Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
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
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…?
Philippine333 wrote:But LHR, FRA, MUC, and CDG do use English too right?
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.
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.
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.
Ziyulu wrote:And remember, KLM had a few KLM Asia planes just for Asia destinations.
Ziyulu wrote:Those were for Taipei, ROC, IIRC.And remember, KLM had a few KLM Asia planes just for Asia destinations.
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?
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.
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.
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.
FlyHappy wrote:Haha! you think the Brits speak English? j/k
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
N717TW wrote:The United States doesn't have a flag carrier.
N717TW wrote:Hence why PA, NW, UA and DL all flew to both the PRC and the ROC without 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…?
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.
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?
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?
Ziyulu wrote:I thought NW had Northwest Orient Airlines. Is that their Asian subsidiary?
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?
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.