Airliners.net

In an interview in this Sunday's edition of Le Journal De Dimanche, Micheal O'Leary - CEO Ryanair - advises AF to sell KL..........

.....he also states:

- Never to operate from CDG
- While ORY is very unlikely as it is also owned by Aeroports de Paris.
- Ryanair will not have a French base with current employment laws.
- With ME3 competition, AF will no longer be able to cross-subsidize short-haul with profits from long-haul flying.
- He states to love France and the French, but not French politicians who he says, are destroying their country.
- 300 pilots are on a waiting list to work for Ryanair
- 1000 cabin attendants are on a waitin glist to work for Ryanair

http://www.lejdd.fr/Economie/Entrepr...-classe-politique-francaise-729656

Not overly familiar with AF/KLM issues but always got the impression AF was the one dragging KLM down with unions more so? KL should offload AF if my assumption is right!

Quoting Jamie2k9 (Reply 1): but always got the impression AF was the one dragging KLM down with unions more so? KL should offload AF if my assumption is right!

I've always had that same feeling as well. Especially with AF's recent labor struggles...

Quoting Jamie2k9 (Reply 1): Not overly familiar with AF/KLM issues but always got the impression AF was the one dragging KLM down with unions more so? KL should offload AF if my assumption is right!

I've always been on the understanding that KLM was profitable and AF wasn't.

Quoting factsonly (Thread starter): advises AF to sell KL..........

This will need some more explaining.

Quoting Jamie2k9 (Reply 1): KL should offload AF if my assumption is right!

Quoting Jamie2k9 (Reply 1): I've always had that same feeling as well. Especially with AF's recent labor struggles...

Quoting burnsie28 (Reply 3): I've always been on the understanding that KLM was profitable and AF wasn't.

Quoting rta (Reply 4): This will need some more explaining.

Consider the audience. He is talking to a French newspaper. Of course he is going to say AF should sell off KLM and not the other way around.

Quoting factsonly (Thread starter): - He states to love France and the French, but not French politicians who he says, are destroying their country.

I heard a member of the Taittinger family (the champagne maker) say something like this on Chicago radio nearly 20 years ago.

More great MOL publicity!

Quoting LHRResident91 (Reply 7): More great MOL publicity

yup... I wonder why he still bothers being aviation related, he could hold a press conference stating "tthe crayon is purple" and still get broad coverage.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting burnsie28 (Reply 3): Quoting Jamie2k9 (Reply 1): Not overly familiar with AF/KLM issues but always got the impression AF was the one dragging KLM down with unions more so? KL should offload AF if my assumption is right! I've always been on the understanding that KLM was profitable and AF wasn't.

On paper. Taxes are lower in the Netherlands than in France so they shift money on paper to push profits to the lower tax region. This is just like how big tech companies shift their profits from the US to places like Ireland and the Netherlands.

I love this guy. He is one of the best aviation guys around. He sees things others don't see or don't want to see and talks openly about it.

As for:


[quote=factsonly,reply=0]-

- Never to operate from CDG

No sane person wants to fly to / connect in CDG.

- Ryanair will not have a French base with current employment laws.

Those laws are exactly the reason AF is lossmaking, too often on strike, and dragging KLM under.

- With ME3 competition, AF will no longer be able to cross-subsidize short-haul with profits from long-haul flying.

Leave shorthaul to the shorthaul specialists. seats are the same, coffee is too, and that's all you need on a 90 min flight.

I'm not a fan of Ryanair but I agree with O'Leary.

The labor laws he's talking about are things like "you must pay someone who works for you", even if it's on the ground, or "you must pay the taxes that finance the services your employees use" like health care and pensions, both public programs in France.

As for AF selling KL, AF the airline doesn't own KL the airline. Air France–KLM the group owns both, and selling KL makes no sense. Like most of what he says on an average day.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 12): The labor laws he's talking about are things like "you must pay someone who works for you", even if it's on the ground, or "you must pay the taxes that finance the services your employees use" like health care and pensions, both public programs in France.

This is an exaggeration but I think it sums up AF's problem even if it not in the way Aesma meant. O'Leary is right in stating why would you ever have employees based in France when you can base them in Ireland or the UK. Yes Irish laws are more business friendly than French employment laws but both pale in comparison to the far more business friendly laws employers have in the USA.

