Marc Morano comment on banning short airline flights: “You were warned! This is what a climate lockdown looks like. This is what the Great Reset looks like. The climate agenda demands you give up airline travel, car travel, cheap reliable energy, and plentiful food. Net Zero goals are now dictating vehicle shortages to force more people into mass transit.
They’re going after your freedom of movement; they’re going after private car ownership, they’re going after everything it means to be a free person and turning it over to the administrative state.”
By: Admin – Climate Depot
France Bans Short-Haul Flights to Tackle Climate Change – Banning convenience to ‘save the planet’ – get used to it guys, this is just the start if they can get away with it.
#
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65687665
France has banned domestic short-haul flights where train alternatives exist, in a bid to cut carbon emissions.
The law came into force two years after lawmakers had voted to end routes where the same journey could be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours.
The ban all but rules out air travel between Paris and cities including Nantes, Lyon and Bordeaux, while connecting flights are unaffected.
Critics have described the latest measures as “symbolic bans”.
Laurent Donceel, interim head of industry group Airlines for Europe (A4E), told the AFP news agency that “banning these trips will only have minimal effects” on CO2 output.
He added that governments should instead support “real and significant solutions” to the issue.
Airlines around the world have been severely hit by the coronavirus pandemic, with website Flightradar24 reporting that the number of flights last year was down almost 42% from 2019.
The French government had faced calls to introduce even stricter rules.
France’s Citizens’ Convention on Climate, which was created by President Emmanuel Macron in 2019 and included 150 members of the public, had proposed scrapping plane journeys where train journeys of under four hours existed.
But this was reduced to two-and-a-half hours after objections from some regions, as well as the airline Air France-KLM.
French consumer group UFC-Que Choisir had earlier called on lawmakers to retain the four-hour limit.
“On average, the plane emits 77 times more CO2 per passenger than the train on these routes, even though the train is cheaper and the time lost is limited to 40 minutes,” it said.
It also called for “safeguards that [French national railway] SNCF will not seize the opportunity to artificially inflate its prices or degrade the quality of rail service”.
#
#
By Lottie Limb with AFP • Updated: 23/05/2023
The idea for the ban originally came from a Citizens’ Assembly.
France’s ban on short-haul domestic flights comes into force 23 May.
Under a government decree, any journeys that are possible in less than two-and-a-half hours by train cannot be taken as a flight.
France is also cracking down on the use of private jets for short journeys in a bid to make transport greener and fairer for the population.
Transport minister Clément Beaune said the country could no longer tolerate the super rich using private planes while the public are making cutbacks to deal with the energy crisis and climate change.
Which flights are now banned in France?
The law will mostly rule out air trips between Paris Orly airport and regional hubs such as Nantes, Lyon and Bordeaux.
Critics have noted that the cutoff point is shy of the roughly three hours it takes to travel from Paris to the Mediterranean port city Marseille by high-speed rail.
As rail services improve, more routes could be added such as those between Paris Charles de Gaulle and Lyon and Rennes as well as journeys between Lyon and Marseille. They currently don’t meet the criteria for the ban because trains to airports in Paris and Lyon don’t allow passengers to arrive early in the morning or late in the evening.
Connecting flights are unaffected by the new law.
Train services must meet certain conditions to replace flights
The new law specifies that train services on the same route must be frequent, timely and well-connected enough to meet the needs of passengers who would otherwise travel by air – and able to absorb the increase in passenger numbers.
#
Could short-haul flights soon be banned in Europe? – In October 2021, Greenpeace demanded an EU-wide ban on any flights where the rail journey would take under six hours. … Germany also has short-haul flights in its sights. While not banning or cutting back on them, the German government recently doubled the amount of tax levied on short flight tickets. Spain, meanwhile, has said it wants to eliminate all short-haul flights by 2050. …Austria has taken a similar tack: when the government bailed out Austrian Airlines during the pandemic, the carrier was ordered to stop operating its Vienna-Salzburg route so that customers could prioritise train travel instead.
In October 2021, Greenpeace demanded an EU-wide ban on any flights where the rail journey would take under six hours.
So how do you persuade people to take trains and coaches over planes? Well, one way is through banning short-haul flights outright, especially when there are valid bus or train alternatives. And that’s a route that several European countries have already taken – but could more follow suit?
