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

311–320 of 361 posts

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#311

Post by cycomanic »

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #59
jankassens wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ll end up main connections and smaller ones to reach smaller destinations. This doesn’t mean it needs a single center like Paris. Compare the map to Germany where there are roughly 3 parallel fast North-South lines not focused on a single center. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe#/m...

Population in France is much more concentrated around Paris than population in Germany is. The Paris metro area accounts for 20% of France's population, while you need the biggest three metro areas in Germany to get to that percentage. Also Germany has double the population density, so even the less dense parts have more people.

It's actually not just population density. A big part of it is economic and bureaucratic activity. In France everything is centred around Paris, in Germany that's very different, e.g. Berlin is not a very big economic hub (although that's changing somewhat).

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#312

Post by dirkt »

belorn wrote: post #246
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…

When we compare train and air travel here in Sweden, the issues are far away from being about time, UX or advertisements. The rail system has been stagnated in the last 40-50 years and maintenance neglected. The rail is not straight and gives a lot of lateral movement, vibration and noise. The train departments are not sound isolated or have air condition. The speed limit (as a result of the neglect) makes the trip s…

> through I do know the German one is.

The German rail system has also been detoriating in the last decades due to lack of investment of the Deutsche Bahn after being privatized. You don't see it on the main lines, but you see it on the lesser used ones.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#313

Post by cycomanic »

kevindong wrote: post #16
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…

If you use Google Flights, you can specify the number carry-on/checked bags you want and Google will include the pricing info in its rankings of flights which is handy. I don't agree that airlines (or really any travel provider) should be required to include travel time to/from city centers though because not everyone is going to go into city centers. However, that'd be an interesting feature to implement: a feature…

I think including the travel time to town centre is a good idea. At least it gets rid of the shenanigans that Ryan air does, where they say Frankfurt and the airport is in the middle of nowhere (1.5h from Frankfurt).

Also many travellers (except for locals) need to go to the town centre anyway if they need to access other modes of transportation. And if not, they likely would have looked up their itinerary anyway.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#314

Post by Nimitz14 »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #134
wut42 wrote: post #104

While the reason is honorable, I can't help but think this is an attack on poor/middle class people. Traveling by train in France is quite expensive, and very annoying some times (I live in a lost country-side, and if I want to travel to my parents, it's a three to four train ride, taking about 8 to 10 hours). Ok, plane wouldn't help in most cases either, but the train offering got a lot gutted over the years and it'…

I never really bought this argument. Poor people aren't taking regular flights or driving SUV's. Climate change is a problem caused by the consumption habits of the wealthy, not the poor.

You probably aren't aware in Europe flights can be like 20E. The cheapest flight I ever had was London to Madrid for 3 pounds.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#315

Post by bildung »

Guthur wrote: post #300
bildung wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly that isn't the case: The actual fatalities and accidents per billion km driven is higher in the US than many other industrialized countries, so it's not about more km/miles being driven in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

Are they also reluctant to wear seat belts?

Seat belt usage is about the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_use_rates_by_country

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#316

Post by Seb-C »

ajross wrote: post #42
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…

> There is no reason to fly short distance if you want to go from city center to city center. In France. In nations like the US (outside the DC-to-Boston corridor anyway) without a well-designed and -maintained rail infastructure, 1-2 hour flights are routine and not really replaceable with other options. Infrastructure investment pays off for decades and decades, and Europe has done really well here. > However, if y…

If you take a train in France, you are almost guaranteed to be late.

And if you buy a ticket in advance, you are basically making a risky bet on whether or not you will have to change your plans because of a strike.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#317

Post by martin8412 »

js2 wrote: post #234
publicola1990 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general though flying is much safer than highway driving. If one wanted to minimize risk, one would always fly.

The difference in relative risk is high, but the absolute risk of dying in a car is still pretty low if you're sober, wearing a seatbelt, and not speeding. Oh, and apparently if you're not driving in the U.S. Geez, didn't realize we're such crappy drivers here. https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.ht...

Several things will need to change for that number to be lower. Licenses needs to be much more difficult to obtain, and a lot easier to lose. There are things allowed on American roads that could cost you your license in countries with lower numbers. Cars should have higher safety standards.

Basically a lot of people wouldn't be able to drive anymore.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#318

Post by vidarh »

jcranmer wrote: post #247
pochamago wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really that the US lacks rails, we have the largest rail network in the world. The problem for passenger rail here is population density. France is three and a half times denser, and Japan is nearly 10x. I think they would also struggle a bit more to justify rail costs if they were as spread out as the US.

Looking at gross population density misses the mark completely. The US has a large land area where approximately no one lives: most of Alaska, the Great Basin region, even the High Plains are thoroughly devoid of population yet take up millions of acres of land. Cut out that area and focus on places where people live, and the density is now much more comparable. The Midwest is about the same density as France. The ev…

Indeed. Even most of the states with low density tends to have most of their population in much smaller urban areas with density comparable to European countries with decent systems.

E.g. Utah has a population density of 14km^2, similar to Norway. But like Norway, Utah has most of its population in a small portion of the area - the Salt Lake City–Provo–Orem Combined Statistical Area makes up 82% of the population.

Nebraska has a density of 9.63km^2, but Omaha-Council Bluffs + Lincoln makes up more than half the population (and that's ignoring the Iowa side of Omaha-Council Bluffs)

There are plenty of metropolitan areas like this in the US that may not have the density to justify much of an expansion to rail between them, but that are dense enough that a more rail oriented infrastructure within them would be possible.

And as you point out, this is with current US urban planning. If an expansion of rail is combined with adjustments to urban planning to encourage construction aligned with expanding transport systems, it'd become even more viable (e.g. near automatic planning permission for higher density near stations would probably in itself do a lot)

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#319

Post by nraynaud »

kergonath wrote: post #302
nraynaud wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

remember that now you're supposed to be in the train 20min in advance, and connecting across stations in Paris with heavy luggage and kids is a shit show (and a non-starter for foreigners, they just call a taxi, and as the most visited country in the world, this detail should matter) But I hope it increases the frequency of bullet trains to and from CDG TGV, this train station never had a useful train time for my air…

> remember that now you're supposed to be in the train 20min in advance That is not true. They show the platform on the screens at the station 20 minutes in advance. I think they recommend being 5 minutes in advance, but they let anyone board as long as the doors are open.

you are right, they just "advise" you to be there 20 to 30 minutes early.

https://www.oui.sncf/aide/presentation-a-l-embarquement

And they outright write that some people will get an airplane experience, and not in a free drink way.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#320

Post by mam2 »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #288
prostoalex wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is hub-and-spoke approach of many national carriers (Air France included). Covid travel restrictions aside, one can buy an air itinerary that gets them from NYC to Bordeaux (or Nice, or Nantes, or Toulouse, or Marseille, or Lyon, or Strasbourg) all via CDG. That airport train station is set up to transport the passengers from the airport to the city center, not inter-city travel. Air France is right to co…

That's not fully correct. CDG and ORY have integrated (or close enough) high speed rail stations that serve other large cities, although that's probably not a great bet. Most importantly, however, the law being discussed doesn't ban connecting flights. So a NYC -> Le Mans (say) would be allowed to fly through CDG, even though Le Mans is at around one hour by high-speed rail. However, as there would be less traffic on…

> CDG and ORY have integrated (or close enough) high speed rail stations that serve other large cities

Uh ? Since when and where ?

Post reply on HN