Saver Half (SVH) product on Avanti West Coast to end from May fares round

[cactustwirly]

This wouldn't surprise me. FirstGroup don't seem to be big into Advances - for the GWR journeys I've done I'm yet to have one where an Advance would have made sense financially. I don't often choose them anyway, but on the WCML it's usually a case that I'm paying more for flexibility - on GWR it very much hasn't been the case for me.

Actually I've found that GWR are very advance heavy, found some ridiculously priced advances to places like Hereford and Devon etc. Not so much on the Bristol corridor, but the trains on that route are very busy.
Not traveled for a while, not sure what the situation is like now.

Advances on EMT/EMR haven't been hugely cheap for the last couple of years. Recently it's been just as cheap to buy a Super Off peak ticket from Leicester to Reading.

 

[Wallsendmag]

I think it's clearly "We'll work to make each Off Peak Single cost no more than 70% of the relevant Off Peak Return fare" but publicity people often don't quite get that sort of thing right!

No I read that as if they had 100 Off Peak returns at least 70 will have singles at a lower price point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No I read that as if they had 100 Off Peak returns at least 70 will have singles at a lower price point.

I don't read it that way, because it wouldn't make sense that way, because 100% of Avanti West Coast flows that have an Off Peak Return have an Off Peak Single at a lower price point than the Return - lower by precisely £0.10. There aren't any flows I have ever come across where this wasn't the case.

 

[Wallsendmag]

I don't read it that way, because it wouldn't make sense that way, because 100% of Avanti West Coast flows that have an Off Peak Return have an Off Peak Single at a lower price point than the Return - lower by precisely £0.10. There aren't any flows I have ever come across where this wasn't the case.

That may be what they mean but it's not what that says.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That may be what they mean but it's not what that says.

It doesn't say anything, it's a nonsense-sentence. I'm pretty sure they do mean what I said, though.

If anyone has access to the fares data perhaps they could confirm it!

 

[father_jack]

Well, you could, as then you've got two tests going on - one for abolishing returns and pricing singles at 50%, and another one for retaining returns and pricing singles at 60%.

There has already been one of retaining returns and pricing singles at 50% - GWR.

@Bletchleyite that was sort of done maybe 12 or more years ago on FGW as it was. I remember "somewhere" to Paddington Supersaver single (SSS) being £38 and Supersaver return (SSR) being £39, with same arrangement Saver single and Saver return. Every booking clerk offered the return for the quid extra so there were loads of spare returns filling up wallets, particularly of those who came back at peak time !!!

Then at a subsequent fares round the SSS became say, £21 and the SSR £42. But maybe 3 or 4 fares rounds later, "slippage" from the original 50% intention started to happen and now a quick look today shows a sample SSR divided into the SSS to be 57% and SVR into SVS to be 59% on the now GWR.

 

[gray1404]

Having singles prices at 60% of the return price is fine, PROVIDED the return ticket remains too. So, in other words: a return ticket at the current rate and a single at 60% of the return (so 2 x singles would be 120%). Provided the current return ticket remains and is cheaper then two singles then I think its fine.

 

[Starmill]

It doesn't say anything, it's a nonsense-sentence.

It does. It says what Wallsendmag explained.

 

[Starmill]

Saver Half tickets have been increasingly open to undercutting Avanti's prices since last May, because you can buy one with an LNR Advance in the other direction, throw that away, and save big. This was niche before, but now that online journey planners throw that sort of thing up regularly for Liverpool to London (for example), I would not be too surprised to see them chuck them as a quick way to increase prices. It doesn't really make sense to encourage people to buy tickets for their competitors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does. It says what Wallsendmag explained.

Which is why it's a nonsense-sentence, because 100% of Avanti-set Off Peak Returns have an Off Peak Single cheaper than them. 10p cheaper, but that is still cheaper.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Saver Half tickets have been increasingly open to undercutting Avanti's prices since last May, because you can buy one with an LNR Advance in the other direction, throw that away, and save big. This was niche before, but now that online journey planners throw that sort of thing up regularly for Liverpool to London (for example), I would not be too surprised to see them chuck them as a quick way to increase prices. It doesn't really make sense to encourage people to buy tickets for their competitors.

Though the effect of throwing them away will be a considerable reduction in the use of Advances - the use-case of being able to commit to a train outwards but requiring flexibility on the return will no longer be catered for, so those people (and it's quite a common use-case) will just buy walk-ups, which could mean Avanti getting less of the fare.

 

[Hadders]

Having singles prices at 60% of the return price is fine, PROVIDED the return ticket remains too. So, in other words: a return ticket at the current rate and a single at 60% of the return (so 2 x singles would be 120%). Provided the current return ticket remains and is cheaper then two singles then I think its fine.