A couple of years ago, a poll found that 62 percent of Europeans would support a ban on short-haul flights. In other words, banning them might not just be a good, environmentally-friendly policy. It could also be pretty popular.
#
France bans short-haul domestic flights despite widespread criticism – Travelers will now be forced to use rail alternatives as France seeks to reduce its carbon footprint
#
Related:
Bloomberg News: Airlines must have enough emissions allowances to cover every metric ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere on flights starting and ending in the European Economic Area, the UK and Switzerland. … That is effectively going to double their carbon costs over just three years. … Over the next three decades, aviation has to transform itself from a polluting industry — planes are responsible for 2.5% of global CO2 emissions — to a net-zero one. …
Meanwhile, China is still planning to expand its network of airports from 241 (at the end of 2020) to 450 by 2035.
Via Net Zero Watch: “Airlines face an expensive and challenging few decades ahead as climate compliance laws get stricter. … It’s the new reality for flying as airlines face a huge decarbonization challenge and tightening climate-compliance laws… Airlines must have enough emissions allowances to cover every metric ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere on flights starting and ending in the European Economic Area, the UK and Switzerland.”
“Are we going to have to give up flying to save the planet? Many climate campaigners have been saying so for years, but now Sustainable Aviation – a trade body which represents the UK aviation industry – seems to agree, at least in the case of less well-off passengers.”
The UK aviation industry seems to have nodded along with the idea that some passengers are going to be priced out of the air…Today, it has published a ‘road map’ showing how the industry intends to decarbonise, in order to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 – in line with the government’s self-imposed, legally-binding target. It proposes that 14 per cent of emissions cuts will come from ‘demand reduction’ – i.e. potential passengers being put off flying by a rise in the price of airline tickets…The UK aviation industry seems to have nodded along with the idea that some passengers are going to be priced out of the air in order for Britain to reach its net zero target.
#
‘Puritans of the Green Deal’ promote ‘unworkable utopia’ – ‘For the first time since it began, the EU’s agenda is to impoverish Europeans’– ‘If their crusade succeeds, cars, meat, and seaside holidays will be for the rich, just as they were a hundred years ago’ … The Puritans of the Green Deal intend above all to reduce the consumption, rampant consumerism, and free lifestyle of Europeans. If they really believed we would be baked in twenty years’ time, they would be promoting nuclear power stations.
2021: Watch: COVID lockdowns morphing into climate lockdowns – Morano on Tucker Carlson
Watch: Morano on Tucker Carlson: We Will Go From COVID Lockdowns To ‘Climate Lockdowns’
#
WaPo: A report suggests a novel way of curbing climate pollution from air travel: A global tax on people who fly the most, with the proceeds going toward research and development into sustainable aviation fuels…The report from the nonprofit International Council on Clean Transportation recommends a frequent flier tax that starts on the second flight each person takes per year, at a rate of $9. It would then steadily increase, reaching $177 for the 20th flight in a single year. … Although the authors didn’t attempt to include private jet travel, due to a lack of data, Zheng said that including a similar tax for those using private jets could further shift the burden to the world’s wealthiest consumers. …
The super rich will no longer be allowed to use private planes.
However you can bet that those who run government (who usually are super rich) will not be inconvenienced by such bans.
Nowhere does it state the super rich will be inconvenienced.
Yes, it sure would be surprising if all forms of private air travel were subject the same restrictions, wouldn’t it?
At most, they’ll put on a bit more tax on private jets and pronounce that the rich are doing their bit.
the rich will all say they bought carbon credits and will probably get a pass to fly anywhere
“The law came into force two years after lawmakers had voted to end routes where the same journey could be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours.”
Easy. Idle the engines on the runway for 2 hours, then make the half-hour flight take 31 minutes.
Obvious question: Who most often takes flights to places less than could be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours? Does that sound like barista or a Walmart shopper? I imagine those trips would be made in a Hyundai Tiburon or a 1992 Chevy Astro.
Well, Europe is pretty small relative to the US and they do have *actual* high speed trains, so a lot more city pais would fall within that time limit in Europe than in the US, where it Aries to next to nothing outside the “northeast corridor” between Boston and DC (with NYC, Philadelphia and Baltimore in the mix).
