As of the summer of 2024, the Dutch government will restrict Amsterdam Schiphol Airport to 452,500 annual flights, down from the current limit of 500,000 annual flights. This is being done on environmental grounds, to limit noise and pollution around the airport.
This reduction is causing roughly two dozen airlines (including JetBlue) to lose the rights to fly to the airport next summer, while remaining airlines will have to reduce their service by 3.1%. It looks like this policy change will lead to some retaliation from the United States…
In this post:
DOT claims Netherlands violating agreement
The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) has today announced that it has determined that the Netherlands is in violation of the United States and European Union Air Transport Agreement, by not following the balanced approach philosophy:
The Department finds that, because the Netherlands has failed to follow the Balanced Approach, the Phase 1 capacity reduction measures being undertaken at AMS constitute unjustifiable and unreasonable activities under IATFCPA, and are in violation of the of the US-EU Air Transport Agreement.
While the DOT hasn’t announced exactly what it will do to counter this, the government is demanding that Dutch airlines file their summer 2024 schedules with the DOT:
The Department orders KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, NV; Martinair Holland NV; and TUI Airlines Nederland, BV to file with the Department, within seven days of the service date of this order, any and all of their existing schedules for air transportation services, including codeshare, common branding, and extra sections, between any point or points in the United States and any point or points not in the United States.
The DOT notes how since January 2023, it has exchanged multiple letters with the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management regarding the new restrictions at the airport, but without success.
What restrictions could the DOT impose on the Netherlands?
JetBlue has been requesting that as a reciprocal measure, the the DOT ban KLM from flying to New York JFK. While I understand JetBlue’s frustration in general, I found that specifically to be a step too far. KLM has been flying to New York for 75+ years, while JetBlue has been flying to Amsterdam for a matter of months.
That being said, I think there’s nothing wrong with the DOT broadly imposing reciprocal restrictions, and I think the intent here is pretty clear — the DOT will likely start restricting flights to the United States for Dutch airlines. A few thoughts:
- This isn’t a case of the Dutch government taking a protectionist approach with KLM, because KLM is the airline most harmed by these new capacity restrictions, as it has to make the most flight cuts
- Obviously the intent of any reciprocal action would be to get the Dutch government to reverse course, though I’m not sure the Dutch government would actually care? I mean, given the way the government is acting, the response might just be “great, that helps us even further with our goals”
- If the Netherlands doesn’t negotiate based on reciprocity, the end result will likely just be even less service between the two countries, which would harm consumers
I appreciate the DOT’s flex here, and standing up for consumers. This is a tricky topic, since airport slots and overall air services agreements between regions are negotiated separately. What makes this situation unique is that it’s the government of the Netherlands imposing these restrictions, rather than the airport or some local leaders.
The relevant agreement that governs air travel is between the United States and European Union, and the Netherlands is clearly just acting on its own with these changes.
Bottom line
The United States Department of Transportation claims that the Netherlands’ new flight caps for Amsterdam Schiphol Airport violate the air transport agreement between the United States and European Union. The DOT is demanding that all Dutch airlines file their planned US service, presumably with the intent of restricting some of these flights, as a reciprocal measure.
How do you see this spat playing out between the United States and Netherlands?
In addition to multiple airlines suing the Dutch government, KLM’s CEO also expressed her concerns about not allowing competition and specifically mentioned Jet Blue. Anyhow it seems any Future Dutch government that follows the current one frankly couldn’t care less if Schiphol closes down.
I hope all those politicians voting for these restrictive measures are not flying anywhere and are not members of frequent flier loyalty programmes. Of course we know many are.
I just can't believe how stupid some government became since 2020. This is applying especially to rich countries (Netherlands, Germanu) making them poor and underdeveloped.
I think limiting widebody flights to AMS is just going to increase flights to other European hubs, rather than actually cut emissions. Short flights that could be train rides, and private jet flights that could be trips in first class on a commercial airline are the real culprits.
France already did this a couple of months back. Banning short haul flights in France, and having passengers use the train. This is exactly what they need to do at AMS. The reality is you cant have your cake and eat it to.
France did not "ban short-haul flights in France", they banned flights between destinations where the train takes less than 2.5 hours. You are perfectly free to fly from Paris to Brest, Toulouse, Montpellier, Marseille, Nice etc. aboard dozens of daily flights to those destinations.
