Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Fri May 21, 2021 6:48 am

Long overdue. It would be lovely if the EU decides to tax kerosene just like car fuel. It would only be fair.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Fri May 21, 2021 7:05 am

seahawk wrote:
Long overdue. It would be lovely if the EU decides to tax kerosene just like car fuel. It would only be fair.


Giving the EU powers to collect taxes is absolutely the last thing I would like to see. Taxation is, and shall always remain, a sovereign issue decided by each member state. The EU may well raise the proposal, but it can only be enacted if all EU members agree to it and individually sign it into their national laws.

There is, however, the not insignificant issue of international conventions, one of which says that airline full is exempt from taxation globally. So the thought of EU members going it alone in one of the most globalised industries is naive in the extreme.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3682
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Fri May 21, 2021 7:14 am

Tax collecting is exactly where this EU climate change campaign motivation is coming from. For the first time they want to collect "their own" money not via member state governments so they will have no need to ask any body else for support to give them money in the future. A bad move from my perspective and not what it claims to be at all.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 3361
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Fri May 21, 2021 7:45 am

B777LRF wrote:
There is, however, the not insignificant issue of international conventions, one of which says that airline full is exempt from taxation globally. So the thought of EU members going it alone in one of the most globalised industries is naive in the extreme.

What do you expect to happen? That TATL flights will tanker enough fuel for the return trip? Or that airlines will make a refueling stop just outside of the EU's borders? Neither option is worth the hassle for airlines.

It does not make sense to leave jet fuel tax-free while all other fuels and energy sources are taxed. That said, there are other ways to tax flights. Since fuel is a major part of an airline's costs, a tax on each ticket would also reflect the emissions to some extent. Though that wouldn't be as fair, since airlines with low labour costs and inefficient aircraft would pay the same taxes as airlines with more efficient fleets but expensive labour. You could also introduce a fixed surcharge, but that would impact cheap tickets more than expensive ones, which is unfair to less wealthy people. You could limit the number of flights per person, which would affect rich and poor alike, but that's a very restrictive measure.

Overall, taxing jet fuel is the most fair approach to internalize the external costs of flying.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Fri May 21, 2021 8:39 am

It is a necessity to make the customer pay for the environmental costs of flying.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3682
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Fri May 21, 2021 8:59 am

It is far from proven that mankind can affect climate cange in any way. Just paying to feel better will not change anything for sure. Dramatic climate change happened through all of earth's history including before mankind and might be mainly depending on the sun's activities.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 3361
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Fri May 21, 2021 9:14 am

Noshow wrote:
It is far from proven that mankind can affect climate cange in any way. Just paying to feel better will not change anything for sure. Dramatic climate change happened through all of earth's history including before mankind and might be mainly depending on the sun's activities.

So you choose to believe scientists when they find out how to build cars and aircraft, or when they tell you that some tiny virus is responsible for people dying, but not when they discover that human activities affect the climate?
 
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Fri May 21, 2021 10:01 am

Noshow wrote:
It is far from proven that mankind can affect climate cange in any way. Just paying to feel better will not change anything for sure. Dramatic climate change happened through all of earth's history including before mankind and might be mainly depending on the sun's activities.


You can complete ignore the environmental factor and just demand that aviation fuel is to be taxed similar to car fuel or the oil used the heat your home. It would make equal sense.
 
Oykie
Posts: 2169
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Fri May 21, 2021 11:53 am

In my opinion it would help aviation to become more environmental friendly if there would be a global agreement on the amount of biofuels/synthetic fuel or flight. An outright ban on domestic flying is dramatic and the effect other than making some headlines is rather limited. If governments are serious about making aviation greener, biofuel fuel is the way forward. For now biofuel is so expensive that to have an annual increase in percentage of biofuel will self regulate the market.
 
oldJoe
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:04 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Fri May 21, 2021 4:58 pm

seahawk wrote:
Noshow wrote:
It is far from proven that mankind can affect climate cange in any way. Just paying to feel better will not change anything for sure. Dramatic climate change happened through all of earth's history including before mankind and might be mainly depending on the sun's activities.


You can complete ignore the environmental factor and just demand that aviation fuel is to be taxed similar to car fuel or the oil used the heat your home. It would make equal sense.


Taxing kerosene in the same way as petrol or diesel would result in exactly the same price difference within Europe as vehicle fuels.
Petrol price June 2020: Poland 0.93 € / l and in the Netherlands 1.67 € / l or diesel: Poland 093 € / l and in Switzerland 1.40 € / l.
Every airline would fly to the closest country with the best prices to fill the bird there to the limit !
If BUZZ, for example, uses its home advantage, that would not help the climate either; on the contrary, it would (even) more harm
 
Noshow
Posts: 3682
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Fri May 21, 2021 5:09 pm

The point is not so much taxing kerosene or not, like taxing avgas, but more like if the government should now start to decide about what sort of travel is right or wrong and then tax it out of business at will.
A lot seems to be very subjective like "short haul is wrong" (why?) or "low cost is wrong" (why this, it's most efficient).
I like to look for new technologies to make the world cleaner and such. But to pick some travel segment and milk it for taxes is not just and will not make the world "greener" in any way. Look where the big shares of pollution come from? Homes and industry.

It's okay to include aviation in the general move to improve but I see it as becoming this season's easy to blame political PR-victim. Which is wrong as it HAS so much improved over time already including emissions.

