France's domestic flight ban - the symbolism is what matters
What France's limited domestic flight ban can tell us.
This week France finally formalised its ban on domestic flights that could otherwise be made by train journeys of less than two and a half hours.
The original proposal was to cover train journeys of under four hours, so what’s in place now only affects three routes – Paris-Orly to Bordeaux, Nantes, and Lyon.
As a result, the emissions impact will be very modest, reducing French aviation emissions by only 0.8%.
As France 24 reporter Dave Keating points out, some environmental groups even see the French move as a sideshow, preferring to keep the focus on long-haul flights, which produce more than half of Europe’s aviation emissions.
Meanwhile, many aviation insiders have expressed anger and dismay at what’s happened in France.
Over the past two days, a blog post by IATA director general Willie Walsh has been reshared on LinkedIn. In the post, Walsh accused the French of grandstanding, saying that flight bans like this were “utter nonsense” and “simplistic.”
Walsh says that instead of flight bans, politicians should concentrate on measures such as implementing the Single European Sky (SES), which could reduce emissions by up to 10%.
Where culture leads, regulators will follow
The new French law has a wider importance beyond emissions reduction. It sets a precedent and sends a signal to the broader public.
In terms of precedent, now that the French have done it, it is easier for regulators elsewhere to follow suit.
More importantly, the French curb on domestic flights has received a lot of media coverage worldwide.
The overall message that is (again) being conveyed in the coverage is that aviation is bad for the environment.
As a result, from a messaging standpoint and the impact on public opinion, it matters a great deal.
Taken together, these two points echo something (electric aircraft manufacturer) Eviation CEO Greg Davis said in a presentation last year - where culture leads, regulators follow.
Flying is not the problem. Emissions are.
If regulators are going to be involved, a better solution can be found in the Nordic countries.
Instead of banning domestic flights, Denmark and Norway have set deadlines by which they have to be fossil-fuel free.
Even though, just like in France, the overall emissions reduction will also be small, such steps help spur the development of next-generation aircraft. For example, Norway’s electric flight mandate prompted Anders Forslund to start hybrid-electric aircraft manufacturer Heart Aerospace.
It also helps bring investment into the space at a time when there is a huge funding gap in climate tech. Last week VC firm World Fund produced a report saying that only 16% of funding needs are currently being met.
This comes as getting a brand new clean sheet aircraft design off the ground can easily come to $1 billion or more.
However, companies developing zero-emissions aircraft say that if their funding needs are met, then there’s potential for regional aviation to become cleaner, cheaper and more accessible to larger numbers of people.
As NASA said in its 2021 Regional Air Mobility (RAM) report, which looked at the issue from a US perspective, “the local airport you may not have even known existed will soon be a catalyst for change in how you travel.”