I completely disagree. The relevant term of the contract is that this aspect of the ticket is valid only on TransPennine Express services - this is stated clearly up front and forms a key part of the contract, and is not unreasonable.
All relevant Airport Advances are route TransPennine Express only, so it is simply restating a restriction that already exists. Nowhere does it say "if you hold another connecting split Advance then you can't take a later train".
I can see no justification whatsoever, either legal or moral, why that acceptance should be forced upon Virgin Trains, who do not wish to offer it.
Because they have signed up to the NRCoT and so this is one of many circumstances where they can't insist that passengers stick to the train they have booked. They can't pick and choose which part of the deal they stick to, and it is hardly unfair on the poor ickle train company to not screw the passenger even more for something that isn't their fault.
Tickets are offered which allow the journey concerned to be made, either as a through ticket or a split - Anytime or (Super) Off Peak ones - and a passenger wishing to do that should purchase one (or a set) of those.
That's one choice, but by no means are you limited to being ripped off at Virgin's extortionate rates if you want to be protected in the event of delays.
Yes, it does - on TransPennine Express services only.
Yes, that's the TOC restriction on the ticket. And???
It does not provide it on Virgin Trains services. It is therefore only relevant when the complete journey is on TPE, or when a separate ticket is purchased for the other bit.
It doesn't say that "if you hold another connecting split Advance then you can't take a later train".
It is not analagous to rail disruption. It is analogous to having a split Advance journey on which you change one of the tickets but not the other, then somehow expect the second one to be accepted on a later train. TPE's concession is that the change may be made after departure, but it is still a change.
No, it's nothing like that, but feel free to make as many other analogies as you like! It isn't a change to the ticket, it is a fundamental term of the ticket that the ticket is valid on one of several trains depending on the circumstances.
Fundamentally you have a right to merge two tickets as part of a split if they respect the minimum connection times. Because you changed one of them later (why is of no relevance outside the reason being disruption to the rail journey itself), they no longer do, therefore they do not constitute a journey any more.
Perhaps you could substantiate this assertion by showing us the part of NRCoT 14.1 that says that there are circumstances under which a combination of tickets no longer constitutes one journey?
It's precisely this sort of unreasonable view that will in the end in my view lead to TOCs pressuring, successfully, to have an airline style rule imposed, i.e. that splits are considered separate journeys and passengers will have no rights on combining them (that, or TOCs will cease doing things like this at all). We have a uniquely favourable arrangement in the UK - it makes sense to respect it for what it is.
It's less favourable even than the proposed new EU Regulations on rail travel, which may or may not be forced onto the industry after Brexit. If there is anything unreasonable then it is that Airport Advances aren't offered by all TOCs!
No, it's not.
A TOC may choose to endorse the ticket to allow that (which makes it valid under the "authorised person gave permission" line), but without an endorsement or other explicit permission (can be verbal) you can NOT unilaterially decide to do that. This is (unlike the primary subject) what one might term a grey area - mostly such an endorsement will be forthcoming, but I see nothing saying you are entitled to it - what you would be entitled to would be to delay your journey until the ticket became valid and to claim Delay Repay for the resultant delay.
You've clearly missed the point - there are journeys for which it is possible to miss the
last Off-Peak train of the day. You could certainly unilaterally take the next available itinerary and the rail industry couldn't decide it didn't fancy carrying you for the originally agreed price any more because of their money-grabbing "peak" restrictions. So given that circumstance - i.e. it being possible to miss the last or possibly only train of the day on which your ticket is purportedly valid due to travelling later than planned earlier in the journey - why is the situation of Airport Advances any different?
This situation is quite similar to you turning up at a station with an Advance for the 10:30, which is delayed 60 minutes, but the 09:30 is there in the platform, also delayed 60 minutes. Sensible customer service would be to allow you to travel early and be on time, costing the railway nothing and making you a happy passenger (bar losing your seat reservation). However you have no right to this, what you have a right to do is to travel 60 minutes late and receive a full refund on your ticket via Delay Repay, and I've seen plenty of evidence in here that that is the line most TOCs seem to take.
A situation which is of no relevance.
There are, and have been in the past, cases where in disruption I've done something that was not technically allowed, e.g. going Bletchley-Euston via MKC in preference to waiting an hour or so. In these cases staff have generally been accommodating. But that was using discretion - not something I had any kind of right to do, any more than I'd have a right to board a convenient Ryanair flight when my easyJet flight was late.
Oh dear, the airline industry comparison. It falls down because the only connection between Ryanair and easyJet is that they both fly planes. Whereas the connection between TPE and, say, Virgin, is that they are both parties to the same contract, namely the NRCoT. If you wanted to make a comparison at all, and it's not a good idea to try, you could make the comparison between a cancelled BA flight and an alternative Iberia flight. They're both in the same alliance and have the same parent company, so it would be quite reasonable to expect to be accommodated on the Iberia flight if at all possible.
Let's be honest here - all of us are clearly set in our positions and will not change. I don't think it's worth discussing it any more as it will just lead to petty bickering.
