Allowing aviation fuel to be untaxed and have no carbon charges attached is essentially a subsidy; it unfairly tilts the scale in favour of aviation relative to road, rail, and other transport.

Yes, industries changing can lead to job losses and redundancies. That's what unemployment, education, and re-training is for - the EU does this much better than the US.

Understanding that things that are best for society at large are not necessarily ideal for you is a hallmark of civilisation, or do you want to be called, 100% truthfully, a Luddite?

oldJoe wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

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

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

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

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

from the article

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

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

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

Again, biofuel is a make it look like we're doing something so that we can push the problem back another 10 years solution. Here's an article from 2008, expected Air NZ to use 10% biofuel by 2013: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... test-plane

Did it happen? Don't believe so.

The Montreal Protocol (ozone) is notable because it largely said "Achieve these outcomes. If you can't do what you used to do, too bad." Aircraft fire extinguishers and medical devices were basically the only exceptions, but I believe even those are being tightened up.

The equivalent would be saying that all new planes must run on 50% biofuel by 2030, and existing ones upgraded or decommissioned by 2035. If you can't do that, no more flying.

For what it's worth, arguing about the test platforms is stupid. Do you want to complain about research and testing of heat-pumps and furnaces occurring in climate-controlled chambers to ensure consistent test conditions? You need to be inefficient to do the science; the end result is worth it and using a brand-new plane for at most a few hundred hours per year would be a waste of a good plane.

Aesma wrote:

Oykie wrote:

keesje wrote:

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

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

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

I'm not seeing this happening, so far.

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

These same power companies needed massive incentives to switch to renewables, and it took decades of investment before renewables became cost competitive with fossil/nuclear (and there are still drawbacks).

I agree that airlines and the aviation industry should be preparing large scale industrial buildup of biofuel right now. And in order to get somewhere there needs to be international agreement in a way to regulate the change. It will not come by itself. I know EU wants to go the carbon route, but it can also be done by demanding a quota or year that needs to be synthetic fuel and a huge fine for those who do not comply. Currently Norway has this for aviation and in 2020 it was 0,5%. There should be an annual increase towards 100% in 2050. If you increase the amount by 3,5% annually you will reach 100% by 2050. If countries agreed to something like this it will be more important than banning short haul flights. Carbon tax might also push for more biofuel, but it still needs a roadmap until 2050.

Biofuel must be made in some ecological way. Not by using farmland or clean water to generate this energy instead of food. It will be a long way and very expensive. We will need algae farmed in salt water in deserts in industrial scale.

seahawk wrote:

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

In my opinion the first step should be an agreement on a roadmap to 100% biofuel. It would be in the interest of airlines to have this agreement. Tax does not guarantee the change to biofuel. But it will reduce flying.

Some1Somewhere wrote:

Allowing aviation fuel to be untaxed and have no carbon charges attached is essentially a subsidy; it unfairly tilts the scale in favour of aviation relative to road, rail, and other transport.

Yes, industries changing can lead to job losses and redundancies. That's what unemployment, education, and re-training is for - the EU does this much better than the US.

Understanding that things that are best for society at large are not necessarily ideal for you is a hallmark of civilisation, or do you want to be called, 100% truthfully, a Luddite?

oldJoe wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

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

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

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

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

from the article

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

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

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

Again, biofuel is a make it look like we're doing something so that we can push the problem back another 10 years solution. Here's an article from 2008, expected Air NZ to use 10% biofuel by 2013: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... test-plane

Did it happen? Don't believe so.

The Montreal Protocol (ozone) is notable because it largely said "Achieve these outcomes. If you can't do what you used to do, too bad." Aircraft fire extinguishers and medical devices were basically the only exceptions, but I believe even those are being tightened up.

The equivalent would be saying that all new planes must run on 50% biofuel by 2030, and existing ones upgraded or decommissioned by 2035. If you can't do that, no more flying.

For what it's worth, arguing about the test platforms is stupid. Do you want to complain about research and testing of heat-pumps and furnaces occurring in climate-controlled chambers to ensure consistent test conditions? You need to be inefficient to do the science; the end result is worth it and using a brand-new plane for at most a few hundred hours per year would be a waste of a good plane.

I believe OldJoe was arguing that it takes too much time to change. And I think we all agree that it has taken too long to bring up a roadmap and that there has been few incentives to come up with an ageeement. IATA an ICAO should make this top priority. In 2013 the change was helped by very high fuel prices. When they dropped and without an international agreement the incentive vanished.

Oykie wrote:

seahawk wrote:

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

In my opinion the first step should be an agreement on a roadmap to 100% biofuel. It would be in the interest of airlines to have this agreement. Tax does not guarantee the change to biofuel. But it will reduce flying.

No, but a tax reduces the difference in price and taxes the environmental damage caused by conventional fuel. And less flying is good. The most environmental friendly flight is the one that does not happen.

Biofuel is a way to avoid using petroleum. In some case it can be cheaper especialy when avoiding tax on oil product. It can be a way to recycle some waste. But it is not significantly better for the environment.

For aviation or any industry to really get "greener", you need technological breakthrough. Look at the mirage of electrical cars ... In the end, they are heavier than the same oil model. So they will need more energy for the same trip. And depending on how electricity is generated where you charge it, it may not be cleaner at all. And when you considere the transition : replacing oil car by new electric cars sooner than needed while both oil and electricity will be on the roads, it is just more activity. Better for the economy but for ecology not so much.
The real problem is the individual car. The solution is collective transportation or delivery service or video-conf ...

Same with aviation. Except if geographical constraint don't allows it, train and sometimes buses will be better than planes on short haul both practicaly (time and money) and ecologicaly.

Noshow wrote:

Biofuel must be made in some ecological way. Not by using farmland or clean water to generate this energy instead of food. It will be a long way and very expensive. We will need algae farmed in salt water in deserts in industrial scale.

