Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22925
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:48 pm

Vicenza wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Limit CO2 by mandating grown fuel. Bans are cludgy at best. As an aviation fan and an engineer, I look for solutions, not "just stop" or heavy taxes.

e.g., how will electric aircraft be allowed under this ban? When those aircraft are available, why not allow them?

Lightsaber


Is this not somewhat getting ahead of things though? We are a very long way away from electric aircraft so find it strange that you are introducing them into this situation. I would imagine that when they eventually arrive they would not be included. I have great respect for your posts in general, but in this thread, I find it a bit perplexing that you are constantly going of in various tangents to the actual situation.

Once service stops, it is much more expensive to restart. I strongly disagree with this ban as it will probably result in some French airports losing service which will be a permanent loss for aviation.

I'm all for rail service, but something is wrong when they must ban the competition.

While we can agree electric aviation is a few years away, it should also be agreed it is not decades away.

Will electric aircraft be included in the future? That requires hiring lawyers to advocate and I see no business case if the service is already shut down as there won't be a business case to start up operations from scratch.

Customers are rational. Perhaps it is my American attitude to relocate for business needs (I have lived in 4 regions of the USA). It is my opinion the unintended consequences of this policy are not minor and will cost jobs. If I have done a poor job expressing so that it just seems like tangents, that is on me. I believe this ruling ends small city regional aviation in France and due the costs to initiate service, I see no future recovery. As an aviation fan, I disagree with that.

Lightsaber
 
davidjohnson6
Posts: 1590
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

Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:01 pm

The airports losing service are major cities losing service to Paris, or between major cities. We're talking Paris-Lyon, Paris-Bordeaux, Paris-Nantes and maybe Lyon-Marseille.

Aviation can either change a bit now and voluntarily.... or it can ignore the prevailing winds and face the fury of the greens in 5 years time

These are all big cities whose airports can easily look after themselves. The French Govt and city mayors should also encourage SNCF to run new services from these cities to Paris CDG rail station. We are not talking PSO routes on 19-seaters to remote towns in rural areas
 
blockski
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

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

Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:08 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Vicenza wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Limit CO2 by mandating grown fuel. Bans are cludgy at best. As an aviation fan and an engineer, I look for solutions, not "just stop" or heavy taxes.

e.g., how will electric aircraft be allowed under this ban? When those aircraft are available, why not allow them?

Lightsaber


Is this not somewhat getting ahead of things though? We are a very long way away from electric aircraft so find it strange that you are introducing them into this situation. I would imagine that when they eventually arrive they would not be included. I have great respect for your posts in general, but in this thread, I find it a bit perplexing that you are constantly going of in various tangents to the actual situation.

Once service stops, it is much more expensive to restart. I strongly disagree with this ban as it will probably result in some French airports losing service which will be a permanent loss for aviation.


Let's all remember that the purpose of the rule is to limit carbon impacts. If some airports lose service (but still have rail service) and carbon emissions decrease, that's an acceptable trade. And we're going to need to have lots more of these kinds of discussions in the future.

Whether this is good or bad for aviation is secondary to the bigger picture of addressing climate.

I'm all for rail service, but something is wrong when they must ban the competition.


The thing that's wrong is the failure to account for climate impact. It'd be nice if we had made more progress on this in the last few decades, but the political support wasn't there, and now we're up against a serious clock. We need to rapidly decarbonize the entire world economy. And when thinking in those terms, it should be clear why the impacts to aviation at minor airports is not the top concern.
 
mernest
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:51 pm

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

Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:27 pm

There is a perfectly reasonable market-based explanation for why private companies might need regulation to stop offering a service that nobody actually wants.

Guys, it's time for some game theory.

Consider a scenario where there is exactly zero demand for non-connecting air services and there are multiple competitors offering connecting services who are thus potentially capable of offering non-connecting services.

From the point of view of any one competitor, if they offered non-connecting air services while their competitors did not they would be perceived by the customers as having an advantage over their competitors even if no one actually used the non-connecting air service. If they did not offer non-connecting air services while their competitors did, they would be perceived by the customers as having a disadvantage over their competitors even if no one actually used the non-connecting air service.

Offering the non-connecting air service is thus a *dominant strategy*: not matter what your competitors are doing you can unilaterally improve your own situation by offering the non-connecting air service that no one wants.

However, this means we end up with a solution where all competitors provide non-connecting air service that nobody wants. The competitors have to dedicate resources to providing the services that cannot be used for services that customers actually want; the customers for other services of each competitor have to bear the costs of providing the services that no customer wants. The market is worse off, as allocating resources to service no one wants is clearly inefficient. All competitors and all customers would be better off if non-connecting air service was not offered. However, we are stuck in a *Nash Equilibrium* where no unilateral choice can improve an individual competitor's outcome.

Improving the market outcome in that scenario requires cooperation, which may not be legal for competitors to engage in on their own. This is where regulatory intervention comes in. This is all uncontroversial under capitalism, which recognizes that market failures are inefficient.
 
tomcat
Posts: 771
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

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

Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:49 pm

blockski wrote:
lightsaber wrote:


I'm all for rail service, but something is wrong when they must ban the competition.


The thing that's wrong is the failure to account for climate impact. It'd be nice if we had made more progress on this in the last few decades, but the political support wasn't there, and now we're up against a serious clock. We need to rapidly decarbonize the entire world economy. And when thinking in those terms, it should be clear why the impacts to aviation at minor airports is not the top concern.


If they want to rapidly "decarbonize" the air transport, the politicians should rather ban or cap the long-haul flights. These are by far the greatest emitters of CO2 of the airlines industry. Banning the shortest flights doesn't bring any measurable benefits in terms of CO2 emissions and might even be highly counter-productive: by banning short-haul flights at the main hubs, they actually provide more slot opportunities to the airlines for launching long(er)-haul flights.

