As we said earlier, the rescue of Air France is not a blank cheque to the airline and comes with conditions. And these conditions were not long in coming: the Minister of the Economy demanded that the airline stop operating its shortest domestic flights where it is in direct competition with the train (flights of less than 2h30).

A decision that inevitably caused a stir and logically led to diametrically opposed reactions depending on whether one was in the aviation sector or on the side of the environmentalists (but the very fact of opposing the two already shows a certain narrow-mindedness but that’s another subject).

We will see that, whichever way you look at it, there is no reason to get excited about this announcement for the following reasons.

• A decision that is detrimental to our transport infrastructure and passengers
• The 2.5 hours: a questionable limit
• A gift to foreign competition
• An operationally complicated rule to apply
• A distortion in competition
• environmental
• A decision already taken that does not change anything
• A logic of confrontation for a sterile debate

A decision that is detrimental to our transport infrastructure and passengers

Let’s face it, a world in which nobody moves and stays at home does not exist and will never exist, whatever some crazy people think. Businesses have to function, people go on holiday, families get together, children are unfortunately shunted from one parent to another, people have to go for treatment…

For a country like France, having a transport infrastructure worthy of the name is essential. Worthy means capable of connecting two cities within a reasonable time and of dealing with emergency situations if necessary.

In order not to exclude anything, we will assume that there are four ways of travelling over medium or long distances: car, train, plane and waterways. We will skip the waterways for obvious reasons, the car, which in terms of pollution is the means of transport to be eradicated par excellence over medium/long distances, there are only two left.

Younger people may have forgotten this episode, but let us remember the 1999 storm. 65% of the country’s railways were out of service. One week to get back to an acceptable level (and here we applaud the work of the SNCF teams for this achievement).

This is just one example, but it is not uncommon for trains to be disrupted for a few days to more than a week as a result of a storm or major weather event. And then what do we do?

Where an aircraft only needs two operational airports, a train needs two stations and a track between them. Ultimately it can do without the station but not the tracks. Putting an airport back into service is one thing, cleaning hundreds of kilometres of track (and we’re only talking about the main lines…) is another. Not to mention EDF, which has to repair the power lines, otherwise the tracks are useless.

During these episodes we are happy to find alternative means of transport to the train in the same way that we are happy to find a TGV when planes are grounded by snow.

Some will say that these are exceptional episodes? According to experts, they will become more and more common. But then again, it is precisely the ability to cope with such circumstances that makes a country resilient or not, whether it gets stuck for nothing or not.

An observation which, apart from any received idea, pleads for the co-existence of two means of public transport.

Then, and this is a more sensitive issue, there is the fact that the employees of the businesses that operate these modes of transport occasionally go on strike or are even prevented from working by the strikes of others (air traffic control). We are not going to discuss here the propensity of some and others to use and abuse this right, let us limit ourselves to noting that it exists (and fortunately) and that it is used.

Whatever the mode of transport considered, it is easy to understand that the fewer operators there are, the easier it is for their employees to hold the country hostage for lack of alternatives. Fortunately, we have alternatives to Air France with the low-cost airlines, whether we like them or not. For the SNCF, we will have to wait a little longer.

Of course, the lack of competition also affects prices, to the detriment of the consumer, but that is another matter.

So if we look at it from a totally objective point of view of good service to the territory, of good development of the territory, it is desirable to maintain at least two means of public transport and for each to have at least two operators.

The 2.5 hour rule, a questionable limit

The 2.5 hour limit can also be questioned. So yes, in normal circumstances, the plane and the train on a flight of this duration are equal. But there are enough exceptions to be noted.

The Paris area is big. Going to Nantes or Bordeaux from the southern suburbs of Paris is much faster via Orly.

When you have a business trip to Bordeaux, there is a good chance that you will visit a business located in or near the Merignac business park. So close to the airport. When you know the traffic in Bordeaux, arriving by the station is suicide for those with a tight schedule.

I won’t even mention because it doesn’t concern the majority of passengers that between the passenger who has access to the priority lanes and the others the time spent at the airport before the flight (or even on arrival) is not at all the same.

But this point is anecdotal compared to what follows.

A gift to foreign competition

It is quite understandable that a 2.5 hour flight is not so “efficient” compared to a TGV journey when you take into account the time it takes to get to the airport, the controls etc. But then why are the planes full? The market should take over the plane in a natural way. Well, this is not the case and there are many reasons for this. One of these is connecting traffic: a large number of passengers on these routes are connecting to or from an international flight.

