Should the UK ban domestic flights?

[Iskra]

Should the UK follow the French lead and ban domestic flights on routes where adequate rail connections exist?

I’d be happy for this to happen providing train services could have a codeshare agreement to protect rail/air connections to make this viable.

 

[75A]

How do you define adequate. I'm long since retired, but used to fly once a month from Birmingham to Edinburgh for a 90 minute (ish) meeting, I'd be out and back home within 5 hours.

 

[nw1]

No: people might need to get somewhere in a hurry so the choice should always be there.

By 'UK' do we include Northern Ireland? Banning flights there will dramatically increase journey time.

Better to incentivise people to use trains where possible, by subsidising fares. I always favour 'carrot' rather than 'stick' approaches to these sorts of questions.

 

[Sm5]

all depends on your optics…

it doesnt apply to connecting flights, which means a grande “non” to Ryanair/ Easyjet, but doesnt affect Air France.

Indeed it helps Air France, as short haul is low revenue and so not having domestics frees up more seats for higher revenue long haul connections.

Of course it doesn't hurt SNCF either.

so a win for France, disguised as the environment.

one exception though.. which country is Basle Airport in ? (technically its up to you, depending which entrance you walk through, or chose at customs), but the airlines could call it Swiss, then its no longer domestic.

 

[ainsworth74]

By 'UK' do we include Northern Ireland? Banning flights there will dramatically increase journey time.

Well the OP did say:

ban domestic flights on routes where adequate rail connections exist?

(Emphasis added)

And until ( ) Boris get's his bridge I think we can safely assume that there are not going to be adequate rail connections between NI and the rest of the UK!

I think we should certainly be considering it but it would probably only be a handful of routes at the present time. Personally I see no reason why we shouldn't strongly discourage/outright ban domestic flights between London and Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Manchester, Leeds, Teesside and Newcastle for instance. All the relevant conurbations have fast frequent services that link them. I would say that feeder flights for international travel should remain (and I believe that is the approach being taken in France and Austria).

But for London to Scotland, for now, I would suggest the journey time isn't quite there to make it reasonable to remove the element of choice for now. But post HS2 that will certainly need reconsidering. I also think that there are certain flows where it will always be necessary to maintain domestic flights. Someone wanting to Inverness to London for instance. Whilst it has a reasonable connections considering the distance rail is not a massively competitive mode for that journey.

Broadly I think it's something worth exploring but only on a handful of routes (primarily radiating from London) and only if the ability to make connections is maintained (so you could fly Leeds - Heathrow - New York for example still).

 

[Sm5]

The argument might get stronger once HS2 is built, France has much more high speed options than we have.

 

[cle]

We could tax the f*** out of them, with exceptions for non-rail friendly routes (SW to Scotland) and of course, feeder flights which BA would howl about. Another gift to KLM and Emirates.

But yes think once HS2 is in its final form - with hopefully improvements to come north of Preston, and London-Glasgow/Edinburgh is a reasonable 3h30 or even less, then we could look at interventions. But before then, it'd just be punitive.

 

[Sm5]

No point taxing them, the routes are naturally dying.

There used to be regular LHR to BHX in the distant past, rail and the M1 saw it off, when the Pendolinos arrived it killed off almost all BMI’s Manchester routes and half of BA’s.

The days of a £50 return to Manchester by plane are long gone, but until 2003/4 were almost a walk up fare.

Brussels flights virtually sank, Paris declined (and BMI dissapeared) when Eurostar got HS1.

Even London - Glasgow /Edinburgh is becoming more marginal once you factor in ground travel, security etc.

Most domestic passengers to London nowadays are connecting PAX anyway, and are already taxed according to their ultimate destination’s capital city*. (*Fudgy politics is nothing new), and cross country domestic flights isnt that huge of a market.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think when HS2 pushes into Scotland we could ban domestic flights. From Glasgow and Edinburgh to Birmingham and all the London airports there are literally millions of passengers that could be put on a high speed train. Even more when adding Southampton and Bristol into the mix.

