I've been travelling weekly from Guildford to Peterborough for 5 years now, so have enough mental data to see when they're cheating, and they damn well are now. Will things revert to fairness when East Coast take over.
Specifically, I always get a 1st Class Advance each way - on the 09:10 out of KC and the 18:10 out of Pbo home. Currently advance single fares on NXEC's booking engine are "from £34 to ..." But about a month ago booking about a week in advance, the £34 fare seems to have disappeared from the list of actual fares on offer - but the off peak NXEC trains out of King's Cross in the morning are if anything emptier. It used to be a rare week I couldn't get a group of 4 seats to myself, since the cheaper fares vanished it's rare for anyone to be sitting in the singles across the aisle either. And that's choosing a block of 4 with no reservation cards - ie no-one's reserved those 4 any of the way to Leeds.
Before, at least they were up-front about the fare hikes - with the minimum advertised fare going from £23 to £34 over the last couple of years. If you ask their customer service, they cite demand and booking ahead, but that's rubbish - their script is simply an untruth. The guards agree (when they're un-PC enough to comment), but of course management doesn't listen to them. And looking 2, 3 or 4 weeks ahead now seems to make no difference. Is this just National Express trying to screw as much out of the punters as possible in their dying days?
I'd hope that when the Government takes over, it might publish the number of advance tickets at each fare level and be open about how many of these are actually sold. Indeed, will it be possible to do a FOI enquiry to get this info if they don't actually publish it, as they're no longer private sector? It would be nice if they'd also consider reducing fares to fill the carriages - naively I thought that was what demand management was all about. Selling one seat in 6 is hardly good commercial practice. -- Howard
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:44:18 +0000, Howard Fisher > <howardn...@locomotive.com> wrote:
>> Selling one seat in 6 is hardly good >>commercial practice.
> It is if you can sell it for more than 6 times the price you'd need to > charge to fill all of them. Think VWC's Manchester fares.
In any case, the OP's rant is misplaced. The fixing of prices at a given level may be many things - but it cannot be "unfair" any more than it can be "fair". Expecting TOCs to give away commercially-sensitive information such as how many fares are offered at a given price, and how many of those are unsold, is not reasonable. All one can say with certainty is that if a fare is offered at a given price and purchased, that was the market price for that particular transaction at that particular time.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 15:31:44 -0000, "Jonathan Morton"
<jonathan.mortonbutignorethisp...@btinternet.com> wrote: >In any case, the OP's rant is misplaced. The fixing of prices at a given >level may be many things - but it cannot be "unfair" any more than it can be >"fair". Expecting TOCs to give away commercially-sensitive information such >as how many fares are offered at a given price, and how many of those are >unsold, is not reasonable. All one can say with certainty is that if a fare >is offered at a given price and purchased, that was the market price for >that particular transaction at that particular time.
I agree. They have probably cut the quota of cheapest price advance tickets to the absolute minimum - it's also very difficult now to get the cheapest advance tickets on WCML.
In message <kbCdnaGQS6fBeWvXnZ2dnUVZ8vidn...@bt.com>, at 15:31:44 on Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Jonathan Morton <jonathan.mortonbutignorethisp...@btinternet.com> remarked:
>In any case, the OP's rant is misplaced. The fixing of prices at a given >level may be many things - but it cannot be "unfair" any more than it can be >"fair". Expecting TOCs to give away commercially-sensitive information such >as how many fares are offered at a given price, and how many of those are >unsold, is not reasonable. All one can say with certainty is that if a fare >is offered at a given price and purchased, that was the market price for >that particular transaction at that particular time.
Absolutely not. That assumes a perfect market, and this far from such a thing. What's almost certainly happening here is that NXEC are applying some very broad brush rules to a wide range of trains, and the specific trains that Howard is catching are just collateral damage. -- Roland Perry
Mr.G wrote: > I agree. They have probably cut the quota of cheapest price advance > tickets to the absolute minimum - it's also very difficult now to get > the cheapest advance tickets on WCML.
