https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56716708

Over the weekend, lawmakers voted in favour of a bill to end routes where the same journey could be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours.
The measures could affect travel between Paris and cities including Nantes, Lyon and Bordeaux.

In reality I don't think it make that much impact. The routes mainly affected here is Paris to Rennes, Lyon, Bordeaux and Nantes, and Lyon to Marseilles. Here the trains already has most of the local traffic, and all being less than 2,5 hours by the TGV

Feeder traffic to CDG from these destinations will still be allowed though

Only an issue when the TGV goes on strike.

jetwet1 wrote:

Only an issue when the TGV goes on strike.

To be fair, it is always a roulette which transport system in France is on strike. TGV, RER, Air France, air traffic controllers, airport personal, bus drivers,... it could hit anyone on any transport system here.

As a resident in Lyon, this actually makes perfect sense to me. If you can get there by TGV in under 2.5 hours, flying wasn't really the best option to begin with. The only times I fly domestically between Lyon and Paris is when I'm connecting to long haul at CDG, which will still be permitted under this new law. The government actually introduced a looser regulation, as the Convention on Climate Change initially wanted all journeys of less than 4 hours to be included. This would have impacted cross-country journeys not readily served by the TGV. Regarding strikes, TGV staff don't seem to strike all that often, it's mainly local train (RER) that seem to like a good protest.

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.

DNDTUF wrote:

As a resident in Lyon, this actually makes perfect sense to me. If you can get there by TGV in under 2.5 hours, flying wasn't really the best option to begin with. The only times I fly domestically between Lyon and Paris is when I'm connecting to long haul at CDG, which will still be permitted under this new law.

Isn't Lyon-CDG served by direct TGV in ~ 2h?

Though most TGV lines end at one of many the large stations in Paris, which makes it a pain to change if your destination isn't Paris; e. g. from Gare de Lyon (coming from Lyon) to Gare du Nord (going towards Brussels or London).

Well, if the TGV stops at CDG then I see less of a problem. But from my experience it is a pain in the ass to travel by train with a lot of luggage, much more comfortable by plane. Furthermore, inbound passenger, often coming from another continent, have a preference to directly arrive at the destination. If AF for example can't offer LYS-CDG any longer that probably means transfer passengers need to be funnelled through AMS more.

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

It'll be interesting to see how this develops, and if we will see a code-share and a set up similar to Deutsche Bahn's Rail&Fly. I haven't really looked into it, but how are TGV connections from CDG and ORY?

The TGV stops at CDG, not ORY

Capricorn wrote:

Well, if the TGV stops at CDG then I see less of a problem. But from my experience it is a pain in the ass to travel by train with a lot of luggage, much more comfortable by plane. Furthermore, inbound passenger, often coming from another continent, have a preference to directly arrive at the destination. If AF for example can't offer LYS-CDG any longer that probably means transfer passengers need to be funnelled through AMS more.

The Swiss had worked out direct airline to rail baggage transfers in the late 90s. It's coordination, not magic.

Looking at a 2-hr window of TGV departures (and this is late afternoon), one finds trains to:

Marseille
Strasbourg
Montpellier
Lille
Brussels

And of course the intermediate stops on those lines, as with Lyon on the Marseilles and Montpellier trains, for example.

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

People should have the choice. Not be forced to use their "high speed" trains while planes are available.
This sounds completely crazy to me.

Progressive transport? Yeah right!
Short haul flights are responsible for a very, very little part of the global pollution in aviation.
It just doesn't make any sense.

So what's the future for HOP after this?

B737MAX wrote:

People should have the choice. Not be forced to use their "high speed" trains while planes are available.
This sounds completely crazy to me.

Progressive transport? Yeah right!
Short haul flights are responsible for a very, very little part of the global pollution in aviation.
It just doesn't make any sense.

It’s about virtue signaling, not carbon reduction.

B737MAX wrote:

Progressive transport? Yeah right!
Short haul flights are responsible for a very, very little part of the global pollution in aviation.
It just doesn't make any sense.

If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions and short haul flights cause more emissions than their rail counterpart then it makes a lot of sense.

Rail is a viable (and often smarter) alternative to air travel for shorter distances. It is not for global travel.

DNDTUF wrote:

As a resident in Lyon, this actually makes perfect sense to me. If you can get there by TGV in under 2.5 hours, flying wasn't really the best option to begin with. The only times I fly domestically between Lyon and Paris is when I'm connecting to long haul at CDG, which will still be permitted under this new law.