 

[HSTEd]

In order to completely kill domestic air in the UK you need two projects:

1. A Spinal Very High Speed Transport System, HS2 is probably too slow by itself
2. Some sort of high speed surface connection to Northern Ireland

With those two things, virtually the entire UK domestic air market disintegrates.

 

[cle]

Cross-country is small. I think more fair for preservation would be London - Aberdeen and Inverness.

The Paris and Brussels examples are good. London-Edinburgh air share vs rail is actually up, over the years. The last 2-3 years have had faster journey times and new trains, but I've not seen newer stats. City Airport becoming a little less exclusive in pricing and accessible/open to leisure no doubt helped this.

 

[Bigman]

No trains from Leeds to Southampton or Newquay, so flying is the only option. Thanks a lot Cross Country, but Eastern Airways will be happy.

 

[Irascible]

If you gave the SW a fast rail route we'd use it. Until then, no way am I not flying to Scotland, or Newcastle or probably even Leeds.

What's the footprint of a couple of turboprop flights a day vs diesel trains, I wonder.

 

[The Planner]

No trains from Leeds to Southampton or Newquay, so flying is the only option. Thanks a lot Cross Country, but Eastern Airways will be happy.

Does this have to be direct trains then? Aren't both of those examples possible with just the single change?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

England should ban domestic flights and subsidise Intercity rail.
Don't really consider the other nations in the UK as special compared to the nations in the EU.
The UK doesn't really exist as Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland make their own choices on what to ban, only England is without it's own say without interference, so that is the only place "the UK" has any real power to ban anything.

Trains run from London to Paris, and from Birmingham to Edinburgh, why ban one plane trip but not the other?

It's the high cost that forces some to fly.
Trains should be cheaper, that needs to be the priority.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

England should ban domestic flights and subsidise Intercity rail.
Don't really consider the other nations in the UK as special compared to the nations in the EU.
The UK doesn't really exist as Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland make their own choices on what to ban, only England is without it's own say without interference, so that is the only place "the UK" has any real power to ban anything.

Trains run from London to Paris, and from Birmingham to Edinburgh, why ban one plane trip but not the other?

It's the high cost that forces some to fly.
Trains should be cheaper, that needs to be the priority.

Well if we were a proper federated system, the nations could do what they wanted, but the UK government could steer them away from things by withholding funding.

Looking at the map, it's a shame that HS2's eastern branch didn't approach Birmingham from the East, via the airport. This would have linked South and West Yorkshire, the East Midlands, as well as Manchester with the airport potentially creating a new hub. I think an SW hs line from Birmingham to Bristol and beyond should be built - and it should run via the airport, then join up with the eastern branch.

 

[cle]

I'm not into 'banning' as such, but they can encourage modes over others in a variety of ways.

Bristol, Exeter or Southampton to Edinburgh seems fair, and Glasgow more so, as the WCML has no real SW services north of Stafford. Crewe has the Cardiff. But the NW and Glasgow, which is my main point, has none.

Cardiff and Norwich flights should be ok too. Both have slow diesel routes north, and nothing meaningful direct to Leeds, Newcastle or Scotland.

 

[Bald Rick]

Should the UK follow the French lead and ban domestic flights on routes where adequate rail connections exist?

The French haven’t banned domestic flights.

They have banned the sale of tickets to domestic passengers on air routes where there is a rail alternative between the same cities that takes less than 2h30. It affects a handful of routes: Paris to Lyon, Rennes, Nantes and Bordeaux. The former is almost entirely connecting passengers on 4 flights a day; it will barely change. The last three all benefited from the construction of LGV SEA and LGV Bretagne Pays de Loire. Perhaps they are not doing as well as expected, and the French Government needed to “encourage les autres”.

If the same was applied in this country, the only effect would be to prevent a domestic only passenger buying a ticket from Heathrow to Manchester. But seeing as the vast majority of passengers on that route are connecting, the effect would be minimal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2021 ==


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2021 ==

Looking at the map, it's a shame that HS2's eastern branch didn't approach Birmingham from the East, via the airport. This would have linked South and West Yorkshire, the East Midlands, as well as Manchester with the airport potentially creating a new hub

Err, that’s exactly what it does do.