As someone has explained upthread, the ban of short-haul flights is just an attempt of green-populism from some politicians, nothing else. And hopefully for the climate, those politicians are aware about the ineffectiveness of such moves.
 
blockski
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

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

Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:00 pm

tomcat wrote:
blockski wrote:
lightsaber wrote:




The thing that's wrong is the failure to account for climate impact. It'd be nice if we had made more progress on this in the last few decades, but the political support wasn't there, and now we're up against a serious clock. We need to rapidly decarbonize the entire world economy. And when thinking in those terms, it should be clear why the impacts to aviation at minor airports is not the top concern.


If they want to rapidly "decarbonize" the air transport, the politicians should rather ban or cap the long-haul flights. These are by far the greatest emitters of CO2 of the airlines industry. Banning the shortest flights doesn't bring any measurable benefits in terms of CO2 emissions and might even be highly counter-productive: by banning short-haul flights at the main hubs, they actually provide more slot opportunities to the airlines for launching long(er)-haul flights.

As someone has explained upthread, the ban of short-haul flights is just an attempt of green-populism from some politicians, nothing else. And hopefully for the climate, those politicians are aware about the ineffectiveness of such moves.


A couple of things:

The need to rapidly decarbonize the entire economy (not just aviation) is laid out quite clearly based on the data. The IPCC scenarios to avoid 2 deg C of warming already show that we basically can't do it without going net negative on emissions.

When faced with the costs of going beyond 2 deg C, I suspect there are lots of politicians who will easily move on to banning more kinds of flights and other carbon intensive activities. That's also the nature of politics - as coalitions build agreement on an issue, they often start on small items and then work up to larger and more complex and more controversial items. If the aviation industry isn't able to a) make progress on dramatically reducing emissions, and/or b) embrace common sense reforms like limiting flights when there are perfectly suitable (and even superior) rail connections available, then that political coaltion will feel no choice but to move on to the more impactful actions.

Likewise, I don't understand the folks here denigrating this move as "politics" or "populism." Of course it is. That's how change will happen - though politics.
 
Naincompetent
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:20 am

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

Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:06 pm

blockski wrote:
Likewise, I don't understand the folks here denigrating this move as "politics" or "populism." Of course it is. That's how change will happen - though politics.


The point being that in this case, the effect pursued by the ban has already happened.
Short O&D flights have effectively been replaced by trains.
BTW, that was also a political decision to build the railroads, and one with much more effect.
 
Oykie
Posts: 2049
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

Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:10 pm

blockski wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Vicenza wrote:

Is this not somewhat getting ahead of things though? We are a very long way away from electric aircraft so find it strange that you are introducing them into this situation. I would imagine that when they eventually arrive they would not be included. I have great respect for your posts in general, but in this thread, I find it a bit perplexing that you are constantly going of in various tangents to the actual situation.

Once service stops, it is much more expensive to restart. I strongly disagree with this ban as it will probably result in some French airports losing service which will be a permanent loss for aviation.


Let's all remember that the purpose of the rule is to limit carbon impacts. If some airports lose service (but still have rail service) and carbon emissions decrease, that's an acceptable trade. And we're going to need to have lots more of these kinds of discussions in the future.

Whether this is good or bad for aviation is secondary to the bigger picture of addressing climate.

I'm all for rail service, but something is wrong when they must ban the competition.


The thing that's wrong is the failure to account for climate impact. It'd be nice if we had made more progress on this in the last few decades, but the political support wasn't there, and now we're up against a serious clock. We need to rapidly decarbonize the entire world economy. And when thinking in those terms, it should be clear why the impacts to aviation at minor airports is not the top concern.


In my opinion a ban is short sighted and does little if nothing to help the carbon emission in France. The EU initiative for hydrogen flights and support for bio fuel is a better path in my mind.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14771
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

Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:21 pm

tomcat wrote:
blockski wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The thing that's wrong is the failure to account for climate impact. It'd be nice if we had made more progress on this in the last few decades, but the political support wasn't there, and now we're up against a serious clock. We need to rapidly decarbonize the entire world economy. And when thinking in those terms, it should be clear why the impacts to aviation at minor airports is not the top concern.


If they want to rapidly "decarbonize" the air transport, the politicians should rather ban or cap the long-haul flights. These are by far the greatest emitters of CO2 of the airlines industry. Banning the shortest flights doesn't bring any measurable benefits in terms of CO2 emissions and might even be highly counter-productive: by banning short-haul flights at the main hubs, they actually provide more slot opportunities to the airlines for launching long(er)-haul flights.

As someone has explained upthread, the ban of short-haul flights is just an attempt of green-populism from some politicians, nothing else. And hopefully for the climate, those politicians are aware about the ineffectiveness of such moves.


Flights will be taxed according to their length so long haul will contribute don't worry. Banning long haul doesn't make any sense of course, we're not going back to ocean liners, or to basically nobody travelling.

There are discussions however (still among green politicians for now) about limiting how much flying individuals could do in their lifetime. Their proposals are a bit crazy (one long haul for your whole life), however at a smaller scale it makes sense, one long haul per year for example. That would already make a big difference (and probably kill a few airlines).
 
Oykie
Posts: 2049
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

Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:15 pm

Aesma wrote:
tomcat wrote:
blockski wrote:


If they want to rapidly "decarbonize" the air transport, the politicians should rather ban or cap the long-haul flights. These are by far the greatest emitters of CO2 of the airlines industry. Banning the shortest flights doesn't bring any measurable benefits in terms of CO2 emissions and might even be highly counter-productive: by banning short-haul flights at the main hubs, they actually provide more slot opportunities to the airlines for launching long(er)-haul flights.

As someone has explained upthread, the ban of short-haul flights is just an attempt of green-populism from some politicians, nothing else. And hopefully for the climate, those politicians are aware about the ineffectiveness of such moves.


