Sunrise routes kick in.

Gemuser

The uniques destinations served by KL are MNL, KUL, DPS and CGK.

AF does still serve BKK year round, its also the only destination in Asia that has an AF/KL lounge.
For KUL, DPS and CGK it can partially be explained by colonial ties. Having 5th freedom rights to/from Indonesia can’t hurt plus having a hometurf skyteam partner. DPS also gets feed from AF with Bali being quite a popular destination for French tourists.

There was a time AF used to serve CGK via SIN but that flight is long gone and a mix of factors such as AFs then cost basis differential and CGK being a tough destination to fill the high premium 77W might have contributed to its demise.

You can make a similar case for AFs presence in SGN that no other European airline has. Colonial ties are stronger than we think.

For me MNL has always been the head scratcher, I guess AF also fed it when they flew to TPE but somehow KL makes it work. Maybe being the only European airline in the market helps, maybe they needed a tag to top off TPE. If anyone can shed some light on this one…?

davidjohnson6 wrote:

KLM has always had a slightly different business model compared to AF, BA and LH. They have a home airport with a lot of runways and a single terminal airport that makes connecting between flights easy... but a modest domestic population. That forces them to focus much more on connections, compared to point-to-point. The airside shops at AMS use English as their primary language because so many pax don't speak Dutch. The result is KLM are often the sole major European airline in some cities with limited demand to Europe. BA or LH could serve these cities but their business model means they can make more money on other routes instead - eg BA can make more profit by adding an extra flight to the USA.

CGK is slightly different again, due to historic colonial links with the Netherlands

But LHR, FRA, MUC, and CDG do use English too right?

The fact that they still practice tag-on and/or triangular routings also help them to keep some destinations viable. But it doesn't explain why they keep doing so while other airlines stopped.
I guess the explanation davidjohnson6 gave about their business model is probably the best hypothesis.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

For me MNL has always been the head scratcher, I guess AF also fed it when they flew to TPE but somehow KL makes it work. Maybe being the only European airline in the market helps, maybe they needed a tag to top off TPE. If anyone can shed some light on this one…?

Perhaps steady transfer of foreign labor? Like the maritime industry/offshore oil/gas, that kind of thing? It's certainly the case that Filipinos represent (along with Indonesians) a high % of global workforce in those kinds of industries, and the Netherlands (along with near northern neighbors) is one of the world centers.

Are there significant European goods manufactured in the Phillipines? I can't think of any, but maybe...
Another thought is belly cargo - historically KLM has been a big player - perhaps there is good revenue in airlifted Phillipino exports to the EU; seafood comes to mind.

FRA and MUC use English and German jointly. CDG uses English and French. The shops at AMS pretty much use just English unless somebody speaks to the staff in Dutch. I cannot emphasise enough how AMS is much more about people connecting via AMS while LHR, FRA, CDG and MUC are primarily about people flying to/from the local country

Philippine333 wrote:

But LHR, FRA, MUC, and CDG do use English too right?

Haha! you think the Brits speak English? j/k

Of course, English is prevelent at all major International airports, but not really as the "default" (and not always perfectly for non-critical functions) - particularly in places like France and Germany that are large and strong enough domestically to have a non-Anglo "identity". I think the Netherlands speak the best English for any non-Anglo country in the world.
London just isn't the ideal place for East originating connection traffic, as well as being an expensive transit location.

FlyHappy wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

But LHR, FRA, MUC, and CDG do use English too right?

Haha! you think the Brits speak English? j/k

Of course, English is prevelent at all major International airports, but not really as the "default" (and not always perfectly for non-critical functions) - particularly in places like France and Germany that are large and strong enough domestically to have a non-Anglo "identity". I think the Netherlands speak the best English for any non-Anglo country in the world.
London just isn't the ideal place for East originating connection traffic, as well as being an expensive transit location.

UK's primary language is of course English. I know that, but yes, the problem with LHR is that involves backtracking in almost all flights from Asia to Europe, adding inconvenience to travel time. Except if you are connecting to Ireland; Yes?

The reason KLM can serve TPE, MNL, KUL, CGK and DPS successfully in competition with the ME3 and Turkish has very little to do with AMS as a transfer airport versus LHR, CDG and FRA.

