France Bans Short Haul Domestic Flights in Favour of Train Travel (euronews.com) 216
France has been given the green light to ban short haul domestic flights. The European Commission has approved the move which will abolish flights between cities that are linked by a train journey of less than 2.5 hours. From a report: The decision was announced on Friday. The changes are part of the country's 2021 Climate Law and were first proposed by France's Citizens' Convention on Climate -- a citizens' assembly tasked with finding ways to reduce the country's carbon emissions. France is also cracking down on the use of private jets for short journeys in a bid to make transport greener and fairer for the population. Transport minister Clement Beaune said the country could no longer tolerate the super rich using private planes while the public are making cutbacks to deal with the energy crisis and climate change.
Private Jets... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, will private jets be banned? Summary says...
Transport minister Clement Beaune said the country could no longer tolerate the super rich using private planes.
Whoo hoo!
Article says...
Despite urgent calls from campaigners, France is unlikely to impose a total ban on jets.
D'Oh!
Re: (Score:2)
Dassault is a major manufacturer of private jets so of course they're not going to ban them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, if a country has one tiny coal-based power plant and 100 huge gas-based power plants, they should go after the gas-based ones first.
Private jets may produce less emissions as a sector, but they produce a great deal more emissions per person who benefits. Excluding them makes no sense, except for plutocrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Shut down the disgusting WASTE that is Strasbourg (Score:2)
Go green by shutting down Strasbourg IMMEDIIATEMENT !
There will be exceptions (Score:2)
Can't wait to see the list of exceptions to the rule. There always are exceptions, and they always include a certain class of people. Like the ruling class. Rules for thee, but not me.
Just wait.
Only for journeys less than 2.5 hours by train (Score:2)
Once you've finished messing about with airport security, wouldn't the train be faster anyway for such short journeys? I suspect that most people already take the train, and this rule would make little difference.
Re: (Score:2)
My local airport charges a thousand bucks sometimes to fly customers to San Jose https://www.myflightsearch.com... [myflightsearch.com] here in Santa Rosa California and San Jose is only two hours drive. Seems strange to me as well but people see uses in these short flights.
Re:Only for journeys less than 2.5 hours by train (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
In other words the law is structured so that rail could poach the market for marginal air routes by making investments to reduce rail travel time - or perhaps even just designating an express route? Whereas without this law, reducing rail travel time by e.g. 20 minutes would have had a marginal
France is smaller than Texas (Score:5, Informative)
Googling around, it's about 82% the size of Texas. While there are probably some regular commercial flights between far-flung cities within Texas, most Texans just hop in their cars and violate the ever living fuck out of the speed limit to go someplace within the state. Smaller planes may be more common there than ordinary commercial flight, but I still wager that driving is more likely. If Texas had the same population distribution as France, *and* as well developed a rail network, I suspect they would use it. This leads me to wonder who is actually doing all this jetting around France in the first place? I suspect not that many people, and that this is mostly feel-good legislation.
Sure enough, TFA says this ban initially impacts only 3 routes.
Re:France is smaller than Texas (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Who would even want to? (Score:3)
Who would even want to take a flight where a 2.5 hr train ride is available (in Europe anyway)?
I just took a train from Stuttgart to Paris, about 4 hours actually, but that is town center to town center, no messy security or check in lines, no baggage restrictions, a bigger seat and a lot fewer people. All that was worth $80 (in first class, less than a half in 2nd). Just getting to and from an airport, through security and waiting for checked bags would have taken longer.
TBH flights this short should not even exist here due to basic economics (but they do, because "low cost" airlines advertise unrealistically low $10 prices, and then charge a lot more to make the flight feasible. Predictably, this old trick continues to work on all those non-mathematically inclined.
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the small matter that aviation fuel is not taxed which helps.
That said if you fill a plane and fly it close to it's range it is a very carbon efficient mode of transport. Less so than a train in France though which is pretty green in that respect.
Really gotta give it to the French lawmakers (Score:4, Interesting)
Real experience (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In this unforeseen, totally unpredictable, completely surprise move, helicopter sales spike in France!