The US should retaliate against the Dutch politicians taking such decisions, not against Dutch airlines who themselves suffer from the aforementioned politicians.
"KLM is the airline most harmed by these new capacity restrictions, as it has to make the most flight cuts"
Does everyone else see the fallacy of this statement? Cuts in capacity means fares can be increased and passenger loads will be higher. The airline with the most flights will add the most profits.
To an extent. But Amsterdam is not in the same league as LHR/CDG in terms of origin-destination traffic; transfer is an enormous component of its traffic, and even minor (sustained) cuts to feed can radically affect the profitability/viability of other routes. So definitely not guaranteed peaches&cream for KLM.
Good for the Dutch. This will lesson tourism in Amsterdam. It will make life better for the locals. Shame on Jet Blue using tiny airplanes. That crowded airport would be better off wit 777, 787, 330, 340, 350, snd 380s carrying larger number of passengers. I have no sympathy for Jet Blue or other whiners.
"Lessen," and there's no evidence yet that this'll do that, it's not like Amsterdam is being cut off from all the other Euro airports/trains/roads/points of entry... which is why it's so stupid in the first place.
"I found that specifically to be a step too far. KLM has been flying to New York for 75+ years, while JetBlue has been flying to Amsterdam for a matter of months."
@lucky What does that have to do with anything?
This is a clear attempt to strike at lower cost carriers - basically banning them from the market.
They're not banning anyone. They are requiring a 3% reduction.
They could have chosen to just lower everyone’s flights. Instead, they made up this ridiculous idea of historical rights to slots in order to favor incumbents.
If this means fewer American tourists in Europe, this is only a good thing for the world.
The only losers are the hop on hop off buses and Starbucks.
And all of the jobs that rely upon the tourism economy, including ancillary industries. And it’s not just the US, it’s going to affect all global airlines that serve AMS.
Such ignorance is so incredible…incredibly awful.
LOL, the Dutch are not dependent on the bottom-feeder tourism industry like e.g. the Greeks and Turks are.
They’re making money with stuff such as the most genius machinery in human history, the ASML EUV lithography machinery that has a monopoly for microchip production.
Agree or disagree, the Dutch are willing to take action that they believe puts global precedent ahead of self interest. Very admirable, and hoping more, and more meaningfully influential than this tine "country," will consider this way of thinking.
Spoiler alert - they will not, and the only consequence of this move will be the shift of transfer traffic from AMS to CDG, LHR, FRA, MUC and other transit airports in Europe.
Maybe they should allow only one KLM flight for each US airline flight? That would make sense, right?
Oh, US airlines operate twice as many flights between the US and Amsterdam than KLM does.
Climate-denier US has no good options here.
Pretty damn smart of the Dutch, they get even lower emissions (excellent) and have someone to point the fingers to (those ugly Americans!)
Have ever flown via AMS?
Yes, lots of US flights…even DL has more than KL to the US…but there’s many tail logos from around the world at the airport, plus of course all the European airlines.
The stupidity….
Let’s focus on policies and facts.
Regarding emissions, airlines account for under 3%. Just easy targets Meanwhile in China and India they do nothing.
The DOT should also look at AF as KLM will just operate direct flights via CDG.
Has the EU and Netherlands also considered the massive A350 order where airplanes were going to be split between AF and KLM.
Why ? The issue is the restrictions at Schiphol and JetBlue’s complaint.
Although they knew it was temporary.
Meanwhile JetBlue is flying to Paris without any restrictions. The French government hasn’t asked them to suspend their operations and they are competing with AF DL.
KLM will not operate its own aircraft from Paris to New York.
Are there not alternative airports in the Netherlands?
Not for intercontinental longhauls. JetBlue could operate from Brussels.
I was wondering about DUS? Thoughts?
Otherwise CPH seems the obvious.
Who cares. We flown to Amsterdam this year. Drive through Nederland, airport hotel and airport itself was the worst experience we ever encountered in Europe. Never again!!
I'm guessing something will be worked out. A lot of this bloviation is posturing for the media. When the stories disappear from the media, a settlement is probably near.
The Dutch government is reducing flights for environmental reasons. If the US "retaliates" by reducing flights, too, then the Dutch government wins again. I think they would wholeheartedly welcome such a response from the US.
So for "environmental reasons" US should put tariffs on Dutch cheese because their cow farts?