This is important and there was a study put from the ETH university in Switzerland that said you can plant 1 trillion trees in areas that are not being used by farmland. And the study show that countries who have cut down the most forrest are the ones who benefits the most. Australia, China, USA, U.K. Canada and Brazil all have huge amount of land that are currently not being used by farmland.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -emissions

mjoelnir wrote:

Airlines could offer tickets combining air with rail as Lufthansa does in Frankfurt.
Direct trips, point to point by rail under 2:30 hours are hardly beaten by air, with all it's inconveniences regarding safety and taxiing times at overcrowded airports.

Not only they could, but they DO and have done so for many years.
As a person living in Strasbourg, I used to fly through FRA using a Lufthansa bus to get there. Getting to SXB then flying to CDG and then to wherever just never was efficient and a lot of people preferred the 2h30 bus...
Until a few years ago, when AF started offering combined air/rail tickets. Now I just ride 10 minutes to the train station (heck I could bike to the station), drop my suitcase at an AF counter there and get it back at my destination as with any connecting flight.

Truely, this law is quite négligeable in both its ambition and its effects, it will just lead to a few LYS CDG flights to be canceled. They are just accompanying a trend which is already happening.
BTW, there have been studies showing that 2h30 is kind of an inflexion point whem fast rail becomes faster than airplanes (including trips to AMF from the airport and the various waiting times)

seahawk wrote:

Oykie wrote:

seahawk wrote:

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

In my opinion the first step should be an agreement on a roadmap to 100% biofuel. It would be in the interest of airlines to have this agreement. Tax does not guarantee the change to biofuel. But it will reduce flying.

No, but a tax reduces the difference in price and taxes the environmental damage caused by conventional fuel. And less flying is good. The most environmental friendly flight is the one that does not happen.

In 2019 there was already talk of kerosene taxation in Germany.

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article198849377/Lufthansa-macht-ihren-Passagieren-ein-seltsames-Biosprit-Angebot.html

In the article Spohr said : At the same time, he gave almost casually to understand that the company could easily override the national kerosene tax. Spohr indicated that the aircraft tanks are so big that you could refuel abroad if necessary.

Banning flights means there is demand that is being suppressed. While I understand trying to go more environmentally friendly, if they need to ban the air travel it doesn't necessarily promote alternative transportation. That will mean some business doesn't happen and it mean some business is more expensive in either time or money (there was a reason they flew before).

Also, saying you cannot do this mode of transportation doesn't mean they will pick rail. It might be a connecting flight to Dublin for TATL, WAW or SVO for flights to Russia or North Asia or IST for flights to Africa or Southern Asia.

I do think biofuel will help. It will somewhat displace food, but we'll make up by growing more food in Africa.

I don't mind air to rail when it is a well planned out service. But forcing it means denying customers their preferred mode of travel. They might even switch where they live for more convienient air travel.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Banning flights means there is demand that is being suppressed. While I understand trying to go more environmentally friendly, if they need to ban the air travel it doesn't necessarily promote alternative transportation. That will mean some business doesn't happen and it mean some business is more expensive in either time or money (there was a reason they flew before).

I think you're being overly dramatic here, the demand being supresser is vamishingly small and I doubt any business hangs on that decision. There are just so many ways of conducting business that forcing people to spend 2.5h in a train instead of a plane will not have any impact. As to the reason they flew before, mostly historical, when train took 4h not 2 and status related. Kind of "I am successful Ifly instead of traveling by train like lowly peasants"

lightsaber wrote:

Also, saying you cannot do this mode of transportation doesn't mean they will pick rail. It might be a connecting flight to Dublin for TATL, WAW or SVO for flights to Russia or North Asia or IST for flights to Africa or Southern Asia.

That's exactly what is not being impacted by this new French rule. The rule specifically targets lines where the train is already a competitive option. And it may cause people moving to the train or less traveling when not necessary. Win-win situation.

lightsaber wrote:

I don't mind air to rail when it is a well planned out service. But forcing it means denying customers their preferred mode of travel. They might even switch where they live for more convienient air travel.

Well but this Is the point of this new rule, to force people to relinquish their preferred mode of travel as it is less environmentally friendly than another means which is just as efficient from other points of view.
As for switching wher one lives, I don't know of you're from the US, Europe, or elsewhere, but the organisation of European cities makes living in city centers much more valuable and the train much more convenient. A lot of people would want to live at a reasonable distance from a train station, noone wants to live by the airport.

[quote="lightsaber"
I don't mind air to rail when it is a well planned out service. But forcing it means denying customers their preferred mode of travel. They might even switch where they live for more convienient air travel.[/quote]

'Preferred' mode of travel, is just that.....not necessarily the best mode in a given circumstance, and much of the preferred travel on this forum is, after all, air (but most of that, quite honestly, is ego). While people have 'rights to travel' these are not, and should not, be at the expense of a greater good. Europe is a very different place to the US, and I can't see this situation having any massive adverse effect, nor can I envisage your suggestion that people might switch where they live for more convenient air travel. Indeed, if that were as light a reason as you are implying, then I would say one has greater, deeper problems to consider.

Vicenza wrote:

[quote="lightsaber"
I don't mind air to rail when it is a well planned out service. But forcing it means denying customers their preferred mode of travel. They might even switch where they live for more convienient air travel.

'Preferred' mode of travel, is just that.....not necessarily the best mode in a given circumstance, and much of the preferred travel on this forum is, after all, air (but most of that, quite honestly, is ego). While people have 'rights to travel' these are not, and should not, be at the expense of a greater good. Europe is a very different place to the US, and I can't see this situation having any massive adverse effect, nor can I envisage your suggestion that people might switch where they live for more convenient air travel. Indeed, if that were as light a reason as you are implying, then I would say one has greater, deeper problems to consider.[/quote]
I have friends who have moved to Dallas from California as it was more convenient for air travel because their business could do better with better access to customers. So "deeper problem" is getting to business. My neighbor moved from Paris to California for a better job.

Business survives on customer access. So if the access is easier transfering in Dublin for a TATL, they will (or IST going East, there are other hubs).

