Flight late arriving - advanced ticket

[richw]

There is also the view expressed by my colleague, that if they can afford to go abroad, they can afford to buy a flexible train ticket!

(retreats to bunker, closes lid)

Yes and no, perhaps if someone has family living abroad, and they fly with one of the budget airlines, they may of spent very little on their trip abroad.

I have family living in Crete, i flew out with easyjet for £98 return, no cost of accomodation, my gran fed me etc so no expense to stay other than a small amount of spending money. an open train ticket is between 200 and 300 i think from my town to gatwick, I'll drive i think, £50 diesel £50 week parking,

 

[Flamingo]

huh, where did I imply that?

The only point I am making is that it seems to make business sense to sell 'slightly' flexible tickets to people going to/from airports. As otherwise they will probably take some other form of transport and no revenue is gained at all.

No, you said that the flexible ticket might cost more than the flight, like this was a bad thing.

Also, you said that if fares were too high then people would not take the train to the airport. That is a matter for government to consider as part of an integrate transport policy taking road congestion and airport facilities into account.

It is not my problem when checking tickets on the train from Reading.

 

[All Line Rover]

Has it?

Tickets from Manchester airport do cost more than from Manchester (£1-£1.50 from my quick look), but it's a longer journey.

Tickets from Liverpool South Parkway (which has the same guarantee), cost less than from Liverpool (by £2-£2.50), but that's a shorter journey.

and if they did charge a little more, why would that be a problem?

I would point out that Advance tickets from Liverpool South Parkway are simply "Advance" rather than the "Airport Advance" tickets from Manchester Airport. May I ask where you got this information?

 

[tony_mac]

No, you said that the flexible ticket might cost more than the flight, like this was a bad thing.

Which was a direct response to:-
'if they can afford to go abroad, they can afford to buy a flexible train ticket!'

I realise that wasn't very serious, but I was just being explicit about it - as richw has also.

Also, you said that if fares were too high then people would not take the train to the airport. That is a matter for government to consider as part of an integrate transport policy taking road congestion and airport facilities into account.

I don't think it is just a matter for government at all - why not an opportunity for Train Operating Companies to try and increase their revenue?

 

[Flamingo]

Yes and no, perhaps if someone has family living abroad, and they fly with one of the budget airlines, they may of spent very little on their trip abroad.

I have family living in Crete, i flew out with easyjet for £98 return, no cost of accomodation, my gran fed me etc so no expense to stay other than a small amount of spending money. an open train ticket is between 200 and 300 i think from my town to gatwick, I'll drive i think, £50 diesel £50 week parking,

Everybody has to make a cost-benefit analysis when deciding what to do in life.

I have family in the USA, I don't go whinging to BA that they increase the prices at holiday times meaning I can't go and see them. When I am on a flight I don't turn up late for the flight saying the train was late. I make damn sure I catch an early enough train to have plenty of time.

I also don't turn up and say "I'm here 4 hours early, can I catch the earlier flight?", as I have bought the cheaper inflexible ticket. There are tickets that allow that level of flexibility, but I don't buy them. I don't blame BA for that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think it is just a matter for government at all - why not an opportunity for Train Operating Companies to try and increase their revenue?

They are - they are charging up people who have bought restricted tickets and are not sticking to their restrictions

 

[tony_mac]

I would point out that Advance tickets from Liverpool South Parkway are simply "Advance" rather than the "Airport Advance" tickets from Manchester Airport. May I ask where you got this information?

My mistake, you need to specify from the airport (and add the £1.80 bus fare to the cost of the advance ticket).

http://www.tpexpress.co.uk/special-offers/18/buy-train-tickets-to-liverpool-john-lennon-airport-.htm

They are - they are charging up people who have bought restricted tickets and are not sticking to their restrictions

Very good!

It doesn't exactly encourage them back though, does it?

 

[bb21]

They are - they are charging up people who have bought restricted tickets and are not sticking to their restrictions

This is not presenting the industry in a positive manner though, is it?

If you offer a little flexibility, while charging a premium for it, given that the majority of passengers catch their reserved train with no problem at all, it can actually generate more income and present the industry in a positive light, hence a higher probability of more passengers choosing to travel with the railways to get to the airport. How much premium to charge is a different question.

In any case, I believe that currently many TMs use their discretion in such instances anyway.

 

[AlterEgo]

It doesn't exactly encourage them back though, does it?

No.

But all TOCs sell flexible tickets.

I wouldn't arrive late for my flight at Heathrow because of a late train, and then insist to be put on the next flight without penalty even though I've bought the cheapest, inflexible ticket.