I don't think the DOT has spelled out what they will do in detail, but the right place to look is the Delta/KLM Anti-trust immunized JV. If Amsterdam is subject to artifical caps and no new entrants are allowed to fly to the Netherlands, that JV should go away. JVs make sense when there is enough competition. Even LHR allows for new entrants (because one can buy into it). If AMS just says, no new...
I don't think the DOT has spelled out what they will do in detail, but the right place to look is the Delta/KLM Anti-trust immunized JV. If Amsterdam is subject to artifical caps and no new entrants are allowed to fly to the Netherlands, that JV should go away. JVs make sense when there is enough competition. Even LHR allows for new entrants (because one can buy into it). If AMS just says, no new entrants are allowed than it's just shutting down any competition to Delta and KLM.
as long as HND also loses joint venture ability and as long as the Netherlands is excluded from Open Skies agreements from the EU as a whole, which also means connecting traffic from the US to AMS over other EU hubs.
I have no sympathy for JetBlue. IMO, B6 should not be flying TATL flights to airports like CDG, LHR and AMS with narrowbodies carrying 160ish passengers. The airports are large enough to justify widebody aircraft. If B6 wants to stick to the narrow body aircraft, then go to secondary airports and stop clogging already busy airports with small aircraft on TATL flights). This goes for any other airline as well (AA, DL, KL UA).
By your logic, everyone should be flying A380s into CDG LHR and AMS.
It may be. The bottom line is a lot of airports are capacity constrained (physical space, government stupidity, etc.). When there is limited capacity like AMS, you want to maximize slot usage.
For example, per ExpertFlyer for 11/03, AA (1), DL, UA (1) and B6 have a total of 21 flights arriving in AMS:
AA - 1 B788 @ 234 seats
DL - 1 A359 @ 306 seats, 4 A339 @ 281 seats...
It may be. The bottom line is a lot of airports are capacity constrained (physical space, government stupidity, etc.). When there is limited capacity like AMS, you want to maximize slot usage.
For example, per ExpertFlyer for 11/03, AA (1), DL, UA (1) and B6 have a total of 21 flights arriving in AMS:
AA - 1 B788 @ 234 seats
DL - 1 A359 @ 306 seats, 4 A339 @ 281 seats and 9 A333 @ 282 seats
UA - 1 B772 @ 276 seats and 3 B788 @ 243 seats
B6 - 2 A321 @ 160 seats
On 11/03/2023, KLM flew at minimum flies 787s from US. So, you have airlines flying aircraft with 234 seats all the way up to 306 seats. Yet, B6 wants to keep two flights with 160 seats each.
I know B6 is being denied slots because of the arbitrary "historical usage" requirement. However, when the DOT argues the position with the Dutch, I think it's a weak argument to allocate a slot to a flight seating 160 passengers when AA, DL, KL and UA all using aircraft with seating of 234+ passengers per flight.
Evan, tell that to the Dutch government, who could have banned smaller aircraft at AMS. That's on them, not JetBlue.
By your logic (again), AMS capacity control is to maximize slot usage not reducing emissions.
So a 347 seat Pan-Am 747-100 would be more favorable over JetBlue's A321 with 160 seats.
You are smoking the same fluff as Tim Dunn.
It's not about what AMS wants. I'm looking at it from a DOT perspective. The DOT doesn't care why AMS is reducing slots, they only care that slots are being reduced. So, from the DOT's perspective, what's going to benefit the traveling public more - flights with 160 seats or flights with 234 + seats.
By your logic (again and again), you suddenly shifted from AMS to DOT?
LMFO, From DOT perspective, not reducing any flights is going to benefit the traveling public more.
Are you by any chance Evan Dunn?
Dutch government is increasing tax at Schiphol by 15%. If they add the eur 52 transit tax it’s a disaster.
All flights could be transferred to Delta metal.
Ultimately this isn’t KLM’s fault. It lies entirely with the Dutch government who frankly couldn’t care less. meanwhile France hasn’t such issues.
and what, pray tell, does transferring flights to Delta have anything to do with tulips or Dutch cheese?
Do you think that Delta will be exempt from the taxes that KLM will have to pay?
I didn’t say that. The DOT has specifically targeted klm so potentially delta could just operate the flights. What I alluded to was that the NL government is increasing taxes airlines must pay by 15% to cover losses over the past years and intend to add a transit tax of eur52 each way. So that will be the death knell for schiphol
KLM being the home carrier is being decimated by the Dutch government.
