Author: Tom Walters
In our monthly series, Window on Europe, we shine a light on the best policy ideas coming from the rest of continent, and look at the lessons for the United Kingdom. In this piece, Tom Walters takes a look at France’s ban on short domestic flights. You can keep up to date with these articles and IEEP UK’s other work by subscribing to our monthly newsletter.
France became the first EU Member State to restrict certain short domestic flights where a viable high-speed rail alternative exists, using Article 20 of EU Regulation 1008/2008 to justify the measure on environmental grounds. While the direct emissions impact of the ban is limited due to its narrow scope, it has established an important legal and political precedent that is already influencing policy debates elsewhere in Europe. By contrast, post-Brexit UK aviation law lacks a comparable legal mechanism for restricting flights, making the introduction of similar measures both legally and politically challenging.
Why focus on flights?
Aviation is among the most carbon-intensive forms of transport and contributed around 4% of the EU’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2022. Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs) made up just 0.6% of fuels supplied at EU airports in 2024, meanwhile, electric aircraft or hydrogen-fuelled planes remain still a long way off, both due to limited technological advances and safety concerns. Whilst flights only account for approximately 14% of Transport GHG in the EU, road transport is currently decarbonising at a much faster pace. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) forecasts that international aviation emissions could triple by 2050 due to increasing demand, and as such the aviation sector will likely represent a far higher share of the EU’s transport GHG emissions in the coming years.
The climate impact of aviation extends beyond carbon dioxide emissions. Aircraft also release nitrogen oxides, water vapour, soot, and other pollutants at high altitudes, contributing to warming through non-CO₂ effects such as contrail cirrus cloud formation. According to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), these non-CO₂ effects accounted for around two-thirds of aviation’s total climate impact in 2018.
Alongside their environmental impact, restrictions on flying have also been demanded from an ethical perspective, as just one percent of the global population is responsible for 50% of flight emissions. It is believed that 80% of the world’s population has never flown and the carbon emissions of aviation is therefore far from negligible for a sector serving only a small share of the global population, with it often being described as one of the primary drivers of the extreme differences in personal carbon footprints across the global population.
The Route to the French ban
The French restrictions on short-haul flights originated in the work of the Citizens’ Convention for Climate convened in 2019 following the ‘Yellow Vest’ protests, to develop socially acceptable climate policies. The Convention proposed banning domestic flights where a rail alternative of less than four hours existed, framing the measure as part of a broader strategy to reduce transport emissions through modal shift toward rail. However, the proposal was substantially diluted during the legislative process with the final version incorporated into the 2021 Climate and Resilience Law (Loi Climat et Résilience) reducing the threshold from four 2.5 hours by train. The Loi Climat et Résilience itself could be passed domestically by the French Parliament in 2021, but the specific provisions restricting domestic air services could not legally enter into force until France notified the European Commission under Regulation 1008/2008, which relates to ‘the common rules for the operation of air services in the Community’ and creates a liberalised and integrated EU aviation market in which EU airlines can operate freely across member states under common rules. Section 20 of the Regulation does, however, allow for EU Member States to ‘limit or refuse the exercise of traffic rights’ in circumstances where ‘serious environmental problems exist’. According to Section 20(1), this is particularly acceptable ‘when other modes of transport provide appropriate levels of service’.
Despite initial concerns around the measure being discriminatory, with the potential to distort competition between air carriers due to the French government’s exemptions for domestic flights serving as feeder connections to international and long-haul services through hub airports, particularly Paris Charles de Gaulle (CDG), the EU Commission ultimately accepted the ban in December 2022. In its Implementing Decision 2022/2358, the Commission explicitly linked the French measure to wider EU climate objectives contained within the European Green Deal and the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, both of which call for major reductions in transport-sector emissions. The Commission recognised the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gases, citing both the European Climate Law and findings from the IPCC on the necessity of rapid emissions reductions. Within this framework, the Commission accepted France’s claim that limiting short flights formed part of a broader strategy to tackle climate change by encouraging modal shift toward less carbon-intensive forms of transport.
