3 ms·

For the Netherlands, being a flight hub is (considered to be) a massive boost to the economy. Hence we want KLM to keep flying so that Amsterdam remains a fligh

by rocqua 6y ago

For the Netherlands, being a flight hub is (considered to be) a massive boost to the economy. Hence we want KLM to keep flying so that Amsterdam remains a flight-hub.

Freak_NL 6y ago
Who's 'we'? There are three factions in this debate in the Netherlands. Most Dutch couldn't care less about KLM-Air France since it stopped being the national airline (nostalgia aside, KLM-Air France is just another big international airline). A large part of this group just wants cheap tickets to sunny holiday locations, and usually fly with price-fighters like EasyJet (not KLM-Air France). Some more commercially minded folk do feel that we need a strong KLM-Air France and have its hub of Schiphol airport grow to act as the engine block of our economy. Then there is the non-negligible number of Dutch who would like to look forward to a future that is more sustainable than what we have now, and who feel that we could really do with a little less flying overall. Also that the boost-to-the-economy argument is tenuous at best. The opposition to opening Lelystad Airport as an annex for mainport Schiphol is proof that this is not just a fringe group of NIMBY's.
- bkor 6y ago
  The people who were able to pump billions of EUR into KLM. So basically VVD. It doesn't really seem to matter that others have a different opinion. What matters is that billions go into an unsustainable company, were I mean unsustainable on basis of money. Follow the money did an article on KLM. Giving money to KLM is like throwing your money away, it such a poor investment. It's worse than just donating. Instead of that you could also e.g. invest that money in the off-gas transition. Meaning, insulate houses. That would help the economy, help the ecological goals, etc. Instead, KLM gets money but in a weird way, all kinds of unrealistic conditions. It's interesting how it doesn't make sense to give KLM money either ecological wise, nor economical. Still, they get billions.
- rocqua 6y ago
  The government in general, and to a certain extent me as-well (despite me voting left of D66). The fact that Schiphol is a major hub helps make us a bigger player in international trade. It helps setting up main offices here (which bring in decent tax, and maybe some jobs too). In general, on this issue, I trust the VVD to get the economic side somewhat correct. They are pretty smart people, and not totally evil. And they care a lot about the economic side. So I tend to believe them when they say 'this will be good for the economy'. Especially when they come up with an underlying mechanism that seems quite plausible to me.

by rocqua 6y ago

For the Netherlands, being a flight hub is (considered to be) a massive boost to the economy. Hence we want KLM to keep flying so that Amsterdam remains a flight-hub.

Freak_NL 6y ago

Who's 'we'? There are three factions in this debate in the Netherlands. Most Dutch couldn't care less about KLM-Air France since it stopped being the national airline (nostalgia aside, KLM-Air France is just another big international airline). A large part of this group just wants cheap tickets to sunny holiday locations, and usually fly with price-fighters like EasyJet (not KLM-Air France). Some more commercially minded folk do feel that we need a strong KLM-Air France and have its hub of Schiphol airport grow to act as the engine block of our economy. Then there is the non-negligible number of Dutch who would like to look forward to a future that is more sustainable than what we have now, and who feel that we could really do with a little less flying overall. Also that the boost-to-the-economy argument is tenuous at best. The opposition to opening Lelystad Airport as an annex for mainport Schiphol is proof that this is not just a fringe group of NIMBY's.

bkor 6y ago
The people who were able to pump billions of EUR into KLM. So basically VVD. It doesn't really seem to matter that others have a different opinion. What matters is that billions go into an unsustainable company, were I mean unsustainable on basis of money. Follow the money did an article on KLM. Giving money to KLM is like throwing your money away, it such a poor investment. It's worse than just donating. Instead of that you could also e.g. invest that money in the off-gas transition. Meaning, insulate houses. That would help the economy, help the ecological goals, etc. Instead, KLM gets money but in a weird way, all kinds of unrealistic conditions. It's interesting how it doesn't make sense to give KLM money either ecological wise, nor economical. Still, they get billions.
rocqua 6y ago
The government in general, and to a certain extent me as-well (despite me voting left of D66). The fact that Schiphol is a major hub helps make us a bigger player in international trade. It helps setting up main offices here (which bring in decent tax, and maybe some jobs too). In general, on this issue, I trust the VVD to get the economic side somewhat correct. They are pretty smart people, and not totally evil. And they care a lot about the economic side. So I tend to believe them when they say 'this will be good for the economy'. Especially when they come up with an underlying mechanism that seems quite plausible to me.