The only thing the United States could do that would change course is to ban any Dutch government aircraft from arriving directly from the Netherlands. Hurt the politicians. Will never happen though.
Nothing much will come of it. US govt. needs show that it’s flexing its muscle and save face, that’s all…
Tim Dunn's comment longer than OMAAT post.
This holetonguer's intellect is lower than the Dutch Government.
a simple word count proves your statement is, to no surprise, patently false.
And the issue you and a few others have is that you don't want anyone to think. The US, despite its stated policy of ensuring competitors have access to airports where JV airlines hub doesn't exist in reality. Haneda is just the most glaring example
Wow!!!!
Tim Dunn proves a statement false using word count.
No wonder he's full of fluff. The more fluff the more likely it becomes true.
What did I say yesterday?... and here we are.
I'm surprised that DL's massive daily operation out of AMS has not been mentioned. It's going to get ugly, and rightfully so.
If the Dutch have violated an agreement with the USA, then the USA will behave like the USA likes to behave.
Imagine the USA stripping KL of some of its flights to the USA and the impact it would have on DL.
I am glad the US is taking a stance on this because it sends the message that countries cannot unilaterally change their air services treaty and the terms of them, regardless of the reason.
The Netherlands was the first US Open Skies agreement so this is a significant development and a "warning shot" to other countries.
Most countries, like France and Germany, are trying to reduce shorthaul flight activity but the Netherlands has...
I am glad the US is taking a stance on this because it sends the message that countries cannot unilaterally change their air services treaty and the terms of them, regardless of the reason.
The Netherlands was the first US Open Skies agreement so this is a significant development and a "warning shot" to other countries.
Most countries, like France and Germany, are trying to reduce shorthaul flight activity but the Netherlands has no domestic air travel market.
Every airline is fighting this so let's not pretend that anyone in the industry wants it. Other governments are looking at what they can get by with.
DL and KL both have filed lawsuits against the Dutch government and the case has never been litigated in global law bodies but rather just in Dutch courts.
And for those that would like to see the US limit the DL/KL Joint venture remember that:
1. The Netherlands is part of the US-EU air services treaty so ALL US airlines would have to be removed from the Open Skies agreements and JVs.
2. Much of the traffic passing through AMS on DL/KL is connecting so the "punishment" has to be to the EU as a whole.
3. B6 wants to serve just the local AMS market but DL/KL could cut their flights dramatically and still serve the local market while shifting connecting capacity elsewhere.
And most importantly, the US has an Open Skies agreement w/ Japan and yet there is no access for any non-incumbent carriers to Haneda airport, the most valuable local Japanese airport market. The Japanese knew full well when they signed the Open Skies agreement w/ the US that they would trickle open access to HND which would protect incumbents.
so, yes, let's force AMS back open to true competition but do the same at Haneda.
Bro. Your delta fanboyism hurts.
you didn't read real carefully did you, Mike? You couldn't possibly come to the conclusion you did if you actually comprehended what I wrote - in fact, quite the opposite.
I don't follow why all airlines US-EU joint ventures should be effected. It's only the Netherlands that is restricting competition. I say let Delta keep its JV with Air France, just not with KLM (or more specifically on any flight that has a USA-AMS segment). But allowing antitrust immunity for USA-AMS flights when new entrants (like JetBlue) can't enter the market is crazy and anti-consumer.
I also don't think the Japan analogy is correct...
I don't follow why all airlines US-EU joint ventures should be effected. It's only the Netherlands that is restricting competition. I say let Delta keep its JV with Air France, just not with KLM (or more specifically on any flight that has a USA-AMS segment). But allowing antitrust immunity for USA-AMS flights when new entrants (like JetBlue) can't enter the market is crazy and anti-consumer.
I also don't think the Japan analogy is correct for a couple reasons. First, HND is the only slot controlled international airport in Japan. By contrast, AMS carries over 88% of all Dutch passenger traffic. It's really the only Dutch airport that matters (with apologies to Eindhoven and Rotterdam). Japan is a much larger country with many more airports. While Haneda is very important, it's nowhere near as important as AMS is in the Netherlands. And unlike Amsterdam, there's a second large airport in Tokyo that is not slot controlled (NRT). Second, this is a material change in circumstances since the USA-EU agreement was reached. Not so with Japan, where HND has always had restrictions, as has JFK in the USA.