But the real problem for AF is not Ryan Air or KLM, its the ME3. The ME3 have such a tremendous advantage in employment laws. Mainly, they have no collective bargaining agreements (CBA) to deal with and basically no limitations on hiring and firing. Imagine if AF could hire and fire employees at will with no interference from the unions and no cost in unemployment taxes/severances. It would be a huge financial advantage. You could hire and fire lazy and rude employees, extra employees during a downturn or just older employees higher paid employees who could be replaced by 24yr olds making half as much (I don't condone age discrimination but it would likely happen).

People talk about the ME3 getting government subsidies. This may or may not be a factor in their advantage. But as someone who has employment law experience in the USA and the Netherlands, I think people really underestimate the advantage of operating in a country with minimal labor protections (I note I don’t want to live in said country and western democracies rightfully saw from 1850-1950 the need for employee protections). But I think the ME3 have a cost advantage and just on the basis of legacy costs and employment rules AF is always going to be competing at a big disadvantage. Selling KLM isn’t going to change that.

I also believe Ryan Air would base all their people in the UAE if they could. Alas, they are stuck with Irish employment law.

Quoting EC99 (Reply 13):

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

You have to be specific when you talk about the wages the ME3 pay. Their crews are very competitively paid, very often better than average, because all of their crews are expats. They have to be coerced to move from their homes and live in the Middle East...and they have to be paid well to stay.

The ME3 also pay for employee housing when they are at their base...and at the worst, it's better than how US regional pilots are forced to live.

They may be getting a deal on ground staff at their home bases, maybe even fuel, but they have to pay the same fees and prices as everyone else, when they are away from their base.

They also pay the same for their aircraft as anyone else...except when they get a volume discount.

Subsidies are a different matter. I have no idea how they work for anybody...and I'm not sure that SuperAccountant could ever sort it out.

Quoting kl911 (Reply 10): I love this guy. He is one of the best aviation guys around. He sees things others don't see or don't want to see and talks openly about it. As for: [quote=factsonly,reply=0]- - Never to operate from CDG No sane person wants to fly to / connect in CDG. - Ryanair will not have a French base with current employment laws. Those laws are exactly the reason AF is lossmaking, too often on strike, and dragging KLM under. - With ME3 competition, AF will no longer be able to cross-subsidize short-haul with profits from long-haul flying. Leave shorthaul to the shorthaul specialists. seats are the same, coffee is too, and that's all you need on a 90 min flight.

  

Quoting DXBDFWHGA (Reply 11): I'm not a fan of Ryanair but I agree with O'Leary.

I can't remember ever agreeing with MOL but on this one, he's absolutely correct. Save Big Blue!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14): You have to be specific when you talk about the wages the ME3 pay. Their crews are very competitively paid, very often better than average, because all of their crews are expats. They have to be coerced to move from their homes and live in the Middle East...and they have to be paid well to stay.

Correct, take home pay/benefits-in-kind are not all that different (and in some cases higher, particularly given the housing). But crews are still significantly cheaper given that salaries are tax free in - I believe - all three ME3 locales - and social costs are significantly lower. So while take home pay may be higher, overall labor costs are still significantly less than European (and American to a lesser extent) carriers.

Quoting factsonly (Thread starter): - Ryanair will not have a French base with current employment laws.

Quoting factsonly (Thread starter): - He states to love France and the French, but not French politicians who he says, are destroying their country.

So, he is basically a right wing nut.

Quoting Jamie2k9 (Reply 1): Not overly familiar with AF/KLM issues but always got the impression AF was the one dragging KLM down with unions more so? KL should offload AF if my assumption is right!

KL is built better from the ground up anyway. It isn't as if unions don't exist in the Netherlands, or laws protective of workers or strong social systems.

Quoting jeffh747 (Reply 2): I've always had that same feeling as well. Especially with AF's recent labor struggles...

Those are of AF's own doing.

Quoting dank (Reply 9): On paper. Taxes are lower in the Netherlands than in France so they shift money on paper to push profits to the lower tax region.

KL is generally a more profitable operation, and always has been better run.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 12): The labor laws he's talking about are things like "you must pay someone who works for you", even if it's on the ground, or "you must pay the taxes that finance the services your employees use" like health care and pensions, both public programs in France.