Here we quickly understand that the interest in arriving at Montparnasse and then going to Roissy is rather limited. Banning connecting flights would be very disadvantageous for passengers, for Air France, and would be a waste of public money.

First of all, this will take traffic away from Air France, and that’s easy to understand. But this will also help its competitors to develop! The passenger departing from Bordeaux who does not have a flight to Roissy will not refuse to take an international flight! He will simply take advantage of the flights from Bordeaux offered by Lufthansa, British Airways or Turkish Airlines to make his connection in Munich, Frankfurt or Istanbul. And we can safely predict that if Air France abandoned Bordeaux or Nantes, foreign airlines would rush to use the slots left available to feed their hubs!

We are willing to give 7 billion to Air France to save the airline but if it is at the same time to kill its domestic routes and to allow Lufthansa, Turkish, British Airways and others to develop while, mechanically, making Air France lose long-haul passengers who would thus pass to the competition, it is totally irresponsible We might as well give the money to Lufthansa (which is negotiating with its own government, but we’ll talk about that in a few days…). Let’s add that on departure from France the foreign airlines we have mentioned are most often cheaper and have nothing to be ashamed of in terms of service compared to Air France (not to say that sometimes they are much better), which passengers know well

Ironically, at a time when there is once again tension between Air France and KLM, it would be possible to travel via Amsterdam to take a KLM long-haul flight. Not the ideal way of calming things down when both airlines are doing ‘cash apart’. Or, but at TravelGuys we are a bit vicious sometimes, we can consider a Bordeaux-Amsterdam-Paris-XXX which would be great fun. Less so from an ecological point of view, but when you make rules you de facto generate the methods to circumvent them.

And let’s not talk about the TGV routes that exist between the provincial cities and Roissy. Too long, much longer than going to Paris intra muros and with too little frequency. This may occasionally be acceptable for a tourist trip, but not for a business trip!

Fortunately, there is no question, at least initially, of banning connecting flights. But even with this approach, it will not be easy to enforce the rule.

An operationally complicated rule to apply

Of course, for those who have an Air France (or partner airline) ticket with a connection in Paris for an international flight, the question does not arise. But not everyone who leaves the provinces to take an international flight to Paris makes that second flight on Air France ! Firstly, because Air France and its partners do not go everywhere, but secondly, as has been said, because on departure from France Air France is not always the most competitive and that this is a very price-sensitive sector, at least for the general public. This is not a criticism, it’s just an observation, especially as these are policies assumed by the airlines through their market strategies, which we talked about some time ago. Air France is expensive from France and very competitive from other countries, same for Lufthansa which is more affordable from France than from Germany etc.

In short, if a passenger takes a Bordeaux-Roissy flight on Air France and then leaves on…let’s say American Airlines, will this be considered a feeder flight for a connection or a single flight as the two segments will not be on the same ticket? And how to control? Make the sale conditional on the existence of a second segment regardless of the airline? The existence of this ticket will be impossible to verify at the time of booking. And at the very least, you can take a refundable ticket and cancel it right afterwards…it will be expensive but it will only be for 24 or 48 hours before you get your money back.

Or should domestic flights only be allowed for Air France customers who have a connection? This would be great news for our airline but probably illegal from a competition law point of view.

A distortion in competition

Giving Air France an illegitimate advantage over the competition would not only be illegal but also harmful to the passenger who has never seen prices fall when a market is in a de facto monopoly situation.

But the reverse is also true. Let Air France no longer serve certain cities (because we are talking about 2.5 hour journeys today, but beware of what may happen tomorrow) and others will take their place. If you think that Easyjet, for one, is going to let the seat be free without moving.

Here again, we say that giving 7 billion directly or indirectly to an airline on the one hand and helping the competition to develop on the remains of its activity on the other is throwing public money down the drain.

So yes, one could say that for Air France this ball and chain is the counterpart of the rescue (paradoxical the idea of the doctor who revives on the one hand while administering intravenous poison on the other). But then again, that would be forgetting that :

• Unlike Air France low cost airlines live year round on public funds through subsidies from local authorities. A subject that we will be talking about in the near future.
• As far as the SNCF is concerned, it has been a permanent rescue operation for ages for a business that is far from the quality of service of its European neighbours, light years away from what we see further afield (Japan…) and has left territories to decay to such an extent that the state subsidises air travel to remedy the situation. This is the only case where legacy airlines are subsidised because they replace the SNCF for its public service mission, which it does not fulfil, whereas, as has been said, low-cost airlines live off blackmail from local authorities. But the finances of the SNCF are another matter that will deserve an article in its own time.

