Refractory Gauls, or the French politics thread

[Josquius]

Connecting flights are a problem.
More than once I flew Geneva to Zurich as it was cheaper than just taking the train to Zurich then flying from there. This kind of thing really has to stop. Taking the train is so much more preferable - YMMV depending on how accessible airports are though. Manchester with its train station is a far more pleasant experience than Leeds where you need to take a bus out of the city for instance.

[alfred russel]

It sounds super dumb to take a flight when a train journey is 2 hours, but those flights are going to be filled with people on connecting flights.

When I was going to interviews at Notre Dame I flew to Chicago a bunch of times--it is an hour and a half drive. Every time I flew on to another city like Atlanta or Portland. If I was actually going to Chicago I drove, which of course is the only thing that makes sense. But taking a train to Chicago (if one existed) and then changing to a flight to Portland would have been a pain in the ass.

Yep can't let the state of the climate inconvenience us a bit.

If you want to address the impact of air travel on climate change there are actual concrete steps that can be taken rather than a basically trivial step against a type of travel that sounds dumb on the surface but isn't actually.

Put a 100% tax on air travel for instance. Stop subsidizing airlines and thus air travel when they get in financial distress. Stop subsidizing airports, etc.

[Zoupa]

It sounds super dumb to take a flight when a train journey is 2 hours, but those flights are going to be filled with people on connecting flights.

When I was going to interviews at Notre Dame I flew to Chicago a bunch of times--it is an hour and a half drive. Every time I flew on to another city like Atlanta or Portland. If I was actually going to Chicago I drove, which of course is the only thing that makes sense. But taking a train to Chicago (if one existed) and then changing to a flight to Portland would have been a pain in the ass.

Yep can't let the state of the climate inconvenience us a bit.

If you want to address the impact of air travel on climate change there are actual concrete steps that can be taken rather than a basically trivial step against a type of travel that sounds dumb on the surface but isn't actually.

Put a 100% tax on air travel for instance. Stop subsidizing airlines and thus air travel when they get in financial distress. Stop subsidizing airports, etc.

The rail network is much more developed in France than in Illinois. You could also just drive to Chicago or take a bus and then get on the flight. It's not rocket science.

[alfred russel]

The rail network is much more developed in France than in Illinois. You could also just drive to Chicago or take a bus and then get on the flight. It's not rocket science.

Of course that is possible. It would be a pain in the ass. You are a college student trying to make a day trip to Portland for an interview. You have two options:

-cab to the south bend airport, fly to chicago, fly on to Portland (and then the return trip)
-cab to the bus station, bus to chicago, probably cab to the airport in Chicago from the bus station, then flight to portland

Yeah it is easier IF the airport in question is charles de gaulle where there are good train connections. But it can still be a pain in the ass, especially if you are traveling with children and a decent amount of luggage.

[Maladict]

It sounds super dumb to take a flight when a train journey is 2 hours, but those flights are going to be filled with people on connecting flights.

When I was going to interviews at Notre Dame I flew to Chicago a bunch of times--it is an hour and a half drive. Every time I flew on to another city like Atlanta or Portland. If I was actually going to Chicago I drove, which of course is the only thing that makes sense. But taking a train to Chicago (if one existed) and then changing to a flight to Portland would have been a pain in the ass.

If that train existed it would probably be just as fast as the flight+layover, so not really a pain in the ass at all.

There's a lot to be gained by eliminating these very short haul flights.

[Razgovory]

I was curious how long a train ride would be from my home town to St. Louis:

Traveling by train from Jefferson City to St Louis usually takes around 2 hours and 31 minutes, but the fastest Amtrak Missouri River Runner train can make the trip in 2 hours and 30 minutes.

[Jacob]

It sounds super dumb to take a flight when a train journey is 2 hours, but those flights are going to be filled with people on connecting flights.

When I was going to interviews at Notre Dame I flew to Chicago a bunch of times--it is an hour and a half drive. Every time I flew on to another city like Atlanta or Portland. If I was actually going to Chicago I drove, which of course is the only thing that makes sense. But taking a train to Chicago (if one existed) and then changing to a flight to Portland would have been a pain in the ass.

Doesn't that rather depend on the convenience of the train connection?

I've taken trains directly from airports on a number of occasions and they've been pretty convenient. On the other hand, getting out of the Vancouver Airport and then taking a Pacific Railway train would - as you say - be a massive pain in the ass.

But jumping on an intercity train at the Copenhagen airport is not inconvenient at all, for example.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah some airports are very well connected, but even the ones that aren't (like those favoured by the budget airlines) will have plenty of shuttle buses to and from the station.

