It isn't even on the first page for me. Almost everything on the first page is *about* them, but none of the hits actually are them. It's one of the perverse costs of doing a big launch and getting lots of publicity - unless you've done a huge amount of SEO before the launch, none of which have much long term value, then you will instantly get knocked off the top by the coverage you get on more established sites
First hit for me, amusingly, is "Buy Lumo Train Tickets" from the Trainline.
The price is certainly right at the moment! I expect LNER to try seat sales etc, but really flooding the market with ridiculously cheap fares all day isn't in anyone's long term interest as it'll just end up losing both companies money. The marketing and hype really need to go in on the easyJet/BA basic market, and to a lesser extent NatEx/Megabus, which is why the ticket buying process is particularly disappointing but we'll see if they improve it.
There is a "not primarily abstractive" test for a reason. Open access operations are meant to bring new custom to the railway as a whole.
It's a way of protecting the passenger (you and me) from operators chasing the profitable services to the detriment of, say, unsocial hours services. Those services that need to run to make a public service but on their own do not load well enough to be profitable in their own right.
We don't. Nobody ever said we did. We don't in most sectors, since all companies are subject to some level of regulation and taxation. It's unclear why any of this is weird.
The ORR still permit the majority of the forecast revenues of the entrant to be abstracted.
LNER will have to cut their fares to some extent otherwise the Lumo services will all be fully booked before the LNER services are even remotely near that threshold. If seat comfort also turns out to be something that people cite as a reason for choosing Lumo over LNER then LNER's sole selling point over Lumo would be their better frequency, which whilst that may convince some people to stick with LNER it won't be enough to convince the budget conscious leisure market who can be flexible with their travel times to stick with LNER. People with the ability to be flexible with their train times simply won't pay more to travel on a train that is less comfortable.
The 05:48 LNER departure that was proposed was actually the existing Leeds - Aberdeen service diverted to run from Kings Cross instead. With the timetable change deferred, this will not now be happening and the first LNER departure from Kings Cross to Edinburgh will remain the 06:15.
Pedant alert...... there might be whiskey in Edinburgh, but only if somebody brought it over from Ireland. If its made locally its whisky (without the E)
What problem is that? LNER will not have to cut their fares in the presence of two trains a day. In due course, the Lumo fares are likely to increase to around the level of LNER's cheapest advances. Lumo need the custom. Their offering will be a small dent to LNER. I'm sure LNER and the DfT will keep an eye on the effect on loadings of the LUMO services.
I think that's exactly what alistairlees was getting at
You can’t just decide that the Azuma is “less comfortable” for others just because it is for you. As you know, I think they’re fine and the padding and moquette makes all the difference - GWR’s seats I do not like. But it’s all subjective
I would of thought that the airline seat option is to simply increase capacity.
Two trains a day going up to five a day including services at more convenient times than at present from the new year. LNER will find themselves losing customers to Lumo, and likely a significant enough number of them that the DFT will complain about the lost revenue and LNER will need to lower their fares to tempt people back. Lumo promise (and this isn't just a promotional offer) an average fare of less than £25, good luck finding a ticket that cheap on the vast majority of LNER services.
The seats on LNER's fleet may well be fine for yourself, like they are for some other people, but a very large proportion of the customers on the East Coast don't like them and a better seat on Lumo combined with cheaper fares will persuade a good number of people to switch. By all means if you wish to keep paying more money for LNER to travel on what many would consider a downgrade feel free, nobody is forcing you to swtich to Lumo.
From the late, great Victoria Wood:
They're a newly-started operation set up on a low-cost basis and offering notably lower fares than the incumbent - but you expect them to offer the same compensation arrangements as the higher-cost incumbent?
Stelios became a very rich man doing just this.
LNER also only offer delay repay from 30 minutes, so Lumo is no worse than in that respect.
The DfT can't complain because after a long battle, the ORR approved the paths for Lumo.
I'm not sure LNER will have any particular issues with this anyway. We are already seeing off-peak numbers on the East Coast recovering towards pre-pandemic levels, and any growth in remote working should see long distance travel like this go through the roof as people visit every few weeks for workshops or in-office days.
Indeed it is competition, which is why the DFT will complain and make LNER react accordingly.
Unless they are already waiting at Kings Cross or Waverley a lot of those unable to get a seat on Lumo would probably still choose the plane. A reasonable number of people won’t take costs of getting to and from the airport into consideration, and a number of people will also live closer to the airport than the station anyway.