Interestingly, while the Commission highlights in recital 38 the EU’s ongoing efforts to decarbonise aviation, particularly through measures such as SAFs and other technological pathways, it nevertheless appears to implicitly acknowledge that some of these instruments are ‘not yet applicable’ or sufficient to deliver the level of emissions reductions required in the sector. Therefore, at the present stage of technological and policy development, demand-side measures such as limiting short flights may remain justifiable to the Commission as a complement to supply-side decarbonisation strategies. What is clear, however, is that key to the restrictions being passed is the availability of high-speed rail in France, which provides an alternative ‘mode of transport with an appropriate level of service’.
Limitations and impact of the ban
Due to the limited nature of the ban, the law has been criticised by some for its lack of ambition and its shortcomings. To increase the likelihood of the Commission authorising the measure and to counter arguments of the ban being more ‘restrictive’ than necessary, after reducing the cut-off time from four to 2.5 hours, the government also assured Brussels that the restrictions would only come into force where there were multiple daily departures of high-speed trains between two destinations and that travellers would be able to spend eight hours at their selected destination before returning to their original destination. Additionally, the measure also treats Paris-Charles de Gaulle and Lyon-Saint Exupéry airports as destinations in their own right rather than the cities of Paris and Lyon, and they were therefore excluded on these terms, as they fell outside of the 2.5 hour limit. Of the original eight routes which were considered under the original 2.5 hour proposal, the measure currently affects three routes: Paris Orly–Nantes (343 km), Paris Orly–Lyon (389 km), and Paris Orly–Bordeaux (491 km) and whilst the measure is highly symbolic, its impact remains limited.
Regardless, the French authorities have estimated that the closure of the three routes has resulted in an overall reduction of 55,000 tonnes of CO₂ annually. Furthermore, the French authorities envisage that if the rail operator is able to improve conditions, the routes CDG-Lyon, CDG-Rennes and Lyon-Marseille will also fall under the restrictions, which could potentially see further emissions reductions of 54,900 tonnes of CO₂ per year. Finally, it is also noted that the measure will ‘prevent the (future) creation of air services for point-to-point traffic from the Paris region to 60% of the 40 most populous cities in metropolitan France’ with 24 of these cities being accessible by train from Paris in under 2.5 hours.
Perhaps more importantly, it appears that the efforts by the French government to restrict short domestic flights for climate purposes has encouraged others within the EU to consider following suit. For instance, Spain’s Sustainable Transport Law passed in December 2025 specifically refers to reducing domestic flights on routes where rail alternatives under 2.5 hours exist. It legally requires the Ministry of Transport and Sustainable Mobility to conduct a technical study within six months of the law coming into force to analyse the impact of the prohibition of these flights on reducing emissions, which must be published this month (June 2026), alongside a public consultation on any restrictions proposed.
The UK’s route to a potential ban
As the UK continues to decarbonise its surface transport at pace, with the increased uptake of electric cars and electrification of trains, there has been an increasing focus on the aviation sector. According to the Climate Change Committee’s (CCC) Seventh Carbon Budget, aviation’s share of UK emissions is ‘set to increase to 27% by 2040, making it the UK’s highest-emitting sector.’ Whilst international flights contribute by far the largest share of emissions from UK aviation, the domestic market also grew by 38% between 1990 and 2023 in terms of passengers. Only emissions from domestic flights are currently included in carbon budgets.
There appears to be widespread support among UK citizens for restricting short flights. A 2021 YouGov poll found that well over half of respondents (57%) ‘somewhat supported’ or ‘strongly supported’ a ban on short flights in the UK if there was a rail alternative that could cover the journey in less than 2.5 hours. Evidence suggests that restricting short flights could have a potentially significant impact on reducing the UK’s carbon emissions. Research carried out by the Intergenerational Foundation found that, based on data from 2019, ‘a ban on flights with a rail alternative under 4.5 hours could result in 7.35 million passengers moving over to rail, equivalent to 66% of air passengers within Great Britain’. The same research found that of the ten most popular domestic air routes, which accounted for 81% of total demand in 2019, on six of the routes, a train journey between the two locations would add less than 20 minutes to the total journey time.
