France has just formally banned short domestic flights that can be covered by train in a reasonable amount of time. While French lawmakers initially voted to ban these flights back in April 2021, it took over two years to actually implement this new law. While this no doubt sounds drastic, the practical implications are fairly limited.
In this post:
France’s ban on domestic flights
Under a government decree published on May 23, 2023, France has banned domestic flights for routes that can be covered by train in under 2hr30min. The law states that train services on these routes must be frequent and well timed enough to meet the needs of travelers who would otherwise use airplanes. The idea is that travelers need to be able to do a same day trip while spending eight hours at the destination.
France’s National Assembly initially voted on this over two years ago. However, some airlines asked the European Commission to look into the legality of this law, which is why the implementation was delayed.
Interestingly this had initially been voted on shortly after it was announced that the French government would more than double its stake in Air France-KLM, which came with some significant provisions. This new rule is part of an overall effort by France to reduce carbon emissions by 40% by 2030, bringing them back down to 1990 levels.
As France’s Industry Minister, Agnes Pannier-Runacher, described this update at the time:
“We know that aviation is a contributor of carbon dioxide and that because of climate change we must reduce emissions. Equally, we must support our companies and not let them fall by the wayside.”
France had been considering all kinds of measures to reduce emissions from aviation. For example, in September 2020 I wrote about how the country was considering adding the world’s highest aviation eco-tax, which could be 400 EUR one-way for long haul business class flights. Furthermore, the country has been looking to restrict private jet flights.
Other ideas under consideration included banning flights where there are train connections of less than four hours, and even banning the construction of new airports and expansion of existing airports.
How many routes are impacted by this?
This new measure of banning short haul domestic flights might sound drastic, but how many flight routes are actually impacted by this new rule? Of the 108 pre-coronavirus domestic routes in France, this 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 this bans roughly ~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, and I doubt this will materially impact Air France’s financial performance.
Why are flights from Paris Charles de Gaulle not impacted? It’s because the law is intended to target those flying exclusively within the country, so it doesn’t impact those connecting off long haul flights.
In the case of Paris Charles de Gaulle, these routes can continue to exist, to serve passengers who are connecting from other markets (though local passengers can book them as well). I haven’t been able to compare schedules, but I can’t help but wonder if frequencies were simply increased out of Charles de Gaulle to make up for cuts out of Orly…
Bottom line
As of May 2023, France has banned domestic flights in markets that can be covered by trains in under 2hr30min. This is part of a larger plan to reduce emissions in the country, and initially came in conjunction with the government increasing its stake in Air France-KLM last year.
This new law impacts just five of the 100+ domestic routes in France, so the implications aren’t that major. At least it won’t have nearly as bad of an impact on the French aviation industry as the introduction of the world’s highest aviation tax, for example.
What do you make of France banning short haul domestic flights?
Governments have too much power. This should be totally illegal, doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Europe, North America going 100 percent carbon neutral wouldn't change a thing as far as what they are saying they want to accomplish. This is absurd and going backwards. If I want to fly, I want to fly and I should have the option. These rich countries must come out of their little 'Hollier than thou' woke bubble and recognize...
Governments have too much power. This should be totally illegal, doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Europe, North America going 100 percent carbon neutral wouldn't change a thing as far as what they are saying they want to accomplish. This is absurd and going backwards. If I want to fly, I want to fly and I should have the option. These rich countries must come out of their little 'Hollier than thou' woke bubble and recognize how most people (India, China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Brazil, countries in Africa) live in this world. For billions of people, the most important thing in their lives is the next meal, education, healthcare, sanitation. We currently have numerous more pressing needs than this 'carbon neutral' BS. Focus on the education, healthcare. France still occupies Ivory Coast, Dahomey (currently Benin), French Sudan (currently Mali), Guinea, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and they are lecturing people about weather. Disgusting!!!
I think its really just a symbolic measure. Also AF operates some of their long-hauls out of ORY (in particular to their colonies). Also CDG has a good railway station, while ORY hasn't.
On the other hand, the TGV is really competitive within France. I would certainly use it, if I have no connection. It's really as quick as the plane if you consider a city center to city center connection.
"Why are flights from Paris Charles de Gaulle not impacted? It’s because the law is intended to target those flying exclusively within the country, so it doesn’t impact those connecting off long haul flights." That is strange because La Compagnie and French Bee, which do less expensive long-haul, fly from Orly. My point is "who profits from the crime"? It is not environment as much as it is Air France, Delta and American, which fly transatlantic from CDG.
And as a result of this, what will happen with the climate? Answer is...NOTHING!
