France Bans Short-haul Flights

[NortholtPark]

Rail-related....

France bans short-haul flights to cut carbon emissions

All domestic air routes are stopped where the same journey could be made by train in under 2.5 hours.

www.bbc.co.uk

France has banned domestic short-haul flights where train alternatives exist, in a bid to cut carbon emissions.
The law came into force two years after lawmakers had voted to end routes where the same journey could be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours.
The ban all but rules out air travel between Paris and cities including Nantes, Lyon and Bordeaux, while connecting flights are unaffected.

 

[Gaelan]

connecting flights are unaffected

My general impression is that a very significant proportion of short-haul flights are connections with longer flights. If that’s the case, this will do very little.

We really need to work on improving air-rail connections.

 

[Bald Rick]

There was a previous thread on this.

Short haul flights are not banned.

The sale of tickets for short haul flights that are not connectign to another flight are banned, and only where the train has the same city pair under 2.5hrs. In practice, this will affect very few people. A handful of flights will stop as a result.

were the same to happen in this country, I’d be surprised if any flights stopped operating.

 

[AlterEgo]

If I had a penny for every time someone mentioned France had banned short haul flights I’d have enough for…maybe a large pizza from Dominos.

 

[Watershed]

There was a previous thread on this.

Short haul flights are not banned.

The sale of tickets for short haul flights that are not connectign to another flight are banned, and only where the train has the same city pair under 2.5hrs. In practice, this will affect very few people. A handful of flights will stop as a result.

were the same to happen in this country, I’d be surprised if any flights stopped operating.

Indeed. Just about the only British city pair that would be affected would be London-Manchester (London-Leeds having ceased during Covid). The overwhelming majority of passengers on such flights are connecting to/from another flight at Heathrow.

 

[NortholtPark]

From Aviation Week...

Apologies, my previously posted link does not work

Let's try this one from The Independent..

What France’s short-haul flight ban mean for travellers explained

The long-awaited legislation, designed to bring down carbon emissions, only targets a small number of routes

www.independent.co.uk

The rule was later broadened out, and after approval by the European Commission and public consultation, its publication in a decree on May 23 makes it officially part of French law.

 

[JGurney]

There was a previous thread on this.

There was: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...flights-if-rail-is-a-good-alternative.240424/

 

[chorleyjeff]

Rail-related....

France bans short-haul flights to cut carbon emissions

All domestic air routes are stopped where the same journey could be made by train in under 2.5 hours.

www.bbc.co.uk

France has banned domestic short-haul flights where train alternatives exist, in a bid to cut carbon emissions.
The law came into force two years after lawmakers had voted to end routes where the same journey could be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours.
The ban all but rules out air travel between Paris and cities including Nantes, Lyon and Bordeaux, while connecting flights are unaffected.

How much less carbon does a modern passenger aircraft produce than a high speed train per passenger over say 200 miles. And how much less does a 100mph train produce for the same journey ?

 

[Bald Rick]

How much less carbon does a modern passenger aircraft produce than a high speed train per passenger over say 200 miles. And how much less does a 100mph train produce for the same journey ?

aircraft - a lot more, assuming the train is fully electric of course, and the electricity is from a grid that has a reasonable degree of “green-ness”, like ours and France’s.

 

[jfollows]

The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/frances-ban-on-local-flights-fails-to-take-off-kcxmx9sml, posted below) reports that only three routes were affected (Orly-Nantes, Bordeaux & Lyon) and flights still run, albeit to Charles de Gaulle airport instead, basically by gaming the rules. The affected flights account for 3% in total of emissions on French domestic flights and 0.3% of emissions from flights anywhere taking off in France.
Essentially politics without teeth.

France’s ban on local flights fails to take off​

Charles Bremner
, Paris
Wednesday May 24 2023, 12.01am, The Times
France
A much-trumpeted ban on short domestic flights in France took effect with so many exemptions that no services will be halted.

Environment campaigners deplored the watering-down of what President Macron called a pioneering effort to curb airline greenhouse gases and his government hailed the law’s enactment as a “world premier” for France.