If you want flexibility, pay for it. (I think Airport Advances are a step in the right direction, and they're far better than what the airline industry offers).

 

[tony_mac]

I wouldn't arrive late for my flight at Heathrow because of a late train, and then insist to be put on the next flight without penalty even though I've bought the cheapest, inflexible ticket.

but they don't charge you for an entirely new ticket.

If you want flexibility, pay for it.

People taking flights don't need complete flexibility for a change of date / refund (and the associated cost), just enough to cover them for the possibility of a delay.

I think Airport Advances are a step in the right direction

Yes, they are, that's all I am saying!
Just a little flexibility makes a big difference in this case, but only one TOC has been progressive enough to do it.
It costs them nothing and encourages leisure travellers to take the train - I don't understand why some people are so against that!

 

[richw]

if you want a cheap inflexible ticket, i'd guess it safe to book it for a 4-5 hours after your flight lands, whats the chance of a plane being that late?

 

[Flamingo]

This is not presenting the industry in a positive manner though, is it?

If you offer a little flexibility, while charging a premium for it, given that the majority of passengers catch their reserved train with no problem at all, it can actually generate more income and present the industry in a positive light, hence a higher probability of more passengers choosing to travel with the railways to get to the airport. How much premium to charge is a different question.

In any case, I believe that currently many TMs use their discretion in such instances anyway.

We do offer flexibility. They are called SuperOffPeak, Off peak or Anytime tickets (or whatever the local TOC calls them).

The issue here is people wanting to pay the cheaper price of the inflexible ticket, but still have the flexibility. Having their cake and eating it is the phrase that covers it, I believe.

"Not encouraging passengers to come back" is a red herring. If people don't like the fare, every airport has bus links and every taxi firm in the country will drive to any airport. It's called a free market economy. I don't recall anything saying that the train companies had to offer the cheapest method of travel, every method has advantages and disadvantages, in both access and price. The information should be available from the TOC to allow passengers to make an informed decision, but it is ultimately the consumers choice, and once they have made it, the have agreed to the negatives as well as the positives.

 

[tony_mac]

The issue here is people wanting to pay the cheaper price of the inflexible ticket, but still have the flexibility.

Or to have limited flexibility to deal with things like flight delays without paying all of the cost for full flexibility. (And hence paying nothing).

It's like having a smaller portion of cake but paying a bit less for it, but that doesn't make quite such a natty saying.

I'm sure the railway would be much better if it wasn't for pesky customers making demands!

The bus stop is just down the road...

 

[attics26]

I'm sure the railway would be much better if it wasn't for pesky customers making demands!

oh you got that right ! ...... lol

 

[WestCoast]

I also don't turn up and say "I'm here 4 hours early, can I catch the earlier flight?", as I have bought the cheaper inflexible ticket.

Actually, on your return journey, easyJet allow you to do just that on all tickets!

I'd advise rail staff to avoid comparisons with airlines, as most airlines (even the cheap ones!) do allow a transfer to the next service to be taken for a fairly reasonable fee, subject to availability of course. A new ticket purchase is often not necessary, even on the no-flex fares. This isn't usually published in official literature for obvious reasons.

 

[jon0844]

Common sense prevails for easyjet! I never understood why they'd let a flight go with spare seats, yet I could have filled one to give them a chance to sell my seat on the later flight!

Aer Lingus wanted to charge a fortune to go earlier (more than the cost of the original ticket) and it seemed so stupid given the fact they'd at least have some chance of reselling my seat later than on the flight that was due to go earlier. We simply waited and thought how stupid the airline was!

 

[WestCoast]

Common sense prevails for easyjet! I never understood why they'd let a flight go with spare seats, yet I could have filled one to give them a chance to sell my seat on the later flight!

It's certainly a sensible idea, designed for business travellers who may finish a meeting early e.t.c, although by no means limited to that, it has other uses.

Additionally, going back to rail tickets, I believe that TPE-style "Airport Advances" should be available on all services to/from stations serving an airport. I would make this a requirement, where advance tickets are sold.

 

[jon0844]

In our case in Ireland, it was simply down to having taken a bus from Dublin to the airport and not wanting to take any chances - so we travelled on a much earlier bus and arrived a lot earlier than we would have wanted to.

For a lot of low-cost flights at odd times, it's not totally uncommon to have people arrive early at an airport as they've perhaps checked out of their hotel at midday and had nothing else to do before their 8 or 10pm flight.

I totally agree that the airport advance sounds like an excellent idea. Otherwise, when booking a ticket to/from the airport (i.e. the airport is either the origin and destination), why not offer the customer 'airport protection' for another £1 or £2 on top of the price?