Just a bunch of people being inconvenienced for some feel good gimmick and power being taken away from citizens, given to power hungry politicians.
That's exactly why it does not make sense. It can operate as a connection from CDG for example and it's not saving much if they will increase train frequency. I guess EU high speed trains are not fuel effecient.
This is just the beginning, next will be tracking your annual carbon emmisions and implementing social credit scores. This has WEF written all over it.
LOLOLOLOL!!!!!1!!
WOKE virtue signalling crap. Lets not forget that two countries between account for 50% of global emissions. This ban will be like sending a Chihuahua to pee on a 5 alarm fire. Still Macron is a buddy of Turdeau's and I would expect nothing less.
The left's entire ideology is based on emotion and grievance politics. It's about appeasement to those in society that make that part of their identity.
Beware of people who marry their mother (unless they are called Oedipus) and then congratulate themselves on having grandchildren "without having to go through the gooey stuff" It actually was said that exact way. Is that considered woke enough?
What does "woke" mean?
You tell us.
Woke means crazy, taking well meaning things allowed by normal people’s empathy way too far …..you know exactly what it means!
Good on them. Even if it affects just a few routes for now, hopefully it sets a precedent for further action to incentivize train travel over flights when reasonable.
The effects of climate change are happening before our eyes! We need all hands on deck.
Just like the 1970s. Right in front of our eyes!
Those commenting on SNCF seem to skip over the main problem being unions and strikes which also frequently impact AF either through ATC strikes or actual airport or airline staff strikes. As many French friends say, the only reliable form of transportation in France is car. Everything else is subject to a sudden strike.
The one possible hope is that France should get its first private train operator in 2024, Le Train. Look at...
Those commenting on SNCF seem to skip over the main problem being unions and strikes which also frequently impact AF either through ATC strikes or actual airport or airline staff strikes. As many French friends say, the only reliable form of transportation in France is car. Everything else is subject to a sudden strike.
The one possible hope is that France should get its first private train operator in 2024, Le Train. Look at Italy now compared to a decade ago. The introduction of Italo forced Trenitalia to get their shit together. Hopefully there’s some chance that can happen with SNCF.
There’s also no question that on a good operating day at a good fare, the TGV is a great travel experience.
Its basically a European travel right of passage to have your entire travel day/trip nuked because of a French ATC strike. I nearly missed the most important meeting of my professional career (up to that point) cause I couldn't fly from Basel to London due to an ATC strike that shut down French airspace. I ended up paying something like an absurd $1250 Euros to get on the last seat of a LH BSL-MUC-LHR flight...
Its basically a European travel right of passage to have your entire travel day/trip nuked because of a French ATC strike. I nearly missed the most important meeting of my professional career (up to that point) cause I couldn't fly from Basel to London due to an ATC strike that shut down French airspace. I ended up paying something like an absurd $1250 Euros to get on the last seat of a LH BSL-MUC-LHR flight to fly around it and barely make it.
My sister got stranded in Barcelona trying to get back to the UK as a broke college student studying abroad for 3 days due to a strike
Is this a way for the GOVt to play favorites with local airports? How will this work with the Olympics?
Let me first say that I love high-speed rail. When in Europe. I will opt for the train, even when it might be a little quicker via air. It's just an experience that, as a transportation geek, has always been a highlight of my European trips.
That being said, I am also a free-market geek. I do not believe in the government restricting economic choice. If there is a demand for these flights, the governent...
Let me first say that I love high-speed rail. When in Europe. I will opt for the train, even when it might be a little quicker via air. It's just an experience that, as a transportation geek, has always been a highlight of my European trips.
That being said, I am also a free-market geek. I do not believe in the government restricting economic choice. If there is a demand for these flights, the governent should not ban them absent a compelling reason. I do not consider ecohysteria compelling. I read the list in this post and it just confirms my long-time belief that many of the actions precipitated by climate alarmism ultimately, even if not intentionally, center on reducing economic choice and, as a result, personal liberty.
There's no such thing as a free market, outside of perhaps black markets and the such that exist entirely outside of the state. Every single market has regulations, taxations / subsidies, etc that structure it. With any luck those regulations actually help the market perform better.
And calling the airline industry a free market is particularly absurd. Air France is government owned, as are the airports that airlines use. While we may not agree with...
There's no such thing as a free market, outside of perhaps black markets and the such that exist entirely outside of the state. Every single market has regulations, taxations / subsidies, etc that structure it. With any luck those regulations actually help the market perform better.
And calling the airline industry a free market is particularly absurd. Air France is government owned, as are the airports that airlines use. While we may not agree with its decisions, the government is well within its rights as the owner of Air France to cancel those routes, or as the owner of the airports to restrict landing slots to specific destinations.
