It appears that JetBlue will be forced out of Amsterdam Schiphol Airport next year and now the carrier is calling for retaliation by US officials…against KLM.
JetBlue Wants US DOT To Punish KLM For Dutch Government’s Amsterdam Flight Limits
The Dutch government is proceeding with its silly new “green” flight cap and pursuant to that aim, will restrict annual flights from 500,000 to 452,500, a reduction of about 10%.
To reach that goal, per Bloomberg, 24 airlines “without historical rights and slots” at the airport will lose their current slots. Then, those with historical slots will be forced to trim their flight schedules by 3.1%.
JetBlue does not have “historic rights” at AMS and only began service from Boston and New York earlier this year.
Facing the prospect of being forced to cancel flights, JetBlue wants the US Department of Transportation to ban KLM from New York JFK:
“If the Dutch Government is allowed to effectively expel new entrant JetBlue from AMS without facing any consequential and proportional countermeasures from the Department, other governments may decide to follow suit.”
Is this a foolish proposal or is it a reasonable countermeasure to the action of the Dutch government?
KLM is the flag carrier of The Netherlands but is privately-owned and has been a vocal opponent of the new flights caps. While I strongly oppose the actions of the Dutch government (which strike me as similar to the serious overreactions of many governments during the pandemic without consideration to their damaging effects), seeking revenge on KLM will only make a bad matter even worse.
Consumers will suffer due to the lack of JetBlue service with higher fares and more limited schedules. But if KLM was also banned, the effects would be even worse: fares would be higher and schedules even more limited.
I think there is great merit in the US, for whatever influence it may have, seeking to convince the Dutch government to limit these measures to shorthaul flights. But punishing KLM strikes me as almost as a non-sequitur and the principle of punishing bad behavior with bad behavior is not constructive.
However, unlike One Mile At A Time, I do appreciate the case JetBlue is making for this countermeasure: if the Dutch government is acting in a manner detrimental to a US carrier, the US can respond in kind. And while KLM is certainly protesting the new flight caps, it stands to benefit most of all by forcing out low-cost competition on both shorthaul and longhaul routes.
CONCLUSION
While the impending flight cuts at AMS are foolish and ill-timed, they are not targeted at JetBlue or the United States. Therefore, the contention by JetBlue that the US should retaliate by blocking KLM strikes me as precisely the wrong move to set. Instead, the US should set the example by working to improve its airspace over New York so it can handle even more flights, including increased service from both JetBlue and KLM. And yet I do appreciate JetBlue’s point: it’s not unreasonable, just not a great idea.
Is there something I am missing? Does JetBlue have reasonable point that the US should punish KLM?
image: JetBlue
Yeah but it isn’t like they are banning all US airlines or even all US airlines from JFK. If they did then JetBlue would actually have a decent case and one with merit.
The other thing is that KL is against the Dutch government’s curb on flights at AMS and are actively suing the Dutch government regarding it, at least according to those in the KL Flyertalk threads. B6’s team is either doing a publicity stunt (which is more likely) rather than actually believing in this so that they can get their slot back at AMS.
Fair play to kick KLM out of JFK (and maybe more US airports) over this. The Dutch government’s actions ban a US carrier from operating the route (which is the only major international destination in the country) for capricious and arbitrary reasons. No reason that the US must continue allowing Dutch carriers to be able to take advantage of full access to the American market.
This sounds more like JetBlue “making a scene” for more publicity, hoping that it would influence the court of public opinion to lean in their favor.
And I want B6 banned from existence at all airports. Let’s see who gets their way first.
The issue here is not about JetBlue or KLM but rather the Dutch government’s anti-competitive approach. If they had just instituted a flight cap / slot control system across the board there would be no issue. However, to favor “historical” carriers is where the problem is. It’s obviously a move to protect their local carrier at the expense of others and that is simply not allowed under Open Skies arrangements.
While both are private companies, I would argue that JetBlue’s request is perfect reasonable because it targets the EXACT place where it needs to: the Dutch government. Let’s be real, no Dutch government official is going to fly JetBlue to the US, so what do they care banning a small-time player in the market. But ban the carrier these shortsighted morons are flying across the Atlantic (up front I’m sure) and you’ve immediately caught their attention.
Who cares about constituents and the general flying public…but don’t mess with the ‘important’ people’s cushy ride to the US!
Air France KLM may be a private company in concept, but the governments of France & the Netherlands have partial ownership and seats at the director’s table: (as per AIR FRANCE KLM web page):
– Other (registered and bearer shares) – 44.2%
– French State – 28.6%
– Dutch State – 9.3%
– CMA CGM – 9%
– China Eastern Airlines – 4.7%
– Delta Air Lines – 2.9%
– Employees (FCPE) – 1.2%
– Treasury shares – 0.1%
Instead of banning KLM (which is privately owned and not the guilty party here) why not go for the kill and threaten to cancel or renegotiate the US-NL Open Skies Agreement. I think that would send a much stronger message to The Hague and I’m sure the silly new game the Dutch Govt is playing will end fast.
Let’s see how consumers feel when KLM raises fares 30% due to a lack of competition. They may be applauding now but when it starts to hit their wallets expect an Australian style revolt in begging for these new airlines.