Flights will be taxed according to their length so long haul will contribute don't worry. Banning long haul doesn't make any sense of course, we're not going back to ocean liners, or to basically nobody travelling.

There are discussions however (still among green politicians for now) about limiting how much flying individuals could do in their lifetime. Their proposals are a bit crazy (one long haul for your whole life), however at a smaller scale it makes sense, one long haul per year for example. That would already make a big difference (and probably kill a few airlines).


If you think about how tiny a fraction of the benefits to climate this will have compared to the huge impact on individual lives, I think it’s a no go. It greatly reduces individuals freedom, for a questionable gain.

I am worried about the violation of constitutional freedom to move. It has been violated in many countries during COVID 19, and my worry is that more politicians see this as a new everyday tool, forcefully limiting individuals freedom.
 
Eikie
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:15 pm

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

Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:44 pm

Aesma wrote:
tomcat wrote:
blockski wrote:

There are discussions however (still among green politicians for now) about limiting how much flying individuals could do in their lifetime. Their proposals are a bit crazy (one long haul for your whole life), however at a smaller scale it makes sense, one long haul per year for example. That would already make a big difference (and probably kill a few airlines).

Let's include 1 meatproduct per month, two car rides a week, 1 child and a fixed amount of energy per month for heating.

And of course a certain amount of raw materials credits to limit overall consumption.

That might save more CO2 than flying less.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14771
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

Mon Jun 07, 2021 5:46 pm

All of the above will probably be necessary, especially if the alternative isn't considered : making less children.
 
User avatar
Leovinus
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:57 pm

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

Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:49 pm

Aesma wrote:
All of the above will probably be necessary, especially if the alternative isn't considered : making less children.


The problem is that we have an economic system predicated on growth. And the only way we know to produce growth is to grow the customer base. Either that or expect fewer to carry the economical burden not only of private consumption, but also taxation. What we're all talking about, but blatantly ignoring, is the fact that all of the things we take for granted will have to be rethought to let us survive. I know it sounds depressing, but anything else is merely looking the other way and using band-aid solutions to mend a decapitated limb. Green fuels, less plastic, etc, is a mirage that keeps us from having to face that horrible truth. But it's better than nothing, so I'm onboard.

I haven't read this entire thread, but France has also decided to basically force Air France-KLM et. al. to invest in and field alternative fuel aircraft within the next 20 years or so. I think it's a good idea really. Clumsy, but good. I don't know the absolute logic, but if IF these investments are further incentivised by banning shorter flights until the investments bear fruit I can only see it as spurring development on quicker.

We all need a good mix of transportation options. And we all (well... most I should hope) want them to be green.
 
User avatar
thekorean
Posts: 1801
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:05 pm

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

Mon Jun 07, 2021 8:45 pm

Who is most aggrieved by this? AF or any of the LCC? I think this is good news for AF.
 
Vicenza
Posts: 393
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

Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:08 pm

tomcat wrote:

If they want to rapidly "decarbonize" the air transport, the politicians should rather ban or cap the long-haul flights. These are by far the greatest emitters of CO2 of the airlines industry. Banning the shortest flights doesn't bring any measurable benefits in terms of CO2 emissions and might even be highly counter-productive: by banning short-haul flights at the main hubs, they actually provide more slot opportunities to the airlines for launching long(er)-haul flights.


Actually, in my opinion, what need capped drastically is the frequency of many flights. There should be absolutely no need whatsoever to have several flights to same destinations every hour (or less). Airlines are not, and shouldn't attempt to be, a bus service. I realise this is much more common in the US, of course....in fact a way of life. Yes, I know we hear on this forum ad nuseam, that that's what customers 'demand'. No, it is what they are being offered solely for airline profits and 'market share'. If, for example (and am only using rough figures) there are four flights a day from A to B then passengers, both business and leisure, will adjust accordingly. There is no need for twenty. The nonsense that is often spouted on here about 'businessmen' needing to be at their destination at a specific time is just that, nonsense. Nothing to stop them being there, but it is not the responsibility of airlines (or trains or other transport) to babysit their every whim. Things of this nature is what will have a substantial effect of the environment.
 
tomcat
Posts: 771
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

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

Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:58 pm

Vicenza wrote:
tomcat wrote:

If they want to rapidly "decarbonize" the air transport, the politicians should rather ban or cap the long-haul flights. These are by far the greatest emitters of CO2 of the airlines industry. Banning the shortest flights doesn't bring any measurable benefits in terms of CO2 emissions and might even be highly counter-productive: by banning short-haul flights at the main hubs, they actually provide more slot opportunities to the airlines for launching long(er)-haul flights.


Actually, in my opinion, what need capped drastically is the frequency of many flights. There should be absolutely no need whatsoever to have several flights to same destinations every hour (or less). Airlines are not, and shouldn't attempt to be, a bus service. I realise this is much more common in the US, of course....in fact a way of life. Yes, I know we hear on this forum ad nuseam, that that's what customers 'demand'. No, it is what they are being offered solely for airline profits and 'market share'. If, for example (and am only using rough figures) there are four flights a day from A to B then passengers, both business and leisure, will adjust accordingly. There is no need for twenty. The nonsense that is often spouted on here about 'businessmen' needing to be at their destination at a specific time is just that, nonsense. Nothing to stop them being there, but it is not the responsibility of airlines (or trains or other transport) to babysit their every whim. Things of this nature is what will have a substantial effect of the environment.


To be clear, I wasn't expressing my opinion but simply commenting about the incoherence of this political decision. If they really want to rapidly decrease the CO2 emissions of the air transport, they are not making the right decision.