After lobbying by local authorities and airlines, trimming by the European Union and compromises in parliament, only three routes were affected by the ban on domestic flights for journeys that are possible in less than two and a half hours by train.

These services, linking Paris Orly airport with Nantes, Bordeaux and Lyons, had already been stopped by Air France under a 2020 agreement with the state in return for pandemic relief and after passengers had largely deserted the aircraft for high-speed trains. Air France’s competitors were barred from starting services to fill the gap.

Thanks to creative rule-making, services continue unhindered between those cities and Charles de Gaulle airport, Paris’s main hub, albeit further out from the centre than Orly. This was done by decreeing that the reference station for Charles de Gaulle would be the airport’s stop on the high-speed rail system rather than stations in Paris.

That rule, plus a condition that train links must be easily available, exempted the three services, as well as flights between Rennes and Charles de Gaulle and between Marseilles and Lyons, southern cities 1 hour and 50 minutes apart by train.
The three Orly routes banned by the law were responsible for only 3 per cent of emissions by aircraft on French domestic flights and 0.3 per cent of emissions from commercial flights taking off from mainland France.
The flight ban idea was adopted by Macron after a proposal by a “citizens’ convention” on the environment that he created after the “yellow vests” grass-roots insurrection in 2018-19.
“This measure has been completely hijacked,” said William Aucant, a member of the convention and Loire regional councillor, “The state lacks courage and is playing with language to try to do as little as possible.”

Greenpeace France said the halted flights represented only three among 100 domestic routes, which was “extremely insufficient”. However, with other campaign groups it called France’s action important as it set a precedent that could be expanded across Europe. France plans to add more routes to the ban when it reviews its list in three years.

I think what this means is that, for example, Orly-Rennes flights are banned because there's a good train service Paris-Rennes/Nantes, but Charles de Gaulle-Rennes/Nantes flights are allowed because there isn't a good train service from the CDG railway station to Rennes or Nantes. I do note, however, that Air France is always more than willing to book people on "connecting flights" where the connection is between CDG and Orly, so when it suits them they're airports within easy reach of each other .......

 

[JonasB]

How much less carbon does a modern passenger aircraft produce than a high speed train per passenger over say 200 miles. And how much less does a 100mph train produce for the same journey ?

Slightly old data, but is seems like a train emits around 5% of what a plane emits. https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view I also assume that it varies a lot, especially in countries like the UK or Denmark that have a lot of diesel trains.

aircraft - a lot more, assuming the train is fully electric of course, and the electricity is from a grid that has a reasonable degree of “green-ness”, like ours and France’s.

With 40% of the electricity being provided by fossil fuels, I would not say that the UK grid has a "reasonable degree of green-ness".

 

[Bald Rick]

With 40% of the electricity being provided by fossil fuels, I would not say that the UK grid has a "reasonable degree of green-ness".

35% in the last three months, compared to 65% for the same period a decade ago, whilst dropping carbon emissions by two thirds…I’d say is a reasonable degree. Rather better than Germany, for example.

 

[NortholtPark]

Many thanks for the tidy-up on this thread and my apologies for missing that one was already in progress.

 

[Trainbike46]

How much less carbon does a modern passenger aircraft produce than a high speed train per passenger over say 200 miles. And how much less does a 100mph train produce for the same journey ?

Slightly old data, but is seems like a train emits around 5% of what a plane emits. https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/view I also assume that it varies a lot, especially in countries like the UK or Denmark that have a lot of diesel trains.

Trains emitting ~95% less is about the right ballpark, and while there is some variation, trains are always a lot greener than flying

 

[BeijingDave]

Indeed. Just about the only British city pair that would be affected would be London-Manchester (London-Leeds having ceased during Covid). The overwhelming majority of passengers on such flights are connecting to/from another flight at Heathrow.

As a regular traveller on flights from Manchester-London I would guess probably 60-70% are joining a connecting flight at Heathrow.

Heathrow is actually hugely inconvenient for London business travellers compared to the train, unless your meeting is in, say, Slough or an ad agency on the Edgware Road.