It has everything to do with the business model of the airline itself:

- High aircraft utilisation
- Higher seat density
- Lower cost per seat mile.
- Good revenue management.
- A reliable product

The Netherlands is one of the most internationally oriented nations, offering:

- Higher GDP per capita than UK, France or Germany,
- More international trade per capita than UK, France, or Germany.
- Historic trading ties around the globe

KLM is a highly competitive global airline built on these historic trading characteristics, but operates from a smaller domestic market.
The airline can only be successful by being cost conscious, offer a competitive product, at an attractive price.
This has resulted in KLM being the lowest cost long-haul operator in Europe for decades.
Thus able to offer destinations profitably, where others are unsuccessful.
Not only in Asia, but also in South America and Africa.

Finally, KLM has high name recognition, due to its 104 year history and long standing presence on all continents (no Australasia any more).

KLM is very much the product of a competitive trading nation.

FlyHappy wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

But LHR, FRA, MUC, and CDG do use English too right?

Haha! you think the Brits speak English? j/k

Of course, English is prevelent at all major International airports, but not really as the "default" (and not always perfectly for non-critical functions) - particularly in places like France and Germany that are large and strong enough domestically to have a non-Anglo "identity". I think the Netherlands speak the best English for any non-Anglo country in the world.
London just isn't the ideal place for East originating connection traffic, as well as being an expensive transit location.

Very funny!!.

factsonly wrote:

The reason KLM can serve TPE, MNL, KUL, CGK and DPS successfully in competition with the ME3 and Turkish has very little to do with AMS as a transfer airport versus LHR, CDG and FRA.

It has everything to do with the business model of the airline itself:

- High aircraft utilisation
- Higher seat density
- Lower cost per seat mile.
- Good revenue management.
- A reliable product

The Netherlands is one of the most internationally oriented nations, offering:

- Higher GDP per capita than UK, France or Germany,
- More international trade per capita than UK, France, or Germany.
- Historic trading ties around the globe

KLM is a highly competitive global airline built on these historic trading characteristics, but operates from a smaller domestic market.
The airline can only be successful by being cost conscious, offer a competitive product, at an attractive price.
This has resulted in KLM being the lowest cost long-haul operator in Europe for decades.
Thus able to offer destinations profitably, where others are unsuccessful.
Not only in Asia, but also in South America and Africa.

Finally, KLM has high name recognition, due to its 104 year history and long standing presence on all continents (no Australasia any more).

KLM is very much the product of a competitive trading nation.

Thanks for your very detailed and comprehensive explanation. It's great to understand the success story of KLM and the country of Netherlands as a whole.

Manila is a big market because of a) the three largest European ports (Rotterdam (largest port out of East Asia), Antwerp, Hamburg) are all easiest to reach from Amsterdam, many of the ships having Filipino crews; b) a lot of business ties between the Netherlands and Philippines, amongst others for the maritime industry but also the tourism industry and healthcare; and c) Dutch people have lots of vacation time and like to travel the world, including the Philippines. It used to be that both KLM and Philippines Airlines served the AMS-MNL market, but I am not sure PR still flies to AMS since COVID. Then as others said, good connections and the KLM business model (KLM relying less on premium passengers) further helps to fill the plane and make the route profitable. Indonesia has always been an important market due to the historical colonial times, the same applies for Paramaribo (Surinam).

And remember, KLM had a few KLM Asia planes just for Asia destinations.

Ziyulu wrote:

And remember, KLM had a few KLM Asia planes just for Asia destinations.

Oh right, but here's a bigger question: Why is KLM Asia the only surviving brand, while the other larger carriers that started in the 80s-90s discontinued the Asia brand later on?

Ziyulu wrote:

And remember, KLM had a few KLM Asia planes just for Asia destinations.

Those were for Taipei, ROC, IIRC.

Philippine333 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

And remember, KLM had a few KLM Asia planes just for Asia destinations.

Oh right, but here's a bigger question: Why is KLM Asia the only surviving brand, while the other larger carriers that started in the 80s-90s discontinued the Asia brand later on?

I guess because they stopped flying to TPE, so they didn't need the brand anymore.

Flogskipari wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

And remember, KLM had a few KLM Asia planes just for Asia destinations.

Oh right, but here's a bigger question: Why is KLM Asia the only surviving brand, while the other larger carriers that started in the 80s-90s discontinued the Asia brand later on?

I guess because they stopped flying to TPE, so they didn't need the brand anymore.

