Will Ryanair ever order anything other than Boeing 738s?
Will EasyJet go back to Boeing or order something else?

Very hard to tell in a sense because it all depends mainly on price and offer...

EasyJet showed clearly that, should the economics and timing on demand be right, it is quite possible to swap from one maker to another (this when they did swap Boeings to Airbus). Air Baltic has done the same moving to a virtually untested (at the time) aircraft with the C-Series.

KLM it self, did that when they started ditching their Fokkers for the Embraers.

So, I would say that they might be very likely to stick to Boeing at present but if a deal proposed by Airbus is good at that time, then we will never know.

When will KLM order - they seemed clear - provide specs/demands now and order by the end of the year... Unless they release anything new in between, we can speculate for now.

BrianDromey wrote:

I would imagine the A321LR is of interest to KLM, if they want to operate long thin routes into the Middle East, USA or Africa. Otherwise the range limitations of the MAX will be irrelevant. KL were one of the few operators of the non -ER 739.

No, KLM's CEO Elbers stated recently they weren't looking at the A321LR. Neither at the 797. They are busy enough for now preparing the integration of the new widebodies into the fleet (787-10 and A350).
Oh and KL still operates the non-ER 739

kevin5345179 wrote:

based on the mega order all the carriers under AFKL

At the end of 2018 Air France-KLM will select its medium-haul fleet replacement for Air France, HOP!, KLM and Transavia, operating 120 Boeing 737 NG, 118 Airbus A320ceo family, 64 Embraer E-Jets, 25 Bombardier CRJ700 series and 13 Embraer 145.

Just can't see how the B737 will be on the plate:
1. AFKLM still have ~18% own by French state
2. Partnership from Airbus+Cseries can fulfill all the need in 1 stop and easier to negotiate better price
3. Embraer + Boeing probably won't have agreement on JV until next year due to election

Not all of the AF/KL NB fleet will be replaced. Most focus will be on the French side of the fleet.

JayBCNLON wrote:

And of course the decision of KL NOT to buy A320 has been politically motivated as the Dutch were - for all the wrong reasons - upset how EADS then failed to rescue Dutch aircraft builder Fokker.

This couldn't be more wrong. KL not acquiring A320s had nothing to do with Fokker's demise. Besides, EADS played no significant role in Fokker going down.

Jerry123 wrote:

American 767 wrote:

Jerry123 wrote:

They seem happy with the 737 so i don't see why they would change or need to change to Airbus.

Me neither I don't see why, other than the fact that Air France has a lot of Airbus narrowbodies in its fleet. Likewise one would ask: "Why didn't Air France order NG737s?" The only reason I see why Air France would buy NG 737s is KLM and Transavia have those.

I can see KLM ordering the MAX eventually. What will be interesting is which variants as they operate a fair few 700s and 5 or 6 900s and with Schipol getting more slot restricted i'm wondering if they'll replace the 700s with MAX 8s and the 900s with MAX 10s. With Air France i think politically they probably have to have a large Airbus fleet and it makes sense to make that the short haul side. Will be interesting to see if they order the C Series now it's effectively an Airbus jet.

Replacing the 700s with larger variants is possible, even though these are fairly young it appears 4 of them will be replaced by newly leased 800s. The 900s have little resale value so these will probably stay as long as economically viable. The oldest 738s may very well be replaced by MAX-10s.

The average fleet age of the KLM 737 fleet is not high, average age 11.7 years. The oldest 737 is a 17 years old 737-900. It can well go on for another 8 to 10 years. So KLM does not need to buy new narrow aisle frames right at this moment. Transavia frames average 9.4 years and the average fleet age at Cityhopper is 4.7 years.

Regarding KLM buying A320, why not buy the more modern frame if you get a good offer?

mjoelnir wrote:

The average fleet age of the KLM 737 fleet is not high, average age 11.7 years. The oldest 737 is a 17 years old 737-900. It can well go on for another 8 to 10 years. So KLM does not need to buy new narrow aisle frames right at this moment. Transavia frames average 9.4 years and the average fleet age at Cityhopper is 4.7 years.

Regarding KLM buying A320, why not buy the more modern frame if you get a good offer?

Actually, KL has 8 737-800s which are older than the oldest -900. HV leases almost all of their aircraft, so they could potentially start replacing their fleet sooner than KL.

KLM will surely buy the A320 if the offer is good enough to offset the cost of switching from a 737 fleet. As others have posted, this happened when they switched from MD to Boeing. But the market is very competitive, and will Airbus go that far to flip KL?

frigatebird wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The average fleet age of the KLM 737 fleet is not high, average age 11.7 years. The oldest 737 is a 17 years old 737-900. It can well go on for another 8 to 10 years. So KLM does not need to buy new narrow aisle frames right at this moment. Transavia frames average 9.4 years and the average fleet age at Cityhopper is 4.7 years.

Regarding KLM buying A320, why not buy the more modern frame if you get a good offer?

Actually, KL has 8 737-800s which are older than the oldest -900. HV leases almost all of their aircraft, so they could potentially start replacing their fleet sooner than KL.

KLM will surely buy the A320 if the offer is good enough to offset the cost of switching from a 737 fleet. As others have posted, this happened when they switched from MD to Boeing. But the market is very competitive, and will Airbus go that far to flip KL?

KLM is getting 4 new 737-800, if that is not for expansion it will cover the oldest 737-800. Even those are from 1999, so they could soldier on for a few years. There are 13 frames delivered in 1999 and 2000. The next are from 2007.

It seems KLM is satisfied with its 737 European operations.

For Middle East, Africa and high volume city pairs the A321 would definitely offer something extra. I'm not sure if the 737-10 can offer the same capability. I don't have the specs. If those meet the mission requirements for Middle East destinations, say up to Tehran, Boeing has a good chance of getting the NB order.

mjoelnir wrote:

KLM is getting 4 new 737-800, if that is not for expansion it will cover the oldest 737-800. Even those are from 1999, so they could soldier on for a few years. There are 13 frames delivered in 1999 and 2000. The next are from 2007.

The new 738 are either for expansion or replacement of 4x 737-700, not as replacement for older -800s.

frigatebird wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

KLM is getting 4 new 737-800, if that is not for expansion it will cover the oldest 737-800. Even those are from 1999, so they could soldier on for a few years. There are 13 frames delivered in 1999 and 2000. The next are from 2007.

The new 738 are either for expansion or replacement of 4x 737-700, not as replacement for older -800s.