And while we’re on the subject of competition, we’ll have to be told how the competition authorities can fail to condemn taxes on air travel that only aim to finance a historically profligate SNCF instead of financing the sector’s forced environmental transition or global policies that don’t benefit just one player.

An environmental illusion

Flying pollutes and trains are clean. There is some truth to it but it is also very reductive and when you open people’s eyes to the real facts with figures they often change their position.

Let’s make no mistake: the idea here is not to greenwash, to deny the pollution caused by air travel or to engage in sterile parochial quarrels. The environment is a serious issue, too serious to be dealt with by national and sectoral micro-measures. It is also too serious for a minister to buy an ecological conscience through a decision that will do nothing to solve the problem, apart from the damage it will do. On the contrary, it requires an overall vision that goes beyond the quarrels specific to the world of transport, which is an easy scapegoat.

When it comes to the environment, there is no choice: there are many levers and there is no reason to favour one over the other given the current emergency. However, a little common sense is needed: when your boat has hit an iceberg and has a leak of several metres in its hull, the dripping tap in cabin 314 is a secondary problem.

Transport is the world’s second largest emitter of CO2 with, depending on the source, around 25% of emissions. This is enormous. 75% of these emissions come from road transport, 12% from air transport and 11% from shipping. In my opinion, the train should be included in the 3% of “others”, which confirms its non-polluting character, although we will see later that it is not so neutral.

Two bottom lines can be drawn:

• Before dealing with transport with its polluting planes and its ugly trains that run on either fossil fuels or nuclear power, there is a sector (energy) that pollutes twice as much and that public opinion stigmatises much less and in any case unleashes less passion.
• And before talking about planes and trains, we can ask ourselves what is being done with the cars, buses and trucks that account for 75% of transport emissions. If cities take action I don’t see a strong policy to favour train or air travel for long journeys. This summer, if we can travel a little further than 100km, it will be funny to see that we have killed some of the air traffic, limited the capacity of the trains and put even more people on the road. Because unless there are three people in a car, it is better to take a plane (and of course a train) than a car. Or rent a car on arrival at the train station or airport if you are going to a remote area, but do not drive 500 or 700km!

So if you want to stigmatize polluters you know where to look first! But there is more to come. If we combine train and aeroplane we are at around 4% of global emissions. So yes, that’s still a lot, but we can see that these modes of transport are not as “dirty” as all that. I would even say, for the train, even cleaner than in the average country because of our intensive use of nuclear power. German high-speed rail runs either on nuclear power purchased from France or on domestic coal. It’s less pretty.

Depending on the source, air transport therefore accounts for between 2.5 and 4% of emissions. It is still 2.5% too much for a perfect world, but again, let’s have a sense of the issues and priorities. As the excellent report published earlier this year by the Pegasus Chair shows:

• While nothing is perfect in this world, the airline industry is working hard to reduce its footprint, if only for basic economic reasons. The progress made compensates for the increase in traffic. In 19 years its emissions have grown by “only” 21% while traffic has increased by 69%. Today, fuel consumption is 2.7 l/100km per passenger on long-haul flights and 2.2 on medium-haul flights. And one day we will end up with the electric engine, even if I don’t believe in it for tomorrow, even if the recent experimentation with the plasma engine is really good news.
• The internet’s share of emissions is around 4% of global emissions today and is predicted to be 8% by 2025. That was before the coronavirus, the explosion of remote work for some and Netflix consumption on short-time working for others. But we’ll talk about that later.
• The impact of the textile industry is 10% of emissions.

One wonders whether those who lined up at the end of the lockdown yesterday in front of clothing shops (10% of emissions) are those who condemn the plane (2.5% of emissions). By the way, we also take our share of criticism since travelling by plane is ultimately much less harmful than sharing photos and videos of trips on the net as we do.

Enough jokes.

