 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Destinations USA and CanadaEuropeAustralia and NZAsiaLatin AmericaCaribbean IslandsAfricaTravel Types Air TravelCruisesRV Travel |
Travel Forum / Travel Types / Air Travel / July 2008Air France eyes move to railways
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7489483.stm Short-haul Air France passengers could soon be moving onto trains Air France is holding talks on a joint venture that could lead to it offering high-speed rail travel. The airline confirmed reports it was discussing a possible tie-up with Veolia, a French utility firm that also runs several rail services. Commentators suggest such a deal would enable the airline to cut fuel costs by moving some services onto the railways. Under the plans Veolia would run trains from Air France's hub airport in Paris to other European destinations. "We are reviewing the feasibility and possibility of such a project, but it is too early to discuss its terms," an Air France spokesman told the Reuters news agency. Competition plans The joint venture is likely to remain focused on international travel as, under European Union plans, legislation is set to free up the international rail passenger market in 2010. Veolia has previously run public rail franchises in several countries worldwide under the now-defunct Connex brand. It now runs continental Europe's largest private freight service and several rail connections. With significant improvements being made to the network of high speed rail routes in Europe the potential of such services is improving. As it confirmed reports of the talks, Air France added it had been looking at launching its own rail links over the past four years as it had been unhappy with the service provided when it had bought rail seats off existing train operators. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7489483.stm > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The airline confirmed reports it was discussing a possible tie-up with On French radio this morning they said it would be mainly aimed at taking passengers to the air terminals. This has come about as the TGV (tres grand vitesse) high speed train which travels at 300 mph makes it as fast, city center to city center as using air shuttles in France. The train is of course much friendlier environmentally. cpmac ------- Audio Tour Guide d day Normandy. Self Guiding. http://normandy-tour-guide.cpmac.com.audio-guide.php3 Driver guide Normandy >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7489483.stm >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > air shuttles in France. The train is of course much friendlier > environmentally. TGV's travel at up to (a maximum of) 200 mph (320kph) in commercial use. Last year a specially modified TGV reached 575 kph (357 mph) in test runs. Gerry >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7489483.stm >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> On French radio this morning they said it would be mainly aimed at taking >> passengers to the air terminals. Probably because that way they won't need to build a row of check in desks at the railway station. I doubt that AF are aiming this just at point to point pax, they are also looking for transfer pax. So pax will check in at the normal desk in BRU/AMS/DUS/CGN/FRA [1] for their flight to LAX via CDG and then go 'downstairs' to catch the train for the first leg. [1] Is there any other rail connected airports that makes sense? tim >[1] Is there any other rail connected airports that makes sense? Lyon Satolas is also on the TGV line. >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7489483.stm >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > taking passengers to the air terminals. > This has come about as the TGV (tres grand vitesse) Train à Grande Vitesse > high speed train which travels at 300 mph makes it as fast, city > center to city center as using air shuttles in France. And even outside France. The time you need to go to and from the airport at either end of the journey, plus the hours wasted for check in, mean that quite a few destinations further afield that have TGV lines are almost as quick to get to on the TGV as by plane. I live at about 50 km from Marseille-Provence airport. An hour to get there, an hour (luckily, this isn't Heathrow) needed for check-in, and hour say to get to the centre of London and a two hour flight. 5 hours. The direct TGV from Avignon that runs in the summer can get me to London in just over six hours. A little longer (with a half hour drive to Avignon) but far more comfortable and pleasant. The only disadvantage is the price. > The train is of course much friendlier environmentally. That too. [] > And even outside France. The time you need to go to and from the airport > at either end of the journey, plus the hours wasted for check in, mean [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > hours. A little longer (with a half hour drive to Avignon) but far more > comfortable and pleasant. The only disadvantage is the price. Though for domestic travel, if you book ahead on the TGV, it's very reasonable- less so for Eurostar (if not terrible.) We're taking the TGV from Marseille to Paris in a few weeks time for 20 euro each, and our hotel in Marseille is only around 15 minutes walk from the train station... I'm pretty sure that 'door to door' the train will be quicker to our hotel in Paris (in total journey time) than taking the plane.  