France to limit domestic flights?

[corneliuslundie]

Surely an equally important measure is the emissions per passenger mile. I don't know the figures but I suspect that for flying this is pretty high - and sea freight is about the lowest.

Jonathan

[Ron Ron Ron]

One of the proposed solutions for short range air transport, is electric propulsion. 

We are only at the dawn of electric flight and until future technologies are available, its application may be limited to smaller aircraft and very short ranges.

 

Swedish start-up, Heart Aerospace are working on small regional airliner, as a first step.

They're working on something like a 250 mile range initially, which doesn't sound like much, but it fits perfectly into the short range regional and feeder market.

The propulsion system and batteries are already under test and EASA are lending a lot of support.

The target for the first flight is 2026.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[frobisher]

2 hours ago, rob D2 said:

So your last paragraph = it’s an easy target .

 

Not an easy target, an effective target.  Air travel is too cheap within the UK when something like rail should be the preferred option.  Saying it's an easy target is whataboutism really, plain and simple.  If you don't tackle the targets you can, you'll never tackle the ones you really need to down the line.

 

2 hours ago, rob D2 said:

if you do live in the orkneys you’d be well aware of the necessity of air transport. You can’t get many trains from there .

 

There are  those that’d take us back to the industrial revolution .

 

I don't actually live in the Orkneys, those are located in the South Atlantic  Orkney doesn't have a rail link, at least not a direct one (Wick or Thurso), but air travel forms a vital link (most post travels up here by air from Inverness, which means it's a bit of a mare getting batteries etc sent up here) as do ferries, but we sure do pay through the nose to travel by plane south of the isles.  You can travel from Edinburgh to City Airport cheaper than you can fly from Kirkwall to Edinburgh, Aberdeen or Glasgow.  Which is still cheaper than taking the train and it really shouldn't be  

 

However any analogue of this French proposal in the UK would not affect Orkney's air link status in the slightest because of the life-line and business critical status of it.

 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, frobisher said:

 

.....Air travel is too cheap within the UK when something like rail should be the preferred option......

 

......You can travel from Edinburgh to City Airport cheaper than you can fly from Kirkwall to Edinburgh, Aberdeen or Glasgow.  Which is still cheaper than taking the train and it really shouldn't be  

 

 

Why is it  "too cheap" and why do say "it really shouldn't be" ?

Ideally, these options should be priced according to what they cost (subject to market conditions) and if it's more expensive to provide rail travel, then it should be priced to reflect that. 

Setting up , running and maintaining scheduled air routes is a very costly and financially risky business and yet despite the high costs involved, if it can deliver a ticket for a price way less than that for the subsided train, it should tell you more about the high cost and inefficiency of rail travel over those distances.

 

This is not to gloss over the environmental issues, which will need to be addressed ....and they will be in due course.

We need better and more efficient transport, whether it's rail, air or road.

 

.

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, frobisher said:

 

Not an easy target, an effective target.  Air travel is too cheap within the UK when something like rail should be the preferred option.  Saying it's an easy target is whataboutism really, plain and simple.  If you don't tackle the targets you can, you'll never tackle the ones you really need to down the line.

Yes and no. Tackling easy targets is a waste of time if they're never going to make a difference - it's really just treading on peoples' toes then. They might change at their own pace anyway. The case for them is increased if it's a useful learning exercise for the big contributors.

[Reorte]

1 minute ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Why is it  "too cheap" and why do say "it really shouldn't be" ?

Ideally, these options should be priced according to what they cost (subject to market conditions) and if it's more expensive to provide rail travel, then it should be priced to reflect that. 

Setting up , running and maintaining scheduled air routes is a very costly and financially risky business and yet despite the high costs involved, if it can deliver a ticket for a price way less than that for the subsided train, it should tell you more about the high cost and inefficiency of rail travel over those distances.

The problem is that looking at it from a purely financial impact doesn't encompass all the elements that should be considered. It's a necessary consideration but too often it's been the only one. The problem is that it's perceived as being non-subjective (which isn't really the case) and can in some cases positively encourage inefficiencies elsewhere (it really ends up working towards maximum production and consumption, which may not be the best path - where it increases efficiency it'll always make sense to produce more with the same resources used, rather than produce the same with fewer resources used).

[frobisher]

3 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Why is it  "too cheap" and why do say "it really shouldn't be" ?