Exactly.

Quoting fururefa (Reply 16): But crews are still significantly cheaper given that salaries are tax free in - I believe - all three ME3 locales

Well, US crew members have to file taxes in the US and are taxed at a certain point.

Quoting fururefa (Reply 16): and social costs are significantly lower.

Yeah, like unemployment, health care and a lack of anti-discrimination laws.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 12): The labor laws he's talking about are things like "you must pay someone who works for you", even if it's on the ground, or "you must pay the taxes that finance the services your employees use" like health care and pensions, both public programs in France.

Well said. France would not have one of the best healthcare systems in the world if it weren't for the taxes collected by the French government. The Anglo-Saxon model has proven itself to be cruel and inhumane; I would much rather live in a social democracy than a neoliberal jungle, even if that means waiting a few days to travel when workers leverage their right to strike.

Quoting factsonly (Thread starter): - Never to operate from CDG

What?? AF not operate from CDG or ORY? Perhaps O'Leary could build them a brand new facility at Le Bourget??

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17): Quoting dank (Reply 9): On paper. Taxes are lower in the Netherlands than in France so they shift money on paper to push profits to the lower tax region. KL is generally a more profitable operation, and always has been better run.

Corporate tax rate in France is 33.3%; in the Netherlands 25%. Don't kid yourself that they slide profits into the Netherlands to reduce their burden. Thats a 25% reduction in tax burden. All perfectly legal, but hard to tease out where the profits really are because you shift costs around the system in order to shift the profits.

Quoting fururefa (Reply 16): crews are still significantly cheaper given that salaries are tax free in - I believe - all three ME3 locales - and social costs are significantly lower. So while take home pay may be higher, overall labor costs are still significantly less than European (and American to a lesser extent) carriers.

Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha are expensive towns to live in. I have spent time in all three, and nothing is cheap there. Social costs might be cheaper for governments for the general populace, but I'm pretty sure that the ME3 are paying for private health care for their crews.

Salaries are tax free but the airlines are still paying at least standard wages for their crews.

I think the only way that they might be getting big breaks are from subsidies...and that's a can of worms I'm not willing to open...and I'm certainly not going to pick sides. That's for litigators and regulators to decide.

My point is that for day to day costs, the ME3 aren't getting a lot in the way of special deals. They may pay less for fuel, landing fees and ground handling, (but maybe not...again, I have no idea), but so does everybody who lands there. When they are flying hither and yon, they pay what everyone else does.

No matter how they are doing what they are doing, they are going to keep doing, and they are here to stay, so legacy EU and US airlines will have to deal with it.

I can sympathize with countries wanting to protect their local markets, and I really don't know which way I fall on that. Airline travel and routes are about more than mere conveniences...they are national infrastructure, and I'm not sure its necessarily good to hand ownership to foreign entities.

Still, when it comes to ME3 costs and alleged cost relief, I think that everybody else is going to have to learn to live with whatever is happening...good or bad.

PS...I really missed MOL...he's been out of the news for too long...things were getting a bit dull.

[Edited 2015-04-27 19:37:23]

Who would he want them to sell KL to? It seems MOLs TATL plans are becoming more ambitious.   

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17): So, he is basically a right wing nut.

Nice bias.

How about a businessman stating his perspective as someone responsible for running a business?

Your concept of political persuasion doesn't really add much. FR operates bases in a variety of countries that, from the US perspective, would be considered particularly "left-wing", despite their "right-wing" governments. Ironically, subsidies, a favoured interventionist approach (by both left and right), is one of the drawcards for FR.

I don't think many foreign companies are leaping at the chance to operate in France.

Labour Laws must be good in France, if FR stays away.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14): Quoting EC99 (Reply 13): I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions. You have to be specific when you talk about the wages the ME3 pay. Their crews are very competitively paid, very often better than average, because all of their crews are expats. They have to be coerced to move from their homes and live in the Middle East...and they have to be paid well to stay.

Sorry, but you missed EC99's point completely, EC99 has never even mentioned PAY at ME3.

EC99 is stating that French Labour LAWS are protecting workers, and he states that these LAWS do not exist in the UAE.

