France bans short-haul flights

[jis]

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.

https://www.airport-technology.com/features/france-bans-short-haul-flight-industry-reacts/
And here is a Wikipedia article on the general state of play on the subject in Europe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-haul_flight_ban

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ?

 

[BlackDiamond]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.