Exorbitant 1st class anytime fares

[Halsebee]

The extraordinary price of some anytime 1st class fares is well documented, and apologies if this thread has been covered before.
What I'd like to get an idea of is how many of these tickets are actually sold. Clearly that isn't answerable simply as there must tens of thousands of these fares and it may be commercially sensitive information.
So, to get an idea, if I suggest a couple of examples like Plymouth to Paddington or Exeter SD to Birmingham, can anyone give any sort of ballpark of how many anytime first class singles or returns are sold per week for these flows, or if not, numbers for any other flow someone may know. Obviously there will be many journeys where none are sold, so examples of at flows between major centres?

 

[Haywain]

The extraordinary price of some anytime 1st class fares is well documented, and apologies if this thread has been covered before.
What I'd like to get an idea of is how many of these tickets are actually sold. Clearly that isn't answerable simply as there must tens of thousands of these fares and it may be commercially sensitive information.
So, to get an idea, if I suggest a couple of examples like Plymouth to Paddington or Exeter SD to Birmingham, can anyone give any sort of ballpark of how many anytime first class singles or returns are sold per week for these flows, or if not, numbers for any other flow someone may know. Obviously there will be many journeys where none are sold, so examples of at flows between major centres?

You want people to release commercially confidential information? I don’t see it happening.

 

[modernrail]

You want people to release commercially confidential information? I don’t see it happening.

I personally don’t see why any of this should be commercially sensitive. The taxpayer massively subsidises the railway. The taxpayer should be perfectly entitled to understand how well the railway is managing that subsidy and balancing it with fare revenue. The only sensitive information should be any personal data.

The situation would be different if it was a contract entered into by the railway with a business. It is not, and so the transparency argument should always trump the confidentiality argument in this case.

Now that we the taxpayer are underwriting revenue risk on the railways, other than for open operators, transparency should be taken a whole lot more seriously.

 

[AngusH]

To the original poster, perhaps submitting freedom of information requests and then challenging the inevitable rejection might work?

Out of curiosity, while I've no doubt it is considered commercially confidential, can anyone offer a reasoning for why it should be?

Are they concerned solely about franchise bidding, or is it considered to be an issue vs their competitors, for example, airlines or coaches?

Further, ISTR that franchise bidders got a bundle of data to calculate bids anyway, so they would all know the numbers.

 

[Western Sunset]

The default position of many firms is stating commercial confidentiality.

 

[AngusH]

Yes indeed, although it rather goes against the principles of public sector transparency ...

I'm trying to understand if there is a solid principle behind the decision or if it is just for convenience?


Edit:

In fairness quite a bit of information has been released under FOI provisions, so it might work out.

e.g

London North Eastern Railway Limited - view and make Freedom of Information requests

www.whatdotheyknow.com

There is also explictly the reasoning for keeping ticket pricing flow data secret:

Whilst we can confirm we do hold the information you have requested; we refuse disclosure
of the data itself as it is exempt under Section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act.
This exemption applies because there is a risk that disclosure of LNER’s competitive
strategy could prejudice LNERs commercial interests. The commercial interests are the
ability of LNER to receive revenue for the provision of commercial services in a competitive
market. There is a significant risk that through disclosure of this information, transport
competitors of LNER could work against the commercial strategies we have in place, this
could damage our ability to make revenue. As an example, if we were to sell 10 seats at
£30, available 7 days before departure, another train operating company could use
knowledge of our competitive strategy to lower this price and sell the same amount of
tickets at a discounted rate. Part of the reason LNER is successful in our ability to generate
revenue is due to our competitive strategy not being known by our competitors.

FOI response Sivyour.pdf

www.whatdotheyknow.com

I disagree with the reasoning, but the arguments are reasonable.

 

[alistairlees]

Yes indeed, although it rather goes against the principles of public sector transparency ...

I'm trying to understand if there is a solid principle behind the decision or if it is just for convenience?


Edit:

In fairness quite a bit of information has been released under FOI provisions, so it might work out.

e.g

London North Eastern Railway Limited - view and make Freedom of Information requests

www.whatdotheyknow.com

There is also explictly the reasoning for keeping ticket pricing flow data secret:

FOI response Sivyour.pdf

www.whatdotheyknow.com

I disagree with the reasoning, but the arguments are reasonable.

The reasoning is hilarious. All franchised TOCs - whether OLR or not - are without revenue risk now. Is the government really wasting taxpayer money getting its own contractors to compete against one another on what is ostensibly a pubic service?

 

[Starmill]

Depending on precisely how granular the detail required to be released were, it would certainly risk placing franchised TOCs at a competitive disadvantage against the two major long distance coach operators, the several airlines who operate flights between airports in Great Britain, and of course Grand Central, Hull Trains and Lumo. It's unlikely there would be any risk to their competitiveness against local bus companies, but in principle it's a possibility however small.

Obviously, this isn't precisely what LNER have spelled out above. But were someone more senior to review the wording rather than the case handler and customer relations department I imagine that they would agree with this summary. There may be more to add that I've missed.

 

[Watershed]

The reasoning is hilarious. All franchised TOCs - whether OLR or not - are without revenue risk now. Is the government really wasting taxpayer money getting its own contractors to compete against one another on what is ostensibly a pubic service?

Indeed. It flies in the face of the "open by default" approach that the DfT claims will be at the heart of GBR. Hmm, we'll see about that!