The article says they are banning "flights" Do helicopters not fly?
Re: (Score:2)
Helicopter flights are usually well under 2.5H. There's got to be some exception so that helicopters can continue to operate. Although an individual might not be able to charter one quite as freely as they have in this past, this mainly impacts the wealthy (if it impacts them at all).
2.5h applies to train not aircraft (Score:3)
Helicopter flights are usually well under 2.5H.
The 2.5h limit applies to the alternative train ride, its not the length of the flight.
:-)
Besides, the helicopters are about to be replaced by our flying cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, good point. A train with multiple stops might only average 50 kph. A civilian helicopter could push 300 kph, but even cruising at substantial less than that through busy airspace should be substantially faster than a train. A 2.5H train right might be 45 minutes on a helicopter I'm guessing with my napkin math.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, good point. A train with multiple stops might only average 50 kph.
I see you've not been to France before. If you take an RER or other regional connection you would be in that kind of situation. However if you say catch a TGV from Paris Charles de Gaulle airport to say Lyon, you'll be there in 2 hours. If you draw a circle with a radius from Paris to Lyon you'll realise that that 2.5 hours gets you to most places in France.
At least if serviced via a TGV. Not all cities have high speed connections. Incidentally though those cities that don't have high speed connections are
Re: (Score:2)
Italian family memories (Score:2)
Fuck you too, and have a Merry Christmas! :-)
Ah, Christmas memories for those who grew up in an Italian family. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Only bans flight if alternative train route exists (Score:2)
So, they banned all sightseeing flights? Honestly curious.
They are banning flights where an alternative train route exists. You tend not to have train routes covering sightseeing tours :--)
Re: (Score:2)
You tend not to have train routes covering sightseeing tours :--)
Well, technically not true since you can get all over Paris (and surrounding areas) by train! :-)
Those trains are underground, so you really only see one of Paris' sightseeing destinations, the Metro. :-)
Re: Helicopter Sales BOOM (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A helicopter will never be as economical, per person, as a commercial airliner running a scheduled route, to say nothing of a train. Not even close.
This, mod up. (Score:2)
Yeah, I feel like that should be obvious to almost anyone. No idea why as of my post the person you're replying to is modded 5 Insightful. Any up mod outside of "funny" seems kind of dumb for that post.
Re: (Score:2)
My father used to commute in a copter at times. He was a peon, like his son, we lived in a relatively sparse area near an executive who would let him know if there was an extra seat.
Re: (Score:2)
It's *his* typo...
Re: (Score:2)
And yet it is also "a" typo.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sales of seats on a helicopter flight (Score:2)
[sarcasm] Yes because people who travel coach via commercial planes and trains costing hundreds of euros are very likely to buy helicopters costing tens of thousands each.[/sarcasm]
Like short haul commercial aircraft, one can buy a seat on a helicopter. And given enough wealthy people on those former short haul commercial flights, a scheduled helicopter flight might be practical. So only the peons are forced to the train. The wealthy may indeed have a helicopter option.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of the all the OP said: "helicopter sales spike in France". Not a ride. Not a seat. Sales OF helicopters.
You do realize that sales of seats to travelers translates into sales of helicopters to transportation companies?
Meh, there aren't that many really rich people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this unforeseen, totally unpredictable, completely surprise move, helicopter sales spike in France!
This applies to commercial flights, not private jets.
It's doubtful many of the people who were taking these flights will be able to afford a helicopter.
And the big advantage of helicopters isn't their speed, it's their ability to land and take-off almost anywhere. It's doubtful they'd be much faster than a train (particularly a high speed one).
Helicopters, faster speed, more direct path (Score:2)
And the big advantage of helicopters isn't their speed, it's their ability to land and take-off almost anywhere.
I'd say its their ability to fly a more direct path between destinations than a train.
It's doubtful they'd be much faster than a train (particularly a high speed one).
