This is a major battle-horse for theACI Europe (Airports Council International): that of thediscontinuation of short-haul air services, replaced by rail services.
In Europe, Air France and the Lufthansa often under pressure from politicians. Northern European countries, Scandinavia also launched the battle. High taxes now apply to domestic flightsto discourage passengers.
Against this backdrop, a study funded by various European aviation institutions, including ACI Europe on the environmental benefits of these transfers.
Limited benefits of transferring overhead lines to rail
The report, entitled "Short-haul flying and sustainable connectivity", highlights that the situation is much more complex than it seems and analyses in detail what switching from one mode of transport to another entails.
The study, carried out by economic and financial consultancy Oxera, confirms thatthere is a physical limitation to rail transport replacing air transport. And that the benefits of transferring short-haul flights to rail are limited in terms of CO2 emissions.
The study acknowledges that rail generates less CO2 per passenger/km than air travel in terms of direct emissions. But it highlights the fact that these transfers generate other environmental, social and economic costs. She began by explaining that flights of less than 500 km account for only 1% to 2% of total aviation emissions in the EU.
Trains aren't everything
She also explains that the construction of new railway lines has a high environmental cost. Because of the CO2 emissions associated with cement and steel production. But also because of the emissions from the fuel used to develop infrastructure. However, the study fails to point out that such development is not permanent.
On the other hand, the study is right to point to thesignificant impact of such infrastructure on biodiversity. A train line - especially a high-speed one - causes damage to wildlife habitats and generates high noise levels.
The study goes even further for secondary airports. The latter generally benefit from overhead lines that are difficult to transfer to rail.. Firstly, because the construction of a high-speed line is not very profitable due to the cost of construction and the low volumes of traffic. This raises the question of the economic benefits of high-speed trains instead of aircraft.
What's more, there is no guarantee that passengers will systematically switch from air to rail. The study estimates that many would then opt for the car, a more flexible but also more polluting means of transport.
The study goes on to analyse the relationship between aviation and rail in the light of technological progress. Aircraft emissions are set to fall significantly in the coming years. This trend is based on technological advances in aircraft and the development of green fuels.
The decarbonisation of aviation is likely to be at a very advanced stage by the time a new rail infrastructure is deployed. The study explains thatby 2030, more and more hybrid aircraft will be tested on regional routes. And that these new devices will be able to reduce CO² emissions by 50 % per flight.
A decreasing cost differential in the future
As a result, as the rail and aviation sectors decarbonise, the gap in CO² emissions will narrow further.
The study also highlights that short-haul flights are playing a pioneering role in the EU's efforts to decarbonise air transport. They serve as a benchmark for new sustainable technologies. According to the study, "the compulsory transfer of aircraft to rail is not a miracle solution for reducing emissions. They would also compromise the ability of short-haul aviation to serve as a test bed for the decarbonisation of aviation".
The airline industry is therefore calling for greater balance and accuracy in the debate on intermodality.. "All modes of transport have a role to play; it's not a question of aviation or rail, but of aviation and rail", they explain.
The study emphasises that not everything is black and white for aviation and rail. However, it overlooks one A strong argument for ending short-haul operations: the economic aspect. But for most airlines, these flights are loss-making. This is what motivated the decisions by Air France and Lufthansa to discontinue certain short-haul routes. Or to reduce them to connecting flights to their hubs.
The surge in oil prices and the likely long-term sidelining of the Russia as a supplier should in the short term, encourage further transfers of air routes to rail.
