Are you not aware we have a number of lists which explicitly prohibit a number of things on the railway? Perhaps you're unaware of the existence of Railway Byelaws, the National Rail Conditions of Carriage and the various restrictions attached to various tickets? Perhaps, by your logic we shouldn't bother with them at all.
Again, perhaps you are unaware that off-peak tickets have very specific restrictions attached to them? You can look them up on the national rail website and everything!
I realise you're replying to someone else here, but for the avoidance of doubt I'm not advocating passengers ignore the conditions they've agreed to. Rather I am advocating those conditions should be changed.
What an incredibly cynical attitude. As others have sad above the railway industry needs to realize that customer service and satisfaction are important elements for running any business in the 21st century. Fortunately many fantastic rail staff appreciate this - a small minority it appears do not
How does option three differ in monetary terms from offering the excess? Does it not cost more in administration and transaction costs (see below)?
On a Northern service I would say I see the guard two times out of three. Things have got much better over the last year to be fair.
I always hand over my railcard with my ticket (whether it's asked for or not). I would say it is opened and scrutinized one in ten times (across all TOCs).
Again this process is absolutely nuts. Why would any rational minded company subject itself to extra transactions, administrative processes and the costs incurred by these when the whole matter could be concluded readily and easily with the sale of a simple excess?
Ok then. Would it make you feel better that next time I have cause to write to a railway company complementing them for the helpful advice, understanding attitude and efficient service offered by their staff when I've had to change plans last minute (yep it happens - don't know whether or not it is forwarded to the individual members of staff) I'll be sure to report those employee's transgressions and demand they full disciplinary procedures for failing to abide by company policy.
Of course I wasn't referring to the TSA, was I? I thought I had made this explicitly clear but I was referring to the "documents [you've] seen", which I took to mean internal only staff fares manuals and the like (perhaps you weren't referring to these after all - sorry for misunderstanding).
I do want the railway to accept this! I'd rather they change the agreement between me (as passenger) and them to ensure it is my explicity codified right to obtain such an excess. I believe this to be mutually beneficial (see below).
You've mentioned this a couple of times. I find it simultaneously interesting and baffling, so let's explore it a little. The process you prefer is to cancel the passenger's existing ticket, refund the full amount of said ticket and then sell the relevant undiscounted ticket? Tell me: in pecuniary terms how on earth does this differ from offering the excess? This seems to be a very inefficient and convoluted process. Does it not take up a lot of time. Does it not cost more in back off administrative costs and banking charges? Would it not be quicker just to offer a simple excess?
Interesting question... in this circumstance I'd draw the line at not permitting the passenger to board the train with an undiscounted ticket when proof of that discount is not presented. Clearly that would be wrong. However I see no problem with the passenger paying the difference when to ensure the they end up paying what they would have without the discount.
I can't help you here I'm afraid as they aren't my rules / policies. The government and rail regulator . If you have a problem with that I suggest you either like it or lump it given it's the policy if the rail regulator to stress the importance of customer satisfaction or take it up with them directly.
What doesn't allow it? Perhaps I simply don't quite understand your unique brand of logic here. Indeed, if we were to follow it through there would be no need for Railway Bylaws, or indeed terms and conditions at all. Do you agree that we should abolish those? After all they're not needed because according to you if it's not explicitly permitted it is explicitly prohibited.
Look for example at changes made to the NRCoC, the most recent of which (July if I recall correctly) did not coincide with a single franchise change. So contrary to what you say it's clearly possible, so what would stop a condition being inserted in there that permitted an excess in these circumstances - TOCs would be obliged to offer it would they not?
I believe the railway would be much better off. Allow me to explain why:
1. By recognizing that passengers sometimes require flexibility and offering a product to provide this flexibility customer satisfaction can be increased. Customer satisfaction is an important indicator (among many others) of railway companies' performance which is monitored by the regulator and may have an impact on franchise awards for the parent company, so it makes sense for railway companies to ensure satisfaction remains high.
2. Improved customer satisfaction is likely to improve the perceptions of the rail industry which might lead to a modest increase in passengers. This of course increases revenue.
3. Revenue is of course increased by collecting extra money the excesses generate. I do accept it is not as much offering a new ticket, but if the passenger can simply send the old one in for a refund then nothing is lost, is it?
4. By offering an excess rather than selling a new ticket and getting the passenger to send in their old ticket for a refund the number of overall transactions is reduced. This cuts costs associated with administering those transactions and ensures more profit for the railway company / more money to invest in the rail network.
5. Offering an excess compared to a brand new tickets is cheaper in the immediate term for the passenger (but as explained in points 3 and 4 does not cost the railway any more), so makes it more likely a passenger without a railcard would part with their money to regularize their travel. This would have a modest knock-on benefit by reducing the number of passengers travelling without a valid ticket.
6. By offering an explicitly codified procedure to regularize ticketless travel which is comparatively cheaper than the option of purchasing a new ticket you reduce the excuses on offer to the would-be fare evader (I didn't know what to do, I couldn't afford a brand new ticket, etc etc), thus allowing the railway industry to more effectively tackle and if necessary prosecute those who would avoid their fares.
I don't understand how any of these things can be seen to be a disbenefit to the railway industry.
I have presented my rational argument above. I have yet to be swayed by an alternative argument. Perhaps there is one out there, but all you have presented so far amounts to "there's no rule to say we can do it, so it's not allowed". Is this it, or do you have more substance as to why the rules as they stand shouldn't be changed?
....