 

It is to be honest, an emotional pair of statements.  A method of long distance travel that is quicker and more convenient shouldn't also be cheaper when it is fundamentally more expensive to operate at a base level.

 

3 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Why is it  "too cheap" and why do say "it really shouldn't be" ?

Ideally, these options should be priced according to what they cost (subject to market conditions) and if it's more expensive to provide rail travel, then it should be priced to reflect that. 

Setting up , running and maintaining scheduled air routes is a very costly and financially risky business and yet despite the high costs involved, if it can deliver a ticket for a price way less than that for the subsided train, it should tell you more about the high cost and inefficiency of rail travel over those distances.

 

Well exactly.  Air travel (at least pre-covid) worked on the principle of nearly always being full and managed it's pricing accordingly.  Rail, maybe not so much on the long distance routes. How the UK government harvests money out of the two is probably at the base of it all.

 

3 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

This is not to gloss over the environmental issues, which will need to be addressed ....and they will be in due course.

We need better and more efficient transport, whether it's rail, air or road.

 

That is the thing going back to my emotional statements.  When travelling by train, you know your environmental impact is less than if you travelled the same route by air, but you also get the feeling of why am I being financially punished for being more environmentally responsible?

Edited April 15, 2021 by frobisher

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, frobisher said:

 

It is to be honest, an emotional pair of statements.  A method of long distance travel that is quicker and more convenient shouldn't also be cheaper when it is fundamentally more expensive to operate at a base level.

 

 

 

Can I perhaps challenge you on the statement that it is fundamentally more expensive (to operate an airline)?

 

It would take a lot of time (maybe even an MSc project) to do a full cost analysis but I have pulled out a few numbers that might begin to challenge that view.

 

Cost of the means of transport:

An A320 costs around $100m per aircraft

A TGV type set costs around £25m per set.

So far so good, trains are cheaper.

But the flight from say London to Glasgow takes 90 minutes including taxiing holding before landing etc.

If there were to be a high speed line I would suggest that the very best time would be 3-3.5 hours. So with each needing perhaps a 1 hour turn round time (Ryanair would do it in 30 minutes) you will get two flights in the time it takes one train journey.

But the train can carry certainly twice the number of passengers on average.  

So the plane still looks to be more expensive.

 

Fuel:

Aviation fuel is duty free and is very much cheaper than the electricity to run a high speed train.

 

Infrastructure:

Airports are expensive, but so are city centre railway stations.  We perhaps don't realise this since the stations have been there much longer than airports.

 

But here is the killer for railways.

Airspace is as near as damn it free.

The cost of building a high speed line ( based on French experience) is around €15m/km.  This cost has to be covered in track charges to the rail operator.   At around 600km that cost is staggering and perhaps goes to help explain why rail fares are often more expensive than air.  Moreover the track needs near constant maintenance.  Airspace does not.

 

As I say the sums are very difficult to do but I would contest that rail operation is so much cheaper than flying.  Indeed it could be more expensive.

[rob D2]

17 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

 

Can I perhaps challenge you on the statement that it is fundamentally more expensive (to operate an airline)?

 

It would take a lot of time (maybe even an MSc project) to do a full cost analysis but I have pulled out a few numbers that might begin to challenge that view.

 

Cost of the means of transport:

An A320 costs around $100m per aircraft

A TGV type set costs around £25m per set.

So far so good, trains are cheaper.

But the flight from say London to Glasgow takes 90 minutes including taxiing holding before landing etc.

If there were to be a high speed line I would suggest that the very best time would be 3-3.5 hours. So with each needing perhaps a 1 hour turn round time (Ryanair would do it in 30 minutes) you will get two flights in the time it takes one train journey.

But the train can carry certainly twice the number of passengers on average.  

So the plane still looks to be more expensive.

 

Fuel:

Aviation fuel is duty free and is very much cheaper than the electricity to run a high speed train.

 

Infrastructure:

Airports are expensive, but so are city centre railway stations.  We perhaps don't realise this since the stations have been there much longer than airports.

 

But here is the killer for railways.

Airspace is as near as damn it free.

The cost of building a high speed line ( based on French experience) is around €15m/km.  This cost has to be covered in track charges to the rail operator.   At around 600km that cost is staggering and perhaps goes to help explain why rail fares are often more expensive than air.  Moreover the track needs near constant maintenance.  Airspace does not.