And even worse on CrossCountry! I've caught the train to/from Bournemouth up to Tamworth every Christmas for the last couple of years and been able to get Advance tickets every time. Now there are none - or at least the cheapest are £45 single (which is more than the combination of normal tickets from Southampton to Tamworth). Doesn't help that there are no period return tickets from here to Tamworth either!
On Nov 8, 4:02 pm, Mr.G <M...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 15:31:44 -0000, "Jonathan Morton"
> <jonathan.mortonbutignorethisp...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >In any case, the OP's rant is misplaced. The fixing of prices at a given > >level may be many things - but it cannot be "unfair" any more than it can be > >"fair". Expecting TOCs to give away commercially-sensitive information such > >as how many fares are offered at a given price, and how many of those are > >unsold, is not reasonable. All one can say with certainty is that if a fare > >is offered at a given price and purchased, that was the market price for > >that particular transaction at that particular time.
> I agree. They have probably cut the quota of cheapest price advance > tickets to the absolute minimum - it's also very difficult now to get > the cheapest advance tickets on WCML.
a quick spot check a week and 2.5 weeks ahead reveals no £34 tickets. Plenty at £42.50
Interesting though that there are £14.25 singles throughout the day, including peak trains and the 0910 favoured by the OP.
I wouldn't call it a rant- the moving goalposts of AP fares is very frustrating
<bevanprice...@btinternet.com> wrote: >But not if halving the walk-on fares led to them selling 3 or 4 tickets >instead of 1.
Correct. Though I think VT's judgement is probably right - if the Anytime ticket is more expensive than the Off-Peak one by any significant amount, only those who *must* travel at that time will do. And they'll travel anyway.
So the fare only has to be set at a level that it competes with air and car. Air in the peaks is often way more expensive, and car doesn't allow you to work while travelling (and in the case of London-Manchester is far slower unless you're quite seriously speeding).
Neil
-- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 13:51:41 -0800 (PST), Tim Holden
<timphol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >I wouldn't call it a rant- the moving goalposts of AP fares is very >frustrating
Surely it's the whole point? The availability and price of AP tickets should vary such that the optimum occupancy (all seats taken, but everyone paying higher walk-up fares who will do so) is achieved. They thus must vary from train to train, day to day and month to month to be effective in doing this.
And if a given train is overcrowded regularly (as is much of XC), none at all should be sold for that train.
Neil
-- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply.
Neil Williams wrote: > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 13:51:41 -0800 (PST), Tim Holden > <timphol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I wouldn't call it a rant- the moving goalposts of AP fares is very >> frustrating
> Surely it's the whole point? The availability and price of AP tickets > should vary such that the optimum occupancy (all seats taken, but > everyone paying higher walk-up fares who will do so) is achieved. > They thus must vary from train to train, day to day and month to month > to be effective in doing this.
> And if a given train is overcrowded regularly (as is much of XC), none > at all should be sold for that train.
But as I said in my original post, if anything the occupancy of the train I catch has gone down. Typically on that train there's a group of 6 seats with one or two people in, skip a group, then maybe a couple of occupied groups and so on down the whole length of coach L (where they put the reserved seats) and coach M is no busier with walk-ons.
If the point of having variable pricing is to increase occupancy, they're failing. And to claim any availability at the lowest price is I think a lie these past 4 weeks or so. If they have put the minimum price up to £42.50, then why don't they say so?
Will East Coast be any different? -- Howard Fisher (mail to howardnews is not read)
On 8 Nov, 14:44, Howard Fisher <howardn...@locomotive.com> wrote:
> I've been travelling weekly from Guildford to Peterborough for 5 years > now, so have enough mental data to see when they're cheating, and they > damn well are now. Will things revert to fairness when East Coast take over.
snip
> I'd hope that when the Government takes over, it might publish the > number of advance tickets at each fare level and be open about how many > of these are actually sold. Indeed, will it be possible to do a FOI > enquiry to get this info if they don't actually publish it, as they're > no longer private sector? It would be nice if they'd also consider > reducing fares to fill the carriages - naively I thought that was what > demand management was all about. Selling one seat in 6 is hardly good > commercial practice. > -- > Howard
Apart from the comment alread posted - its obviously better to sell one ticket for £100 than six at £10 - so empty seats don't always mean bad commercial practice. BUT more importantly you really haven't understood yield management have you?