Who wouldn't pay that extra 'just in case', giving the TOC free money for the many trips where there would be no delay. The prices can still be advertised at the lower price as the extra is voluntary. Someone in the railway industry should look to Ryanair to see how to take advantage of these tricks!

 

[Greenback]

In our case in Ireland, it was simply down to having taken a bus from Dublin to the airport and not wanting to take any chances - so we travelled on a much earlier bus and arrived a lot earlier than we would have wanted to.

For a lot of low-cost flights at odd times, it's not totally uncommon to have people arrive early at an airport as they've perhaps checked out of their hotel at midday and had nothing else to do before their 8 or 10pm flight.

I totally agree that the airport advance sounds like an excellent idea. Otherwise, when booking a ticket to/from the airport (i.e. the airport is either the origin and destination), why not offer the customer 'airport protection' for another £1 or £2 on top of the price?

Who wouldn't pay that extra 'just in case', giving the TOC free money for the many trips where there would be no delay. The prices can still be advertised at the lower price as the extra is voluntary. Someone in the railway industry should look to Ryanair to see how to take advantage of these tricks!

I should imagine that section sof the industry would be afraid that people who buy the flexible tickets now because they are worried their flight might be delayed, will then opt for the cheper advances plus £1 or £2 insurance, costing them revenue.

I have no idea whether it would actually cost them revenue, but I bet that's what they are worried about!

 

[jon0844]

You'd need to prove your flight was delayed (or be prepared to have it checked by staff).

I am not sure how many people on a low cost flight would have a flexible ticket (as stated, it's quite a lot of money - so I'd say they'd probably be on a coach, in a taxi or had pre-booked a cheap parking space in advance).

Of course, many people FLY on flexible tickets and so they'd have to have a flexible train ticket as they may not even know the day they're coming back/going out. You can obviously buy a return valid for a month, on any train, on Heathrow Express etc.

Sometimes I think the industry has this big conspiracy, but then I think it's more likely that nobody thought of it. I wonder if the airports (or BAA) have been approached and asked why they don't try and work closer with the railway companies - perhaps they'd see this as a PR winner. Of course, then you could argue that they'd rather the money in the car parks - but it must be possible if it exists in Manchester and Liverpool.

 

[bb21]

I totally agree that the airport advance sounds like an excellent idea. Otherwise, when booking a ticket to/from the airport (i.e. the airport is either the origin and destination), why not offer the customer 'airport protection' for another £1 or £2 on top of the price?

Who wouldn't pay that extra 'just in case', giving the TOC free money for the many trips where there would be no delay. The prices can still be advertised at the lower price as the extra is voluntary. Someone in the railway industry should look to Ryanair to see how to take advantage of these tricks!

I think you have put it in a better way than I have.

Some flexibility for a slightly higher price. Sometimes an Advance at a decent price can still be a long way from a completely flexible Super Off-Peak, such as Newcastle - Doncaster, which is more than what many people can afford. People who can be potentially delayed by flights don't need a ticket that allows them to travel any time over the next 30 days, only one that has some flexibility within the next 12 hours or 24 hours, for a moderate fee.

It is another angle from which the TOCs can look at to allow travel on public transport to be more integrated and, to a certain degree, more affordable, especially when compared to travel by car, without necessarily losing out on revenue.

 

[jon0844]

And think of all the money the TOCs get for when people aren't delayed? And when they are, and prove the delay, they get to sit on another train with no actual cost to the TOC either.

Only if we imagine that everyone would buy a fully open and flexible ticket does the idea fail - and for low cost airlines, it almost certainly wouldn't be the case. For business flights, few companies would want staff to wait around if their flight landed early, or pay a fortune to get a new ticket if it was late, so they'd probably buy a flexible ticket anyway. Meetings change, dates change, so they need far more flexibility anyway.

 

[Roylang]

Eurostar = one company operating under English / French contract law.

Do you know how many airlines serve the UK? And how many countries they come from?

You are not even comparing apples and pears with this one, mate - more like an apple and a whole farmers market!

Sorry Flamingo, but this is apples and apples.

Airlines also have their own body (like ATOC) with which the discussion could be held, rather than the thousands of airlines that exist world wide. It is the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and they govern the current airline ticketing arrangements etc.

Roy

 

[evil_hippo]

And when several hundred international airlines and ATOC can come to an agreement, I'm sure that will happen.

I'm sure it would have to be reciprocal, with passengers who are on delayed trains allowed to jump on the next flight.

I would not like to be the person involved in trying to negotiate it. I would say that if you could get agreement, then you would qualify for something pretty senior in the UN!