The issue is all laws have unintended consequences. When I travel, I *need* to make that 9am meeting (or whatever hour). I switch airlines to watch a kids soccer game to make a meeting, fly out at very early hours to read to them at bed the night before. People who fly a lot tend to not have a surplus of free time yet drive many jobs and make decisions based on air travel convenience.

So you might not envisage moving out, but what about that business owner who needs the sales team out there and isn't looking to pay for hotels. ULCCs thrive on fly in, do a meeting, fly back. Adding cost to a business slows its growth. I'm not saying it isn't a good idea. I'm saying there are unintended consequences that need to be thought out before doing a blanked policy. e.g., the TSA

I've had friends decide between spending time with kids and flying for a sales call. When they decide the sales call takes too much time away from family they loose some bonus, but also someone isn't employed.

People move all the time for more convenient business reasons. e.g., when one of my friends needed a larger home they spent a lot of time agonizing and decided where to move as it their nearby little airport had lost too much service and since he was having to drive 3 hours away to a bigger airport, they just moved closer to a larger airport. In this case, a larger airport a thousand miles away. Cest la vie. The family is happier as that means about 5 hours a week more time at home.

One obvious consequence is to remote meet (Zoom) more. However, I recently lost a sale as discussion that occured in person before the Zoom call "sealed the deal" (I had asked to fly and was denied.) Huh... The next Monday our corporate travel policy was revised for vaccinated individuals (like myself). (I've stolen business for competitors who stayed at home in the past, so fair is fair.)

Airports need a minimum amount of traffic to be viable. e.g., pay the ATC tower, baggage handlers, fire department, etc. This will cut off some French airports from enough air traffic to be viable and that will mean some businesses must move. People jump companies often; they're not going to stay in a location that is a hassle to do business.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

The issue is all laws have unintended consequences. When I travel, I *need* to make that 9am meeting (or whatever hour). I switch airlines to watch a kids soccer game to make a meeting, fly out at very early hours to read to them at bed the night before. People who fly a lot tend to not have a surplus of free time yet drive many jobs and make decisions based on air travel convenience.

So you might not envisage moving out, but what about that business owner who needs the sales team out there and isn't looking to pay for hotels. ULCCs thrive on fly in, do a meeting, fly back. Adding cost to a business slows its growth. I'm not saying it isn't a good idea. I'm saying there are unintended consequences that need to be thought out before doing a blanked policy. e.g., the TSA

On the kind of lines targeted by the policy in question, the train frequency is already better than the plane's. In France, of you don't have a surplus of time, you take the train if there is a direct high speed link. It takes the same time, except you're spending more time seating and can rest or work more. You get dire tly to a city center with an efficient public transportation system.
I think that you need to get rid from the American outlook on things on this particular issue. Something sensible in France may be totally and utter nonsense in the US
People already rail in, do business and rail back on the same day.

lightsaber wrote:

People move all the time for more convenient business reasons. e.g., when one of my friends needed a larger home they spent a lot of time agonizing and decided where to move as it their nearby little airport had lost too much service and since he was having to drive 3 hours away to a bigger airport, they just moved closer to a larger airport. In this case, a larger airport a thousand miles away. Cest la vie. The family is happier as that means about 5 hours a week more time at home.

People jump companies often; they're not going to stay in a location that is a hassle to do business.

That is relevant to the US, not at all in Europe. If you live in Paris center it can take you up to 1 hour to get to CDG, and it takes 2 from Strasbourg, 500km away.
So yes, someone may want to move from Paris western subuts to the northern ones to get closer to the airport... Wait Noone is doing that west is much much nicer...
Since the high speed train got up to speed, some people actually left Paris while still working there...

BTW, moving from Ca. To Dallas is like moving from Paris to Bucarest in term of distances... Not at all comparable to moving from Paris to Lyon

@lightsaber

Only flights are banned that make no sense if the train is the same or even faster. Tax money was also spent on the high-speed routes.
You simply cannot compare Europe with the USA on this point.
An example: My friend lives in Luxembourg City and often has business to do in Paris. The flight time is about 55 minutes and the train takes 2 hours 10 minutes.
But he still takes the train because it is generally faster for him than by plane , because he also takes into account the travel time to the airport on both sides and the plane has the worse cards ! This does not include the time you have to be at the airport before departure to check in.
I like to fly but I am strictly against it if the alternative makes more sense.

lightsaber wrote:

Banning flights means there is demand that is being suppressed. While I understand trying to go more environmentally friendly, if they need to ban the air travel it doesn't necessarily promote alternative transportation. That will mean some business doesn't happen and it mean some business is more expensive in either time or money (there was a reason they flew before).

Also, saying you cannot do this mode of transportation doesn't mean they will pick rail. It might be a connecting flight to Dublin for TATL, WAW or SVO for flights to Russia or North Asia or IST for flights to Africa or Southern Asia.

I do think biofuel will help. It will somewhat displace food, but we'll make up by growing more food in Africa.

I don't mind air to rail when it is a well planned out service. But forcing it means denying customers their preferred mode of travel. They might even switch where they live for more convienient air travel.

Lightsaber

Always moving the goalpost in a discussion does not help. The thread is about banning flights were the alternative is rail with a traveling time of 2:30 hours or less. We talk about a country where air to rail is a well planned out service. The point is quite a few airlines do not want to offer air to rail.
Why should the customer not pick rail? As somebody described, get to the train station, check in your baggage, at the airport less than 2:30 minutes away move over to air. When the trip is point to point up to 2:30 hours by rail should not be to onerous.

Train is nice as long as your airport has high speed rail link (like CDG and Lyon) AND your destination as well which is far from certain. Even in France.

Noshow wrote:

Train is nice as long as your airport has high speed rail link (like CDG and Lyon) AND your destination as well which is far from certain. Even in France.

I personally don't see it a making a huge difference. A train can be a very pleasant, relaxing and stress-free journey and the world doesn't revolve around everything having to be high-speed.

