Will France ban short haul domestic flights?

Just a small clarification:

This bill would only affect flights where there is an alternative via train that takes less than 2.5 hours —

e.g., the TGV from Paris to Bordeaux takes two hours, so domestic flights between Paris and Bordeaux would be shuttered.

The main flights this would affect (if passed in its current form) would be
Paris-Bordeaux
Paris-Lyon
Paris-Nantes
Paris-Rennes
Lyon-Marseille

And, as Frank mentioned, there would still be allowed connecting flights for people to transfer to international flights (how you keep people from booking the same flights just to travel domestically, I don’t know.).

Environmental activists had asked for the suppression where a train was available on the same route that took four hours or less, but the government went for 2.5.

I read the BBC, American version. I think they need a couple more votes. Personally I think it would make sense but I am not there. Our personal standard has always been around the five hour mark when deciding between train and plane. Even the four hour limit might have some merit. Will be interesting to see what develops.

(how you keep people from booking the same flights just to travel
domestically, I don’t know.).

My guess is they'd probably use the same IT tools that only allow people to book certain flights as part of a longer itinerary. For example, pre-COVID Qantas operated a JFK-LAX-Sydney flight. You couldn't book the flight if you only wanted to travel between JFK and LAX; you had to book the JFK-LAX leg as part of a single itinerary that continued onward to Sydney.

Presumably French airlines would/could implement something similar, if this passes -- i.e. if you searched for a Lyon-to-Paris flight no results would be returned, but if you search for a Lyon-to-New York trip, Lyon-Paris and Paris-New York flights appear.

Of course, there's not much to stop a passenger from disembarking at the intermediate stop (though their return trip would probably be canceled if so), but I assume the relative cost would stop people. (In other words, I doubt there were a lot of people who were willing to pay New York-Sydney airfare for a New York-Los Angeles flight!)

Our personal standard has always been around the five hour mark when
deciding between train and plane

As long as you are one of the people who believes that Europe is just a few major cities separated by uninhabitable desert, the five hour rule might hold. I, however, find myself staying in a lot of small towns in this uninhabitable desert, and those towns are not usually close to airports, so by the time you take into account the time to get to an airport, the five hour rule doesn't work.

Case in point: three years ago, we went from St Goar, on the Rhein, to Pfronten-Ried, near Füssen. The closest usable airport to Pfronten was MUC, 3H21 away. Cologne/Bonn and Frankfurt were about equal distant from St Goar, 2H9, but it's a shorter flight (55 min) from FRA to MUC than from Bonn. Adding just the train and flight times, gets 6H25, and that doesn't include schedule mismatches or the required pre-board time (? 1 hr). The trip by train, St Goar to Bingen - EC to Ulm - Ulm to Kempten to Pfronten was only 6H21. Not only that, a SparPreis ticket for two today would be just under 60€, compared to over $100 per person just for the flight part.

I wonder what the specifics are relating to the part of the article that says “... connecting flights will not be affected.” By that I mean, how will connecting flights be defined. (A point Kim mentioned) It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Might require more planning when traveling to France.

While Andrew speculated one might not be able book the domestic leg only of a flight, but if the flight is going, it shouldn’t matter who is on it; the domestic leg only person or the person connecting to a foreign destination. The emissions would be the same.

I don't get the logic. If any flight is allowed -- connecting or not -- then there is that flight -- it doesn't matter who is on it and why if it runs. I guess it allows fewer flights and thus layovers of many hours and overnights rather than efficient (for the traveler) connecting flights.

Air France wants to reduce domestic service, particularly short flights. It’s a question of €€€.

As for overseas arrivals, Air France and SNCF already have coordinated flights and train itineraries from CDG. For example NY to Avignon you switch to the train at CDG and your luggage is checked through to the destination, exactly as it would be with a connecting flight. But, it has to be an Air France/ Sky Team ticket.

If you eliminate the people who are only flying the short leg, you may reduce the paying passengers enough to make it unprofitable for the airline to fly that plane at all. So those who want to use it just as a connection won't have that option anymore. Just saying...

I, however, find myself staying in a lot of small towns in this
uninhabitable desert, and those towns are not usually close to
airports, so by the time you take into account the time to get to an
airport, the five hour rule doesn't work.

Or if you are travelling between two cities that have an airport, but where there are no direct flights.

I wonder what the specifics are relating to the part of the article
that says “... connecting flights will not be affected.” By that I
mean, how will connecting flights be defined. (A point Kim mentioned)
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

You will not be able to buy a ticket from A to B if the train takes less than 2:30. But you will be able to by a ticket A to C via B.

Might require more planning when traveling to France.

Probably not. When the train takes less than 2:30, very few would have flown anyway.

While Andrew speculated one might not be able book the domestic leg
only of a flight, but if the flight is going, it shouldn’t matter who
is on it; the domestic leg only person or the person connecting to a
foreign destination. The emissions would be the same.

Actually not, remove those who only fly domestic and there will be less passengers on the plane.

