France Bans Short Range Flights
 

“The one thing I can guarantee you is that the solution to Climate Change will be so much worse than the problem”.

Jordan Peterson

So is this an Air France rescue package or a move to reduce emissions, or both ?

French Flight Ban

Next time you visit France, you could be forced to take the train or bus on certain journeys, with the country’s ban on flights under 2.5 hours – initially proposed in April – receiving the go-ahead from the European Commission in recent days.

Initially applying to flights from Paris Orly to Bordeaux, Nantes and Lyon, the ban may be expanded to include other routes after three years, if the concept proves successful.

It’s expected up to 12% of the country’s domestic routes will be culled under the ban, devised in 2021 as part of the French government’s €4 billion rescue package for Air France after it reported staggering losses due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The plan initially proposed banning trips of four hours by air, however this was reduced after objections from Air France-KLM and representatives of affected regions.

Environmental groups are pushing for the flight ban to go even further, with Greenpeace saying it should extend to six hours where a train alternative is available.

The Austrian government previously considered a similar step as part of a bailout of Austrian Airlines, suggesting that domestic flights be axed where a train ride of up to three hours is available, such as between Vienna and Salzburg.

It’s estimated that 80% of short-range flights in Austria could be replaced by trips on the country’s sprawling OBB state rail network.

Research into carbon output suggests taking an electric train instead of a domestic flight would reduce an individual’s environmental footprint by 84%.

The same study found emissions per kilometre on a domestic trip in Europe are up to 70% higher than international long-range flights and six times higher than making the same trip by train.

Concorde-Country bans ATRs?
How about clean aircraft? Electric? All banned? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.

That's an interesting question. How big does a plane need to be in order to be within the ban box?
As but one example, I wonder if this expands an opportunity for aircraft like the Leonardo 609. (civilian tilt rotor)

No use trying this in Britain. We don't have a rail network. In reality, we have a rail net; it just doesn't work.

Is somebody confusing flight duration with the alternate rail trip duration?
Where are these 2.5 (or 4??) hr domestic flights in France?
CDG - NCE ~ 1.5 hrs

They do, if they would only read the title of the text in the first post :rolleyes:: The rule applies to air routes where a train or bus alternative of less than 2.5 hours exists.

At least France has a decent rail network. I can't imagine the carnage if they tried this in the UK, not to mention the expense as rail tickets are astronomical.


So much for hub and spoke in France I guess! Sucks to be a passenger trying to get from some remote location to somewhere like Lyon. Normally I'm sure there are many connecting options through Paris but now you will need to find your way to a rail station and do the second half of your journey on a train unless you are lucky enough to find a, probably, very expensive direct option. Slow clap.

Airbus is investing billions in new electric aircraft research as we speak and France cuts off their market?

Charles De Gaulle has a high speed rail station as does Lyon Satalas.
The UK is missing a trick with HS2 not going via Heathrow.

Am not saying that the UK rail network is perfect, (and indeed the present strikes make it very imperfect) However, those comparing the costs of rail with air so often do not compare like with like: they take the cheapest advance airfare and compare it with the 'pay at the last minute' train fare.
To make a fair comparison, the comparison should be based on the comparable last minute fare for each method of transport, or , alternatively, at the cheapest available advance fare for each (using an appropriate railcard in the case of trains) . Plus the cost and duration of the transport between the airport and the city centres should also be added to the equation. The two modes of transport come out much closer when you do that .

About seven years ago, flights between Strasbourg airport and Paris Charles de Gaulle were discontinued with passengers being offered to take a specially-timed rail service instead. This train was chartered by Air France ... and carried a flight code. So nothing new here.

Not to worry as soon as the travel plans for some politicians are inconvenienced, the flights will be quietly reinstated

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…

Not new, Trains have been carrying LH flight numbers for years between some German cities

The whole point of it makes sense. Up to 2.5 hours. Won’t make a lot of difference in tone to you. Actually will most likely make the journey quicker.

Normally 2 hours before arrive at the airport. Say 1 hour flight, then at least 2 hour layover. 5 hours total. Or arrive at train station 10 minutes before train. 2.5 hours on train or trains, arrive 2 hours before the flight. 4 hrs 40 minutes. Quicker or at least not longer. So where’s the problem?

Agreed it couldn’t work very well in the uk until trains actually stop at an airport from outside the region.

It is a good idea. The majority of times when I have had problems with travel it has been the connecting flight not the long haul flight.

Edited to add that I agree this isn’t not going to have much impact on climate. Just a practical issue.

I understand than both France and Austria proposed to ban a number of short range flights. However, the European Commission said the ban could only take place if there are genuine rail alternatives available for the same route — meaning several direct connections each way every day. Consequently the EU has approved the banning of three flights in France.

EU trumps national government on law making.

Ponder that …

The big execration to that is airlines airfares go down for a connecting service as opposed to a direct service. It is almost always cheaper, and sometime significantly cheaper to fly Manchester - Los Angeles than it is London - Los Angeles. If you are flying from a regional they have to compete with the likes of KL/AF, LH… Direct from London brings a premium over those other carriers. Just like AF with its Paris customers.

In order to make this work the whole journey including the train would need to be included in the airfare.

Regarding the efficiency of the measure at reducing emissions, it is NEGATIVE.
Indeed :
Orly is limited to 250 000 flights per year.
The shortest flights from Orly will be terminated.
The 250k cap will remain the same.
Other flights will take the place of Orly Bordeaux, Lyon, Nantes
These flights will be necessarily longer
The CO2 emissions of airplanes taking off from Orly will be higher.

But the environmentalists are too dense and far from knowing anything about the facts used in this reasoning.

And LX have offered buses between Strasbourg and Zurich ... and now trains between Basel and Zurich!

Bring back the Pullman!