SNCF still uses diesel
For other train illiterates: SNCF appears to be a French rail service. Their web page is an impossible soup of bullet-pointed, undefined acronyms or I would quote something here.
You looked so we didn’t have to. Thanks. 🙂
Many lines aren’t electrified. The TGV (high speed train) prototype was turbine based, it mean Turbotrain à Grande Vitesse.
Immediately fossil fuels were seen as a too expensive and it was redesigned to be powered by a 50 Hz 25 kV overhead line.
An historical gaz turbine train:
This is just the start, so wait until they start tightening the screw. Popcorn please! At what point will the little people realize that the government leaders do not follow the same rules? Time for another French revolution!
Latest Heartland Institute podcast book review on the rise of Napoleon is worth listening to.
Yeah I think they’re now long overdue for the sixth republic. Plus ca change.
Perhaps a suitable penalty for electing a schoolboy as national leader who could not forsake his mature teacher!
Isn’t a Germanic Revolution more likely? They might destroy their Green idiots, thereby making another French Revolution unnecessary. Pigs might fly too!
I’m sure the greenfreaks won’t allow flying pigs 🙂
These people are the worst. They don’t do anything other than make up new rules. A day isn’t productive unless they’ve planned to cause an exponential amount of more pain and vexation to an ever-increasing number of people.
Yes. A certain type of person gravitates to political parties and the worst of them rise to the top. Simply stop voting for parties and their candidates and the climate madness will disappear.
“These people are the worst. They don’t do anything other than make up new rules.”
Once people accept the notion that CO2 is going to destroy the world, and that’s what they have been told over and over and over, again, then they are naturally going to seek out ways to reduce CO2 and that will necessarily seriously inconvenience people, but if you are saving the world, you cannot let that deter you from making more CO2 reductions.
The problem is there is no evidence that CO2 is harmful or detrimental in any way, and there is no reason to reduce or regulate CO2. The people trying to reduce CO2 are spinning their wheels and ruining economies in the process, but they (the True Believers) think they are doing a good thing.
What the True Believers are doing is Sheer Madness considering the lack of proof of the need for their actions. They think they have proof that CO2 is harmful, that’s what they have been told, but that’s not close to being true.
Well, lets all take note of exactly who these zealous, hysterical eco nutters are, where they live, and track where they go……when push back comes to more than shove I hope there is no easy jet flight out to their Great Reset resort for the Politburo members because they can push people only so far before direct reprisal action starts to happen…pipe dream? – I dont think so…
France. They’re French. Now what do you want to do?
It should be fun to watch in the US.
story tip
Amtrak’s new high-speed trains have been delayed again because the tracks they’re supposed to run on are too old and busted (msn.com)
It is amazing just how wealthy USA rail companies still are. Google the boards of directors. I never imagined.
How did railways run on time 100 years ago in the US?
Someone lost the instructions on how to lay track?
probably less govt regulation 100 ago … made it easier to concentrate on the important things.
Ah! The benefits of socialism: Perpetual and universal rationing for the regular folk.
Regular folks drive <500 mile trips in 4-cylinder ICE cars. Tickets cost $$$$$
My rule is to drive if under 8 hrs which is faster than flying in and out of my non-hub airport.
The unintended consequence of the ban will cause people to drive; they won’t spend the time on a train.
The French rail system is quite good, and the high speed trains are much faster than driving. The biggest hassle would probably be capacity.
The real problem is how do you move around after disembarking the train. What if your destination is another 15 miles (25 km) away?
Trains might be fast but they operate on their schedule not yours. You car leaves immediately and takes you exactly where you want to go. Adding stops and side trips are at will. Flying cars are the future, not trains.
In the 70’s Sweden had 3 beers with different levels of alcohol: strong, medium, and weak. The government decided people were drinking too much of the most popular medium beer so they outlawed it. Guess what happened,
You take a taxi or a hire car, just as you do if you fly.
I have to say that I much prefer the train for short journies. You arrive at the station a few minutes befor the train is due to leave, and get off after, say, two hours. If you fly you have to be at the airport a couple of hours before takeoff time, and after a 1 hour flight you wpn’t be out at the taxi rank for at least half an hour, so the train saves you around one and a half hours.
( I exclude GB trains, of course. )
The same applies to flying, or taking a bus.