I can't help but wonder if this is a case of politicians patting themselves on the back by pretending to do something without doing much at all.

https://onemileatatime.com/france-bans-short-domestic-flights/

How many routes are impacted by this? This new measure might sound
drastic, but how many flight routes are actually potentially impacted
by this legislation? Of the 108 pre-coronavirus domestic routes in
France, this potentially impacts… five routes. Yep, just five.

This includes the following (flights from Paris Charles de Gaulle
aren’t impacted):

Paris Orly to Bordeaux

Paris Orly to Lyon

Paris Orly to Nantes Paris

Orly to Rennes

Lyon to Marseille

So yeah, this would potentially ban ~4.6% of domestic flight routes.
Admittedly these are probably some of the more high frequency routes,
so it probably represents more than 4.6% of total domestic capacity,
but still. I’d hardly call this revolutionary.

I saw a survey (MSE) this afternoon where about 70 percent of the (British) respondents both below age 40 and above age 40 would support a similar ban in the UK.

Another article.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56716708
It also called for "safeguards that [French national railway] SNCF will not seize the opportunity to artificially inflate its prices or
degrade the quality of rail service".

The SNCF has some pretty powerful unions, nothing like a lack of competition as an excuse for more labour walkouts as well as greed to inflate prices.

I am thinking it is mostly virtue signaling. Do many people do trips that would take 2 hours by train? It takes longer to check in at the airport.

And again it makes no sense to ban direct flights but not connecting flights. Planes still gotta fly in such cases.

can nobody applaud even baby steps in improving the environment and forestalling worse climate change?

Actually not, remove those who only fly domestic and there will be less passengers on the plane.

A half filled plane does not burn 50% less fuel.

Passengers and their baggage account for no more than 25% of takeoff weight. Cutting the passenger load by 50% ( i.e 'domestic' flyers) does not make a huge difference. And add in the fuel the bus or taxi burns to get everyone from the airport to the train station and the pollution 'savings' shrinks a bit more.

A half filled plane does not burn 50% less fuel. Passengers and their
baggage account for no more than 25% of takeoff weight. Cutting the
passenger load by 50% ( i.e 'domestic' flyers) does not make a huge
difference.

I am well aware of that, but airlines don't like flying half filled planes. If loads are that bad they will use smaller planes that burn less fuel. Replacing an A320 with an A220, CRJ or ATR will make a huge difference in fuel consumption and hence pollution.

And add in the fuel the bus or taxi burns to get everyone from the
airport to the train station and the pollution 'savings' shrinks a bit
more.

Why would domestic passengers get to the airport?

Why would domestic passengers get to the airport?

I will have to plead 'caffeine deprivation' when I wrote And add in the fuel the bus or taxi burns to get everyone from the
airport to the train station and the pollution 'savings' shrinks a bit
more.

And add in the fuel the bus or taxi burns to get everyone from the
airport to the train station and the pollution 'savings' shrinks a bit
more.

So, don't use taxis or buses for the major part of you trip; use the train. OK, I know, this isn't France, but go to Germany. In German, the Bahn currently gets 61% of its energy from renewable sources and expects this to be 80% by the end of the decade. Just about every airport in Germany has rail access, and some, like FRA, are part of a main line. Others, like Munich, are outside of town on the end of a suburban rail line to the main station, but the suburban line is electrified and has the potential to use all renewable energy.

A great feature about Germany is the arrangement between the Bahn and many major airlines, called Rail&Fly. For an extra 33€/person, you can get a fully flexible ticket (that can include ICEs) from your arrival airport to any German Rail station. With 5400 rail stations in Germany, your station is never more than an average of 3.1 miles from your destination.

I will have to plead 'caffeine deprivation' when I wrote And add in
the fuel the bus or taxi burns to get everyone from the airport to the
train station and the pollution 'savings' shrinks a bit more.

That can certainly cause strange things to happen in the brain :-)

This is, pure and simply, a gimme to the unions. Air France is more concerned about low cost carriers who are actually making a profit (Ryanair, Jet Blue, et al) than anything else. They can see the writing on the wall with what's happening to Alitalia and are scared of what will happen if they get cut off from gov't subsidies and their favorable slots at the airports. Not to say how blood would flow if they too had to downsize 60-70% of their personnel.

By making this a "Green" initiative the French also boost the railway unions who have been hurt bad this past year, and who are not any "cleaner" than the airlines. Run around a railyard for a while and you'd be appalled.

This is keeping out foreign competition and keeping local jobs. The onus it puts on the traveler will hopefully not impact tourism as much as the alternative.

boost the railway unions who have been hurt bad this past year, and who are not any "cleaner" than the airlines. Run around a railyard for a while and you'd be appalled.

not in my experience. Decades of experience at sharp end of railways in the UK and the US, with regular visits to my European colleagues.

This is keeping out foreign competition and keeping local jobs.

KGC - I had no idea that Jet Blue wanted to start service from Lyon to Marseille.