Haha Australian style right on point. Every time a new carrier enters the market in oz they reduce fares. Then qantas matches and everyone goes “oh I can fly wantas for the same price!” (Even though I was complaining about them last week). Then newco goes bust.
B6 is fun to discuss on travel blogs, but they’re largely irrelevant in the TATL market. They haven’t disrupted pricing, nor have they made competitors improve. Some airlines were going to get cut, and a single daily A320 that just happens to be coming from JFK seems like a fairly logical choice to me.
They can cry all they want, but the only people who suffer from B6 eliminating AMS service is the JetBlue marketing team.
JetBlue’s argument is worth considering because they are being banned even though they operate flights. That might be like kicking South Sudan out of the UN because they are a young nation.
More fair would be for all airlines to be cut 3%.
The issue here is that the US DOT has granted KLM and Delta anti-trust immunity for their joint venture on the basis of open skies between the US and Netherlands. The Dutch government is now excluding new entrants and it’s highly likely that this is in violation of open skies. Given this, it’s not appropriate to give such immunity to the only two carriers allowed on the route. So, I agree that banning KLM from JFK is a bit much, but I’d be in full support of revoking the anti-trust immunity currently enjoyed by DL and KLM.
Let me start off by saying I’m not against JetBlue but the problem that I see with JetBlue’s argument is if the Dutch government makes an exception for JetBlue they have to make an exception for the other 23 airlines who in addition to JetBlue will also loose access to AMS come summer of 2024. I get this is a US blog so the only airline we are talking about is B6 but there are 23 other airlines in the same boat as B6. If there is to be some type of resolution it can’t just be for B6 only it would have to involve those other carriers.
Do we know if those other carriers are filing their own protest with their own governments as well and is there a way for the DOT to team up with those other governments to persuade the Dutch government to reconsider its position.
I am with Matthew here in that I appreciate the case that JetBlue is making here. I think that it is a worrying precedent. And yes, KLM may be filing suit against the Dutch government and protesting the flight caps, but.
1.) It’s easy to protest something that works out in your favor when you’re fairly certain that it’s going to happen anyway. It’s like arguing over the check at a restaurant. I can protest someone else paying it, but they’re the senior person at the table with the corporate card so they’re gonna win anyway.
2.) Worst case they ban KLM, with joint-ventures and such couldn’t Delta and/or Air France just backfill the capacity? I would worry though any such action by the US (which I agree is very very unlikely) would send a message to other countries that may do something silly (like ban a US carrier from flying there, when they don’t even have a flag carrier that flies to the US – like let’s say Liberia who likes to threaten Delta whenever their President has to ride a 767 with old seats).
But on the flip side, as mentioned, JetBlue is not a long-serving carrier at AMS and its continuation of service was a question from the start anyway, but they figured to go ahead and fly there and argue the point as an incumbent. Capacity and slot controls are things the airlines deal with for a variety of reasons all over the world. Sometimes you lose because someone has to lose.
JetBlue also does not provide the same level of service to the US/Netherlands market as KLM. First off the cargo alone that KLM carries is massive, and the westbound cargo just in flowers supports a lot of US business. There’s an economic argument there that KLM’s service has a higher impact. Additionally, KLM provides onward connections to many points that have few options or the best connecting option from the US, such as some African destinations. Arguably westbound, JetBlue doesn’t provide service to anywhere that you either can’t get otherwise out of JFK on someone else, or on a Delta codeshare thru JFK or another gateway.
3rd world sh#thole, all US carriers should remove all flights there and see how fast these righteous bastards change their tune. Besides they are a bunch of racists with their Black Petes.. No reason for any American to ever visit.
Loool you’re funny.
What’s wrong with Zwarte Piet?
Yes, because all these passengers from Linköping, Tallinn, Poznań, Humberside, Stavanger, Bilbao etc are gagging to fly JetBlue to the USA connecting on separate tickets. 70% of KLM pax aren’t travelling from/to AMS, and I am pretty certain that the number is even higher when it comes to intercontinental pax.
If “Punishing bad behaviour with bad behaviour is not constructive” then the same applies to abhorrent behaviour, presumably?
So does that principle also apply in the middle east?
Sorry to bring a topical political issue into this….
AMS is one of the best European Airports for connection to high speed rail. The Dutch government need to do as the French have and ban short haul flights on distances of less than 500km and KLM need to introduce through check in on all routes within the Netherlands just as Swiss have in Switzerland – it’s not new there, it goes back to the time of Swissair and it’s highly successful.
So, my question is: what prompted the Dutch government’s actions? Could it be the shortages of personnel to adequately staff the various airport functions required to maintain smooth operations, too many flights that couldn’t be properly handled, too many people crowding the too few security posts all of which led to chaos over the summers of 2021, 2022, and 2023? Any airport wants to be efficient, wants to be offer timely services and turn-arounds to its customers, airlines, cargo and passengers. Clearly, AMS does not feel it could offer this service at this time. It is strictly an internal matter to the Dutch and JetBlue, along with other affected carriers can be accommodated at BRU or DUS.