So we want to believe that small streams make big rivers, but we must not fight the wrong battle. Yes, the environment is important, but when you only hit those who make 2.5% of the emissions and let those who make 2 or 4 times worse develop, or even encourage them to do so, you are no longer protecting the climate but propaganda, disinformation and clientelism. Yes, the plane has a lot of work to do, yes, we’ll see, the train may have to put its own house in order, but the environment is everyone’s business and we’re only hitting what’s most visible and most demagogic, not necessarily where it has the most effect.

Yes to limiting flights. But if we want to be responsible to the end, we must regulate the renewal of wardrobes simply for the sake of fashion, Ban the purchase of piles of t-shirts at 5€ because “it’s cheap and we don’t care, it ends up in the bin”. As for the internet, if it were a country it would be the 3rd largest polluter in the world after the United States and China. For a business of 100 people, email exchanges over the course of a year represent the equivalent of 13 return trips from Paris to New York by plane ! The sector’s energy consumption is increasing by 9% per year (“better” than pre-crisis aviation), and Streaming, the most consumptive activity, currently emits as much CO2 as a country like Spain (read also here). On the other hand, businesses are subsidised to set up their data centres in France, while digital technology is growing much faster than aviation.

There you have it, on the subject we must not get into the wrong debate. Yes, we have to preserve the environment, but that’s not what we’re doing at the moment. Easy targets are stigmatised without looking at the elephant in the room. And the fight for clean transport will be lost as soon as we forget about the climate criminal who watches Netflix all day long because it will be seen as an unfair and unbalanced vendetta. Maybe one day future generations will blame us for having taken care of “details” when we did nothing for the internet while there was still time. As one person who works for a GAFAM said to me “we do sh…. but cool sh…. so for now we’re OK”.

I would just like to know which part of public opinion is aware of these figures when they believe in good faith that they are supporting the right environmental policies, the ones that have the most impact, and vilifying the real culprits. I know people in IT who have had some discomfort with learning them and have revised some of their priorities.

But before I finish with the environment I finally found some figures I’ve been looking for for years. I said at the beginning of this post that a train needs one track while an aeroplane only needs two airports. I had always wondered what such a track could cost in terms of environment (because for the taxpayer we know that…). Mountains are dynamited, fields are cut in half, wildlife is “expropriated”, tons of metal are used to build tracks…. I found these figures in an excellent article by Xavier Tytelman.

Quote:

“But let’s take the example of the high-speed line to Bordeaux which was inaugurated a few months ago. On this new line, the carbon emissions generated by one journey include the construction of the line over 100 years! We are at 7230 tonnes of carbon equivalent per kilometre of high speed track built and the amortization of pollution over 100 years is systematic for all projects.“

“Not to mention the irreversible destruction of the natural environment on the ground along the entire route. The Bouygues and Vinci subsidiaries in charge of the construction of the Tours-Bordeaux high-speed line, for example, have been condemned for not respecting the rules aimed at maintaining ecosystems and waterways, with one expert interviewed by Médiapart even mentioning an “environmental massacre”.

At TravelGuys we like to be objective in all areas so we dig behind the numbers because no matter what they say, numbers have no ideology or dogma.

Warning: it is sometimes complicated to find exact figures, sometimes there is not even a consensus on certain formulas, so the following figures are just meant to give orders of magnitude.

The extension of the high-speed line between Tours and Bordeaux required 340km of construction, which means that, according to these figures, the carbon equivalent was 2,458,200 tonnes. But as if by magic, it is “amortised” over 100 years, so over 2,409,000 journeys (at a rate of 33 return journeys per day according to official figures) that is 1 tonne per journey just to amortise the construction of the track and per train, as opposed to 15 tonnes per plane. (This is an approximate figure because the calculators give figures per passenger based on 88 passengers per flight, whereas given the size of the aircraft used on this route and the average occupancy rate, this would mechanically lower the emissions per passenger…it is very well explained here). It is infinitely more “green” than a plane, but the truth is that the 2,458,200 tonnes have already been “consumed”, whereas for planes it is falling year by year and we hope to be flying electric within the next 20 years. In addition, the rails will have had to be changed between once and twice in 100 years (their life expectancy is 50 years maximum but we try to make them last 70…) this does not make the train any less clean, far from it, but puts its impact into perspective.

A Tours-Bordeaux train is 0.9 kg of CO2 per passenger, so 0.9t for a train based on 1000-passenger trains.