HND was not open to the current US carrier or transpacific level of flights at the time the US-Japan Open Skies treaty was signed. Opening HND to traffic on a controlled basis is a change in the status quo.
and any foreign airline w/ which the US has an air services treaty that includes NYC can gain access to JFK; slots are far more available at US airports for foreign carriers than just about any large global airport.
Right. But the change in the status quo with Japan was to liberalize access to HND, the exact opposite of what is happening at AMS. That's how Delta picked up those HND slots. Not the same scenario at all. And again, NRT is a huge, non-slot-controlled airport that's in the same city as HND. There's no real alternative to Amsterdam. It feels a little bit like you're not being intellectually consistent in order to take a pro-Delta position.
When the US secured 12 new daily frequencies at HND in 2019, only incumbents, AA/DL/HA/UA applied for a share and each of them got something. No new entrants sought to institute service to HND. Moreover, when the US signed the agreement with Japan that serves as the predicate for immunized JV’s in that market, they expressly accepted that HND would remain frequency limited for the carriers of both countries. Japan is a totally different situation,...
When the US secured 12 new daily frequencies at HND in 2019, only incumbents, AA/DL/HA/UA applied for a share and each of them got something. No new entrants sought to institute service to HND. Moreover, when the US signed the agreement with Japan that serves as the predicate for immunized JV’s in that market, they expressly accepted that HND would remain frequency limited for the carriers of both countries. Japan is a totally different situation, legally and factually.
Go home Timmy. Just go home.
Stating facts. Stupid comment as you haven’t a clue and can’t contribute anything
and you actually think you have?
Hitting KLM back won’t do much because it’s more or less out of their control. It’s the Dutch government. Not that I think DOT has much leverage here. Since JetBlue is the injured party, how about find out whatever the avg monthly profit they get from the past few months on that route and make Dutch government pay them for the injury indefinitely? Seems fair to me. Can this happen? Not a chance. I’m no...
Hitting KLM back won’t do much because it’s more or less out of their control. It’s the Dutch government. Not that I think DOT has much leverage here. Since JetBlue is the injured party, how about find out whatever the avg monthly profit they get from the past few months on that route and make Dutch government pay them for the injury indefinitely? Seems fair to me. Can this happen? Not a chance. I’m no attorney but I highly doubt JetBlue can sue Dutch government in US for injury. I suspect DOT will block one flight from AMS to NYC and call it a day.
I’m not saying I agree with this recourse but it’s possible. About 20 years ago DOT required Aerolineas Argentinas to deposit a portion of the revenues from their US operations into an escrow account to offset the harm suffered by US carriers from discriminatory currency remittance practices of the Government of Argentina. The DOT action was upheld on appeal by the DC Circuit.
This will actually have the opposite effect for KLM - while they stand to lose the most number of slots they stand to gain the most out of of this new regulation.
Granted in the short term strategy will need to change, but there are many options available to KLM to manage the new market dynamics such as upgauging aircraft to compensate for lost frequencies, leveraging their JV partners (DL/AF/VS and potentially SK) to recalibrate...
This will actually have the opposite effect for KLM - while they stand to lose the most number of slots they stand to gain the most out of of this new regulation.
Granted in the short term strategy will need to change, but there are many options available to KLM to manage the new market dynamics such as upgauging aircraft to compensate for lost frequencies, leveraging their JV partners (DL/AF/VS and potentially SK) to recalibrate resources, form rail partnerships with local rail companies to provide connections to points like BRU/DUS, reconfiguring aircraft to add more seats, etc.
Financially, this isn't going to hurt KLM much because this will lead to higher yields. It'll take time for them to find the new equilibrium, but they will find it. Reducing competitors (i.e. the 24 airlines) is what allow airlines to command a price premium. More than anything it'll hurt the other European airlines as this will drive higher competition/capacity in other markets.
What the authority should have done in this scenario is impose flat cut for everyone. If they need to ultimately cut 10% then everyone needs to cut 10%. Not 24 of you will lose 100% while the others will lose 3%.
Really the whole flight cap is idiotic and those arguing its because of 777s and 350s roaring right above our roofs - unfortunately there will be more of those as the smaller/quieter planes will be switched out in favor of larger planes to ensure there is sufficient supply (i.e. seats) to satisfy market demand.