I think you're correct -- domestic short-haul in France was already generally uncompetitive due to the availability of TGV service with better access to & from city centers. Consequently, this particular law seems to be more of an political statement than an effective measure aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Short-haul flights to & from CDG/ORY will still operate with connecting passengers; they'll just be emptier or perhaps use slightly smaller equipment which is less carbon-efficient per passenger-kilometer traveled. Some passengers whose journey isn't as well-served by rail would probably choose to drive.

Airbus could offer their ZeroE turboprop to this market...

B737MAX wrote:

People should have the choice. Not be forced to use their "high speed" trains while planes are available.
This sounds completely crazy to me.

Progressive transport? Yeah right!
Short haul flights are responsible for a very, very little part of the global pollution in aviation.
It just doesn't make any sense.

If you put an accurate price on carbon emissions, there's no competition at all.

Short haul flights emit only a small portion of aviation's emissions, but the larger point here is that they are completely replaceable in this instance.

Fighting climate change is going to require "all of the above" kinds of solutions.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

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

I guess we shall see what impact this has on service on this route and others.

Typically cutting away even a fraction of the traffic can have some dramatic impacts on which routes are viable or which aircraft are viable on a given route.

Would such a policy exempt for alternative powered flight?

Although I'm normally pro-air travel, I'm such a devout environmentalist that I've chosen to lower my personal carbon output by not owning any dogs or cats.

Rail transport is almost as fast door to door as air travel, and generates much less carbon, so encouraging people to switch to high speed rail is a great idea. I wish more countries were as progressive as France is.

Virtual737 wrote:

B737MAX wrote:

Progressive transport? Yeah right!
Short haul flights are responsible for a very, very little part of the global pollution in aviation.
It just doesn't make any sense.

If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions and short haul flights cause more emissions than their rail counterpart then it makes a lot of sense.

Rail is a viable (and often smarter) alternative to air travel for shorter distances. It is not for global travel.

To make this argument, you must present numbers to support your statement.

Plus, you also must make sure there is little carbon emission in producing the railway tracks, building the railway line, build the nuclear power plants, and also little carbon emission to transport the energy to support the network. Using electric power to transport people only takes away the emission in transportation process, but there is emissions in building and maintaining the infrastructure often people do not want to discuss about.

This seems like a logical move. As a passenger on short flight. The amount of times we waste getting in and out of the airport, all the queue, waiting in security lines, boarding and deboarding, 20-30 minutes taxiing times in large airport like CDG, holding short for incoming aircraft, the delays, the go-around, etc. We would have been half way to our destination if we took the train from the city centre.

Revelation wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

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

I guess we shall see what impact this has on service on this route and others.

Typically cutting away even a fraction of the traffic can have some dramatic impacts on which routes are viable or which aircraft are viable on a given route.

BBC says "Connecting flights will not be affected, however.". There is no such thing as connecting flight but connecting passengers instead.

I don't see any sense on banning AF to offer CDG-LYS to non-transfer pax, carbon emissions from full planes are relatively similar than those of half-empty ones.

On the other hand, large majority of CDG domestic traffic is connecting, therefore I guess AF domestic operation out of CDG is already sized accordingly, then no further frequency reductions would be expected.

Boeing757100 wrote:

Airbus could offer their ZeroE turboprop to this market...

A market that - thanks to the TGV - is already worth less than a dozen aircraft ...

AF currently offers 3x daily flights LYS-CDG with E-190, or ~300 seats per day.

The TGV serves Lyon-Paris at least 10x daily, with 300-600 seats, or 3000+ seats per day.

The flight only exists for connecting passengers, which are unaffected by the new regulation anyway.

readytotaxi wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56716708

Over the weekend, lawmakers voted in favour of a bill to end routes where the same journey could be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours.
The measures could affect travel between Paris and cities including Nantes, Lyon and Bordeaux.

That's great - making a law to tell people how and where they can travel. They should let people decide for themselves, in my opinion. A person that wants to travel by plane should be allowed to do so. They probably have a good reason for it - for example, they want to transfer to another flight at CDG.

If the French government wants to cut unnecessary carbon emissions, they should take away the President's private jet.

WA707atMSP wrote:

Although I'm normally pro-air travel, I'm such a devout environmentalist that I've chosen to lower my personal carbon output by not owning any dogs or cats.

It's a difficult needle to thread. The vegan life style is in general lower in carbon emissions, but legume consumption leads to excessive personal CH4 emissions.

upperdeckfan wrote:

BBC says "Connecting flights will not be affected, however.". There is no such thing as connecting flight but connecting passengers instead.

I don't see any sense on banning AF to offer CDG-LYS to non-transfer pax, carbon emissions from full planes are relatively similar than those of half-empty ones.

