France proposes ban on short domestic flights

Using the S26 Wi-Fi Smart Plug you can easily convert your existing appliances into smart devices to be controlled remotely with your phone.

Takes just minutes to setup!

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Vic

Active Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2017
Messages
963
Solutions
1
Points
365
There would be obvious carbon emissions for building such infrastructure. I wonder how many years worth of no flights on this sector would be needed for break even on carbon emissions for such a change?
I'm really thinking of the vision. I'm not that interested in comparing carbon emissions. canberra sydney high speed rail isn't really a carbon emissions thing, as it would be in France. France has some of the lowest carbon emissions in europe, so using electricity to drive trains will have a much quicker pay off in emissions by removing planes. And someone also pointed to economics of subsidising airlines, vs providing the train service. Not the best idea for government to pay for two competitors, even for visionary reasons.

Anyway I can imagine real benefits in building real high speed rail in australia aligned with some high population density areas. It'd cost money, I wish we had government that was prepared to spend money on developing Australia.
 

Franky

Established Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
1,239
Points
330
I'm really thinking of the vision. I'm not that interested in comparing carbon emissions. canberra sydney high speed rail isn't really a carbon emissions thing, as it would be in France. France has some of the lowest carbon emissions in europe, so using electricity to drive trains will have a much quicker pay off in emissions by removing planes. And someone also pointed to economics of subsidising airlines, vs providing the train service. Not the best idea for government to pay for two competitors, even for visionary reasons.

Anyway I can imagine real benefits in building real high speed rail in australia aligned with some high population density areas. It'd cost money, I wish we had government that was prepared to spend money on developing Australia.
Vic - don’t you mean ‘had’ the money?...
 

Mattg

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
10,459
Solutions
13
Points
1,335
I would love to see SYD-CBR banned

I would support this *if* there was a high-speed train which made it plausible to do the trip in less than the current 4 hours.

FWIW, BER-HAM is roughly the same distance as SYD-CBR. There are no flights because there are frequent, high speed trains. That's not due to any laws, it's just that there's no market for flying from Berlin to Hamburg because there are decent alternatives.
 

Seat0B

Active Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
934
Solutions
1
Points
460
Qantas
Platinum
I would love to see SYD-CBR banned and whilst you're at it BNE-HVB, basically routes that can be driven or by train less than 300km.

Whilst we're at it some of the other routes in QLD that are serviced by electric rail could also be taxed (to make train fares cheaper) and finally it should be illegal to book a BNE-OOL ticket:
View attachment 245155
It’s 4 hrs by train from CBR to SYD and only 3 trains a day. That just doesn’t work.
 

33kft

Established Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
1,139
Solutions
1
Points
470
It’s 4 hrs by train from CBR to SYD and only 3 trains a day. That just doesn’t work
Yeah, I know exactly how this would go if it happened, at my consultancy anyway - rather than Sydney-based consultants taking the train at some odd hour and spending hours in transit, we'd just rezone Canberra as northern VIC and fly Melbourne based consultants there instead. I am not sure how much a ban on SYD-CBR flights would ever solve.
 

Pushka

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
26,166
Solutions
4
Points
3,035
Qantas
Platinum
Virgin
Red
But only for people who have vegetable based diets. For people who don't they must stay at home, due to excessive emissions in producing the fuel needed for walking.

But the ones who don't eat smoke instead! I've never read how much pollution smokers create? France is the land of the smokers. Especially thin young women.
 

MEL_Traveller

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
22,702
Solutions
5
Points
1,820
Given our rail infrastructure is not up to the job... perhaps there are alternatives to reduce the environmental impact?

For example, do we really need 15 minute frequencies between MEL and SYD at peak times? I think most businesspeople should be able to get up quarter or an hour earlier to avoid needing the 6.45am rather than the 6.30am.

Perhaps a tax on business/premium travel, which might promote online meetings rather than in-person?
 

Lynda2475

Established Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
2,859
Solutions
1
Points
835
Qantas
Gold
Virgin
Red
Pre covid, the 15 mins (10 mins on Monday) syd-mel were needed, as someone who flew this frequently rarely a spare seat to be had, and in slower periods they cancelled any underbooked flights and moved you 15 mins either way.

At the moment a bus Sydney (Central) to Canberra at 3 hours is faster than the train.

For me an uber to Central costs the same in time and $ as an Uber to the airport, so rail would never be considered, and bus vs flight depends on $ and time available. 90 mins for flight (being at aiport 30 mins before flight) vs 3 hours for bus (where you also have to be there 15-20 mins before departure but with a lounge).
 

dajop

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 1, 2002
Messages
12,132
Solutions
3
Points
1,345
For example, do we really need 15 minute frequencies between MEL and SYD at peak times? I think most businesspeople should be able to get up quarter or an hour earlier to avoid needing the 6.45am rather than the 6.30am.