My opinion with this sort of issues is that enacting bans or caps are not solutions. Electric trains haven't been invented because steam trains had been banned. Steam trains have simply disappeared because a new technology displaced them. We also have examples in Europe showing that when high speed trains are competitive (in journey time and convenience), they rapidly push the air transport out of the market without the need for banning any flight. But I observe that after more than 60 years of so called "European integration", cross-border high speed railway links are still a dream rather than a reality. Banning flights will not fix the short-comings of the railway policies. Beyond short-haul flights, we need new technologies, whatever they are.
 
User avatar
Leovinus
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:57 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:26 am

tomcat wrote:
My opinion with this sort of issues is that enacting bans or caps are not solutions. Electric trains haven't been invented because steam trains had been banned. Steam trains have simply disappeared because a new technology displaced them. We also have examples in Europe showing that when high speed trains are competitive (in journey time and convenience), they rapidly push the air transport out of the market without the need for banning any flight. But I observe that after more than 60 years of so called "European integration", cross-border high speed railway links are still a dream rather than a reality. Banning flights will not fix the short-comings of the railway policies. Beyond short-haul flights, we need new technologies, whatever they are.


I see what you're saying and somewhat agree, but I think the current situation is beyond the market to coupe with for several reasons.

In a perfect world market forces would see to a natural shift. But there are simply too many market manipulations that entrench oil. To break the oil monopoly you need to force the market to make a move. I'm not saying the ban is the most elegant way, but I certainly see it as being one of few. We can't wait for the oil to run out to make a change. We need change yesterday. And that's just one problem.

The second is that market forces work best when there is a tangible, immediate, benefit to the consumer and/or producer. Back in the day of steam it was obvious to everyone that coal power was a dirty, expensive, and mechanically complex form of transport. Passengers and areas around tracks got sooty, they would actively choose electric or diesel if given the chance. Train companies saw the benefits in service and logistics as well. Electrification was also on the rise since it was the backbone of modern living. Issues coalesced to facilitate change.

This change is predicated on something few see in their day to day lives unless they actively look for it. Weather changes and cataclysm on the horizon. There is no immediate benefit for to consumer to push for say... hydrogen. Plane makers and airlines too see no clear and immediate economic benefit. What does a hydrogen bring that a traditional planes doesn't? Nothing, no increase in comfort, speed, or ticket cost. Being carbon neutral isn't a tangible benefit. Most likely it's going to be more expensive for everyone involved.

In summation: Market forces doesn't work for complex international problems as it's predicated on perceived value in short timeframes. The solution is to artificially spur market forces. Without short flights markets will demand high speed quality rail or develop green aircraft tech to meet demand. The problem is that both options are incredibly expensive and long term projects.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:00 am

Vicenza wrote:
tomcat wrote:

If they want to rapidly "decarbonize" the air transport, the politicians should rather ban or cap the long-haul flights. These are by far the greatest emitters of CO2 of the airlines industry. Banning the shortest flights doesn't bring any measurable benefits in terms of CO2 emissions and might even be highly counter-productive: by banning short-haul flights at the main hubs, they actually provide more slot opportunities to the airlines for launching long(er)-haul flights.


Actually, in my opinion, what need capped drastically is the frequency of many flights. There should be absolutely no need whatsoever to have several flights to same destinations every hour (or less). Airlines are not, and shouldn't attempt to be, a bus service. I realise this is much more common in the US, of course....in fact a way of life. Yes, I know we hear on this forum ad nuseam, that that's what customers 'demand'. No, it is what they are being offered solely for airline profits and 'market share'. If, for example (and am only using rough figures) there are four flights a day from A to B then passengers, both business and leisure, will adjust accordingly. There is no need for twenty. The nonsense that is often spouted on here about 'businessmen' needing to be at their destination at a specific time is just that, nonsense. Nothing to stop them being there, but it is not the responsibility of airlines (or trains or other transport) to babysit their every whim. Things of this nature is what will have a substantial effect of the environment.


Out of curiosity, are you proposing that there should be fewer flights and seats, thus higher fares? Or do you suggest replacing 20 narrowbodies with 5 widebodies? In case of the latter, the latest widebody aircraft can't even match the fuel burn per passenger of a narrowbody, even with the highest density versions of the widebody competing against a typical narrowbody config. The 10-abreast FrenchBee A350-900 seats 411 for roughly 14 kg/hr/passenger. A 170 seat A320neo sits at around 12 kg/hr/passenger. The highest density 787-9 I can find is 15 kg/hr/passenger.
 
davidjohnson6
Posts: 1590
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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:05 am

How does the fuel burn per pax on a 70 seater eg an E170 (or even a 40 seat jet) compare to an A320 / B738 ?
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2773
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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:41 am

davidjohnson6 wrote:
How does the fuel burn per pax on a 70 seater eg an E170 (or even a 40 seat jet) compare to an A320 / B738 ?

CRJ-100 with 50 seats, nearly twice as much as an A321neo (80 - 100% more). Compared to the ceo, 60% more.
E-170 with 70 seats, approximately 50% more than the A321neo. Compared to the ceo, 30% more.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/de ... _final.pdf [Fig. 8, p. 11] with the neo being ~ 20% more efficient than the ceo.

The conclusion back then in 2008:
With traffic and capacity expected to grow at between four and five percent a year, it is easy to construct scenarios where aviation’s future share of global emissions will be 20% to 50%, taking a long enough time horizon and optimistic assumptions on reductions in other sectors. None of these scenarios assume increases in fuel efficiencies of much over two percent [per year], which means that emissions are likely to increase at over two percent a year for the next twenty to thirty years.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:55 am

davidjohnson6 wrote:
How does the fuel burn per pax on a 70 seater eg an E170 (or even a 40 seat jet) compare to an A320 / B738 ?


Depends on the configuration and are only rough estimates, but from the numbers I have: An 88 seat E175 is around 18 kg/hr/passenger. An E190 with 106 passenger is 17 kg. An E190 with 124 seats is 15,5 kg. An ATR 72 is 8,5 kg. A CRJ-900 is around 17,5 kg - 18 kg.