High speed rail is defined as 200 km/h, the average helicopter cruising speed is 300 km/h. Helicopters appear to be 50% faster and travel in a more direct (shorter) path..
Re: (Score:2)
And the big advantage of helicopters isn't their speed, it's their ability to land and take-off almost anywhere.
I'd say its their ability to fly a more direct path between destinations than a train.
Kinda the same thing, but for cities you're somewhat limited.
It's doubtful they'd be much faster than a train (particularly a high speed one).
High speed rail is defined as 200 km/h, the average helicopter cruising speed is 300 km/h. Helicopters appear to be 50% faster and travel in a more direct (shorter) path..
Actually 250 [wikipedia.org]:
The newest high-speed lines allow speeds of 320km/h (199mph) in normal operation: originally LGVs were defined as lines permitting speeds greater than 200km/h (124mph), revised to 250km/h (155mph). Like most high-speed trains in Europe, TGVs also run on conventional tracks (French: lignes classiques), at the normal maximum speed for those lines, up to 220km/h (137mph).
And again, its not about them being faster. It's about them being
Re: (Score:2)
And the big advantage of helicopters isn't their speed, it's their ability to land and take-off almost anywhere.
I'd say its their ability to fly a more direct path between destinations than a train.
Kinda the same thing, but for cities you're somewhat limited.
Not really, its still far more of a straight line than a train. Cities may be more complicated than the countryside with more flight control zones but helicopters at lower altitudes can avoid that much more easily than other aircraft, ie fly under the control zones except for those really close to airports.
It's doubtful they'd be much faster than a train (particularly a high speed one).
High speed rail is defined as 200 km/h, the average helicopter cruising speed is 300 km/h. Helicopters appear to be 50% faster and travel in a more direct (shorter) path..
Actually 250 [wikipedia.org]:
The newest high-speed lines allow speeds of 320km/h (199mph) in normal operation: originally LGVs were defined as lines permitting speeds greater than 200km/h (124mph), revised to 250km/h (155mph). Like most high-speed trains in Europe, TGVs also run on conventional tracks (French: lignes classiques), at the normal maximum speed for those lines, up to 220km/h (137mph).
And again, its not about them being faster. It's about them being so much faster that they're worth the considerable cost increase over a rail ticket.
That 300 km/h helicopter time was an average. If we can cherry pick trains for speed would could do the same for helicopters. :-)
Regardless, its not merely speed, its also path. Helicopters can general
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
TFA states that "[d]espite urgent calls from campaigners, France is unlikely to impose a total ban on jets". However "heavy taxation and restrictions are the most likely measures to be introduced."
So if your hypothetical rich person wants to still fly, they can - it'll just cost them a lot more. Seems fair to me.
Additionally, laws like this invariably include carve-outs for things like medical necessity.
Re: (Score:2)
So if your hypothetical rich person wants to still fly, they can - it'll just cost them a lot more. Seems fair to me.
No, it is government imposed economic discrimination. Nothing fair about that at all.
Most of these bans will become taxes ... (Score:2)
So if your hypothetical rich person wants to still fly, they can - it'll just cost them a lot more.
Yep, and as 2035 nears we'll find the ban on internal combustion engines will morph into a tax on internal combustion engines. The rich will get what they prefer.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the excuse, the real goal is obviously to keep funding the failed TGV project. There's a reason people go on planes over their trains. The trains ARE more expensive, sometimes 3x as high cost as a plane, they're overall slower point-to-point (because they need to stop everywhere) and don't go when and where you want them necessarily.
Re: (Score:2)
And planes are sometimes slower than bicycles! [archive.org]
Re: (Score:3)
That's the excuse, the real goal is obviously to keep funding the failed TGV project.
The TGV that got a tiny fraction of the subsidies that AirFrance received? That failed project?
You're really delusional.
Re: Fairer...? (Score:2)
Re: Fairer...? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, first off that's a situation that rarely if ever happens (seriously, what's the number of people per year that fly on a jet to get an immediate organ transplant?).