 

[Mikey C]

Well the OP did say:

(Emphasis added)

And until ( ) Boris get's his bridge I think we can safely assume that there are not going to be adequate rail connections between NI and the rest of the UK!

I think we should certainly be considering it but it would probably only be a handful of routes at the present time. Personally I see no reason why we shouldn't strongly discourage/outright ban domestic flights between London and Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Manchester, Leeds, Teesside and Newcastle for instance. All the relevant conurbations have fast frequent services that link them. I would say that feeder flights for international travel should remain (and I believe that is the approach being taken in France and Austria).

But for London to Scotland, for now, I would suggest the journey time isn't quite there to make it reasonable to remove the element of choice for now. But post HS2 that will certainly need reconsidering. I also think that there are certain flows where it will always be necessary to maintain domestic flights. Someone wanting to Inverness to London for instance. Whilst it has a reasonable connections considering the distance rail is not a massively competitive mode for that journey.

Broadly I think it's something worth exploring but only on a handful of routes (primarily radiating from London) and only if the ability to make connections is maintained (so you could fly Leeds - Heathrow - New York for example still).

Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff and Leeds don't have any flights from London at all

The other will have minimal point to point traffic, the vast majority of passengers will be connecting to other flights at Heathrow.

The reality is that the number of people on purely point to point flights within England and Wales is minimal, and not very profitable, hence the collapse of FlyBe

 

[Irascible]

Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff and Leeds don't have any flights from London at all

The other will have minimal point to point traffic, the vast majority of passengers will be connecting to other flights at Heathrow.

The reality is that the number of people on purely point to point flights within England and Wales is minimal, and not very profitable, hence the collapse of FlyBe

I think Flybe was a considerable amount to do with mismanagement ( from what I've managed to gather ) and their international flights always seemed busy from down here anyway. Got to thank Logan for picking up a lot of the pieces - they must think there's worthwhile domestic traffic ( even if it's slowly becoming not-domestic! ).

It is not the high cost that forces people down my way to fly, it's the fact you can be there & back & there again before the train arrives.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The French haven’t banned domestic flights.

They have banned the sale of tickets to domestic passengers on air routes where there is a rail alternative between the same cities that takes less than 2h30. It affects a handful of routes: Paris to Lyon, Rennes, Nantes and Bordeaux. The former is almost entirely connecting passengers on 4 flights a day; it will barely change. The last three all benefited from the construction of LGV SEA and LGV Bretagne Pays de Loire. Perhaps they are not doing as well as expected, and the French Government needed to “encourage les autres”.

If the same was applied in this country, the only effect would be to prevent a domestic only passenger buying a ticket from Heathrow to Manchester. But seeing as the vast majority of passengers on that route are connecting, the effect would be minimal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2021 ==



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2021 ==



Err, that’s exactly what it does do.

I meant for cross-country services.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

With modern communication there is much less "need" to travel by whatever means. Yes, they should be banned.

 

[Aictos]

With modern communication there is much less "need" to travel by whatever means. Yes, they should be banned.

I disagree, sometimes you have no choice but to travel for example at the moment I've had/have to attend three courses for work that required me to travel because they weren't available to be done from home.

I think rather then a all out ban, people should be given the choice until least HS2 is completed with both branches to Manchester, Leeds and maybe up to Scotland.

 

[PTR 444]

If the HS2 Heathrow spur had been approved, it would have been much easier to consolidate all international flights on that airport, as high-speed trains would have effectively replaced the feeder flights. The proposed arrangement of taking Crossrail to OOC then changing won’t have the same effect since people, especially those with luggage, do not like changing trains.