Alternatively, some airlines like SAS publish numbers in their inflight magazine. SAS lists the liters per seat/km:

Image

As you can see, the CRJ is only a tad better than the A340-300. The A350-900 is slightly worse than the 737-800 and similar to the A321ceo, although it should be pointed out that they all have vastly different seat densities.
 
User avatar
TurboJet707
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 11:30 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:15 am

B737MAX wrote:
People should have the choice. Not be forced to use their "high speed" trains while planes are available


Not sure why you put high speed between quotation marks. The French TGV trains travel at a scheduled speed of 300 or 320 km/h (=200 mph). I think you can safely call that high speed. Very reliable, with an extremely good safety record since the beginning, more than four decades ago. The TGV network that connects most of France's major cities is an impressive achievement. No need for condescension.

We must also realise that the trains, unlike planes, mostly travel from city centre to city centre and that check-in times are much shorter than at an airport; you can arrive at a TGV station, with luggage, five minutes before the train departs and still make it on time, easily. Door-to-door travel time will usually be much shorter if you take the TGV.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6533
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:41 am



Great article on how despite a massive reduction in Carbon admitting over the last year… There has been no change; actually an increase in carbon dioxide
Last edited by jfklganyc on Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Leovinus
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:57 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:48 am

jfklganyc wrote:


Great article on how despite a massive reduction in Corbin admitting over the last year… There has been no change actually an increase in carbon dioxide


I don't see if you're trying to imply something? Going on the assumption (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you're trying to muddle the climate debate I'll answer thusly: The article clearly states that natural phenomena have added basically the same as we cut down during the pandemic. Which means that even more carbon dioxide would have resulted if the pandemic had never happened. That nature has natural processes that impact the earth like ours doesn't negate the need for us to limit carbon emissions. If anything it's pointing out that we need to do more, because besides our own emissions we need to take into account the planets other emission sources. Whoever releases the emissions doesn't matter, the end result will be the same. A planet inhospitable to human life.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6533
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:09 pm

Leovinus wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:


Great article on how despite a massive reduction in Corbin admitting over the last year… There has been no change actually an increase in carbon dioxide


I don't see if you're trying to imply something? Going on the assumption (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you're trying to muddle the climate debate I'll answer thusly: The article clearly states that natural phenomena have added basically the same as we cut down during the pandemic. Which means that even more carbon dioxide would have resulted if the pandemic had never happened. That nature has natural processes that impact the earth like ours doesn't negate the need for us to limit carbon emissions. If anything it's pointing out that we need to do more, because besides our own emissions we need to take into account the planets other emission sources. Whoever releases the emissions doesn't matter, the end result will be the same. A planet inhospitable to human life.


It means France banning short haul flights is pissing into the wind.

And unless you are ready to make the drastic changes over last year permanent, you are wasting your time.

And, the changes over the last year werent enough.


All France is doing is knee-capping their own economic activity relative to other countries in the region.
 
User avatar
Leovinus
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:57 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:26 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Leovinus wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:

Great article on how despite a massive reduction in Corbin admitting over the last year… There has been no change actually an increase in carbon dioxide


I don't see if you're trying to imply something? Going on the assumption (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you're trying to muddle the climate debate I'll answer thusly: The article clearly states that natural phenomena have added basically the same as we cut down during the pandemic. Which means that even more carbon dioxide would have resulted if the pandemic had never happened. That nature has natural processes that impact the earth like ours doesn't negate the need for us to limit carbon emissions. If anything it's pointing out that we need to do more, because besides our own emissions we need to take into account the planets other emission sources. Whoever releases the emissions doesn't matter, the end result will be the same. A planet inhospitable to human life.


It means France banning short haul flights is pissing into the wind.

And unless you are ready to make the drastic changes over last year permanent, you are wasting your time.

And, the changes over the last year werent enough.


All France is doing is knee-capping their own economic activity relative to other countries in the region.


So your solution is... ? Do nothing? Or is it possible that we need to do what you we within the frameworks we can with what we can control while at the same time pushing for international change as well? I'm all for the latter. Which is precisely what France is doing. If we're going to wait until everyone is on the same page we're doomed. Like France we should doing both as much as possible locally and push for everyone else to follow suit.

I agree that the solution in France is a bit hamfisted. And as you point out whatever we do it's not yet enough. But it's at least something. It's a start. Doing nothing while we wish for the optimal solution to appear is, again, not an option.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6533
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:58 pm

Leovinus wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Leovinus wrote:

I don't see if you're trying to imply something? Going on the assumption (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you're trying to muddle the climate debate I'll answer thusly: The article clearly states that natural phenomena have added basically the same as we cut down during the pandemic. Which means that even more carbon dioxide would have resulted if the pandemic had never happened. That nature has natural processes that impact the earth like ours doesn't negate the need for us to limit carbon emissions. If anything it's pointing out that we need to do more, because besides our own emissions we need to take into account the planets other emission sources. Whoever releases the emissions doesn't matter, the end result will be the same. A planet inhospitable to human life.


It means France banning short haul flights is pissing into the wind.

And unless you are ready to make the drastic changes over last year permanent, you are wasting your time.

And, the changes over the last year werent enough.


All France is doing is knee-capping their own economic activity relative to other countries in the region.


So your solution is... ? Do nothing? Or is it possible that we need to do what you we within the frameworks we can with what we can control while at the same time pushing for international change as well? I'm all for the latter. Which is precisely what France is doing. If we're going to wait until everyone is on the same page we're doomed. Like France we should doing both as much as possible locally and push for everyone else to follow suit.

