# France bans short-haul flights



## jis (Mar 23, 2022)

Here is an interesting article about a week old, written apparently before the French Senate approved the ban. It appears to affect only a handful of routes at present. The 2.5 hour seems to be more acceptable to all than the earlier proposal for 4 hours.









France bans short-haul flights: Industry reacts


France has banned short-haul domestic flights in favour of trains has received mixed reviews from politicians and the airline industry.




www.airport-technology.com





And here is a Wikipedia article on the general state of play on the subject in Europe...









Short-haul flight ban - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org






MODERATOR NOTE: The original post in this thread was removed because of copyright violations. Please comply with AU's rules and guidelines when quoting articles:


> Posted text, images and videos should be your content, content which you have permission to post, or content that you believe to be within the public domain. In the case of news articles, a “fair use” portion of an article maybe be posted. Fair use is a small portion of the article (a paragraph or two) and must be accompanied by a link to the original article. Articles copied and pasted in the entirely will either be removed or will be edited to conform to fair use.


----------



## denmarks (Mar 23, 2022)

How many trains would that cut out in the US? It would be a good reason for a bullet train from LA, SF, SAC.


----------



## slasher-fun (Mar 23, 2022)

denmarks said:


> How many trains would that cut out in the US? It would be a good reason for a bullet train from LA, SF, SAC.


Assuming you mean "flights", at least BOS <> NYC+PHL, NYC <> PHL+BWI+WAS, also PDX <> SEA.
SFO / SAC <> LAX would be a little over 2.5 hrs.


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 23, 2022)

slasher-fun said:


> Assuming you mean "flights", at least BOS <> NYC+PHL, NYC <> PHL+BWI+WAS, also PDX <> SEA.
> SFO / SAC <> LAX would be a little over 2.5 hrs.


Don't forget secondary markets like BWI-PWM (Portland, Maine), flights between the big eastern cities and Pittsburgh and points in Ohio. Heck, 2.5-hour or less flights would include all the flights between the big east coast cities and Chicago and Detroit, and the NEC cities and Florida. I think it would eliminate most of the flights out of BWI airport.


----------



## daybeers (Mar 23, 2022)

Remember that this France ban _excludes_ international connecting flight traffic, which is a large portion of their passengers. That's the Achilles with this plan IMO.


----------



## jis (Mar 23, 2022)

The problem with international connecting traffic is that train frequency is not that great from CDG to Nantes, Rennes or Bordeaux. They have to start some new service that has to go around Paris to reach those high speed lines.

It works well for local traffic because the local traffic is not starting at CDG and for them to get to CDG or ORY is as easy or difficult as to get to Montparnasse or Gare de Lyon or Gare d'le Est.


----------



## cirdan (Mar 24, 2022)

I see the article says the ban applies to 

1) flights where train equivalent is two and a half hours or less
2) connecting flights excepted 

just wondering , taking into account the vagueness of defining a connecting flight (people fly all sorts of crooked itineraries and dog legs sometimes) andhow do you define an equivalent rail journey seeing many smaller airports are not rail served.

so maybe after all wriggle room and excuses are put on the table , total number of flights affected will be pretty small ?


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Mar 24, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> Don't forget secondary markets like BWI-PWM (Portland, Maine), flights between the big eastern cities and Pittsburgh and points in Ohio. Heck, 2.5-hour or less flights would include all the flights between the big east coast cities and Chicago and Detroit, and the NEC cities and Florida. I think it would eliminate most of the flights out of BWI airport.


We are not Europe and I think it would be a tough sell to ban flights on routes where there is no good rail alternative. For example PWM - BWI is not a direct trip on Amtrak requiring a change of stations in Boston.


----------



## jebr (Mar 24, 2022)

slasher-fun said:


> Assuming you mean "flights", at least BOS <> NYC+PHL, NYC <> PHL+BWI+WAS, also PDX <> SEA.
> SFO / SAC <> LAX would be a little over 2.5 hrs.



The rule appears to be if currently existing _train_ service can cover it in 2.5 hours or less, then the flight is barred from accepting local passengers. In the US, that would only be CHI - MKE, PHL - NYC, and Bay Area - Sacramento if my memory serves (Portland - Boston is over that on 9 of the 10 trains, so not sure if that would be banned or not.) In most of those markets I'd imagine there isn't a lot of local traffic anyways - almost all of it is certainly connecting traffic.


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 24, 2022)

jebr said:


> The rule appears to be if currently existing _train_ service can cover it in 2.5 hours or less, then the flight is barred from accepting local passengers.


Oh, that makes a lot more sense.

Even with the allowance for the international connections, I guess they figure that will reduce the total number of flights, which will definitely have a benefit.


----------



## slasher-fun (Mar 24, 2022)

jebr said:


> The rule appears to be if currently existing _train_ service can cover it in 2.5 hours or less, then the flight is barred from accepting local passengers. In the US, that would only be CHI - MKE, PHL - NYC, and Bay Area - Sacramento if my memory serves (Portland - Boston is over that on 9 of the 10 trains, so not sure if that would be banned or not.) In most of those markets I'd imagine there isn't a lot of local traffic anyways - almost all of it is certainly connecting traffic.


I was making a list with a hypothetical high-speed train service between the mentioned cities


----------



## cirdan (Mar 24, 2022)

If the train schedule basically becomes the critical measure of whether commercial flights are allowed or not, I guess there may be situations where the train schedule acquires a political, almost normative dimension and people may be lobbying both ways for trains to be speeded up or slowed down, especially in the case of a "narrow miss".

Also in the case of schedule changes, it would in borderline cases possibly mean that airlines cannot publish schedules until train schedules are published for the same period. The consequences could be very messy.


----------



## slasher-fun (Mar 24, 2022)

Train schedules don't vary by more than a few minutes, and France has picked 2.5 hours also because there's no "borderline" situation with that duration in France.


----------



## Barb Stout (Mar 25, 2022)

Do Europeans have the same or similar airport/plane security systems that adds about an hour to travel by plane for passengers like the US does? I had been wondering if that might have come into play with the 2.5 hour cutoff also.


----------



## cirdan (Mar 25, 2022)

I think trains already have a clear natural advantage for journeys of 2.5 hours. I don't think there are many situations in Europe where airlines are a significant threat to trains on that sort of distance. Especially when as you say, airport security and hassle is factored in. It's maybe for somewhat longer trips that the advantages of air settle in.

As such I don't think this legislation will flood the trains with additional passengers.

But I guess it's a first step.


----------



## slasher-fun (Mar 25, 2022)

Barb Stout said:


> Do Europeans have the same or similar airport/plane security systems that adds about an hour to travel by plane for passengers like the US does? I had been wondering if that might have come into play with the 2.5 hour cutoff also.


Yes, except there's no equivalent of "TSA PreCheck", everyone has to go through the same hassle.
Oh, and they don't care about your ID, just about your belongings.


----------

