France Bans Short Range Flights

[FlightDetent]

Originally Posted by Check Airman

My most recent flight was 1 hour of block time. 37 minutes in the air.

Happens around here too, but is not a par for the course.
My shortes regular service was REP-PNH with 25 mins when we pushed it. Point being is that specific trip was 9 hours on a road, the fastest available option.

Besides, the US being the highest CO2 producer per capita, it needs to come from somewhere ;-)

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by FlightDetent

Besides, the US being the highest CO2 producer per capita, it needs to come from somewhere ;-)

I tried to do my part by sticking to the cost index instead of going to 350kt

[blind pew]

Wrt FR terms;
around a decade ago we borded early in MRS and the skipper had the door open. He stated he took home 100 grand as a jumper for 2 or 3 blocks per month.
It took me 20 years for a command and I got a guaranteed 8 days a month off for 50% more. Bloody hard graft and I wish I had had his work pattern. On short range we did early start finish late on 4/2, 5/3 and 6/3.

[Less Hair]

All those upcoming electric aircraft will be small and short range. Where will they go to? To smaller airports on shorter domestic runs. Why is this limited market segment, the very key market for electric aviation, politically blocked by the government?

[Asturias56]

prove the aircraft work and they may change their minds

[Less Hair]

I don't believe in battery aviation myself. But if there is a political will to make it happen, they should not block the only area where it might work at all.

[ATC Watcher]

Electric aircraft will be use where there is business case and where the alternative is much, much longer. Think Norway west coast . 20 min flight versus 3 hours by car. or Maldives islands hopping, of flying to/from into city centres e.g. ( Rio- Sao Paulo, etc..) that sort of tings.
It is no surprise that Wideroe is interested and will pioneer the technology very soon..
One major issue has still to be overcome , changing the batteries. , EASA currently prohibits replacing /introducing fully charged batteries into an aircraft on the few types they certified so far . .I am sure a tecnological solution will be found , but currently you need to recharge the batteries after a flight . making turn arounds uneconomic.
.

[Hipennine]

Originally Posted by dixi188

London to Manchester 2hr 7 mins.
London to Leeds 2hr 14 mins
London to Liverpool 2hr 18 mins.
London to Newcastle 2hr 37mins.

I used to work for a multinational from an office in Newcastle, and euro HQ in Uxbridge. It was faster from the Newcastle office to NCL than to Newcastle Central station. A day's work in Uxbridge was always a possibility by air and back home early evening. Only possible by train by significantly taking up a much longer day. So: where logically should the 2.5 hour journey time be calculated?

[Splat]

Originally Posted by Hipennine

I used to work for a multinational from an office in Newcastle, and euro HQ in Uxbridge. It was faster from the Newcastle office to NCL than to Newcastle Central station. A day's work in Uxbridge was always a possibility by air and back home early evening. Only possible by train by significantly taking up a much longer day. So: where logically should the 2.5 hour journey time be calculated?

Smoke and mirrors. Those times I guess are from Kings X or wherever it starts from, no allowances to get there.

I guess it depends on where one’s starting point is as to which works out better.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Hipennine

So: where logically should the 2.5 hour journey time be calculated?

From the rail timetable, I would suggest. That's how the French are doing it.

[Hipennine]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

From the rail timetable, I would suggest. That's how the French are doing it.

But that is not logical. It assumes that the stations are the origin and destination, whereas the real majority origin and destination could be elsewhere, especially where the linked airports are not close to city centres.

As with so many "environmental" proposals, this is a political grand gesture rather than a reasoned assessment of where journeys begin and end (and the consequential environmental impacts.

In the UK, there is a very large concentration of euro/multinational businesses HQ's along the Thames valley west of LHR, for which services ex LHR are the logical mode for travel to/from the UK regions. Traipsing from home to Reading Central to King's Cross for a train to Newcastle is not time effective, and may be of limited if any environmental benefit.

[Asturias56]

"But that is not logical. It assumes that the stations are the origin and destination, "

No but the same applies to every trip by public transport - each individual journ is different

at least using the timetable it's cheap to do and the publically available.