I agree that the solution in France is a bit hamfisted. And as you point out whatever we do it's not yet enough. But it's at least something. It's a start. Doing nothing while we wish for the optimal solution to appear is, again, not an option.



If the last year has taught us anything, groupthink chanting settled facts doesnt get us anywhere quickly.

Perhaps if we had such a reduction over the past year and it still didn’t net us any gains, our thought processes and science guiding us needs further exploration. And before we put people out of business and severely alter our economy for the negative we should explore a bit more. Just a thought.

There are a few too many of us that know nothing about science and typing “it is settled” with our iphone thumbs
 
User avatar
Leovinus
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:57 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:04 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
If the last year has taught us anything, groupthink chanting settled facts doesnt get us anywhere quickly.

Perhaps if we had such a reduction over the past year and it still didn’t net us any gains, our thought processes and science guiding us needs further exploration. And before we put people out of business and severely alter our economy for the negative we should explore a bit more. Just a thought.

There are a few too many of us that know nothing about science and typing “it is settled” with our iphone thumbs


If that's the way you wish to see it I won't stop you. I'll agree to disagree with you.
 
Vicenza
Posts: 393
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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:12 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Vicenza wrote:
tomcat wrote:

If they want to rapidly "decarbonize" the air transport, the politicians should rather ban or cap the long-haul flights. These are by far the greatest emitters of CO2 of the airlines industry. Banning the shortest flights doesn't bring any measurable benefits in terms of CO2 emissions and might even be highly counter-productive: by banning short-haul flights at the main hubs, they actually provide more slot opportunities to the airlines for launching long(er)-haul flights.


Actually, in my opinion, what need capped drastically is the frequency of many flights. There should be absolutely no need whatsoever to have several flights to same destinations every hour (or less). Airlines are not, and shouldn't attempt to be, a bus service. I realise this is much more common in the US, of course....in fact a way of life. Yes, I know we hear on this forum ad nuseam, that that's what customers 'demand'. No, it is what they are being offered solely for airline profits and 'market share'. If, for example (and am only using rough figures) there are four flights a day from A to B then passengers, both business and leisure, will adjust accordingly. There is no need for twenty. The nonsense that is often spouted on here about 'businessmen' needing to be at their destination at a specific time is just that, nonsense. Nothing to stop them being there, but it is not the responsibility of airlines (or trains or other transport) to babysit their every whim. Things of this nature is what will have a substantial effect of the environment.


Out of curiosity, are you proposing that there should be fewer flights and seats, thus higher fares? Or do you suggest replacing 20 narrowbodies with 5 widebodies? In case of the latter, the latest widebody aircraft can't even match the fuel burn per passenger of a narrowbody, even with the highest density versions of the widebody competing against a typical narrowbody config. The 10-abreast FrenchBee A350-900 seats 411 for roughly 14 kg/hr/passenger. A 170 seat A320neo sits at around 12 kg/hr/passenger. The highest density 787-9 I can find is 15 kg/hr/passenger.


I am saying there should be fewer flights between two cities, and for exactly the reasons I stated, not necessarily fewer seats. I am not 'suggesting' anything specific at all and such would be for airlines to determine. If fares need to rise in achieving it, then so be it
 
blockski
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:59 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Leovinus wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:

It means France banning short haul flights is pissing into the wind.

And unless you are ready to make the drastic changes over last year permanent, you are wasting your time.

And, the changes over the last year werent enough.


All France is doing is knee-capping their own economic activity relative to other countries in the region.


So your solution is... ? Do nothing? Or is it possible that we need to do what you we within the frameworks we can with what we can control while at the same time pushing for international change as well? I'm all for the latter. Which is precisely what France is doing. If we're going to wait until everyone is on the same page we're doomed. Like France we should doing both as much as possible locally and push for everyone else to follow suit.

I agree that the solution in France is a bit hamfisted. And as you point out whatever we do it's not yet enough. But it's at least something. It's a start. Doing nothing while we wish for the optimal solution to appear is, again, not an option.



If the last year has taught us anything, groupthink chanting settled facts doesnt get us anywhere quickly.

Perhaps if we had such a reduction over the past year and it still didn’t net us any gains, our thought processes and science guiding us needs further exploration. And before we put people out of business and severely alter our economy for the negative we should explore a bit more. Just a thought.

There are a few too many of us that know nothing about science and typing “it is settled” with our iphone thumbs


From that CNN article about carbon levels: "The amount of carbon in the air now is as much as it was about 4 million years ago, a time when sea level was 78 feet (24 meters) higher than it is today"

Would you say a 78 foot rise in sea levels would severely alter the economy?
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6533
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:36 pm

blockski wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Leovinus wrote:

So your solution is... ? Do nothing? Or is it possible that we need to do what you we within the frameworks we can with what we can control while at the same time pushing for international change as well? I'm all for the latter. Which is precisely what France is doing. If we're going to wait until everyone is on the same page we're doomed. Like France we should doing both as much as possible locally and push for everyone else to follow suit.

I agree that the solution in France is a bit hamfisted. And as you point out whatever we do it's not yet enough. But it's at least something. It's a start. Doing nothing while we wish for the optimal solution to appear is, again, not an option.



If the last year has taught us anything, groupthink chanting settled facts doesnt get us anywhere quickly.

Perhaps if we had such a reduction over the past year and it still didn’t net us any gains, our thought processes and science guiding us needs further exploration. And before we put people out of business and severely alter our economy for the negative we should explore a bit more. Just a thought.

There are a few too many of us that know nothing about science and typing “it is settled” with our iphone thumbs


From that CNN article about carbon levels: "The amount of carbon in the air now is as much as it was about 4 million years ago, a time when sea level was 78 feet (24 meters) higher than it is today"

Would you say a 78 foot rise in sea levels would severely alter the economy?