And finally this is decided by politicians that carry on to fly whenever they feel like it. They can call a private government jet anytime.
 
AN743
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:38 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Fri May 21, 2021 5:43 pm

What happens if over the course of the next 2-3 decades aircraft engines are developed to run on renewables? By that stage alot of the infrastructure supporting air movements would have been taken out of Europe only to have to scramble to accommodate the latest air travel advancements. As populations grow, point to point high speed, sustainable air travel isn't just a possibility, it's already being actively studied by Airbus and other manufacturers. If this decision means local airports and the infrastructure supporting them will suffer..then not sure this is such a long term, thought through idea. It's a bit like when the government ripped out the tram lines in Newcastle and Sydney in the 50s and 60s, only to spend hundreds of millions of tax payers money to reintoduce it in the form of light rail. Melbourne being the exception.
 
oldJoe
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:04 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Fri May 21, 2021 6:10 pm

Noshow wrote:
The point is not so much taxing kerosene or not, like taxing avgas, but more like if the government should now start to decide about what sort of travel is right or wrong and then tax it out of business at will.
A lot seems to be very subjective like "short haul is wrong" (why?) or "low cost is wrong" (why this, it's most efficient).
I like to look for new technologies to make the world cleaner and such. But to pick some travel segment and milk it for taxes is not just and will not make the world "greener" in any way. Look where the big shares of pollution come from? Homes and industry.

It's okay to include aviation in the general move to improve but I see it as becoming this season's easy to blame political PR-victim. Which is wrong as it HAS so much improved over time already including emissions.

And finally this is decided by politicians that carry on to fly whenever they feel like it. They can call a private government jet anytime.


Why are you so convinced of the efficiency of low cost airlines ? I had to go to Sweden once for assembly. My boss decided for Frankfurt to Stockholm (oh I excuse Hahn to Skavsta) with a low-cost airline. 18 people traveled with their own car for the flight. At the destination we got into specially transferred company vehicles and we arrived at the construction site at 1 p.m. By the way the load factor was ~50% !
If you take into account all the emissions generated, I wonder if that is really efficient ?!
 
tootshibbard
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:26 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights in a bid to reduce carbon emissions.

Fri May 21, 2021 7:13 pm

davidjohnson6 wrote:
AF can still offer CDG-LYS to transfer pax.... they just can't offer it to non-transfer pax


Interesting and practical. However, that would cut down on the number of needed seats and daily offerings to those other places like Lyon. So this will diminish CDG's attractiveness when flying to other nearby places in France.

Is TGV services usually cheaper from Paris than is air service from Paris?
 
mig17
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights in a bid to reduce carbon emissions.

Fri May 21, 2021 8:12 pm

tootshibbard wrote:
Is TGV services usually cheaper from Paris than is air service from Paris?

Yes it is.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights in a bid to reduce carbon emissions.

Fri May 21, 2021 9:36 pm

sandyb123 wrote:
And yet here in the Uk we're still quibbling about building the first (domestic) high speed line. I live in Edinburgh and London is 4 and a half hours by train. It's just long enough that flying is still competitive (flight time 1 hour 20 plus faff) and the new High Speed line HS2 will not benefit this routing.

Good for the French for having progressive transport and energy policy. Don't get me started on Nuclear and Renewables!

Sandyb123


And then you think that, even with this legislation, to travel between, let's say, Bordeaux and Lyon, you either fly or put the car on the road since there's NO TGV between these cities unless you change in Paris or halfway towards it (!!!).

Whereas, we have the Cross Country, for example, and Germany has the REGIO (or several; ICE's going around...).

The French have some great ideas and their roads a brilliant but they do have their own issues like the endless Toll Roads (horrible unless you have SANEF) and their strikes...
 
FromCDGtoSYD
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:29 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights in a bid to reduce carbon emissions.

Sat May 22, 2021 3:45 am

Jomar777 wrote:

And then you think that, even with this legislation, to travel between, let's say, Bordeaux and Lyon, you either fly or put the car on the road since there's NO TGV between these cities unless you change in Paris or halfway towards it (!!!).

Whereas, we have the Cross Country, for example, and Germany has the REGIO (or several; ICE's going around...).

The French have some great ideas and their roads a brilliant but they do have their own issues like the endless Toll Roads (horrible unless you have SANEF) and their strikes...


I don't get your point. Much like examples you pointed out, there are TER and Intercites trains crossing the country where the TGV doesn't isn't economically viable. The Bordeaux to Marseille corridor is served by various trains and the Bordeaux to Lyon can be done by connecting along the way. The truth is these marginal lines are serving the communities in between and ultimately the TGV will still be quicker either way.

Lastly, a rail coop is being started up in an effort to revive direct routes such as Bordeaux to Lyon but once again, these were discontinued because ultimately it takes the same time if not longer longer than actually connecting in Paris.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 7:24 am

Noshow wrote:
The point is not so much taxing kerosene or not, like taxing avgas, but more like if the government should now start to decide about what sort of travel is right or wrong and then tax it out of business at will.
A lot seems to be very subjective like "short haul is wrong" (why?) or "low cost is wrong" (why this, it's most efficient).
I like to look for new technologies to make the world cleaner and such. But to pick some travel segment and milk it for taxes is not just and will not make the world "greener" in any way. Look where the big shares of pollution come from? Homes and industry.