This makes no sense. Jet Blue is not the only company affected by the AMS slot reduction. And US airlines are not the only ones to be affected. This pathetic nationalistic behaviour does more harm than good if it leads to an escalation.
Earlier this year, the airport announced plans to phase out all flights between midnight and 5 a.m., to ban private jets and the noisiest planes, and to abandon a project for an additional runway. there were 24 airlines affected by this - only one American to my knowledge. And KLM itself will lose over 5500 flights
Exactly. So far, the Dutch authorities treated all airlines equally and US carriers are actually less affected than carriers from several other countries. If US chooses to not treat Dutch carriers equally, then I don't see why Netherlands shouldn't do the same to US carriers - take their slots away in retaliation, and give them back to EU carriers for example.
Nationalism never has any winners.
Darryl Stewart clearly cares a lot about this.
Don't see how anyone can't be. The organization that should be advocating for and supporting the industry is actively working against it. Extremely concerning.
The Dutch Government is operating under insane alarmist propaganda and not under facts. Setting arbitrary dates and reductions does more harm than good. Listening to whiny children that spout off wrong and embellished social media headlines should not then become Policy. They are ignorant and I hope that more countries ban them and "reciprocate".
Study the facts and underarands ICAO'S involvement as well.
This sort of virus infects more other western nations, albeit at lesser levels. It's stupid and defies common sense, yet I don't see these people rejecting the dogma. It would be akin to a renunciation of faith.
Less air pollution is a good thing, and private companies will never pollute less because it harms their bottom line. Governments' responsibility is to the wellbeing of their citizens, and includes regulating and limiting harmful practices by private companies. US regulatory agencies being owned by private interests doesn't change that responsibility for European governments, though in interest of fair competition the Netherlands should cut Delta flights so United can still fly. Abandoning the proposed cap...
Less air pollution is a good thing, and private companies will never pollute less because it harms their bottom line. Governments' responsibility is to the wellbeing of their citizens, and includes regulating and limiting harmful practices by private companies. US regulatory agencies being owned by private interests doesn't change that responsibility for European governments, though in interest of fair competition the Netherlands should cut Delta flights so United can still fly. Abandoning the proposed cap is the wrong move.
You sound awfully triggered there, Benjamin :(
I don't know the extent to which the EU will care about this, ... but while harmful to KL, Amsterdam and the Netherlands as a whole, if AFKL ends up shifting some frequencies/routes thru CDG, while maintaining a similar level of intercontinental service between the US and EU, would there be much to be said? But then again, that could set a dangerous precent at airports that are close to capacity with direct alternatives within...
I don't know the extent to which the EU will care about this, ... but while harmful to KL, Amsterdam and the Netherlands as a whole, if AFKL ends up shifting some frequencies/routes thru CDG, while maintaining a similar level of intercontinental service between the US and EU, would there be much to be said? But then again, that could set a dangerous precent at airports that are close to capacity with direct alternatives within the airline or group.
Regardless, it's not looking good for KL, as they will likely find themselves with more planes/staff than they are *allowed* of employing (and while getting rid of either is rather complicated, the latter is specially so in the Netherlands)... Fingers crossed they don't finish like their southern neighbour's former flag carrier
Do you not feel that the EU should ban American airlines from the EU as a result?
That is the absolute stupidity of this whole plan, that flights will just be re-routed to CDG ... increasing carbon emissions in some cases. AMS isn't doing anything for Global Warming, just moving where the emissions come from. The Dutch are really implementing a head scratching strategy here. Unless every single country gets on board with emissions reductions , there will be no impact, period.
@M Tak - have a similar sentiment to yours... shifting emissions somewhere else isn't really contributing to global emissions, they're presumably just pursuing their own agenda by conducting some cheap greenwashing.
@Darryl Stewart - I'm not really following this whole ICAO obsession of yours... where are you getting it from? From one of the reports I read from ICAO regarding sustainability in aviation (from 2019 I believe), governments dictating a flight quota or anything of...
@M Tak - have a similar sentiment to yours... shifting emissions somewhere else isn't really contributing to global emissions, they're presumably just pursuing their own agenda by conducting some cheap greenwashing.
@Darryl Stewart - I'm not really following this whole ICAO obsession of yours... where are you getting it from? From one of the reports I read from ICAO regarding sustainability in aviation (from 2019 I believe), governments dictating a flight quota or anything of the sort was never mentioned in there (just your typical cleaner aircraft/fuels and process optimization). Besides, that would be rather contradicting from their side to foster.