If airlines wish to decry government interference in their "free market" they can start by returning all the government subsidies they get. Except that's an interference that they love, so, it's okay I guess?
FWIW, I do agree that this is a stupid decision (people will just fly to CDG) but not because of some hoary concept of government and free markets.
Well said.
Old timers like me prefer the good ole days when Le Bourget was the main airport.
There's environmental action, and then there's environmental symbolism and/or virtue signalling.
I've found the former tends to come from individuals or community groups. Sometimes wrong, but usually well meaning. (The highly visible exception is Greta who sold out her rotten little soul for corporate $$$.)
The latter tends to ooze out from oily politicians, and rapacious corporations looking to win votes and woo customers, aided and abetted by mainstream media.
When did the world get so dumb? This is ecological piety mixed with bureaucratic sludge and sprinkled with low IQ politicians.
If AF doesn't increase frequencies to those routes, they'll probably deploy larger aircraft like A321s or even wide bodies at peak times because those who now fly from Orly will now fly from CDG.
No change here.
In a normal country, airlines would cut these routes by themselves because the demand would be essentially non-existent. Look at Italy or Austria for example. But this is France, where SNCF keeps fighting for the title of the worst train operator in Europe (fortunately there's still RENFE which is even worse). Of course, this being France, government won't push SNCF (which they own) to improve their services but rather bans flights.
absolutely true, pure political play. It reminds me of the proposed Swiss aviation levy. Funny however how they intended to exclude: A. transit passengers and B. flights originating ex-Switzerland (EU-CH-EU pays not levy but CH-EU-CH pays it) and most comically C. flights originating in BSL since the airport is legally for parts of it in France. Result? A very small minority of ex-ZRH/GVA departing passengers would pay in full.
Look at Austria...which is over 6 times smaller in area than France? Or Italy...which pre-pandemic had half the ridership that France did (and has less than half now)? Hardly an apples-to-apples comparison...
I don't see any significant difference :
I often fly from Paris to Bordeaux I now I fly from CDG. Less convenient than ORY but not such a big deal.
The other routes concerned are not high traffic ones.
Regarding Lyon I've started to take the train, not for ecology reasons but because Trenitalia provides a great service in Executive Class on this route.
Regarding the ecotax its impact could be quite "funny"...
I don't see any significant difference :
I often fly from Paris to Bordeaux I now I fly from CDG. Less convenient than ORY but not such a big deal.
The other routes concerned are not high traffic ones.
Regarding Lyon I've started to take the train, not for ecology reasons but because Trenitalia provides a great service in Executive Class on this route.
Regarding the ecotax its impact could be quite "funny" for long haul travelers. Since it will be lower on medium haul flights than on long haul ones the impact for a traveler departing Paris will be less if they take a flight to, let's say FRA or HLR and then connect to a long haul flight to their destination instead of taking a direct flight from Paris.
I'm looking forward to flying from Orly to Bordeaux via Munich, just for fun.
Final point : never let a government have a word in a business' strategy for electoral reasons. Lufthansa managed to be rescued without such stupid counterparts.
There's already a ridiculous tax in business from LHR. I think BRU would be the better option.
Hah!
On t'a reconnu Bertrand !
:-)
A lot of these flights don't make a whole of sense if they aren't connecting flights honestly, unless you live right by Orly. But even then the time it takes to get there and do the airport shenanigans will take so much more time than hopping on a bullet train.
Now it brings an interesting issue: I actually have to go from Nantes back to Paris to catch a flight back to the US...
A lot of these flights don't make a whole of sense if they aren't connecting flights honestly, unless you live right by Orly. But even then the time it takes to get there and do the airport shenanigans will take so much more time than hopping on a bullet train.
Now it brings an interesting issue: I actually have to go from Nantes back to Paris to catch a flight back to the US early next week - and would happily take a train for that (especially as many TGV stop directly at CDG, couldn't be more convenient). Except they are almost all sold out and that happened to me as well when doing the trip the other way earlier this week. So basically I'm actually given no other option but to fly. So I'm hoping they're going to start increasing TGV frequencies on these routes.
I am looking at going to NTE and BOD next year for vacation, and unfortunately the TGV to those cities does not seem to come from CDG station, it requires taking the RER or the AF bus to Montparnasse.
Why would anyone traveling between Paris and any of these points even consider flying? Factoring in the time to get to/from airports and going through security, TGV is faster, more comfortable, and often less expensive.
Now, for the connecting flights, maybe AF should stop asking $250 more for a BOS-CDG roundtrip compared to the BOS-CDG-NCE one... Until then, I just might take the $30 train from Paris to NCE to save on airfare while having...