It's okay to include aviation in the general move to improve but I see it as becoming this season's easy to blame political PR-victim. Which is wrong as it HAS so much improved over time already including emissions.

And finally this is decided by politicians that carry on to fly whenever they feel like it. They can call a private government jet anytime.


The CO2 and noise pollution of the airline industry is no longer bearable. This must be changed and that means less flights.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3682
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 7:28 am

Is this supposed to be a debate or political agitation? Too much phrases for my taste. How about making things cleaner and quieter? CO2 is another topic. It's just the "bad gas" of the season. How about NOX? Let's make it all as clean as possible. Building lithium mines everywhere and poisoning water in the process will not be better.

How about taxing empty seats on board airplanes? Or by aircraft weight per passenger? There must be smarter ideas and concepts than stopping it. What else would you stop? Are you sure that aviation is enough?
 
Seat0F
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:24 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 8:48 am

seahawk wrote:
Noshow wrote:
The point is not so much taxing kerosene or not, like taxing avgas, but more like if the government should now start to decide about what sort of travel is right or wrong and then tax it out of business at will.
A lot seems to be very subjective like "short haul is wrong" (why?) or "low cost is wrong" (why this, it's most efficient).
I like to look for new technologies to make the world cleaner and such. But to pick some travel segment and milk it for taxes is not just and will not make the world "greener" in any way. Look where the big shares of pollution come from? Homes and industry.

It's okay to include aviation in the general move to improve but I see it as becoming this season's easy to blame political PR-victim. Which is wrong as it HAS so much improved over time already including emissions.

And finally this is decided by politicians that carry on to fly whenever they feel like it. They can call a private government jet anytime.


The CO2 and noise pollution of the airline industry is no longer bearable. This must be changed and that means less flights.



How did you come to that conclusion? The only option is to reduce flights? What about using sustainable fuels or carbon-capture, or totally different fuels altogether? Do those fit into your agenda or is the only option to reduce flights? I assume you are a vegan and dont heat your home in the winter or believe in air conditioning either?

This is the problem with the extremist factions of the “green” lobby. They are terrorists who get to pick and chose which bits of the economy are “bad” and they refuse to understand and accept actual scientific solutions to the climate problem such as sustainable fuels and carbon capture. Their objective is to terrorise people into blasting technology and lifestyles back to the stone age! We give them far to much air time.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9833
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 10:15 am

Noshow wrote:
The point is not so much taxing kerosene or not, like taxing avgas, but more like if the government should now start to decide about what sort of travel is right or wrong and then tax it out of business at will.
A lot seems to be very subjective like "short haul is wrong" (why?) or "low cost is wrong" (why this, it's most efficient).
I like to look for new technologies to make the world cleaner and such. But to pick some travel segment and milk it for taxes is not just and will not make the world "greener" in any way. Look where the big shares of pollution come from? Homes and industry.

It's okay to include aviation in the general move to improve but I see it as becoming this season's easy to blame political PR-victim. Which is wrong as it HAS so much improved over time already including emissions.

And finally this is decided by politicians that carry on to fly whenever they feel like it. They can call a private government jet anytime.


You describe the situation right now. Aviation is subsidized. Aviation fuel does not carry tax, energy for other modes of transport does carry tax. Tax on aviation fuel would level the playing field.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3682
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 10:27 am

Aviation pays for ATC on the other hand while autobahns or trains including super expensive high speed lines are paid for by the taxpayer. (*depending on the country that is, my example being Germany)
I don't propose everything must remain the way it is but taxing kerosene would not suddenly make the world a better place. Let's see what happens to the oil price anyway? This makes a big difference and always did trigger progress for economic reasons not for ideology.

If short haul flights are to be forbidden and all small airports close where will tomorrow's fancy battery drones operate from?
Last edited by Noshow on Sat May 22, 2021 10:48 am, edited 3 times in total.
 
Some1Somewhere
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:22 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 10:36 am

Seat0F wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Noshow wrote:
The point is not so much taxing kerosene or not, like taxing avgas, but more like if the government should now start to decide about what sort of travel is right or wrong and then tax it out of business at will.
A lot seems to be very subjective like "short haul is wrong" (why?) or "low cost is wrong" (why this, it's most efficient).
I like to look for new technologies to make the world cleaner and such. But to pick some travel segment and milk it for taxes is not just and will not make the world "greener" in any way. Look where the big shares of pollution come from? Homes and industry.

It's okay to include aviation in the general move to improve but I see it as becoming this season's easy to blame political PR-victim. Which is wrong as it HAS so much improved over time already including emissions.

And finally this is decided by politicians that carry on to fly whenever they feel like it. They can call a private government jet anytime.


The CO2 and noise pollution of the airline industry is no longer bearable. This must be changed and that means less flights.



How did you come to that conclusion? The only option is to reduce flights? What about using sustainable fuels or carbon-capture, or totally different fuels altogether? Do those fit into your agenda or is the only option to reduce flights? I assume you are a vegan and dont heat your home in the winter or believe in air conditioning either?

This is the problem with the extremist factions of the “green” lobby. They are terrorists who get to pick and chose which bits of the economy are “bad” and they refuse to understand and accept actual scientific solutions to the climate problem such as sustainable fuels and carbon capture. Their objective is to terrorise people into blasting technology and lifestyles back to the stone age! We give them far to much air time.