The oldest 737-700 is from 2008, will be 10 years old next August.

mjoelnir wrote:

frigatebird wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

KLM is getting 4 new 737-800, if that is not for expansion it will cover the oldest 737-800. Even those are from 1999, so they could soldier on for a few years. There are 13 frames delivered in 1999 and 2000. The next are from 2007.

The new 738 are either for expansion or replacement of 4x 737-700, not as replacement for older -800s.

The oldest 737-700 is from 2008, will be 10 years old next August.

I know. But with AMS running out of slots in 2020, larger aircraft are needed. My source is Dutch forum Scramble, from someone well informed about these things. Definitely no 738 replacement.

LH982 wrote:

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

I'm not saying that AF is not making their own decisions now, but in the 1980s? Yeah, those A320s were ordered because of the french government.

AF and LH no doubt had a push from their respective government's. Are we to believe that nothing similar ever happened in the US?

Also BA, SN and EI also went with 733/734/735 series at the same time. At next fleet renewal they went Airbus. Are we speculating that this was local or French government interference?

probably a bit more subtle in the U.S. Going way back, Aloha, Capital, Hawaiian, Northeast, and United operated Vickers Viscounts; Air Wisconsin, Aloha, American, Braniff, and Mohawk operated BAC One Elevens, American and US Air operated Fokker F100's , Hawaiian and Piedmont operated Nihon YS11's, and United operated Caravelles. But later on, it took a lot of work to get U.S. carriers to buy Airbus equipment. if Airbus hadn't pretty much given A300's to Eastern free for a six month trial, they would likely not have sold any to them, American, and Continental (or Northeastern). But there wasn't any overt pressure to buy American from the government, at least if you compare it to British government's pushing BEA and BOAC to buy British, as well as the French pushing Air Inter and Air France.

superjeff wrote:

LH982 wrote:

Polot wrote:

AF and LH no doubt had a push from their respective government's. Are we to believe that nothing similar ever happened in the US?

Also BA, SN and EI also went with 733/734/735 series at the same time. At next fleet renewal they went Airbus. Are we speculating that this was local or French government interference?

probably a bit more subtle in the U.S. Going way back, Aloha, Capital, Hawaiian, Northeast, and United operated Vickers Viscounts; Air Wisconsin, Aloha, American, Braniff, and Mohawk operated BAC One Elevens, American and US Air operated Fokker F100's , Hawaiian and Piedmont operated Nihon YS11's, and United operated Caravelles. But later on, it took a lot of work to get U.S. carriers to buy Airbus equipment. if Airbus hadn't pretty much given A300's to Eastern free for a six month trial, they would likely not have sold any to them, American, and Continental (or Northeastern). But there wasn't any overt pressure to buy American from the government, at least if you compare it to British government's pushing BEA and BOAC to buy British, as well as the French pushing Air Inter and Air France.

People should show some proof, about the pressure from the French or British Government.

Let us set up a nice anti USA argument. The USA government was subsidizing the fleets of USA airlines, to be able to use them in times of war. Because of this subsidies they forced the airlines to buy USA frames, withholding those subsidies when foreign frames were bought. The system is called Civil Reserve Air Fleet.
Sounds logical, that is why it does not need any proof.

I am very curious what will happen when Air France/KLM/Transavia decide on the NEO/MAX. They have significant numbers of A320s and 737s. I fully expect it to be a fair competition but I also would be very surprised if the A320neo is not ordered by the group.

mjoelnir wrote:

superjeff wrote:

LH982 wrote:

probably a bit more subtle in the U.S. Going way back, Aloha, Capital, Hawaiian, Northeast, and United operated Vickers Viscounts; Air Wisconsin, Aloha, American, Braniff, and Mohawk operated BAC One Elevens, American and US Air operated Fokker F100's , Hawaiian and Piedmont operated Nihon YS11's, and United operated Caravelles. But later on, it took a lot of work to get U.S. carriers to buy Airbus equipment. if Airbus hadn't pretty much given A300's to Eastern free for a six month trial, they would likely not have sold any to them, American, and Continental (or Northeastern). But there wasn't any overt pressure to buy American from the government, at least if you compare it to British government's pushing BEA and BOAC to buy British, as well as the French pushing Air Inter and Air France.

People should show some proof, about the pressure from the French or British Government.

Let us set up a nice anti USA argument. The USA government was subsidizing the fleets of USA airlines, to be able to use them in times of war. Because of this subsidies they forced the airlines to buy USA frames, withholding those subsidies when foreign frames were bought. The system is called Civil Reserve Air Fleet.
Sounds logical, that is why it does not need any proof.

Why are you attacking the United States? The government of France owns 17% of Air France. That is a level of involvement nothing like the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.

KLM and Air France both were government owned companies that have partially privatized so that governments are not majority shareholders. When a government is a shareholder, they have influence and the ability to support other government owned entities. KLM supported Fokker, but now that they are gone the Dutch government doesn’t have the same level of vested interest in KLM supporting domestic manufacturing.

You can deny the involvements in governments all you want waiting for proof if you like. That’s your choice. Rarely does government or political involvement or influence get broadcast in a proveable way. Decisions on fleet choices are almost never decided exclusively on one factor. If I turn the question and ask you to prove that every fleet decision that Air France has made is based exclusively based on the technical merits of the airplane you can’t since it isn’t true.

Air France and it’s subsidiaries have purchased every French made jet and likely will continue to do so. They also purchase from Boeing. KLM has mostly purchased from Boeing & McDonnell Douglas.

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

And please get your facts straight. Check before you post. The Dassult Mercure was never used by Air France.

My quote references Air Inter who ordered the Mercure. They merged into Air France in 1997 so yes it is factually correct.

And before that they were owned I believe 25% by Air France and over half by French public sector bodies overall. I think French unions, interested parties in French manufacturing, were also substantial shareholders. The old world of dirigisme was very different from today's neo-liberal consensus, I'm not sure why mjoelnir refuses to believe this.

mjoelnir wrote:

superjeff wrote:

LH982 wrote:

probably a bit more subtle in the U.S. Going way back, Aloha, Capital, Hawaiian, Northeast, and United operated Vickers Viscounts; Air Wisconsin, Aloha, American, Braniff, and Mohawk operated BAC One Elevens, American and US Air operated Fokker F100's , Hawaiian and Piedmont operated Nihon YS11's, and United operated Caravelles. But later on, it took a lot of work to get U.S. carriers to buy Airbus equipment. if Airbus hadn't pretty much given A300's to Eastern free for a six month trial, they would likely not have sold any to them, American, and Continental (or Northeastern). But there wasn't any overt pressure to buy American from the government, at least if you compare it to British government's pushing BEA and BOAC to buy British, as well as the French pushing Air Inter and Air France.

