I've given it more thought, and taken a more balanced opinion. I think this isn't as bad for KLM/Delta as it was for some other airlines. But it's complicated.

I do have a question, if KLM has hundreds of flights per day, and has to reduce movements by X number per day, does anything say it must be a widebody, or any required mix of aircraft at all? Or can they just reduce X number of movements of their smallest aircraft?

Also, reducing 3.1% of a large number of flights is easy mathematically. What about an airline that only has 10 movements per day at AMS? Does the new rules require them to round that .31 flights per day a certain way? Common sense says that airline still gets to operate 10 flights per day, but I suspect they might be required to reduce to 9?

Anyone know the answers?

 

Interesting, wasn't that part of the argument for the A380. Move the most people with as little departures as possible.....haha well time sure exposed the poor logic there. It is safe to say that jumbo was a dumbo.
Just because something or someone is European doesn't automatically make them smarter than North Americans........although this flawed theory is omnipresent is many areas of life not just aviation.

I always hear these interviews with these stern, stoic sounding Dutchmen who say " De Problim witt America ist, your engineering and science ist bat (bad) New Orlins ist below sea level and it ist destroyed and we schtill have Amschterdam and many Otha schitt *ies because ov da dykesh". ......completely ignoring the fact that the lack of Hurricanes in the North Sea maaaaaaaaay have helped your dijks.

The Dutch can get away with holding tourists hostage with this Green stunt, well because they can. On the other hand the Scottish government knows outside of the VFR market in Canada and Australia, nobody really has Edinburgh on their bucket list and they have gone out of their way to be accommodating to JetBlue. If they pulled a Green stunt like this it would cripple their economy for years.

 

Do you feel better now?

So you don't know if KLM can simply reduce their E175/190 CityHopper flights and keep all their mainline flying?

 

Slots in our shores usually don't specify equipment.....I can't see why they wouldn't just reduce the CityHopper flying just the same.
The argument for this I recall is reducing flights not reducing flights flown by bick (big) planesh.

 

That's what I assume as well. Delta for years plugged up JFK with RJs just to sit on the slots so others couldn't have them. AA in LGA and DCA did/does the same. I don't know a lot of about KLMs network, but they own the lions share of AMS slots, and wouldn't be surprised if they had several RJ flights a day they could take or leave if push came to shove. It would be very easy to see where KLM would pull down 3% of regional flights while their competitors had to pull down long haul bread and butter flights to AMS.

Others thought Delta would be hurt more than JB by this AMS reduction? That's crazy. If Delta does 20 flights per day to AMS, they would have to pull one down (3.1% reduction, rounded up). So they would still have 19 flights per day. JB would have to give up their 2 flights a day, a 100% reduction. Yes, I know, no historic rights. Some will argue, yeah but that DL flight is a widebody and they are losing 300 seats a day each way, and JB is two narrow bodies a day at 280 seats each way. Well AMS will now be highly artificially constrained (read higher fares, higher margins), and I'd rather have 96.9% (19 remaining flights per day) of a highly artificially constrained high fare high margin market than 0%.

Delta/KLM have 86-87% of the US-AMS market share, and 100% of the BOS/JFK-AMS market. Even with a 3% haircut, that is still an extreme monopoly. And all their competitors have to take between a 3.1% and 100% haircut... And depending on how the AMS rules require the math on that 3.1%, it may affect smaller slot portfolios more than large slot portfolios.

Now, for the TWENTY THREE airlines that would have a 100% reduction in service, I would bet the majority of those airlines skew LCC. So kicking those twenty three low cost, low fare airlines out of AMS would be a windfall for the remaining slot holders, who would not have to compete with them in this artificially constrained high fare high margin market.

 

Yep. KLM pretending to be upset by this was all part of the plan IMO.

 

What you are missing is the activists don't want "low fare" airlines at all anymore in Europe. They want tourism constrained and prices to double if possible. They want the peasants to go by train and leave the flying to the fewer well heeled among them.

 

You're adorable. This is KLM/Delta protecting their cash cow, using noise/environment as the excuse.

JB had to operate it's small daily schedule out of two different TERMINALS in ATL. Two gates, each in a different TERMINAL in ATL because of Delta's influence over the ATL airport authority. To this day JB has two gates, at opposite ends of the same terminal, finally. Dominant airlines have significant control over airport authorities.

Schipol airport authority is using noise/environment as an excuse to make flight cuts that predominantly harm carriers other than KLM/Delta. While KLM/Delta have to reduce flights by 3.1%, their competitors have to reduce their flights by 3.1-100%. KLM/Delta have the lions share of the flights, they can take a trim, and upgauge. And frankly, this whole gambit is artificially restricting capacity, which means fares/margins will get pushed up, and the primary beneficiaries of that are the airlines that still get to operate a very large network there.

 

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.