Roomy, comfortable 240 km/hr trains do skew the equation.
I don’t get as worked up about this as Morano. Is particular to their circumstances.
France has a well built high speed electric rail network between all important cities. And the partial short haul flight ban rules are reasonable: if frequent service, under 2.5 hours…On business travel, I actually preferred France rail to Air France. Fly into Paris from US, then first class train to final destination city. Ditto Deutche Bahn when I commuted from Munich to Stuttgart. Under 1.5 hours even with a couple of intermediate stops, grab decent breakfast or dinner, terminal stations much more convenient than the Lufthansa airports.
RI just described how short flights are actually used. A glimpse of reality clarifies the picture.
Now when “they” start banning families of 4 from flying to Orlando for Disney… oh wait, Disney is a $160 billion media corporation. They don’t need my free help.
Plus there are fewer rail strikes than air traffic control strikes in France.
I’m with Rud on this one.
If it was the UK, I wouldn’t go near the strike-ridden appalling mess that passes as rail travel here.
Hmmm, maybe that’s why Squeezy Jet is starting flights from Glasgow and Belfast to Southampton?
What, no really useful tank engines!? Is USA public TV telling USA kids fiction about British rail!
They are filling gaps left by the demise of FlyBe. Not much competition from the trains on the Southampton-Belfast route!
I dunno, what about The Boris Tunnel? 😉
It may make sense for their situation, BUT now people with NO sense will take it up as a raison d’etre.
Rud, that’s your choice.
not anymore.
Good point. Less freedom. The Free Market should rule, but instead, unnecessary, unwarranted CO2 reduction rules.
If it is so obvious, why is a ban necessary? Why doesn’t everyone in France use trains?
Because you WILL do what you are told and be happy about it.
You seem to be arguing that it’s OK for the French government to ban short flight commercial service, because it’s something you would do anyway?
Opposition to this is about government creep. They institute a small, seemingly logical rule. People accept that. Then the rule expands, little by little, without complaint as each step seems logical based on the previous step until finally it is too late to put a stop to it. This is how big government control grows and grows.
You indicated you had a choice. Let the choice remain and let the people decide what is best for them.
Then the rule expands, little by little
Like the parable of the wild hogs
The farmer first provides food and they come to eat. Then he puts up a single fence. They get used to that, then he puts up another one. They eventually get used to that one. A third one, then a fourth with a gap. They then learn to enter through the gap to eat, and then he comes and adds the gate, locking them in.
The French government had faced calls to introduce even stricter rules.
Nice passive case. The reporter is deliberately concealing who was the caller. THAT should be clear in this news item, otherwise it’s just covering for the arrogant government.
2.5 hrs by train or by plane?
You might say, let the poeple decide. A fool and their money are soon parted.
But don’t the ignorant rubes, like the author of this article, deserve to be protected from scam artists?
French high speed rail is far more comfortable, cheaper and less hassle at the termini than air travel, even private air travel.
Surely stopping con artists preying on unsophisticated foreigners is a good thing?
“cheaper” including all costs, or just ticket price?
Socialism.
Yes that is the true purpose of government. Deciding for everyone what the best option is, and outlawing everything else.
The more control government has over the clueless masses, the more perfect society will come.
Don’t believe me, ask any socialist.
You just did.
2.5 hours each … very slow planes, or very fast trains?
The French high speed trains are quite fast. The often quoted 320 km/hr (200 mph) tends to be a maximum that is reached once on a journey, but the average is still around 240 km/hr. Paris Gare de Lyon to Lyon Part Diu is around 2 hours, plus a bit for connecting services to get into the city.
I saw that ages ago and, in an attempt to ward off BrainMush, tried to reconcile 2 of their numbers.
Firstly: My experience of a 2litre VW ULEZ compliant diesel gets me 138 grams/km – they say 171g/km
The figure for the Eurostar train was a struggle…
I took it to travel (average speed) at 125pmh and fully loaded with 900 passengers.
Enter: One WAG, but based on what I recall of the UK’s West Coast Pendolino (6MW at full chat) I allowed the Eurostar a ‘fuel consumption’ of 3MegaWatt while clocking 125
Then I was bit naughty and took that leccy to be coming from Drax (Biomass) and got an answer of 15grams/passenger/km
They say 6
So, there’s been a bit of cherry-picking and turd-polishing in their CO2 comparison. They’re using Unicorn Fart electrikery.
