Seems sensible to me personally.Well, I've found a solution (with the help of some booking office staff).
It's still sharp practice to withdraw the off-peak trains then still expect to charge people to peak fares.
Seems sensible to me personally.
LNER clearly do not want passengers to travel on these days, or certainly they would likely want to make it unattractive enough to put off a large number of passengers travelling at potentially quite busy times in the peak.
Pricing people away to reduce demand is an extremely common and long standing practice in certain areas of the rail network where capacity is likely to be problematic. It's not exactly like they're profiteering, given they're likely making a huge (commercial) loss on a strike day anyway.
This doesn't alarm you at all?Pricing people away to reduce demand is an extremely common and long standing practice in certain areas of the rail network
Demand based pricing where a product has finite capacity? I would say that is pretty standard...This doesn't alarm you at all?
Demand based pricing where a product has finite capacity? I would say that is pretty standard...
The railway is in collusion with ... the railway?As per usual, it's the railway operating for its own convenience, no doubt in collusion with the anti-passenger railway.
The railway is in collusion with ... the railway?
You'd think, wouldn't you? But that's not how it works. Hence the non-resolution of the industrial dispute.Seems sensible to me personally.
LNER clearly do not want passengers to travel on these days, or certainly they would likely want to make it unattractive enough to put off a large number of passengers travelling at potentially quite busy times in the peak.
Pricing people away to reduce demand is an extremely common and long standing practice in certain areas of the rail network where capacity is likely to be problematic. It's not exactly like they're profiteering, given they're likely making a huge (commercial) loss on a strike day anyway.