No. Im saying you are not going to stop a 78 foot sea rise with changes to aviation. If a 78 foot sea rise is in our future, tinkering around with windmills, electric planes and carbon offsets while publishing press releases won’t do much
 
User avatar
Leovinus
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:57 pm

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:10 am

jfklganyc wrote:
No. Im saying you are not going to stop a 78 foot sea rise with changes to aviation. If a 78 foot sea rise is in our future, tinkering around with windmills, electric planes and carbon offsets while publishing press releases won’t do much


I'm honestly interested in what alternatives you would like to see. I'm obviously of a slightly different view. In Sweden we have a saying I'm about to butcher in translation that says "several small streams make a river". Acknowledging that no one is going to take the radical steps I would personally prefer in the short term I'm therefore all for initiating many small streams while we push for that "proper" change.

Do I prefer it? No. Do I, like you seem to, prefer more radical change? Yes. Does the "small streams approach" risk becoming nothing more than "feel good" uselessness? Oh certainly already has in many cases.

But at this point I'm just hailing every positive move, pointing out when motion is confused for action, and striving for large and small change. Hoping something will work in the end. In all perfect honesty I'm certain we won't survive as a species. But I have some naive hope somewhere. France is doing something here, it's more than nothing, so I'm for it. I'll gladly critique the negatives of this move as well (this needs to be connected with a massive infusion in infrastructure funding for example if it's going to be tolerable), but on the whole I'm for it.
 
blockski
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:24 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
blockski wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:


If the last year has taught us anything, groupthink chanting settled facts doesnt get us anywhere quickly.

Perhaps if we had such a reduction over the past year and it still didn’t net us any gains, our thought processes and science guiding us needs further exploration. And before we put people out of business and severely alter our economy for the negative we should explore a bit more. Just a thought.

There are a few too many of us that know nothing about science and typing “it is settled” with our iphone thumbs


From that CNN article about carbon levels: "The amount of carbon in the air now is as much as it was about 4 million years ago, a time when sea level was 78 feet (24 meters) higher than it is today"

Would you say a 78 foot rise in sea levels would severely alter the economy?



No. Im saying you are not going to stop a 78 foot sea rise with changes to aviation. If a 78 foot sea rise is in our future, tinkering around with windmills, electric planes and carbon offsets while publishing press releases won’t do much


The reason I ask is because I understand the reaction from this forum against a policy that imposes costs on aviation. But the status quo will also have enormous costs to both aviation and the broader economy.

It's true that no one policy for any sector will solve the issue; but it's also true that we can't solve the issue without addressing every sector.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5054
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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:28 pm

A background comment. Ground and air transportation both can be greatly improved. Options for transport for all people can improve. Carbon free, or at least much better, can happen at the same time. I myself, see greatly increased capacity on our 'no grade crossing' highway system with more autonomous vehicles displacing both shorter plane flights and also rail. As a not trivial example, I have a Cybertruck ordered and will in the beginning use the AP option. As soon as the Full Self Driving is perfected (and recommended by the government, respected car magazine, Consumer Reports, and not just Musk) I will add that. Most old people quit driving after their first major fender bender. My generation born in the late 30s and early 40s may be the first to be able to drive safely until they die. And when I want to fly I will, it is up to Boeing and Airbus to make it appropriately green. I think they are up to the task.

Let me put it more contentiously, the fraidy cat naysayers who are saying it cannot be done without their horse and buggy or tin lizzy are wrong. We already have the tools and possibilities to make it all happen - as well as dream what our grandkids and great grandkids will be able to do, as we leave them a better world.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14771
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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:18 pm

jfklganyc : you talk about the economy, well economists have considered the issue, too. Inaction will cost much more in the long run.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:45 pm

This is just silly. Let economics and convenience play their part. For most people a short flight actually takes more time than going by surface transportation, be it car, train, or bus. Getting to the airport early enough for checking, boarding, and then disembarking, retrieving baggage, and getting to your destination by whatever means usually takes more time (and money) than the land alternative if that alternative is less than 2-1/2 hours. In the rare case where the customer prefers to go by air for whatever reason I do not think they should be denied that right by government fiat. The plane is still going to fly because of connecting flights. So the very few who choose to fly these routes without connecting are not going to change anything. In fact, many will choose to go by car which will actually increase emissions over adding one more passenger to a flight that would fly anyway.
 
Breathe
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:06 pm

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

Sat Jun 12, 2021 12:04 pm

sandyb123 wrote:
Breathe wrote:
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

Edinburgh will benefit. The HS2 trains will connect with the existing network:

https://www.hs2.org.uk/stations/edinburgh/


Sorry to contradict you but that is not the case. West coast Edinburgh - Euston is currently 5 hours 27 minutes. East Coast to Kings Cross is 4 hours 20 minutes (and set to be improved on winter timetable now Azuma's are fully integrated and the new approaches at Gassworks Tunnel in London). HS2 will decrease the west coast time by an hour, but offers no overall benefit as you'd be mad to do the west coast from Edinburgh to London to start with.

With the exception of more choice and a bit of novelty value, this is just government 'improving' something where there is already a better alternative.

Sandyb123

No need to apologise for stating facts. :mrgreen:

I guess it is right that there will be a "benefit" for travelling on the West coast. There are other "benefits" that could be argued for capacity upgrades, but this conversation is already way off topic from the title of the post.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10041
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

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

Tue Jul 20, 2021 7:04 pm

It looks like the ban made it into law.

Domestic flights for journeys that can be made by train in less than 2.5 hours are banned, unless they connect to an international flight.

www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/world/europe ... e-law.html
 
rouelan
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 3:10 pm

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

Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:11 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
It looks like the ban made it into law.