Or nuclear. slow hand clap ha ha ha
But the train is not gonna be always chock full of passengers and I suspect, something as big as Eurostar will be pulling a stack more than 3MW, another wag says 5MW+
IOW They lied
It is not only the US EPA that uses the SOP of always greatly under estimating cost and always greatly over estimating benefits for their newest regulations.
The bar-chart comparison between car and flight is also fiction.
If people are forced to take the train then train fares (or their subsidies) will go up. Supply and demand.
Alternatively (or consequently), people will drive instead, so CO2 emissions will go up.
Vive la (prochaine) republique.
More people travelling by train also means more and longer stops.
I think those light-blue “secondary effect” bars are probably pure fiction too, and for extra comparison they should probably point out that just running from point A to point B on foot will result in about 30 g/km per person of plant food emissions, by my back-of-the-envelope calculations. About the same as driving 4 people in a car…
I guess you’re still just fine as a global private jetsetter doing Gaia’s good work like John Kerry. The elites speak directly to Lord Gaia.
/sarc
France has a nice high speed rail network because France, compared to the US, has a different view of property rights. Sorta more like China. This makes planning and building massive infrastructures using eminent domain mere child’s play.
Train travel is not cheap either.
Sure, because market manipulation and limiting choice as always worked so well.
Well, better that than have the politicians forced to admit that they were technically-ignorant and wrong.!!! Surely?
If you use a TGV, 320 km/h, no check-in and -out at the airport, you are as fast as per flight.
I foregot to mention, the airports not only in France are outside the cities, TGV stations in the center, so you have no further transfer time.
If they are so good, why is the ban necessary? Why doesn’t everyone in France use trains?
I don’t get it. Except for a few well justified lines, all trains are extremely subsidized. And then because “history”, pensions are state paid instead of paid by the company funds.
So pretty much all railways are paid by other people.
Airplanes on the other hand are pretty much self sufficient.
How can the cheap option move carbon around?
Isn’t price the best proxy for carbon?
I’d bet that the emissions reductions from such bans would be minuscule and would just look good on paper. There might be some merit to the plan in countries where distances between cities is only a few hundred miles, but on longer routes I’d be surprised.
Freakonomics podcast did a “why we can’t just do it like Europe” series that wasn’t bad. The two Stevens have ingrown urban academic-ness tempered by the blowback they got for acknowledging certain data.
urban
academicparasiteFixed it for you.
‘Under a government decree, any journeys that are possible in less than two-and-a-half hours by train cannot be taken as a flight.’
Good. Based on Amtrak’s performance, I can take a plane anywhere I want to.
the French simply LOVE to be told what to do by experts … their entire caste system is based on “rule by experts” and the experts ALL come from the right schools … ask a Frenchman if he/she is a free thinker and they proudly proclaim “Yes, as long as there isn’t a rule against what I’m thinking about” … (and there are PLENTY of “rules” in France) … its always framed with “its for your own good” … don’t forget the French “revolution” was followed by being ruled by an Emperor …
The French revolution was followed by 2 empires, 4 more republics and an occupation in the middle there. The French either aren’t sure what sort of government they want or they just like changing things around from time to time for the hell of it.
I wonder how much say in this decision the railroad unions had?
Ban all flights to climate conventions. End of problem.
“..He added that governments should instead support “real and significant solutions” to the issue.”
The real ISSUE is that there is no ISSUE.
And even if there were, China’s certain INCREASES would dwarf any uncertain REDUCTIONS if Euro NETZERO were attained!
Spinning their wheels for nothing.
There is no reason to reduce CO2 output in the first place.
Next up: France restricts vehicular cab rides to a minimum of 0.5 miles (a walker can do easily do this in 15 minutes, so … save on CO2 & walk). Subsidized rickshaws will be available for the ambulatory impaired … so it is, like all Green concepts, a job creating plan.
If they make all cabs electric then the limit will be built in.
Personally I would always rather take a train than a short haul flight. The travel time, after you get to and from airport, is not much greater, and the experience is much calmer, the seats more comfortable and there is space to work or read. In fact its surprising that such flights even exist in a country with a good cheap rail system.