There isn't a fixed number of advance tickets at any fare level on any train or on any TOC. So how can they publish them?
The system (as used by airlines) may release a few cheap advance purchase seats to start with and then monitor sales and demand for a particular train. Based on this, along with historic data, it will determine whether to release more advance purchase tickets at various prices or to not sell any more on the basis that the train will be filled with "premium" fare passengers. Most TOCs release batches of additional tickets on a daily basis as their monitoring advises them. A canny operator (air, coach or rail) will be watching events like football fixtures etc. and making sure that super-cheap tickets aren't sold on a day when demand will be extra high anyway. (people have seen air fares rise by hundreds of pounds as a goal is scored in a European match..) How on earth can a TOC publish details of something that changes daily, maybe hourly?
I expect the cheapest East Coast fares will rise - NXEC has sold plenty of very cheap tickets beyond the handover date for East Coast and insiders there tell me the fares are "unsustainable" and that "we wish here had been a way to stop them, but there isn't".... does that sound like they plan to make many more cheap fares available? DfT instructions are "make us money" and not "fill the seats".... It will be a very commercially driven operation, not a new charitable public service.
> Neil Williams wrote: > > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 13:51:41 -0800 (PST), Tim Holden > > <timphol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I wouldn't call it a rant- the moving goalposts of AP fares is very > >> frustrating
> > Surely it's the whole point? The availability and price of AP tickets > > should vary such that the optimum occupancy (all seats taken, but > > everyone paying higher walk-up fares who will do so) is achieved. > > They thus must vary from train to train, day to day and month to month > > to be effective in doing this.
> > And if a given train is overcrowded regularly (as is much of XC), none > > at all should be sold for that train.
> But as I said in my original post, if anything the occupancy of the > train I catch has gone down. Typically on that train there's a group of > 6 seats with one or two people in, skip a group, then maybe a couple of > occupied groups and so on down the whole length of coach L (where they > put the reserved seats) and coach M is no busier with walk-ons.
> If the point of having variable pricing is to increase occupancy, > they're failing. And to claim any availability at the lowest price is I > think a lie these past 4 weeks or so. If they have put the minimum price > up to £42.50, then why don't they say so?
> Will East Coast be any different? > -- > Howard Fisher > (mail to howardnews is not read)
It isn't to increase occupancy - it is to maximise revenue. The maths is far more complex than "filling seats at any price".
Basic commercial sense says "never put anything in the sale that you can easily sell at full price" etc.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:23:34 -0800, Tony Miles wrote: > Apart from the comment alread posted - its obviously better to sell one > ticket for £100 than six at £10 - so empty seats don't always mean bad > commercial practice.
<snip>
Also, at least some people (me, for one) find a full-to-capacity train a considerably less pleasant environment than one which has a bit of space. If I'm not going to have more space or peace than on a coach, I might as well *get* a coach and save some cash. Put simply, I am only likely to pay high prices if I'm going to feel comfortable and relaxed. (Obviously other factors such as speed and frequency come into play, but the general point stands.)
In message <b0d3037f-c401-44ac-9dcf-11fe04779...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, at 15:23:34 on Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Tony Miles <trackmi...@googlemail.com> remarked:
>DfT instructions are "make us money" and not "fill the seats".... It >will be a very commercially driven operation, not a new charitable >public service.
And one that sounds like it'll be pushing more people onto the roads.
Fares from Nottingham to the southeast have gone up 50% in the last four years, and that has tipped the balance in favour of driving, especially with two in the car. At least we now know for sure what the Government's priorities are. -- Roland Perry
In message <V4idnWk7ztLKSmrXnZ2dnUVZ7v6dn...@bt.com>, at 08:47:58 on Mon, 9 Nov 2009, John Salmon <ihmfd...@jwwpng.wrg.tin> remarked:
>> And to claim any availability at the lowest price is I think a lie >>these past 4 weeks or so.