This is critical. There is a risk that if the LNER trial is declared a success and they decide to roll it out nationally then they'll abolish returns and 'forget' to reduce the price of the singles to half the price of the returns thereby introducing a huge price increase via the back door.

We'll be watching.....

 

[alistairlees]

@Bletchleyite is quite correct in his description of what the "70%" means in the Avanti document that he links to in post 28.

The West Coast Partnership Franchise Agreement (Part 2) states, in clause 88.3:

By the second Fares Setting Round after the Start Date, the Franchisee shall introduce an offpeak Single Fare product for all Flows that is:

(a) available through all retail channels; and

(b) set at no more than seventy per cent (70%) of the off-peak Return Fare product (rounded to the nearest ten (10) pence).

The Start Date is, I assume, defined as 9th December 2019. So that means this May fares setting round, as indeed is happening.

There is no mention, that I can see, of "Saver Half" or withdrawal of "Saver Half"; but there is no obligation either, that I can see, to retain it.

This will lead to winners and losers of course

- an example of a winner: an Off-Peak Single from Manchester to London will now be no more than £64.50 (as opposed to £91.10) from the May fares setting round (current prices are £92.10 for an Off-Peak Return, and £91.10 for an Off-Peak Single). A decrease of £26.50.

- an example of a loser: a return journey from Manchester to London that comprises an Advance Single in the outward direction, and an Off-Peak Single in the return direction, would currently be £46.05 for the "Saver Half" Off-Peak portion, but will now be £64.50 for a simple Off-Peak single. An increase of £18.45.

However, note also that clause 88.2 says:

The Franchisee shall, by the first Fares Setting Round falling more than three (3) months after the Start Date, introduce the Fare Family structure for all ticket formats that includes the following:

In the following table there is a reference to an "Advance Semi-Flex" product, which might be a reference to a return product, like SWR's "Semi-flex" (it could equally be a reference to the current Advance single products - it really isn't clear!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The "Advance Semi-Flex" appears to be the same thing as the present Advance.

The "Advance Promo" is concerning - no changes or refunds allowed - this is not a good idea at all. Or is it just something for occasional promotions, as that suggests it would already be in place?

But back to the 70% thing and the SVH, this could well be the pragmatic option that balances revenue loss from going to 50% but also makes 3-point and other complex journeys much more affordable. At present they are penalised to far too great an extent. And the SVH at 50% does cause issues, e.g. them being issued instead of a SVR due to Railcard discounts making them 5p less than a return but with much less flexibility - most notably an effective 100% penalty for changing the date.

I think overall I prefer this 70% idea to the SVH. And the effect of it could be reduced by fiddling with Advance quotas.

 

[gray1404]

Is it 60% or 70%? We've got both figures mentioned here

 

[alistairlees]

Is it 60% or 70%? We've got both figures mentioned here

Surely it is obvious that it is the figure that is mentioned in the franchise agreement, which is 70%? The mentions of 60% are by posters who are speculating, and the figure is not in any relevant documentation that I know of.

 

[route101]

Actually I've found that GWR are very advance heavy, found some ridiculously priced advances to places like Hereford and Devon etc. Not so much on the Bristol corridor, but the trains on that route are very busy.
Not traveled for a while, not sure what the situation is like now.

Advances on EMT/EMR haven't been hugely cheap for the last couple of years. Recently it's been just as cheap to buy a Super Off peak ticket from Leicester to Reading.

Surely London to Bristol , theres enough services for a decent priced non advance ticket? Its not that far.

I used to use advance Glasgow to Preston then saver half back up , useful as yiu werent commited to a certain train

 

[infobleep]

Surely it is obvious that it is the figure that is mentioned in the franchise agreement, which is 70%? The mentions of 60% are by posters who are speculating, and the figure is not in any relevant documentation that I know of.

It's up to 70% so Avanti could of they wanted to, set them at 60%. I guess they might judge which is likely to bring the most revenue versus numbers of passengers paying and set it accordingly.

Of course currently, if I'm correct in my understandin, they don't take the revenue hit, it's the DfT, so I don't know if that changes anything.

 

[cactustwirly]

Surely London to Bristol , theres enough services for a decent priced non advance ticket? Its not that far.

I used to use advance Glasgow to Preston then saver half back up , useful as yiu werent commited to a certain train

It's £63.10 for a Super Off Peak return from London - Bristol which isn't bad, you can save more by splitting at Didcot.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it 60% or 70%? We've got both figures mentioned here

I thought it was 60% but on finding the materials about it it appears to in fact be 70%.

 

[father_jack]

It's £63.10 for a Super Off Peak return from London - Bristol which isn't bad, you can save more by splitting at Didcot.

You have less trains suiting your split though nowadays unless you leap at Swindon and wait 15 minutes. And if you are using a SSR as a day return the time and train restrictions on the CDRs out of Paddington can make things too much like hard work.