As a result of historically strong unions employees in France, French employees have high social protection which translates to high French employment costs, i.e. rules for hiring and firing, social charges and pension costs are on a completely different scale in France as they are in the UAE. Reason why O'Leary clearly states he will not employ Ryanair staff in France. This has nothing to do with pay.

So, who is jumping to conclusions !!

Based on the article, Michael O'Leary was asked "what advice would you give the CEO of Air France?". His answer:

Quote: Sell KLM and close the routes that are losing money. Air France has done nothing to develop KLM. Instead Air France and KLM are competing with each other, which is why the Dutch are not happy. And then sell 20-25% of Air France to one of the Gulf airlines.

In regards to:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 12): The labor laws he's talking about are things like "you must pay someone who works for you", even if it's on the ground, or "you must pay the taxes that finance the services your employees use" like health care and pensions, both public programs in France.

Ryanair is headquartered in Ireland, and has bases in the UK, Germany, and Spain. O'Leary specifically calls out the fact that they have staff in Germany but not in France. And Germany is no cheaper to have employees in than France...

I live in France and I won't hire people in France. The bureaucracy is insanely difficult to navigate - the people responsible for the rules don't seem to know the rules or how to apply them. It's nearly impossible to fire staff, and the government is quite happy to step in and tell private companies what to do (see: Dailymotion). All of this is anathema to someone like O'Leary. It will be interesting to see if/how the Loi Macron affects things. I really like France and French people are great to work with, but the system is not an easy one to work within.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14): You have to be specific when you talk about the wages the ME3 pay. Their crews are very competitively paid, very often better than average, because all of their crews are expats. They have to be coerced to move from their homes and live in the Middle East...and they have to be paid well to stay.

A recent benchmark stated a fairly similar net income for pilots (legacy) compared to ME3. Net that is! Airlines in Europe would have to pay almost double that to compansate for taxes and else.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14): The ME3 also pay for employee housing when they are at their base...and at the worst, it's better than how US regional pilots are forced to live.

While you get housing in your contract and ME3 provide at a producers rate, everybody else will have to pay the rent from a fully taxed income.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 14): They also pay the same for their aircraft as anyone else...except when they get a volume discount.

If you get a free loan, like EYs starting funds, of a couple of billions you save a not so small amount in intrest that the rest of the world has to earn first before spending it.

So the playing field is not so even. I dont say it not legal, its just there and can not be ignored.

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 18): What?? AF not operate from CDG or ORY? Perhaps O'Leary could build them a brand new facility at Le Bourget??

I assume he was referring to Ryanair rather than AF

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 18): The labor laws he's talking about are things like "you must pay someone who works for you", even if it's on the ground, or "you must pay the taxes that finance the services your employees use" like health care and pensions, both public programs in France. Well said. France would not have one of the best healthcare systems in the world if it weren't for the taxes collected by the French government. The Anglo-Saxon model has proven itself to be cruel and inhumane; I would much rather live in a social democracy than a neoliberal jungle, even if that means waiting a few days to travel when workers leverage their right to strike.

This is not a political forum. PLEASE keep the politics out of it.

Quoting dank (Reply 19): Corporate tax rate in France is 33.3%; in the Netherlands 25%. Don't kid yourself that they slide profits into the Netherlands to reduce their burden. Thats a 25% reduction in tax burden. All perfectly legal, but hard to tease out where the profits really are because you shift costs around the system in order to shift the profits.

You actually have to have a commercial basis for doing this, you can't just get KLM to send Air France an invoice for a totally fictitious transaction to move a bit more profit to Amsterdam - that would basically be fraud and the French tax authorities would open investigations into the situation and you would have a French tax contingency as a result. How they organise the operations to realise profits in the Netherlands rather than France is a different issue, but segmental reporting under requires them to disclose the key geographies and business units where the profits are made. AF is not, for example, paying KLM's fuel, leasing or staff costs, I guarantee it.

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 18): Well said. France would not have one of the best healthcare systems in the world if it weren't for the taxes collected by the French government. The Anglo-Saxon model has proven itself to be cruel and inhumane; I would much rather live in a social democracy than a neoliberal jungle, even if that means waiting a few days to travel when workers leverage their right to strike.

I dont know what French health care system you are familiar with, but if you want true care and dont take pleasure in waiting inside a big national bureaucracy you don't rely on the state and purchase separate private health care policy.

