Post Covid Passenger Rebound

[Annetts key]

Been a resounding success in the airline industry.

Does that include the hundreds of airlines that have closed operations because they could not make a profit or manage to properly maintain their aircraft?

 

[Moonshot]

Because there is proper competition in the airline industry, i.e. multiple airlines doing the same routes, airlines free to negotiate different routes/airports, airlines free to lease their own choice of plane, privately owned airports free to do their own "deals" with airlines, etc. Completely different to the faux/pretend privatisation of the railways where the state quangos still control virtually everything.

So get rid of the government influence altogether and let the private sector bid for paths

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Apr 2022 ==

AKA, close most of the railways? Because that's what that would mean.

Unless the DFT choose to subsidize routes under PSO .....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Apr 2022 ==

Does that include the hundreds of airlines that have closed operations because they could not make a profit or manage to properly maintain their aircraft?

100s? I was thinking more along the lines of easyJet and Ryanair , both of which have flourished since open skies agreements came along

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Ive no time for Rees Mogg but he upping the ante on getting civil servants back into the office

 

[Bletchleyite]

So get rid of the government influence altogether and let the private sector bid for paths
...
Unless the DFT choose to subsidize routes under PSO .....

These two are rather incompatible. Though you could do path-bidding on the WCML and ECML, pretty much everything else would need to be subsidised and tendered, thus leaving us basically where we are.

 

[Neptune]

Ive no time for Rees Mogg but he upping the ante on getting civil servants back into the office

View attachment 113265

Why is he having a go at Civil Servants?

These people need to realise that in the new post covid world and with better connectivity than before, hybrid working suits far more people. 3 days in the office and 2 at home is what the CS are looking at for staff, can’t see an issue with it.

The days of 9-5 Monday - Friday working in an office is as good as dead. People like Rees-Mogg who appear to be stuck in the past need to move into this century and realise this.

 

[Trainbike46]

Why is he having a go at Civil Servants?

Possibly because he hates the civil service on principle, being a proponent of small government?

These people need to realise that in the new post covid world and with better connectivity than before, hybrid working suits far more people. 3 days in the office and 2 at home is what the CS are looking at for staff, can’t see an issue with it.

The days of 9-5 Monday - Friday working in an office is as good as dead. People like Rees-Mogg who appear to be stuck in the past need to move into this century and realise this.

Rees-Mogg is truly stuck in the past, even by Tory standards!

 

[PTR 444]

These two are rather incompatible. Though you could do path-bidding on the WCML and ECML, pretty much everything else would need to be subsidised and tendered, thus leaving us basically where we are.

This is academic now considering that franchising is now a thing of the past, but has a more airline approach to franchising ever been seriously considered? In short, rather than the franchises covering geographical areas where each service generally falls to a single operator, individual lines are split so multiple franchises can operate a single route between the same destination. This would be somewhat similar to how airlines operate, where they bid for takeoff and landing slots at airports.

Unprofitable routes would generally only have one franchise available for bidding, but profitable routes such as the WCML and ECML could have dozens. A typical journey from London to Manchester for example could see every xx00 path being allocated to FirstGroup, every xx20 path being allocated to Stagecoach and every xx40 path being allocated to Arriva. It would provide genuine airline-style competition on the railways which has never been seen before and really help drive down prices on the railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unprofitable routes would generally only have one franchise available for bidding, but profitable routes such as the WCML and ECML could have dozens. A typical journey from London to Manchester for example could see every xx00 path being allocated to FirstGroup, every xx20 path being allocated to Stagecoach and every xx40 path being allocated to Arriva. It would provide genuine airline-style competition on the railways which has never been seen before and really help drive down prices on the railway.

This assumes that simple driving down of prices is what we want.

I think any suggestion like that misses the point entirely. The competition has rubber tyres and is on the M1 and M6, or for Scotland it's got wings and going over the top. A railway working as one with a genuine push to get people out of cars and off planes would do far, far better than one squabbling over a far smaller number of people who already travel by train.

Same with buses, FWIW.

 

[trebor79]

This is academic now considering that franchising is now a thing of the past, but has a more airline approach to franchising ever been seriously considered? In short, rather than the franchises covering geographical areas where each service generally falls to a single operator, individual lines are split so multiple franchises can operate a single route between the same destination. This would be somewhat similar to how airlines operate, where they bid for takeoff and landing slots at airports.

Unprofitable routes would generally only have one franchise available for bidding, but profitable routes such as the WCML and ECML could have dozens. A typical journey from London to Manchester for example could see every xx00 path being allocated to FirstGroup, every xx20 path being allocated to Stagecoach and every xx40 path being allocated to Arriva. It would provide genuine airline-style competition on the railways which has never been seen before and really help drive down prices on the railway.