 

As I say the sums are very difficult to do but I would contest that rail operation is so much cheaper than flying.  Indeed it could be more expensive.

I’m not sure that holds water.

 

Eurocontrol charge various fees for using their airspace - I’m not sure  what NATS do for Anglo Scottish but all that air traffic control infrastructure and navigational aids aren’t free .

missed out landing fees - used to be £350 for a small jet at LHR but I’m out of touch .

 

[Andy Hayter]

I did say near as damn it free - not free.  When we compare with millions for the motive item and billions for the airport (there's your landing fees and a lot of other charges as well) and station or hundreds of billions for a high speed line, then airspace charges really are the spare change.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Just a few points Andy and  you've got a couple of things wrong there.

 

 

11 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

...But the flight from say London to Glasgow takes 90 minutes including taxiing holding before landing etc....

 

Almost right.

Actual flying time is usually just under an hour to an hour, but with push-back and taxiing at Heathrow, add 15 to 20 mins. 

It's extremely rare for an inbound to Glasgow to experience any airborne holding prior to landing, unless there's very bad weather.

Southbound it's a little difference.

5 to 10 mins max from pushback to take-off. 55 mins to London (Heathrow), then anything from 0 to 15 mins (max) holding ( edit: on a bad day, or during congestion it can be a lot longer).

There’s much less, or no holding at all for Gatwick, Stansted , City or Luton flights.

 

But your general point about higher utilisation of the assets and more revenue cycles is spot on.

 

 

11 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

Fuel:

Aviation fuel is duty free and is very much cheaper than the electricity to run a high speed train.

 

Aviation fuel maybe duty free (by international convention and for entirely practical reasons), but rail passengers don't have to pay a departure tax on top of the price of their ticket.

APD is a pass through cost, but it costs the airline to administer it and it factors into and affects the (competitive) ticket price the airline can offer.

 

 

11 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

Infrastructure:

Airports are expensive, but so are city centre railway stations.  We perhaps don't realise this since the stations have been there much longer than airports.

 

Airlines pay a series of hefty charges to land at and use airports and all their handling facilities.

What do the TOC's pay to use the terminus stations and what penalties do they incur for occupying platforms during their turn round times?

 

 

11 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

But here is the killer for railways.

Airspace is as near as damn it free.

The cost of building a high speed line ( based on French experience) is around €15m/km.  This cost has to be covered in track charges to the rail operator.   At around 600km that cost is staggering and perhaps goes to help explain why rail fares are often more expensive than air.  Moreover the track needs near constant maintenance.  Airspace does not.

 

 

A difficult concept to get your head around, but Airspace is certainly not free, is expensive to regulate and operate and it requires constant maintenance.

It even costs to build airspace and redesign it. This is absolutely the case.

The users, including as the airlines, pay route charges to help cover the cost.

 

However it is true that to build new railway lines, particularly high speed lines, is incredibly expensive. More so in a compact, crowded country like ours.

 

This however, touches on a related issue.

In service costs.

The financial costs and energy requirements for running a long distance train for long periods of time, which requires the provision and maintenance of hundreds of miles of track.

The longer a train journey, the higher the overall cost to operate it, use the infrastructure, plus the energy and emissions advantage becomes eroded the further you go.

 

 

.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[Ron Ron Ron]

14 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

I did say near as damn it free - not free.  When we compare with millions for the motive item and billions for the airport (there's your landing fees and a lot of other charges as well) and station or hundreds of billions for a high speed line, then airspace charges really are the spare change.

 

I think you're comparing apples and oranges there.

Forget the building of the HS line and look at the existing infrastructure if you want to make comparisons.

Airlines aren't paying to build airports, but are having to pay the high costs to use them and the airspace in-between.

They are also having to pay high operating costs for fuel, expensive crews and ground staff, insurance, handling agents, insurance, maintenance, certification and the leasing costs (or finance) for the aircraft.

 

How much are the track access charges and what costs do the TOC's incur to use the stations etc.

I'm not knowledgable about the nitty gritty of TOC economics, but I'll hazard a guess that these costs are not that high in relative terms and there's an awful lot that's not charged to them and gets swept up in the complicated world of NR's finances? All buried in the overall subsidy to the railways.

