Maybe it has already come up in a previous thread , KLM charges 30 euro extra for online booking with a creditcard. I thought this used to be 10 euro. The excuse will probably be that AMEX charges KLM, but I find it rather user unfriendly if you pay so much for a transaction that does not involve a call center, and using their own company loyalty card at that.
It was on KLM's FB, there is even a screenshot but I dont know how to upload it in this reply. It was a guy booking a ticket AMS-BKK and it clearly shows that paying with a cc sets you back with 30 euro. Paying by IDEAL is for free, also if you pay at a KLM office, if you want to take that trouble.
Programs: United Premier Platinum, KLM Flying Blue Silver, Starwood Platinum, Marriott Gold
There's still the option of using Airfrance.ie and avoiding credit card fees. I suggest this, as I not only avoided the CC fee and booking fee, but the fare was €30 less than KLM's own site as well. As a side note, it makes me wonder how many resources AF/KL must be putting into operating all these different websites for every country. Could they not just have one combined AF/KL website where you pick a language, and be done with it?
Back on point, this fee is totally rediculous. It usually drives me to book on other websites, which costs KLM a travel agent commission. I like the convenience of booking with a credit card, but more importantly, I enjoy the protection in case of issues down the road (for example, my colleague who booked a Malev ticket with iDeal and wasn't able to recoup those costs when the airline went bankrupt, vs. those who used credit cards and could get refunds that way). I appreciate that credit card companies charge fees, but it's 2012 and KLM needs to wake up.
Unfortunately I found that Airfrance.ie is not always a solution. For some flights it works well, but, since the POS is different...prices can be different too.
For example I have seen sales for AMS-xxx on KLM.com, while the same flights were not on sale on airfrance.ie. Or sometimes there is just a general price difference due to both sites serving different markets (at least that's the idea).
As for the sites taking up more IT resources, I think that they are actually the same site but configured differently. Basically the initial selection of location and language determines which configuration (including payment options, fees and so on) will be used. That's a guess though, but it would seem like the most logical way to implement these sites.