I think you're reading rather a lot into my original point, which is that rail companies can end up in the unfortunate situation where someone who paid several times as much for their ticket (on a walk up/flexible ticket without a reservation) getting a worse level of service than someone who has a cheap advance. I was suggesting that this is not a good thing for the rail industry. For example, it may encourage the most profitable customers (someone paying 80 pounds *is* more profitable than someone paying 10 pounds!) to choose other forms of transport.
It may not 'look' a good thing for the rail industry but it is a function of providing capacity that by definition has to be finite.
Take a typical fare, say Didcot to Paddington. An anytime return ticket (SOR) costs £60, an off-peak return (SVR) costs £27.30 and a CDR, £24.80. If the passenger really has to travel before 09:30, they will need the SOR, but can trade that flexibility for a cheaper ticket. It's all about demand management and nothing to do with individual passengers' journeys. The last thing that the railway needs is more passengers in the peak flow. Infrastructure, rolling stock and staff are fully stretched at those times, so to encourage any more passengers would be a folly. Those who choose to/can travel in quieter times potentially get more room and pay less for it. That's the deal. Now passengers that buy SOR tickets and deliberately travel in off peak times seem to me to be a bit daft, - or have too much money. Sometimes they might do it if their plans are fluid and are prepared to pay for the flexibility, but they could turn up and pack into the already full trains so they have to pay a price that represents that ability.
The only type of traveller that bucks the demand management is the season ticket holder. At £122.50, a weekly season is just under 4 1/2 times the off-peak return fare. So with just the normal 5 working day journeys, the season ticket holder pays less than the heavily restricted off-peak traveller. The season ticket traveller is heavily subsidised for political reasons.
The problem is not unique to the rail industry - it also applies to e.g. airlines. Budget airlines tend not provide any additional benefits with higher fares. Other carriers often do - a full-fare economy ticket may get you extra airmiles, status points, lounge access, early seat selection, priority check in/boarding, etc (and of course allowing changes/refunds).
It's nothing like airlines. Airlines have no obligation to provide a certain level of capacity and passenger numbers are strictly limited the number of seats, i.e. unlike trains, there are no standees. Airlines do aggressive demand management to increase load factors. If you book late, you pay more. Sometimes, low fares reappear 2-3 weeks before travel.
The benefits offered are paid for: lounge access comes with higher class (= higher cost) tickets, priority check-in/boarding cost a few pounds more with low-cost airlines, with premium services, it comes with points status, but you need to spend a
lot of money on fares to qualify. The whole loyalty thing with airlines is to capture the lucrative business traveller market, where fares aren't normally paid for by the passenger. So inducements offered are really low cost compared with the effective cost to whoever is paying the fares.
Refund rules for airline tickets are similar to rail as full-price flexible tickets (e.g. Y class) have better conditions of cancellation/rescheduling than the lowest costs ones (e.g. K,L,M,N etc.). The lower codes are differenct for each airline but Y is fairly standard for fully flexible. I suppose they have the variability of the lower price advance tickets, i.e. availability is changed regularly and no chance of a refund.