I am talking about business trips where you practically need to go to places and back without requiring too much time. This is not about enjoying landscape views from train windows.
AFAIK connecting passengers will be permitted to fly short haul even in the future as will be people needing more than 2,5 hours by train. I wonder who is left?

[quote="lightsaber"]
I have friends who have moved to Dallas from California as it was more convenient for air travel because their business could do better with better access to customers. So "deeper problem" is getting to business. My neighbor moved from Paris to California for a better job. [quote=]

But you are, once again, comparing the US to Europe and which, when it comes to lifestyle, are two very different things. No, the 'deeper problems' I'm referring to go far beyond 'getting to business', but I think you are aware of that. There are far more important things in life than just 'business', but then not a lot on this forum care about anything but. You're neighbour moving from Paris (and I take it you mean France) to California for a better job is relevant to this discussion, how? Seems to me you are doing your best to move goalposts, or introducing different aspects.

Business survives on customer access. So if the access is easier transfering in Dublin for a TATL, they will (or IST going East, there are other hubs).

[quote=]The issue is all laws have unintended consequences. When I travel, I *need* to make that 9am meeting (or whatever hour). I switch airlines to watch a kids soccer game to make a meeting, fly out at very early hours to read to them at bed the night before. People who fly a lot tend to not have a surplus of free time yet drive many jobs and make decisions based on air travel convenience.[quote=]

But those are your choices entirely, and not really relevant to the discussion at hand. If circumstances change then, if business is so important, you will have to either change to suit it, or change you choices. It's not directly relevant to what the French govt is attempting to achieve.

[quote=]So you might not envisage moving out, but what about that business owner who needs the sales team out there and isn't looking to pay for hotels. ULCCs thrive on fly in, do a meeting, fly back. Adding cost to a business slows its growth. I'm not saying it isn't a good idea. I'm saying there are unintended consequences that need to be thought out before doing a blanked policy. e.g., the TSA [quote=]

Once again, you are commenting as if this is related to the US. Why is that? I would point out though that in Europe, employees have a lot more 'freedom' to say No .....this is very noticeably different in your country where there is a great tendency to bend over backwards for an employer just to have a job. I have many American friends in that position and, on a purely personal level, live in 'stress' that I, and millions of others, simply wouldn't tolerate.
I'm not questioning your own circumstances at all, but what I completely disagree with on the stance is comparing the US and Europe they way you are......as I said, they are two entirely different regions, different lifestyles and different peoples.

[quote=]I've had friends decide between spending time with kids and flying for a sales call. When they decide the sales call takes too much time away from family they loose some bonus, but also someone isn't employed[quote=]

You have just described above exactly what I was talking about!! If one puts a job and employer above one's, wife, children and family.....well, I'll leave that entirely up to the individual.


[quote=]Airports need a minimum amount of traffic to be viable. e.g., pay the ATC tower, baggage handlers, fire department, etc. This will cut off some French airports from enough air traffic to be viable and that will mean some businesses must move. People jump companies often; they're not going to stay in a location that is a hassle to do business. [quote=]

I don't completely agree at all. But if one's life revolves solely around 'business' then so be it, and in the end they are the loser.

Noshow wrote:

I am talking about business trips where you practically need to go to places and back without requiring too much time. This is not about enjoying landscape views from train windows.
AFAIK connecting passengers will be permitted to fly short haul even in the future as will be people needing more than 2,5 hours by train. I wonder who is left?

That's fine, and you can talk about your business trips all you wish. However, a very large percentage of people and travel occur on nothing whatever to do with business. This mandate by the French govt is about something much wider than just 'business trips'.....but then, a very great many on this forum think travel only revolves around them and their 'business' trips. So, maybe to your surprise, and maybe some shock, there is a huge percentage of people 'who are left'.
Yes, connecting passengers will be permitted, and this has never been in question. Indeed, it has been yourself on several occasions which has perpetrated this completely incorrect notion of short haul flight is being banned. This was never the case at all.

So you enjoy your retirement and I keep on flying. Fine.

Noshow wrote:

I am talking about business trips where you practically need to go to places and back without requiring too much time. This is not about enjoying landscape views from train windows.
AFAIK connecting passengers will be permitted to fly short haul even in the future as will be people needing more than 2,5 hours by train. I wonder who is left?

By the way, there are actually only arrogant people who believe that you can't go by train in a suit. In my last post I gave a good example of how business people prefer the train to a flight. Believe me, he does business in the millions ! And yes time matters for him ( vulture ) and your socalled "too much time" is simply out of range.
Yes, fly to your destination but please do not at any cost and ultra short haul at all !!!

I use high speed trains all the time including for business trips and including wearing a suit. I am a real world traveller who experiences the pros and cons of rail travel day in and out. This is why I oppose naive ideology driven euphoria that trains can take over all short haul travel. It's time to step back and decide what is realistic and what not. High speed rail is only competitive if you travel between high speed rail places. You are lucky to find an airport with good high speed connections like Frankfurt. I use it all the time instead of doing short feeder flights without any woke attitude.

Noshow wrote:

I use high speed trains all the time including for business trips and including wearing a suit. I am a real world traveller who experiences the pros and cons of rail travel day in and out. This is why I oppose naive ideology driven euphoria that trains can take over all short haul travel. It's time to step back and decide what is realistic and what not. High speed rail is only competitive if you travel between high speed rail places. You are lucky to find an airport with good high speed connections like Frankfurt. I use it all the time instead of doing short feeder flights without any woke attitude.

Again, moving goalposts!
The new rule applies only when there is a direct rail link which is less than 2.5 hours.
That's an awfalluy limited scope and one where planes are already disapearing.
There is no more an air link between SXB and CDG or ORY, and that was before the new rule. It started when the train connection took 2h20 (it is now 1h50)
There used to be an MPL LYS flight... Not anymore (that was before the new rule)
Look at the number of flights between LYS and Paris, that's an awfully limited number of flights, planes have already been replaced by trains, and those remaining are designed for connecting flight in CDG, and again, those won't be affected.
The same trend is already happening for longer distances but the rule does not apply there. For example, MPL to Paris is 3h30 by train. The number of flights has already been reduced to maximum to 3 flights for connections (CDG) and 3 for deserving the city (ORY). But there the rule does not apply as 2h30 total travel time still beats 3h30...