People should show some proof, about the pressure from the French or British Government.

Let us set up a nice anti USA argument. The USA government was subsidizing the fleets of USA airlines, to be able to use them in times of war. Because of this subsidies they forced the airlines to buy USA frames, withholding those subsidies when foreign frames were bought. The system is called Civil Reserve Air Fleet.
Sounds logical, that is why it does not need any proof.

You are the one who is getting extremely defensive and emotional over the fact that Air France, as a state owned company, may have made decisions based on politically pressure and factors. Who knows why- it is generally expected and understood that most national carriers back then occasionally had to bend to the will of their government owners. Airbus was a European company backed by several European governments. The governments made sure their national carriers helped the home team out when Airbus was trying to get on their feet.

There is nothing wrong with that, you are the one trying to make it an issue because you want to pretend that Euro legacies were always free private open market carriers. Just because AF ordered some 777s in the 1990s doesn’t mean that they never faced any political pressure regarding orders at any point in their history. Things like orders for 707 and 727s are red herrings. There was no French competitor to those planes.

keesje wrote:

It seems KLM is satisfied with its 737 European operations.

For Middle East, Africa and high volume city pairs the A321 would definitely offer something extra. I'm not sure if the 737-10 can offer the same capability. I don't have the specs. If those meet the mission requirements for Middle East destinations, say up to Tehran, Boeing has a good chance of getting the NB order.

The Middle East and Iran are well within the range of the 737 and A321. AMS-Tehran is only 2200nm. Dubai is 2800nm. Accra and Lagos are within range as well all under 3000nm. If a 737-900ER can fly the route I assume the 737-8/9/10 can. 737s are already flying that far today with United, Copa, Turkish, Norwegian etc. We already have 3 Airlines flying Transatlantic with the MAX

AMS-NBO is beyond range of the 737/A321 but given that KLM is using 747s and combis on those routes the lack of cargo capability probably doesn’t support a narrowbody.

No interest so far in the "797" MOM project by KLM?
I can't see the point of ordering some A321LR while the backbone of the medium / short haul fleet is made by 737s.
They will order 737 max IMHO, max 7 and max 8.
For long - thin routes they may look for something inbetween the max 8 and the 788...
Correct me if I'm wrong

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

superjeff wrote:

probably a bit more subtle in the U.S. Going way back, Aloha, Capital, Hawaiian, Northeast, and United operated Vickers Viscounts; Air Wisconsin, Aloha, American, Braniff, and Mohawk operated BAC One Elevens, American and US Air operated Fokker F100's , Hawaiian and Piedmont operated Nihon YS11's, and United operated Caravelles. But later on, it took a lot of work to get U.S. carriers to buy Airbus equipment. if Airbus hadn't pretty much given A300's to Eastern free for a six month trial, they would likely not have sold any to them, American, and Continental (or Northeastern). But there wasn't any overt pressure to buy American from the government, at least if you compare it to British government's pushing BEA and BOAC to buy British, as well as the French pushing Air Inter and Air France.

People should show some proof, about the pressure from the French or British Government.

Let us set up a nice anti USA argument. The USA government was subsidizing the fleets of USA airlines, to be able to use them in times of war. Because of this subsidies they forced the airlines to buy USA frames, withholding those subsidies when foreign frames were bought. The system is called Civil Reserve Air Fleet.
Sounds logical, that is why it does not need any proof.

You are the one who is getting extremely defensive and emotional over the fact that Air France, as a state owned company, may have made decisions based on politically pressure and factors. Who knows why- it is generally expected and understood that most national carriers back then occasionally had to bend to the will of their government owners. Airbus was a European company backed by several European governments. The governments made sure their national carriers helped the home team out when Airbus was trying to get on their feet.

There is nothing wrong with that, you are the one trying to make it an issue because you want to pretend that Euro legacies were always free private open market carriers. Just because AF ordered some 777s in the 1990s doesn’t mean that they never faced any political pressure regarding orders at any point in their history. Things like orders for 707 and 727s are red herrings. There was no French competitor to those planes.

Here are declarations that Air France bought the A320 only because they were pressured to it by the government. Do you also support this opinion? I do not talk about may or imagining it, I talk about posters here accepting that as a fact without a bit of evidence.

Bring some proof or some facts.

My opinion is the A320 was exactly the frame Air France was waiting for, having an input about what capabilities were needed, both in regards the A320-100 and later the A320-100. Both types were later adjusted for other customers with increasing the range.

If you call it defensive, to protest a wrong narrative so be it.

If you are the biggest share holder
Of course you can decide things
No one pays and then accepts no influence

Amsterdam wrote:

If you are the biggest share holder
Of course you can decide things
No one pays and then accepts no influence

That still does not proof that Air France was influenced by the government to take the A320. It can also mean that the government owned airframer designed the frame they needed.

The Dassault Mercure was designed to fit Air Inter. On the same engines bigger than the 737-200, but less range. The short range killed the Mercure.

A British example. The Trident original design was changed to fit British European Airways. That made it difficult to sell it in other markets. The first design was more similar to the 727 in capabilities and range.

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

People should show some proof, about the pressure from the French or British Government.

Let us set up a nice anti USA argument. The USA government was subsidizing the fleets of USA airlines, to be able to use them in times of war. Because of this subsidies they forced the airlines to buy USA frames, withholding those subsidies when foreign frames were bought. The system is called Civil Reserve Air Fleet.
Sounds logical, that is why it does not need any proof.

You are the one who is getting extremely defensive and emotional over the fact that Air France, as a state owned company, may have made decisions based on politically pressure and factors. Who knows why- it is generally expected and understood that most national carriers back then occasionally had to bend to the will of their government owners. Airbus was a European company backed by several European governments. The governments made sure their national carriers helped the home team out when Airbus was trying to get on their feet.

There is nothing wrong with that, you are the one trying to make it an issue because you want to pretend that Euro legacies were always free private open market carriers. Just because AF ordered some 777s in the 1990s doesn’t mean that they never faced any political pressure regarding orders at any point in their history. Things like orders for 707 and 727s are red herrings. There was no French competitor to those planes.