"traipsing from home to Reading Central to King's Cross for a train to Newcastle" - there are regular direct trains from Reading to Newcastle - beats spending 60-90 minutes tryingt o get to LHR in the rush hour by car or bus

[Hipennine]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

"But that is not logical. It assumes that the stations are the origin and destination, "

No but the same applies to every trip by public transport - each individual journ is different

at least using the timetable it's cheap to do and the publically available.

"traipsing from home to Reading Central to King's Cross for a train to Newcastle" - there are regular direct trains from Reading to Newcastle - beats spending 60-90 minutes tryingt o get to LHR in the rush hour by car or bus

The current Cross country timetable has no direct trains, all involve a change at Birmingham, and the travel time is over 5 hours, not two and a half.

[hoistop]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Electric aircraft will be use where there is business case and where the alternative is much, much longer. Think Norway west coast . 20 min flight versus 3 hours by car. or Maldives islands hopping, of flying to/from into city centres e.g. ( Rio- Sao Paulo, etc..) that sort of tings.
It is no surprise that Wideroe is interested and will pioneer the technology very soon..
One major issue has still to be overcome , changing the batteries. , EASA currently prohibits replacing /introducing fully charged batteries into an aircraft on the few types they certified so far . .I am sure a tecnological solution will be found , but currently you need to recharge the batteries after a flight . making turn arounds uneconomic.
.

I think EASA certified only one electric powered airplane so far - and it is a twin seater - Velis Electro See: https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/p...velis-electro/
And the company (recently sold off by its founder/owner to Textron for 218 million EUR) has some serious electric projects in the works.
The funny thing is, that there is no licencing system for maintenance of such airplanes yet, so EASA had to make a regulatory exemption for it. Certification regulations were ahead of the rest.

[ATC Watcher]

Originally Posted by hoistop

I think EASA certified only one electric powered airplane so far - and it is a twin seater - Velis Electro

The funny thing is, that there is no licencing system for maintenance of such airplanes yet, so EASA had to make a regulatory exemption for it. Certification regulations were ahead of the rest.

You are correct , I thought Volocopter was also certified , , they claimed that but in fact with it was just the manufacture, (POA) which is certified they currently fly the prototype though.
On the licencing , this is interesting , did not know. on the Velis which I briefly flew last summer, only the manufacturer was allowed to change the cooling fluid, and the aircraft was grounded for 3 weeks to wait for the guy to come.
EASA has also now established an electric type rating on the (flying) licence.

[SWBKCB]

Originally Posted by Hipennine

The current Cross country timetable has no direct trains, all involve a change at Birmingham, and the travel time is over 5 hours, not two and a half.

And having done it a few times, they couldn't pay me enough to do it again. I'll stick to Teams, thank you very much.

[SWBKCB]

Originally Posted by dixi188

.
London to Newcastle 2hr 37mins.

Isn't this just one service a day? Vasty majority over 2hr 50min, many over 3hrs.

[dixi188]

Originally Posted by SWBKCB

Isn't this just one service a day? Vasty majority over 2hr 50min, many over 3hrs.

Probably. I just picked a few to show what was possible, for the discussion.
Not much chance of a train to anywhere today.

[rigpiggy]

Originally Posted by Saintsman

Airport parking is rather expensive, then you have to get there several hours before your flight etc. so banning short flights may not be as bad as it seems if there is a suitable alternative that goes direct to where you want to go.

However, the flights are generally there because they are often cheaper and easier to use than the alternatives. I don’t think it’ll save the planet by banning them though…

I prefer a 7 hr drive than going to an airport for a 1.5 flight

[hans brinker]

Originally Posted by rigpiggy

I prefer a 7 hr drive than going to an airport for a 1.5 flight

Same. It is a 7 hour drive from where I lived in ATL to Disney in MCO. Flight is 1:30. Would always drive. By the time you factor in trying to get kids and all their stuff through security and picking up/dropping of rental car, it was way easier, faster & cheaper to drive (do not try to non-rev to/from MCO).

Edit to add:
Probably better for the environment to take 1 plane for 1.5 hours than have a 100 cars drive 7 hours....