Carbon capture, clean coal, Hydrogen, fusion, and various other vapourware that is perpetually 5-15 years away, serves a very specific purpose: an excuse to delay everything a bit longer before the tech catches up. We can continue doing what we do now because soon the tech will magically appear.

It's more than clear we've delayed enough. They need to reduce now, and only consider restoring capacity if and when the new tech actually becomes viable and is implemented.
 
Oykie
Posts: 2169
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 10:36 am

seahawk wrote:
Noshow wrote:
The point is not so much taxing kerosene or not, like taxing avgas, but more like if the government should now start to decide about what sort of travel is right or wrong and then tax it out of business at will.
A lot seems to be very subjective like "short haul is wrong" (why?) or "low cost is wrong" (why this, it's most efficient).
I like to look for new technologies to make the world cleaner and such. But to pick some travel segment and milk it for taxes is not just and will not make the world "greener" in any way. Look where the big shares of pollution come from? Homes and industry.

It's okay to include aviation in the general move to improve but I see it as becoming this season's easy to blame political PR-victim. Which is wrong as it HAS so much improved over time already including emissions.

And finally this is decided by politicians that carry on to fly whenever they feel like it. They can call a private government jet anytime.


The CO2 and noise pollution of the airline industry is no longer bearable. This must be changed and that means less flights.


Historically few industries have done more to reduce CO2 emission than aviation. A modern engine consumes 15% of the first generation of jet engines. When it comes to noise, do you remember a 707 or 727 on take-off? I believe in humanity’s ability to reduce the CO2 net emission to zero without ban or limitations to the common people. I do not want a future where only the privileged are allowed to fly.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 11:37 am

Oykie wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Noshow wrote:
The point is not so much taxing kerosene or not, like taxing avgas, but more like if the government should now start to decide about what sort of travel is right or wrong and then tax it out of business at will.
A lot seems to be very subjective like "short haul is wrong" (why?) or "low cost is wrong" (why this, it's most efficient).
I like to look for new technologies to make the world cleaner and such. But to pick some travel segment and milk it for taxes is not just and will not make the world "greener" in any way. Look where the big shares of pollution come from? Homes and industry.

It's okay to include aviation in the general move to improve but I see it as becoming this season's easy to blame political PR-victim. Which is wrong as it HAS so much improved over time already including emissions.

And finally this is decided by politicians that carry on to fly whenever they feel like it. They can call a private government jet anytime.


The CO2 and noise pollution of the airline industry is no longer bearable. This must be changed and that means less flights.


Historically few industries have done more to reduce CO2 emission than aviation. A modern engine consumes 15% of the first generation of jet engines. When it comes to noise, do you remember a 707 or 727 on take-off? I believe in humanity’s ability to reduce the CO2 net emission to zero without ban or limitations to the common people. I do not want a future where only the privileged are allowed to fly.


What good are 15% or even 50% reduction in fuel consumption per plane if we have 5-10x the number of planes?
 
ELBOB
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 11:59 am

Oykie wrote:
Historically few industries have done more to reduce CO2 emission than aviation. A modern engine consumes 15% of the first generation of jet engines. When it comes to noise, do you remember a 707 or 727 on take-off? I believe in humanity’s ability to reduce the CO2 net emission to zero without ban or limitations to the common people.


Which is a great example of inadvertent alignment of incentives. Airlines pushed for reduced fuel consumption to increase profitability, not for noble environmental reasons but simply because they wanted to return cost-per-pax-mile to the levels previously achieved by piston engines. Happily this also had the effect of directly reducing CO2 emissions.

However, will they be so willing to adopt technical changes that reduce CO2 but might increase operating cost? That's the big test.

Oykie wrote:
I do not want a future where only the privileged are allowed to fly.


It's basically thus nowadays, the bulk of the World's 8 billion people can't afford to fly. You just don't see it as locally as in 1950 when the population was 2.5 billion.
Last edited by ELBOB on Sat May 22, 2021 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Seat0F
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:24 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 12:00 pm

I had responded to this debate but the mods deleted my post as it didnt fit in with their political agenda.

And there endeth my brief time on this website. Good bye all!
 
LucaDiMontanari
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:37 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 1:57 pm

seahawk wrote:
What good are 15% or even 50% reduction in fuel consumption per plane if we have 5-10x the number of planes?


He was not talking about a 15% reduction, but an actual fuel consumption of 15% compared to first gen jets, which means a 85% reduction. That's massive, isn't it?

I can't find the source anymore, but once I saw some data about Lufthansa: they doubled passengers between 1990 and 2011 but reduced the total fuel burn by like 12% in the same time period. Not per passenger or passenger mile but in total tons bought from the oil companies. This means, fuel per passenger seat mile was down by like 55%, just by getting rid off of old fuel guzzlers and improved revenue management, read increased seat load factors. And still having less net carbon emitted than 20 years earlier.

It is strange to read to so many anti-aircraft people even on such a site like airliners.net. Even among us, who should have some insight into the industry, are lots of people who happily cut the tree they are sitting on.

Some1Somewhere wrote:
Carbon capture, clean coal, Hydrogen, fusion, and various other vapourware that is perpetually 5-15 years away, serves a very specific purpose: an excuse to delay everything a bit longer before the tech catches up. We can continue doing what we do now because soon the tech will magically appear.

