Austrian Airlines stops flights between Vienna and Salzburg, offers trains instead

Adlington

Member
Joined
3 Oct 2016
Messages
826
Austrian Airlines has agreed to cease to operate between Salzburg and Vienna as the rail journey is under three hours.

Flights will cease on July 20. In their place comes an improved ‘Airrail’ service with fast trains running between Salzburg and Vienna airport hourly between 0500 and 2030. These trains will carry the OS flight code. Business class customers go first class on the train.
More

This is a similar solution to that forced on Air France a few weeks ago (stop/restrict domestic flights if you want to get financial assistance from the government)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
54,629
Location
Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
Sounds good. About time we did it in the UK as well - HS2 should surely mean that Manchester-London flights should neither be needed nor allowed, with a quick and easy change for Heathrow at Old Oak if you're flying long-haul. The key is that they are "code-shared" so the train can be booked with your flight and count as a through flight booking in case a connection is missed in either direction.
 

Adlington

Member
Joined
3 Oct 2016
Messages
826
But who can force BA (and whoever else flies LHR-MAN) to stop these flights if there is no state subsidy/assistance involved?

Besides, the Austrian and French solutions use the existing tracks. I don't think any estimate exists as to when HS2 reaches Manchester (if it reaches....)
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,396
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Salzburg Airport does not have a rail connection - it's the #2 bus from Hbf every 20 minutes, taking 23 minutes (fare €2.50).
ÖBB already offers better than an hourly through service taking less than 3 hours Vienna Airport-Salzburg Hbf.
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,417
Location
Glasgow
Sounds good. About time we did it in the UK as well - HS2 should surely mean that Manchester-London flights should neither be needed nor allowed, with a quick and easy change for Heathrow at Old Oak if you're flying long-haul. The key is that they are "code-shared" so the train can be booked with your flight and count as a through flight booking in case a connection is missed in either direction.
Although ideally you would want a through check in of luggage since having to change trains with suitcases and/or family in tow will be viewed as as undesireable against a connecting flight.

Of course, Manchester Airport is also leagues above Heathrow Airport for direct rail connectivity and has been for the past 20+ years. It's also a large and worldly airport in its own right with daily services to different continents so not comparable to, say, Salzburg. You have to consider whether someone coming from say Leeds would be better off (environmentally speaking) routing via Possible Local Train/HS2/Old Oak/Heathrow or by direct train to Manchester Airport and then fly off to wherever. if they can avoid flying via Heathrow. It seems most people flying from Manchester can do this already, so I have to wonder whether we can just take Heathrow out of the picture entirely. This would suit Manchester Airport and probably the environment but I suspect BA would not be too happy about it.

In fact, Manchester is already doing a form of what is being suggested! The Glasgow - Manchester flight was cancelled permanently last year, and passengers can just route on the TPE service directly to Manchester Airport.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
11,176
Location
Isle of Man
About time we did it in the UK as well - HS2 should surely mean that Manchester-London flights should neither be needed nor allowed, with a quick and easy change for Heathrow at Old Oak if you're flying long-haul. The key is that they are "code-shared" so the train can be booked with your flight and count as a through flight booking in case a connection is missed in either direction.
BA domestic generally exists to connect into BA long-haul.

Assuming EU261 is still a thing if/when HS2 reaches Manchester, who's going to take the revenue risk for code-sharng? BA? Good luck with that. HS2? Already the government are saying HS2 needs to pay for itself from the farebox, so again, good luck with that.

Price BA out and people are still taking two flights on Emirates or Lufthansa or KLM or whoever, so the net environmental benefit is nil.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
2,703
More

This is a similar solution to that forced on Air France a few weeks ago (stop/restrict domestic flights if you want to get financial assistance from the government)
But who can force BA (and whoever else flies LHR-MAN) to stop these flights if there is no state subsidy/assistance involved?

Besides, the Austrian and French solutions use the existing tracks. I don't think any estimate exists as to when HS2 reaches Manchester (if it reaches....)
Air France have been banned from selling point to point tickets between cities 2.5 hours or less apart by train. They haven't been banned from running services. BA could not be specifically banned but parliament could ban ticket sales as long as the law set objective criteria and applied to all operators. I am not sure about international journeys though. Banning London to Paris and Brussels ticket sales would require a second operator to prevent a Eurostar monopoly and it might not be allowed under EU law.

BA domestic generally exists to connect into BA long-haul.

Assuming EU261 is still a thing if/when HS2 reaches Manchester, who's going to take the revenue risk for code-sharng? BA? Good luck with that. HS2? Already the government are saying HS2 needs to pay for itself from the farebox, so again, good luck with that.