Here are declarations that Air France bought the A320 only because they were pressured to it by the government. Do you also support this opinion? I do not talk about may or imagining it, I talk about posters here accepting that as a fact without a bit of evidence.

Bring some proof or some facts.

My opinion is the A320 was exactly the frame Air France was waiting for, having an input about what capabilities were needed, both in regards the A320-100 and later the A320-100. Both types were later adjusted for other customers with increasing the range.

If you call it defensive, to protest a wrong narrative so be it.

Mjoelnir,

This statement from Polot

Air France, as a state owned company, may have made decisions based on politically pressure and factors.

Is is not the same as what you claim he said

Air France bought the A320 only because they were pressured to it by the government

May have made decisions based on political pressure is not the same as only bought it because they were pressured. Do you know what the word “may” means?

mjoelnir wrote:

My opinion is the A320 was exactly the frame Air France was waiting for, having an input about what capabilities were needed, both in regards the A320-100 and later the A320-100. Both types were later adjusted for other customers with increasing the range.

I find it hard to believe that the A320 was exactly the frame Air France was waiting for. They were actively taking deliveries of A320s and 737-300s/500s simultaneously for over a decade.

With that all said, nowadays Air France / KLM shy away from early entry into service and have been waiting a few years before buying new planes. I expect to see orders and still think it could go either way.

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

You are the one who is getting extremely defensive and emotional over the fact that Air France, as a state owned company, may have made decisions based on politically pressure and factors. Who knows why- it is generally expected and understood that most national carriers back then occasionally had to bend to the will of their government owners. Airbus was a European company backed by several European governments. The governments made sure their national carriers helped the home team out when Airbus was trying to get on their feet.

There is nothing wrong with that, you are the one trying to make it an issue because you want to pretend that Euro legacies were always free private open market carriers. Just because AF ordered some 777s in the 1990s doesn’t mean that they never faced any political pressure regarding orders at any point in their history. Things like orders for 707 and 727s are red herrings. There was no French competitor to those planes.

Here are declarations that Air France bought the A320 only because they were pressured to it by the government. Do you also support this opinion? I do not talk about may or imagining it, I talk about posters here accepting that as a fact without a bit of evidence.

Bring some proof or some facts.

My opinion is the A320 was exactly the frame Air France was waiting for, having an input about what capabilities were needed, both in regards the A320-100 and later the A320-100. Both types were later adjusted for other customers with increasing the range.

If you call it defensive, to protest a wrong narrative so be it.

Mjoelnir,

This statement from Polot

Air France, as a state owned company, may have made decisions based on politically pressure and factors.

Is is not the same as what you claim he said

Air France bought the A320 only because they were pressured to it by the government

May have made decisions based on political pressure is not the same as only bought it because they were pressured. Do you know what the word “may” means?

mjoelnir wrote:

My opinion is the A320 was exactly the frame Air France was waiting for, having an input about what capabilities were needed, both in regards the A320-100 and later the A320-100. Both types were later adjusted for other customers with increasing the range.

I find it hard to believe that the A320 was exactly the frame Air France was waiting for. They were actively taking deliveries of A320s and 737-300s/500s simultaneously for over a decade.

With that all said, nowadays Air France / KLM shy away from early entry into service and have been waiting a few years before buying new planes. I expect to see orders and still think it could go either way.

I have a very simple answer bring proof or retreat. You two are great in insinuation. If one of you brings anything that shows that Air France was pressured into buying the A320 I will back off.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Here are declarations that Air France bought the A320 only because they were pressured to it by the government. Do you also support this opinion? I do not talk about may or imagining it, I talk about posters here accepting that as a fact without a bit of evidence.

Bring some proof or some facts.

My opinion is the A320 was exactly the frame Air France was waiting for, having an input about what capabilities were needed, both in regards the A320-100 and later the A320-100. Both types were later adjusted for other customers with increasing the range.

If you call it defensive, to protest a wrong narrative so be it.

Mjoelnir,

This statement from Polot

Air France, as a state owned company, may have made decisions based on politically pressure and factors.

Is is not the same as what you claim he said

Air France bought the A320 only because they were pressured to it by the government

May have made decisions based on political pressure is not the same as only bought it because they were pressured. Do you know what the word “may” means?

mjoelnir wrote:

My opinion is the A320 was exactly the frame Air France was waiting for, having an input about what capabilities were needed, both in regards the A320-100 and later the A320-100. Both types were later adjusted for other customers with increasing the range.

I find it hard to believe that the A320 was exactly the frame Air France was waiting for. They were actively taking deliveries of A320s and 737-300s/500s simultaneously for over a decade.

With that all said, nowadays Air France / KLM shy away from early entry into service and have been waiting a few years before buying new planes. I expect to see orders and still think it could go either way.

I have a very simple answer bring proof or retreat. You two are great in insinuation. If one of you brings anything that shows that Air France was pressured into buying the A320 I will back off.

Here is an interesting article from Fortune magazine in 1985. It is amazing how much better things ended up than could have ever been imagined for Airbus back then.

http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fo ... /index.htm

This quote shares that half the initial sales for the A320 came from Air France, Air Inter and Lufthansa

more than half the orders for the A320 came from Air France; Air Inter, France's internal airline; and Lufthansa, whose government owners put up money to develop the plane.

Meanwhile Airbus owed $7.2Billion in loans to the four governments:

So far, Airbus partners have received $7.2 billion in uncollateralized loans from the four governments to launch three models, the original wide-body A300, the derivative A310, and the new A320. The partners pay back $3 million for each new aircraft delivered. With 256 A300s and 70 A310s delivered as of the end of October, loan repayments probably total less than $1 billion

Every order from Air France or Air Inter for the A320 resulted in repayments of loans to the French government. That may not be the proof that you are looking for, but you can see the implication. The French government would be foolish not to be pressuring their own carriers to order as many A320s as they could operate.

This article from the Economist in 2003 is even more interesting in how it discusses many political interference in Airbus orders around the world

https://www.economist.com/node/1842124

Up until 2000, bribes to government officials was even tax deductible in France.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Here are declarations that Air France bought the A320 only because they were pressured to it by the government. Do you also support this opinion? I do not talk about may or imagining it, I talk about posters here accepting that as a fact without a bit of evidence.

Bring some proof or some facts.

My opinion is the A320 was exactly the frame Air France was waiting for, having an input about what capabilities were needed, both in regards the A320-100 and later the A320-100. Both types were later adjusted for other customers with increasing the range.

