France Considers Massive Airline Eco-Tax (Up To ~$470 For One-Way Ticket)

Filed Under: Air France/KLM

The French government is considering introducing what would be the most aggressive environmental tax we’ve seen on flights anywhere in the world.

France may add shockingly high new airline tax

We’ve seen many governments introduce, or at least consider, environmental taxes on flights. This is intended to help offset emissions, and also in many cases is intended to discourage flying.

Well, as Les Echos reports, France is considering taxing airline tickets to an extent we’ve never seen before anywhere in the world.

France’s Ministry of Ecological Transition will be having a final meeting about this on Saturday, before a bill is expected to be introduced in parliament before the end of the month. 130 of 150 members of the organization generally support these measures, and apparently President Emmanuel Macron is in favor of these changes as well.

What would this new environmental tax look like for airline tickets?

  • For economy flights of under 2,000km, the tax would be 30 EUR one-way
  • For economy flights of over 2,000km, the tax would be 60 EUR one-way
  • For business class flights of under 2,000km, the tax would be 180 EUR one-way
  • For business class flights of over 2,000km, the tax would be 400 EUR one-way
  • For private jet flights, the tax would be 2,400 EUR one-way

These taxes are unbelievably high, unlike anything we’ve seen before. In other words, a one-way business class ticket from Paris to Istanbul would come with a 400 EUR (~473 USD) eco-tax, in addition to all the other taxes that are already charged.

It’s not entirely clear if taxes would only apply on flights departing France, or if they’d also apply on flights to France. I suspect it’s the former, much like the UK Air Passenger Duty, but I could be mistaken.

For some context, just this year France introduced an “air passenger solidarity tax,” which starts at 1.50EUR for a short haul economy ticket, and maxes out at 18 EUR for a long haul business class ticket. Suffice to say that these new proposed taxes are in different leagues.

A one-way business class ticket could have a new 400 EUR tax

How much money would this tax raise?

How much money would be raised if this new tax were introduced?

  • Annual air transportation taxes collected by France would increase from 440 million EUR to 4.2 billion EUR
  • Air France’s eco-contribution would be increased from 60 million EUR annually to somewhere around 1.2 billion EUR annually

France’s Directorate General for Civil Aviation (DGCA) states that:

  • There would be an estimated 14-19% drop in the number of travelers
  • There would be an estimated 120,000-150,000 jobs lost
  • It’s pointed out that in France, planes contribute 4% of greenhouse gas emissions from transport, while cars contribute 90% of emissions
  • This would reduce CO2 emissions by 3.5 million tons per year out of a total of 441 million tons emitted in France, for a total reduction of 0.79%
  • It’s even questionable if this would actually reduce emissions as much as predicted, since it’s likely that for long haul travel people will instead just choose to fly out of nearby countries

This would put Air France at a serious disadvantage

Other French aviation proposals

The above new passenger tax isn’t the only concept under consideration. Other recommendations with this proposal include the following:

  • By 2025, domestic flights would be eliminated completely, when there’s a low-carbon alternative In less than four hours
  • Banning the construction of new airports, and the expansion of existing airports
  • There’s also talk of banning advertising planes, and adding additional taxes on recreational aviation fuel

Airport expansion could be banned as part of this proposal

This aviation tax crosses the line

Even pre-pandemic, airlines were starting to take environmentalism more seriously, and we’ve seen airlines around the world pledge to carbon offset their flying. In general I’m not opposed to a modest aviation tax, if the money goes towards causes that help the environment.

However, this proposal being considered by France crosses the line, in my opinion:

  • Airlines are facing the worst crisis they’ve ever dealt with, and this will put them in an even worse situation; it’s one thing to add a tax like this during the best of times, but during the worst of times?
  • In the long run, changes like these will lead to airlines having less money to invest in new, more fuel efficient planes
  • This unfairly disadvantages those traveling to & from France; I believe those connecting in France between other countries wouldn’t have to pay this tax, while those flying exclusively between France and another country would have to pay this tax
  • I think governments should be incentivizing airlines to operate more fuel efficient aircraft, and minimizing per-person emissions, rather than just trying to destroy aviation altogether

Bottom line

France is seriously considering new environmental measures for the airline industry, the most significant of which is a new tax of 30-400 EUR one-way. This is an unbelievably high tax that I simply can’t make sense of, especially at a time when airlines are already struggling for survival.

What do you make of this new proposed aviation tax in France?

