If you need slots, just threaten a country..
 

https://aircargoworld.com/allposts/a...sian-airspace/

How about other companies not having the "luxury" to threaten a country (read legacy carrier)?

It smells/stinks...

Indeed it does. That's the price of dealing with a regime run by bullies.

I now it's fashionable for people to write all sorts of disparaging remarks about Russia, generally done by those who have not visited or even have knowledge of the country, but this sort of stunt as pulled by the Amsterdam slot "co-ordinator" really hacks off those from countries which have no restrictions on carriers coming the other way, and notice carriers from those countries appear able to change and flex schedules, and add services, at their home base without difficulty.

If KLM mounted exactly the same cargo operations and flexibility as ABC do, they could do so without restriction because they can pool all their flights to get the 80% overall figure. It just picks off carriers from other countries and gives the home team an advantage.

It's not as if Amsterdam has a shortage of runways, is it ...

It's not about runways, it's that the airport is already at its maximum number of flights, governed by agreements made because of noise and polution.
Seeing the trouble KLM seems to have with the slot coördinator lately, I doubt this move was done with KLM in mind.

Care to explain?

Thanks to the klm "connection" with their government "problem" solved...

Lets say i want/need a slot at ams, nowadays impossible!

How did this deal got approved? Only the local legacy carrier was willing to give in a little.

KLM wanted to expand this summer, but wasn't able because all slots were already given out. Allthough, to be honest, that problem was more with the airport than the coördinator. KLM wanted more slots too, but couldn't het them.

And while the russian government would close the airspace tot all Dutch airlines, KLM would have been the only/biggest loser in this dispute. Little wonder KLM tried tot solve it to prevent a huge loss on the flights niet going through russian airspace.
And the solution was partly giving up some of the slots of KLM.

While this whole ordeal stinks, I can't blame KLM for choosing this solution, since closure would meander byebye to most far eastern flights.

if KLM didn't have slot-sitters there might be a bit more understanding. They were using Fokker F-70s on Amsterdam to London Heathrow until recently.

And your point is?

My point is that the Netherlands authorities take action against the way that foreign cargo carriers work, while tolerating Slot Sitting by their major national carrier with trivial aircraft on their most heavily travelled route. So they are happy to game the system both ways to suit their national interests.

And so the Russians have defended their own national interests. Good for them.

Typical of an area SPL, where the noise and pollution lobby is not listening to common sense.
On another level, nobody in the airline industry really wants to upset the Russians at the moment , because if a war erupts over Kurdish territory involving Turkey and Iran, the only way to get to/from Asia from Europe will be via Russian airspace...:hmm:

There are rules when applying and using a slot (at Schiphol and most other airports). If you do not abide by these rules, as the cargo airline neglected to do, you risk losing your slots.
LHR has rules, but they do not include the minimum size and/or minimum number of passengers per flight. KLM played by the rules and therefore keeps the slots, ABC didn't and lost them.

This is actually quite straightforward when the rules are devised to suit the way your mates do business, and not their competitors.

well it is their country..................

I meant they play by the rules of LHR, since you brought those flights up.
And you can't possibly suggest the UK considers KLM as their mate.

Apart from what the UK does, KLM has had a lot of issues with the amount of slots they did(n't) get this year and have complained about the way slots are distributed. They might or might not have a good point, but saying KLM and the slot coördinator/airport are "mates" is stretching it a bit...

As a russian national who lived long years in both ussr and russia, I can tell you that those "disparaging" remarks are just the tip of the iceberg. I don't want to go into the details, but I'm not surprised by the fact that Netherlands were bullied by russians and gave up. No matter what KLM did, the fact is: they were bullied and they gave up.

not the first time & won't be the last time either:

Qatar CEO Threatens Dutch Government Over Landing Slots - One Mile at a Time

While in theory a slot pair could be used by any sized aircraft, the reality is often different. A pair which gives a 45-60 minute on ground time can easily be used by a F70, it cannot be used by an A380.

You also need airport infrastructure. You cannot have 40 A380s on the ground simultaneously at most airports (except DXB which has the infrastructure).

Slot allocation is not as simple as it seems.

Note that the slots have only been lent to ABC, KL retains the right to them. They could lose them, however, if ABC again fails to use them 80% of the time.

Yes, the Russians love to intimidate others to get their own way, but for me this is symptomatic of the larger problem that the flight infrastructure in Europe is beginning to creak like an old bridge. Passenger numbers and freight volumes are only going to increase and sooner or later we will reach a breaking point from an infrastructure perspective. Too many people, too little space, too few airports and too many aircraft. Just my 2 ha'peth on the bigger picture.

Same as any other powerful country, they do what it takes. As for a "regime" having lived in Moscow nearly twenty years I have yet to see evidence of this...

Precisely :)

For those who don't get how the 80% rule favours the home team ...

The slots are normally for whatever usage an airline desires. A few may be tied to specific destinations but most are by carrier. So the home user (KLM here, BA at Heathrow, etc) can flex things within the slot season, often by just a few minutes, so they quite readily do conform overall to the requirement. They may not be able to get extra flights but they don't run the risk of the use-it-or-lose-it-rule.

Visiting carriers, especially low frequency intercontinental ones, do not have this capability, and all-cargo carriers whose business flexes with customer demand even more so. Because much freight is nowadays belly cargo rather than in freighters, apart from the worldwide small package specialists, all the mainstream freight facilities are at the main airport, for interlining, agency offices, 24 hour service, etc, so going off to an obscure alternative is impractical. But it even applies to low frequency passenger flights.

For carriers from countries without slot restrictions (which, worldwide, is most of them), it is thus particularly unreasonable that while the likes of KLM or BA can readily operate back to their territory without restriction, the restriction is very much seen as a one way street. Open Skies, but the authorities have found another way round it.