AF was flying to TPE pre-covid with mainline AF planes. I wonder why KL still needs to keep it around.

I remember seeing a KLM Asia plane at PVG in 2014. Were they allowed to fly to China?

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Flogskipari wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

Why is KLM Asia the only surviving brand, while the other larger carriers that started in the 80s-90s discontinued the Asia brand later on?

I guess because they stopped flying to TPE, so they didn't need the brand anymore.

I wonder why KL still needs to keep it around.

Simple ......... KLM (Asia) flies to TPE.......so,.....not to upset the People's Republic of China.

The Dutch trading presences in these territories can be traced directly to the activity of the Dutch East India companies and right back to the 15th century!
KLM move massive amounts of freight including perishables toward Europe and through the huge distribution networks that stretch the length of country southwards
The Dutch ties include Goa, and the South West of India, Malacca, all of Indonesia and much of the Philippines (prior to the British and Spanish take overs)

These historic ties inform much of the traffic flows particularly that of migrant labour such as nurses and similar ancillary workers that fill the back of the flights towards Europe almost daily

The Asia branding thing was a deal worked out for airlines to be able to serve and fly over both PRC and ROC, the "Asia" airline with flags and key symbolism removed and a different registration opperated all flights to and from ROC and never flew to or over PRC, while otherwise was mixed in with the rest of the fleet on other routes. This ended in the 90s when tensions thawed between the two countries and airlines can now fly to both without those rules. I din't know why KLM kept the brand around, but BA, JAL, AF, etc.. retired that branding then.

There are a number of other interesting and unique routes KLM flies/flew, especially in the PRC including Xiamen, Hangzhou, and Chengdu. I think extra connecting airlines there played a role.

BENAir01 wrote:

The Asia branding thing was a deal worked out for airlines to be able to serve and fly over both PRC and ROC, the "Asia" airline with flags and key symbolism removed and a different registration opperated all flights to and from ROC and never flew to or over PRC, while otherwise was mixed in with the rest of the fleet on other routes. This ended in the 90s when tensions thawed between the two countries and airlines can now fly to both without those rules. I din't know why KLM kept the brand around, but BA, JAL, AF, etc.. retired that branding then.

There are a number of other interesting and unique routes KLM flies/flew, especially in the PRC including Xiamen, Hangzhou, and Chengdu. I think extra connecting airlines there played a role.

KLM is a major freight business and the belly is full of goods that route through the massive distribution networks into the EU

FlyHappy wrote:

Haha! you think the Brits speak English? j/k

Well, certainly better than Yanks do.

How did KLM retain this model with its close integration with Air France? I was under the impression that they were operationally very closely tied.

NameOmitted wrote:

How did KLM retain this model with its close integration with Air France? I was under the impression that they were operationally very closely tied.

From a management perspective they are close, on paper yes but deep down theres still a little animosity between the Dutch and the French, enough to keep their own operations independent.

FlyHappy wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

But LHR, FRA, MUC, and CDG do use English too right?

Haha! you think the Brits speak English? j/k

Of course, English is prevelent at all major International airports, but not really as the "default" (and not always perfectly for non-critical functions) - particularly in places like France and Germany that are large and strong enough domestically to have a non-Anglo "identity". I think the Netherlands speak the best English for any non-Anglo country in the world.
London just isn't the ideal place for East originating connection traffic, as well as being an expensive transit location.

I've never had a problem finding an English speaker at German airports. CDG, not as readily available, though I suspect it's just as much an issue of willingness to speak it than actual ability.

AFAIK, MNL is a low yield market. People fly economy. KLM has very few business seats and focus on making economy profitable. That is my guess why KLM can make it work while others can't.

KL001 wrote:

Manila is a big market because of a) the three largest European ports (Rotterdam (largest port out of East Asia), Antwerp, Hamburg) are all easiest to reach from Amsterdam, many of the ships having Filipino crews; b) a lot of business ties between the Netherlands and Philippines, amongst others for the maritime industry but also the tourism industry and healthcare; and c) Dutch people have lots of vacation time and like to travel the world, including the Philippines. It used to be that both KLM and Philippines Airlines served the AMS-MNL market, but I am not sure PR still flies to AMS since COVID. Then as others said, good connections and the KLM business model (KLM relying less on premium passengers) further helps to fill the plane and make the route profitable. Indonesia has always been an important market due to the historical colonial times, the same applies for Paramaribo (Surinam).