  1. The private jet tax is way off proportional to commercial seat tax for the emissions it gives off. As expected from elites that give approximately 0 *%^* about the common man that doesn’t fly private while taking care of their buddies

  2. And they have a centrist government led by a former investment banker. This just wouldn’t fly (haha) in the US or the UK, I think, not with our state of public transport and their costs. From the perspective of a Brit — who admittedly is a fan of HSR — anyone who favours Air France over TGV for domestic trips in the mainland pretty much deserve to be charged at those rates.

    In the 1980s, France went HAM into high speed rail, with their first LGV between Paris and Lyon. Britain was waiting for private sector investments that never came. Fast forward to 2020, we only have HS1 (and NIMBYs trying to block HS2) and they have an extensive network of LsGV.

  3. And I very much doubt the majority of the raised taxes will go into ecological projects. It will just be another grab tax for the French government.

  4. Is this a covert plan to get Air France and Airbus to relocate out of France?

    This is very much of the two wheels good two wings bad school of thought which ignores the move to greener flying and might just be a tax grab.

    If this happens I can see sales of Thalys tickets to schiphol and Eurostar tickets to London increasing.

  5. I’m all for trying to improve the environment but in a controlled and reasonable manner. You can’t fix things overnight. For example, you can’t expect a patient to lose 100 lbs in a week or month. Even if they did, it would likely be very unhealthy.

    This seems to fall into the extremist solution. It is like the protests. I agree with a lot of that but when you carry it too far (violence, looting, defunding the police) you lose credibility and those in the middle stop supporting you. And that is sad.

    Of course we are talking about France and how extreme they do things such as trying to protect the language. They are known for loving to argue. The BBC had a story about that not long ago.

  6. Scowling at airlines is the vogue thing to do these days if you’re an uneducated eco-nerd. You know what absolutely dwarfs the environmental impact of aviation? Production of dairy milk. They impregnate cows over and over to keep them producing milk, they separate the young from their mothers, and when the cows are used up they’re butchered for meat. I’m a meat eater but it’s sickening how this particular industry profits off of torture, not to mention their environmental footprint is immense. But do we see these high-minded legislators pushing to tax milk at $20/gallon? Of course not. God forbid little Timmy can’t eat his cereal because his parents can’t afford it.

  7. If this were to pass, I would just fly into AMS instead and take the train to Paris. BRU/LHR are also options but AMS has the train station at the airport.

  8. Several comments about what people would do instead if France was their final destination, but this (obviously) would crush Air France’s connecting traffic.

  9. If they were actually serious about hugely reducing passenger aircraft carbon emissions, would they consider closing down Airbus Industries? No, I didn’t think so.

  10. Typical politicians strategy, throw some bullshit out, the masses are shocked, backtrack but only a little bit, people are happy, politician still increasing tax revenue.

  11. @Jay + 1

    A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives – things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

  12. Focusing on the wrong problem as usual.

    Airline emissions are a fraction of those caused by, say, livestock production… let alone all livestock production is has huge array of other issues… Which, as I’m on a roll, include it being 60% of all mammal biomass on Earth, 1,000+ gallons of water to produce one hamburger, huge part of the reason for 17% decrease in primary forest the last 20 years, primary cause of huge species population reduction on land and sea… and so on.

    Anyway, as I say, not focused on the real problem.

  13. I wonder if some of the low cost flights would switch from NCE to BCN, and then people would figure out that they might as well vacation in Spain and not bother going to France at all.

    @Ray – I am a big fan of high speed rail too, but domestic flights out of CDG still make a lot of sense for long-haul connections, since vast majority of TGV trains don’t go through the airport. Unlike AMS, where Thalys stops on the way to/from the city center.

    And this being France, when you connect to/from domestic flights, you only need to worry about Air France strikes, while if you use TGV to get to CDG you need to worry about whole other set of unions.

  14. Would be one thing if people wanted to deal with CDG…, but it’s already an unpleasant connecting experience. This is just icing on the cake.

  15. If the goal is to get people to stop visiting France, this will be successful. My family and I used to visit London a few times a year. As the UK Air Passenger Duty has quintupled since 2008, I’ve diverted that travel almost entirely to Asia and places that aren’t the UK. Single people may still put up with the time and hassle of somehow bypassing the tax, or just swallow hard and pay it, but for families with options they’ll eventually figure out there are many other interesting places in the world to spend their time. The French Concession in Shanghai neatly simulates some of the nicer places in Paris; I’ll sip my morning cafe there and pretend. Vietnam and other former colonies also nice places to get your France on.