It's more than clear we've delayed enough. They need to reduce now, and only consider restoring capacity if and when the new tech actually becomes viable and is implemented.


Let's get this straight: there is (the odd evil scientist villain aside) hardly any human being who actively wants to kill off our planet earth and it's true that we need to do something. But is flying less really the way to go? Have a look at refrigerators or spray cans: when we found out, that HCFC's are bad for the environment, the best solution was that fridges and spray cans were banned and barely anyone has such a thing in its home nowadays. Same for air conditions, totally vanished after the HCFC-ban within 10 years. Oh wait, no, the story went otherwise...

We still have fridges and A/C's but they are harmless nowadays. Why? It needed legislative acts, but when they were in place it went fast. And I am pretty sure, that the same would work for aircraft fuels. There is no need to get rid off from flying, but rather from fossil fuels. Sustainable aviation fuels aren't vaporware, the technology is already here and it is far from being at the borders of physics, in contrast to fusion power. They are too expensive at the moment, because all approaches are still in an experimental state. You're right, it sometimes seems that such technologies are delayed over and over again, but do you know why? Because no one was actually forced to implement it yet, there was no incentive to do so.

Is it a good idea to ban short haul flights or all tax aircraft fuels? Or might it not be a superior idea to tax only fossil fuels but exempt all renewables, including SAF's and electric planes? This would heavily help to ramp up production of SAF's thus making them more affordable just by the scales of economy. Or maybe a law that bans fossil fuels by let's say 2035 in aviation? This worked with HCFC's, it worked with catalytic converters on cars and it worked with asbestos, yet we still use fridges, cars, insulations and fibre cements. So why not with fossil fuels? What is wrong with the goal, that everyone can fly to London for shopping without harming the environment? But obviously we humans are all masochists and prefer to painfully limit ourselves, as no one actually want's that...

The green german politician and not-to-be-chancellor Robert Habeck was quoted recently in a talk show: "Kurzstreckenflüge zu verbieten sind niedrig hängende Früchte. Der klimawirksame Gewinn ist nicht so besonders hoch. Das muss man einfach zugeben. Eine solche Maßnahme ist eher ein Beispiel dafür, was man alles kann, was niemanden wirklich weh tut“.

Translation: "banning short haul flights is a low hanging fruit. The impact on the climate isn't particularly high, we have to admit that. Such a measure is just an example for what one can do that no one really harms".

Well, I doubt, that an average voter - independently from its political position - is rarely able to tell what or when a large scale measure starts to harm someone else. It will harm thousands of people, facing unemployment and poverty, what could be avoided by just a slightly different approach and still having a greener, better world. Bad luck, if there are lots of people, who regard planes as the evil turned metal :banghead:

In german: https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/news/habeck-stichelt-gegen-baerbock-niedrig-haengende-fruechte-li.160359
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 3:56 pm

LucaDiMontanari wrote:
seahawk wrote:
What good are 15% or even 50% reduction in fuel consumption per plane if we have 5-10x the number of planes?


He was not talking about a 15% reduction, but an actual fuel consumption of 15% compared to first gen jets, which means a 85% reduction. That's massive, isn't it?

I can't find the source anymore, but once I saw some data about Lufthansa: they doubled passengers between 1990 and 2011 but reduced the total fuel burn by like 12% in the same time period. Not per passenger or passenger mile but in total tons bought from the oil companies. This means, fuel per passenger seat mile was down by like 55%, just by getting rid off of old fuel guzzlers and improved revenue management, read increased seat load factors. And still having less net carbon emitted than 20 years earlier.[/url]


That just shows that LH did not grow as fast as the overall market, as the passenger number nearly doubled from 2004 to 2019. And being as dirty as 1990 is not good enough, they need to be climate neutral asap and one efficient way to achieve this is simply making flying much more expensive and banning flying whenever possible. The airline in the current from is not sustainable.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights in a bid to reduce carbon emissions.

Sat May 22, 2021 4:03 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
There are some things that are pretty uniquely French that make this work:

1. They've spent 45 years building out a comprehensive TGV network.

2. Over 90% of electrical generation in 2019 was carbon-free: nuclear (overwhelmingly) but also hydro, wind and solar.

3. Long-haul air travel is almost exclusively centered on a single city, Paris (although across two airports), so connections to the provinces are significantly aggregated.

4. Somebody had the foresight 30 years ago to make CDG2 a big TGV station, with 15 million passengers in 2019.


Mlflyer has a point. Less free market, less capitalism, bureaucratic centralist trade-offs. Works for China as well. Ideological struggle between what should work & what works..
 
Noshow
Posts: 3682
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 4:09 pm

one efficient way to achieve this is simply making flying much more expensive and banning flying whenever possible. The airline in the current from is not sustainable.

So you seem to oppose flying and come to post in some aviation forum using valuable electric power to do so. Just for the fun?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 4:14 pm

Noshow wrote:
one efficient way to achieve this is simply making flying much more expensive and banning flying whenever possible. The airline in the current from is not sustainable.

So you seem to oppose flying and come to post in some aviation forum using valuable electric power to do so. Just for the fun?


No, I oppose that flying is not treated equal to other means of motorized transportation.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5637
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 4:35 pm

In all of this, more than tiny steps but not giant steps. Improve surface transportation, electrify about everything at a fairly fast pace, start with moderate taxes on fossil fuels, but stepping up from time to time. Boeing is planning on bio fuels by 2030. No one needs to quit flying, but how about business flying drop by 30-50%, make every air trip count. Hire more people, have more fun, go even more places- if we do it right everyone wins.
 