Again, very limited scope accompanying and already existing trend.
That is kind of a no cost and almost no benefit decision

lightsaber wrote:

Banning flights means there is demand that is being suppressed. While I understand trying to go more environmentally friendly, if they need to ban the air travel it doesn't necessarily promote alternative transportation. That will mean some business doesn't happen and it mean some business is more expensive in either time or money (there was a reason they flew before).

Also, saying you cannot do this mode of transportation doesn't mean they will pick rail. It might be a connecting flight to Dublin for TATL, WAW or SVO for flights to Russia or North Asia or IST for flights to Africa or Southern Asia.

I do think biofuel will help. It will somewhat displace food, but we'll make up by growing more food in Africa.

I don't mind air to rail when it is a well planned out service. But forcing it means denying customers their preferred mode of travel. They might even switch where they live for more convienient air travel.

Lightsaber

Governments are supressing the demand for many services or products. Air travel is not sustainable and needs to be reduced.

oldJoe wrote:

@lightsaber

Only flights are banned that make no sense if the train is the same or even faster. Tax money was also spent on the high-speed routes.
You simply cannot compare Europe with the USA on this point.
An example: My friend lives in Luxembourg City and often has business to do in Paris. The flight time is about 55 minutes and the train takes 2 hours 10 minutes.
But he still takes the train because it is generally faster for him than by plane , because he also takes into account the travel time to the airport on both sides and the plane has the worse cards ! This does not include the time you have to be at the airport before departure to check in.
I like to fly but I am strictly against it if the alternative makes more sense.

If the train is always faster and more convenient, you would not need to ban the flying. It would loose out to train competition without the restriction. People choose the fastest/cheapest option. I realize the trains in parts of France is great and I love the TGV. But this ban does little for the environment and there we disagree.

mjoelnir wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Banning flights means there is demand that is being suppressed. While I understand trying to go more environmentally friendly, if they need to ban the air travel it doesn't necessarily promote alternative transportation. That will mean some business doesn't happen and it mean some business is more expensive in either time or money (there was a reason they flew before).

Also, saying you cannot do this mode of transportation doesn't mean they will pick rail. It might be a connecting flight to Dublin for TATL, WAW or SVO for flights to Russia or North Asia or IST for flights to Africa or Southern Asia.

I do think biofuel will help. It will somewhat displace food, but we'll make up by growing more food in Africa.

I don't mind air to rail when it is a well planned out service. But forcing it means denying customers their preferred mode of travel. They might even switch where they live for more convienient air travel.

Lightsaber

Always moving the goalpost in a discussion does not help. The thread is about banning flights were the alternative is rail with a traveling time of 2:30 hours or less. We talk about a country where air to rail is a well planned out service. The point is quite a few airlines do not want to offer air to rail.
Why should the customer not pick rail? As somebody described, get to the train station, check in your baggage, at the airport less than 2:30 minutes away move over to air. When the trip is point to point up to 2:30 hours by rail should not be to onerous.

Why would you need to put in a ban where the train is more convenient and faster? I assume the flying would die off anyway?

seahawk wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Banning flights means there is demand that is being suppressed. While I understand trying to go more environmentally friendly, if they need to ban the air travel it doesn't necessarily promote alternative transportation. That will mean some business doesn't happen and it mean some business is more expensive in either time or money (there was a reason they flew before).

Also, saying you cannot do this mode of transportation doesn't mean they will pick rail. It might be a connecting flight to Dublin for TATL, WAW or SVO for flights to Russia or North Asia or IST for flights to Africa or Southern Asia.

I do think biofuel will help. It will somewhat displace food, but we'll make up by growing more food in Africa.

I don't mind air to rail when it is a well planned out service. But forcing it means denying customers their preferred mode of travel. They might even switch where they live for more convienient air travel.

Lightsaber

Governments are supressing the demand for many services or products. Air travel is not sustainable and needs to be reduced.

Air travel can be sustainable with biofuel. Banning flying is not the way of the future. It limits people’s movement.

That remains to be proven, and until it is, the assumption needs to be that it is not.

Oykie wrote:

seahawk wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Banning flights means there is demand that is being suppressed. While I understand trying to go more environmentally friendly, if they need to ban the air travel it doesn't necessarily promote alternative transportation. That will mean some business doesn't happen and it mean some business is more expensive in either time or money (there was a reason they flew before).

Also, saying you cannot do this mode of transportation doesn't mean they will pick rail. It might be a connecting flight to Dublin for TATL, WAW or SVO for flights to Russia or North Asia or IST for flights to Africa or Southern Asia.

I do think biofuel will help. It will somewhat displace food, but we'll make up by growing more food in Africa.

I don't mind air to rail when it is a well planned out service. But forcing it means denying customers their preferred mode of travel. They might even switch where they live for more convienient air travel.

Lightsaber

Governments are supressing the demand for many services or products. Air travel is not sustainable and needs to be reduced.

Air travel can be sustainable with biofuel. Banning flying is not the way of the future. It limits people’s movement.

No problem if the industry moves to using 100% sustainable fuels, the ban can be lifted for those. That is without any government subsides for the biofuel.

Let's see what France does when ATR flies into hot water commercially due to the PR fight against regional aviation.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

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

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

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

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

Lastly, a rail coop is being started up in an effort to revive direct routes such as Bordeaux to Lyon but once again, these were discontinued because ultimately it takes the same time if not longer longer than actually connecting in Paris.

Just check the time those TER trains take between the cities as well as availability and pricing and you may get my point. All those are well over 2.5 hours so flights on those stretches (or driving) will still be the norm until we have TGV's which do not need to go to/through Paris to get to their destinations.

Noshow wrote:

Let's see what France does when ATR flies into hot water commercially due to the PR fight against regional aviation.