  16. France doing this on their own would be a bad move. The tax on economy flights might not be that much, but it could be enough to sway someone to fly to Madrid or Amsterdam instead. Now, I believe this would be much more effective as an EU-wide tax, as people would still want to travel to/from Europe and there are not many alternatives to traveling there.

    Perhaps it’s best to reduce or remove the fees for economy class, but I think the fees are just for the first class and private jet flights. Most of those people have the money to pay for those flights without thinking about it, an extra $2000 won’t hurt them, and those kinds of flights have the largest carbon footprint. Sure, may hurt the few people who book award tickets, but ultimately they’re the minority when it comes to these cabins.

  17. Everyone seems to have forgotten that placed like New Caledonia, French Polynesia, French Guiana and several islands in the Caribbean are French territory and technically would be a domestic flight, as no trains world ever run there…
    But maybe they’ll get a tax discount?

  18. To all French descendants whose family fought Germany and Hitler in WWII, bow your heads in shame for what France has become. Your ancestors did you dirty. Government ruins your lives and makes everything more difficult than it needs to.

  19. Kendor, I also used to visit UK several time per year but stopped about 10 years ago. Our last trip to France two years ago was OK but nothing memorable. Huge lines in CDG to get train tickets? A strike that pushed us to change trains to an Intercontinental next to Opera. Dirty streets. We took a train to Nantes and the schedule was thin and inconvenient. There were just two direct trains from Nantes to CDG (and 3 Air France daily flights) and the schedule was rather inconvenient. Right now I have little desire to go to France even without paying the extra taxes

  20. This, “but what about cows/beef!?” response is quite silly.

    Lots of people eat beef, flying (and enjoyment thereof) is concentrated among a small portion of the population.

    Going vegetarian for an entire year would provide about a third of the carbon benefits of a round-trip flight Paris-Chicago in economy class.

    I have economic training, I absolutely support a fairer, more rational system such as direct taxes on fuel (this would reward more fuel efficient carriers) and provide incentive for new systems such as electric or hybrid-electric propulsion, but these proposed tariffs aren’t unreasonable.

  21. @Jay

    I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, its probably best that the French legislatures and their entire families should be euthanized so as not to put a big strain on the planet.

    I believe the method favored in France in the guillotine?

    Anyways, this is not a joke or hyperbole. I believe that those that seek to pass this tax and their families should be eliminated from the planet. Time to put your money with your mouth is.

  22. I feel like they could instead have “neutralised” the carbon emissions by issuing a decree and setting a target by 2025-30 that all domestic flights use sustainable aviation biofuel or something of the sort. That feels more justified

  23. It makes sense and its needed. Had we started acting in 1990, instead of waiting until now, this type of move wouldnt be necessary. Mexico needs to do the same ASAP with Cancun Airport.

    I do agree that to be effective, the neighboring countries need to do the same or like others pointed out, people will simply fly into Amsterdam.

    Also, 60 for an economy flight isnt that much. You can get $110 one way trips to France from the US now, unheard of a decade ago. The tax will simply set the prices at what they were a decade ago.

    Lucky, “Airlines are facing the worst crisis they’ve ever dealt with, and this will put them in an even worse situation; it’s one thing to add a tax like this during the best of times, but during the worst of times?”

    Do you also propose bailing out oil companies when prices are low because aw shucks you feel bad for them?

    And for those ridiculous “what about x” posts….guess what, France is addressing them too. Yeah, car emissions are high, which is why fuel cars are being phased out and the Mayor of Paris is trying to get all short trips on bicycle.

  24. Recall France went through a lot of unrest trying to increase fuel taxes (Yellow Vest) in the name of taxing carbon activities

    This won’t make much of a dent even if all long haul flights ceased – long haul air travel is just too infrequent compared to other activities – other than to make things harder for Air France

  25. And with UK out of the EU and Switzerland never part of it, things could get interesting on the competitive hub front if there was ever an EU wide long haul tax

  26. The French government works very closely with Air France and more so than say BA and the U.K. government.

    Furthermore , they just gave them a massive loan , in addition to having a 16% interest in them

    The tax would not apply to journeys that don’t originate France

    CDG is very easy to transfer within terminals 2E-F

  27. Guess France will be crossed off the list as a future tourist destination then for me and likely many others. I try to avoid flying through London due to cost. It would be one thing if they applied this to only domestic flights where there is easily accessible transit options available. Its quite another to apply this to long haul international flights where there is no other option but to fly. Seems incredibly short sighted.