On the other hand, large majority of CDG domestic traffic is connecting, therefore I guess AF domestic operation out of CDG is already sized accordingly, then no further frequency reductions would be expected.

Yes, and there could be a "tipping point" effect if the non-connecting pax are business travelers on high margin walkup tickets whereas the connecting pax are on low margin VFR inteneraries.

Bordeaux, Nice, Marseille, Pau, Toulouse are all outside the 2.5 hour train ring and the major French cities.

PHLspecial wrote:

peterinlisbon wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56716708

Over the weekend, lawmakers voted in favour of a bill to end routes where the same journey could be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours.
The measures could affect travel between Paris and cities including Nantes, Lyon and Bordeaux.

That's great - making a law to tell people how and where they can travel. They should let people decide for themselves, in my opinion. A person that wants to travel by plane should be allowed to do so. They probably have a good reason for it - for example, they want to transfer to another flight at CDG.

If the French government wants to cut unnecessary carbon emissions, they should take away the President's private jet.

I think you need to read the article, they are banning short haul flights that don't have a connection. Why fly when you can make to a spot in 2 and a half hours via rail or driving?

I think the point people are making is that the existing flights already almost exclusively serve connections. From my experience on CDG-LYS, that's true. They're banning something that is a rounding error in reality, and the only result is it'll mean the existing flights will be slightly emptier.

This is an issue that should be decided by economics rather than politicians.

peterinlisbon wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56716708

Over the weekend, lawmakers voted in favour of a bill to end routes where the same journey could be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours.
The measures could affect travel between Paris and cities including Nantes, Lyon and Bordeaux.

That's great - making a law to tell people how and where they can travel. They should let people decide for themselves, in my opinion. A person that wants to travel by plane should be allowed to do so. They probably have a good reason for it - for example, they want to transfer to another flight at CDG.

If the French government wants to cut unnecessary carbon emissions, they should take away the President's private jet.

It doesn't prohibit connecting flights. Read the thread.

peterinlisbon wrote:

That's great - making a law to tell people how and where they can travel. They should let people decide for themselves, in my opinion. A person that wants to travel by plane should be allowed to do so. They probably have a good reason for it - for example, they want to transfer to another flight at CDG.

If the French government wants to cut unnecessary carbon emissions, they should take away the President's private jet.

How exactly do you think the mass transit systems in Europe got to be so extensive, by putting in place taxes to drive / control citizen choices. Unlike the Middle East for example where they charge cents for a gallon of gas at the pump, in most of Europe the taxes and vehicle insurance charges are elevated to push folks to use mass transit.
Diesel vehicles are a good example, now that they know they are more toxic than gas, they are raising taxes and eliminating incentives to buy them and switch back to gas or electric.

cschleic wrote:

It doesn't prohibit connecting flights. Read the thread.

So if a flight is connecting to NYC, will they use a NB for the connection or have the 777W fly the route?

This only impacts 5 routes from ORY


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZnwJAHXkAk ... me=900x900

Does not impact AF CDG hub, or remainder of French domestic flying.

PHLspecial wrote:

Lets take PHL for example. Flights to BWI, ABE, MDT, IPT, LGA, JFK all flights under 100 miles. Do you really need a regional flight to PHL when you can drive there? Most of those airports are connected by rail.

Some of those airports/cities may be accessible by rail, but they're not exactly well-connected to PHL. BWI, for example, would require a train ride up to 30th Street Station and then a transfer to the Airport Line. Pretty much anything is going to require a connection in downtown Philly, which adds time and inconvenience, especially as the Airport Line runs half-hourly.

And a connection from BWI/ABE/MDT/LGA/JFK at PHL really isn't necessarily about passengers wanting to catch a flight at PHL; it's about AA being able to compete for those passengers with its PHL hub. IPT only has service to PHL, and I suppose that could end, but there's no passenger rail service at Williamsport and air service is often viewed as important for communities to remain economically competitive.

PHLspecial wrote:

IADCA wrote:

PHLspecial wrote:

I think you need to read the article, they are banning short haul flights that don't have a connection. Why fly when you can make to a spot in 2 and a half hours via rail or driving?

I think the point people are making is that the existing flights already almost exclusively serve connections. From my experience on CDG-LYS, that's true. They're banning something that is a rounding error in reality, and the only result is it'll mean the existing flights will be slightly emptier.

Well AF can run smaller planes to save on cost if possible. I would think a route such as LYS-CDG-LYS is rarely book or never done.