PAL hasn't been flying between MNL-AMS since the mid-2000s I remember that both airlines used to codeshare before though.

BENAir01 wrote:

The Asia branding thing was a deal worked out for airlines to be able to serve and fly over both PRC and ROC, the "Asia" airline with flags and key symbolism removed and a different registration opperated all flights to and from ROC and never flew to or over PRC, while otherwise was mixed in with the rest of the fleet on other routes. This ended in the 90s when tensions thawed between the two countries and airlines can now fly to both without those rules. I din't know why KLM kept the brand around, but BA, JAL, AF, etc.. retired that branding then.

There are a number of other interesting and unique routes KLM flies/flew, especially in the PRC including Xiamen, Hangzhou, and Chengdu. I think extra connecting airlines there played a role.

Slightly off topic, but this was not universally true since both UA and NW served Taiwan and the PRC without additional branding.

I believe this originated with the status of the airlines as flag carriers for their respective nations. I believe linked to government ownership/influence. In the case of KLM, they removed the
"crown" from the tail logo. BA, SR, AF, JL, NH and QF all did similar changes to the livery to accommodate the PRC.

Here's an old thread with lots of details.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1444679&p=22161143&hilit=british+asia+airways+air+france+asie#p22161143

How come other flag carriers such as TG, MH, or SQ did not need to have a separate entity to serve both China and Taiwan?

KLM historically is a lot more focused on freight ops than some other European carriers. They used to operate combi aircraft so they can serve markets that have lower PAX demand and from there, they stimulate demand until such time that they can deploy full PAX aircraft. So fundamentally, they have a different operating model than say LH, AF, or BA.

Since 74M retirement, the flexibility of combi is gone but heavy utilization of 777 is still key - it can lift a lot of cargo even with full PAX load.

As for KLM Asia, it's just a livery they originally deployed to serve TPE but it was always kind of nonsense because it wasn't operated as a separate airline. The only difference is the paint on the airplane that was missing the crown logo. And in fact, regular KLM livery planes were routinely sub in to fly AMS-TPE-MNL and KLM Asia livery planes are used throughout the system, including to China. Even if KLM restart service to TPE, I don't think they will really dedicate special aircraft for that service. They are keeping the KLM Asia livery mainly for historical reasons now. It's been part of KLM history for almost 30 years, they probably will always have some aircraft painted in that name.

Regarding Indonesia, colonial ties are an obvious factor for KLM's appeal. Also, isn't Amsterdam traditionally a popular city for international business/trade negotiations? The Dutch have always been very international-oriented regarding trade.

What were the airline codes for the Asian subsidiaries? Did KLM Asia use KL, British Asia use BA, Japan Asia use JL, etc?

This thing about national character traits or « colonial ties » always pops up as a convenient way of explaining things but is way overblown IMHO.
At AFKL I guess that each of the two airlines has its pet markets where it has established a franchise and, importantly, has the whole AFKL demand routed through it, in cities that would struggle to support routes to both AMS and CDG. In addition to these Asian cities, Ecuador comes to mind for KL for no obvious cultural proximity reasons, or indeed SGN for AF (the relevance of « colonial ties » with France in today’s Vietnam is exactly zero). Note that it is not set in stone: East Africa and Ghana used to be KL-only, and now AF flies to Accra, Zanzibar, Nairobi, soon Dar es Salaam.
Outside AFKL LH is dominant in Eastern / Southeastern Europe vs the other two, BA has more US destinations. It’s just a question of succeeding in building a franchise somewhere and milking it.

There are relatively few people born in France who currently live in Vietnam or people born in the Netherlands who currently live in Indonesia. There are a LOT of Vietnamese citizens who currently live in France and a LOT of Indonesian citizens who currently live in the Netherlands. The number of Indonesian citizens living in Germany, France, Belgium or the UK is far smaller than the number living in the Netherlands...similiar story for Vietnamese citizens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Indonesians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Vietnamese
The phrase "Historic colonial ties" in the context of KLM flying to Indonesia should be understood broadly.... Indonesia owes and shows no allegiance to the Netherlands, nor Vietnam to France... but there's still a lot of ties between the countries that would not have existed if the empire - colony relationship had not existed previously.
The sizeable Indonesian diaspora living in the Netherlands gives KLM a huge advantage over BA, AF or LH when it comes to which airline can make a Europe-Jakarta route profitable

Why very few European airlines to KUL? With the exception of KLM and Turkish Airlines, no other airline from Europe serves Malaysia. Over the years, British Airways, Air France, and Lufthansa ended service to KUL. Market must be pretty bad for them. Compared to nearby SIN that they serve, KUL doesn't have that much.