 

[jfollows]

As a regular traveller on flights from Manchester-London I would guess probably 60-70% are joining a connecting flight at Heathrow.

Heathrow is actually hugely inconvenient for London business travellers compared to the train, unless your meeting is in, say, Slough or an ad agency on the Edgware Road.

I tend to agree.
I used to have to go to IBM in Bedfont Lakes (which is walkable from T4, or was since it's not there any more) but IBM was stuck in a 1960s mind-set and would not allow me to fly without many levels of management approval, so I went by train instead, but this was a journey which made sense by air. Which my customer colleagues from the same area to the same meeting tended to make.
Otherwise, no, I'm using the London-Manchester flight in July to get back from Los Angeles but will probably end up mooning around T5 for several hours when I could be taking the train home. But if HS2 won't be going to Heathrow I don't see how these flights can be avoided, although they're silly and I don't like them. In my case it came down to ££, I could effectively get a connecting flight back to Manchester for nothing whereas the train would cost a lot.
I agree, though, if my destination were central London I'd not be flying from Manchester to Heathrow, it makes no sense.

 

[Bald Rick]

But if HS2 won't be going to Heathrow I don't see how these flights can be avoided

You’ll be able to get the ‘inter terminal shuttle’ from Heathrow to the HS2 station. aka Elizabeth Line / HEx.

 

[Fragezeichnen]

The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/frances-ban-on-local-flights-fails-to-take-off-kcxmx9sml, posted below) reports that only three routes were affected (Orly-Nantes, Bordeaux & Lyon) and flights still run, albeit to Charles de Gaulle airport instead, basically by gaming the rules. The affected flights account for 3% in total of emissions on French domestic flights and 0.3% of emissions from flights anywhere taking off in France.
Essentially politics without teeth.

The original proposal was for a 4 hour train journey rather than 2.5 hours to be the cutoff. Unfortunately it seems to have been watered down in the process of implementation.

 

[NortholtPark]

Cynics would say that having to rely on one form of transport restricts choice and a free market approach.
So, by 'forcing' the passenger to go by train restricts there choice.

If you look at what has now happened with the jetBlue and American Airlines partnership, in theory they offerred a more jointed
approach with extra routes, thus saving on duplication for the sake of it....now it has been kicked into touch by a federal judge.

..That's progress!

 

[tomuk]

With 40% of the electricity being provided by fossil fuels, I would not say that the UK grid has a "reasonable degree of green-ness".

Allowing for a bit of distortion due to us burning gas and exporting the electricity due to Ukraine the figure is probably 4 or 5 % lower. Better than Germany where 56% is non renewable and a large proportion is from dirtier coal fired plants.

 

[Route115?]

I think that you have to separate out different issues:

Using old units (because the data I looked at was old, you can convert it to modern values, in any case I always covert horsepower to kW - 1 hp = 745.7W as we are going electric):

An HST will deliverer around 200 passengers miles per gal depending upon load factor, how dense the seating, etc.

A coach could deliver double that (with tight seating).

A car anthing from 30 - 150 depending on size and occupancy.

I calculated that my flight to Australia three years ago delivered 100 but there is a high fixed cost element - London - Machester will achieve far less with all the taxiing and going around in the stack and if you fly business class the total might be 35. I have seen airlines quote figures of around 70.

All of which suggests that 5% is rather optimistic.

This then raises the question of where the power comes from. Eurostar assumed that it used nuclear power - I won't go into the pros and cons of nuclear power (I'm basically in favour others diagree). Swiss railways use hydro electric, which is fine as long as the reseroirs are full (they weren't last summer). A Japanese rail company got fined for exceeding its quots of hydro power. So we have to decarbonise the grid which fortunately we are doing. You get a good feeling going going past wind turbines out of the train window but you are up against the nimbyists.

The bigger problem is that ban flight people always assume that journeys are between city centres when many are not. Lets say that a politician wants to fly from Newcastle to the Sky studios at Osterley (just to take a random example). The time by train would be around four hours, by plane under three. You could (rightly) argue that this is an error in the planning system but consider the politics. There is talk of moving institutions out of central London which is one location where travelling by train will usually be faster. I wonder how many people in the region will drive to the GBR HQ in Derby if and when it opens?