Second, how much faster do you think air travel will be compared a train or ambulance? It's not over huge differences so the extra time getting on the plane and preparing is going to take as long as the extra time to travel
Re:When you need an organ transplant (Score:4, Informative)
The person receiving the transplant rarely flys. They are already at the hospital waiting for the organ(s) to come to them.
Second, how much faster do you think air travel will be compared a train or ambulance? It's not over huge differences so the extra time getting on the plane and preparing is going to take as long as the extra time to travel
Depending on the distance to the recipient and the organ(s) involved, transportation can be via amublance, helicopter or plane [donoralliance.org].
In many cases, time is of the essence due to deterioration of the organ once it's out of the body. Point-to-point via helicopter is generally the fastest followed by ambulance then plane (chartered or commerical).
Re: (Score:2)
Those don't sound like cases that would be applicable here then so it's not relevant.
Re: When you need an organ transplant (Score:2)
Re: When you need an organ transplant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In Italy generally the urgent transport of organs, or even of special case patients, is handled by the military or the police. You know, since healthcare is financed through taxes, and different branches of the government try to integrate their services. Like in pretty much all of Europe
Re:When you need an organ transplant (Score:5, Insightful)
Third, such emergency use flights are not banned. This is just one of those typical slashdot objections, come up with an extreme scenario and declare that the idea is dead on delivery.
Re: (Score:2)
Third, such emergency use flights are not banned.
I believe the more realistic example is... if there are continuous domestic flights all the time then it is very easy to "hijack" a seat in an emergency AND the economics are realistic as the flight is offset by the many other flyers.
What you're saying is an emergency we're suppose to pull a single engine aircraft and a pilot who may not be available AND do this all at an increased cost.
This is not an extreme scenario, these are the logistics of eliminating commercial domestic flights.
Re: When you need an organ transplant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: When you need an organ transplant (Score:5, Insightful)
Because flights are cheaper and yes, they don't go where people want them.
The problem is France's TGV project has long been running with heavy subsidies and high cost and train use is dropping. Flights are cheaper even though the train ticket itself only pays (barely) for the energy cost of the trip, the rest (the buildout of tracks and purchase of train cars) is subsidized
Re: (Score:3)
Are short haul flights that cheap over there? I'm looking at booking options for my local short haul airport that's a town over from me in the US right now and I see a flight to San Jose that is a two hour drive away but costs 1,000 dollars https://www.myflightsearch.com... [myflightsearch.com] and I know they're a fairly busy airport for a short haul spot.
In the case of my local airport at least it doesnt look like people are flying because it's anywhere even close to the cheapest option at least some of the time.
Re: When you need an organ transplant (Score:2)
Obviously if you need to go from a farm town with 1 flight per week that has 5 seats to an airport, that cost will be high. They are talking eg Brussels to Paris and Amsterdam and other major tourist and business hubs. France is relatively large, even within the country, train rides can take half a day to complete, and less than an hour in the air.
Going from eg Miami to Atlanta is something like $30 in the US as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Flights are cheaper even though the train ticket itself
Ask yourself why this is. And when you seek an answer you may find that jet fuel is the only fuel in the world protected by an international treaty to prevent taxation.
The reason flights are cheap is because they are hugely subsidised. That and because SCNF and Alstom together got a COVID bailout of less than $3bn while Air France secured a government bailout of $14bn (not all in one go).
Re: When you need an organ transplant (Score:2)
Just because something is protected from organized theft and something else isnâ(TM)t doesnâ(TM)t mean itâ(TM)s subsidized. The government trains donâ(TM)t pay taxes on their energy usage either, so that argument is moot.
As far as the COVID bailout, the government stopped people from running their business, most democracies have protection from the government just taking your stuff without remuneration.
Re: When you need an organ transplant (Score:2)
Only in the mind of nutjobs are taxes theft.
Nobody is forcing you to work and live here, if you don't want to pay taxes then it's your responsibility to find/take/hold land somewhere and you can do what you want there. But, nobody owes you anything, and that includes aid in finding/building/defending your tax free paradise. Your also not owed any help in stopping others from taking it from you.