Price BA out and people are still taking two flights on Emirates or Lufthansa or KLM or whoever, so the net environmental benefit is nil.
That is why the French solution is better than the Austrian. BA could still fill smaller (or fewer) planes for Manchester passengers connecting at Heathrow. It is much more convenient to check in, go through security in Manchester and have a simple change at Heathrow than take the train there.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
54,629
Location
Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
Assuming EU261 is still a thing if/when HS2 reaches Manchester, who's going to take the revenue risk for code-sharng? BA? Good luck with that. HS2? Already the government are saying HS2 needs to pay for itself from the farebox, so again, good luck with that.
The answer to that question is probably the same as the answer to it in countries that already offer that service.

Once HS2 is open, just ban English domestic flights. There is no need for any of them at all; the only domestic flights that have any justification to exist are those connecting London/Birmingham (or other regional airports south of there) with Scotland plus the Highlands and Islands socially necessary services. Then the airlines will soon find a way to make the alternative work.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
11,176
Location
Isle of Man
Then the airlines will soon find a way to make the alternative work.
Yes, KLM and Lufthansa will be cheering. The only airlines you'd damage are UK ones.

Take Newcastle. The main flights connecting to a long-haul hub are BA to Heathrow, KLM to Schiphol and Air France to Charles de Gaulle. All take about an hour, all are operated by Airbus A319s, all have exactly the same environmental impact.

BA are banned from domestic flights, so instead of a 1hr flight with a bag drop in Newcastle, you have a 2.5hrs train ride to London, then a transfer to Heathrow with all your bags, then bag drop, then security.

Or you could just fly KLM to Amsterdam, with the benefits of flying, and then on to the world from there.

I wonder what might be more popular?

That is why the French solution is better than the Austrian. BA could still fill smaller (or fewer) planes for Manchester passengers connecting at Heathrow.
Rumours are that about 80% of the load on BA domestic is connecting. You're talking dropping from an A321 to an A320. Hardly ground-breaking, and probably not worth the effort.

What the French do to stymie competition against the inept SNCF promote environmentally friendly travel is neither here nor there.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
15,018
Location
Manchester
The answer to that question is probably the same as the answer to it in countries that already offer that service.

Once HS2 is open, just ban English domestic flights. There is no need for any of them at all; the only domestic flights that have any justification to exist are those connecting London/Birmingham (or other regional airports south of there) with Scotland plus the Highlands and Islands socially necessary services. Then the airlines will soon find a way to make the alternative work.
It might work if the law can indeed be made England only. You always run into insurmountable problems with these ideas from communities who are special (because they're on an island) or "special" (because they like tax breaks that pollute the environment in the name of tourism). Unfortunately it seems that the government are continuing subsidy for some English flights to Newquay despite that. The law might shut some airports permanently too, so I'd set up a job transfer scheme with government funding for a couple of years for anyone affected.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
54,629
Location
Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
It might work if the law can indeed be made England only.
The easiest way to do it would probably be to ban all UK domestic flights of a distance less than <a bit more than Manchester-London, say 50 miles more>, with an exception of if the flight is operated on behalf of a Government agency (either central or devolved) and is paid a subsidy (which would allow for the Scottish socially necessary flights).
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,343
Unfortunately it seems that the government are continuing subsidy for some English flights to Newquay despite that
Even though it's not a particularly long journey in terms of mileage, neither road nor rail options are very attractive timewise. Both involve journeys in excess of 5 hours even with perfect traffic conditions/connections. Those are the kinds of journey times where a ~1 hour flight becomes really rather attractive, even allowing for getting to and from the airport, security checks etc.

I therefore don't think it is necessarily any more unreasonable for flights to be running to Newquay than it is for them to run between, say, Southampton and Newcastle.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
15,018
Location
Manchester
Even though it's not a particularly long journey in terms of mileage, neither road nor rail options are very attractive timewise. Both involve journeys in excess of 5 hours even with perfect traffic conditions/connections. Those are the kinds of journey times where a ~1 hour flight becomes really rather attractive, even allowing for getting to and from the airport, security checks etc.

I therefore don't think it is necessarily any more unreasonable for flights to be running to Newquay than it is for them to run between, say, Southampton and Newcastle.
This is certainly quite true. It's simply that in my view these services by air ought to be charged at a premium to reflect the carbon output and ready alternatives, ready alternatives that simply don't exist for journeys to, say, Dublin. Unfortunately the reverse has been true historically.