  28. Well this would not work without it applying both ways (not just on departures). Otherwise people would fly into France and on the way out hitch a flight from Belgium, or Netherlands, or Germany, or Switzerland or ***anywhere else*** back home

  29. To quote you “It’s pointed out that in France, planes contribute 4% of greenhouse gas emissions from transport, while cars contribute 90% of emissions” — So attack the 4%? It’s that logic where if you’re in a boat and you have two holes; one dime sized and another baseball sized — the French think that taxing the life out of people to cover that dime size hole will save them and disregarding the much larger hole is the better idea. For those who want to argue the French already are addressing the auto issue then obviously not enough since 90% of the issue is still from traffic. Solution? Tax French vehicle owners more. This will actually address the overwhelming cause of the problem while not killing tourism, airline revenue, and jobs.

  30. To encourage more responsible transport choices, IMO those charges should be reversed. Charge higher taxes on short-haul flights that could more easily be replaced by a train or a bus, and lower taxes on long-haul flights where air travel is the only option and is more carbon-competitive than short-haul flights.

  31. Maybe flying should be about getting from one place to another though, not endlessly flying around so you can collect points and eat mediocre food in an overpriced cabin. I look forward to the day that governments start regulating airlines properly again.

  32. For years, the aviation industry has treated pollution as free of charge (so have lots of other industries, but remember “two wrongs don’t make a right”).

    They (and we) should pay for the pollution they cause, to incentivise them to stop polluting. Nothing wrong with that.

  33. Lets hope that French government tax themselves for Macron’s and french government visits domestically and internationally. Or also jet fuels for missions and training. You know, lead by example. Because it always sucks when rules only apply to “people” and not politicians.

  34. Fantastic initiative to start having aviation pay for its externalities. It’s had a free ride in pollution and carbon emissions for way too long it’s just a pity that this is a piecemeal French initiative and not an EU or even global initiative. We should be paying more for aviation. I’d argue, though that this is a blunt mechanism because it doesn’t reward better choices, more deficient aircraft, higher density seating, renewable fuels etc. Including aviation in an ETS would be better but that would require EU wide action.

    And for all those whatttabouting in this thread, and lucky too, France has made a legally binding commitment to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner (as many other countries have). It already has Hugh, and rising taxes on motor fuels and a commitment to ending petrol car sales by 2040,the car industry in France is part of the EU emissions standards scheme (which is penalising a lazy car industry and keeping tesla afloat). it already has a comprehensive high speed rail network, that continues to grow.

    It’s not perfect but Vive La France!

  35. When the government is comprised of far left leaders they raise and issue ridiculous taxes, how is this proposal as surprise to anyone?

  36. That’s nothing compared to what BA now charge on business or first class mileage tickets
    LA to LHR used to be around $500. in taxes and fees for 2 people now it is $1750. Crazy

  37. I’ll just avoid France the same way I avoid the UK and it’s stupid APD. Hope it’s worth it to them in the end…

  38. No more CDG for me if this passes. There are many other alternatives. I don’t mind a reasonable tax for the environment IF that’s really where it’s going but close to a Grand for a J calss R/T? No Thanks!

  39. Tourism is one of their largest industries and this should do wonders for it.
    If it wasn’t totally crazy, one might call it hare-brained.

  40. By way of comparison, how much does a train tickets to Brussels or Geneva cost? If it’s cheaper than the tax, it makes sense to fly out from BRU or GVA, more so than London as both Belgium and Switzerland are part of Schengen.

  41. @Jay + + +
    @Rico + + +
    The waste of diapers and the entire carbon footprint of excess mess is much worse that this. I drive an electric car and would love an electric plane but will abandon a CDG transfer.
    And, and !!! please people! STOP the madness with the single use plastic water bottles! We are getting rid of those horrible plastic shopping bags. Now, let us attack those single use bottles. Please.

  42. I think what the legislators should do is somehow forbid airlines from creating more carbon footprints by forcing people to fly connections because airlines price connection tickets cheaper.

    For example, there are 2 passengers, Sandy and Lucy.
    Lucy wants to fly from ZRH to AMS, but direct is expensive and ZRH via ‘FRA to AMS’ is cheap.
    Sandy wants to fly from FRA to AMS, but direct is expensive and FRA via ‘ZRH to AMS’ is cheap.