Well, nothing. I am not even sure that there are ATR flying in France anymore. At least not at Air France, Hop, Volotea, EasyJet. Etc.
Sure they may come back some days on lines like Lyon Bordeaux where there is no direct rail link and where it wouldn't be economically viable to build one, but ATR does not makes any money on the French continental market.

Oykie wrote:

Why would you need to put in a ban where the train is more convenient and faster? I assume the flying would die off anyway?

Because you are a politician who wants to be seen as of he is doing something and it is a hell lot easier to make a law forcing the sun rising east than west.
Flying on these short distances has/is dying off anyway.
But as a piticam, you can profit from it

Oykie wrote:

oldJoe wrote:

@lightsaber

Only flights are banned that make no sense if the train is the same or even faster. Tax money was also spent on the high-speed routes.
You simply cannot compare Europe with the USA on this point.
An example: My friend lives in Luxembourg City and often has business to do in Paris. The flight time is about 55 minutes and the train takes 2 hours 10 minutes.
But he still takes the train because it is generally faster for him than by plane , because he also takes into account the travel time to the airport on both sides and the plane has the worse cards ! This does not include the time you have to be at the airport before departure to check in.
I like to fly but I am strictly against it if the alternative makes more sense.

If the train is always faster and more convenient, you would not need to ban the flying. It would loose out to train competition without the restriction. People choose the fastest/cheapest option. I realize the trains in parts of France is great and I love the TGV. But this ban does little for the environment and there we disagree.

Agreed. If the train is a great solution, the plane cannot compete. On routes where it is superior, the train goes to where more people are (airports tend to be a little out of the way).

You have a subsidized rail having trouble competing with airlines... So the solution is to ban the airlines. Above a user proposed ok if biofuel were unsubsidized, but shouldn't that mean an end to the rail subsidy?
http://stophs2.org/news/5712-debts-subs ... speed-rail

I keep coming back to how convenient it is to do business in town X with airport XXX in France. If the train adds significant cost or time, one looks at the alternatives. e.g., hear their business pitch just on Zoom. Since I just lost a contract to in person discussion that Zoom participants couldn't be part of, I'm thinking that won't work. As I noted upthread, I had friends move to Dallas as their airport connections are superior to here with LAX. So I could imagine losing air connections to the Paris Hub might not be great for a French based company. They'll still have the option of flying to DUB (or maybe even LHR, if they can get a slot pair) or IST to fly east.

I'm a huge fan of biofuel. Despite the cost, I hope more is adopted for aviation. It won't be a zero cost solution as food producers will switch, but that opens up the opportunity for new food producers (but that quickly goes off topic).

I doubt this law will effect me other than making secondary cities of France unlikely starting points for a river cruise trip. There will be unintended consequences for the cities and by the time it happens, the politicians will pretend they had nothing to do with it.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

You have a subsidized rail having trouble competing with airlines... So the solution is to ban the airlines.

I keep coming back to how convenient it is to do business in town X with airport XXX in France. If the train adds significant cost or time, one looks at the alternatives. e.g., hear their business pitch just on Zoom. Since I just lost a contract to in person discussion that Zoom participants couldn't be part of, I'm thinking that won't work. As I noted upthread, I had friends move to Dallas as their airport connections are superior to here with LAX. So I could imagine losing air connections to the Paris Hub might not be great for a French based company. They'll still have the option of flying to DUB (or maybe even LHR, if they can get a slot pair) or IST to fly east.

You seriously don't know what you're talking about.
Let's take 2 examples, there are no flights anymore between SXB and Paris. Why? Because the train is more competitive.
Let's look at Lyon to Paris, there are 3 flights a day to CDG, there are more than 20 trains to Paris and 7 to CDG, I don't know what you're talking about with your "trouble competing"
French companies are not losing their connection to the hub, they have it replaced with a connection which takes the same or less time and is environmentally friendlier.
BTW it opened up a lot of new possibilities for French to fly. Instead of being able to fly only Air France because of the connection, you can now fly with any company without having to wait for your luggage to disembark.

So you imagine a lot and just missed the fact that the train has already left the station and that this ban is just a politician trying to get more votes by enacting something that has already happened.

seahawk wrote:

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

Of course LH didn't grow in the same rate the overall market did, as the growth was somewhere else. And no, we do not need to be climate neutral asap, that's just panicking Greta style - where every pilot knows, that panicking is the worst thing to do in a risk situation. Lot of arguments that are used by climate activists, how destroyed our planet already is and how fast we have to take measures, are in fact worst case scenarios, very unlikely to happen. It is fine if they use those arguments, that's how politics work (the oil-guys do it the same way, just mirrored). But first: just blindly following their "orders", is not how democracy works. And second: following people who have extremist ideas on particular topics but tend to ignore the big picture, historically went terrible wrong every single time. That's why we have a democracy.

Problem here is, that a lot of politicians don't see the whole picture, when it comes to aviation - how would they? They have to deal with dozens of different topics every day and one can hardly ask them to be a specialist on every of them, so we can hardly blame them for that. Can aviation be climate neutral by tomorrow? No. Do we need to? No, that's just a nice to have - have a nights sleep and you will see by tomorrow that it didn't made a difference. But do we need to be climate neutral in 30 years? Yes, definitively, and I am pretty sure, we can do that - hence my HCFC example.

So, is banning flights a good idea? No, in my opinion: because a shrinking industry never attracted investors and new technology, so we would most likely stuck whit the dirty stuff we have right now. Is impending the airlines to ban flights, if they do not comply with a carbon reduction scheme, an idea? Yes: it worked pretty good with car emissions - and there are a lot more people driving cars/motorcycles than people that can afford flying. So why not with aircraft?

Vicenza wrote:

LucaDiMontanari wrote:

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

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

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

You seem to have a very low opinion of most people's intelligence ability. How do you see banning short haul flights as driving thousands of people into unemployment and, especially, poverty or are you saying that merely to obtain impact?