The French system is also so good, they are buying people airline tickets out of the country to places like Turkey. Some basic things like dentistry are a challenge to arrange so French go on vacation to places like the US and have mysterious dental problems which they must attend to and then the French state reimburses.

Social health programs are a facade. They might look good on surface but soon enough the ugly reality become apparent the more one deals with it.

The corporate tax in US has a top rate of 36%, of course no one really pays that, but that it is high enough that lots of corporations have shifted their base to Europe - mostly Switzerland or Ireland. And US companies have to pay taxes on their worldwide profits, even their subsidiaries outside USA, if they bring the profits back to US.

If Ryan air does not want to fly much to Paris, that is AF's gain, as Paris is the No. 1 tourist destination in the world.

Quoting hohd (Reply 31): If Ryan air does not want to fly much to Paris, that is AF's gain, as Paris is the No. 1 tourist destination in the world.

Thank God we do not have Ryanair in Paris... That Beauvais thing is just so out of the way that nobody cares.

What Ryanair wants to do is Social Dumping! Hiring in France and paying taxes and social contributions to Ireland. This has to stop. Norwegian is doing the same with their longhaul concept.

I find it interesting that Volotea, Vueling and especially EasyJet apparently have no difficulty doing business in France. Not sure they have crew bases there - I imagine at least EasyJet does with their rather large ops in CDG and ORY.

Quoting galleypower (Reply 26): So the playing field is not so even. I dont say it not legal, its just there and can not be ignored.

My point is simple; Air France may pay more social costs to the government, the ME3 pay social costs directly to the employees. Pay is relevant because it is an expense for the airlines, and if we're going to look at relative monetary advantages, pay has to be included.

While there is little doubt that social costs for Air France are higher, (and I never said they were not), the ME3 social costs are not zero.

But in regards to MOL, he is all about business, and not about national pride. He only has Ryanair fly to destinations where he can make money and he can make plenty of money flying to his current French destinations. If having a base in France is too much trouble and/or money, he doesn't do it.

Plenty of people hate Ryanair, which doesn't bother MOL in the least, as long as passengers keep flying on his airline.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 22): How about a businessman stating his perspective as someone responsible for running a business?

He also disparage politicians. I'd like to see him run for office to watch how it goes.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 22): I don't think many foreign companies are leaping at the chance to operate in France.

You think wrong, many do, France is in the top ten for foreign investment.

Quoting bobdino (Reply 25): O'Leary specifically calls out the fact that they have staff in Germany but not in France. And Germany is no cheaper to have employees in than France...

Maybe he's lying on the reason, he lost legal cases in France, but he lost in Germany too, for the same reasons.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 30): I dont know what French health care system you are familiar with, but if you want true care and dont take pleasure in waiting inside a big national bureaucracy you don't rely on the state and purchase separate private health care policy. The French system is also so good, they are buying people airline tickets out of the country to places like Turkey. Some basic things like dentistry are a challenge to arrange so French go on vacation to places like the US and have mysterious dental problems which they must attend to and then the French state reimburses. Social health programs are a facade. They might look good on surface but soon enough the ugly reality become apparent the more one deals with it.

My father got a back surgery and then an open heart surgery last year, spent weeks in hospitals and clinics, and had to pay about 1500€ to the surgeons and nothing else, and only because he could afford it, otherwise they would have waved the sum.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 35): You think wrong, many do, France is in the top ten for foreign investment.

Really? France doesn't even crack the top 20 in 2013...

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/fo...investment-destination-2013-2014-2

And according to UNCTAD - http://unctad.org/en/pages/DIAE/Worl...%20Report/Country-Fact-Sheets.aspx - actual FDI inflows to France dwindled from $38,547 (million) in 2011 to just $4,875 (million) in 2013. And this is down from the 2005-2007 average of $84,339 (million) per year. A massive decline.

These actual numbers contrast with so-called "confidence ratings" of investors, such as http://www.atkearney.com.au/research...direct-investment-confidence-index . These are supposed to capture investment intent. I think I'd take actual numbers over one company's surveys of intent.

Of course you may be getting confused with accumulated FDI over all history, where France rates better (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_received_FDI) but that isn't very helpful in telling you much about the current situation there. If anything, it helps illustrate what a downward trajectory France is on in terms of FDI attraction.

