It is really a case of horses for courses - for example my Fianceé and I mainly holiday in the UK. As this tends to be self-catering, we take quite a lot of stuff and so wouldn't even think about doing this without the car. We'll be going to North Wales soon, I expect the total cost will be in the region of £100, so £50/person. I'm not considering fixed costs - we have to pay these regardless as needs to a car for her work. On the other hand I travel from Edinburgh to London and back for work each week, and find the train to be the best compromise between "lost" time (not the same as total elapsed time) and cost.
That's an excellent example of the sort of trip where we wouldn't even think of using public transport. For people with small children or toddlers then the advantages of taking a car are even bigger, because of the added paraphernalia, though there are also some downsides, like keeping the little ones amused in the car.
If this is done by increasing the cheapest fares instead of (or as well as) decreasing the flexible ones, it will surely cause the rail companies to lose customers to airlines on some routes, and to coach companies on others.[/QUOTE]
You can't narrow the differential without doing both in my view. The railway needs to realise it can't be all things to all people. There's no reason to compete with every single coach and cheap flight, especially if money is not the only driver in making a decision.
I'd argue that it's worth losing some of the current customers if they are so price sensitive that they can't put up with a modest rise of a couple of quid in the lowest priced Advance tiers.
As my business mentor used to say, some customers aren't worth having.
It would have to be revenue-neutral or I will not support it.
I'm not sure HMRC would be happy with that.