Would be quite complicated. What do you do with the train at the terminus if the next path is for a rival operator? Who bears the cost of costly shunts to and from depots to clear platforms etc?
It would make more sense, IMO, to go back to something similar to grouping. Whereby 3 or 4 large TOCs have a profitable core, but are required to provide other unprofitable services

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Apr 2022 ==

This assumes that simple driving down of prices is what we want.

I think any suggestion like that misses the point entirely. The competition has rubber tyres and is on the M1 and M6, or for Scotland it's got wings and going over the top. A railway working as one with a genuine push to get people out of cars and off planes would do far, far better than one squabbling over a far smaller number of people who already travel by train.

Same with buses, FWIW.

I think lower prices would be good. It's £110 return for me to go to London on a standard walk-up ticket. It's just under 100 miles and would be far cheaper for me to drive to Epping and get the tube in, and probably not that much slower door to door. The railway is sometimes exceptionally poor value.
But we also need some innovation. Instead of First Class, what about refitting some of those coaches on long distance services into office cubicles?
Bring back proper dining (at additional cost).

 

[dk1]

I haven't been able to get an advance purchase (GA Business Return - renamed to something else now basically specific train up, any train down, very useful) into London during the peak the past few weeks. Pre-covid they were generally available up to a few days before travel. Trains have seemed well-loaded although the reduced timetable may have been partially responsible.
And the Diss to Cuffley not via London ticket is no longer available (someone obviously spotted it, bugger) so I find myself buying extortionately priced any time returns.

Oh that’s a shame you’ve not been able to get those. Still a few peak services to go back in at some point. The off peak GEML trains are fairly well loaded now. This last weekend however has been crazy. Goodness knows where everyone has suddenly come from with some intercity loadings estimated in excess of 800 during the Easter weekend & some not far off that today. Continuous reports of EMR & local services out of Norwich being full to capacity.

 

[trebor79]

Oh that’s a shame you’ve not been able to get those. Still a few peak services to go back in at some point. The off peak GEML trains are fairly well loaded now. This last weekend however has been crazy. Goodness knows where everyone has suddenly come from with some intercity loadings estimated in excess of 800 during the Easter weekend & some not far off that today. Continuous reports of EMR & local services out of Norwich being full to capacity.

I have been pleased to be able to enjoy my porridge and cup of tea on the way to London again though .
I do still miss the full English in the restaurant car though. Nearly 20 years gone and still much lamented.

 

[dk1]

I have been pleased to be able to enjoy my porridge and cup of tea on the way to London again though .
I do still miss the full English in the restaurant car though. Nearly 20 years gone and still much lamented.

Was only 2008 that we lost full dining on Norwich-Liverpool St. was following the financial crisis & withdrawn by NXEA.

 

[43066]

There is an odd archaic attitude to WFH on this forum as if folk are sitting there watching netflix and baking cakes and one can only be productive touching flesh, networking and above all commuting

Or is it that there are a lot of people on this forum who do jobs very suited to working from home (IT roles especially) and are blind to the value of working with other people physically, networking etc.?

These people need to realise that in the new post covid world and with better connectivity than before, hybrid working suits far more people. 3 days in the office and 2 at home is what the CS are looking at for staff, can’t see an issue with it.

The days of 9-5 Monday - Friday working in an office is as good as dead. People like Rees-Mogg who appear to be stuck in the past need to move into this century and realise this.

I’m sure it would suit most people simply not to work at all. In fact being paid by the government not to work was a state to which many became a little too accustomed during furlough - hence we read of staff shortages while the scheme was still running!

People also need to remember the adage: “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. You may prefer working from home but, if your boss prefers you in the office, the choice is to either do as instructed or change jobs.

I make JRM 100% right on this. The government is now encouraging people to return to work so it’s quite right that, of all organisations, the civil service should be setting an example. If the civil servants are given a straight choice between coming back into work or going to find alternative employment in the private sector, I rather suspect many will promptly rediscover the joys of commuting!

 

[InOban]

I read that they can't all return as a number of offices have been closed and so there isn't space even with hot desking.

 

[seagull]

Interesting article here on some of the easily overlooked and underrated benefits of office work Vs home work.

https://www.worktechacademy.com/working-from-home-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/

I suspect commuting and meeting travel (specifically, by train) will certainly recover to a higher level than currently, especially if employers do consider that WFH is causing additional problems, but equally I'm sure there are roles where it works all round for everyone, too.

 

[Ken H]

My client is a multi national. I have Teams meetings frequently with people in 3 UK locations, Netherlands, Germany, Romania and Ukraine. There is no point being in the office to sit with headphones on gawping at a screen. I can do that at home.

 

[Neptune]

I’m sure it would suit most people simply not to work at all. In fact being paid by the government not to work was a state to which many became a little too accustomed during furlough - hence we read of staff shortages while the scheme was still running!

People also need to remember the adage: “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. You may prefer working from home but, if your boss prefers you in the office, the choice is to either do as instructed or change jobs.