So yeah, unless there was a remarkable bounce back in 2014 (data I can't find just now) I don't think France is the destination of choice of late. Particularly for hyper-sensitive industries like airlines. The result of long-term economic and political malaise.

Feelings more or less true but not facts.

The fact is that the Paris airport are no longer the bad airports they used to be. We have to be honest and stop the french bashing. CDG is good, clean, efficient - at least when you fly with Air France.

ME3 competition : they have suffered from it and they are still here. How much more harm can they do more ? as long as people from Paris don't fly through DXB to go to NYC... BA decided to surrender but LH and AF can still decide to change their network strategy and there is a lot to be done. I think LH is doing now an excellent job and AF should follow.

AF/KLM : like the mergers of US Airlines I think it brings more benefits than drawbacks but it depends how it is executed. What western airlines really need is good managers with a long term strategic vision. What's killing them in front of ME3 carriers is truely the short sighted decisions, rather than their costs.

If I were him I would be more worry about the Etihad strategy in Europe.

Having flown Ryanair a number of times in the past, give me AF any day of the year... So happy MOL and his crowd are not developing anything greater in France.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 30):

Mercure1, not sure where you live or in which France, but I have been living here for close to 25 years (although a US citizein) and your description of French health care borders on the absurd.
One thing people fail to realize is that French health care is private, not public... You choose your doctor, dentist, hospital etc... and go as often as you want.
I never have to wait to see my doctor or dentist for either routine check-ups or more serious matters. Much happier with this system than the system I left behind in the U.S. and a fraction of the cost!

Perhaps he wants AF to sell KL so that he can buy it.

Quoting kl911 (Reply 10): No sane person wants to fly to / connect in CDG.

Can you please ellaborate or is it only bashing for bashing? I travel all over Europe and I can tell you that CDG is far from being the worse!

Quoting kl911 (Reply 10): No sane person wants to fly to / connect in CDG.

Some years back I sent an email to the present KL CEO long before he was in his present position. He was head of planning then. He asked me to compare AF to KL as he knew I was flying through CDG and was flying in C class as well.

I originated at TXL, left on time and almost missed my connection at CDG because the arrival gate was so far away it took over 60 minutes to get quickly to my connecting flight. No time for food or shopping.
Keep in mind, I am an airport professional as well as a DL Million Miler who knows airports.
I had to go through two terminals to get to a train for the international departure. I arrived at the gate as the boarding processing was finishing up. 75 minutes would not have been enough for 80% of the public. Because of what it took the Airport lost out on Retail, Food & Beverage revenues resulting in higher airline costs. This has a direct impact on AF/KL profitability.

I let my friend at KL know that CDG was weighing down on the AF/KL operations efficiency and was a killing expierence. Compared to Schiphol (SPL) CDG is a complete disaster and I would recommend flying though CDG only as an option if the rest of the world was closed. Connecting through CDG is the most confusing aviation experience globally, the signage doesn't make sense, nothing is logical at all. There are few helping out those who don't speak French. The place is a disaster and a half!

I noticed a very interesting situation as I walked through terminal 2. (And there are multiple terminal 2's at CDG which I cannot figure out for the life of me.)
There were a group of vagrants who had set up in the middle of the terminal. They were sleeping on the floor in a make-shift house in the terminal. The House was like an igloo. It was made of about 100 empty suitcases.

Now where did those suitcases come from? Yup, passengers.
What message does this send to the traveling public? a. we allow vagrants in terminal and we will not remove them, they are French. b. we allow them to steal luggage, especially if it is from foreigners. c. we want you to see this, they are French so UNDERSTAND we don't care what they do with your items. d. Simply we are CDG, we don't care about you the passenger, we don't care about your goods, French vagrants are higher on the importance list than any passenger flying though France. Get over it. By the way, we are going on strike next week. Vive La France!

In contrast AMS has a philosophy. "Make the travel experience simple to allow a 10 year old do it without difficulty, while not being condescending/insulting to an adult or seasoned traveller."
Why this philosophy? Because many travellers are from different places in the world and making it simple is needed because not everybody speaks Dutch or English fluently. Or in the case of CDG French.

How can AF make money at CDG when it is so badly managed.