If you call it defensive, to protest a wrong narrative so be it.

Mjoelnir,

This statement from Polot

Air France, as a state owned company, may have made decisions based on politically pressure and factors.

Is is not the same as what you claim he said

Air France bought the A320 only because they were pressured to it by the government

May have made decisions based on political pressure is not the same as only bought it because they were pressured. Do you know what the word “may” means?

mjoelnir wrote:

My opinion is the A320 was exactly the frame Air France was waiting for, having an input about what capabilities were needed, both in regards the A320-100 and later the A320-100. Both types were later adjusted for other customers with increasing the range.

I find it hard to believe that the A320 was exactly the frame Air France was waiting for. They were actively taking deliveries of A320s and 737-300s/500s simultaneously for over a decade.

With that all said, nowadays Air France / KLM shy away from early entry into service and have been waiting a few years before buying new planes. I expect to see orders and still think it could go either way.

I have a very simple answer bring proof or retreat. You two are great in insinuation. If one of you brings anything that shows that Air France was pressured into buying the A320 I will back off.

Very well, choose what you want to believe. Again you are the one getting upset about the notion. Just remember in 1981 Air France was owned by the French Government, with the preliminary order (placed 3 years before Airbus even officially launched the jet) signaling that France was ready to go ahead and fund the jet. Amazing to think a company would order a plane that they have no clue will actually get built without some “encouragement”.

Nothing of this is to take away from Airbus by the way. They designed a fantastic jet which is how they were able to get to where they are today. But there is no way Airbus could have done it alone as an independent commercial entity, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas would have killed them off before they could ever funded a second jet. Hence the heavy government participation in the early years, which took both the form of direct aid (ie loans) and European national carriers (owned by their respective governments) ordering from Airbus (and partially repaying themselves back). That doesn’t make Airbus any less of a company, but you can’t dig your head in the sand and ignore the inconvenient parts of it’s early history just because it is less “kosher” with today’s values and mindset.

StTim wrote:

The casual inference that A320's were only bought by AF because of political interference is crazy. The A320 (and the B737) are fabulous planes and each can do a good job for airlines.

Why is that crazy? Air France was the launch customer for the A320. We didn't know then that the A320 would turn out to be a 'fabulous' plane. I think it is completely legitimate to assume politics played a part in Air France buying the A320.

I remember seeing it for the first time at Amsterdam Airport. They were the only operator of the type in the entire world at the time. Hard to believe that so many A320's would follow.

Off topic: I also remember that easyJet operated three Boeing 737-200's, a few years later. It was their entire fleet. Amazing how many aircraft they operate today.

Dutchy wrote:

But KLM did operate Airbus products now and again: A310 (1983-1987) and A330 (2012-.....) and will operate the A350.

I believe KLM operated the A310 from 1983 to 1997.

JayBCNLON wrote:

And yes they are airbusses and not “Airbi”.... as is clear for all who know a little bit of Latin.

If Airbus was a Latin word the plural would be Airbi.

That is clear for all who know a little bit of Latin.

MartijnNL wrote:

Why is that crazy? Air France was the launch customer for the A320. We didn't know then that the A320 would turn out to be a 'fabulous' plane. I think it is completely legitimate to assume politics played a part in Air France buying the A320.

And don't forget, a similar plane (also French) had failed before. Talking about the Dassault Mercure here. Sure they didn't want a repeat of that with the A320.

One of the reasons KLM didn't pick the A320 for replacement of the DC-9 was that the plane didn't exist yet. It was on the drawing table, there were blueprints, but they didn't know if it would be succesful. Yes, it has been offered to them and they did take a look at it, but decided to go for a plane that had proven to be a success. That was the 737.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

MartijnNL wrote:

Why is that crazy? Air France was the launch customer for the A320. We didn't know then that the A320 would turn out to be a 'fabulous' plane. I think it is completely legitimate to assume politics played a part in Air France buying the A320.

And don't forget, a similar plane (also French) had failed before. Talking about the Dassault Mercure here. Sure they didn't want a repeat of that with the A320.

One of the reasons KLM didn't pick the A320 for replacement of the DC-9 was that the plane didn't exist yet. It was on the drawing table, there were blueprints, but they didn't know if it would be succesful. Yes, it has been offered to them and they did take a look at it, but decided to go for a plane that had proven to be a success. That was the 737.

Slightly off topic, but why didn't KLM choose the MD-80 like SAS and Finnair did? When I look at most European airlines who have flown the DC-9, except maybe British Midland, they all added the MD-80 to their DC-9 fleet. I still find it surprising that they chose the 737-300 and 400 over the MD-80. KLM has always been loyal to Douglas and eventually Mc Donnel Douglas. Of course by now the MD-80s would be gone and replaced with 737-700s and 800s. the same way Classic 737s (300s and 400s) are now replaced with NGs (700s and 800s, yes I know they also fly the 900 but that one wasn't meant to be a Classic replacement it was added probably for expansion).

American 767 wrote:

Slightly off topic, but why didn't KLM choose the MD-80 like SAS and Finnair did? When I look at most European airlines who have flown the DC-9, except maybe British Midland, they all added the MD-80 to their DC-9 fleet. I still find it surprising that they chose the 737-300 and 400 over the MD-80. KLM has always been loyal to Douglas and eventually Mc Donnel Douglas. Of course by now the MD-80s would be gone and replaced with 737-700s and 800s. the same way Classic 737s (300s and 400s) are now replaced with NGs (700s and 800s, yes I know they also fly the 900 but that one wasn't meant to be a Classic replacement it was added probably for expansion).

The answer is quite straight forward.

Boeing was very keen to pull at least one of the classic European DC-9 operators - AZ, AY, IB, KL, SK, SR, YU - over to the B737 family.
To do so Boeing battled McDonnel Douglas by offering very competitive prices to the European carriers and succesfully gained KL and YU as new B737 customers.
As you know AZ, AY, SK and SR selected the MD80, while IB chose the B727 / B757.

factsonly wrote:

As you know AZ, AY, SK and SR selected the MD80

Austrian also.
And IB has flown the MD-87 as well.

MartijnNL wrote:

StTim wrote:

The casual inference that A320's were only bought by AF because of political interference is crazy. The A320 (and the B737) are fabulous planes and each can do a good job for airlines.

