Andy Hoskins, Editor-in-Chief, BTN Europe
Some individuals
have for many years chosen the train over the plane, motivated by convenience,
cost, productivity or simply the fact it is kinder on the environment than
flying.
Corporates, too,
have been pursuing travel policies that promote rail travel over air where
feasible—and even mandating it—primarily as part of wider sustainability
programmes.
BCG Consulting, for
example, has configured its online booking tool to prioritize train travel over
flights, while employees of PwC Netherlands may now only travel from Amsterdam
to two of its top destinations, Paris and Frankfurt, by train, with journey
times of around 3hrs, 20mins and of 4hrs respectively. Salesforce is another company
that recognizes the environmental gains to be achieved by shifting travellers
off planes and onboard trains. It identified more than 20 city pairs, mostly in
Europe, where the company strongly recommends rail bookings rather than flying.
Further evidence of
modal shift can be found in the raw numbers. In the UK, more than half (57
percent) of journeys between London and Edinburgh were made by rail between
April and August last year, up from 35 percent pre-pandemic, and for the first
time outweighing air passenger numbers between the capitals.
Moving travelers
off planes and on to trains is one of the simplest measures that businesses can
take to begin ‘greening’ their travel programes. And while some organizations
will follow the lead of influential corporates doing just that, greater powers
could also force their hand.
Only last month the
French government’s plans to ban domestic flights where there are regular rail alternatives of
less than 2hrs, 30 mins were approved by the European Commission. A review of
the proposal—initially a condition of the government’s financial aid for Air
France as the pandemic took its toll—had been prompted by objections from the Union of French Airports (UAF) and
Airports Council International Europe (ACI Europe).
Meanwhile, the Netherlands has previously tried to ban all
domestic flights as well as flights between Amsterdam and Brussels—a 45-minute
flight or 1hr, 50min train journey—but was scuppered on both occasions by EU
regulation. Last summer, however, its government announced plans to cut back the number of flights at Amsterdam Schiphol
Airport, of which it is a majority stakeholder, in order to “strike a balance between the importance of having
a large international airport—which is also good for the business community—and
of a better, healthier living environment.” A cap of around 440,000 flights annually represents a 12 percent cut on
pre-pandemic volumes and could be implemented later this year.
While there’s no
doubting the appetite for rail journeys of up to four or even five hours exists,
anything longer is challenging. Even UK-based cosmetics company Lush, which
operates one of the most progressive and environmentally conscious business
travel programs around, allows for air travel where rail is just a step too
far.
The arrival of competition
in the form of new operators of new sleeper services between key European
cities could take modal shift to another level. Austrian operator OBB expanded
its NightJet and EuroNight partner services across central Europe last year
while 2024 will see the launch of a new operator, Midnight Trains, with
services from its Paris hub to the likes of Copenhagen via Brussels and
Hamburg, and to Rome, Barcelona and Porto. Despite new levels of onboard
comfort, anecdotal evidence suggests few organizations have yet adopted
overnight sleeper services for business travel.
For corporates,
journey time is not the only barrier preventing greater modal shift—the
technology to book trips that might incorporate different operators in
different countries is simply woeful at present.
Representing 13
travel buyer associations from across Europe, BT4Europe has been vocal about such
shortcomings. In its first position paper, Sustainability in Business Travel,
published last year, the organization expressed concerns about the
accessibility of international rail travel in booking tools.
“Rail booking
capability is very limited right now,” said Angela Lille, sustainability
working group chair for BT4Europe. “If I’m travelling from Vienna to Paris I
want to see air and rail options side by side—that is difficult to find today. Rail
tickets are often only available through operators’ proprietary systems. It’s
going to require comprehensive integration”.
Another group
lobbying authorities for change is EU Travel Tech which claims “invisibility”
of rail in indirect distribution channels is a key reason that 11 million
passengers each month take a flight when they could take the train.
But providing that
is no mean feat, with booking tools and TMCs hindered by the fragmented
operator landscape, the need for individual licenses, and, it is believed by
some, operators’ disinterest in third-party commercial agreements.
One development
that might ease the pain could come from rail aggregators such as Trainline
which is progressing a ‘sub-licensing model,’ a scenario in which it holds
operator licences and its partner TMCs, OBTs and GDSs are able to operate off
them.
Another significant
move is the European Union’s Multimodal Digital Mobility Services (MDMS)
framework, new legislation designed to ensure access to all rail content for
all distribution channels, with draft legislation due in the first half of
2023.
With corporates
identifying it as an easy environmental win, governments clamping down on
domestic flights, and moves to improve bookability, the case for rail travel is
only getting stronger.