I also just feel like connecting flights are less common here - possibly because of all the budget airlines with multiple bases across different countries so you're normally pretty close to a fairly well connected airport. It might be a thing for business flights, but otherwise the only times I've had connecting flights in Europe is going to Bosnia before the budget airlines opened there or at the end of a long-haul-ish flight (e.g. Asia via Frankfurt).

[alfred russel]

It sounds super dumb to take a flight when a train journey is 2 hours, but those flights are going to be filled with people on connecting flights.

When I was going to interviews at Notre Dame I flew to Chicago a bunch of times--it is an hour and a half drive. Every time I flew on to another city like Atlanta or Portland. If I was actually going to Chicago I drove, which of course is the only thing that makes sense. But taking a train to Chicago (if one existed) and then changing to a flight to Portland would have been a pain in the ass.

Doesn't that rather depend on the convenience of the train connection?

I've taken trains directly from airports on a number of occasions and they've been pretty convenient. On the other hand, getting out of the Vancouver Airport and then taking a Pacific Railway train would - as you say - be a massive pain in the ass.

But jumping on an intercity train at the Copenhagen airport is not inconvenient at all, for example.

There will be some that are convenient and some that are not. For those that are not, travelers may substitute longer duration flights. For example, rather converting my South Bend --> Chicago --> Portland flight to South Bend --> bus to Chicago --> Portland scenario, travelers could shift to South Bend --> Las Vegas --> Portland and actually increase the flight time.

If you had a deterrent tax on miles flown, that would deter not only your indifferent traveler but also your traveler contemplating a longer air route. It would also deter the bulk of travelers that go a lot further than 2 hours by air. But then lots of people would have to sacrifice in that scenario, rather than this proposal that just picks on a minority of travelers that appear stupid in a cursory internet analysis.

[garbon]

If short flights are so terrible, why does France have to institute a ban? You'd think if its citizens were against short flights, they wouldn't take them. Is it just tourists?

[Sheilbh]

If short flights are so terrible, why does France have to institute a ban? You'd think if its citizens were against short flights, they wouldn't take them. Is it just tourists?

Business travellers would be my bet. In the UK 90% of domestic flights are taken by 2% of people, overwhelmingly I'd guess, for business. Obviously they're also travellers who don't really care about tax rises or frequent flier levies because they're not paying.

[garbon]

If short flights are so terrible, why does France have to institute a ban? You'd think if its citizens were against short flights, they wouldn't take them. Is it just tourists?

Business travellers would be my bet. In the UK 90% of domestic flights are taken by 2% of people, overwhelmingly I'd guess, for business. Obviously they're also travellers who don't really care about tax rises or frequent flier levies because they're not paying.

Business travelers are choosing the less efficient method? Or is it that flights are still more efficient than rail?

[Sheilbh]

Business travelers are choosing the less efficient method? Or is it that flights are still more efficient than rail?

I think for most domestic city-to-city trips that don't start in London it would probably be more efficient.

Also more what they're used to, what's a little more prestigious, what allows them to turn off their phone and not work and where it's more socially acceptable to have a drink - plus air miles. Admittedly this may be shaped by my perception from working in a law firm and my experience of business travellers being older white men

[alfred russel]

You want a regulation that is overdue and would help the climate? Ban airmiles.

Two fronts:

1) getting status is often contingent on actually flying miles. Buy a ticket but don't fly? You don't get the status. There is a small cottage industry of people that find super cheap long haul tickets so they can get / keep status on airlines, but are ultimately flights to no where.

2) you are effectively bribing business travelers to rip off their employers. If I'm booking a flight and have status / most miles on delta but the cheapest flight is on a random airline--or alternatively there is a marginally more effective method of travel? I have a strong incentive to figure out a way to get on that delta flight. Which is a major motivation of airlines having miles programs.

[garbon]

I think for most domestic city-to-city trips that don't start in London it would probably be more efficient.

Does this apply to France as well? Why not improve the quality of access/service from rail rather than ban air?

Also more what they're used to, what's a little more prestigious, what allows them to turn off their phone and not work and where it's more socially acceptable to have a drink - plus air miles. Admittedly this may be shaped by my perception from working in a law firm and my experience of business travellers being older white men

Business travelers aren't only old men, so there is room for younger people to learn a new pattern. Actually it was an old man (a VP) in one of my early roles that had suggested I take rail between Marseille and Paris rather than a flight when I was young.

On the bits in bold, I feel like it is also socially acceptable not to talk on the phone while on a train and easy enough to not open one's laptop. When I think about the UK, I don't see any evidence that it is socially unacceptable to drink on a train. Far from it.