Oykie
Posts: 2169
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 5:46 pm

seahawk wrote:
Oykie wrote:
seahawk wrote:

The CO2 and noise pollution of the airline industry is no longer bearable. This must be changed and that means less flights.


Historically few industries have done more to reduce CO2 emission than aviation. A modern engine consumes 15% of the first generation of jet engines. When it comes to noise, do you remember a 707 or 727 on take-off? I believe in humanity’s ability to reduce the CO2 net emission to zero without ban or limitations to the common people. I do not want a future where only the privileged are allowed to fly.


What good are 15% or even 50% reduction in fuel consumption per plane if we have 5-10x the number of planes?


The reduction has been 85%. I find that pretty awesome. Look we need to have businesses that can afford to develop clean air transport with good regulation. The brilliance of entrepreneurs like Elon Musk will never be found in an environment where business is not allowed to flourish.
 
Oykie
Posts: 2169
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 5:58 pm

ELBOB wrote:
Oykie wrote:
Historically few industries have done more to reduce CO2 emission than aviation. A modern engine consumes 15% of the first generation of jet engines. When it comes to noise, do you remember a 707 or 727 on take-off? I believe in humanity’s ability to reduce the CO2 net emission to zero without ban or limitations to the common people.


Which is a great example of inadvertent alignment of incentives. Airlines pushed for reduced fuel consumption to increase profitability, not for noble environmental reasons but simply because they wanted to return cost-per-pax-mile to the levels previously achieved by piston engines. Happily this also had the effect of directly reducing CO2 emissions.

However, will they be so willing to adopt technical changes that reduce CO2 but might increase operating cost? That's the big test.

Oykie wrote:
I do not want a future where only the privileged are allowed to fly.


It's basically thus nowadays, the bulk of the World's 8 billion people can't afford to fly. You just don't see it as locally as in 1950 when the population was 2.5 billion.


I believe that true capitalism and environmentalism wants to accomplish the same thing. Companies needs to earn money in order to pay employees, tax and research and development. It’s a sound business strategy to have a sustainable development. There probably need to be some international regulation to keep competition between countries honest. But an outright local ban accomplish nothing more than ruin some jobs in France.

The rise of LCC has made flying possible for many more. Banning LCC is a good way to say that common people should stay at home, maybe take a bus or train while the privileged can continue to fly.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 15980
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 6:04 pm

Oykie wrote:
In my opinion it would help aviation to become more environmental friendly if there would be a global agreement on the amount of biofuels/synthetic fuel or flight. An outright ban on domestic flying is dramatic and the effect other than making some headlines is rather limited. If governments are serious about making aviation greener, biofuel fuel is the way forward. For now biofuel is so expensive that to have an annual increase in percentage of biofuel will self regulate the market.


Biofuels are being studied, in France since we're talking about it there was a transatlantic flight the other day by AF made with biofuel. And the French law says that jet fuel must have 2% of biofuel in it by 2025 and 5% by 2030.

These fuels must not be competing with food production however or that would cause another problem.
 
Oykie
Posts: 2169
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 6:04 pm

LucaDiMontanari wrote:
seahawk wrote:
What good are 15% or even 50% reduction in fuel consumption per plane if we have 5-10x the number of planes?


He was not talking about a 15% reduction, but an actual fuel consumption of 15% compared to first gen jets, which means a 85% reduction. That's massive, isn't it?

I can't find the source anymore, but once I saw some data about Lufthansa: they doubled passengers between 1990 and 2011 but reduced the total fuel burn by like 12% in the same time period. Not per passenger or passenger mile but in total tons bought from the oil companies. This means, fuel per passenger seat mile was down by like 55%, just by getting rid off of old fuel guzzlers and improved revenue management, read increased seat load factors. And still having less net carbon emitted than 20 years earlier.

It is strange to read to so many anti-aircraft people even on such a site like airliners.net. Even among us, who should have some insight into the industry, are lots of people who happily cut the tree they are sitting on.

Some1Somewhere wrote:
Carbon capture, clean coal, Hydrogen, fusion, and various other vapourware that is perpetually 5-15 years away, serves a very specific purpose: an excuse to delay everything a bit longer before the tech catches up. We can continue doing what we do now because soon the tech will magically appear.

It's more than clear we've delayed enough. They need to reduce now, and only consider restoring capacity if and when the new tech actually becomes viable and is implemented.


Let's get this straight: there is (the odd evil scientist villain aside) hardly any human being who actively wants to kill off our planet earth and it's true that we need to do something. But is flying less really the way to go? Have a look at refrigerators or spray cans: when we found out, that HCFC's are bad for the environment, the best solution was that fridges and spray cans were banned and barely anyone has such a thing in its home nowadays. Same for air conditions, totally vanished after the HCFC-ban within 10 years. Oh wait, no, the story went otherwise...

We still have fridges and A/C's but they are harmless nowadays. Why? It needed legislative acts, but when they were in place it went fast. And I am pretty sure, that the same would work for aircraft fuels. There is no need to get rid off from flying, but rather from fossil fuels. Sustainable aviation fuels aren't vaporware, the technology is already here and it is far from being at the borders of physics, in contrast to fusion power. They are too expensive at the moment, because all approaches are still in an experimental state. You're right, it sometimes seems that such technologies are delayed over and over again, but do you know why? Because no one was actually forced to implement it yet, there was no incentive to do so.