One solution could be to begin charging VAT on flights between two UK Airports, potentially with more special tax breaks for Northern Ireland. I believe MwSt, as they call it, is charged on German domestic flights.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
5,695
Location
UK
The easiest way to do it would probably be to ban all UK domestic flights of a distance less than <a bit more than Manchester-London, say 50 miles more>, with an exception of if the flight is operated on behalf of a Government agency (either central or devolved) and is paid a subsidy (which would allow for the Scottish socially necessary flights).
What don't you get? There's no need to have a stupid ban on domestic flights, hardly anyone flies from London to Manchester, they're mostly connecting through London Heathrow to long haul destinations.
Banning these flights could increase emissions, as the journey from Manchester to Chicago for example, is much longer via Amsterdam or Frankfurt than via London!
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
2,703
What don't you get? There's no need to have a stupid ban on domestic flights, hardly anyone flies from London to Manchester, they're mostly connecting through London Heathrow to long haul destinations.
Banning these flights could increase emissions, as the journey from Manchester to Chicago for example, is much longer via Amsterdam or Frankfurt than via London!
Banning point to point ticket sales within England and Wales would be of symbolic importance and would be worth doing. I agree that banning the flights would be completely counter productive both economically and environmentally. The idea of integrating long distance rail travel with air travel sounds great but would have very low uptake unless its as fast as air travel, highlighly reliable and the station is at the airport. That doesn't apply to Heathrow. The only reasons for a Northerner to take a train to Heathrow are when the cost is vastly lower (rare) or the current situation where there are few services running (hopefully never again). HS2 would only make it less inconvenient rather than competitive with changing at foreign hub airports.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
11,176
Location
Isle of Man
ready alternatives that simply don't exist for journeys to, say, Dublin.
There are ample sail-rail opportunities to Dublin and Belfast, etc, so don't forget to add tax there too. You mention Scotland, yet it is quicker by train from London to Edinburgh than it is London to Newquay.

I appreciate the environmental concerns as much as anyone, but the solution isn't this. Not unless there's the infrastructure in place to make rail travel to a long-haul hub as seamless as flying.

For domestic air travel, the routes which survive are those where rail travel is not a sustainable option. It's either too slow, or doesn't connect properly, or both.

Banning these flights could increase emissions, as the journey from Manchester to Chicago for example, is much longer via Amsterdam or Frankfurt than via London!
Precisely. All that would happen is foreign airlines would have a significant and immediate competitive advantage over British airlines.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
15,018
Location
Manchester
There are ample sail-rail opportunities to Dublin and Belfast, etc, so don't forget to add tax there too. You mention Scotland, yet it is quicker by train from London to Edinburgh than it is London to Newquay.
It's unclear whether or not a solo passenger would be saving any carbon by sailing from Holyhead to Dublin after catching a train from, say, Manchester, rather than flying.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
11,176
Location
Isle of Man
It's unclear whether or not a solo passenger would be saving any carbon by sailing from Holyhead to Dublin after catching a train from, say, Manchester, rather than flying.
There are a lot of variables with ferries, not least whether you take a cabin, which makes it harder to assess. But car ferries can be as low as 20g/km for a foot passenger, so sail/rail would be much less environmentally damaging.

People will take the path of least resistance, which for most domestic travel will be trains and cars. BA run, at most, twice daily from Leeds to London, really for the long-haul connection, and nowhere south of Leeds/Manchester (Newquay excepted!) has any sort of flight to London. There's no market for it.
 

Vespa

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2019
Messages
249
Location
Merseyside
I remember staying in Venice last year, I met an Austrian girl, I came by plane, she came by train from Vienna.
She said it worked out cheaper and not much difference in door to door time.

I enjoyed Venice especially the out of way places, Burano and Lido as well, had a good look around Venice railway station, it's quite big.
 

gsnedders

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2015
Messages
1,410
The easiest way to do it would probably be to ban all UK domestic flights of a distance less than <a bit more than Manchester-London, say 50 miles more>, with an exception of if the flight is operated on behalf of a Government agency (either central or devolved) and is paid a subsidy (which would allow for the Scottish socially necessary flights).
There's a reason why the French solution is phrased in terms of time-by-rail-alternative: distance is largely irrelevant, time for the journey much more so.

Of those within two-and-a-half hours of London by rail, the _only_ city which has air connections is Manchester. We're literally arguing about whether to forcibly stop the Manchester flights. That's it. There's already no market for the rest.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
3,500
A few years ago I flew to Cuba on Air France, connecting at CDG. If all flights between London and Paris had been banned, and I had been forced to connect via Eurostar, I don't think I would have gone this route
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
12,948
There's a reason why the French solution is phrased in terms of time-by-rail-alternative: distance is largely irrelevant, time for the journey much more so.