Stations have to be well situated and often they are not. The young are increasingly chosing not to drive (like me but I'm much older). France delights in out of town stations. When it was open Ebsfleet Parkway would have been a "killer". Where I line it takes roughly the same time to get to Heathrow as central London. When I line in Redhill Gatwick was ten minutes away. What if you live in Brighton?

You have to accept that all rail journeys are different.

There is plenty that you can do to enhance the rail network (look at what the Swiss have done) and we need to do it. I think that the first thing is to realise that most of the time rail is competing against the car and not the plane and plan accordingly. Unfortunately the proponents of high speed rail can be obsessed in speed over convenience and competing against the plane.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think that you have to separate out different issues:

Using old units (because the data I looked at was old, you can convert it to modern values, in any case I always covert horsepower to kW - 1 hp = 745.7W as we are going electric):

An HST will deliverer around 200 passengers miles per gal depending upon load factor, how dense the seating, etc.

A coach could deliver double that (with tight seating).

A car anthing from 30 - 150 depending on size and occupancy.

I calculated that my flight to Australia three years ago delivered 100 but there is a high fixed cost element - London - Machester will achieve far less with all the taxiing and going around in the stack and if you fly business class the total might be 35. I have seen airlines quote figures of around 70.

All of which suggests that 5% is rather optimistic.

This then raises the question of where the power comes from. Eurostar assumed that it used nuclear power - I won't go into the pros and cons of nuclear power (I'm basically in favour others diagree). Swiss railways use hydro electric, which is fine as long as the reseroirs are full (they weren't last summer). A Japanese rail company got fined for exceeding its quots of hydro power. So we have to decarbonise the grid which fortunately we are doing. You get a good feeling going going past wind turbines out of the train window but you are up against the nimbyists.

The bigger problem is that ban flight people always assume that journeys are between city centres when many are not. Lets say that a politician wants to fly from Newcastle to the Sky studios at Osterley (just to take a random example). The time by train would be around four hours, by plane under three. You could (rightly) argue that this is an error in the planning system but consider the politics. There is talk of moving institutions out of central London which is one location where travelling by train will usually be faster. I wonder how many people in the region will drive to the GBR HQ in Derby if and when it opens?

Stations have to be well situated and often they are not. The young are increasingly chosing not to drive (like me but I'm much older). France delights in out of town stations. When it was open Ebsfleet Parkway would have been a "killer". Where I line it takes roughly the same time to get to Heathrow as central London. When I line in Redhill Gatwick was ten minutes away. What if you live in Brighton?

You have to accept that all rail journeys are different.

There is plenty that you can do to enhance the rail network (look at what the Swiss have done) and we need to do it. I think that the first thing is to realise that most of the time rail is competing against the car and not the plane and plan accordingly. Unfortunately the proponents of high speed rail can be obsessed in speed over convenience and competing against the plane.

Sensible post.

on the point about the Swiss. Yes it is a terrific system, but that doesn’t stop the Swiss road network being horribly congested, and nor does it stop internal domestic flights - there are five flights daily Geneva to Zurich for example, a distance roughly the same as London to Cardiff.

 

[Watershed]

Yes it is a terrific system, but that doesn’t stop the Swiss road network being horribly congested

The high average income might have something to do with that...

nor does it stop internal domestic flights - there are five flights daily Geneva to Zurich for example, a distance roughly the same as London to Cardiff.

About as many as the number of daily London to Manchester flights, then? I'd expect that the profile is much the same - mostly people connecting to other flights.

Considering the average Swiss income is much higher, and the journey time from Geneva to Zürich considerably longer than London to Manchester or Cardiff, I'd say that it's almost surprising there aren't more flights.

 

[Bald Rick]

The high average income might have something to do with that...


About as many as the number of daily London to Manchester flights, then? I'd expect that the profile is much the same - mostly people connecting to other flights.

Considering the average Swiss income is much higher, and the journey time from Geneva to Zürich considerably longer than London to Manchester or Cardiff, I'd say that it's almost surprising there aren't more flights.