MOL is 100% correct, you have to mentally lacking to transfer at CDG.
Once you've done it, never again by choice!

Quoting icarus75 (Reply 40): Can you please ellaborate or is it only bashing for bashing? I travel all over Europe and I can tell you that CDG is far from being the worse!

Icarus, you are French and are looking through very heavily tinted glasses. I love visiting France, but CDG, give me a break. I fly to AMS and take the TGV THALYS to Paris.

CDG is one of the worst airports globally!

Quoting billreid (Reply 41):

billreid, you state that your experience was "some years back"... so when was the last time you've transitted through CDG?
Things have certainly improved... Granted, it is very rare that I transit through CDG as I live in Paris (though not French), but in speaking to well heeled travellers, the experience has improved beyond comparison to the old CDG.
Furthermore, as an originating airport, I much prefer CDG than AMS. AMS is my 8th most visited airport out of 311 worldwide and I have to say the security lines are horrible, even for a Flying Blue Platinum For Lifer like me.
I had a friend who was traveling with me, but didn't have SkyPriority privileges and it took him nearly an hour to clear security (!!!) and this was last November.
I also find airport staff more pleasant in either ORY or CDG than AMS (and definitely than either FRA or LHR). I'll always get some sort of comment from them about my US passport but speaking French, and then they will try their English out on me...
And always, as I gather my things from the conveyor belt, a "Bon Voyage" farewell (and that is honestly no exaggeration and whether I am Sky Priority or just flying Vueling out of ORY with no privileges).
So to each his/her own... My experience demonstates that yours is no more valid/no less valid than mine.

CDG? Only been through there a couple of times. Once I arrived on the train from Paris. I found it difficult to get to the terminal I needed. Very stressful - how long will it take to get to the terminal? Am I in danger of missing my pkane? Don't want to go there again if I can avoid it..

Having said that, Paris-Beauvais is a joke. Beauvais is a long, long, long way from Paris.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17): KL is generally a more profitable operation, and always has been better run.

"always has been better run" ? Are you sure about that? Wasn't KLM partially bankrupt when it was bailed out by AF in 2003?

The EU as a whole has to reduce drastically its labor costs. The European governments have to wake up to the World where we are living today. It's a completely different World of 20 years ago.

In order to remain a competitive and economic center, the EU has to relax its labor market, especially France and Germany which are the two engines of the European economy and the euro zone.

Quoting kl911 (Reply 10): No sane person wants to fly to / connect in CDG.

Not sure about those people that you call "sane", but people that are i) informed ii) objective and iii) have common sense will find flying to CDG a necessity (where else would you fly to if you want to go to Paris? Orly? Not many flights? Lille? Nantes?). Also, people that fit the above characteristics will probably find transferring in CDG a much more pleasant and efficient experience than just 2-3 years ago. Almost all the transfers happen between AF flights or those of its partners, and those flights are now housed in Terminal 2E, 2F and 2G. Tranfers between 2E and 2F are good, e.g. because they did away with supplementary security controls for people arriving from a "clean" country, because they installed a transfer tunnel between 2E and 2F, because they now have enough gates to no longer require many bus gates, etc. 2G is still an issue because it's a long bus ride and the terminal itself is a glorified shed, but even that transfer process has become much improved. There are still issues, sure: wait times at immigration can be long because the border control guys are disorganised and couldn't care less, and at peak times on peak days wait times at security can be long.

What alternatives does one have in Europe? Frankfurt: wait times at security when transferring from an intercontinental flight can be long, and the C gates are ridiculously far (they are the 2G of Frankfurt, but require more walking). Other than that it's no better or worse than Paris (just cleaner), and has the added benefit that flights from the USA are treated ike "clean" flights and do not require additional security. Munich: yep, that is really nicer, but a much smaller operation as well. Amsterdam: overall clean and pleasantly laid out, but distances are very very long and security is ridiculously slow. Still no centralised security checks for non-Schengen departures. Madrid: huge. London Heathrow: this could have been great with the opening of T5, but it all f==ed up. In London everybody has to go through security, except if arriving from a UK flight, and that security is hopelessly understaffed and slow. It's a joke. And that is even without the horror scenario of arriving at T3 and having to continue from T5, something BA does.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 12): The labor laws he's talking about are things like "you must pay someone who works for you", even if it's on the ground, or "you must pay the taxes that finance the services your employees use" like health care and pensions, both public programs in France.