Of those within two-and-a-half hours of London by rail, the _only_ city which has air connections is Manchester. We're literally arguing about whether to forcibly stop the Manchester flights. That's it. There's already no market for the rest.
It’s not even that. The equivalent to the Air France ‘deal’ would be to prevent BA (only) from selling point to point tickets for London - Manchester. Other airlines could run in the route if they so wishe d(nine do now, but have in the past), and any passnengers flying between the two on a connection would be ok. As this is, apparently, a majority of passengers, then it’s safe to assume flights would continue, as they will in France.

(But don’t forget there are Leeds - London flights).
 

FQTV

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2012
Messages
841
(But don’t forget there are Leeds - London flights).
Not any more, I’m afraid. British Airways announced at the end of May that the Heathrow to Leeds Bradford route has been permanently (as much as these things can be in aviation) suspended.
 

FQTV

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2012
Messages
841
Oh!

(But good).
:D

The effect of the route suspension, however, will inevitably be to keep aloft more KLM (and even Aer Lingus) flights than the market might otherwise have supported. I suspect that Leeds Bradford passenger splits would have been one of the highest proportions for interline connections at Heathrow - almost no-one can have been using it as a point-to-point service, other than perhaps a few folks going to and from areas around the Western fringes of London.
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,417
Location
Glasgow
:D

The effect of the route suspension, however, will inevitably be to keep aloft more KLM (and even Aer Lingus) flights than the market might otherwise have supported. I suspect that Leeds Bradford passenger splits would have been one of the highest proportions for interline connections at Heathrow - almost no-one can have been using it as a point-to-point service, other than perhaps a few folks going to and from areas around the Western fringes of London.
Also I've always got the impression that Leeds-Bradford Airport isn't exactly in a convenient location for a lot of people in Yorkshire, especially if you're not driving there. It seems like many can reach Manchester Airport more easily than getting to Leeds-Bradford. I once had to fly out of there when I was living in Manchester for a stag do, think I got a train to Leeds then to Horsforth and then a taxi if I remember.
 

gsnedders

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2015
Messages
1,410
It’s not even that. The equivalent to the Air France ‘deal’ would be to prevent BA (only) from selling point to point tickets for London - Manchester. Other airlines could run in the route if they so wishe d(nine do now, but have in the past), and any passnengers flying between the two on a connection would be ok. As this is, apparently, a majority of passengers, then it’s safe to assume flights would continue, as they will in France.
They have since announced plans to prohibit any airline operating the routes, not just Air France. But yes, flights connecting passengers are allowed, but that very much restricts the number of flights and decreasing frequency will make rail seem more appealing for those passengers too.

I do agree with all of the above comments about how this will play into the wider aviation market: without guaranteed connections to/from rail, it seems exceptionally likely that much of the traffic will simply move to other hubs.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
11,176
Location
Isle of Man
Leeds-Bradford Airport isn't exactly in a convenient location for a lot of people in Yorkshire
For Bradford, it's inconvenient. It's a shorter journey by time to Manchester from my parents' house in south Bradford. For York, Harrogate and northern Leeds it is convenient though.

British Airways announced at the end of May that the Heathrow to Leeds Bradford route has been permanently (as much as these things can be in aviation) suspended.
Interesting, but not a huge surprise. It was down to daily at one point quite recently. What will be interesting is how many go KLM instead, how many drive to Manchester to use Emirates/Delta/Singapore instead, and how many make alternative arrangements to schlep down to Heathrow.

Without Jet2 having it as their main base, LBA wouldn't be in a strong position I have to say.
 

FQTV

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2012
Messages
841
For Bradford, it's inconvenient. It's a shorter journey by time to Manchester from my parents' house in south Bradford. For York, Harrogate and northern Leeds it is convenient though.



Interesting, but not a huge surprise. It was down to daily at one point quite recently. What will be interesting is how many go KLM instead, how many drive to Manchester to use Emirates/Delta/Singapore instead, and how many make alternative arrangements to schlep down to Heathrow.

Without Jet2 having it as their main base, LBA wouldn't be in a strong position I have to say.
There’s a (potentially not very rigorously investigated) school of thought that says that the latter day BA service from Leeds was, in fact, an opportunity to tap into the formerly loyal bmi client base in that area, with lower operating costs than a couple of rotations through Manchester that they had airframes and slots at Heathrow for.

The seismic changes in the whole aviation market in the last few months, plus commercial intelligence that BA has gained over the last (say) five years, means that weak twigs are ripe to prune.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
4,503
Location
Dalton Georgia USA
Sounds good. About time we did it in the UK as well - HS2 should surely mean that Manchester-London flights should neither be needed nor allowed, with a quick and easy change for Heathrow at Old Oak if you're flying long-haul. The key is that they are "code-shared" so the train can be booked with your flight and count as a through flight booking in case a connection is missed in either direction.
Sounds like a very sensible idea. Hope it happens.
 

Top