Originally Posted by
nene
If you think that KLM/Delta are the drivers of this, then you are borderline delusional/paranoid.
AMS is a HUB for KLM and Delta in partnership, feeds that hub so that people can connect all over the world, very few stay in AMS. A carrier like JB is just a small sliver of the tourism market and (albeit I'm sure annoying to the marketing folks in ATL) would hardly be the reason to start a cavilcade of constraints on an important European hub. Delta has hub partners in AMS/CDG. UAL has FRA, and AA uses LHR to connect traffic through European partners to all other parts Europe/Asia/Africa. Why would Delta limit any future growth at one of it's own hubs just to thumb its nose at two JB flights who largely connect to noone so by definition are dependent solely on direct tourism traffic?
Also, if you think this will ultimately be constrainted to AMS, we'll see. The Dutch govt is under pressure to reduce their CO2 emissions and as such a small country, it's transportation hub status is a top 4 contributor.
BTW, is JB back at ATL? The way they start/stop/start service it's hard to tell. They let them have a second gate? Hold on, I need to make some calls.....
It's not just JB, but twenty three other airlines that would be evicted from AMS. And all of KLM/DL's competitors would be reduced. And it's a reduction in movements, not necessarily capacity. They can simply reduce a small number of regional frequencies, and upgauge the profitable routes, while limiting competitive access and evicting 23 low cost airlines. All the while artificially constraining access which will push fares and margins higher, to the benefit of the remaining large lost holders... who are KLM/DL and their partners.
Agree to disagree.