However, at present, there seems little political appetite for flight bans in the UK. The Government’s Jet Zero Strategy published in 2022 states that the ‘approach for decarbonising aviation will focus on the rapid development of technologies: on operational improvements and SAF in the near term and the adoption of Zero Emission Fuels in the longer term alongside the continued use of markets and removal measures’. Similarly, whilst in 2025 the CCC promoted the introduction of demand management measures, these would mostly be through increasing costs for passengers through raising Air Passenger Duty, and introducing a kerosene tax and frequent flier levies. While the CCC do highlight limits on airport expansion as a potential policy lever available to the Government, the Committee’s Seventh Carbon Budget states that any ‘restrictions on domestic flights would need to be coupled with improving rail alternatives, which is high cost for the small share of aviation demand it would address’.
Even if there were to be a shift in political will to restrict short flights for environmental purposes, it is currently difficult to identify a clear legal route to a ban. Following the UK’s departure from the EU, The Operation of Air Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 adapted Regulation No 1008/2008 for domestic use. Crucially, however, this law removed Articles 18–22 and thus the omission of Article 20, discussed above, from retained UK aviation law means that post-Brexit aviation governance no longer provides a legal avenue to restrict flights.
The Civil Aviation Act 2012 partially embeds environmental considerations within UK aviation governance with Section 1(6)(d) requiring the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), to ‘have regard’ to the need for airport operators to take reasonable measures to reduce, control, or mitigate adverse environmental effects associated with airports and aircraft operations whilst Section 84 obliges the ‘CAA to publish information and advice’ relating to the environmental effects of civil aviation. However, these provisions primarily establish procedural and advisory environmental responsibilities rather than conferring an express power to restrict or prohibit air services on environmental grounds. The Environment Act 2021 transferred key aspects of EU environmental governance into UK law, created the Office for Environmental Protection to oversee compliance, and enables the Government to set legally binding environmental targets, including for air quality. As aviation can contribute to local air pollution around airports, these targets may indirectly influence aviation policy. The Act also incorporates principles such as prevention, precaution, and polluter pays, which may support stronger environmental measures in the aviation sector. Despite this, it does not provide a direct legal basis for restricting flights, instead operating primarily as a framework for environmental governance, accountability, and oversight.
Interestingly, UK case law and jurisprudence may prove to be a tool for future flight restrictions, or at least, the prevention of the introduction of new routes or airport expansion. Whilst ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal ruling in R (Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd held that the Government’s Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), supporting the proposed construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport, was unlawful because the Secretary of State for Transport had failed adequately to consider the UK’s climate change commitments. By recognising the relevance of statutory climate commitments within aviation governance, the case may indirectly strengthen the legal legitimacy of future demand-management measures.
On balance, however, it appears that whilst the French ban, based on Article 20 of EU Regulation 1008/2008, will continue to restrict short domestic flights and may be emulated by other EU Member States, the UK at present may find it difficult to implement a similar policy. Not only is there seemingly a lack of political ambition in this area and no clear legal mechanism to implement a ban, but the absence of comparable high-speed rail alternatives would make it more difficult for the Government to demonstrate that any restrictions were proportionate and justified, increasing the risk of legal challenge, particularly through judicial review. Nevertheless, the French experience demonstrates that aviation demand-management measures can form part of a wider transport decarbonisation strategy where suitable alternatives exist, providing an important precedent for future policy debates across Europe, and, with the sector struggling to decarbonise at the necessary rate and louder calls from the public to restrict short flights, the UK may soon be required to consider similar measures.