    Since connecting in FRA and ZRH are all operates by flights of the Lufthansa Group, instead of putting two passengers on a total of four legs of flight, the passengers could have flown direct with a total of two legs of flights. Lucy can fly the ‘ZRH to AMS’ in Sandy’s ticket, and Sandy can fly the ‘FRA to AMS’ in Lucy’s ticket. If there is a regulation that forbids the airlines from selling connecting tickets more expensive if the airline group has alternative direct options, with a systematic roll out, we can probably see a reduction of total number of flights, and thus decrease the carbon footprint.

    European airline groups just have too many connections intra-Europe that’s driven by cheaper connection tickets, which is creating necessary carbon emission.

  43. Arriving into Paris? Arrive at AMS/BRU/LHR and get the rapid train into the heart of Paris.
    Leaving? Train to BRU/AMS (not LHR) and connect.
    Or give France a miss altogether.
    This would crush the CDG business complex, so you can expect loud squealing from that quarter.
    Expect major rejigging of those charges, or see them dropped altogether.

  44. AOC and her cohorts are taking notes. The initial draft of her green initiative called for the elimination of air travel.

  45. This would just take out CDG as a connection point for me just like I avoid LHR. I imagine that many others would do the same.

  46. Say Good Bye to Air France – and all to attack 4% of total emissions..
    The huge tax revenue will not materialize as volume will decline. I am sure the French taxpayers will be happy to support the laid off AF staff and other businesses around CDG, which may have to reduce staff.

  47. @ Ben
    I think it is a bit self righteous of you not to support something that would help the environment. The environment needs to be protected at ALL COST!

  48. While it’s logical for short haul flights, especially domestic where you can take the TGV instead (although direct domestic flight connection will be more convenient when you’re arriving from other countries), the long haul tax is just too high. If this becomes real expect people to take Thalys to Schiphol which add more distance.

  49. Couldn’t care less. Sounds like it’s a $70 on economy and about $470 for business class. If you can afford the business class ticket, the extra $470 once in a while should be no prob. Travel, esp “luxury” Instagram travel, has become too democratic. Time to real in the lie-flat seats a bit.

    Besides, if you are so concerned, Brussels airport is 2 hours by Thalys and AMS is 3 hours by Thalys and quite a nice ride and no need to deal with the delays and Schengen shenanigans of using Eurostar between London and Paris.

  50. “Banning the construction of new airports and the expansion of existing airports”

    where’s the room for development?

  51. Out of all the guys currently filling their diapers in these comments, can I give a special Adult Baby award to the one who’s suggesting that France should have welcomed the Nazis during WW2 in order to avoid this flight tax now.

  52. Maybe we can stop thinking about Gouvernements and Airlines and start thinking of the Environment. And once you so that, this tax make sense.

  53. this is a proposal by an independant group and in no way connected to the government, so it is not correct to state that there will be a meeting about this, nor that Macron approves any of it.

    Source? The Les Echos articles itself….

  54. EDIT: it is very, very and I underline “very” vaguely related to the gov’t, it is merely a copy of “town hall” meetings in the US, where politicians pretend to listen to their constituents to a massive PR effect, but in the end have no reason whatsoever to implement anything that they don’t want.


  55. This tax does make a lot of sense on short haul flights within Europe. For example Paris to Marseille or Barcelona. Western Europe (With the exception of the UK) has a comprehensive high speed rail network meaning there is already an alternative to flying for many routes. The issue with this tax is that instead of solving the environmental problems related to air travel, it simply shifts them outside of France. If France does implement this tax all it will achieve is the crippling of Air France, we have alternatives in Europe. I can’t connect in Paris but I can go through London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and even Madrid, with Dubai, Doha and Istanbul also being viable alternatives for long haul flights.

  56. @ Noah Bowie
    “Western Europe (With the exception of the UK) has a comprehensive high speed rail network”

    Really? Which high speed lines can I use in the Republic of Ireland? Or Austria? Or Switzerland, world-famous for its brilliant railway services?

    The UK was a relatively early adopter of high speed — in the 1970s, the InterCity 125 trains were the fastest regular services outside Japan and France, and they continue today to offer 125mph / 200kph services on a large number of routes, all without fare supplements. They’ve been joined by electrified services at the same speed or higher — up to 140mph on some routes, even higher on HS1 (the Channel Tunnel link), and, at some point, HS2 (connecting the main cities in England, at speeds likely to be in the range of 186-250mph).