 

Government policy has for a long time favoured passing more of the cost of providing a rail service to the passenger, but I'm sure most of us on here more than suspect that if the full cost could be actually be worked out and subsequently passed on to the passenger, it would be a shock.

 

This is not meant to be an anti-rail, pro-air argument, but is my attempt to point out that this isn't a simple set of issues.

 

 

.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[rob D2]

3 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Just a few points Andy and  you've got a couple of things wrong there.

 

 

 

Almost right.

Actual flying time just under an hour, but with push-back and taxiing at Heathrow, add 15 to 20 mins. 

It's extremely rare for an inbound to Glasgow to experience any airborne holding prior to landing, unless there's very bad weather.

Southbound it's a little difference.

5 to 10 mins max from pushback to take-off. 55 mins to London, then anything from 0 to 15 mins (max) holding.

 

But your general point about higher utilisation of the assets and more revenue cycles is spot on.

 

 

 

Aviation fuel maybe duty free (by international convention and for entirely practical reasons), but rail passengers don't have to pay a departure tax on top of the price of their ticket.

APD is a pass through cost, but it costs the airline to administer it and it factors into and affects the (competitive) ticket price the airline can offer.

 

 

 

Airlines pay a series of hefty charges to land at and use airports and all their handling facilities.

What do the TOC's pay to use the terminus stations and what penalties do they incur for occupying platforms during their turn round times?

 

 

 

A difficult concept to get your head around, but Airspace is certainly not free, is expensive to regulate and operate and it requires constant maintenance.

It even costs to build airspace and redesign it. This is absolutely the case.

 

However it is true that to build new railway lines, particularly high speed lines, is incredibly expensive. More so in a compact, crowded country like ours.

 

This however, touches on a related issue.

In service costs.

The financial costs and energy requirements for running a long distance train for long periods of time, which requires the provision and maintenance of hundreds of miles of track.

The longer a train journey, the higher the overall cost to operate it, use the infrastructure, plus the energy and emissions advantage becomes eroded the further you go.

 

 

.

0-15 min ( max ) holding ? Either this is the LHR of your dreams or you have been incredibly lucky . There’s no max - I’ve done 0-30 mins plus if it’s the wrong time .

[JeffP]

Might not be relevant, but for places like London and Paris, few people travel to visit the airport.

So we should add the time taken to travel from airport to city, and the sometimes eyewatering cost of said journey.

[Legend]

11 minutes ago, JeffP said:

Might not be relevant, but for places like London and Paris, few people travel to visit the airport.

So we should add the time taken to travel from airport to city, and the sometimes eyewatering cost of said journey.

 

Exactly , although the same is probably true getting from your house to station.  In my case Glasgow airport is 10 mins away but Glasgow Central Station  maybe 30mins if the M8 is behaving itself or 25 mins by train . It kind of depends where you starting from .

 

But with flights you have to allow an hour for checkin / security  and the airlines usually want you at the gate half an hour before departure , so you can add 1 and half hours to flight time . Then on arrival getting through airport may take 15-30mins , perhaps longer if baggage , so you are probably going to have to add on a further 30mins .  Thats probably why studies indicate that there is a mode change from train/road to air at 3 hours  ie if your journey is less than 3 hours better by train , more then better flying . 

[Ron Ron Ron]

23 minutes ago, JeffP said:

Might not be relevant, but for places like London and Paris, few people travel to visit the airport.

So we should add the time taken to travel from airport to city, and the sometimes eyewatering cost of said journey.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

The timing comparisons were about the utilisation of the aircraft versus the train (i.e. how many journeys could it make in the same time frame), not the passenger’s journey time.

 

.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[Ron Ron Ron]

6 hours ago, rob D2 said:

0-15 min ( max ) holding ? Either this is the LHR of your dreams or you have been incredibly lucky . There’s no max - I’ve done 0-30 mins plus if it’s the wrong time .

I’ve amended that Rob. Normally inbound via BNN, domestics will not hold for long unless there’s heavy congestion, but the system is much better in regulating the delays these days.

I’ve held at BNN inbound from Edinburgh, for nearly 30 mins, but that was in the “olden days”.

That would be quite rare today (outside of the  current situation of course). Usually it’s one or two times around, or straight off on vectors.
LAM is a quite different being the busiest.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[Andy Hayter]

48 minutes ago, JeffP said:

Might not be relevant, but for places like London and Paris, few people travel to visit the airport.