And that's the point: they can't. They're banning something that doesn't make any meaningful difference. I'd agree that LYS-CDG is probably 95% connections - the only way flying it makes sense is if you're heading to Roissy, not Paris. So banning that route inconveniences a small number of people but won't reduce plane size or frequency simply because the number of such people isn't enough to cause that change.

Back before the TGV upgrade on that line, that flight was on much larger aircraft - 319 and 320, mostly. Now it's not. There's a reason for that. There's not really a meaningful amount of local traffic to eliminate anymore. The train and market forces already did that.

par13del wrote:

cschleic wrote:

It doesn't prohibit connecting flights. Read the thread.

So if a flight is connecting to NYC, will they use a NB for the connection or have the 777W fly the route?

The flights still exist, but they’re only available if you’re arriving or leaving CDG on a plane.

JFK-CDG, then transfer to your connection (probably an e190) to LYS.

In simplest terms...you can’t just walk into CDG and buy a plane ticket to LYS.

Given the location of LYS, I’d much rather take the TGV.

chonetsao wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

B737MAX wrote:

Progressive transport? Yeah right!
Short haul flights are responsible for a very, very little part of the global pollution in aviation.
It just doesn't make any sense.

If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions and short haul flights cause more emissions than their rail counterpart then it makes a lot of sense.

Rail is a viable (and often smarter) alternative to air travel for shorter distances. It is not for global travel.

To make this argument, you must present numbers to support your statement.

Plus, you also must make sure there is little carbon emission in producing the railway tracks, building the railway line, build the nuclear power plants, and also little carbon emission to transport the energy to support the network. Using electric power to transport people only takes away the emission in transportation process, but there is emissions in building and maintaining the infrastructure often people do not want to discuss about.

You mean muddy the waters to the point that it would be almost impossible to come up with accurate figures to compare apples with apples? Were there also no emissions in building the aircraft, building the airports, building the oils wells, production platforms and refineries... building the super tankers and the oil pipelines?

I'm a huge aviation nut but I wont come up with arguments that put me on the same level as a NIMBY complaining about an airport that was built before my house.

The infrastructure has already been built. Much of the world is working towards emissions targets that were set after that effort was made. No need to take into account something that cannot be undone.

Assuming transfer passengers can still connect, isn't taking local passengers off of the flights, in effect making those flights even less efficient?

kiowa wrote:

This is an issue that should be decided by economics rather than politicians.

Makes too much sense.

airzona11 wrote:

Assuming transfer passengers can still connect, isn't taking local passengers off of the flights, in effect making those flights even less efficient?
.

Only if the airlines forever kept the same capacity / frequency. It would certainly cause some pain in the short to mid term.

airzona11 wrote:

Assuming transfer passengers can still connect, isn't taking local passengers off of the flights, in effect making those flights even less efficient?

That would require higher fares per passenger, which leads to a reduction in demand. That could result in reduced frequencies, perhaps with larger (3x E-190 --> 2x A320) or smaller aircraft.

Additionally, the emissions per flight are reduced if fewer passengers are on board. The average efficiency - including those who took the train or stayed at home instead of flying - should improve.

PHLspecial wrote:

B737MAX wrote:

People should have the choice. Not be forced to use their "high speed" trains while planes are available.
This sounds completely crazy to me.

Progressive transport? Yeah right!
Short haul flights are responsible for a very, very little part of the global pollution in aviation.
It just doesn't make any sense.

Lets take PHL for example. Flights to BWI, ABE, MDT, IPT, LGA, JFK all flights under 100 miles. Do you really need a regional flight to PHL when you can drive there? Most of those airports are connected by rail.
Do you have a reliable source that short flights generate little pollution? Its more of an overall picture, why connect nearby airports when you have drive or connect by rail? Short flights only make sense if the city or town is difficult to access because of bodies or water or mountains.

People generally aren’t flying point to point on these flights to PHL, their connecting on AA to further flights.

And requiring people to [rent cars and] drive the the two hours produces more emissions than the flight.

airzona11 wrote:

Assuming transfer passengers can still connect, isn't taking local passengers off of the flights, in effect making those flights even less efficient?

Yes. This will be the death knell of many routes, even those remaining 'allowed' for connecting passengers. Imagine running NYC-DCA for connecting passengers w/o local traffic... hah! They downgauge and increase CASM, or instead cut the frequency so much that people find the trains preferable, anyway. The connecting traffic exemption is no savior.

This really ought to be a wake-up call to the crowd that asserts nothing shall be done to reduce air traffic in the name of CO2 reduction.

Those routes are already dominated by trains. If they expand that to international routes, that would be more impactful.