Otherwise, MNL, CGK, and DPS are low yielding routes. They have a history on the KLM network, but the premium demand is simply non-existent to fly nonstop. Plus the one stop competition doesn't help either to make it less viable.

Wpr8e wrote:

BENAir01 wrote:

The Asia branding thing was a deal worked out for airlines to be able to serve and fly over both PRC and ROC, the "Asia" airline with flags and key symbolism removed and a different registration opperated all flights to and from ROC and never flew to or over PRC, while otherwise was mixed in with the rest of the fleet on other routes. This ended in the 90s when tensions thawed between the two countries and airlines can now fly to both without those rules. I din't know why KLM kept the brand around, but BA, JAL, AF, etc.. retired that branding then.

There are a number of other interesting and unique routes KLM flies/flew, especially in the PRC including Xiamen, Hangzhou, and Chengdu. I think extra connecting airlines there played a role.

Slightly off topic, but this was not universally true since both UA and NW served Taiwan and the PRC without additional branding.

I believe this originated with the status of the airlines as flag carriers for their respective nations. I believe linked to government ownership/influence. In the case of KLM, they removed the
"crown" from the tail logo. BA, SR, AF, JL, NH and QF all did similar changes to the livery to accommodate the PRC.

Here's an old thread with lots of details.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1444679&p=22161143&hilit=british+asia+airways+air+france+asie#p22161143

Correct. The "flag" or official airline of a country is the reason why the second "other airline" was chartered to operate TPE. The United States doesn't have a flag carrier. Hence why PA, NW, UA and DL all flew to both the PRC and the ROC without issue

I've flown the KLM Asia jet before on JFK-AMS...I never quite understood why the jet doesn't seem to actually to be tied to the KLM Asia operators certificate...but then I also was never curious enough to dig into the Warsaw Convention and other rules of air navigation.

N717TW wrote:

The United States doesn't have a flag carrier.

Colloquially, no.

But you have it backwards: ALL of the major US carriers are flag carriers.

This isn't an opinion, it's a direct designation for permission to carry international passengers and cargo under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (title 49, section 401).

N717TW wrote:

Hence why PA, NW, UA and DL all flew to both the PRC and the ROC without issue

Well, no.

The US had no need to play that game, because of inequitable leverage: US had three carriers interested in essentially two Chinese destinations, China wanted access to quadruple that within the US. So basically, US said knock off the B.S., and PRC had little choice but to comply.

The Euro states at the time didn't have the advantage of negotiating as a unified bloc, so each were on their own, and each were effectively bullied by the PRC into showing deference over the ROC issue.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

The uniques destinations served by KL are MNL, KUL, DPS and CGK.

AF does still serve BKK year round, its also the only destination in Asia that has an AF/KL lounge.
For KUL, DPS and CGK it can partially be explained by colonial ties. Having 5th freedom rights to/from Indonesia can’t hurt plus having a hometurf skyteam partner. DPS also gets feed from AF with Bali being quite a popular destination for French tourists.

There was a time AF used to serve CGK via SIN but that flight is long gone and a mix of factors such as AFs then cost basis differential and CGK being a tough destination to fill the high premium 77W might have contributed to its demise.


You can make a similar case for AFs presence in SGN that no other European airline has. Colonial ties are stronger than we think.

For me MNL has always been the head scratcher, I guess AF also fed it when they flew to TPE but somehow KL makes it work. Maybe being the only European airline in the market helps, maybe they needed a tag to top off TPE. If anyone can shed some light on this one…?

KL also serve some asia dest which other EU competitor do not include XMN, TPE, CTU, HGH

LAX772LR wrote:

N717TW wrote:

The United States doesn't have a flag carrier.

Colloquially, no.

But you have it backwards: ALL of the major US carriers are flag carriers.

This isn't an opinion, it's a direct designation for permission to carry international passengers and cargo under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (title 49, section 401).

N717TW wrote:

Hence why PA, NW, UA and DL all flew to both the PRC and the ROC without issue

Well, no.