You can always try Mogadishu.
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, the leading European country for high-speed rail coverage, Spain, runs its state-owned railways as a non-profit, which keeps investments in new infrastructure high & rail fares low. The Spa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: When you need an organ transplant (Score:5, Interesting)
If the trains is cheaper and quicker, why are people taking flights? Usually when there are better alternatives, consumers sort out it out themselves. If people are taking short haul flights in France it's likely because other alternatives aren't as cheap or as good in some other aspect. I'm guessing the train takes considerably longer even after accounting for the extra bullshit time taken by airport security theater.
One of the reasons might be connections. The only times I took short-haul flights in my home town is to get to a larger airport not to far away (2.5h by car). And it was always because I was connecting to somewhere else too far to drive.
While not convenient when you go downtown, flights are convenient when you want to get at the airport, on the other side of the security. And it's actually often cheaper than driving there, especially if I have to pay for parking (which I do not at my home airport since I can take a cab or get a ride by friends/family). Taking the bus/train + plane would likely be the most expensive option in my case, and less convenient.
So I imagine it's the same thing in France. A lot of people must live within 300 km of Paris, and those short flights were probably 90% filled with people not even going to Paris itself, but having a connection to somewhere abroad, when there are no direct flights from smaller airports.
So in order to effectively replace those flights and remain convenient, there would need to be a way to buy a single train+flight ticket, and the train must stop at the airport. This way, if for whatever reason the flight is delayed and you miss your train, the company is responsible to find you another way back home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that being said, a simplistic ban on short-distance flights seems just that, overly simplistic.
By reading TFA, it's not a simplistic ban. Banned routes have to have a good train alternative (including good schedules). So only three routes currently meet the criteria for the ban, all of which between Paris Orly airport and
1. Nantes
2. Lyon
3. Bordeau
So you can still fly Nantes to CDG. I don't think a lot of valuable flights are being lost here.
Re: (Score:2)
So I imagine it's the same thing in France. A lot of people must live within 300 km of Paris, and those short flights were probably 90% filled with people not even going to Paris itself, but having a connection to somewhere abroad
Some airlines are actually ahead of the curve here. Tangentially related since Air France and KLM (Dutch airliner) are the same company, but KLM announced that any ticket to and from Brussels via Schiphol airport will have that short hop serviced via a Thalys and they will no longer fly between those airports.
We're getting to the point where it's worth checking your tickets if all your hops in your journey are actually plane tickets.
Re: (Score:2)
We're getting to the point where it's worth checking your tickets if all your hops in your journey are actually plane tickets.
Well if total travel time (including plane boarding, taxi and typical excuses for being late) is the same or lower, I would actually prefer sitting in a train (more comfortable, more reliable) than a plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Because them want to show their economical superiority ("the market" makes funny things...)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? what FUD.
Trains are almost always faster than short haul planes in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, no. Scheduled flights are, well, scheduled. And they are only convinient when you need to go where the scheduled flight is going. Also the airports are usually not nearly as close to the nearest city as the main train stations.
Re: When you need an organ transplant (Score:2)
But planes go on the schedule of the majority of consumers. Trains generally go on the schedule of government bureaucrats and unions.
Hence why Europe has areas where the last train leaves at 5pm because the conductor is not allowed to work beyond 1am and any delays on said train and youâ(TM)re stuck in a train station in a village in the middle of nowhere while the train company tries to arrange private busses for the last leg (speaking from experience)
The connection to train station vs airport is moot
Re:When you need an organ transplant (Score:5, Insightful)
I know! Let's take an edge case which wouldn't likely even use this kind of flight service, and use it to attack what seems to be a rather sensible plan in a country like France. Reduction ad absurdum much?
Re: (Score:2)
Take an air ambulance, where you can have a gurney and monitors and staff to take care of you. If it's not a critical emergency take a 2.5H train ride, actually going to be easier on your heart and the wheelchair access is better on trains.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. Yeah, they're going to ground the air ambulances. Is bureaucracy really that shit in the US that you guys think this kind of scenario is realistic?
transplants don't travel by commercial flights (Score:2)
When transplants are involved, commercial flights (which this applies to) are pretty much never involved. So your comment is complete bullshit.