We will make the same calculation for Paris-Bordeaux using the same figures, but again recognising the limits of the method given that Paris-Tours has already been amortised over 30 years. Here we are at 1.7 tonnes per journey for 584km if we keep the same calculation method. But according to the SNCF figures, it is 1.4. Perhaps because the environmental cost per kilometre of this section was lower than the other, knowing that for the rest it will only be amortized in 70 years.

Apart from being in bad faith, you have to admit that the train is the most logical choice:

• even though the environmental impact of the construction of the line has been “paid for” since it was built and there will be no turning back, even though we can “dream” of aircraft becoming less and less carbon intensive.
• even though, contrary to popular belief (and even our own), it would appear that the SNCF buys a large part of its electricity outside France and is therefore much more carbon-intensive than it would like to admit. But this report dates from 2014 so things may have changed and we have every confidence in the rail operator’s open data policy.
• even though it is almost impossible to find out how much a plane emits because the figures are only available on a per-passenger basis and the occupancy assumptions used by the calculators do not correspond to commercial reality…but frankly it won’t change the story much.

On the other hand, what is interesting, as long as we are in figures, I might as well give you one last lecture, is to know when the TGV becomes competitive, knowing that nature has paid its dues to the construction of the line from the first day! Let’s go back to our 2,409,000 TGV journeys over 100 years at 1.4t per journey “all in” (or almost all out), that’s 3,372,600 tonnes in a century. At 15t per flight, that’s the equivalent of 224,840 flights or, at 15 round trips per day (30 flights), 7,494 days or 20 years.

It therefore takes 20 years for the high-speed line to “balance out” its environmental impact, mainly due to the construction of the railway line, because it is unbeatable in terms of operation, and to become more attractive than the plane. On our Paris-Bordeaux line, the train is therefore a “winner” up to Tours and a loser up to Bordeaux for another twenty years or so. But, remember, this is because the environmental cost is amortized over a century. Nature has already paid in full.

We’re not going to split hairs, environment is a long-term battle, so the 20-year bet is the right one.

On the other hand, the situation may change if, within 20 years, we manage to fly electric aircrafts which, in addition to being as clean as the train in operation, will not have a footprint on the ground. But as we said, even if some people are thinking of first flights in 2027, we are not so optimistic, even if we see some very interesting things that can make us dream. And then we will never put everyone in the air: at best we will have a nice rebalancing. In any case, as we have seen, it is essential that there be competition between means of transport and between operators.

This explains, but we will have the opportunity to talk about it again, thatwe don’t believe in hyperloop at all as a credible alternative to either rail or air, precisely because of the environmental cost of building new tracks and the fact that the need for infrastructure in addition to existing tracks will make it almost impossible to bring it into city centres.

But in any case, if the public authorities really want to promote the environment, there are things to be done as well and as a priority with regard to roads and other sectors that are infinitely more polluting. Here we are in the thick of the line and the effects of announcement.

A decision already taken that does not change anything

As has been said recently, it is all the easier for a minister to demand things if they have already been decided and would have happened anyway.

All the airlines are working towards ever more economical aircraft, if only for reasons of profitability. The decline in emissions is an undeniable market trend. To take the case of our domestic flights, Air France has long since placed an order for a large fleet of A220s which should arrive from September 2021 and which emit 20% less CO2. It seems that the airline has even decided to accelerate the retirement of its A318/A319 fleet. To do like Air Baltic and accelerate the delivery of A220s?

Secondly, the current crisis will force a rationalisation of the airline’s programme and of the routes operated in an equally logical (others would say dramatic) way. On the other hand, we are curious to see the reaction of public authorities and communities if Air France abandons transverse routes on which the train is either non-existent or catastrophic.

Well, as long as we’re talking about the 2.5 hour limit and the point-to-point excluding connections...it’s hardly about anything.

What is disturbing about the government’s approach is more the form than the substance.

A logic of confrontation for a sterile debate

We are not going to get into the “train or plane” debate, which is sterile from our point of view. Both are necessary, both correspond to cases and needs with a “mix” to be found according to the distances and characteristics of each destination.

But that’s where the problem lies. What we are witnessing today is not a battle for the environment but the organisation of an almost fratricidal fight between two French businesses based on clientelism and electoral calculations.

By stigmatising air transport, we have a minister who avoids talking about subjects such as roads, the internet, textiles and a fortiori energy.

By bringing the subject into the realm of trains vs. planes, passions are exacerbated, and even more so by making it an SNCF vs. Air France battle, when there are many other current and future players. But the desired result is achieved: it makes so much noise that no one talks about the rest.