Why is that crazy? Air France was the launch customer for the A320. We didn't know then that the A320 would turn out to be a 'fabulous' plane. I think it is completely legitimate to assume politics played a part in Air France buying the A320.

I remember seeing it for the first time at Amsterdam Airport. They were the only operator of the type in the entire world at the time. Hard to believe that so many A320's would follow.

Off topic: I also remember that easyJet operated three Boeing 737-200's, a few years later. It was their entire fleet. Amazing how many aircraft they operate today.

It is crazy because it is not backed by a verifiable fact.

Mjoelnir

It was not all that uncommon in those days that national politics had an influence in the decision making process with state owned airlines and in particular the case of AF and the A320. What bothers me about you're post is the constant scream of proof. Maybe its time to accept the others now a thing or two because they where around in the 80s.

The option to load cargo by containers in A320 must for sure look very attractive to KLM when looking at NB fleet renewal.

Flanker7 wrote:

Mjoelnir

It was not all that uncommon in those days that national politics had an influence in the decision making process with state owned airlines and in particular the case of AF and the A320. What bothers me about you're post is the constant scream of proof. Maybe its time to accept the others now a thing or two because they where around in the 80s.

I am old enough. Yes I am screaming about proof, some facts, instead of this it must have been. I am tired and sick of this insinuation that somehow the success of the A320 must be do to some whatever swindle. Because Boeing is of course the greatest and USA build frames are superior.
This site seems to be full of Boeing fan boys that live on insinuation instead of facts. At the same time it is always declared that in the USA airlines were free of any nationalistic pressure.

The 737 is an aged frame. The jump from the 737 to The A320 is a jump in technology at that time comparable to now the 787. Why the hell should Air France having been needed to be pushed to buy the most modern narrow body of its time, when they could even have influence on its design?

The big question is rather, why did the aged 737 kept selling.

I can see KLM looking for Aircraft in the A321/737-10 size for their medium range (Middle East, Africa) and high volume city pairs in Europe.

I assume a lot depends on the 737-10 real performance in terms of payload range for heavier flights to the south.

KLM doesn't use AKH containers / pallets, but it is one of the few legacy's in Europe left. Partner AF always has. Cargo traditionally is important for KLM / Schiphol.

I have little doubt Boeing / GE are pushing hard at KLM, it's a 737 bastion left (incl. Transavia), also in terms of MRO, KLM has been really pushing out orders. The A320 is smaller than the 737-800 in terms of seating capacity, - 2 rows doesn't help the case I assume.



A (reasonable) 198 seat A320.5 would make a total difference in trade-off for KLM; Moderate growth with the same crew numbers, better cargo capability/ interchangebility with AF.

Back in the 70s and 80s Airbus was struggling to get established in the market, without the "political" launch orders from the host countries (France, Germany especially) it probably would never have survived. Imagine trying to sell the A300 or A320 to foreign airlines when the national carriers of France and Germany had rejected them.

The UK was a bit different, the political pressure to BA was to fit RR engines rather than to buy Airbuses.

This doesn't apply now, Airbus is a massive success story, producing planes at a ridiculous rate now. If AF buys from them because it's the best product, great. If AF buys from someone else, Airbus will still be fine.

Asiaflyer wrote:

The option to load cargo by containers in A320 must for sure look very attractive to KLM when looking at NB fleet renewal.

This may very well be a factor. Baggage loaders at AMS are unhappy with their work load and unions have threatened with strikes.

On the other hand, KL ground services has been investing a load of money in new baggage loading equipment. All ground vehicles and loading equipment are being replaced with new energy saving / zero emission equipment.

mjoelnir wrote:

Flanker7 wrote:

Mjoelnir

It was not all that uncommon in those days that national politics had an influence in the decision making process with state owned airlines and in particular the case of AF and the A320. What bothers me about you're post is the constant scream of proof. Maybe its time to accept the others now a thing or two because they where around in the 80s.

I am old enough. Yes I am screaming about proof, some facts, instead of this it must have been. I am tired and sick of this insinuation that somehow the success of the A320 must be do to some whatever swindle. .

Earlier I provided an airticle that discusses the political involvement in orders from the Economist:

https://www.economist.com/node/1842124

Many aircraft are no doubt bought and sold in entirely conventional ways. But many are not. After all, lots of airlines are still state-owned and not subject to normal business rules. Commission payments (licit or illicit) on multi-million-dollar aircraft deals increase the capital cost of aircraft, which are therefore subject to higher depreciation or operating-lease charges, or both. But these extra costs are barely discernible in the pool of red ink created by the carriers' perennial losses.


Here is some discussion on regulations regarding bribes and political influence as it relates to airplane purchases and differences between American and French law

Aircraft purchases have long been associated with controversy. In the 1970s, when Lockheed was still making civil jets, it was caught bribing Japanese officials to buy its L1011 wide-bodied airliner. A Japanese prime minister was later charged and convicted in 1983 for taking a bribe. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was also disgraced for his involvement with Lockheed. This scandal led in 1977 to Congress passing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which forbids American companies, their officers or their representatives from bribing foreign officials

Critics (including this newspaper) have often pointed out that American firms can side-step the FCPA by using foreign subsidiaries and nationals to pay bribes. Boeing says that its policy is to adhere to the spirit and letter of the FCPA, that its systems of controls ensure employees comply with this policy, and that no Boeing employee has been charged under the FCPA. In 1982 Boeing pleaded guilty to false statements about commissions on the sale of commercial aircraft prior to 1977. Boeing also says that there have been public hearings in the Bahamas over allegations of bribery in the 1990 sale of deHavilland aircraft to Bahamas Air, during Boeing's ownership of deHavilland.

Airbus has not been subject to such constraints. France ratified an OECD convention to outlaw bribery of foreign public officials in 2000. Until then the government even permitted French companies tax deductions for giving bribes.


Why are you in denial that Airbus used government influence including bribes and middlemen to win orders? There has been so much discussion about this in the last few years.

mjoelnir wrote:

Because Boeing is of course the greatest and USA build frames are superior. This site seems to be full of Boeing fan boys that live on insinuation instead of facts. At the same time it is always declared that in the USA airlines were free of any nationalistic pressure..

I don’t think I have seen any recurring poster say that Boeing is of course the greatest and USA build frames are superior. I have seen you make plenty of unsubstantiated comments regarding the superiority of Airbus like this one:

mjoelnir wrote:

I would assume the production of the A320 is rather more automated than the 737

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1395529&start=50

It is ok to have a discussion and a debate, but you are very very defensive of Airbus any time any criticism comes even when there is evidence of it like government influence on orders or in the other thread production issues.