So we should add the time taken to travel from airport to city, and the sometimes eyewatering cost of said journey.

 

For the passenger those are indeed important (and often forgotten or ignored) issues, but as Ron Ron Ron has clearly said it has no impact on operators and their cost benefit analyses.  

[adb968008]

I used to regularly travel between London and Manchester in 2001-2003.

When the WCML upgrades were on going, Project Rio from St Pancras etc.

 

BA/ BMI had a near hourly flight pattern, £50.50 return. Ive still got the receipts and boarding passes. Very often the tickets were bought same day from my office at work deciding to pop up to the parents unannounced.

 

Midland for their part was £55 for a leisurely HST ride up the MML and trip through the hope valley.

 

Granted HEX wanted £25 return.

 

As soon as the WCML upgrade was complete  1/2 the flights disappeared and overnight went to £120+. I often wondered if those £50 fares were government subsidized as most flights were full... very busy times, BMI had a stand by desk allowing you to move between flights etc.

 

They must have made money, there was more than a dozen a day on the LHR-MAN route alone between the two of them... A320’s.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by adb968008

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

I used to regularly travel between London and Manchester in 2001-2003.

When the WCML upgrades were on going, Project Rio from St Pancras etc.

 

BA/ BMI had a near hourly flight pattern....

 

....As soon as the WCML upgrade was complete  1/2 the flights disappeared and overnight went to £120+. I often wondered if those £50 fares were government subsidized as most flights were full... ........

 

They must have made money, there was more than a dozen a day on the LHR-MAN route alone between the two of them... A320’s.

 

 

Apart from BA & BMI on the busy MAN-LHR route....

BA also had 7 a day MAN-LGW  (B737's)

BA CitiExpress (later to be renamed BA Connect in 2006) had 2 a day MAN-STN Mon-Fri (ATP's)

VLM also operated 3 increasing to 5 a day on MAN-LCY  Mon-Fri (Fokker 50's)

 

At the height of this period (WCML upgrade) I think the total number of flights between Manchester and those 4 London airports was 34 per day Monday-Friday, with fewer on a w/e.

 

The Stansted service didn't last that long IIRC and VLM reduced the number of flights on the London City route once the WCML work was completed and the Pendolinos were introduced on the new high frequency service. VLM eventually pulled off the route completely during the 2007/08 financial crash.

 

 

.

[adb968008]

On 16/04/2021 at 13:35, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Apart from BA & BMI on the busy MAN-LHR route....

BA also had 7 a day MAN-LGW  (B737's)

BA CitiExpress (later to be renamed BA Connect in 2006) had 2 a day MAN-STN Mon-Fri (ATP's)

VLM also operated 3 increasing to 5 a day on MAN-LCY  Mon-Fri (Fokker 50's)

 

At the height of this period (WCML upgrade) I think the total number of flights between Manchester and those 4 London airports was 34 per day Monday-Friday, with fewer on a w/e.

 

The Stansted service didn't last that long IIRC and VLM reduced the number of flights on the London City route once the WCML work was completed and the Pendolinos were introduced on the new high frequency service. VLM eventually pulled off the route completely during the 2007/08 financial crash.

 

 

.

Ah yes VLM, I used to love them, spotless Fokker 50’s... they were taking over LCY at one point.

 

(That building opposite LCY was empty for several years, from new, first time I saw it used was circa 2007 in conjunction with the Olympics).

 

They grew a really good business out of city airport, flights were a bit more pricey, but the flights were mostly “suits” from Canary Wharf.

 

I once sent my mum home by VLM, same story.. same day ticket, arrived at the airport my mum had no ID at all... the lady at the check in desk said, if you see the travel agent over there.. they’ll give you a London Transport Photocard for travelcards, take a picture at the booth, fill in the form, get the ID, show it me and your all set... so thats exactly what she did...

ScotAir was another.. regular 6am to Edinburgh, c15-20 seater, best described as a mini-bus with wings... everyone sat with their knees under their chin with a laptop bag wedged inbetween...

 

 

a certain scottish bank once paid me £400 almost every weekday to fly on this route for 3 weeks back in 2008..rather than paying for an Edinburgh hotel.. I was knackered, and my expense report was errr..nice, though I flew Air France (same plane, but earns Airmiles, yes they flew domestic UK routes then).. it wasnt all madness, I was doing a bit of shuttle diplomacy between canary wharf and Edinburgh, train wasnt an option, still isn't and neither will HS2 in that situation.