By hitting an easy scapegoat, one lies and lies even more to the poorest. It is easy to knock on the plane because the population is ill-informed or even misinformed on the subject and I absolutely invite you, once again, to read this edifying study on the subject. If I may say so, given the general public’s lack of knowledge of the real figures and of what is being done, if airlines and manufacturers are going to lay off people in the near future, they should start with their communicators who are totally unable to convey this type of information.

But don’t forget that at peak times the plane is cheaper than the train. We must not forget that many French people and families who fly abroad in summer do so because they could not afford a holiday in France where hotels and restaurants are overpriced, and paying less for their ticket than for a train ticket. We must not forget that the plane is not a means of transport “for the rich” which makes it an easy and consensual target whereas 50% of the passengers are inactive and lower income people! If they don’t take the train there must be reasons!

So by buying a good conscience for cheap (although we’ll see…), we have a minister (of finance as the minister of transport, traditionally the minister of SNCF more than of transport, is noisily absent from the dossier) who is missing the point. Cheap…. for now. What is worrying here is the precedent this sets, with the prospect of a ban on all previous flights one day. By believing itself to be in Care Bear Land, Noddy may have opened a Pandora’s box whose effects will be devastating (for Air France, not for its foreign competitors).

We have an airline that has just lost 1.8 billion in the first quarter and it’s not over yet (to be precise we’re talking about Air France-KLM, the situation per airline being different). It’s all very well for the press to make headlines about the airline’s “abysmal losses” but I also see 2 billion in operating losses for the SNCF 3 billion in the months of March and April alone (we are already talking about 3 billion) without knowing yet what this will lead to in terms of results! This is in addition to the billion cost of the strikes (650 million in 2019 and 350 million in 2020) and to the35 billion of the business’s debts on 1 January after the state had already written off 25 billion by the end of 2019 (Air France-KLM’s debt at the end of the 2019 financial year was 6.15 billion).

Then we can play the game of who pollutes the most, or who deserves to be saved. We see the two armed arms of French passenger transport in a very bad position with a minister who inflates his popularity by blowing on the embers instead of adopting an industry approach to save them together in a coherent way. The question is not train or plane, but what sustainable multimodal travel system (in the profitable sense of the term) for the French.

But stirring up resentment is not the way to do it. We are convinced that

• Even the most die-hard air travellers have nothing against the train. At worst, they are mainly against the SNCF, which raises the question of the quality of service given the price of the ticket and the burden on the taxpayer, especially compared to what we see abroad. The proof: they are all fans of the Shinkansen in Japan!
• Except for the most narrow-minded, even the most ardent defenders of the environment understand that the real battle is elsewhere and that if they have to make progress (like everyone else), aviation is not the biggest problem today.

So to use its shareholder power in a meaningful way (for once) the state should twist their arms to learn to work together, to set up a multimodal offer that would be unique in the world, to break down the barriers that exist in terms of the customer journey between the two, to create bridges between the loyalty programs, to really develop code share…

Sounds crazy? Unrealistic? It is as much as the current situation and yet here we are.

Simplistic analyses lead to confusion, pointing fingers and creating conflicts where partnerships should be developed.

Finally, I won’t mention some of the messages I’ve seen on Linkedin from SNCF executives taking offence at the resumption of Air France flights against a background of environmental emotion. A disguised commercial recovery that many considered inappropriate given the state of the two businesses and texts so well constructed and formatted that one wonders if they were really individual initiatives. At a time when all the communication experts are advising businesses to keep a low profile and be decent, we can only hope that these are not individual initiatives, however regrettable they may be from people with a certain level of responsibility.

In the meantime, we are faced with a decision that will not change much either for the SNCF, which will continue to lose money if it does not reform itself, or for Air France, which has a project on a different scale (and must reinvent itself just as much), or even for the environment. On the other hand, so much damage has been done now and in the future due to a disastrous form.

Photo : Airbus A319 Air France in Paris by Lukas Wunderlich via Shutterstock

Articles similaires

Air France, a real-fake rescue? Myths and facts COVID-19 and repatriation: no to irresponsible tourists COVID-19 – Flying Blue, refunds : Air France cares about its customers! COVID-19: what opportunities for the travel industry? Will the A220 be the star single-aisle aircraft of the recovery? Deconfinement : Air France reassures passengers