Air France on the ropes (again)?
 

The BBC is reporting that the current pay dispute at Air France may see the name disappear

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-44021431

The present French government seems to be prepared to call the unions' bluff, unlike previous French administrations that have always buckled to union pressure.

IMHO, not before time.

The end of Air France is the best thing that could happen to KLM. The oh-so-wise financial people who brought about that dysfunctional merger didn't understand the huge cultural differences between those two countries and those two entitities. I fly KLM very often internationally. In many cases I could choose Air France and save both time and money. I (and many other frequent flyers) will not do that. Enough said.

Macron's government also says it will not agree to the demands of SNCF unions for a raise, in spite of the rail strikes which have been disrupting the French rail system for over a month.

The train operators' desires for higher wages along with the lifetime employment and full pension at age 52 provided in current contracts is certainly understandable, but I assume the government recognizes the future financial obligations may be impossible to meet.

I, on the contrary, will go out of my way to fly AF. KLM is very good, too. I have once in a while been affected by strikes (like now), but this is not what matters to me in the long run.

Air France may disappear , to be restarted as France air, with more hours/year half the fleet, half the staff and half the salaries..That is what happened with Sabena and to a lesser extend with Swissair. No reason it could not be done with AF.
Hop could also become "independent " and take over all the A 319-320-321s.. a la Eurowings..
But everyone in France seems to agree that the statu-quo is not tenable..certainly not with petrol prices going up as they currently do.

Funny that, I have always found KLM to offer the cheapest of the fares and absolutely hate it when the AF website puts me on KLM flights.

Every single trip with KLM has been miserable and I, as well as many colleagues, avoid them at all cost.

Enough said.

Any organisation that agrees to, and puts in place a system whereby its employees receive a pension for far longer than the years they have worked, deserves to go under.

You tend to find that these are either state run, or where the state has a sizeable interest, and that other taxpayers have to fork out for benefits that they, themselves, can never dream of.

Schweizer2,

It can depend on where you're booking from. Where I live (in The Netherlands) the KLM site tends to offer cheaper fares with AF than KL simply because it involves a connection in Paris. However, if I book KL from either BRU or DUS (via AMS) I can get equally good bargains. Since I live closer (by road) to both BRU and DUS than AMS that suits me nicely. Same as a poster above, I avoid AF like the plague, even if it costs me more to do so.

Funny isn't it, crews trying to protect the contract they have enjoyed for many years, left unsustainable due to other companies being able to operate on a much cheaper basis than AF.
I guess this has nothing to do with other crews accepting worse terms within the industry, I suppose the salaries we now receive are considered normal. Perhaps we should consider making the pay 2 fly schemes the new norm. Surely it should become another industry standard reduction to our expected career packages.

We are quick to judge and mock the French for their endless disputes and blame them for being inconsiderate when it comes to causing inconvenience to the travelling public, or us when we are delayed by ATC strikes, but hey, I wouldn't want to be a nuisance, I'll just sign my contract reductions as they come.

The KLM cabin product has improved, but the reason I avoid ending up on an Air France operated flight is the fear for my own safety, rational or otherwise. For good measure, AF product is ok-ish when it all goes to plan, but when the wheels fall of, the customer is typically faced with an arrogant "tant-pis"!

A winding up of the AF brand has the benefit of closing a book on decades of terrible and avoidable accidents, which do a disservice to KLMs good record since the 70s.

Joe le Taxi

Let's see how long your post survives before it's modded out.
In the past I've mentioned AF's safety record, in a polite way, and bingo! deleted.

Basket case airline.

AF, and the blame is both of staff and managers, has simply never moved on from 15 years ago.

Will KLM has restructured, cut costs and largely carried AF for many years the French have shown an incredible degree of arrogance in their approach to the industry, and the changing world.

Are we really surprised by this....errrr....no. AF simply do not deserve to exist.

BBC reports
"Shares in Air France fell 14% in early Monday trading, reacting to the latest events at the troubled airline.
It was the first chance investors had had to respond to chief executive Jean-Marc Janaillac's resignation and comments by France's economy minister."

So if AF is struggling in it's current form.....how is it going to fund it's part of the JV with KLM to buy of 31% of VS which has not been completed? More accountancy smoke and mirrors?

The only people who need Air France are those who, directly or indirectly, receive money from it.
Paying passengers who now give money to Air France will simply be able to give it to someone else.

test message
 

Replying to assist Ibobi in trouble shooting.

A couple of decades or more ago, well before the AK/KLM merger (or whatever it is) was mooted, and KLM had spurned the advances of BA, AF was technically bankrupt. It was reported that the interest payments on their debt was greater than their operating income (I think it was). At the time KLM was reasonably profitable for a national carrier at that time.
AF needed restructuring. Brussels had already said no government subsidies to the likes of Alitalia, Olympic, Iberia etc. The French president went to Brussels and demanded that AF could not go to the wall. He asked to be allowed to give 3 'tranches' of money over a 2-3 year period to bail out AF. The 2nd & 3rd tranche would only be allowed by Brussels if there had been significant positive restructuring. Somehow or other he conned Brussels into agreement and they survived where others struggled. The irony is that KLM then had its own woes and AF stepped in as the senior partner, just as BA had tried and been rejected. I think KLM have been regretting it ever since. Both have strong unions, but of very different hue, as is the management.
What I never understood, not could I find anyone on the inside to tel me, is what happened to the 5 year transition plan. There was supposed to be a 5 year transition period after the partnership was established, and then what. And in all the negotiations and valuations you never heard anything of Martinair or Transavia's future being mentioned, nor even their value being included. One wonders if they had been included, and personnel, would that group have been larger than AF and then KLM might have had the lead. There is possibly much hidden behind closed doors and in dusty files.

Nobody talks about the shareholders.
When AF bought part of KLM, who were in not so good shape, they did so at a much higher market rate, to the shareholders delight.
Parting ways now would obviously not be in AFs benefit ( wait and see),so why exactly would they?