But it should be left to the market. The way to look at it may be that its another of these pointless sacrificial gestures Western politicians seem to keep making ‘because climate’ and to get to Net Zero.
Story Tip
The latest of these is an Irish proposal to join Holland in cutting their cattle.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/02/irelands-mooted-cow-massacre-warning-to-net-zero-britain/
The author unfortunately seems to buy into the need to reduce CO2 emissions, he just doubts whether killing your cattle is the right or a necessary way to do it. In this he is as misguided as the politicians.
To anyone who knows history its an eerie reminder of the great Xhosa cattle killing of 1856-7. In response to the teaching and predictions of the teenage girl prophet Nongqawuse they killed 300-400,000 head of cattle. And did not cultivate grain. The promised aid she had promised from the ancestors of course failed to materialize, and the resulting famine killed 75% of them.
Our ignorant and hysterical leaders are going down the same path. Its eerie.
Returning from San Francisco to Vienna with my family of 5, we choose Air France, after landing we found that there is strike on Charles de Gaul and all flights were canceled.
No help there, nice airport stuff broke all wheels on my baggage cases.
I was advised to take train. Closest train I was able to find was from Paris to Munich. But it was departing from other train station, so I was forced to transfer from Charles de Gaul to another Paris train station, with around 10 suitcases with broken wheels and 3 kids.
Can you just imagine how hard is to get via subway tourniquet with 35kg suitcases in one hand, 15kg suitcase in other, holding two kids with another baggage?
It was my worst nightmare travel so far. Train itself was not so bad.
Several points:
1) CO2 is not the climate knob, and not responsible for any looming climate catastrophe
2) That short haul airliner travel emits more CO2 than trains is questionable at best!
3) We are seeing that at some point the woke, cultists will go a bridge too far, and invoke the adage “get woke, go broke” and decimate corporations and even governments by voting with their wallets. See Bug Light and Target for examples.
Regards “short haul” air travel vs trains*. Let’s use an apples to apples comparison in N America:
Boeing 737-800 with average capacity of 150 passengers. And the Amtrak Inter City line, 7 coach train, with average 150 passengers.
Let’s use the same distance, which for the airliner the flight takes 1.3 hours, considered a short haul. This is 690 statute miles. So we’ll use the train example at the same distance.
The 737 burns 8,200 pounds of jet fuel for the complete flight (data from an actual 737-800 flight). The train burns 9,384 pounds of diesel for the same distance trip. (data from Amtrak, 2 gallons per mile, 6.8 lbs/gallon)
Both Jet-A and diesel produce 3.106 lbs CO2 per pound of fuel burned. (because both need huge amounts of oxygen to burn so resultant CO2 is heavier than the fuel)
So the bottom line is the airliner had 0.246 lbs CO2 per passenger mile…
And the train with same pax/distance had 0.281 lbs CO2 per passenger mile!
Oh and the flight took only 1 hour and 20 minutes, but the train took 10-20 hours depending on number of stops….
*”short haul” is a term subject to variable parameters, as is the generic term “travel by train”. Short Haul flight depends on the customers, the plane and the geography. Likewise not every region has high speed trains, nor does every region have stupid population density like Europe. You can do profitable short haul flights of 150 miles with a small turbo prop, where a 737 is uneconomical to go such a short distance. Making blanket comparisons without context and adhering to nonsense CO2 narratives is of course subject to being lies or propaganda. See the following comparison on an equal energy and efficiency basis:
https://truecostblog.com/2010/05/27/fuel-efficiency-modes-of-transportation-ranked-by-mpg/
Now mpg is not CO2 emission, but diesel, jetfuel and gasoline are very similar in CO2 per pound of fuel 3.106 for diesel/jet to 3.088 for gasoline.
Leaving aside the merits or lack therof of banning short-haul flights, the 3 French cities in the article have a good high speed electrified rail service. Travel times by air or rail would be similar, so most people probably make those trips by train anyway.
The US and Australia are another kettle of fish.
Driving more travelers to trains to hopefully cut subsidies probably will have unions demanding higher wages.
It’s all about scope creep. We take an inch. Ok it’s just an inch. Ok I will take another inch. Ok it’s just an inch. 10 more inches later – holy crap where did the foot go? Inch by inch that’s where it went.