 

[alistairlees]

Let's keep the discussion in this thread to the cessation of the SVH product please. GWR routes out of Paddington have never had this product and I'd prrefer discussion of those to be in a separate thread, please. Thanks!

 

[Hadders]

The reason the SVH was introduced was so that you could get an Advance in one direction and combine it with a flexible ticket in the other direction at half the price of a walk on return. A very sensible product which has worked well on the WCML for years. There are a few sticking points like the inability to be able to change the date of an SVH but this is a retailing tech issue rather than an issue with the product itself.

Avanti now appear to be abolishing the SVH and replacing it with a single fare priced at upto 70% of the walk on return. This represents a massive price increase for the people the SVH was designed for. It's all very well saying that Advance quotas can be tweaked so no-one's worse off - do you really think that will happen in the long term. Advance fares aren't regulated and the minute a TOC is a bit strapped for cash (when aren't they) will see Advance quotas tweaked in the other direction.

To be fair there are some advantages of this - those making a single of 3 point journey but overall I suspect there will be more losers than winners.

Am I cynical about this? Yes - this is the same Avanti that should have introduced 'via Carlisle' fares to deal with their revenue loss from LNER's single leg trial. Instead we got the totally inadequate 'route Avanti'. I also wonder what time restrictions will be on these new tickets?

If single leg pricing is the way ahead then why aren't they doing what LNER is doing?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I also wonder what time restrictions will be on these new tickets?

Exactly the same as the old ones. They're just a repricing of the present "return minus 10p" SVSs.

 

[kieron]

It's up to 70% so Avanti could of they wanted to, set them at 60%. I guess they might judge which is likely to bring the most revenue versus numbers of passengers paying and set it accordingly.

From what I can work out, from May there will be:
70 Avanti flows with a SVS which costs less than 65% of the SVR;
47731 with a SVS priced at 65-70% of the SVR;
1687 with a SVS priced at 70-75% of the SVR;
157 with a SVS costing more than 75% of the SVR; and
2626 which will have a SVR but no SVS fare at all.

They're definitely aiming for 70% (and even plan to increase some "Avanti only" return fares to help with this), albeit with only partial success.

For what it's worth, the journey which will have a SVS and SVR after May, but where the difference in fare will be the smallest, is Heathrow-Stranraer, where an "any permitted" SVR costs £238.80, and a SVS £219.80, 92% of the return price. There are no changes planned for this flow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That must have taken a lot of effort to achieve rather than just a blanket percentage reduction. I assume it's all been tweaked in order to make it revenue neutral?

 

[alistairlees]

From what I can work out, from May there will be:
70 Avanti flows with a SVS which costs less than 65% of the SVR;
47731 with a SVS priced at 65-70% of the SVR;
1687 with a SVS priced at 70-75% of the SVR;
157 with a SVS costing more than 75% of the SVR; and
2626 which will have a SVR but no SVS fare at all.

They're definitely aiming for 70% (and even plan to increase some "Avanti only" return fares to help with this), albeit with only partial success.

For what it's worth, the journey which will have a SVS and SVR after May, but where the difference in fare will be the smallest, is Heathrow-Stranraer, where an "any permitted" SVR costs £238.80, and a SVS £219.80, 92% of the return price. There are no changes planned for this flow.

A nice piece of work there Kieron - thank you.

 

[infobleep]

From what I can work out, from May there will be:
70 Avanti flows with a SVS which costs less than 65% of the SVR;
47731 with a SVS priced at 65-70% of the SVR;
1687 with a SVS priced at 70-75% of the SVR;
157 with a SVS costing more than 75% of the SVR; and
2626 which will have a SVR but no SVS fare at all.

They're definitely aiming for 70% (and even plan to increase some "Avanti only" return fares to help with this), albeit with only partial success.

For what it's worth, the journey which will have a SVS and SVR after May, but where the difference in fare will be the smallest, is Heathrow-Stranraer, where an "any permitted" SVR costs £238.80, and a SVS £219.80, 92% of the return price. There are no changes planned for this flow.

Many thanks for the interesting summery.

 

[Starmill]

That must have taken a lot of effort to achieve rather than just a blanket percentage reduction. I assume it's all been tweaked in order to make it revenue neutral?

My interpretation of it is that it has been designed to maximise short run revenue, with the largest price increases for the origin-destination pairs with the greatest demand. Avanti will also be conscious of flows where (pre-Covid-19) trains were running well under-capacity, and where they could be more competitive)

It's a shame it won't yield much comparable data as a result of the Covid-19 Crisis.

 

[father_jack]

Let's keep the discussion in this thread to the cessation of the SVH product please. GWR routes out of Paddington have never had this product and I'd prrefer discussion of those to be in a separate thread, please. Thanks!

It's the % of the single fare to the return that provoked the discussion.