Signature(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net (email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins > And even outside France. The time you need to go to and from the airport > at either end of the journey, plus the hours wasted for check in, mean [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > hours. A little longer (with a half hour drive to Avignon) but far more > comfortable and pleasant. The only disadvantage is the price. I'll add an enthusiastic endorsement to this post, referring to almost any journey one might want to make in Germany or in northern Europe. And point of doing this is not to tell people with European travel experience what they already know; it's to try to build a broader public awareness of this in the U.S. -- especially awareness of the "far more comfortable and pleasant" (and productive) aspect of high-speed rail travel -- so that U.S. residents will start demanding more investment in the sadly neglected infrastructure we need for this. AES wrote on Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:18:22 -0700: >> And even outside France. The time you need to go to and from >> the airport at either end of the journey, plus the hours [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to almost any journey one might want to make in Germany or in > northern Europe. I would support your endorsement heartily. What the US needs for safety and ecological reasons is fast passenger trains for short to medium jouneys. A true speed of 150- 200mph including stops would better most East Coast air traffic. If maglev tracks could be built even coast to coast trains might be practical. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > AES wrote on Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:18:22 -0700: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > East Coast air traffic. If maglev tracks could be built even coast to > coast trains might be practical. The German Transrapid maglev project was finally abandoned recently after decades of development and only one sale, the Shanghai-Pudong link. The last failed project leading to abandonment was the Munich airport link. The cost was finally estimated at over 3 bn Euros for the 40km distance. In addition, a serious fatal accident on the test track in 2006 lead to doubts about the safety. T. >On French radio this morning they said it would be mainly aimed at >taking passengers to the air terminals. That's not inconsistent, since there are TGV stations adjacent to the airports at CDG and Lyon Satolas. Rail/air interlining has been popular in Germany for a long time, after all. >This has come about as the TGV (tres grand vitesse) high speed train >which travels at 300 mph It's 300 kph, not mph, in revenue service, actually, but that's still about as fast as a commuter prop plane. R's, John >>On French radio this morning they said it would be mainly aimed at >>taking passengers to the air terminals. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It's 300 kph, not mph, in revenue service, actually, but that's still > about as fast as a commuter prop plane. And it's 300 km/h, not kph :-) R >>>On French radio this morning they said it would be mainly aimed at >>>taking passengers to the air terminals. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > R Tomatoe, Tomato, we knew what he was talking about. >>>On French radio this morning they said it would be mainly aimed at >>>taking passengers to the air terminals. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > R Really? Are you positively sure your definition is the only one? There are other sourcs, but try this one. kph abbr. kilometers per hour (Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. >>>>On French radio this morning they said it would be mainly aimed at >>>>taking passengers to the air terminals. >>> >>>That's not inconsistent, since there are TGV stations adjacent to the >>>airports at CDG and Lyon Satolas. Rail/air interlining has been popular >>>in Germany for a long time, after all. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Really? > Are you positively sure your definition is the only one? It's not 'my' definition, it's the international one. > There are other sourcs, but try this one. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. > Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. A US dictionary is not the place to look for definitions of units or their symbols. Try http://www.bipm.org/en/si/. And take a look at any speedo (even UK ones). R > A US dictionary is not the place to look for definitions of units or their > symbols. Try http://www.bipm.org/en/si/. > > And take a look at any speedo (even UK ones). As an American, what resource should I use. Why do you think you reference is the only correct one? After all, you probably spell color "colour". Am I wrong because my dictionary says "color"? >> A US dictionary is not the place to look for definitions of units or >> their symbols. Try http://www.bipm.org/en/si/. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reference is the only correct one? After all, you probably spell color > "colour". Am I wrong because my dictionary says "color"? You use the resource I cited. It's the body that defines the International System of Units (and the US is part of that body). R "rousseau" <invalid@invalid.invalid> kirjoitti viestissä:6da5qkF1j6j6U1@mid.individual.net... >>>On French radio this morning they said it would be mainly aimed at >>>taking passengers to the air terminals. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And it's 300 km/h, not kph :-) Actually these are one and the same measure. > "rousseau" <invalid@invalid.invalid> kirjoitti > viestissä:6da5qkF1j6j6U1@mid.individual.net... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> > Actually these are one and the same measure. He probably thinks there is a big difference between a cubic centimeter and a milliliter. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7489483.stm > > Short-haul Air France passengers could soon be moving onto trains Arenn't they there already? We took TGV to Lyon. 300 miles in 2 hours. No comment from his part, he has nothing to say, just c/p > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7489483.stm > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > had been unhappy with the service provided when it had bought rail > seats off existing train operators. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.