>Has anyone claimed that?
ToCs frequently use the lowest price in their advertising. In the USA there's a law called "bait and switch" which would outlaw that if the cheapest fares aren't actually available. Although there's little caselaw yet, the most recent round of consumer protection legislation in the UK might well outlaw it as well. -- Roland Perry
In message <y$Cs2BUYNA+KF...@perry.co.uk> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <V4idnWk7ztLKSmrXnZ2dnUVZ7v6dn...@bt.com>, at 08:47:58 on > Mon, 9 Nov 2009, John Salmon <ihmfd...@jwwpng.wrg.tin> remarked: > >> And to claim any availability at the lowest price is I think a lie > >>these past 4 weeks or so.
> >Has anyone claimed that?
> ToCs frequently use the lowest price in their advertising. In the USA > there's a law called "bait and switch" which would outlaw that if the > cheapest fares aren't actually available. Although there's little > caselaw yet, the most recent round of consumer protection legislation in > the UK might well outlaw it as well.
Neil Williams wrote: > car doesn't allow you to work while travelling (and in the case of > London-Manchester is far slower unless you're quite seriously > speeding).
Surely that depends on what "London" and "Manchester" actually mean?
In message <60e384b750%r...@greywall.demon.co.uk>, at 13:47:11 on Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Graeme <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> >> And to claim any availability at the lowest price is I think a lie >> >>these past 4 weeks or so.
>> >Has anyone claimed that?
>> ToCs frequently use the lowest price in their advertising. In the USA >> there's a law called "bait and switch" which would outlaw that if the >> cheapest fares aren't actually available. Although there's little >> caselaw yet, the most recent round of consumer protection legislation in >> the UK might well outlaw it as well.
>Eireoflot could be in trouble then.
Unfortunately Essex Trading Standards lost a case in the county court against them about 2 years ago, on the basis that the jury apparently said "everyone knows there are lots of extras".
They will take some time to regroup, even if the underlying law has changed - partly because using an untested law against someone who beat you last time, is generally regarded as "more than my job's worth" [tm]. -- Roland Perry
On Nov 9, 2:02 pm, Chris Tolley <cj.tol...@bogus.co.uk (ukonline
really)> wrote: > Neil Williams wrote: > > car doesn't allow you to work while travelling (and in the case of > > London-Manchester is far slower unless you're quite seriously > > speeding).
> Surely that depends on what "London" and "Manchester" actually mean?
You need to pick pretty esoteric definitions to favour the car (Elstree to Altrincham does it - pretty much any other route from GL to GM doesn't, unless your starting point is also right next to the M1 and nowhere near Watford or Euston by public transport).
On 9 Nov, 14:02, Chris Tolley <cj.tol...@bogus.co.uk (ukonline really)
> wrote: > Surely that depends on what "London" and "Manchester" actually mean?
To some extent, but a 20 minute frequency, 125mph and very few stops may make it quite a difficult one to (legally) beat, even if it is necessary to use another mode of transport at each end as well.
John B wrote: > On Nov 9, 2:02 pm, Chris Tolley <cj.tol...@bogus.co.uk (ukonline > really)> wrote: >> Neil Williams wrote: >>> car doesn't allow you to work while travelling (and in the case of >>> London-Manchester is far slower unless you're quite seriously >>> speeding).
>> Surely that depends on what "London" and "Manchester" actually mean?
> You need to pick pretty esoteric definitions to favour the car > (Elstree to Altrincham does it - pretty much any other route from GL > to GM doesn't, unless your starting point is also right next to the M1 > and nowhere near Watford or Euston by public transport).
Maybe. Sometimes, though, other things come into play, such as day of week, time of day, then it is far from as clear cut. Aside from that, you appear to have overlooked that fact that M40/M42/M6T/M6/A556/M56 is a viable route to Manchester for much of West London (including e.g. Heathrow) that is not easily connected to the WCML, and not particularly near M1.
|