The US had no need to play that game, because of inequitable leverage: US had three carriers interested in essentially two Chinese destinations, China wanted access to quadruple that within the US. So basically, US said knock off the B.S., and PRC had little choice but to comply.

The Euro states at the time didn't have the advantage of negotiating as a unified bloc, so each were on their own, and each were effectively bullied by the PRC into showing deference over the ROC issue.

I thought NW had Northwest Orient Airlines. Is that their Asian subsidiary?

Ziyulu wrote:

What were the airline codes for the Asian subsidiaries? Did KLM Asia use KL, British Asia use BA, Japan Asia use JL, etc?

Japan Asia use EG/JAA since 1975.

Ziyulu wrote:

What were the airline codes for the Asian subsidiaries? Did KLM Asia use KL, British Asia use BA, Japan Asia use JL, etc?

They used the KL code.

KLM also has a stronger Middle East presence than other European carriers.

Ziyulu wrote:

I thought NW had Northwest Orient Airlines. Is that their Asian subsidiary?

Not really.

It was a marketing brand that the airline employed to showcase acquisition of its authority to deliver cargo (and eventually pax) between ANC and HND in 1947, and was used until its merger with Republic in 1986. As the first stateside (and one of, if not THE, first Allied) airline with service to Japan post WWII, they wanted to make a big deal out of it.

At all times the certificate remained under "Northwest Airlines" (previously "Northwest Airways") and NW flight/cabin crew, and the branding was utilized domestically (mostly on the transcon and Midwest-to-Florida routes) as well.

Philippine333 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

KLM has always had a slightly different business model compared to AF, BA and LH. They have a home airport with a lot of runways and a single terminal airport that makes connecting between flights easy... but a modest domestic population. That forces them to focus much more on connections, compared to point-to-point. The airside shops at AMS use English as their primary language because so many pax don't speak Dutch. The result is KLM are often the sole major European airline in some cities with limited demand to Europe. BA or LH could serve these cities but their business model means they can make more money on other routes instead - eg BA can make more profit by adding an extra flight to the USA.

CGK is slightly different again, due to historic colonial links with the Netherlands

But LHR, FRA, MUC, and CDG do use English too right?

All signs on the airside of Schiphol are in English. In the late 1990s, all Dutch-language signs were removed. There is a good chance that you will encounter shop staff at Schiphol who also do not speak Dutch.

In the past, there were protests from citizens who believe that Dutch is disappearing. For example, in the center of Amsterdam, the English is prominent. Many staff in Dutch shops, fast food chains and restaurants do not speak Dutch.

Besides the fact that the Dutch love to travel, and that there are about 1.5 million people living in the Netherlands with an Indonesian background, the Netherlands is also an important trading partner for many countries.

For example, the Netherlands is the number five largest foreign investor in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. The Netherlands is in the top 10 of Singapore's largest trading partners.

No European airline flies directly to Taipei except KLM. KLM combines this flight with Manila, where also few or no European airlines fly too. In order not to offend China, KLM flies with a subsidiary company registered in Taipei under the name KLM Asia.

And then the successful KLM fifth freedom flights in the triangle Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. KLM flights with the B777s with full-service between KUL-CGK and SIN-DPS are cheaper than, for example, AirAsia and therefore very popular with the local population. I often flew between these two routes, and there are more Asian than European travelers on these KLM flights.

I think that KLM was the original transfer airline, well before SQ and definitely before EK. AMS serves not only The Netherlands but also the bordering towns of Germany and Belgium.

At one time KLM was known as the 2nd airline for the UK, when BA decided to go LHR only.

Maybe there is something to that.

BENAir01 wrote:

The Asia branding thing was a deal worked out for airlines to be able to serve and fly over both PRC and ROC, the "Asia" airline with flags and key symbolism removed and a different registration opperated all flights to and from ROC and never flew to or over PRC, while otherwise was mixed in with the rest of the fleet on other routes. This ended in the 90s when tensions thawed between the two countries and airlines can now fly to both without those rules. I din't know why KLM kept the brand around, but BA, JAL, AF, etc.. retired that branding then.

There are a number of other interesting and unique routes KLM flies/flew, especially in the PRC including Xiamen, Hangzhou, and Chengdu. I think extra connecting airlines there played a role.

Yeah, I was wondering why most of the larger carriers have retired the Asia brand while KLM had to hold on to the Asia subsidiary longer?