You'd be correct if it were necessary for the railways to be pretty about this. But there's no good reason for the railway to be petty. It costs the railway nothing to allow someone with an advance ticket to occupy a spare seat on a different train. No agreement is necessary with any airline; no reciprocation from the airlines is needed. There's a lot more redundancy in terms of capacity on board trains, and so the railway can be more flexible than the airlines can.

Some decency from the railway is all that is required.

 

[jon0844]

Given discretion is shown already, it's certainly not impossible to get ATOC to agree to allowing later travel on tickets FROM an airport (and only an airport station) where the passenger(s) can provide proof from the airline that the flight was delayed. That would be better than the gamble of meeting someone nice like Flamingo, or the RPI that likes to harass passengers on FCC!

Whether it's a straight 'no problem' and a clip of a standard advance ticket or a requirement to pay extra for an 'airport advance' ticket, either way it solves the problem. It doesn't set a precedent for anything else and is positive PR too.

Perhaps the next move is for someone to write to ATOC or the likes of BAA and other airport owners to see what they say? Give Manchester as an example and see what happens. I suggest this someone is willing to not just send a letter and leave it at that. Emphasise the PR benefits! Positive PR is as important as making money these days!

As I see it, there's no need for IATA or any individual airline to get involved - unless someone like Ryanair can negotiate its own ticket agreement (say, buy a discounted ticket onboard that must be shown with your boarding card) that is of mutual benefit to airline and TOC.

 

[Roylang]

As I see it, there's no need for IATA or any individual airline to get involved - unless someone like Ryanair can negotiate its own ticket agreement (say, buy a discounted ticket onboard that must be shown with your boarding card) that is of mutual benefit to airline and TOC.

I was not suggesting that IATA do get involved, just highlighting that there is an international body that represents the airlines just as UK TOCs have the ATOC.

Roy

 

[jon0844]

I know that, and I knew why you said it in response to the 'hundreds of airlines' comment.

If the airports and ATOC couldn't come to some sort of common sense agreement then it probably would fall to ATOC and IATA to do something - but surely BAA (which owns most of the big airports) could do it easily, and then 'smaller' airports like Gatwick, Luton and Southend (sorry, picked all London ones there) could probably do so even easier.

 

[evil_hippo]

We do offer flexibility. They are called SuperOffPeak, Off peak or Anytime tickets (or whatever the local TOC calls them).

The issue here is people wanting to pay the cheaper price of the inflexible ticket, but still have the flexibility. Having their cake and eating it is the phrase that covers it, I believe.

"Not encouraging passengers to come back" is a red herring. If people don't like the fare, every airport has bus links and every taxi firm in the country will drive to any airport. It's called a free market economy. I don't recall anything saying that the train companies had to offer the cheapest method of travel, every method has advantages and disadvantages, in both access and price. The information should be available from the TOC to allow passengers to make an informed decision, but it is ultimately the consumers choice, and once they have made it, the have agreed to the negatives as well as the positives.

Flamingo, I'm becoming upset as I read through the attitude you're displaying; I would have though people in the world were mostly better than that. Free markets and choices are just great when your economic circumstances empower you to choose the more expensive options where they are most appropriate, but that's absolutely no good to peoples whose circumstances limit their economic power.

Allow me to make this personal. I am presently a student in my fifth year of study, I would have graduated sooner had it not been for problems related to severe depression. I live off the small amount of money that is typical in this position; the vast majority of my income must go on day-to-day expenses and housing. My girlfriend lives in Helsinki. To see her regularly, and at more or less all times be looking forward to plans to see her, greatly improves my ability to cope with life in general. Flights to Helsinki tend to cost me about £100 return, which requires me to save as much as I can in order to make the trip several times over a year. Flights leave from London, and I must travel from Leeds. An open ticket is out of the question; to be able to afford that trip I must book in advance.

Supposing that my flight is delayed, you would see it as fair for me to be charged more. This seems perverse, because being delayed, and needing to use a later train, is out of my control, is not benefiting me, and is not something that I desired. In other words, I am not deriving any additional utility, and if anything am deriving less, from my overall trip. If anything, then, I should pay less, but I accept that the airlines avoid any sort of refunds. I certainly should not pay more, and it is within the railway industry's power to ensure that I do not. Besides any such reasoning, to pay more would be a very large hardship for me.

As for the question of alternative modes, clearly taxi is out of the question, I like many, view long coach trips - around five hours from Leeds to London -as a considerable ordeal. I suffer sickness of such journeys, and for that reason certainly cannot read or do anything that takes my eyes away from the window, and I have problems with sitting in the same position for that length of time. So as for many people, train is the only reasonable way for me to travel such distances.