Why would anyone traveling between Paris and any of these points even consider flying? Factoring in the time to get to/from airports and going through security, TGV is faster, more comfortable, and often less expensive.
Now, for the connecting flights, maybe AF should stop asking $250 more for a BOS-CDG roundtrip compared to the BOS-CDG-NCE one... Until then, I just might take the $30 train from Paris to NCE to save on airfare while having a scenic ride. And unlike CDG, they have an actual lounge that accepts Priority Pass.
Because the trains are operated by SNCF, which is a complete disaster (especially with their new products such as ouiGO which attempt to copy the worst of the air travel to railways). I definitely prefer trains, even on long routes like Rotterdam to Vienna, but I avoid French railways as much as I can and yes, I would rather fly between Paris and Lyon.
SNCF has exclusivity on train routes. It’s heavily unionised. Today when they strike (which is all the time) the plane is an alternative. Tomorrow they will have all the power to suck off public money and make everybody lives even more miserable.
Will be fun :0)
Because:
1) Air France was less expensive than SNCF,
2) Air France had seats available when SNCF may not,
3) You work or live closer to Orly Airport compared to the train station in Paris or Marseille...
Could France have not added a law stating only connecting passengers could book the domestic CDG routes?
The restriction of point to point travel of these routes would likely reduce frequencies and lower emissions.
Europe has a viable rail network, and we all must do our part to keep the planet habitable for future generations. Even if this move by France is not particularly consequential, the precedent it sets is very much needed.
I'd be open to banning NYC-BOS and NYC-WAS because those routes are served by Acela. Similarly, SFO-SEA and SFO-LAX (plus all nearby airports!) are served at very high frequencies, and perhaps a ban could kickstart something...
Europe has a viable rail network, and we all must do our part to keep the planet habitable for future generations. Even if this move by France is not particularly consequential, the precedent it sets is very much needed.
I'd be open to banning NYC-BOS and NYC-WAS because those routes are served by Acela. Similarly, SFO-SEA and SFO-LAX (plus all nearby airports!) are served at very high frequencies, and perhaps a ban could kickstart something like Acela on the west coast.
You definitely have no idea what you're talking about, regarding the (billions already wasted on) the west coast.
And anyway, like everything that starts off with good intentions, this sort of transfer, which is all it is, is just going to get corrupted by the greedy in other forms of the transport business.
"All doing out part to keep the planet habitable" would require the immediate worldwide ban of all non-essential travel.
Canceling a few domestic flight routes isn't going to do anything.
Luckily this ban in France is symbolic in effect because 99% of people already take the high speed trains between these cities. I wouldn’t be so quick to celebrate the government banning anything because bans mean less freedom. In some cases when bans already exist (bans on school choice and religious freedom) bans to counter such infringement are fair and just. In most cases, however, they are the product of bureaucracy, police state, and corrupted...
Luckily this ban in France is symbolic in effect because 99% of people already take the high speed trains between these cities. I wouldn’t be so quick to celebrate the government banning anything because bans mean less freedom. In some cases when bans already exist (bans on school choice and religious freedom) bans to counter such infringement are fair and just. In most cases, however, they are the product of bureaucracy, police state, and corrupted politicians and judges telling us what we can and can’t do with our own bodies on a bigger scale.
These bans in Europe on air travel that easily can be done via train do not have any negative effects on the populace. That can’t be said for the U.S. The train system is terrible. Acela is decent at certain times but it is not good enough for a ban to be understandable. The train infrastructure can’t improve because of the demographics of the country and workers, bureaucracy, multiple levels of government, unions, and etc. Europeans can build a high speed train system because each worker takes pride in doing something beneficial for his people and countrymen. Can’t say the same for the U.S. because there are no countrymen and the country is 2500 miles coast to coast. China can do it because it has a government that isn’t bureaucratic when it wants to get something done. The Japanese need it so it gets done and it’s a matter of pride.
What exactly do you mean by “demographics of the country”?
Actually, I believe the Acela already carries more pax in the BOS-NYC-WAS route than all of the airlines combined. The next biggest share after Acela is buses, believe it or not. Greyhound / MegaBus / all those chinatown buses carry more pax than the airlines too.
But with all that said, the largest share remains cars. That's the part that needs to be lowered, either with carrots (improved service, lower fares) or sticks (tolls, higher gas taxes).
climate change is not real.
I was with you up until the end. SFO-SEA is almost 24h by train. Even with direct Acela trains you're not gonna get it below 12. SFO-LAX is much more doable by train.