Advance tickets and airports - how should it work?

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Depending exactly how the fare reform comes out I think you do get people going from Manchester to Liverpool Airport, and that journey is likely to end up with Advances even though it's arguably a bit short for it. But the sort of Advance you get on that sort of journey is typically the sort where it's a similar price right up to departure, so you'd buy it once you had an idea how long airport processing was going to take, e.g. while waiting for your bag.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2026 ==

I'm not comfortable with Advances and PAYG co-existing either. I feel, though, that the over-expansion of PAYG to the point where the area is vast and you can make quite lengthy and expensive regional trips - for which a price really should be offered and formally accepted by the passenger before travel - is at least as much of an issue as the over-use of Advances for piddly little journeys.

This isn't a problem with Oval because you can, if you don't want to use contactless, purchase a paper ticket or e-ticket for the same price (give or take the inconsistencies of restrictions caused by the unavoidable fact that time restrictions work different ways for each, with it being based on tap in time for contactless and train departure time for a paper ticket or e-ticket).

This doesn't undermine contactless's sales pitch as being the cheapest option (give or take those few oddities) whereas Advances do.

 

[redreni]

This isn't a problem with Oval because you can, if you don't want to use contactless, purchase a paper ticket or e-ticket for the same price (give or take the inconsistencies of restrictions caused by the unavoidable fact that time restrictions work different ways for each, with it being based on tap in time for contactless and train departure time for a paper ticket or e-ticket).

This doesn't undermine contactless's sales pitch as being the cheapest option (give or take those few oddities) whereas Advances do.

You may not regard it as a problem, but I don't think it's good to expand a system where checking the price before committing to buy is possible, but fiddly and not really expected, like at a bar in a pub, to journeys that cost more than a few quid each way. Some of the journeys you can make in the Oval area are ones where the process of paying should have to happen before travel so that the customer enters into the contract with their eyes open, because the fares are just too high to make any other system suitable.

Plenty of people arriving at Luton airport will find some of the fares charged in South East England to be entirely outside their frame of reference, and not necessarily in a good way.

Yes, people can opt out of using PAYG, in the same way they can check the PAYG fares before travelling. Most people don't.

 

[lfc84]

Edinburgh and Glasgow often get travellers from as far as North Wales. You would be surprised by the regional differences in air fares. Here's one random example

 

[The exile]

Edinburgh and Glasgow often get travellers from as far as North Wales. You would be surprised by the regional differences in air fares. Here's one random example

View attachment 195970

Just out of interest, what’s that comparison site?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, people can opt out of using PAYG, in the same way they can check the PAYG fares before travelling. Most people don't.

Many of us are happy not to, particularly for journeys where we already know what it is.

As long as the option to prepurchase isn't at a penalty rate (as it is on London Underground, but the figures involved are smaller) I can see no problem at all. It is optional, if you don't like it you don't use it. Why are you telling me I shouldn't have it?

I suppose you could argue that's also true for Advances (and indeed I mostly choose not to use them even where they exist). However I think it devalues contactless if it might not be the cheapest option, and with a frequent service most Advances will end up used on the wrong train anyway.

 

[lfc84]

Just out of interest, what’s that comparison site?

Skyscanner

 

[Bletchleyite]

It'd be a good start to extend it to all operators who offer Advances from Manchester Airport.

Or just make it standard for all Advances that if you can evidence that you missed your train due to a delay to another mode of public transport (including buses, planes and boats) then you can take the next available train anyway, provided you have left a reasonable, published amount of time between the two. Gaining financially out of peoples' misfortune isn't a nice way to do business.

 

[redreni]

Many of us are happy not to, particularly for journeys where we already know what it is.

As long as the option to prepurchase isn't at a penalty rate (as it is on London Underground, but the figures involved are smaller) I can see no problem at all. It is optional, if you don't like it you don't use it. Why are you telling me I shouldn't have it?

There are lots of things that might be fine for you or I to have, but nonetheless aren't allowed to be pushed at the public at large without at least getting them to accept the terms, checking their age etc. I think a responsible business would check with the customer to make sure they understand the contract and know the fare before charging them £51.30 (which is the peak single fare from Bletchley to Reading) for anything at all, frankly.

I understand that would mean, if I had my way, you would also suffer the inconvenience of having to pay in advance for travel when you might have preferred to have the option of Contactless. Luckily for you, I'm not in charge, so you won't be inconvenienced. I don't see that it would be a massive hardship if you were, though. And it would simplify the fares structure.

I suppose you could argue that's also true for Advances (and indeed I mostly choose not to use them even where they exist). However I think it devalues contactless if it might not be the cheapest option, and with a frequent service most Advances will end up used on the wrong train anyway.

London's expanded Contactless system, where Railcard discounts can't be set at all, is very much devaluing itself, then. Particularly as it expands such that a lot of the fares are well over the £13 Network Railcard minimum fare on weekdays and thus proper tickets are discountable with a Network Railcard. So it's not as if Railcards are a niche or minority thing. One way of another, everybody can get one, and it undercuts Contactless a lot of the time, particularly for journeys from or via London to the latest tranches of Oval destinations.

 

[agk2126]

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.

I was joking about Teesside but in the past year I've flown multiple times in or out of Southampton and Liverpool airports. I live in Oxford.

Birmingham is most convenient by far, and Southampton also has a direct CrossCountry train. Both have much more manageable check-in and security than any London airports, even if onward air travel from both would typically (not always!) involve a connecting flight.

As for Liverpool, it's roughly the same time and price as getting to and from Stansted. And back when Play was still operating, their Liverpool flights between North America and the UK were typically cheaper and at more convenient times than Stansted.

I doubt I'm alone in (a) living somewhere with no clearly optimal commercial airport, and (b) being flexible in my origin and destination airports, even if accessing them means an extra hour by train. Surely someone living in, say, Sheffield might feel the same way?

 

[redreni]

Not every airport serves every destination you might want to fly to. Even when they do, the times of the flights and the fares will obviously influence the decision which airport to fly from. Naturally, people cannot always, and sometimes choose not to, fly from their nearest.

That's why in my Big State utopia where air travellers just have to pay public transport fares to and from the airport whether they choose to use public transport or not, the amount you're automatically charged will cover you to and from the airport's nearest major city, but you can choose to exchange the ticket and put it towards a ticket to or from anywhere.

Airports with good public transport links like Luton and Gatwick might argue, of course, that they're at a disadvantage compared to regional airports that just have a ropey bus link to the city (e.g. Bristol), because in their case the fare to the nearest major city will be higher, so the amount they need to add to each passenger's fare will be more. So you'd have to think about additional taxes specifically on flying passengers to and from airports with bad or non-existent public transport links (which could possibly by hypothecated for schemes to improve said public transport links later on).

 

[Tetchytyke]

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.

You'd be surprised. Liverpool Airport has a remarkably large catchment area.

Or just make it standard for all Advances that if you can evidence that you missed your train due to a delay to another mode of public transport (including buses, planes and boats) then you can take the next available train anyway, provided you have left a reasonable, published amount of time between the two. Gaining financially out of peoples' misfortune isn't a nice way to do business.

This is the issue with advances.

Many years ago, I was heading to Stansted from Newcastle and decided to take the bus then the train. The bus from my house to Newcastle station didn't turn up for over 30 minutes on a 6bph route. I missed my train from Newcastle. It cost me £150 to buy new tickets because my advances were now worthless- I couldn't even use them in part payment for the walk-up tickets. NXEC didn't want to know.

It's safe to say it put me off travelling by train for a long time afterwards.

 

[styles]

Feels more like CIV should be expanded beyond rail?

 

[agk2126]

anyone with any sense who is taking a flight will have travel insurance

Not sure I quite agree. Over time, travel insurance might not be worth it. I fly between Birmingham and Dublin quite often, generally for £15 per ticket (typical Ryanair fares). If I bought travel insurance for each flight (typically around £10) this would add up to a lot of money over the course of a year. Certainly much more money than the occasional times I need to buy my way out of flight arrival disruptions (e.g. missing the last CrossCountry train of the night from Birmingham International to Oxford and needing to pay £40 for a National Express coach).

I like to have the option to travel as affordably as possible, and often I (and many other passengers) would be willing to absorb the uncertainty of disruptions if insuring against them isn't worth it. And I entirely respect other passengers' decision to buy insurance. Individual risk tolerances vary so widely!

you can choose to exchange the ticket and put it towards a ticket to or from anywhere

As you said, this would be an important component of your policy suggestion, because one can't presume where airport passengers' "true" destinations are. And maybe that could be credited towards an onward flight if they're "split ticketing" by plane and not leaving the airport?

 

[JamesT]

Not sure I quite agree. Over time, travel insurance might not be worth it. I fly between Birmingham and Dublin quite often, generally for £15 per ticket (typical Ryanair fares). If I bought travel insurance for each flight (typically around £10) this would add up to a lot of money over the course of a year. Certainly much more money than the occasional times I need to buy my way out of flight arrival disruptions (e.g. missing the last CrossCountry train of the night from Birmingham International to Oxford and needing to pay £40 for a National Express coach).

I like to have the option to travel as affordably as possible, and often I (and many other passengers) would be willing to absorb the uncertainty of disruptions if insuring against them isn't worth it. And I entirely respect other passengers' decision to buy insurance. Individual risk tolerances vary so widely!

If you're flying that frequently, surely you'd buy an annual policy?

 

[styles]

Not sure I quite agree. Over time, travel insurance might not be worth it. I fly between Birmingham and Dublin quite often, generally for £15 per ticket (typical Ryanair fares). If I bought travel insurance for each flight (typically around £10) this would add up to a lot of money over the course of a year. Certainly much more money than the occasional times I need to buy my way out of flight arrival disruptions (e.g. missing the last CrossCountry train of the night from Birmingham International to Oxford and needing to pay £40 for a National Express coach).

At this point you'd get an annual policy though I'd have thought?

UK-EI is a pretty low risk option of course so you may be in the position of it not being worth the money.

My bank account provides me free travel insurance. It's not that expensive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure I quite agree.

Do you have the funds to pay for medical repatriation which might cost twenty grand or more? Sure, you can just insure against these very high costs and not cover stuff like baggage and missed departure, but comprehensive travel policies are so cheap that I think that is a poor choice, personally. An annual comprehensive policy is very cheap unless you have awkward medical stuff.

Yes, there's GHIC, which covers you in relevant countries for emergency treatment, but you're surely not going to want to sit in a hospital in Ireland for months away from friends and family if something serious happens.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2026 ==

My bank account provides me free travel insurance. It's not that expensive.

Same. Pretty much all packaged bank accounts include it, or it's £50-£100 a year at most (nearer the £50 end) unless you have complex medical stuff.

 

[redreni]

As you said, this would be an important component of your policy suggestion, because one can't presume where airport passengers' "true" destinations are. And maybe that could be credited towards an onward flight if they're "split ticketing" by plane and not leaving the airport?

Nah, tax those people!

If you fly into London Heathrow but want to go to Manchester, the ticket to Zone 1 you get from the airline will either get you as far as Euston, or you can part-exchange it for a though ticket (e.g. on Reading Railair and XC). If you want to take a connecting flight to Manchester rather than take the train, that's a matter for you, you get nothing back. And you also have to pay for another London to Heathrow ticket and a Manchester Airport to Manchester ticket along with the London to Manchester fare, of course! Or as part of the overall fare if it was sold as a through ticket.

And on that subject, I agree entirely with others, the lack of missed connection protection if you do take the train is a massive disincentive to do the right thing and a perverse incentive to book a connecting flight in this situation. So I would definitely want the tickets issued to passengers alongside their plane tickets by airlines or tour operators, as well as any train or coach ticket they change or excess to using that ticket, to come with the same sort of missed connection protection you get with a connecting flight. The fact your ticket would be, or would be excessed from, one of the special airline-issued tickets would make this easier to administer, as the railway would know which ticket holders were to be regarded as officially connecting from or to a flight, and therefore get the additional protections, subject to allowing enough time etc. In fact, you could apply any special rules you wanted to these tickets e.g. set the fares at the Railcard rate without requiring the ticket holder to have a Railcard, and without worrying about time restrictions etc.

 

[styles]

Same. Pretty much all packaged bank accounts include it, or it's £50-£100 a year at most (nearer the £50 end) unless you have complex medical stuff.

I have to extend mine for a few things like winter sports etc but it almost always works out cheaper than having a separate policy. We're talking like the cost of a cup of coffee a month.

 

[redreni]

This view that connections for mixed-mode journeys involving flights don't need to be protected because people should have insurance is all very well, but claiming on insurance is itself a hassle. And there might be an excess.

People know if they book connecting international and domestic flights, the airline will have to look after them if the connection is broken, including putting them on another airline or booking them into a hotel if needs be. No insurance necessary. If you already have insurance, no claim necessary. Yes, if you want to eschew the unnecessary domestic flight and do the right thing, you can do that and take out insurance against missed connections, but realistically, what are we incentivising people to do?

 

[Joe Paxton]

My bank account provides me free travel insurance. It's not that expensive.

Something of a non-sequiter there!

I'd use the term 'inclusive' rather than free... coz it's not free!

 

[styles]

Something of a non-sequiter there!

I'd use the term 'inclusive' rather than free... coz it's not free!

Well it is free, as long as I deposit £2k a month into the account, as the account fee is refunded

 

[tbtc]

There seem to be two separate discussions in the one thread here

Should advance tickets be offered on short distance services? No, IMHO. And they shouldn't be offered in busy services either. Advances should be a means of attracting additional passengers to lightly used services, rather than ORCATS raids. The need for advances suggests services are too expensive to be sustainable in the first place and I'd rather we tackled that. But I appreciate I'm very much in a minority here, the kind of people who save money with such tickets obviously won't want to pay full price

The second debate looks like it's "should a state run railway bend over backwards to accommodate poor reliability of private sector airlines?". You can probably tell by the biased way I've framed that which camp I'm in. But I don't agree that Ryanair's punctuality needs bailing out by taxpayers. If you've flown abroad for the price of a Wetherspoons meal, any problems with the airline should be dealt with by the airline. We already spend over a hundred million pounds pa on Delay Repay to cover delays on the railway itself, I'm not keen on the idea of extending that further. O'Leary is a big boy, he can compensate his passengers if his airline delays them. Again. I suspect I'll be in the minority, especially given the amount of frequent flyers on here

 

[Llanigraham]

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.

So if my package holiday flight is from Plymouth they should provide me with a rail ticket from Aberystwyth, and someone else on the same package who happens to live in Looe, would still pay the same price for the holiday?
Do you not see a problem with that concept?
You do seem to be presuming that everyone flies from their local and nearest airport. That certainly isn't neccessarily the case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The second debate looks like it's "should a state run railway bend over backwards to accommodate poor reliability of private sector airlines?". You can probably tell by the biased way I've framed that which camp I'm in. But I don't agree that Ryanair's punctuality needs bailing out by taxpayers. If you've flown abroad for the price of a Wetherspoons meal, any problems with the airline should be dealt with by the airline. We already spend over a hundred million pounds pa on Delay Repay to cover delays on the railway itself, I'm not keen on the idea of extending that further. O'Leary is a big boy, he can compensate his passengers if his airline delays them. Again. I suspect I'll be in the minority, especially given the amount of frequent flyers on here

It's funny you mention Eireflop, as they're actually very punctual because they tend to pad their schedules a lot (this was always obvious because at small airports the inbound aircraft is often scheduled to arrive after it's scheduled to go back out again, so if it's late it's only late on one of the two flights). You're more likely to be delayed by one of the other budgets (most notably Wizz, a terrible airline) or a legacy airline.

 

[redreni]

The second debate looks like it's "should a state run railway bend over backwards to accommodate poor reliability of private sector airlines?". You can probably tell by the biased way I've framed that which camp I'm in.

Biased framings are fine: we all have our biases whether we admit it or not.

To my mind this framing isn't entirely accurate, though. At least some of the proposals made are about making airlines and their passengers pay for public transport. Yes, there's an element of trying to make the experience better and smoother for those passengers who choose to reach the airport by public transport where these act as clear disincentives to doing so.

This isn't only a cost for the railway, though. The railway has been making money out of charging a few people twice over for the same journey when they miss their train, the second time at a premium rate, but in doing so it has been putting a great many more people off using the train. Anything that encourages expensively-constructed airport rail links to be better utilised is capable of growing the railway's revenue from this sort of travel rather than shrinking it, whether that's simply by making rail connections a more attractive proposition as others have suggested, or if it's by grabbing the bull by the horns and just making everybody buy a train ticket whether they want one or not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2026 ==

So if my package holiday flight is from Plymouth they should provide me with a rail ticket from Aberystwyth, and someone else on the same package who happens to live in Looe, would still pay the same price for the holiday?

No.

Do you not see a problem with that concept?

Yes, but that's not the concept I'm advocating for. See, for example, post #40 (second para).

 

[The exile]

So if my package holiday flight is from Plymouth they should provide me with a rail ticket from Aberystwyth, and someone else on the same package who happens to live in Looe, would still pay the same price for the holiday?
Do you not see a problem with that concept?
You do seem to be presuming that everyone flies from their local and nearest airport. That certainly isn't neccessarily the case.

Certainly not what I was advocating. I’ll take Bristol Airport as an example. Flight tickets would include local travel - which in this case I would set as the Freedom Travelpass area. Travellers from further afield would have the option to purchase a flexible rail ticket to Bristol at the prices of the cheapest advance still available at the time of purchase (which must be in the same transaction as the air ticket).

 

[Farnborough]

For local journeys (distance varying to match local conditions) all air tickets should include free public transport.

Congratulations, you've just added £5 to the cost of an airline ticket.

There is no such thing as "free" - someone has to pay for it, and why should that be the local authority council tax payer?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2026 ==

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

So... flying into Heathrow, I'm being forced to pay for a train ticket to Slough? Or does Staines count? Thanks, either way...

I'm quite happy to pay my £3 for the Flightline 730 to Frimley (when it's running).

And if they ever get the Southern Link to Woking built, I'll maybe use that...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2026 ==

The second debate looks like it's "should a state run railway bend over backwards to accommodate poor reliability of private sector airlines?". You can probably tell by the biased way I've framed that which camp I'm in.

A comparison of reliability would be interesting, irrespective of personal bias.

Certainly, my recent attempts at using the North Downs Line to meet, or return from, flights from/to Gatwick have given me a bias that is the polar opposite of yours!

 

[styles]

Congratulations, you've just added £5 to the cost of an airline ticket.

There is no such thing as "free" - someone has to pay for it, and why should that be the local authority council tax payer?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2026 ==


So... flying into Heathrow, I'm being forced to pay for a train ticket to Slough? Or does Staines count? Thanks, either way...

I'm quite happy to pay my £3 for the Flightline 730 to Frimley (when it's running).

And if they ever get the Southern Link to Woking built, I'll maybe use that...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2026 ==

Taxpayers already heavily subsidise public transport so it's nothing new. As for why - because it's better to have people on buses and trains and trams than in small cars, in terms of congestion, air pollution, GhG emissions, etc.

There would need to be some sensible limits, to avoid for example people buying a cheap RyanAir flight in order to get a cheaper rail ticket, but that can all be ironed out.

 

[supervc-10]

I used to travel across to Chicago very frequently, when my husband was waiting for his UK visa and couldn't leave the US. I was living in Manchester at the time. Flights from Manchester were often a lot more expensive, and necessitated a change, whereas flights from London were usually a lot cheaper even taking into account the train fares down. I'd usually get a train down to London the night before and stay with a friend the night before, which was easy enough to get an advance. But heading back? It was always a pain. I couldn't reliably book an advance unless it was a long while after the flight landed. I would sometimes leave it until we'd landed (actually don't think I was ever heavily delayed - almost always landing roughly on time) before booking a train back. On occasion I'd find an advance, if not, just an off-peak from Euston.

An "airport special" ticket would be a good idea. Fixed, advance-style on the outbound, and flexible return. But only for longer-distance train options, and requiring putting in your flight number a bit like with rental cars, so you couldn't take a train 6 hours later than planned without the plane being quite delayed.

Could maybe have it as part of an app, which automatically re-books you when the plane is late? Can tie in with flight tracking that way. It would only be needed for trips like mine, flying out of Heathrow but living in Manchester. Just simple walk-up contactless or tickets from the machine for things like Manchester Airport to Manchester, or on the Elizabeth Line (not that there are anyway)

I do quite like what the Heathrow Express does (or did?) where you could pre-book a date a long time in advance for cheap(er), and then it was flexible across the day, but you had to book the ticket a fair time ahead of your departure.

 

[Joe Paxton]

[...]
I do quite like what the Heathrow Express does (or did?) where you could pre-book a date a long time in advance for cheap(er), and then it was flexible across the day, but you had to book the ticket a fair time ahead of your departure.

Still available on HEx (though they were withdrawn for a bit before being re-introduced in the recent-ish past... perhaps more than once?). Cheapest now seems to be £10 (one way) - in times past there were some significantly cheaper offerings.