Oh please. Stop taking us for idiots. That is NOT what he talks about. Those are labour laws everywhere. What he means are things that are particular to French labour law, which all in all is extremely employee-friendly. Changing someone's job description is a major undertaking; letting someone go even for bad performance is lengthy, complicated and very costly; changing structures of departments or business units takes a long time and in many cases must be validated by a government authority; the Prud'hommes (labour courts of law) are not objective but employee-biased; other legislation is not applied (you can kidnap your boss or burn down the local town hall and nothing happens), etc.

On top of that is the very high cost of labour.

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 18): France would not have one of the best healthcare systems in the world if it weren't for the taxes collected by the French government.

Huh??? To be good a health system has to be tax-financed??? Where did you learn that, in Socialist summer camp? There are plenty of countries with excellent health systems which are not financed by tax money.

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 32): What Ryanair wants to do is Social Dumping! Hiring in France and paying taxes and social contributions to Ireland. This has to stop.

Why would it have to stop? It would have to stop if it was clearly illegal. Right now there is a grey zone about how European law has to be interpreted. Ryanair has lost its court cases in France (surprise surprise), but not anywhere else AFAIK.

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 33): I find it interesting that Volotea, Vueling and especially EasyJet apparently have no difficulty doing business in France. Not sure they have crew bases there - I imagine at least EasyJet does with their rather large ops in CDG and ORY.

EasyJet does, but started playing this like a French company after losing a court case.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 35): You think wrong, many do, France is in the top ten for foreign investment.

Err, no. And the trend is going down.

Not surprising really. Just think of the welcome you get by government ministers (remember the letters sent by Montebourg to someone who wanted to buy the Goodyear factory in Amiens?)

Quoting Aither (Reply 37): The fact is that the Paris airport are no longer the bad airports they used to be. We have to be honest and stop the french bashing. CDG is good, clean, efficient - at least when you fly with Air France.

+1

It isn't great, but no longer the hell that it used to be. And not much worse or even better than other large hubs, see above.

Quoting TYCOON (Reply 43): billreid, you state that your experience was "some years back"... so when was the last time you've transitted through CDG? Things have certainly improved... Granted, it is very rare that I transit through CDG as I live in Paris (though not French), but in speaking to well heeled travellers, the experience has improved beyond comparison to the old CDG. Furthermore, as an originating airport, I much prefer CDG than AMS. AMS is my 8th most visited airport out of 311 worldwide and I have to say the security lines are horrible, even for a Flying Blue Platinum For Lifer like me. I had a friend who was traveling with me, but didn't have SkyPriority privileges and it took him nearly an hour to clear security (!!!) and this was last November. I also find airport staff more pleasant in either ORY or CDG than AMS (and definitely than either FRA or LHR). I'll always get some sort of comment from them about my US passport but speaking French, and then they will try their English out on me... And always, as I gather my things from the conveyor belt, a "Bon Voyage" farewell (and that is honestly no exaggeration and whether I am Sky Priority or just flying Vueling out of ORY with no privileges). So to each his/her own... My experience demonstates that yours is no more valid/no less valid than mine.

+1

An interesting statement by Patrice Candaten - the Head of Sales for EMBRAER in Europe this week.

Apparently Embraer has decided to move its Sales and Marketing offices for all European and African operations from Paris to Amsterdam. It is expected that all maintenance operations will follow in the near future. The transfer of some 30 staff is expected to be completed by July 2015. All European and African sales efforts will be undertaken from the Amsterdam HQ from that date onwards.

Quoting billreid (Reply 41): I originated at TXL, left on time and almost missed my connection at CDG because the arrival gate was so far away it took over 60 minutes to get quickly to my connecting flight.

Come on! One hour from your arrival gate to your departure gate? Did you have to go through immigration?

Quoting billreid (Reply 41): you have to mentally lacking to transfer at CDG.

Say it to all the people connecting at CDG every day!

Quoting billreid (Reply 42): Icarus, you are French and are looking through very heavily tinted glasses.

Yes I am french but you see, I travel through Europe twice a week and I fly long haul several times a year. So I compare CDG to other airports and I insist : CDG is far from being the worse!