Ever since 1948 KLM, backed by the Netherlands Government and in close co-operation with Amsterdam's Schipol Airport specifically designed for connecting traffic, has punched above its weight in the world. This is largely thanks to a superbly conceived and executed policy based on sixth freedom business gained through generous bilaterals. Amsterdam's single terminal ,easy to use, home hub has been developed and constantly updated. It has almost uniquely over 60 years kept ahead of actual demand and has as result always been Europe's airport of choice for many travellers. As a bonus, being able to offer international to international connections to the UK has given it an enormous advantage over British based airlines in extracting business from the UK provinces. The recipe was simple. KLM established a comprehensive long haul network fed by short haul spokes to the widest possible range of European and UK secondary cities. It was the prototype model of how to play the international hubbing game. Nobody did it better. With airline, Government and airport authority working hand in hand Amsterdam and KLM have been brilliantly successful in pulling business away from other people's home hubs. All this has required substantial Netherlands Government support in numerous ways including financial.
That's fair enough in the tough rough and tumble world of competition but what if someone else, better placed maybe and with bigger resources comes along and gets even better at it? Seemingly in the Hague that doesn't look so fair.
In response to the avalanche of new high quality competition the Dutch government,- ironically just days ahead of receiving Qatar Airways' first Amsterdam service, - has said " Enough is enough" The allegedly "subsidised Gulf airlines are deemed guilty of "unfair competition and will get no more new traffic rights. Maybe the vision of Milan- New York (Emirates) lookalikes out of out of Amsterdam
is too much to bear.
This is a breathtaking about face by one of the original high priests of the open skies philosophy. Where is that now,-or was that only for an era in which there were no significant challengers? The whole affair smacks of sanctimonious hypocrisy as do the bleatings on the same subject from the American legacy carriers and Air France and Lufthansa. The subsidy issue, which could be debated for years depending on numerous possible interpretations, is unproven and differs between the three Gulf contenders who also rightly see their accusers as pots calling kettles black. They argue that European and US airlines have from the outset built their own business upon a host of governmental and domestic benefits and arrangements. It can hardly be seen as fair game for a country which has thrived on these and been the master of the sixth freedom business since 1948 to now pull up the ladder.
The geography of many international traffic flows has in any case changed dramatically over the last few years. This is partly down to investment by the Gulf states followed by Turkey and partly to the ever increasing range of long haul aircraft, particularly the big twins with ETOPS clearance stretched way beyond anything foreseen 20 years ago. That has put the Gulf within nonstop range of almost anywhere.
This is not the time for the European or US governments to head for the defensive bunkers. Fingers in Dutch dykes are no answer. Our consistent view is that the governments must tell their airlines to get out there and compete or take the consequences. That's business.
That's fair enough in the tough rough and tumble world of competition but what if someone else, better placed maybe and with bigger resources comes along and gets even better at it? Seemingly in the Hague that doesn't look so fair.
In response to the avalanche of new high quality competition the Dutch government,- ironically just days ahead of receiving Qatar Airways' first Amsterdam service, - has said " Enough is enough" The allegedly "subsidised Gulf airlines are deemed guilty of "unfair competition and will get no more new traffic rights. Maybe the vision of Milan- New York (Emirates) lookalikes out of out of Amsterdam
is too much to bear.
This is a breathtaking about face by one of the original high priests of the open skies philosophy. Where is that now,-or was that only for an era in which there were no significant challengers? The whole affair smacks of sanctimonious hypocrisy as do the bleatings on the same subject from the American legacy carriers and Air France and Lufthansa. The subsidy issue, which could be debated for years depending on numerous possible interpretations, is unproven and differs between the three Gulf contenders who also rightly see their accusers as pots calling kettles black. They argue that European and US airlines have from the outset built their own business upon a host of governmental and domestic benefits and arrangements. It can hardly be seen as fair game for a country which has thrived on these and been the master of the sixth freedom business since 1948 to now pull up the ladder.
The geography of many international traffic flows has in any case changed dramatically over the last few years. This is partly down to investment by the Gulf states followed by Turkey and partly to the ever increasing range of long haul aircraft, particularly the big twins with ETOPS clearance stretched way beyond anything foreseen 20 years ago. That has put the Gulf within nonstop range of almost anywhere.
This is not the time for the European or US governments to head for the defensive bunkers. Fingers in Dutch dykes are no answer. Our consistent view is that the governments must tell their airlines to get out there and compete or take the consequences. That's business.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.