Domestic flights for journeys that can be made by train in less than 2.5 hours are banned, unless they connect to an international flight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/world ... e-law.html


Yes. And if I remember well, law makers had to scratch their heads to find a good reason to distort competition in favor of SNCF, a fully state owned company. Something like "ecological urgency"
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2823
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

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

Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:47 pm

Of course this is bunk by the French. But it brings out the doomsdayers that almost relish the hysterics, while needlessly trashing an industry we purportedly love.

And while the science is "settled", the solutions are not. There are a whole host of economists and experts that argue targeting the obvious targets - aviation being the most visible - isn't the solution. It really is just tinkering at the edges. But instead investments in maternal and early childhood healthcare in the developing world (lowering birthrates and increasing productivity), reducing excessive fertiliser use in a few key countries (e.g. India), improving education for girls and focusing on efficiencies in lighting, HVAC and refrigeration would produce more substantive long term benefits.

Stopping a handful of short haul commuter flights? Doesn't even register. Oh and those trains - powered by nuclear power plants with enormous amounts of embedded carbon in their whole-of-life concrete usage and disposal, unaccounted for in their carbon footprint. Just like the planes. Quelle horreur!
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10041
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

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

Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:08 pm

aerokiwi wrote:

Stopping a handful of short haul commuter flights? Doesn't even register. Oh and those trains - powered by nuclear power plants with enormous amounts of embedded carbon in their whole-of-life concrete usage and disposal, unaccounted for in their carbon footprint. Just like the planes. Quelle horreur!


Go ahead and do the math. 0.6 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of concrete; 1.85 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of steel - over the ~50 year life of a reactor and the power it produces, vs. 25 years of fuel consumption of an aircraft, relative to the work done. It's not even close - like 20 to 1 in favor of the nuke-powered train in CO2 emitted per passenger km.

As for future construction of reactors, the EU has outlined a CO2 tax that also hits the cement and steel industries.
 
User avatar
JLGordon
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu May 21, 2020 8:14 pm

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

Thu Jul 22, 2021 3:12 pm

I just had a trip to Paris CDG and then to an Airport 300 km away. As I am not capable of the french language and the french are very proud of protecting their language and blocking off other languages I could not figure out how to go there by train, how to purchachse a ticket an so on. Even asking around was no possibility. In the end I went to car rental and burned around 40 litres of fuel on the way to the other airport and back to Paris the next week.
In the end, it is not that simple, that by prohibiting one thing you direct the people to the other. Thre is a lot more x, y and z we need to add to the formula.
 
davidjohnson6
Posts: 1590
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

Thu Jul 22, 2021 3:23 pm

There will always be exceptions... and there will always be special cases where a "no flights for ultra short haul" rule fails.
However, it is worth remembering that in France there is a genuine political desire amongst many of the voters to push people away from flying and to use the train instead. French voters, not people who vote in other countries
You can scream and shout at this as much as you like... but it is sometimes better to go along with something a little bit inconvenient while you can negotiate a solution, instead of refusing, making the voters angry by appearing stubborn, and ending up with something much worse later. There is a reason why many commercial disputes are settled out of court, before a judge gets involved

Don't Poke the Bear
 
rouelan
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 3:10 pm

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

Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:22 am

I agree. The one and only value is political. Very limited negative impact both for airlines and their customers. And, unfortunately, close to zero positive impact for the environment.
The only thing I dont know is if we are at the end for this story. Environmentalists are pushing for more flights to be banned. Shall the government expand the scope, or introduce different measures (like jet fuel taxation), or both ?
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:46 am

JLGordon wrote:
I just had a trip to Paris CDG and then to an Airport 300 km away. As I am not capable of the french language and the french are very proud of protecting their language and blocking off other languages I could not figure out how to go there by train, how to purchachse a ticket an so on. Even asking around was no possibility. In the end I went to car rental and burned around 40 litres of fuel on the way to the other airport and back to Paris the next week.
In the end, it is not that simple, that by prohibiting one thing you direct the people to the other. Thre is a lot more x, y and z we need to add to the formula.


Online is no problem, the sncf page is available in english https://www.sncf.com/en and the ticket can be printed at home.

Local commuter trains are a bit more difficult but the ticket vending machines are in English too afaik.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6533
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

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

Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:52 am

“ The law is a hodgepodge of bans, financial incentives and other measures that aim to cut waste, improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions in day-to-day life. ”

When the NY Times uses the word hodgepodge…hahahaha

That really says it all
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 726
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

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

Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:20 pm

Will CDG airport rebuilt a new train terminal to better cooperate with the air services?
 
rouelan
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 3:10 pm

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

Mon Jul 26, 2021 2:37 pm

chunhimlai wrote:
Will CDG airport rebuilt a new train terminal to better cooperate with the air services?


No, as far as I know. Which is a pity. On the paper, it is a great place to connect air-train. In the real life, it has not been designed to make life easy for passengers with bags (limited number of small elevators -> need to queue or leave your trolley to take an escalator and cross finger to find another one on the next floor).

At least, it is possible to buy a combined ticket when flying with one of the many airlines that are part of the "Train+Air" scheme (code-share on TGV)
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

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

Mon Jul 26, 2021 2:59 pm

rouelan wrote:
chunhimlai wrote:
Will CDG airport rebuilt a new train terminal to better cooperate with the air services?


No, as far as I know. Which is a pity. On the paper, it is a great place to connect air-train. In the real life, it has not been designed to make life easy for passengers with bags (limited number of small elevators -> need to queue or leave your trolley to take an escalator and cross finger to find another one on the next floor).


This is our "trademark". We love to make things cramped and unpractical. :roll:
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10041
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

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

Mon Jul 26, 2021 3:02 pm

chunhimlai wrote:
Will CDG airport rebuilt a new train terminal to better cooperate with the air services?


I don't know what they'll need for expansion. Here's a look at train services from CDG2 presently:

https://www.sncf.com/en/stations/aeropo ... departures

Plane-to-train is not a new thing in Paris.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

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