I suppose once all of HS2 is up and running, a compromise could be made to consolidate all UK and international flights on just three airports, so for example Heathrow becomes the main airport for London and the South East, Manchester becomes the airport for the rest of the UK and Edinburgh becomes the sole international airport for Scotland. Smaller domestic flights for remote Scottish islands could remain, but everything else non-international would go.

 

[miklcct]

I suppose once all of HS2 is up and running, a compromise could be made to consolidate all UK and international flights on just three airports, so for example Heathrow becomes the main airport for London and the South East, Manchester becomes the airport for the rest of the UK and Edinburgh becomes the sole international airport for Scotland. Smaller domestic flights for remote Scottish islands could remain, but everything else non-international would go.

This will be unrealistic as London Heathrow will not be likely to have enough capacity to handle all traffic.

I think we need at least London Heathrow, London Gatwick, Manchester and Birmingham for long-haul international flights from England and Edinburgh from Scotland, and numerous smaller airports such as Southampton, Bournemouth, etc for regional flights.

It is not possible to have all international flights from the UK depart from major airports only, remember that even a short-haul to France is classified as international from the UK, and such flights can use smaller airports. Non-international flights from the UK only covers the UK itself, Ireland, Channel Islands and Isle of Man, not many destinations.

 

[HSTEd]

It is not possible to have all international flights from the UK depart from major airports only, remember that even a short-haul to France is classified as international from the UK, and such flights can use smaller airports.

Well I think you find it is possible to order that, whether it is particularly sensible is another question.

Ideally we would concentrate all international flights onto one airport, but building such an airport in an appropriate location is problematic int he extreme.

 

[Bald Rick]

If the HS2 Heathrow spur had been approved, it would have been much easier to consolidate all international flights on that airport, as high-speed trains would have effectively replaced the feeder flights. The proposed arrangement of taking Crossrail to OOC then changing won’t have the same effect since people, especially those with luggage, do not like changing trains.

I think this is over stated. Yes passengers with luggage are less likely to change trains - but the vast majority of passengers to/from Heathrow that use rail to access the airport already do that (unless their destination is on the GWML towards Paddington or on the Piccadilly line towards Cockfosters).

An air passenger transferring in the airport to a domestic flight is doing that because of the speed / convenience (and price) of doing so compared to using another mode. Changing from plane to train is the big step due to the need to collect bags, get to station etc - further changes of train are a much smaller barrier.

I suppose once all of HS2 is up and running, a compromise could be made to consolidate all UK and international flights on just three airports, so for example Heathrow becomes the main airport for London and the South East, Manchester becomes the airport for the rest of the UK and Edinburgh becomes the sole international airport for Scotland. Smaller domestic flights for remote Scottish islands could remain, but everything else non-international would go.

Completely impractical I’m afraid.

In 2019 there were over 3 million commercial air traffic movements to/from UK airports. Domestic flows were 478,000, and as domestic movements are recorded twice, ie once at each airport, this means that domestic air traffic movements were 239,000, which accounted for 8.4% of all movements in the U.K. Getting on for half of these were to/from Northern Ireland or off shore islands of the U.K. (ie not the Channel Islands or IOM).

So, even if you removed all domestic flights within mainland U.K., you would reduce airport use by around 4.5%.

 

[yorkie]

In my opinion we do need to boost rail capacity (including HS2 etc) and ban most domestic flights, however some domestic flights do make sense, for example a flight from Belfast to London may be deemed reasonable, but Belfast to Glasgow may not, and in my opinion Glasgow to London definitely shouldn't be. But there will always be 'edge cases'

 

[miklcct]

An air passenger transferring in the airport to a domestic flight is doing that because of the speed / convenience (and price) of doing so compared to using another mode. Changing from plane to train is the big step due to the need to collect bags, get to station etc - further changes of train are a much smaller barrier.

A well-run rail-air link will alleviate the need of this. The high speed station will be built right inside the terminal with luggage automatically transferred into the luggage car that the passenger can collect at the final train station.

 

[Bald Rick]

The high speed station will be built right inside the terminal with luggage automatically transferred into the luggage car that the passenger can collect at the final train station.

Customs?