Well, yes I have a low opinion. Not because people are dumb, but because people tend to be lazy in topics they are not familiar with. We humans almost always underestimate the complexity of a topic, as long as we do not go into the details. And if we detect complexity, it usually repels our interest in it. So I see, you start to understand how politics work: do you really think, green parties or friday-for-future activists won't use the instrument of over-exaggeration to gain attention? And yes: if we do not just talk about a low single digit number of french domestic routes, but if this becomes more serious (for example, the FFF movement demands a ban for all flights, where a rail connection is available in under 24 hours...), then this will have a horrible impact on the job market. Or do you expect all of these then redundant pilots, cabin crews, check-in staff, baggage loaders, etc. would be happy to work as bicycle couriers in the future? Because this is another demand form the FFF-movement: banning lorries in cities to bring in and remove stuff, replacing them with cargo-bicycles. A comforting, ambitious, well paid job with good career opportunities... That's what they call "create new jobs". Here you have a good read of what they consider a perfect world: https://admin.climate-prod.ch/uploads/Climate_Action_Plan_1_0_7ba47e3b16.pdf

Naincompetent wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

You have a subsidized rail having trouble competing with airlines... So the solution is to ban the airlines.

I keep coming back to how convenient it is to do business in town X with airport XXX in France. If the train adds significant cost or time, one looks at the alternatives. e.g., hear their business pitch just on Zoom. Since I just lost a contract to in person discussion that Zoom participants couldn't be part of, I'm thinking that won't work. As I noted upthread, I had friends move to Dallas as their airport connections are superior to here with LAX. So I could imagine losing air connections to the Paris Hub might not be great for a French based company. They'll still have the option of flying to DUB (or maybe even LHR, if they can get a slot pair) or IST to fly east.

You seriously don't know what you're talking about.
Let's take 2 examples, there are no flights anymore between SXB and Paris. Why? Because the train is more competitive.
Let's look at Lyon to Paris, there are 3 flights a day to CDG, there are more than 20 trains to Paris and 7 to CDG, I don't know what you're talking about with your "trouble competing"
French companies are not losing their connection to the hub, they have it replaced with a connection which takes the same or less time and is environmentally friendlier.
BTW it opened up a lot of new possibilities for French to fly. Instead of being able to fly only Air France because of the connection, you can now fly with any company without having to wait for your luggage to disembark.

So you imagine a lot and just missed the fact that the train has already left the station and that this ban is just a politician trying to get more votes by enacting something that has already happened.

I believe you’re proving his point. If what you say is true for more than a few routes the ban would not have been necessary because the train would already have outcompeted the plane. A ban tells you it needed a bigger push.

No, you're just widely misunderstanding French politicians.
The ban IS unnecessary. But if you can take a measure that puts you in a good light without offending anyone or harming anyone's business, why on earth would you pass on it?


You're reading this ban as a would be technical solution to the problem of global warning.
It is not.
It is a political communication solution to a popularity and across the isle cooperation problem. A kind of token of goodwill for the French Ecologists.

Naincompetent wrote:

No, you're just widely misunderstanding French politicians.
The ban IS unnecessary. But if you can take a measure that puts you in a good light without offending anyone or harming anyone's business, why on earth would you pass on it?


You're reading this ban as a would be technical solution to the problem of global warning.
It is not.
It is a political communication solution to a popularity and across the isle cooperation problem. A kind of token of goodwill for the French Ecologists.

Spot on, this is exactly what’s happening.

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/

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

lightsaber wrote:

Oykie wrote:

oldJoe wrote:

@lightsaber

Only flights are banned that make no sense if the train is the same or even faster. Tax money was also spent on the high-speed routes.
You simply cannot compare Europe with the USA on this point.
An example: My friend lives in Luxembourg City and often has business to do in Paris. The flight time is about 55 minutes and the train takes 2 hours 10 minutes.
But he still takes the train because it is generally faster for him than by plane , because he also takes into account the travel time to the airport on both sides and the plane has the worse cards ! This does not include the time you have to be at the airport before departure to check in.
I like to fly but I am strictly against it if the alternative makes more sense.

If the train is always faster and more convenient, you would not need to ban the flying. It would loose out to train competition without the restriction. People choose the fastest/cheapest option. I realize the trains in parts of France is great and I love the TGV. But this ban does little for the environment and there we disagree.

Agreed. If the train is a great solution, the plane cannot compete. On routes where it is superior, the train goes to where more people are (airports tend to be a little out of the way).

You have a subsidized rail having trouble competing with airlines... So the solution is to ban the airlines. Above a user proposed ok if biofuel were unsubsidized, but shouldn't that mean an end to the rail subsidy?
http://stophs2.org/news/5712-debts-subs ... speed-rail

I keep coming back to how convenient it is to do business in town X with airport XXX in France. If the train adds significant cost or time, one looks at the alternatives. e.g., hear their business pitch just on Zoom. Since I just lost a contract to in person discussion that Zoom participants couldn't be part of, I'm thinking that won't work. As I noted upthread, I had friends move to Dallas as their airport connections are superior to here with LAX. So I could imagine losing air connections to the Paris Hub might not be great for a French based company. They'll still have the option of flying to DUB (or maybe even LHR, if they can get a slot pair) or IST to fly east.

I'm a huge fan of biofuel. Despite the cost, I hope more is adopted for aviation. It won't be a zero cost solution as food producers will switch, but that opens up the opportunity for new food producers (but that quickly goes off topic).

I doubt this law will effect me other than making secondary cities of France unlikely starting points for a river cruise trip. There will be unintended consequences for the cities and by the time it happens, the politicians will pretend they had nothing to do with it.

Lightsaber

I hear you about the unintended consequences, but I just want to point out: the whole reason there's even a discussion about limiting aviation is because of the existing unintended consequences of carbon pollution.

People get attached to the status quo, but that status quo has lots of consequences itself, few of which were anticipated or desired.

