LNER's price advantage exposed in Telegraph article

[yorkie]

For updates to this matter, see the thread: More booking sites are now able to match LNER's half price singles

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....rs-charged-double-government-run-railway/amp/

A Telegraph investigation has found that the Trainline is frequently showing passengers "cheapest available” prices for single tickets which are actually twice the price of identical tickets available directly from London North East Railway’s own website.

LNER, which runs from London to Scotland, has admitted its ticketing system has been incompatible with the Trainline's for at least a year.

In light of this newspaper’s findings LNER is now telling passengers to boycott the Trainline and to book directly via its own website.

Until now neither LNER or the Trainline has so far made any effort to warn customers about the price discrepancy

“Transport Focus will press the Trainline to find out why it is not possible to buy these tickets from its website to help prevent this happening again.”

I can save Transport Focus the bother of asking Trainline why this is happening.

In the past, these Super Off Peak Singles were intentionally sold at half the return fare, but a while back (I can't remember exactly when but I am sure it was over a year ago) the franchise (then VTEC) changed the rules, adding a requirement that these fares must only be sold as part of a return journey.

However, when VTEC launched their new website, the new fares data supplier of the VTEC site was apparently unable to properly support these fares, causing issues such as Railcard discounts to be unavailable and also a lack of enforcement of the 'only to be sold as part of a return journey' requirement.

Here is where it gets interesting: VTEC (now LNER) could have chosen to officially relax the 'return journey' requirement for all retailers. But they did not. This meant the company was well aware that they had a price advantage on their own website, compared to all other retailers (not just Trainline).

If a third party retailer had done this, the franchise holder would no doubt have reported this breach of retailing rules to Rail Delivery Group, who would likely have taken enforcement action against the retailer.

But because it's the franchise holders own website, their attitude appears to be that 'we do what we want'

This is absolutely not the fault of any third party retailer such as Trainline, and I hope Trainline's legal team are onto the case as they are effectively being slandered by LNER for actions that are entirely LNER's doing.

LNER were aware of what was going on, as they have admitted, but they are not being entirely honest about how the issue has come about.

 

[robbeech]

As you’ve pointed out here, quite rightly, despite Trainlines numerous failings and issues with how their system works over the last couple of years (there are plenty of topics about these), in this instance they are actually following the rules.

 

[bb21]

I don't think a booking engine which has misled customers with dubious adverts for years deserve any support from this forum.

I am also unconvinced it is wise for trial by forum to take place on what may well become a potential legal dispute between two commercial entities.

 

[yorkie]

I don't think a booking engine which has misled customers with dubious adverts for years deserve any support from this forum.

I am just stating the facts; by all means criticise Trainline about their adverts but that's a separate topic, unrelated to this one.

This is nothing really to do with Trainline specifically; the issue is all retailers are instructed not to sell these fares singly by LNER, and would be considered in breach of RDG's retailing rules if they sold them singly, yet LNER themselves have chosen to sell them singly.

LNER could have chosen to allow all retailers to sell them singly but they chose not to.

For updates to this matter, see the thread: More booking sites are now able to match LNER's half price singles

 

[bb21]

If a thread is locked it is not for further discussion in public.