At the beginning of this summer, law banning short-term flights For routes taking less than 2.5 hours, this can be replaced by train. It is the first country in the world to adopt this measure to help reduce pollutant emissions into the atmosphere. Adeline de Montlaur, aeronautical engineer and professor at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), is the author, together with other colleagues, of a study published in 2021 on the impact of short flights on CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Result: Comparatively, they pollute much more than long flights.
-To what extent are short flights under approximately 500 kilometers polluting?
-Depends on how you look at it. When you look at the percentage of contamination compared to total flights, it is very small. However, when measuring how much pollution per passenger and per kilometer compared to long flights, a short flight pollutes the environment much more than a long flight. Our research shows this. Data from Eurocontrol (representing the industry) speaks of 3.4 liters per passenger and per 100 km. However, this is an average across all flights. On short trips, consumption can easily double. This 3.4 liters per passenger can be around 6 liters on short flights. This is an average because it depends on the aircraft model and other factors.
-Why does this difference arise?
-The cost of a trip is to take off and land the plane. When you take off you have much more consumption than if you were flying at cruising speed when you have to maintain a certain speed, but there is no longer a need for thrust. Logically, all flights have a departure, but proportionately shorter flights represent more consumption. Because you take off, you go up, you stay at cruising speed for a certain period of time at an altitude of about 10 km, and you almost immediately come back down. You are not yet in the cruise phase. The cost of removing the aircraft is huge.
“Proportionately, the takeoff of a short flight represents greater fuel consumption than the takeoff of a long flight.”
Another issue we focused on in the study is the shooting section on the airport runway. It’s not the most consumed thing on a flight, but (according to 2022 Eurocontrol data) 15% of the total flight time in Europe consists of taxiing on the ground and being converted to fuel as a result. At major airports in Europe, the total taxi time of an aircraft can add up to 20-30 minutes to the total flight time. You consume it at the same time as you roll. And the minutes you fly, if it’s a one-hour flight, represent a lot more than if you went to the United States; in this case, the percentage of time and consumption in the total flight will be very small.
-Does this happen on all planes?
-This is an average. But the trend is to modernize aircraft. Companies are making them more efficient. In fact, airplanes are more efficient now than they were twenty years ago. Only air traffic increased faster than efficiency increased. In other words, fuel consumption and emissions globally continue to increase. Technology is failing to offset the increase in emissions.
-Can the short flight ban in France really serve to reduce emissions? The industry says this would be useless.
-At the root of all this is a citizens’ meeting of 150 people called to give ideas on what can be done. And that’s where this initiative emerged. It was requested that flights with train alternatives be banned for a maximum of 4 hours round trip. In the end it was 2.5 hours. Staying this way, the number of affected routes is greatly limited. In France, only routes connecting Paris (Orly) with Nantes, Bordeaux and Lyon are affected. This ban is forgiven for connecting flights. But in reality they are only removing some routes that were removed due to Covid. There’s a lot of talk about this and that’s a good thing, but ultimately it’s not a huge change. These are routes that are no longer operated. When Covid came they were already removed because there was no point: they came earlier by train. The EU welcomed this measure and said ‘okay but these flights that you have removed at Orly Airport (which basically has national flights) will also have to be removed at Charles de Gaulle’. connections from international flights. Considering that there are also train connections in Charles de Gaulle, the next stage is to ensure that these train connections have a good enough frequency so that passengers from the USA do not have to wait for hours to catch the connection. Will the decision made now have an impact or not? I think more routes should be added. What is happening now is good because it provides an example and can help raise awareness. However, you need to continue with connecting flights.
“The law passed in France is good, but it should include more flights, including connecting ones.”
It’s a little more complicated but not impossible, you just need to put in some effort. However, there is really no point in questioning the train alternative for non-stop flights. Unquestionable due to the time issue, since we do not need to compare the solid flight time with the time taken by the train, we need to compare ‘door to door’ times: from the moment I leave home until the evening. Arriving at the meeting in Madrid. And these times are currently the same as by plane and train, and even faster by train.
– So, are the prices in favor of the train?
Of course, there is also the cost factor. If I need to go from Barcelona to Madrid, maybe I can find a reasonable train ticket, but until recently it was cheaper to buy a plane ticket than a train ticket. This is an unfair situation due to the subsidies that planes receive, especially for fuel. Taxes do not apply to aviation fuel, they do to car fuel, but not to aviation fuel. Many people don’t know this. Of course there is public assistance for trains too, but in a situation like the current climate emergency, no tax on aviation fuel is something that seems inconsistent. This is not a national problem, it is a global problem. This is not something Spain can decide, but Europe can.
-It is often said that the future of aviation will inevitably require more expensive tickets. Is this how you see it?
-The sector has a plan to reach zero emissions in 2050…
-But is this possible?
-I do not believe in that. Maybe yes, if the necessary tools are provided. However, no real will has ever been shown on this issue. It is not the first time that aviation has said ‘we will use 10 percent biofuel’, this is what aviation says. In this zero emissions plan there is a small part consisting of improving efficiency (this is possible, but represents only 10% of the required cut), then there is another small part (in the long term) of introducing electric planes, but it applies to crossing the Atlantic ( there may be another small percentage), then there is talk of increasing flight efficiency (not making long zigzag routes, for example), which is also possible and another 10%. OK, but we still have 70% left to reach zero emissions. What the industry envisions is SAF (sustainable aviation biofuels) and emissions compensation (i.e. tree planting). What’s the problem with SAF?: Price.
“I do not see the aviation industry’s goal of reaching zero emissions by 2050 as possible.”
an article Finance Times He commented that the price of SAF is three times more expensive than conventional fuel. And the industry does not predict that the price will drop. This price will not drop because of how it is obtained and produced. Therefore, airlines have no chance of resolving this extra cost. If what the industry is announcing is truly implemented, it will also be noticed in airline tickets. There aren’t many other options.
-Do you see it possible to imitate the French model in Spain?
-It is clear that this is a matter of politics and will. It will never come from the airlines. Vueling will not say: We will stop running Madrid-Barcelona. Maybe it is difficult in the current political situation, maybe it would be more effective and have more impact if it came from Europe. There are three routes in France, so this doesn’t have much of an impact, but it would be better if the very conservative 2.5 hour train travel time limit was extended a bit. It can be extended for 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 environmental department:[email protected]