Is it a good idea to ban short haul flights or all tax aircraft fuels? Or might it not be a superior idea to tax only fossil fuels but exempt all renewables, including SAF's and electric planes? This would heavily help to ramp up production of SAF's thus making them more affordable just by the scales of economy. Or maybe a law that bans fossil fuels by let's say 2035 in aviation? This worked with HCFC's, it worked with catalytic converters on cars and it worked with asbestos, yet we still use fridges, cars, insulations and fibre cements. So why not with fossil fuels? What is wrong with the goal, that everyone can fly to London for shopping without harming the environment? But obviously we humans are all masochists and prefer to painfully limit ourselves, as no one actually want's that...

The green german politician and not-to-be-chancellor Robert Habeck was quoted recently in a talk show: "Kurzstreckenflüge zu verbieten sind niedrig hängende Früchte. Der klimawirksame Gewinn ist nicht so besonders hoch. Das muss man einfach zugeben. Eine solche Maßnahme ist eher ein Beispiel dafür, was man alles kann, was niemanden wirklich weh tut“.

Translation: "banning short haul flights is a low hanging fruit. The impact on the climate isn't particularly high, we have to admit that. Such a measure is just an example for what one can do that no one really harms".

Well, I doubt, that an average voter - independently from its political position - is rarely able to tell what or when a large scale measure starts to harm someone else. It will harm thousands of people, facing unemployment and poverty, what could be avoided by just a slightly different approach and still having a greener, better world. Bad luck, if there are lots of people, who regard planes as the evil turned metal :banghead:

In german: https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/news/habeck-stichelt-gegen-baerbock-niedrig-haengende-fruechte-li.160359


Spot on comment
 
Oykie
Posts: 2169
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 6:16 pm

Aesma wrote:
Oykie wrote:
In my opinion it would help aviation to become more environmental friendly if there would be a global agreement on the amount of biofuels/synthetic fuel or flight. An outright ban on domestic flying is dramatic and the effect other than making some headlines is rather limited. If governments are serious about making aviation greener, biofuel fuel is the way forward. For now biofuel is so expensive that to have an annual increase in percentage of biofuel will self regulate the market.


Biofuels are being studied, in France since we're talking about it there was a transatlantic flight the other day by AF made with biofuel. And the French law says that jet fuel must have 2% of biofuel in it by 2025 and 5% by 2030.

These fuels must not be competing with food production however or that would cause another problem.


This is so good and a much better solution than just banning domestic flights. I believe biofuel can help reforestation because there will be a demand and if regulated well it can help us plant more trees. This should probably be done through IATA or some other organization.
 
oldJoe
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:04 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 6:53 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
In all of this, more than tiny steps but not giant steps. Improve surface transportation, electrify about everything at a fairly fast pace, start with moderate taxes on fossil fuels, but stepping up from time to time. Boeing is planning on bio fuels by 2030. No one needs to quit flying, but how about business flying drop by 30-50%, make every air trip count. Hire more people, have more fun, go even more places- if we do it right everyone wins.


Airbus already carried out test flights in March and April of this year with an A350 which was fueled with 100% SAF. ( not blended )

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories/A350-fuelled-by-100-percent-SAF-just-took-off.html

That is already going in the right direction and will definitely be the future, but at what price? If you read the article critically, you will notice something up to the refueling of the aircraft with SAF. Transported by ship from Finland to Rotterdam and by truck to Toulouse does not sound very climate-friendly !?

from the article

Then, in April, DLR’s Falcon 20E "chase" aircraft equipped with a “sniffer” (i.e. sensors) will follow 50 metres behind the A350 test aircraft to measure the emissions directly from the SAF-fuelled engine exhaust.


https://www.dlr.de/content/en/articles/aeronautics/research-fleet-infrastructure/dlr-research-aircraft/dassault-falcon-20e-5-d-cmet.html

So, a Dassault Falcon 20E-5 in service since 1976 claims to be a "flying laboratory for environmental and climate research" ??? They want to fool us whenever they can !
As always, the only winners are not aviation fanatics or the little traveler, but the ...
 
Vicenza
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 7:13 pm

LucaDiMontanari wrote:
The green german politician and not-to-be-chancellor Robert Habeck was quoted recently in a talk show: "Kurzstreckenflüge zu verbieten sind niedrig hängende Früchte. Der klimawirksame Gewinn ist nicht so besonders hoch. Das muss man einfach zugeben. Eine solche Maßnahme ist eher ein Beispiel dafür, was man alles kann, was niemanden wirklich weh tut“.

Translation: "banning short haul flights is a low hanging fruit. The impact on the climate isn't particularly high, we have to admit that. Such a measure is just an example for what one can do that no one really harms".

Well, I doubt, that an average voter - independently from its political position - is rarely able to tell what or when a large scale measure starts to harm someone else. It will harm thousands of people, facing unemployment and poverty, what could be avoided by just a slightly different approach and still having a greener, better world. Bad luck, if there are lots of people, who regard planes as the evil turned metal :banghead:


You seem to have a very low opinion of most people's intelligence ability. How do you see banning short haul flights as driving thousands of people into unemployment and, especially, poverty or are you saying that merely to obtain impact?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 7:20 pm

Being an aviation professional and enthousiast for decades doesn't prevent me observing the environmental impact of our growing business, let alone denial it to suit an agenda. If there is a problem, there is.
 
oldJoe
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:04 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 7:42 pm

keesje wrote:
Being an aviation professional and enthousiast for decades doesn't prevent me observing the environmental impact of our growing business, let alone denial it to suit an agenda. If there is a problem, there is.


