A few days ago, law banning short-haul flights It can be changed by train on routes that take less than 2.5 hours. It is the first country in the world to adopt this measure to help reduce pollutant emissions released into the atmosphere. Adeline de Montlaur, an aeronautical engineer and professor at the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC), is, along with other colleagues, the author of a study published in 2021 on the effect of short flights on CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. The result: They pollute much more than relatively long flights.
-How much does short flights of less than 500 kilometers pollute the environment?
Depends on what you’re looking at. If you look at the percentage of contamination compared to total flights, it’s very small. But compared to long flights, and how polluted it is per passenger and per kilometer traveled, a short flight pollutes much more than a long flight. Our research shows this. Eurocontrol data (representing industry) speaks of 3.4 liters per passenger and 100 km. However, this is the average of all flights. And on short trips you can easily double the consumption. This 3.4 liters per passenger can be around 6 liters on short flights. It is an average value because it depends on the aircraft model and other factors.
-Why does this difference arise?
-The cost of the trip is to lift the plane, take off. When you take off, you have a much higher consumption than if you were flying at cruising speed. That’s when you need to maintain a certain speed, but there is no longer any need for pushing. Logically, all flights have a take off, but proportionally, the take off of shorter flights represents more consumption. This is because you take off, go up, spend some time at cruising speed at an altitude of about 10 km, and land back almost instantly. You are almost at the cruising stage. The cost of lifting the plane is huge.
“Proportionally, the takeoff of a short flight represents greater fuel consumption than a long flight”
Another issue we consider in the study is the shooting part on the airport runway. It’s not the most consuming thing on a flight, but (according to 2022 Eurocontrol data) 15% of the total flight time in Europe consists of rolling on the ground and its consequent conversion to fuel. The total taxi time of an aircraft can add up to 20-30 minutes to the total flight time at major airports in Europe. When you shoot, you also consume. And the minutes you travel represent a lot more than if you went to the United States if it was an hour’s flight, so the percentage of time and consumption in the total flight would be very small.
Does this happen on all planes?
-Average. But the trend is to modernize aircraft. Companies make them more efficient. In fact, airplanes are more efficient now than they were twenty years ago. What happened is that air traffic increased faster than efficiency improved. In other words, fuel consumption and emissions continue to increase globally. Technology cannot offset the increase in emissions.
Could the short flight ban in France really serve to reduce emissions? The industry says it won’t work.
-The source of all this is a citizen assembly of 150 people called to give an idea of what can be done. And that initiative arose there. In cases where there is an alternative to train, one-way flights up to a maximum of 4 hours were requested. Finally 2.5 hours left. Staying that way, the number of affected routes is greatly limited. In France, they are only affected on routes connecting Paris (Orly) to Nantes, Bordeaux and Lyon. And when there are connecting flights, this ban is forgiven. But in reality they are only removing some routes that have already been removed with Covid. There’s been a lot of talk about this and that’s good, but deep down it’s not a very significant change. Routes that are no longer implemented. They were already removed when Covid came, because they didn’t make sense: you can arrive earlier by train. The EU welcomed the measure and said ‘ok, but in addition to removing these flights (which basically have national flights) you remove at Orly airport, it should also be removed in Charles de Gaulle’ because that’s where the connections are. International flights. Since Charles de Gaulle also has train connections, the next step is to ensure that these train connections have a good enough frequency so that the passenger from the USA does not have to wait for hours to catch a connection. Will the decision taken now have an effect or not? I think more routes should be included. The current situation is good because an example is given and can help raise awareness. But you have to go to connecting flights.
“The law in France is nice but should cover more flights, including connected ones”
It’s a little more complicated, but not impossible, you just have to put some effort into it. But questioning the train alternative for non-stop flights is really nonsense. It’s unquestionable because of the time issue, because you don’t need to compare the duration of the solid flight with the time taken by the train, you need to compare the ‘door-to-door’ times: leave my house until I arrive at the meeting in Madrid. And these times are now the same as planes and trains, and even faster by trains.
-Are the prices next to the train?
Of course, there is also the cost factor. If I need to get from Barcelona to Madrid, maybe I can find a reasonable train ticket, but until recently, airfare was cheaper than a train ticket. It’s unfair because of the subsidies that planes get, especially on fuel. Taxes do not apply to aviation fuels, yes to car fuels, but not to aviation fuels. Many people don’t know this. There is of course public subsidy for the train, but in a climate emergency like the current one, not levying a tax on jet fuel seems inconsistent. It is not a national problem, it is global. It’s not something Spain can decide, but Europe can.
It’s often said that the future of aviation inevitably passes through more expensive tickets. Is this how you see it?
-The industry has a plan to reach zero emissions by 2050…
But is it possible?
-I do not believe in that. Maybe yes, if the necessary facilities are provided. However, there has never been a real will on this issue. It’s not the first time that aviation basically said ‘we will use 10% biofuels’. There’s a small part of improving efficiency in this zero-emissions plan (it can be done, but it only represents 10% of the cut needed), then there’s a small part of introducing electric airplanes (in the long run), but if it’s not worth crossing the Atlantic (small one more percentage would be), then there is talk of improving flight efficiency (e.g. we don’t do long zigzag routes), which is also viable and another 10%. Accepted, but we still have 70% left to reach zero emissions. And what the industry is envisioning is SAFs (Sustainable Aviation Biofuels) and emissions offsets (i.e. planting trees). What’s wrong with SAF?: price.
“I don’t see the aviation industry’s goal of achieving zero emissions by 2050 as viable”
an article Finance Times He commented that the price of SAF is three times more expensive than conventional fuel. And the industry doesn’t expect the price to drop. Because of how it is sourced and manufactured, this price will not go down. So there is no way for airlines to fix this extra cost. If what the industry has announced is really going to be implemented, it will be reflected in the plane tickets. There aren’t many other options.
– Do you see it possible to imitate the French model in Spain?
It is clear that it is a political issue and will. It will never come from the airlines. Vueling will not say: We will stop operating Madrid-Barcelona. It may be difficult in the current political situation, it may be more efficient to come from Europe and it will have more impact. There are three routes in France and it doesn’t have much of an effect, but it would be better if the 2.5 hour time limit of the very conservative train journey could be extended a bit. It can be extended up to 3 or 4 hours without much effect over a longer period of time.
Reference work: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/18/10401
……..
Contact address of the environment department: [email protected]