 

I’ll unashamedly admit I used to do a ridiculous amount of flying, probably had my own personal Greenpeace campaigner assigned to me.

 

LCY.. used to allow 15 minutes before departure for checkin too, back in 2002 it was the first place I ever paid £5 for a pint in the UK, now you can spend £10 there on a bottle of water.

 

flying used to be so easy..., our economy so good, and the mood so much more hopeful.

 

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by adb968008

[Ron Ron Ron]

9 hours ago, adb968008 said:

LCY.. used to allow 15 minutes before departure for checkin too.....

 

 

Same for other domestic flights at a number of regional airports.

BA and later FlyBe at Southampton had 15 minutes with hand luggage only and 20 mins with hold bags.

The increased security measures and the airport getting much busier pushed that out to 20 mins and 35 mins and then a bit more later on..

 

Of course with online check-in and hand baggage only, all you had to do was walk into the terminal, rock up at security, pass through to airside (anything from 3 to 10 mins depending on the queue) and get to the gate (one minute from security) in good time before boarding was called.

 

I would usually arrive at the airport between 30 and 45 mins before scheduled departure to allow a bit of contingency and maybe grab a coffee.

There was one occasion in the early 00's when I got off work early, dashed home to get showered, changed and to collect my overnight bag.

It was a bit of a rush and quite tight, timing wise, but then the taxi I had ordered didn't turn up on time. Having phoned up they assured me he was on the way and it finally arrived nearly 10 minutes late.

I was beginning to worry about making it to the airport on time (it was pre- online check-in) with a 2 hour wait until the next flight and not knowing if that was fully booked.

Then s*d's law, there was a hold up on the motorway (usually a 10 minute drive) and I was now feeling quite panicky. 

I finally arrived at the airport just 10 minutes before departure time and thinking I'd missed my flight, rushed up to a check-in desk to say I thought I'd arrived too late and missed my flight.

The very nice lady said don't worry let's have a look, as she quickly checked her computer.

"It's OK they are just about to board, you can still make it, but go straight to the gate NOW", she said as she handed me my boarding card.

I rushed through a thankfully deserted security check and walked out the other side about 50ft from the gate, just as the announcement for boarding was being made.

Arriving at full tilt, just as everyone began standing up, I ended up being 1st in the queue !

Whew!

I couldn't believe my luck. 

 

 

.

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[Ron Ron Ron]

Scot Airways Dornier 328.

A pocket rocket. Very fast.

They even fitted a later model with jets - 328Jet.

 

 

.

 

[Hesperus]

On 14/04/2021 at 17:17, rob D2 said:

Still low, whichever is correct. My point is merely it’s an easy target. 
bit like plastic straws , when I saw , if it’s correct , plastic straws are 0.03 % of plastic in the oceans . Easy target .

 

But surely it's sensible to go for easy targets first?  Only a fool would try to reduce diesel emissions by targeting ambulances and fire engines first. 

 

Plastic straws are a sensible target when paper ones work just as well and cost a similar amount.

 

If the public support a ban on domestic flights which can be done by train in 2.5 hours now perhaps that can go up to 3 hours in a few years time then up to 4 from there?

 

Obviously the Scottish Islands can't be reached by train but they are looking into electric planes as they only need little things.

 

I'd suggest banning private jets from UK airspace would have more effect.

[rob D2]

1 hour ago, Hesperus said:

 

But surely it's sensible to go for easy targets first?  Only a fool would try to reduce diesel emissions by targeting ambulances and fire engines first. 

 

Plastic straws are a sensible target when paper ones work just as well and cost a similar amount.

 

If the public support a ban on domestic flights which can be done by train in 2.5 hours now perhaps that can go up to 3 hours in a few years time then up to 4 from there?

 

Obviously the Scottish Islands can't be reached by train but they are looking into electric planes as they only need little things.

 

I'd suggest banning private jets from UK airspace would have more effect.

Well , that’s an interesting form of fanaticism right there.

 

” ban private jets “. Yep, ban everything .

 

I take it you don’t own a car, have never used anything relying on fossil fuels and have no intention of flying anywhere ever again ?

 

Private jets are an easy target, not because of the environmental drawbacks, but because  of  jealousy/ envy quite often .