Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 361 posts

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#61

Post by anodari »

kevindong wrote: post #41
Sharlin wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And flights costing 29 EUR are simply a market (and policy) failure. In no reasonable sustainably operating economy would we ever have gotten into a situation of flights being cheaper than train trips.

Counterexample: in Summer 2019, I took a one way flight from Rome to Lisbon via Ryanair for $57.40 USD / ~€48.77 (current conversion rates, my receipt was denominated in USD). That's a 1,160 miles / 1,870 km / ~2.75 hour flight (distance is as the crow flies). A train cannot compete with that. Not that a reasonable train itinerary between Lisbon and Rome exists. For May 2021 [0], I'm seeing several roundtrip itinerar…

I understood that the ban was only for flights within France.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#62

Post by hackeraccount »

Analemma_ wrote: post #44
underdeserver wrote: post #12

I'm not an economist, but wouldn't it have been better to tax the carbon emissions? If you could offset the carbon emissions for 10 EUR, maybe add 12 EUR to the price of a ticket and use that money to buy carbon offsets? That way those who still want it can still fly, and we're at net negative emissions.

It would, but the last time France tried imposing a carbon tax there were riots in the streets. This might be the best we can hope for.

As long as no one figures out what's been taken from them.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#63

Post by ur-whale »

keiferski wrote: post #50
bombcar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most common reason to take a short domestic flight is that you just arrived on a longer international flight - hub and spoke. Fly into LA and the fly to San Diego kinda thing. This may actually INCREASE emissions as now there will me smaller “direct” flights from out of country instead of them all going through major hubs.

Most major airports in France have train connections built-in.

LOL, you clearly haven't had to travel CDG center of Paris by train very often.

What you say is true (there is a train), but the quality of service is so bad (strikes, trains late or overcrowded, broken ticket machines, broken escalators, PITA to go from gate to train terminal) that most people who can afford it would rather be stuck in freeway jams in a taxi than consider taking the train.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#64

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

dmurray wrote: post #48
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #4

There is no reason to fly short distance if you want to go from city center to city center. However, if you're already arriving or leaving on a long distance flight, the whole overhead of getting to/from/through the airport disappears and those 1.5 hours start making a difference. I think forcing companies to advertise more honest flight durations and prices could make a huge difference. If the airline tells you that…

"Planes take longer to travel city centre to city centre" always gets trotted out in these discussions, but it's the wrong comparison. People don't all live in the city centre. Airports are usually outside the city, but well served by motorways and public transport. I wouldn't be surprised if more people can reach Charles de Gaulle or Orly within 45 minutes at rush hour than can get to Gare de Lyon.

But then you need a car, and you need to either deal with rental/pickup/dropoff, or pay something ridiculous for parking.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#65

Post by ur-whale »

EdwinLarkin wrote: post #30
realusername wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only answer is price in France, that's it. Time-wise that's about the same, trains are very fast and planes have a longer travel from the city center so that's even it out.

Any source on this or it's just your assumption that trains are faster and more reliable? I doubt that would be the case in France especially when it comes to trains.

Faster yes.

Reliable certainly not.

On time even worse.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#66

Post by ur-whale »

haakonhr wrote: post #14

Let's ban stuff instead of ensuring fair competition and better pricing of externalities.. Of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene_tax#Criticism_of_the_...

Not sure which way you lean here.

Are you saying you are on the side of banning stuff, or do you think it's a bad idea?

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#67

Post by Symbiote »

EdwinLarkin wrote: post #39
Sharlin wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And flights costing 29 EUR are simply a market (and policy) failure. In no reasonable sustainably operating economy would we ever have gotten into a situation of flights being cheaper than train trips.

Railway systems usually dont play well with capitalism as there is very little competition (given that infrastructure and the train operator is usually a state owned company). Aviation is simply much more efficient.

> Aviation is simply much more efficient.

Efficient, how? It uses much more energy, makes more noise and creates more pollution.

The speed has very little to do with the funding model. Flights were still faster in the 1970s when many state-owned airlines operated, and trains are little different when private companies run them (see: several European countries).

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#68

Post by Sharlin »

ancarda wrote: post #31
Sharlin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if the speed comes with a price tag that properly accounts for externalities. Cheap flights are a market failure, plain and simple. Besides, on short flights the relative overhead of getting to/from the airport, and spending time on the airport waiting, is especially high, whereas with trains the overhead is minimal.

>Cheap flights are a market failure Could you explain this? I'm struggling to understand how something becoming very cheap can be considered an (economic) failure? Isn't that something the market optimizes for? EDIT: Perhaps you mean expensive rail is a market failure?

The same way as cheap gas is a market failure. Externalities are not properly paid for (or they're paid by the public rather than the parties of the transaction). To be fair, things like jet fuel being VAT free is a policy failure rather than market failure.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#70

Post by coryrc »

verall wrote: post #56
kevindong wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterexample: in Summer 2019, I took a one way flight from Rome to Lisbon via Ryanair for $57.40 USD / ~€48.77 (current conversion rates, my receipt was denominated in USD). That's a 1,160 miles / 1,870 km / ~2.75 hour flight (distance is as the crow flies). A train cannot compete with that. Not that a reasonable train itinerary between Lisbon and Rome exists. For May 2021 [0], I'm seeing several roundtrip itinerar…

It would be more of a triumph if those $30 flights were not using leaded fuel, or if there was at least some lead pollution task to encourage people to take different transit options until the airline industry figures it out. I think, it was much less of a problem, when many less planes were flying. -- Correction in the comment, Jet-A has no lead. Cursory research suggests its nasty products are mostly organics rathe…

I don't believe Ryanair flies any piston planes and, thus, does not use any leaded fuel.
Post reply on HN