AIUI, the issue between PE and BS is not just that they do not like each other in the sense of a personality clash but rather that there is a more substantial disagreement as to the degree of autonomy enjoyed by KL within the AFKL group.

I can see why, seen from AMS, there could be some worry that an increased focus on leisure traffic might lead to a diminution or loss of direct services to some business-oriented destinations.

I do not think that this is an issue about being miffed about not being a premium player.I think that KL have accepted a very long time ago, viz. more or less since they decided to abolish "Royal Class" that, given the limited economic hinterland of the Netherlands, an airline like KL cannot play in the premium league owing to its acute dependence on transfer traffic.


It seems to me that it is not the fact of the Dutch state having a stake per se but rather what it signals. What the French are saying, imo not without reason, is that the move was clearly inimical and treat AF as the enemy. It says essentially: "we do not trust you and we have to protect ourselves against you." This is not helpful.

On the French saving KLM from immediate bankruptcy, this might be an exaggeration but KL were undoubtedly in a difficult position at the time. There were some declarations from KL management speaking of the "very serious" situation KL was in and its "fight for survival", although there might have been a certain amount of posturing in those declarations. The period before the merger was not an easy one for KL: they had struggled in the 9/11 aftermath, were losing money and were on a major cost-cutting drive to attempt to restore profitability or at least minimise losses. This was the time of the abolition of business class within Europe and its replacement by "Europe Select" and the time of the replacement of the full bar service in economy by a limited service of water, tea and coffee or juice only and no alcohol. There clearly were worries in KL on long-term viability at the time but it was not, IIRC, a situation of immediate bankruptcy.

IIRC, it was not a marriage of equals. AF was understood to be the major partner, albeit with some guarantees regarding the survival of KL as a separate airline and brand, at least in the near future.

I think both countries live in a different reality.
The French believe the Dutch should be grateful to be part of AFKL and the fact KL earns more is because they are part of AFKL which AF realized for them in 2004. So it’ll come across as unfriendly, ungrateful and blunt to secretly buying AFKL behind their back while they thought France and The Netherlands were on friendly terms. France still see themselves as the bigger country and deserve more saying in the merger that is AFKL. That can come across as arrogant where ego’s are hurt.

The Dutch, pragmatic as they are, see a potential risk when France has more saying in AFKL which can jeopardize KLM and Schiphol. This is not based on chauvinistic sentiments but on numbers and figures. There is simply too much at stake for The Netherlands as a nation. The strategy of “act now and apologize later” is the right one and a act of strong leadership.

These shares were bought to increase saying in the AFKL group and secure the Dutch interests. Not to earn money on it. 650 million sounds a lot but is really peanuts.

The more I think of it, the more I believe this is the right thing to do. Not only for KL but also for AFKL as a group.

I can’t argue with that, and I apologize for putting things a bit out of context. This is an item which surfaced multiple times in the Dutch press over the past years. Reportedly AF pilot unions had put it on the tables during their strikes. They wanted successful long haul KL flights to move to AF, in order to benefit from KL’s growth as well. For quite a while it was rumoured in the Dutch press that the AF/KL holding would support the idea, and even back then, the (former) Dutch minister of finance and his French colleague had talks about it. Not good for the sentiments, in any case.