I agree - my point being that even with a great rail system, it doesn’t remove domestic flights nor solve road congestion.

 

[zwk500]

I agree - my point being that even with a great rail system, it doesn’t remove domestic flights nor solve road congestion.

Geneva to Zurich flight is 50', Add 6' for Geneva Cornavin-Airport, plus 30' check-in/security, then 10' transfer off the plane to the ground transport plus 10-15' transfer to Zurich Hbf, you've got 1h46-51m journey against a current train ride of 2h46. However GWR do London-Cardiff in 1h50, the same time as the total air travel.
Although I do acknowledge that the relationships between both cities in terms of relative populations, economic activity, economic geography, demand and capacity are quite different.

(Airport-Centre times from Geneva airport website and visitZurich.com, flight from Swissair result on google, train times from google results, airside transfers a rough approximation based on no checked baggage).

 

[Trainbike46]

I think that you have to separate out different issues:

Using old units (because the data I looked at was old, you can convert it to modern values, in any case I always covert horsepower to kW - 1 hp = 745.7W as we are going electric):

An HST will deliverer around 200 passengers miles per gal depending upon load factor, how dense the seating, etc.

A coach could deliver double that (with tight seating).

A car anthing from 30 - 150 depending on size and occupancy.

I calculated that my flight to Australia three years ago delivered 100 but there is a high fixed cost element - London - Machester will achieve far less with all the taxiing and going around in the stack and if you fly business class the total might be 35. I have seen airlines quote figures of around 70.

All of which suggests that 5% is rather optimistic.

Starting from your HST baseline:

An electric train is around 3-4x more efficient than a diesel one, turning your 200 passenger miles per gallon into 700 passenger miles for an electric train.

Then consider that the electricity grid in the uk is about 50% low carbon sources (nuclear and renewables). So, if the carbon per energy is half or better for electricity compared to jet fuel, you end up with 95% less emission compared to flying.
Of course in France, the carbon intensity of the grid is even lower due to their high nuclear share.

It also matches with some work I did for my employer comparing flying Belfast-london with taking the ferry to liverpool and train from there, where the reduction in carbon was ~88%, and every assumption we made was made in favour of flying, not rail.

In summary, yes, a train emitting ~5% of the co2 of flying is realistic

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Domestic aviation in the UK has declined pretty dramatically over the last 20 years, and at the risk of sounding a Thatcherite the 'market' has decided anyway. It is open to debate whether this is due to improved rail services, improved roads / cheaper motoring or high aircraft operating costs. It is hard to believe now that in the 'glory' days British Midland operated 6 flights a day Leeds/Bradford to Heathrow - today there are nowt. Manchester to Heathrow in the 'Shuttle' days was much more frequent than now, and a Gatwick service was operated too. Today Manchester has no flights to the Central Belt in Scotland and only super expensive Loganair to Inverness and Aberdeen - all BA services in the past. It is only where there is no reasonable alternative - e.g. to Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands - that routes are flourishing.

 

[eldomtom2]

It is only where there is no reasonable alternative - e.g. to Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands - that routes are flourishing.

Well, there's always ferries, and the cross-Channel ones always seem decently full whenever I take them...

Also, surely we should not be excusing short-haul connecting flights?

 

[Richard Scott]

How much less carbon does a modern passenger aircraft produce than a high speed train per passenger over say 200 miles. And how much less does a 100mph train produce for the same journey ?

Sorry to be pedantic but really can we stop using the term 'Carbon' when what is really meant is 'Carbon Dioxide'? Really wish media et al would use more scientifically correct terms.

 

[zwk500]

Also, surely we should not be excusing short-haul connecting flights?

Fundamentally, why not?

Sorry to be pedantic but really can we stop using the term 'Carbon' when what is really meant is 'Carbon Dioxide'? Really wish media et al would use more scientifically correct terms.

Carbon Monoxide and Particulates (as well as Nitrogen Oxides I think?) from incomplete combustion in ICE engines are also a massive concern, not just CO2. Not sure how a jet engine performs on that front - presumably in normal operation Jet combustion is pretty much complete.