    Some other European countries have leap-frogged the UK: Spain is the obvious example, with a hugely impressive network of high speed lines. But that’s only half the story: have a look at frequency. There’s a 125mph train London-Manchester every 20 minutes. There’s a 186mph train Madrid-Seville roughly every two hours. The headline speed is one thing: but the waiting time for the next train is another. Even now, convenience / total journey times are probably better in the UK than in Spain. The UK’s HS2 route, now under construction, should improve things even further.

    It’s also worth considering total distances. England is about 50,000 square miles; Spain is four times that size, roughly 200,000 square miles: there’s a lot more distance to cover in Spain where most cities are mostly far apart, so very high speed railways make a lot more sense. Population distributions in the UK mean a much more intensive, lower-speed system in the south and east of England makes more sense.

    Different western European countries have adopted different strategic approaches to railways. Austria, for example, has invested heavily in a railway system that offers a frequent and very comfortable service at medium-to-high (not very high) speeds, as well as a comprehensive network of sleeper trains serving much of the continent. France has invested very heavily in very high speed lines, but has largely neglected the rest of its railway system. Germany has done a bit of both (but check out the debt levels of DB).

    The UK failed dismally to invest effectively in the railways in the second part of the C20th, and is only now playing catch-up; different parts of the UK have a different approach: Scotland has done a great job in electrifying, re-opening closed lines, and strategically improving services between its main population centres. England’s record is very much patchier, especially away from services that start or finish in London.

    That’s probably enough about railways on an aviation blog…

  57. It would be better to tax aviation fuel, as this would push more development into cleaner fuels. After all, people still want to travel and there is nothing wrong with that, if it could be done with less environmental impact.

    It would be better too if this was an international tax, otherwise as people state, people will just switch to flying via another hub. However an international tax I accept is very likely to be achieved.

  58. For all those that say that this will kill France and they will never again fly through Paris. OK sure and I have a tower to sell you in Paris.

    Using your logic, because of the tax leaving London, Heathrow should be a ghost town (not taking into account COVID). London would be virtually without tourists. Of course, we all know that this is not true most of the time.

    Right now Paris is the cheapest place to fly into Europe most of the time (although LOT has had some really cheap fares lately but of course it does all of us that travel from the US it does us no good right now). Looking at the fares I have been seeing, even with this tax it would still be cheaper to fly into Paris most of the time.

    So for all of you saying “I will never fly into there if this tax happens”. Good, then they will not be filling the planes so they will have to lower their fares and it will be even a better deal.

  59. Until such time as China, the United States, India and the farming sector get on board for Climate change all this is a complete waste of time and will do nothing but kill the aviation sector, which by the way causes less damage to the environment than farming does

  60. I love it! Ask elitist leftists to do anything but virtue signal and they go off the rails. Isn’t enough that I say I care about the environment?

  61. Worldwide flying should be taxed like this! First class tickets should be more expensive to differentiate from the commons.

    The common people should take trains, ships and busses.

  62. Good move but needs to be coordinated and implemented across the EU for it to have the desired impact. Aviation as we know it is over. Better to think ahead instead of resisting like most comments on this blog.

  63. Not so wise. Fares for TGV-tickets on the competing domestic and international routes, first of all for business travelers, will rise with the same amount. Wouldn’t it be easier to make train tickets cheaper by opening the railway network for competition?

  64. Ok, if they do that people living in the north of France will cross the border and take their flight in London, Brussels or Amsterdam instead of CDG. Those living around Lyon will go to Geneva airport instead of Lyon airport. Those living in Metz and Nancy will go to Luxemburg or Germany instead of CDG. And finally it will be cheaper for French people to take a flight somewhere else in Europe to catch the longhaule flight than starting it in Paris, Lyon, Nice or Marseille.

  65. Great points James S. And John Dornoff is absolutely right.

    Every time something ‘dramatic’ is announced, there are extreme responses saying it will be the death of x. The thing is it won’t be. And when it’s the right solution even less so.

    Moreover, some of the opening points upfront are also wrong. It’s just as possible that neighbouring countries will introduce similar charges. Even if not as high as this, it will still remove any financial justification to go to a neighbouring country. But someone has to go first. In this case it was the UK, now France is second. Who’s next?

  66. Your article is misleading, it was a proposition during a debate with 150 citizens, the outcome was mentioned in one article. It did not come from the government, nor any elected groups.

Leave a Reply

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *