It's not though is it. British Airways frequently charge enormous sums of money to travel on planes which then leave with the seat unfilled, rather than selling it off last minute for £20.
And yet, Avanti still charge £160 - £185 for a very lightly loaded trains around 4pm on Tuesdays from London to Manchester. Why? Because it is profitable... There's really no alternative, except an even more expensive flight at likely a less convenient time and without a journey time advantage. And if you can't afford that you'll probably still pay Avanti for their services, but later in the day when they're at capacity. Offering any cheaper tickets at 4pm would see people trading down to them.
SNCF has a 10% share compared to 8% in the UK. I would suggest that geography, in the sense that France has longer distances between its major cities, is a major factor. Also 40 years of new LGV construction makes journeys much more competitive with air and other modes. Both of those factors are far more important in terms of market share than any yield management or the use of the low cost brand
The longer distances in France should make rail *less* competitive, not more. The fact rail has a higher share despite the greater distances shows how SNCF doing things differently brings greater success. This isn't totally down to their adoption of HSR.
). I've gone on week long holidays with just hand luggage. It's totally do-able.Other than LGV services Colas services are okay but French rail is worse than much of the UK in all honesty, coming from someone who used to use SNCF daily.
Why? A longer distance means trains can use their speed advantage over road travel, therefore making it a more attractive option. Also French motorways are generally tolled, which adds expense to the marginal cost of a road journey
You are falling into the trap of thinking about how you travel rather than how the majority of people actually travel - the difference in cost between rail and air is not that great for the average passenger making occassional trips.The longer distances in France should make rail *less* competitive, not more. The fact rail has a higher share despite the greater distances shows how SNCF doing things differently brings greater success. This isn't totally down to their adoption of HSR.
So what you are saying is I am right.
Yes, if you add all the extras, the flight can become comparable in price. However, for your businessman traveling for the day or daytripper, luggage is totally irrelevant. I don't personally pay for seat selection and easyjet almost always places those traveling together for free in the end (and if they don't it's not such a big deal. Headphones in, eyes closed
Secondly, I don't live upstairs from King's Cross so I still have to get there for 6am to catch this train which is not without huge difficulty unless you're near a tube station. Stansted for 7.30ish is do-able from basically anywhere in the London region in comparison. Both have a cost.
*I chose those times as with just hand luggage, I usually aim to be at a major train station 10-15 mins before departure and airport 40-45 before. I've caught well over a hundred flights and hundreds of trains and never missed one.
So, for me, it'd be £77 for the flight and possible £140 for the train, but more likely I'd take the 7am train so it'd be £217 - that's £63 to £140 more.
If Stansted for £77 isn't ideal, similar times are available from Luton for £107 and Gatwick £135 - all three cheaper than even taking that 6.15am train.
On the contrary. The distances between the main cities of France means SNCF's intercity market is focused on 300-600 mile journeys. By contrast, most intercity journeys in the UK are 100-200 miles (London-Scotland is a relatively small % of intercity journeys). This means SNCF has been in direct competition with airlines on most of its intercity routes and has had to build the infrastructure to compete on journey time, whilst also giving it the capacity to sell fares more cheaply. Let's face it, if France hadn't built the TGV network they wouldn't be competitive with airlines no matter how clever their fare structure was - they simply wouldn't have had the journeys time or capacity to compete.
What's your proposed solution?
We should need more information to so a comparison but it's certainly true that rail fares can often be undercut by airlines and some changes should be implemented to reverse this; however I see it as a separate matter to fares reform (though any such reform could take this requirement into account, of course).
Different people will have different preferences but this is one for the airline vs rail comparison thread.
There isn't any similarity between how airports and stations are run but I think it's not relevant to the topic of fares reform.
None of these are dependent on fares reform and are arguably separate matters.
What journey is costing £217?
I don't always agree with your posts, but this one is absolutely spot on.
Indeed.
I frequently go abroad with other forum members; my preference is to use Eurostar but where the cost of that is prohibitive I will take a plane. I have never had to pay anything other thn the flight cost and - optionally - the cost of seat selection.
If you read the thread of posts it's clear which journeys are being referred to. Post 40 and the one it quotes gives the details. https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ercity-fare-system-better.224368/post-5386629
Obviously not, but I was referring to commercial premises in each (bars, shops, restaurants etc.) and how money is made from them.
I think you don't get how airline fares work. 'Optional extras' are an integral part of their fare and revenue management system. The two cannot be separated.
It would be easier if it was presented in a tabulated or bullet pointed format, but it sounds like the comparison is between the 0700 London to Edinburgh and 1652 back? You mention not being based at King's Cross but have not stated a starting location so we'll go with that for now. I can see a cost of £180 for the round trip, using my usual retailer.
Still not comparable.
I do.
Indeed; so it doesn't transfer well to the rail industry, where most people make much shorter journeys, you can buy through numerous sales channels and retailers, where reservations are not compulsory and you can - for many journeys - buy an affordable fare that lets you hop on and off as you desire.
I'm trying to work out how this would affect the way my wife and I use the railway.
Indeed; people complain about the amount of choice we have regarding ticketing but the reality is that a lot of the complexity could be resolved within the existing framework by applying some fairly straightforward principles.
I assume the proposal would be for seats to be chosen by people who pay extra at the time of booking and anyone who did not pay that extra amount would have their seat randomly issued to them a few hours before departure, as with the low cost airlines.
Agreed
Which, of course, isn't much use to people like us who don't necessarily know where we want to go until we get to the station!
Pushchairs are carried by airlines free of charge. The vast majority of tool bags are smaller than a piece of hand luggage.
Obviously not. People could either pre-purchase a seat or sit in any unreserved seat.
People on this forum want more flexible fares. The vast majority of the public, when traveling long-distance, pick a train they want to travel on and buy a ticket for it.
Obviously that is an issue of revenue management. My feeling is demand is exceptionally elastic and the current system lowers demand considerably. Low cost carriers in Europe have stimulated billions of additional journeys (I am not over exaggerating) over the last couple of decades. Journeys that never would have taken place under the old system of traditional carriers with traditional fare structures.
I don't know how true that is. Most of those flights are leisure flights for city breaks and weekends in the sun or whatever, which doesn't apply to most intercity routes in the UK. People aren't suddenly going to decide to go to Leeds on a whim to the same extent they might go to Prague.
Your comment was that day trippers didn't take luggage, not that it wasn't charged for, and I know of several specialist workmen who do fly and who do carry baggage much bigger than hand luggage. You do seem to be changing your arguement each time someone points out an error in it, and as far as I can see, all your proposals would make train use MORE complicated for the general traveller, not simpler, which is where we should be heading.
You haven't answered the question about how the extra payments for window seats/ table seats would be enforced.
A lot of the low-cost market between the UK and continental Europe was based on migrant workers. Post-Brexit it will be interesting to see if that market holds up.
Not sure the whole structure should be reformed over a "feeling" and if you're going to increase "demand considerably" where are you going to put all these extra passengers on often already (pre Covid) busy trains?
Eh?
How are reservations enforced today?