Perhaps a tax on business/premium travel, which might promote online meetings rather than in-person?

The 15 min frequencies weren't about getting up 15 mins earlier, that is immaterial. They were more about having the capacity. Perhaps weren't so necessary (and didn't have 15 mins frequencies then either) when widebodies were the backbone of peak operations between the two cities, now that 737's are the backbone they need(ed) 4 an hour to meet demand.
 

Seat0B

Active Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
934
Solutions
1
Points
460
Qantas
Platinum
You’d also end up just overnighting people = more cost. OH&S doesn’t allow for driving either.

So build the high speed rail, then we can talk :)
Yes, because it would be a minimum of 7 hours driving and more likely 8 hours with traffic for a day trip to Sydney from Canberra - for people who are not professional drivers and need to also do their day's work. When I travelled this route for work, fairly frequently pre-COVID, I would get a 7.00 flight, be at my post by 9.00, work until 4.00 or 4.30 and then get home by about 8.00 allowing for flight and commute from the airport. No way I would want to do that, plus drive both directions as well.
 

MEL_Traveller

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
22,702
Solutions
5
Points
1,820
Pre covid, the 15 mins (10 mins on Monday) syd-mel were needed, as someone who flew this frequently rarely a spare seat to be had, and in slower periods they cancelled any underbooked flights and moved you 15 mins either way.

Fair enough. As per AFF's 'cost to fly a plane' it is actually cheaper to fly 2 x 737s than 1 A330 on the short east coast trunk flights.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
243
Points
165
Qantas
Bronze
Virgin
Platinum
I am surprised at the amount of comments in support of this, at least in theory "If the train network was a viable alternative etc etc" on a FF forum. While I don't agree on this either, a better way would be to ban status runs, i'm sure status run aff'ers contribute a fair amount of emissions with "unnecessary business class flights". Personally I don't view the way to achieve things is through banning/ restrictions. Usually there is an economic solution to solve a problem. Without trying to get too political here, generally banning things outright have other consequences.

What I would be in favour of is subsidies or other things to encourage the development of highspeed rail along the east cost of aus. Help the rail to become so good people don't WANT to fly anymore and the market will decide. Like this comment:
There are no flights because there are frequent, high speed trains. That's not due to any laws, it's just that there's no market for flying from Berlin to Hamburg because there are decent alternatives.

I recognise air travel does have a carbon footprint, I purchase the carbon offset for my flights and try and cut back my carbon footprint in other areas where it makes sense, but I'm not really in support of "banning" people purchasing tickets. This will just drive up the costs for the connecting passengers who have to wear the additional operating costs that would be covered by people on a single leg ticket. Or the flight will just cease to exist, meaning someone coming from another sector will have to change modes of transport to get to this destination.

Also this worries me about the slippery slope argument, yeah this specific circumstance might not have any impact on us aus. But years from now 2.5hr could be stretched to 5hr etc (the article did mention they were aiming for 4 hours). Look its unlikely but I don't like the precedent it has set.
 
Last edited:

jakeseven7

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
5,977
Solutions
2
Points
995
I am surprised at the amount of comments in support of this, at least in theory "If the train network was a viable alternative etc etc" on a FF forum. While I don't agree on this either, a better way would be to ban status runs, i'm sure status run aff'ers contribute a fair amount of emissions with "unnecessary business class flights". Personally I don't view the way to achieve things is through banning/ restrictions. Usually there is an economic solution to solve a problem. Without trying to get too political here, generally banning things outright have other consequences.

What I would be in favour of is subsidies or other things to encourage the development of highspeed rail along the east cost of aus. Help the rail to become so good people don't WANT to fly anymore and the market will decide. Like this comment:


I recognise air travel does have a carbon footprint, I purchase the carbon offset for my flights and try and cut back my carbon footprint in other areas where it makes sense, but I'm not really in support of "banning" people purchasing tickets. This will just drive up the costs for the connecting passengers who have to wear the additional operating costs that would be covered by people on a single leg ticket. Or the flight will just cease to exist, meaning someone coming from another sector will have to change modes of transport to get to this destination.

Also this worry's be about the slippery slope argument, yeah this specific circumstance might not have any impact on us aus. But years from now 2.5hr could be stretched to 5hr etc (the article did mention they were aiming for 4 hours). Look its unlikely but I don't like the precedent it has set.

I'd actually support a compulsory carbon offset instead of voluntary on all flights in AU.
 

Enhance your AFF viewing experience!

From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.

And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)


Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..

Community Statistics

Threads
87,511
Messages
2,148,973
Members
54,509
Latest member
ChrisRocksOK

Staff online

Top