Re:Obvious Asterisk (Score:5, Informative)
I was wondering about this and looked at the article.
There is nothing about such an exception there, are you making this up or do you have another source?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Obvious Asterisk (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Public sector employees typically cannot charter private planes for travel.
Re: (Score:2)
So, just to get this straight, because a very small number of people who own their own aircraft won't be affected, this is a bad policy?
First post had a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. This one is literally arguing *for* the tragedy of the commons.
Re:Obvious Asterisk (Score:5, Insightful)
So, just to get this straight, because a very small number of people who own their own aircraft won't be affected, this is a bad policy?
YES - that is tip of the iceberg but its certainly a reason its a bad policy. If we accept that short haul flights are carbon inefficient and carbon emissions are harmful and we accept that the atmosphere is a shared good, that no individual has ownership of, then it does not really follow owning your own aircraft should entitle you to engage in environmentally destructive activity by flying places you could travel to easily using less carbon heavy methods.
Why does mere possession of a capital assets grant to you additional right to the commons? Surely if its okay for your fly on your plane for 20min, it must be okay for me to rent a seat and fly on someone else's plane for 20min - if you give a flying fuck about equality. Now if you wanted to do something facially neutral like say put tax on flight related carbon emissions - and have everyone who flies pay their share that might be fair. However commercial vs private should make no difference.
All or nothing thinking is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
If you stop and consider even for a moment it's not hard at all to see how this is going to play out. First you ban it for working class and upper middle class then they get pissed off that the rich still get to do their short-term flights and finally they call for the rich to be held to the same standard.
But without first imposing the requirement on the 99% you'll never get them behind imposing on the 1%. Again that's what all or nothing thinking gets you. It's the death of nuance and a perfectly good way to prevent all progress
That's not how ir works (Score:2)
1. There are no good examples of rules and regulations being heaped upon the middle class, and then the middle class getting outraged that the elites are not subject to the new rules and successfully forcing the rich to be placed under the new rules. It does not happen. Power corrupts, and the elites become more tyrannical and corrupt and divorced from the everyday concerns of average people with each new bit of power and control they acquire.
2. The experiment of piling new rules onto the average person and
Re: (Score:2)
2. This isn't an "experiment". Again, you're falling to black and white thinking. You've already decided "law bad" and you're working backwards from your conclusion, refusing to acknowledge my main point, which is that solving 99% of the problem and leaving 1% left over, is a good thing.
3. Yeah, I know. And people hate that. The elite mostly keep quiet about that as a result.
Re:Obvious Asterisk (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Obvious Asterisk (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Found the Trumptard who has literally never left his state in 'Murica.
Jackass.. I know this is hard to understand, but other countries have a high speed rail systems. It's not greyhound of Amatrak or a shit US public transit system.
I nearly all cases, domestic ICE travel is just as fast as a plane. And easier.
Re: (Score:3)
I should also point out that without France, 'murica would literally not exist. They backed your rebellion. Without them, you would have a queen.
Of course, you cannot expect a Murican to know anything about history except from between 1939 and 1945. Even though, only what they heard in their echo chambers.
Re: (Score:2)
I should also point out that without France, 'murica would literally not exist. They backed your rebellion. Without them, you would have a king.
Fixed that for you. (I am not used to having a king either.)
Re: (Score:2)
Before you complain about the French too much, there wouldn't be a United States of America without France. The mythology that it was brave American Revolutionaries who beat France is a load of fucking bullshit. The Continental Army won because of massive amounts of French support, including keeping the Royal Navy occupied.
Re: (Score:3)
In exchange for practically half the productive side of this new country, which they then gave up several years later for peanuts because they were broke.
History is a bit more complex, France did participate, so did Spain and the Canadians wanted to get rid of the crown too, but didn't.
Re: (Score:2)