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:
Thanks for your honest words !!!
 
pbody
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:09 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 8:26 pm

This rule is stupid and only serves to take money away from the French tax funds. If someone in Nice wants to fly to New York they wont be able to go via Paris so instead will book via Amsterdam or Frankfurt or London on a foreign carrier.
 
davidjohnson6
Posts: 2613
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 8:40 pm

Paris to Nice is a minimum of 5 hours 30 minutes by train. The French rule on no flights is for journeys that can be done in less than 2 hours 30 minutes by train

There is no need whatsoever for a person flying Nice - New York to avoid Paris. Any such claim of being forced to fly via Amsterdam is completely false
 
Oykie
Posts: 2169
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 9:28 pm

keesje wrote:
Being an aviation professional and enthousiast for decades doesn't prevent me observing the environmental impact of our growing business, let alone denial it to suit an agenda. If there is a problem, there is.


I believe we all see that fossil fuel is not the future, But this French law is nothing but showing off. It reminds me of the red flag act in the United Kingdom. It did not have any positive effect in anything. Neither does this rule. In my opinion a better route is to increase the amount of synthetic fuel.
 
Oykie
Posts: 2169
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 9:31 pm

oldJoe wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
In all of this, more than tiny steps but not giant steps. Improve surface transportation, electrify about everything at a fairly fast pace, start with moderate taxes on fossil fuels, but stepping up from time to time. Boeing is planning on bio fuels by 2030. No one needs to quit flying, but how about business flying drop by 30-50%, make every air trip count. Hire more people, have more fun, go even more places- if we do it right everyone wins.


Airbus already carried out test flights in March and April of this year with an A350 which was fueled with 100% SAF. ( not blended )

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories/A350-fuelled-by-100-percent-SAF-just-took-off.html

That is already going in the right direction and will definitely be the future, but at what price? If you read the article critically, you will notice something up to the refueling of the aircraft with SAF. Transported by ship from Finland to Rotterdam and by truck to Toulouse does not sound very climate-friendly !?

from the article

Then, in April, DLR’s Falcon 20E "chase" aircraft equipped with a “sniffer” (i.e. sensors) will follow 50 metres behind the A350 test aircraft to measure the emissions directly from the SAF-fuelled engine exhaust.


https://www.dlr.de/content/en/articles/aeronautics/research-fleet-infrastructure/dlr-research-aircraft/dassault-falcon-20e-5-d-cmet.html

So, a Dassault Falcon 20E-5 in service since 1976 claims to be a "flying laboratory for environmental and climate research" ??? They want to fool us whenever they can !
As always, the only winners are not aviation fanatics or the little traveler, but the ...


I agree that currently a lot of synthetic fuel travels too far to have any positive effect on climate. But this is temporary as the demand increase for synthetic fuel, more will be made locally reducing the demand for synthetic fuel to travel as far as they do now.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9833
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sat May 22, 2021 10:02 pm

I think posters here are going overboard. France has one big main airport CDG well connected to the French high speed rail network. Airlines could offer tickets combining air with rail as Lufthansa does in Frankfurt.
Direct trips, point to point by rail under 2:30 hours are hardly beaten by air, with all it's inconveniences regarding safety and taxiing times at overcrowded airports.
Nobody talks about banning flying per se.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 15980
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sun May 23, 2021 5:48 am

Oykie wrote:
keesje wrote:
Being an aviation professional and enthousiast for decades doesn't prevent me observing the environmental impact of our growing business, let alone denial it to suit an agenda. If there is a problem, there is.


I believe we all see that fossil fuel is not the future, But this French law is nothing but showing off. It reminds me of the red flag act in the United Kingdom. It did not have any positive effect in anything. Neither does this rule. In my opinion a better route is to increase the amount of synthetic fuel.


I'm not against synoil but for it to be a solution we would need to see massive investment in it, right now. The obvious ones should be power generation companies, since it's their electricity and heat that can be used to make synoil. Airframers Airbus and Boeing should also put money on the table. And maybe oil companies too. Along with governments.

I'm not seeing this happening, so far.

The reason being there is no incentive, and the incentive can only be a carbon tax. You're not going to invest billions to make synoil that might end up costing 100$ a barrel (if we're optimistic), if nobody is forced to buy it.

These same power companies needed massive incentives to switch to renewables, and it took decades of investment before renewables became cost competitive with fossil/nuclear (and there are still drawbacks).
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights where same journey could be made by train in under 2,5 hours

Sun May 23, 2021 7:54 am

Synoil is the future, but as long as normal fuel is so cheap, it will never be able to become commercially viable. So the first step would be to tax the normal fuel so that the costs cover the environmental damage it causes.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AMP44, ANA787, CJMAviation, Coaster, crytexx, eamondzhang, ERJ170, Google Adsense [Bot], Marek747, oakleaf1, paullam, Qantas74, qf002, RJMAZ, rutankrd, ryby92, Someone83, SRGVA67 and 153 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos