Advance tickets and airports - how should it work?

[Bletchleyite]

If we want to increase the % of passengers who get to and from commercial airports by rail, it's incredibly silly not to allow passengers to buy the cheapest train tickets. Yet that's the effect. Advance tickets and unreliable flights are a bad fit, and this definitely blunts the policy goal of shifting airport access onto rail.

Why isn't Manchester's Airport Advance scheme universal practice at all airport stations?

Seems like an easy exception to the inflexibility of Advance Singles. If a passenger (a) holds a ticket originating at an airport station, perhaps including Luton Airport Parkway, and (b) can produce a boarding pass for an inbound flight and (c) can display evidence that flight was delayed, then they can travel on a subsequent train with the earlier Advance ticket.

Of course, this is a bit of a slippery slope into other situations. What other external delays would justify flexibility on Advance tickets? The airport example seems clear, though, because of the massive amounts of money spent on airport rail links and the stated policy priority of more airport access by rail.

I concur 100%

I don't. I'd rather take the line that the mere existence of time-specific Advance tickets for a short commuter journey on a route with trains every few minutes is absolutely nuts. You introduce a contactless system which is there in part to reduce costs by removing the costs of fulfilling traditional tickets (booking offices, TVMs and the operation of online sales sites) as well as being more convenient to passengers who no longer have to buy a ticket before they travel, and then you undercut it with Advances. It's the literal definition of madness.

It is pretty close to being the same as London Underground starting selling the things.

Manchester Airport is different because it is directly served by long distance trains on which yield management is increasingly the ticketing approach. Luton Airport Parkway isn't, the furthest you can go during the normal operating day is Corby which is a regional journey. I could see the sense in, and would agree with a policy along the lines of, that if you can prove you have missed your train on an Advance ticket and left a reasonable amount of time (probably two hours at an airport given that there's a lot of faff) you should be able to change it to the next train for free, similarly if your bus to the station failed to show up. That's good integrated transport. But Advances simply should not be on sale for journeys between Luton Airport Parkway and London at all - contactless should be the default for anyone who is able to pay that way and traditional tickets, other than where a Railcard is held*, should not be undercutting that.

* Which itself needs resolving - Oval really should be able to have a Railcard put against the account.

 

[The exile]

For local journeys (distance varying to match local conditions) all air tickets should include free public transport. For longer distances, a return ticket (outward fixed time, return flexible) should be sold with each leg priced at the cheapest advance rate available at the time- to be sold by the airline only in conjunction with and at the same time as the air ticket.

 

[lfc84]

What's a reasonable amount of time between flight arrival and depature of the train? In Manchester when I land on a domestic flight in T3 I can be in the station 15 minutes later. It's a little longer for those using T2 in Manchester - even for domestics.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What's a reasonable amount of time between flight arrival and depature of the train? In Manchester when I land on a domestic flight in T3 I can be in the station 15 minutes later. It's a little longer for those using T2 in Manchester - even for domestics.

It is certainly not going to be less than an hour. Presumably it would be worked out as the interchange time at the station, plus the time (conservatively) it would take to get to the station from the arrivals exit, plus a conservative assessment of how long it would take to get through the airport with a non-UK passport and checked luggage to collect, which is effectively an analogy to how cross London itineraries are worked out.

I'd venture for most airports that's going to be about two hours, probably not less than 90 minutes and certainly not less than an hour.

Of course, just like when crossing London, you can always buy an Advance ticket for a tighter connection than what an itinerary would permit - but if you do, it's wholly at your own risk, and that is quite reasonable.

With regard to travelling earlier, LNER's 70 Minute Flex product (which could be offered without withdrawing off peak walk up fares) probably provides a reasonable answer.

But for local journeys - Manchester Airport-Piccadilly, Luton Airport Parkway-St Pancras, Heathrow-Paddington* etc, Advances simply don't make sense and should not be offered at all, with passengers strongly pushed to use contactless payment if it is available to them.

* I am aware Heathrow Express offer them, but they aren't Advances in the same sense as we normally consider them, they are in effect Anytime Day Singles that must be purchased in advance.

 

[Farigiraf]

Some equivalent of Eurostar's tickets with 'London International CIV' as the destination could work. Effectively treats the domestic rail connection as another leg of the journey, e.g. protecting from delays. I also support the suggestion of flight tickets offering free local transport. However both of these would require subsidy and therefore aren't likely to happen.

Heathrow Airport's advance tickets are another interesting one to look at - being fully flexible (for the day) while being priced like advance tickets. If an option requiring less subsidy is needed, these being expanded to other airports could offer some affordable journeys, especially if they have the same booking horizon as flight tickets.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

It is certainly not going to be less than an hour. Presumably it would be worked out as the interchange time at the station, plus the time (conservatively) it would take to get to the station from the arrivals exit, plus a conservative assessment of how long it would take to get through the airport with a non-UK passport and checked luggage to collect, which is effectively an analogy to how cross London itineraries are worked out.

All of this can be thrown out of the window from Stansted or Luton, where delays are rife. Only way to get more people to use trains from these airports would be to offer good-value fully flexible tickets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All of this can be thrown out of the window from Stansted or Luton, where delays are rife. Only way to get more people to use trains from these airports would be to offer good-value fully flexible tickets.

And for London, they really should be using contactless, and Advances not be offered at all. It's not as if air passengers are time-flexible, which is the main reason Advances (and yield management more widely) exist - to encourage travel on quieter services and penalise/increase income from travel on busier ones.

Generally, I'd take the line, if we are going the way of contactless zones, it should be Advances OR contactless, both should never be available on the same journey. If contactless is available, aside from time restriction quirks that arise from the difference in how contactless and paper tickets work, it really needs to pretty much always be the cheapest option.

 

[agk2126]

Maybe London airports are special cases, but might we agree that the Manchester Airport Advance idea would at least work for Birmingham International, Southampton Airport Parkway, Teesside Airport or Liverpool South Parkway?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe London airports are special cases, but might we agree that the Manchester Airport Advance idea would at least work for Birmingham International, Southampton Airport Parkway, Teesside Airport or Liverpool South Parkway?

They would work for long distance services from those stations, though I think I would prefer proof of a delayed flight to be mitigation for ALL Advances rather than having a special type.

However, Advances should not be on sale at all for:
1. Birmingham Intl to Wolverhampton/Coventry inclusive (nor any journey at all wholly within the TfWM area)
2. Southampton Airport Parkway to/from Southampton Central
3. Liverpool South Parkway to/from Liverpool Lime St/Moorfields and intermediates (nor any journey at all wholly within the Merseytravel area)
etc

...because these are high frequency, short distance routes for which contactless payment is better suited (even if it doesn't exist yet).

 

[redreni]

It is certainly not going to be less than an hour.

As mentioned above, that's no way to encourage use of rail to access airports.

If you park at the airport, you can drive away as soon as you get to your car. You don't have to book an exit slot, allow at least an hour between landing and leaving the airport, and wait around in the car park if you're early.

I'm fine with not having Advances on this particular route, but if you have Advances at an airport, you need to modify the terms so they're fit for their intended purpose i.e. connecting to and from flights. You've got to respect people's time

To be honest, I'd just roll the cost into air fares and make every airline charge the passenger for, and provide them with, a train ticket to the nearest major city, which they can exchange for a ticket to any other destination subject to payment of an excess if the fare to that destination is higher than the notional fare to the nearest city. Everyone must pay for that ticket - at both ends of the journey if it's a domestic flight - whether they want it or not, whether they use it or not.

I suspect that'd reduce the parking footprint of our airports by quite a noteable amount, improve the local air quality and make it very difficult for airlines to undercut the train on routes like London to Manchester or London to Newcastle (though I'm sure LNER would have a very good go at pricing their tickets such that it continues to be cheaper to fly).

 

[lfc84]

An assumption being made here is that rail users are using their local airport. That's not necessarily the case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An assumption being made here is that rail users are using their local airport. That's not necessarily the case.

I don't think that assumption is being made. I'm simply saying that Advances should not exist for short journeys (this is my firm view and long has been), while a late plane should be treated the same as a late train for long distance Advances if enough time has been left, plus the 70 Minute Flex concept allows for those wishing to have the option to travel a bit earlier on an Advance.

A reasonable definition the way we are going is that a given journey should EITHER have contactless payment OR Advances, never both. Clearly <airport> to <nearest big city> is one for contactless.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

As mentioned above, that's no way to encourage use of rail to access airports.

If you park at the airport, you can drive away as soon as you get to your car. You don't have to book an exit slot, allow at least an hour between landing and leaving the airport, and wait around in the car park if you're early.

And you don't if you buy a walk up ticket or use contactless either.

I'm fine with not having Advances on this particular route, but if you have Advances at an airport, you need to modify the terms so they're fit for their intended purpose i.e. connecting to and from flights. You've got to respect people's time

And people have to respect that if they choose a deep discount ticket that comes with some disadvantages. Just as it does crossing London. I do think delays should be taken account of, but realistically you do need to leave a reasonable amount of time to pass the formalities in the airport.

To be honest, I'd just roll the cost into air fares and make every airline charge the passenger for, and provide them with, a train ticket to the nearest major city, which they can exchange for a ticket to any other destination subject to payment of an excess if the fare to that destination is higher than the notional fare to the nearest city. Everyone must pay for that ticket - at both ends of the journey if it's a domestic flight - whether they want it or not, whether they use it or not.

I suspect that'd reduce the parking footprint of our airports by quite a noteable amount, improve the local air quality and make it very difficult for airlines to undercut the train on routes like London to Manchester or London to Newcastle (though I'm sure LNER would have a very good go at pricing their tickets such that it continues to be cheaper to fly).

The Swiss do it free at Geneva (or did), but people won't stomach the higher air fares that would lead to that.

 

[The exile]

The Swiss do it free at Geneva (or did), but people won't stomach the higher air fares that would lead to that.

Higher air fares but no parking charges…

 

[Bletchleyite]

Higher air fares but no parking charges…

No parking charges = more people travel by car...

 

[redreni]

The Swiss do it free at Geneva (or did), but people won't stomach the higher air fares that would lead to that.

Depends how you do it.

The notional cost of the ticket for the purposes of exchanging it for a ticket to somewhere else and paying any excess due, would be the normal cost of a ticket that non-airline passengers would pay. But the amount the airline has to pay the railway for each one of these tickets it issues could be less, reflecting not only its commission as a rail ticket retailer, but also the fact that not everybody will use it. The people who don't use public transport to and from the airport would subsidise those who do, so the cost that needs to be rolled into each ticket would be fairly small.

I don't personally think people should have the choice of stomaching it or not; just make it a legal requirement that airline passengers have to pay it (and even Michael O'Leary has to put it in his headline price)! If you don't want to pay it, don't fly.

 

[agk2126]

You don't have to book an exit slot, allow at least an hour between landing and leaving the airport, and wait around in the car park if you're early.

What a great idea! Could implement this for a few months. Very effective way of demonstrating the mismatch between inflexible rail tickets and airport access.

 

[Llanigraham]

I don't personally think people should have the choice of stomaching it or not; just make it a legal requirement that airline passengers have to pay it (and even Michael O'Leary has to put it in his headline price)! If you don't want to pay it, don't fly.

Considering that many flights, certainly from the regional airports are on package holidays, how are you going to make the airlines pay for those rail tickets?

 

[The exile]

No parking charges = more people travel by car...

No parking charges as in “because you’ve got there by public transport” not “because parking is free”!

 

[Bletchleyite]

No parking charges as in “because you’ve got there by public transport” not “because parking is free”!

I wouldn't go to Luton Airport for an early morning flight by public transport if it was free and the parking was £100. I will not change from a 4am start to a 2am start, as would be necessary to go by the only public transport on offer at that time (coach), for any money.

I really think this just comes down to the principle that yield managed Advance fares simply do not make sense on high frequency local journeys such as the one that started it, Luton Airport Parkway to St Pancras. They are for long distance services (and it is possible to give a little leeway for those using them at airports). The original principle of them being available only where specific seats can be reserved is really not wildly far from the mark even now, though there are some services where specific seat reservation probably should be possible but isn't that sit somewhere in the middle.

If you have infrequent short distance services like the Conwy Valley etc it's a bit moot as everyone knows which train they're going to take as the choice is very limited. But Advances on Luton Airport Parkway to London make about as much sense as Advances would on the Metropolitan Line, Merseyrail or the Tyne and Wear Metro, which for the avoidance of doubt is "no sense at all".

 

[The exile]

I wouldn't go to Luton Airport for an early morning flight by public transport if it was free and the parking was £100. I will not change from a 4am start to a 2am start, as would be necessary to go by the only public transport on offer at that time (coach), for any money.

I really think this just comes down to the principle that yield managed Advance fares simply do not make sense on high frequency local journeys such as the one that started it, Luton Airport Parkway to St Pancras. They are for long distance services (and it is possible to give a little leeway for those using them at airports). The original principle of them being available only where specific seats can be reserved is really not wildly far from the mark even now, though there are some services where specific seat reservation probably should be possible but isn't that sit somewhere in the middle.

If you have infrequent short distance services like the Conwy Valley etc it's a bit moot as everyone knows which train they're going to take as the choice is very limited. But Advances on Luton Airport Parkway to London make about as much sense as Advances would on the Metropolitan Line, Merseyrail or the Tyne and Wear Metro, which for the avoidance of doubt is "no sense at all".

No arrangement / solution / offer will work for everyone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No arrangement / solution / offer will work for everyone.

No, but there are simple truths, and one of them is that yield managed fares on metro services cause nothing but trouble, and are a curiously British "innovation". Does any other country have yield managed fares on twenty minute journeys with trains every ten minutes or better? I know the Swiss have them in some form, but are they offered for short regional journeys e.g. Geneva-Geneva Airport? I bet they're not.

 

[JonathanH]

No, but there are simple truths, and one of them is that yield managed fares on metro services cause nothing but trouble, and are a curiously British "innovation". Does any other country have yield managed fares on twenty minute journeys with trains every ten minutes or better? I know the Swiss have them in some form, but are they offered for short regional journeys e.g. Geneva-Geneva Airport? I bet they're not.

One of the problems that has led to yield managed fares on short flows is the problem of the advance fares for longer distance journeys being lower than the flexible fares for the shorter journeys. This leads to passengers trying to circumvent that structure by trying to travel short on the advance tickets. It is no surprise then that there is a desire from passengers for short distance advances.

While you don't like short distance advances, they do get around this issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the problems that has led to yield managed fares on short flows is the problem of the advance fares for longer distance journeys being lower than the flexible fares for the shorter journeys. This leads to passengers trying to circumvent that structure by trying to travel short on the advance tickets. It is no surprise then that there is a desire from passengers for short distance advances.

While you don't like short distance advances, they do get around this issue.

It's only an issue if you consider it one. Just get rid of the break of journey/start short/end short restriction on Advances and let the tiny number of people who do that do it - it's the MoneySavingExpert types who know the implications of what they are doing. It's fairly rare for this to be relevant anyway - if, say, Advances on the MML from London didn't exist for journeys shorter than London-Kettering and were not sold on Thameslink at all (which would be my view) then there are going to be hardly any anomalies of that nature.

Similarly on the WCML they shouldn't exist for any journey wholly south of Rugby (and Oval should come out to Long Buckby, which is really the outer edge of the commuter area). And there won't be many cases where a Euston-Rugby Advance will, for a return journey, undercut half of a Euston-MKC day return, for instance. And if someone finds the odd one and can be bothered doing it, so what? Most people won't do it. Most people wouldn't even consider split tickets until Trainline started selling them, and selling a longer ticket than the journey requested is I think an accreditation fail so the sales sites aren't suddenly going to start doing it, so it remains a niche activity for those in the know about specific instances of it.

Just like most people won't board a train that says "set down only" which is sufficient to avoid overcrowding and so it doesn't matter if the odd enthusiast who knows a bit about the railway does, this just doesn't matter, and trying to perfect it is in part what causes the utter silliness of short distance Advance fares which really should not exist and which, in the case of airports, are causing frustration and annoyance (and worse) to tourists every single day.

 

[London Trains]

Similarly on the WCML they shouldn't exist for any journey wholly south of Rugby (and Oval should come out to Long Buckby, which is really the outer edge of the commuter area). And there won't be many cases where a Euston-Rugby Advance will, for a return journey, undercut half of a Euston-MKC day return, for instance. And if someone finds the odd one and can be bothered doing it, so what? Most people won't do it. Most people wouldn't even consider split tickets until Trainline started selling them, and selling a longer ticket than the journey requested is I think an accreditation fail so the sales sites aren't suddenly going to start doing it, so it remains a niche activity for those in the know about specific instances of it.

I know I'm going slightly off topic for this thread, but why should there be advance fares to Birmingham? The journey time is similar or shorter than a lot of journeys that would be considered to be within the "commuter area", including Long Buckby which you bring up, there are a lot of commuters and day-trippers travelling between the two cities, there is precisely zero competition with flights which is what advances should be competing with, and the significant use of the LNWR services for London to Birmingham journeys perfectly proves that people just want cheap, flexible fares for travel between the two.

At the moment the Avanti services can be quiet at times, while the LNWR services can be absolutely heaving, which signals to me that the cost of the any permitted fares between London and Birmingham should be reduced, to reduce overcrowding on LNWR services (and Chiltern for that matter), giving more capacity on those services for shorter distance journeys, and at the same time encouraging modal shift from cars, as the faster journey time of Avanti makes it much more competitive with the car if the fares weren't so extortionate. Between the increase in journeys being made due to modal shift taking place, and the people paying slightly more to use Avanti instead of LNWR, it is likely such a change would be revenue positive.

 

[Dirty_Mac]

A bit of a tangent on this. I had recently arrived at Manchester Airport with a connection to a 1tp2h itinerary. I had booked an advance (not airport advance, sadly) for the journey that departs 2 hours after my scheduled arrival time, figuring that any delay that would put this connection in jeopardy would give me plenty of time to change my train tickets to the more expensive flexible equivalent. However, the flight actually ended up being early, and I managed to collect my bag in record time, so I had to change my tickets to the train before the one I had booked.

So yeah. Some flexibility for being there early would be nice too

 

[aron2smith]

For local journeys (distance varying to match local conditions) all air tickets should include free public transport. For longer distances, a return ticket (outward fixed time, return flexible) should be sold with each leg priced at the cheapest advance rate available at the time- to be sold by the airline only in conjunction with and at the same time as the air ticket.

I agree and airlines should also be responsible for ensuring people can get home if their return flight is delayed. If we arrive too late for the train or bus and can't get home, the airline should pay for a taxi or hotel. Compensation should begin at a 1 hour delay too. If that means the end of cheap flights, so be it. Passenger rights in airports are rubbish!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

No parking charges = more people travel by car...

I wish people understood this when they demand free parking in their local high street!

 

[blimmo]

Tbh I'm more concerned with the reverse. Give me some guarantees on my flight if the train I use to get there is delayed. Obviously there'll be a longish MCT for the airport to clear security and the like but it just being my problem if security is super slow and the 2 hours or whatever I allowed isn't enough is very annoying. I'd really like to not have to be super conservative and thereby reduce the amount of waiting at the airport.

 

[The exile]

No, but there are simple truths, and one of them is that yield managed fares on metro services cause nothing but trouble, and are a curiously British "innovation". Does any other country have yield managed fares on twenty minute journeys with trains every ten minutes or better? I know the Swiss have them in some form, but are they offered for short regional journeys e.g. Geneva-Geneva Airport? I bet they're not.

I was referring to your first paragraph - public transport ticket included in the airfare won’t get everyone out of their cars (I would also still be driving to Stansted for a 7.00am flight!) but will be attractive for a significant number- even if that number varies from airport to airport. It could also help ease pressure on land for parking near airports.

 

[redreni]

Considering that many flights, certainly from the regional airports are on package holidays, how are you going to make the airlines pay for those rail tickets?

I'm not enough of an expert on how these businesses are structured to know what the most efficient way of implementing this levy is. There are no untraceable, undocumented passengers, though. The principle that when you pay for a flight - or a package that includes a flight - you are issued with a train ticket at the UK end, could be applied to charter flights just as easily as scheduled flights, I'm sure.

Probably easiest to just say whoever sells you the flight has to issue you with the train ticket and pay the railway in proportion to the number of flights sold and train tickets issued. How they'd fund that would be up to them.

If there are foreign tour operators whose business model is to bus their passengers from the UK airport to their destination, perhaps they could be allowed to apply for an exception.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tbh I'm more concerned with the reverse. Give me some guarantees on my flight if the train I use to get there is delayed. Obviously there'll be a longish MCT for the airport to clear security and the like but it just being my problem if security is super slow and the 2 hours or whatever I allowed isn't enough is very annoying. I'd really like to not have to be super conservative and thereby reduce the amount of waiting at the airport.

I think that's going to be difficult as airlines won't be holding flights and won't agree such things. Only way you could do that is legislation, though it's probably relatively moot because anyone with any sense who is taking a flight will have travel insurance. The one situation where that is still an issue is domestic flights where travel insurance largely doesn't provide any cover (and that has cost me a whack of money before to change a flight and book a hotel, though at least I had a signal on the train to deal with those things before the value of the ticket was completely lost). Plus the minimum connections time wouldn't be particularly cut-fine - it'd likely be a minimum of 2 hours as it would have to follow airline recommendations.

The one thing where I think we could have potential to do this outside of legislation regarding domestic flights is codesharing - there are a few cases on the mainland where trains are sold by airlines as flights, and that's something we could do for HS2 as well, though it's a slightly different issue to the local travel being discussed here. Thus if you booked to fly from Manchester to New York, say, BA could sell you an HS2 train to Old Oak, the connecting Liz Line service and the flight as one package, and if one element of it was delayed so as to miss the connection you would be offered a hotel and rebooked onto the next available flight. There are probably too many variables to do that now involving Euston, though - OOC is really quite important to its viability.

 

[stevieinselby]

Maybe London airports are special cases, but might we agree that the Manchester Airport Advance idea would at least work for Birmingham International, Southampton Airport Parkway, Teesside Airport or Liverpool South Parkway?

How many people are making a long-distance train journey to catch a flight from those airports? Birmingham maybe, but I can't imagine many people are using Southampton or Liverpool airports who don't live within the radius where advance tickets shouldn't apply.