I have my biases like we all do, but I think there is more than enough circumstantial evidence that Air France and Air Inter being government owneded entities had some government involvement in their purchase decisions. I don’t believe that Boeing always builds the best airplanes.

mjoelnir wrote:

The 737 is an aged frame. The jump from the 737 to The A320 is a jump in technology at that time comparable to now the 787. Why the hell should Air France having been needed to be pushed to buy the most modern narrow body of its time, when they could even have influence on its design?

The big question is rather, why did the aged 737 kept selling

Most modern does not always mean the best. Most airlines are profit driven enterprises, so cost is the deciding factor, not how modern a plane is. A proven design can have lower operating costs than a brand new design. The reliability numbers are often higher because of issues with the design have already been fixed. Parts supply chains are more robust with more overhaul optioms and spare parts inventory. Infrastructure already exists. The mature design will have already gone through weight reduction efforts. The maintenance program will have gone through an optimization cycle to extend intervals based on in service experience.

You have been quick to remind us of how many A330s have been sold in threads discussing the 787. I don’t see you questioning the aged A330 and asking why Airlines purchased it over the more modern 787.

Getting back to KLM, they have a different history than Air France which has resulted in different fleet choices. Now that they are part of the Air France/KLM group it will be interesting to see what they choose. I think it could go either way. Afterward Transavia France has been acquiring many 737s recently.

keesje wrote:

I can see KLM looking for Aircraft in the A321/737-10 size for their medium range (Middle East, Africa) and high volume city pairs in Europe.

I assume a lot depends on the 737-10 real performance in terms of payload range for heavier flights to the south.

KLM doesn't use AKH containers / pallets, but it is one of the few legacy's in Europe left. Partner AF always has. Cargo traditionally is important for KLM / Schiphol.

I have little doubt Boeing / GE are pushing hard at KLM, it's a 737 bastion left (incl. Transavia), also in terms of MRO, KLM has been really pushing out orders. The A320 is smaller than the 737-800 in terms of seating capacity, - 2 rows doesn't help the case I assume.



A (reasonable) 198 seat A320.5 would make a total difference in trade-off for KLM; Moderate growth with the same crew numbers, better cargo capability/ interchangebility with AF.

I find it incredibly unlikely that KLM will be ordering an A320plus any time soon since Senior Airbus executives have publicly stated that the A320plus has been shelved while Airbus focuses on production issues including challenges increasing production rate.

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

I can see KLM looking for Aircraft in the A321/737-10 size for their medium range (Middle East, Africa) and high volume city pairs in Europe.

I assume a lot depends on the 737-10 real performance in terms of payload range for heavier flights to the south.

KLM doesn't use AKH containers / pallets, but it is one of the few legacy's in Europe left. Partner AF always has. Cargo traditionally is important for KLM / Schiphol.

I have little doubt Boeing / GE are pushing hard at KLM, it's a 737 bastion left (incl. Transavia), also in terms of MRO, KLM has been really pushing out orders. The A320 is smaller than the 737-800 in terms of seating capacity, - 2 rows doesn't help the case I assume.



A (reasonable) 198 seat A320.5 would make a total difference in trade-off for KLM; Moderate growth with the same crew numbers, better cargo capability/ interchangebility with AF.

I find it incredibly unlikely that KLM will be ordering an A320plus any time soon since Senior Airbus executives have publicly stated that the A320plus has been shelved while Airbus focuses on production issues including challenges increasing production rate.

It wouldn’t work in KLM’s layout anyways. KLM’s 739s have 178 seats with 7 rows of business plus 3 rows of Y+, with 14 blocked seats giving a total of 192 (not that KLM can legally sell that many on the -900A due to lack of mid aft cabin doors). But Keesje’s 1.5m shorter A320.5 is going to seat 198 for KLM with 9 rows of business, without even using space flex lavs. Ok.

In fact remove the 18 middle seats for business and you are just left with 180 seats. Just 2 more than KLM’s 739s. Bravo. Introducing a new type to the fleet with the hypothetical A320.5 obviously makes perfect sense for KLM.

Densifying their current fleet (because KLM would have to significantly densify their current product to get 198 seats in a A320.5) and ordering MAXs would save a lot more time and money than ordering and waiting for a new unreleased variant and having to retrain all their crews.

MartijnNL wrote:

StTim wrote:

The casual inference that A320's were only bought by AF because of political interference is crazy. The A320 (and the B737) are fabulous planes and each can do a good job for airlines.

Why is that crazy? Air France was the launch customer for the A320. We didn't know then that the A320 would turn out to be a 'fabulous' plane. I think it is completely legitimate to assume politics played a part in Air France buying the A320.

I find it equally likely that Airbus (Toulouse) had some level of political pressure/interference to tailor the A320 design towards Air France needs, making it a natural choice for AF . . .

I find it equally likely that some form of patriotism played a role in AF ordering French/Airbus A320 . . .

I find it equally likely that AF purchase teams and Airbus design/sales teams would be communicating much more directly, and intensely, because a) they spoke the same language and b) they were much closer geographically . . .

I find it highly unlikely that the AF bought the A320 only because of political interference . . .

AF being a long term, one of largest 777 operators iso A340's shows something that doesn't support political interference.

Thank you, between all this shade-throwing, you nailed it!

PW100 wrote:

MartijnNL wrote:

StTim wrote:

The casual inference that A320's were only bought by AF because of political interference is crazy. The A320 (and the B737) are fabulous planes and each can do a good job for airlines.

Why is that crazy? Air France was the launch customer for the A320. We didn't know then that the A320 would turn out to be a 'fabulous' plane. I think it is completely legitimate to assume politics played a part in Air France buying the A320.

I find it equally likely that Airbus (Toulouse) had some level of political pressure/interference to tailor the A320 design towards Air France needs, making it a natural choice for AF . . .

I find it equally likely that some form of patriotism played a role in AF ordering French/Airbus A320 . . .

I find it equally likely that AF purchase teams and Airbus design/sales teams would be communicating much more directly, and intensely, because a) they spoke the same language and b) they were much closer geographically . . .

I find it highly unlikely that the AF bought the A320 only because of political interference . . .

Polot wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

I can see KLM looking for Aircraft in the A321/737-10 size for their medium range (Middle East, Africa) and high volume city pairs in Europe.

I assume a lot depends on the 737-10 real performance in terms of payload range for heavier flights to the south.

KLM doesn't use AKH containers / pallets, but it is one of the few legacy's in Europe left. Partner AF always has. Cargo traditionally is important for KLM / Schiphol.

I have little doubt Boeing / GE are pushing hard at KLM, it's a 737 bastion left (incl. Transavia), also in terms of MRO, KLM has been really pushing out orders. The A320 is smaller than the 737-800 in terms of seating capacity, - 2 rows doesn't help the case I assume.



A (reasonable) 198 seat A320.5 would make a total difference in trade-off for KLM; Moderate growth with the same crew numbers, better cargo capability/ interchangebility with AF.


I find it incredibly unlikely that KLM will be ordering an A320plus any time soon since Senior Airbus executives have publicly stated that the A320plus has been shelved while Airbus focuses on production issues including challenges increasing production rate.

It wouldn’t work in KLM’s layout anyways. KLM’s 739s have 178 seats with 7 rows of business plus 3 rows of Y+, with 14 blocked seats giving a total of 192 (not that KLM can legally sell that many on the -900A due to lack of mid aft cabin doors). But Keesje’s 1.5m shorter A320.5 is going to seat 198 for KLM with 9 rows of business, without even using space flex lavs. Ok.

In fact remove the 18 middle seats for business and you are just left with 180 seats. Just 2 more than KLM’s 739s. Bravo. Introducing a new type to the fleet with the hypothetical A320.5 obviously makes perfect sense for KLM.

Densifying their current fleet (because KLM would have to significantly densify their current product to get 198 seats in a A320.5) and ordering MAXs would save a lot more time and money than ordering and waiting for a new unreleased variant and having to retrain all their crews.

A ~4 row stretch above the A320, two rows on top of the 738 makes perfect sense for both AF & KLM. The KLM 739 is a strange one, ordered when eurobusiness class was still 5 abreast. It's a kind of unrepresentative orphan, just 5 of them. They couldn't sell them, so just use them. A320 family would also give access to A321LR aircraft offering opportunities to Africa, TATL and significant cargo payload on shorter routes. KLM succeeded DC9 by 737 in the second half of the eighties. Not sure another 30 years of 737 is the best possible long term investment.

AirbusA6 wrote:

Back in the 70s and 80s Airbus was struggling to get established in the market, without the "political" launch orders from the host countries (France, Germany especially) it probably would never have survived. Imagine trying to sell the A300 or A320 to foreign airlines when the national carriers of France and Germany had rejected them.

The UK was a bit different, the political pressure to BA was to fit RR engines rather than to buy Airbuses.

This doesn't apply now, Airbus is a massive success story, producing planes at a ridiculous rate now. If AF buys from them because it's the best product, great. If AF buys from someone else, Airbus will still be fine.

Are you reading this, mjoelnir? We all (should) know that this is the way it happened. What proof do you need? Written statements from politicians that forced Air France to buy the A320? Good luck finding those.

And why bring up the Boeing fanboys? This is about narrow bodies from Airbus.

MartijnNL wrote:

AirbusA6 wrote:

Back in the 70s and 80s Airbus was struggling to get established in the market, without the "political" launch orders from the host countries (France, Germany especially) it probably would never have survived. Imagine trying to sell the A300 or A320 to foreign airlines when the national carriers of France and Germany had rejected them.

The UK was a bit different, the political pressure to BA was to fit RR engines rather than to buy Airbuses.

This doesn't apply now, Airbus is a massive success story, producing planes at a ridiculous rate now. If AF buys from them because it's the best product, great. If AF buys from someone else, Airbus will still be fine.

Are you reading this, mjoelnir? We all (should) know that this is the way it happened. What proof do you need? Written statements from politicians that forced Air France to buy the A320? Good luck finding those.

And why bring up the Boeing fanboys? This is about narrow bodies from Airbus.

I am reading this, simple an opinion, nothing based in fact. Why than not assume than, that any new airliner, be it an USA or European produced, that was ever launched, was launched with pressure put on the airlines to buy it.

If this argument here is that airlines were pressure to buy the A300, you could make an argument for it, its sales started of very sluggish. But the sluggish sales is really an argument against pressure having been applied.

But here we talk about the A320. At launch the A320 had about 100 orders, at EIS well over 300 orders. Deliveries in the fourth year were up above 100.
To accept that Air France was pressured to buy the A320, I want to see some proof, not a myth from a.net.

If they get a price from AB they like, sure.

I think KLM has a mixed fleet of Airbus and Boeing aircraft. So preferences don't play a big role.

Making a choice for the next 30 years KLM may replace the 737 just like LH, BA, AF, SAS, Easyjet benefitting from the A321 & AKH capability.
The GTF seem quieter than the CFM's, but KLM E&M is a big GE partner, so might prefer LEAP's. For Transavia there might be different trade-offs.

LH982 wrote:

Bjm0517 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

No, the airline's going to do what's in the best interest of its shareholders. That includes acquisitions.

Sure it's not very exciting, but it's the only way to realistically address a (rather ridiculous) question that no one here could possibly give a fact-based answer to.





So, if your question actually was "Why does KLM appear prefer Boeing narrobodies?"......
.....then um, why didn't you ask that?



Even if that were the case, it doesn't interfere with them selecting whatever they want from the competition. Don't forget that you're talking about an airline who's bought, operated, and/or launched at least one variant of every widebody model that Boeing has ever produced. Even the likes of DL can't say that.

Quite honestly, I don’t know why I asked that, I was hoping he conversation would stir up itself, but it didn’t.

KLM are as likely to order Airbus as they are Boeing. The decision will be based on needs, pricing and desire or not, to standardise across the group.

KLM were nearly all Douglas until they weren't. They bought A310s with no previous history with Airbus, and then went back to Boeing for 763s. They bought A330s, but were a late convert. They'll do what's best for KLM

Thank you for giving me an answer that doesn’t question my ability to ask questions

keesje wrote:

I think KLM has a mixed fleet of Airbus and Boeing aircraft. So preferences don't play a big role.

Making a choice for the next 30 years KLM may replace the 737 just like LH, BA, AF, SAS, Easyjet benefitting from the A321 & AKH capability.
The GTF seem quieter than the CFM's, but KLM E&M is a big GE partner, so might prefer LEAP's. For Transavia there might be different trade-offs.

When did KLM operate A321s?