 

[Roylang]

I know that, and I knew why you said it in response to the 'hundreds of airlines' comment.

If the airports and ATOC couldn't come to some sort of common sense agreement then it probably would fall to ATOC and IATA to do something - but surely BAA (which owns most of the big airports) could do it easily, and then 'smaller' airports like Gatwick, Luton and Southend (sorry, picked all London ones there) could probably do so even easier.

It would be nice to think that the likes of BAA could pave the way for such an arrangement but I don't see it happening. The number of airports they have is now more limited and some do not even have rail connections. BAA own six airports and have to sell two of them (London Stansted and one of Glasgow/Edinburgh).

I think the most likely approach would be one whereby, dare I say it, the government tried to do something through the franchise agreements to support their "integrated transport" vision.

Chances of it happening? I would guess somewhere near 0% :cry:

Roy

 

[evil_hippo]

It would be nice to think that the likes of BAA could pave the way for such an arrangement but I don't see it happening. The number of airports they have is now more limited and some do not even have rail connections. BAA own six airports and have to sell two of them (London Stansted and one of Glasgow/Edinburgh).

I think the most likely approach would be one whereby, dare I say it, the government tried to do something through the franchise agreements to support their "integrated transport" vision.

Chances of it happening? I would guess somewhere near 0% :cry:

Roy

But I would say again, to this conversation, that no cooperation is needed for the railway to be "the bigger man", and be flexible whether or not the airlines wish to reciprocate.

 

[Greenback]

Flamingo, I'm becoming upset as I read through the attitude you're displaying; I would have though people in the world were mostly better than that. Free markets and choices are just great when your economic circumstances empower you to choose the more expensive options where they are most appropriate, but that's absolutely no good to peoples whose circumstances limit their economic power.

Allow me to make this personal. I am presently a student in my fifth year of study, I would have graduated sooner had it not been for problems related to severe depression. I live off the small amount of money that is typical in this position; the vast majority of my income must go on day-to-day expenses and housing. My girlfriend lives in Helsinki. To see her regularly, and at more or less all times be looking forward to plans to see her, greatly improves my ability to cope with life in general. Flights to Helsinki tend to cost me about £100 return, which requires me to save as much as I can in order to make the trip several times over a year. Flights leave from London, and I must travel from Leeds. An open ticket is out of the question; to be able to afford that trip I must book in advance.

Supposing that my flight is delayed, you would see it as fair for me to be charged more. This seems perverse, because being delayed, and needing to use a later train, is out of my control, is not benefiting me, and is not something that I desired. In other words, I am not deriving any additional utility, and if anything am deriving less, from my overall trip. If anything, then, I should pay less, but I accept that the airlines avoid any sort of refunds. I certainly should not pay more, and it is within the railway industry's power to ensure that I do not. Besides any such reasoning, to pay more would be a very large hardship for me.

As for the question of alternative modes, clearly taxi is out of the question, I like many, view long coach trips - around five hours from Leeds to London -as a considerable ordeal. I suffer sickness of such journeys, and for that reason certainly cannot read or do anything that takes my eyes away from the window, and I have problems with sitting in the same position for that length of time. So as for many people, train is the only reasonable way for me to travel such distances.

I am sorry, but Flamingo is correct. The rail system is based on the free market, and the motivation of every TOC, as with any business is the maximisation of revenue and profit.

In order to achieve this, rightly or wrongly, there are number of products offered by TOC's to attract different types of customers from their competitors. These include advance tickets, whcih are heavily restricted in return for a normally far cheaper fare. And more flexible tickets that allow a choice of services, but which usually cost more, sometimes a lot more.

The customer has a choice of these products, and also the products offered by competing transport modes such as coaches and taxi's. The customer also has the option of purchaisng travel insurance, of which there are many types, some of which will provide cover in the event of delays.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but under the present system it is not the railway's role to help facilitate cheap travel overseas to see loved ones any more than it is the airlines or ferry companies. Although it may not cost the TOC directly to allow trvel on a later train, it does cost indirectly if the majority of people who buy more expensive tickets for flexibility switch to the cheaper tickets. This is the reason why, although discretion is used by staff on a daily basis, the official line is that if you miss your first booked train an advance ticket is invalid.

I'm sorry that your economic circumstances do not allow you to exercise as much choice as you would like in this cpaitalist, free market economy. Sadly, many people are in the same boat. Perhaps in the future your circumstances may change. In the meantime, I am sure that TOC's would be happy to change the rules and introduce airport exceptions on Advance tickets should they feel it will benefit their revenue streams.