Like you noted, this most likely still works out for KLM / the Dutch. If the US retaliates by restricting some KLM flights then this might equate to the same cuts the Dutch are demanding. Maybe we'll see a use case for the A380 come back if KLM is limited to less frequent flights to key destinations.
Very unlikely. The A380 PSK-Js are 24.6% higher than that of the 777-300 - so just imagine how much lower the 777X will be - that is what KLM should look into!
I don't get Ben's take here. The fact KLM has been flying the NY route for decades is irrelevant. This logic just entrenches incumbent companies and keeps new entrants from competing and presumably driving down costs.
The fact that KLM opposes the Dutch government's policy is also irrelevant. To some extent KLM benefits from the policy, in that the cap penalizes newer airlines more than incumbent carriers like it. And in any event, the only...
I don't get Ben's take here. The fact KLM has been flying the NY route for decades is irrelevant. This logic just entrenches incumbent companies and keeps new entrants from competing and presumably driving down costs.
The fact that KLM opposes the Dutch government's policy is also irrelevant. To some extent KLM benefits from the policy, in that the cap penalizes newer airlines more than incumbent carriers like it. And in any event, the only tool the DOT has is to take reciprocal counter measures, which of course will hurt Dutch carriers.
What should really be reconsidered is the KLM joint venture with Delta. It's insane to give antitrust immunity to flights that touch AMS when the Dutch government is basically barring any new service to AMS.
It's the Dutch government that is behind all of this. Retaliating against airlines is just hurting consumers. I'm also sure Delta wouldn't be happy if KLM gets affected.
Correct - however they are doing it as part of ICAO's Green Planet Initative.
Dink, what do you understand?
Read ICAO's Policies on Environmental Change Management and Aeronautical Vision 2030. It could not be any more clear.
So what do you want the US to do, declare war against the Netherlands Government? In many, many IATFCPA cases over the years, the foreign carrier pleads, it’s not us, it’s our government, so it’s unfair to punish us. And DOT has consistently rejected that reasoning. DOT’s leverage is with the carrier, and it’s then up to the carrier to bring pressure to bear on its government if it wants relief.
I would imagine they are doing this as a rssult of a ICAO's Green Planet Initative. For anyone not aware, here's an excerpt from 'ICAO's Policies on Environmental Change Management and Aeronautical Vision 2030':
'Aerodromes with a reduction of commercial passenger air traffic of a minimum of 10% effective January 1, 2030 in contrast to the highest average per annum from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2018 will be recognized under ICAO Green Planet initiative.'
Highly doubt the Dutch government cares about ICAO... they have their own agenda and are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it. Yes, even if it's improper (like the way they attempted to do this without following proper bureaucracy and procedures).
The ICAO GPI recognition is what their goal is. Google it.
About time DOT is doing something right on this issue! They need to cut all klm slots then maybe those employees will put pressure and call a no confidence vote! I was about to book a flight with klm to Amsterdam but changed it to Brussels with united 787-10 service.
That doesn't even make sense. The Amsterdam reductions actually hurt KLM the most since they will have to cut the most flights as the largest carrier holding slots at the airport.
I don't think it hurts KLM as much as you think. They will be able to charge a premium on anti-competitive routes.
Dutch government could not care less if KLM closes down. Unlike the French government view of AF. If they impose the transit tax it’s finished. Transavia will shift all their operations to EIN MST RTM and BRU. DL can move most flights to CDG
CDG has fewer restrictions as is in a less built up area with room to expand and no capacity restrictions.
AF can pick up routes KL drop. They already...
Dutch government could not care less if KLM closes down. Unlike the French government view of AF. If they impose the transit tax it’s finished. Transavia will shift all their operations to EIN MST RTM and BRU. DL can move most flights to CDG
CDG has fewer restrictions as is in a less built up area with room to expand and no capacity restrictions.
AF can pick up routes KL drop. They already added Tanzania. KLM has significantly reduced its gulf flights due to competition. There are very few points KL flies that AF doesn’t outside Europe. KLM is bigger to Scandinavia and the U.K. if SAS moves to SkyTeam they will cover the routes and KLM will most likely drop them
It's the Dutch Government acting under directions from ICAO, you dink. What are you talking about a non-confidence vote? Did you not study this at all? How stupid do you have to be to fly United instead of KLM, the world's third best airline?