ORR Retail Market Report Released Today

[SickyNicky]

For those who may not be aware, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has published it's report on the review of the rail retail market.

http://orr.gov.uk/news-and-media/press-releases/2016/positive-steps-towards-a-more-consumer-focused-rail-retail-industry

 

[AlterEgo]

This is a very interesting report. Especially:


13. Differential pricing, whereby prices
could vary by sales channel to reflect
their relative cost of sale

We are not suggesting that the idea of
differential pricing is taken forward with
immediate effect.

However, as part of longer-term developments
to ticketing systems, we remain open to the
idea of differential pricing, particularly where
those developments improve passengers’
confidence in choosing a ticket that best meets
their needs.


Essentially, telesales and ticket office outlets would charge a premium for using those channels are these are higher-cost.

 

[mikeg]

Glad they're not taking that one forward at the moment. Also glad they're not taking forward the plan to relax the interavailabiltiy requirements, that was a big one for me.

 

[AlterEgo]

Glad they're not taking that one forward at the moment. Also glad they're not taking forward the plan to relax the interavailabiltiy requirements, that was a big one for me.

They say they remain "open to the idea". I am on the fence with that one.

I'm not sure if they have a consultation coming up on this or not.

 

[mikeg]

I am massively against the idea of a lead operator setting non-interavailable flows as it creates a conflict of interest, where they price their own product and a product which is available on all services. If it is the case that a lead operator is to set non-interavailable flows, then a central authority should take over the pricing of the interavailable ticket (as with the ATOC-priced fares in London or the historic situation with PTE-pricing) and base it on existing fares (or something more favourable, but we know that ain't gonna happen!)

 

[furlong]

I am massively against the idea of a lead operator setting non-interavailable flows as it creates a conflict of interest

For example, consider travelling return between Milton Keynes and Euston off-peak and look at the percentage premium you pay for the flexibility to take the next train, whichever company it happens to be rather than restricting yourself to the same company in each direction. At the very least 'change of operator' excesses should be a right in cases like these so you can pay the average of the two return fares if you mix-and-match operators.

 

[Greeby]

This is a very interesting report. Especially:


13. Differential pricing, whereby prices
could vary by sales channel to reflect
their relative cost of sale

We are not suggesting that the idea of
differential pricing is taken forward with
immediate effect.

However, as part of longer-term developments
to ticketing systems, we remain open to the
idea of differential pricing, particularly where
those developments improve passengers’
confidence in choosing a ticket that best meets
their needs.


Essentially, telesales and ticket office outlets would charge a premium for using those channels are these are higher-cost.

Well, that would be me out of a job in short order as I would refuse to apply such a charge.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well, that would be me out of a job in short order as I would refuse to apply such a charge.

You likely wouldn't get a choice, the ticket would simply be priced higher on your TIS.

 

[All Line Rover]

I am massively against the idea of a lead operator setting non-interavailable flows as it creates a conflict of interest, where they price their own product and a product which is available on all services. If it is the case that a lead operator is to set non-interavailable flows, then a central authority should take over the pricing of the interavailable ticket (as with the ATOC-priced fares in London or the historic situation with PTE-pricing) and base it on existing fares (or something more favourable, but we know that ain't gonna happen!)

Just to clarify, the ORR say they remain "open to the idea" of differential pricing based on retail channel.

Skimming through the report, I can't see any mention of the ORR's view on the value of "Any Permitted" fares (suggesting that this is not on the ORR's radar).

 

[yorksrob]

I'm massively against the idea of differential pricing according to retail channel, apart from maybe the odd quid discount on internet sales. Quite apart from anything, it discriminates against those who aren't computer savvy as well as those who can't afford a home computer (and no, I don't consider crummy "smart" phones as being an adequate alternative).

 

[Merseysider]

Hmmm. I'm sure the usual suspects will be along shortly to explain that Deutsche Bahn charge a small additional premium on all tickets booked through their travel agents and sales representatives and some orders made by phone so it's absolutely the best way forward. :roll:

I don't think price discrimination based on sales outlet is the right way to go. I prefer to see my local ticket offices stay open and having a surcharge for booking at the station would be counterproductive to that end. In any case, it wouldn't work (fairly) as many tickets can only be gotten from ticket offices.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm massively against the idea of differential pricing according to retail channel, apart from maybe the odd quid discount on internet sales. Quite apart from anything, it discriminates against those who aren't computer savvy as well as those who can't afford a home computer (and no, I don't consider crummy "smart" phones as being an adequate alternative).

But you can easily purchase tickets from a smart phone, so why isn't it an adequate alternative?

 

[30907]

I'm massively against the idea of differential pricing according to retail channel, apart from maybe the odd quid discount on internet sales.

But that's differential pricing nevertheless. As well as DB, NS and I think Slovak Railways do something similar. Not that I like the idea either.

 

[maniacmartin]

It's been discussed recently on this forum before. I think it could be a way to fund keeping staff in ticket offices (but no doubt TOCs won't see it like that). I would only support a surcharge for tickets that cannot be bought from the TVMs at the origin station though.

 

[BurtonM]

So, things like advances, seasons, rovers, Plusbus, and tickets for travel from other origin stations?
Can't say I agree with that.

 

[AlterEgo]

So, things like advances, seasons, rovers, Plusbus, and tickets for travel from other origin stations?
Can't say I agree with that.

The ORR only said they remained "open to the (general) idea".

Where a product is not available at any other place than a station it wouldn't make much sense to stick on the booking office premium.