And climate change is going to force our entire society to address those impacts - air-rail substitution is just one tiny piece of the larger conversation we're going to need to have about energy use and carbon emissions. And one of the ways to reduce the impact of aviation is going to be less flying - particularly when there are reasonable (yet alone superior) substitutes out there.

While there are some key locations where a 2.5 hour train ride exists, there are some location pairs where high speed rail doesn't exist or can't due to topography like with the Alps region of Europe. Then you have transfers from HS lines to local lines means longer times to travel vs. a direct fight.

blockski wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Oykie wrote:

If the train is always faster and more convenient, you would not need to ban the flying. It would loose out to train competition without the restriction. People choose the fastest/cheapest option. I realize the trains in parts of France is great and I love the TGV. But this ban does little for the environment and there we disagree.

Agreed. If the train is a great solution, the plane cannot compete. On routes where it is superior, the train goes to where more people are (airports tend to be a little out of the way).

You have a subsidized rail having trouble competing with airlines... So the solution is to ban the airlines. Above a user proposed ok if biofuel were unsubsidized, but shouldn't that mean an end to the rail subsidy?
http://stophs2.org/news/5712-debts-subs ... speed-rail

I keep coming back to how convenient it is to do business in town X with airport XXX in France. If the train adds significant cost or time, one looks at the alternatives. e.g., hear their business pitch just on Zoom. Since I just lost a contract to in person discussion that Zoom participants couldn't be part of, I'm thinking that won't work. As I noted upthread, I had friends move to Dallas as their airport connections are superior to here with LAX. So I could imagine losing air connections to the Paris Hub might not be great for a French based company. They'll still have the option of flying to DUB (or maybe even LHR, if they can get a slot pair) or IST to fly east.

I'm a huge fan of biofuel. Despite the cost, I hope more is adopted for aviation. It won't be a zero cost solution as food producers will switch, but that opens up the opportunity for new food producers (but that quickly goes off topic).

I doubt this law will effect me other than making secondary cities of France unlikely starting points for a river cruise trip. There will be unintended consequences for the cities and by the time it happens, the politicians will pretend they had nothing to do with it.

Lightsaber

I hear you about the unintended consequences, but I just want to point out: the whole reason there's even a discussion about limiting aviation is because of the existing unintended consequences of carbon pollution.

People get attached to the status quo, but that status quo has lots of consequences itself, few of which were anticipated or desired.

And climate change is going to force our entire society to address those impacts - air-rail substitution is just one tiny piece of the larger conversation we're going to need to have about energy use and carbon emissions. And one of the ways to reduce the impact of aviation is going to be less flying - particularly when there are reasonable (yet alone superior) substitutes out there.

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

lightsaber wrote:

blockski wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Agreed. If the train is a great solution, the plane cannot compete. On routes where it is superior, the train goes to where more people are (airports tend to be a little out of the way).

You have a subsidized rail having trouble competing with airlines... So the solution is to ban the airlines. Above a user proposed ok if biofuel were unsubsidized, but shouldn't that mean an end to the rail subsidy?
http://stophs2.org/news/5712-debts-subs ... speed-rail

I keep coming back to how convenient it is to do business in town X with airport XXX in France. If the train adds significant cost or time, one looks at the alternatives. e.g., hear their business pitch just on Zoom. Since I just lost a contract to in person discussion that Zoom participants couldn't be part of, I'm thinking that won't work. As I noted upthread, I had friends move to Dallas as their airport connections are superior to here with LAX. So I could imagine losing air connections to the Paris Hub might not be great for a French based company. They'll still have the option of flying to DUB (or maybe even LHR, if they can get a slot pair) or IST to fly east.

I'm a huge fan of biofuel. Despite the cost, I hope more is adopted for aviation. It won't be a zero cost solution as food producers will switch, but that opens up the opportunity for new food producers (but that quickly goes off topic).

I doubt this law will effect me other than making secondary cities of France unlikely starting points for a river cruise trip. There will be unintended consequences for the cities and by the time it happens, the politicians will pretend they had nothing to do with it.

Lightsaber

I hear you about the unintended consequences, but I just want to point out: the whole reason there's even a discussion about limiting aviation is because of the existing unintended consequences of carbon pollution.

People get attached to the status quo, but that status quo has lots of consequences itself, few of which were anticipated or desired.

And climate change is going to force our entire society to address those impacts - air-rail substitution is just one tiny piece of the larger conversation we're going to need to have about energy use and carbon emissions. And one of the ways to reduce the impact of aviation is going to be less flying - particularly when there are reasonable (yet alone superior) substitutes out there.

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

Yes, bans are kludgy. But any action taken will be the result of political commitment to act, and politics is by nature a kludge.

And I'd point out that there's a huge difference between "just stop" and what's actually proposed here, which is "just stop when there's a perfectly reasonable, if not superior alternative already available." If anything, this kind of conflict is going to be more common. Actually addressing the impacts of climate will mean seriously accounting for the real impacts of emissions and the trade-offs involved with lower carbon alternatives. And yes, things like banning more short-haul flights (even if the rail alternative isn't quite as convenient) will have consequences - but continuing on the current path has consequences, too.

I don't see any reason to ban electric aircraft, but I also don't see a reason to worry about something that (for now) is completely hypothetical. That's the power of status quo bias - spending lots of time worrying about a hypothetical impact to a technology that doesn't yet exist, rather than the very real GHG emissions we see today.

I'd love to see the aviation community channel all of their energy into actually creating those kinds of zero-carbon options, rather than fighting against efforts to solve the climate problem.

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

"Grown fuel" is also mandated in the same law, increasing year after year. The solution is there and has cost many billions to the taxpayer (and employed plenty of engineers), it's called the TGV.

ltbewr wrote:

While there are some key locations where a 2.5 hour train ride exists, there are some location pairs where high speed rail doesn't exist or can't due to topography like with the Alps region of Europe. Then you have transfers from HS lines to local lines means longer times to travel vs. a direct fight.

The Alps have dozens of rail (and road) tunnels across them. With more being built, including for high speed rail. I figure I have crossed them more often by rail than by air (and much more often by road).

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.