Are we seriously at a point where a member is advocating reporting guards when they show discretion and try and help someone out?!
Apparently, but (s)he did then go on to explain their justification for this formal approach, which was "
Because it annoys me", so I think we can disregard that as an irrelevant emotional response, can't we?
This topic comes round quite frequently, in various guises and beginning with different specific circumstances, and each time it does come round, the replies seem to quickly polarise into two camps:-
1. the try-it-on because the system is unfair and/or why should I suffer opinions, and
2. the Advance Tickets are a very specific and low-cost product with their own limitations which passenger must remain bound by if they choose that product.
I don't expect there is anything on those two extremes which hasn't been said
ad nauseum on here already (though to be fair to newcomers, some of those old debates may be hard to find among all the other stuff in these fora).
But I do make a lot of time to look at some of the middle grounds, and I believe there
is a lot of middle ground, which is NEITHER an opportunist trying to have it both ways, NOR an inflexible railway rule or employee exercising unreasonable rules for rules' sake.
I am happy to put this thread's original question firmly in the middle ground. The passenger was early (not late as a consequence of inadequate planning, so no 'fault') and the proposal was simply to ask if they may be conveyed (no harm in asking even if the answer is likely to be 'no'); no sob story about hospitals and self-important attitudes. Its a fair question for the holder of an Advance and expresses a neutral attitude. I might ask such a question myself, particularly if it was to travel before the peak and my Advance was for travel during the peak. I'd also not be dissapointed if the answer was 'no'.
There have been a few other enquiries about Advances which have also merited a more 'open minded' approach on here. Its perfectly possible to be fully aware of the conditions attached to an Advance and to be fully prepared to buy a replacement ticket (or to wait) if there is a change of plans, without being exploitative of the Conditions or Offers and without being critical of those working on the Railway. Perhaps the two clearest examples would be the current question of asking to be conveyed early and of stopping short.
The Industry is in a no-win situation, let them travel and watch revenue fall ultimately as word gets around, or apply the rules and be criticised.
It is. And its a regrettable situation. Its not my assessment that the industry is entierly blameless, though. The Regulatory framework is very culpable.
Privatisation and fragmentation led, inevitably, to competitive pricing, and the restriction of Regulation to only the more flexible fares led to very very cheap Advances. My personal opinion is that the differential between Advances and the variations of Off-Peaks is so wide that it distorts the market and, more importantly, distorts public perception (at the risk of going off topic, it is barely possible to spend an hour in central Newcastle without seeing a dozen huge billboards or bus adverts announcing the £15 Newcastle-London fare on EC. People may suspect that there are higher fares, but it would never become apparent that the unreadable small print refers to a never-seen Anytime price of £143 until they are inspected
after boarding the wrong train).
I want to be more sympathetic to front-line staff who have to deal with the framework they are given, but until the Regulator and DfT change the parameters, I cannot be as sympathetic to 'the Industry' as I am to its staff.
Anyway, I must rush. I want to report my postwoman to their employer for handing me my junk mail as we passed and chatted in the street. I will try to ensure that they become unemployed ASAP.