|
New AF/KLM CEO killing the one part of the company that makes money?
Interesting times in KLM/AF... The new CEO is trying to get full control of the company and in doing so creating big upsets @KLM at all levels as all the staff is behind the current CEO who has been doing a great job... That is interesting as the losses and problems are at the AF side. Get the popcorn out as it will become very nasty as the Dutch have learned from the french that striking is the way to get your way in KLM/AF.
The KLM/AF CEO is today in the Netherlands on a secret (!) mission to get the pilot union on his side.. |
Interesting times ahead...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nit-ceo-elbers |
"The new CEO is trying to get full control of the company" Is that strange? We could re-formulate like this: the dutch side does not want the group's CEO to control them. |
Originally Posted by fab777
(Post 10389713)
"The new CEO is trying to get full control of the company" Is that strange? We could re-formulate like this: the dutch side does not want the group's CEO to control them. and why do the french lose money? Hint: allergy to work —> eager to strike. and no: im not in KLM, im flying for the LH group |
Originally Posted by sekmeth
(Post 10389827)
its not that! The dutch side knows that without a partner, KLM would be much smaller then it is today, what the dutch dont want, is to make up the losses from their french colleagues, leaving no money to invest in their own product. and why do the french lose money? Hint: allergy to work —> eager to strike. and no: im not in KLM, im flying for the LH group |
If only it had been BA KLM.
|
You only have to look at the comparison in operating results over the last 5 years to see why KLM employees would be unhappy at a change at the top. There have been big efforts across the company to get past the effects of the recession and fight off the unfair competition from further east. The person at the top in my opinion has been critical to this success so far. |
|
Originally Posted by Hotel Tango
(Post 10389934)
The poster stated he/she worked for the LH Group. That does not mean he/she is LH crew! Don't confuse LH and the LH Group! Yes LH have had strikes, but other carriers within the group were not part of the industrial action.
|
Originally Posted by sekmeth
(Post 10389827)
and why do the french lose money? Hint: allergy to work —> eager to strike. thus you may drop that idea that french are just "lazy" (And also have a look at AF-KLM group's financial datas) |
Good to read such harmony among different countries and airlines of the EU.
Now do people see why 'ever closer union' won't work? |
Originally Posted by sudden twang
(Post 10389887)
If only it had been BA KLM.
|
The parent company is considering replacing Elbers over concern he may not fully support plans to strengthen ties between the two carriers, which came together in a 2004 merger yet have long operated semi-independently and suffer a cultural divide. |
Originally Posted by sudden twang
(Post 10389887)
If only it had been BA KLM.
|
Or should have stayed 'single', with SQ as an succesful example....
|
Originally Posted by overfly
(Post 10390098)
Good to read such harmony among different countries and airlines of the EU.
Now do people see why 'ever closer union' won't work? The EU as an economical entity exposes deep problems in France, where yellow jerseys protest because the economy of France can not keep up with northern EU members. Makes this “battle” quite explosive, full of politics. |
I am not sure that you understand the yellow jerseys protest....
So, maybe better to keep on aviation facts and as said by fab777, look at AF-KLM group's financial data. Also, why KLM was never able to make any allainces in Europe: British Airways, Air Littoral, Alitalia and other ones that I do not remember. Oh, I know, this is because of the others, nothing to do with the Dutch culture! |
Being French myself but having worked in Holland for over 30 years, I can I believe understand both cultures. The Dutch should forget for a moment their natural sense of knowing everything better and perhaps look at what happened in the last decades to airlines in countries of similar size : Sabena, Swisair, Malev etc.. all gone. Without a successful merger they probably also be gone today. What the French should also put their natural senses of being a superior power ( a bit like the Brits :E) and stop treating the Dutch and KLM as inferiors . Without the KLM merger AF would also not be what it is today. The traditional AF milk cows of monopolies in both domestic and Outre-mer routes is no longer there. And the synergy of using 2 hubs SPL and CDG brings money to both airlines.
Today a Canadian , coming from outside Europe, wants to reshuffle the cards and probably is not bothered by national prides and only looks at both airlines as just departments of a larger company.. I cannot say this is a bad thing. per se. Egos bruised , oh yes, but is this the most important ?. |
Good point! But in recent years my company didnt strike. And its not that im against strikes. But it doesnt make sence to strike over a payrise while your company (not the holding) loses money.
|
ATC Watcher nails it. Since the 'merger' took place not a great deal has changed and all the usual advantages of a merger have not been realised. When merging, the best is to action FAST. Push the two together and do the horrible job of making redundancies and cuts - THEN build something new and, hopefully, improved. If they do not change they will get taken over, however, SkyTeam cannot let them fail. Many fireworks before this is settled.
Countless large mergers fail because the two cultures will not merge or were not compatible in the first place. Daimler Chrysler for example threw away some $29 BILLION. The whole article (and others related to this huge waste of money) should be read by all at the top tables in KLM/AF (of course there is the problem - there should only be one top table): Harvard Business Review That Daimler can sell Chrysler as a more-or-less intact unit to a private equity firm tells you all you need to know about why the combination failed. The two organizations never were integrated into anything that approached a cohesive whole. The potential synergies that were used to justify the deal went unrealized. Why did this happen? Because the two organizations really didn’t like each other, and couldn’t cooperate to the extent necessary to make the combination work. Serious efforts to integrate the operations of Daimler and Chrysler foundered on lack of trust clashes between the mid-market cowboys of Detroit and the high-end knights of Stuttgart. The seeds of post-merger disintegration were sown early when it became obvious that a “merger of equals” was actually a takeover of Chrysler by Daimler. And there were unbridgeable differences in the cultures of the two organizations. As is too often the case in acquisitions, the synergies were all on the surface. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:37. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.