I make JRM 100% right on this. The government is now encouraging people to return to work so it’s quite right that, of all organisations, the civil service should be setting an example. If the civil servants are given a straight choice between coming back into work or going to find alternative employment in the private sector, I rather suspect many will promptly rediscover the joys of commuting!

How much of the civil service was placed on furlough?

My civil servant wife worked from home from day 1 of the pandemic and her contract stipulates at least 3 out of 5 days in the office. As this was part of a 3 year deal negotiated before the pandemic it meant that the new build offices have been downsized so there simply isn’t the office space for 100% office work, something the government has been pushing for for a long while. (does Rees-Mogg even know this, if he doesn’t then maybe he should have done his research before wading in with both feet).

As my wife says, working from home days are far more productive than distracting office days.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Possibly because he hates the civil service on principle, being a proponent of small government?

Rees-Mogg is truly stuck in the past, even by Tory standards!

I make JRM 100% right on this. The government is now encouraging people to return to work so it’s quite right that, of all organisations, the civil service should be setting an example. If the civil servants are given a straight choice between coming back into work or going to find alternative employment in the private sector, I rather suspect many will promptly rediscover the joys of commuting!

"Stuck in the past" in more ways than one - following his ... err... helpful... intervention, I saw social media from people in the know that there aren't enough desks in Whitehall for the civil servants to do return to the "traditional" working pattern - i.e. they'd already moved to a hybrid model well before Covid hit and there just isn't sufficient office space to deliver the dream.

These people need to realise that in the new post covid world and with better connectivity than before, hybrid working suits far more people. 3 days in the office and 2 at home is what the CS are looking at for staff, can’t see an issue with it.

The days of 9-5 Monday - Friday working in an office is as good as dead. People like Rees-Mogg who appear to be stuck in the past need to move into this century and realise this.

I agree with the thrust of this argument insofar as it means that some demand is changed, and isn't coming back any time soon. Some (tech) companies foresaw this (e.g. Sun Microsystems MPK20 project in 2008), and Covid obviously broke down the cultural barriers to this transformation. However, I don't see this as so clear-cut, and we should be very careful of extrapolating our circumstances/experiences onto others.

There are good reasons why some people want, or need to work a conventional 5 days in the office. I have colleagues who spent months with a laptop balanced on their knees or windowsill for lack of a suitable place to work, or whose mental health was battered by the isolation, or who struggled to be productive because of lack of access to specialist equipment. Perhaps people simply don't want to lose their spare room to a home office.

You may prefer working from home, but your boss prefers you in the office, the choice is either to change jobs or do as instructed.

I think there's quite a lot of this about. I've been surprised by how many senior leaders have failed to grasp that whilst you might be able to "instruct" people to do something they don't like doing in the short term, the best talent will probably leave and the people that remain will be de-motivated and have lower levels of wellbeing.

There leaders who want everyone to "get back to the office and get back to normal" without understanding that a lot of people have made fundamental changes to their lifestyle and don't want to give up the benefits.

It's equally true of those who had a "good pandemic" (i.e. a cosy home office, lack of travel, time with the kids and to walk lockdown dog) and don't understand how being shut out of the workplace was so awful and why closing offices to save rent mightn't be a management masterstroke either.

 

[43066]

"Stuck in the past" in more ways than one - following his ... err... helpful... intervention, I saw social media from people in the know that there aren't enough desks in Whitehall for the civil servants to do return to the "traditional" working pattern - i.e. they'd already moved to a hybrid model well before Covid hit and there just isn't sufficient office space to deliver the dream.

People “in the know” will include those with their own agenda. The civil service unions clearly don’t like it and there’s a predictable gnashing of teeth there.

As far as I can see he’s not demanding 100% attendance in the office 9-5 Monday to Friday. Merely a more concerted movement in the right direction and some proper transparency over how different departments are performing. Some are apparently still languishing around 20% or below according to the Guardian which sends out a message which goes against what the government wants.

I realise JRM isn’t everyones’ cup of tea - he isn’t mine for that matter - but once that’s put aside I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the message here. It’s entirely consistent with the government’s “back to normal” agenda which I am 100% in favour of.

I think there's quite a lot of this about. I've been surprised by how many senior leaders have failed to grasp that whilst you might be able to "instruct" people to do something they don't like doing in the short term, the best talent will probably leave and the people that remain will be de-motivated and have lower levels of wellbeing.

It’s probably a bit of both. Some people will be key talent they can’t afford to lose, to the point that they can dictate their own working conditions. A rather larger % of employees are perhaps a little to used to easy street and will be in for a short sharp shock if they try playing hardball and making demands!

At lot of it will be self determining as we move further away from the pandemic. If you want to get noticed and get ahead at work it’ll be much harder to do that if you’re at home longer than everyone else is. Humans are a social species and collaborative working, influencing people and networking are generally more effective in person - and that is much more important in some industries than others.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As far as I can see he’s not demanding 100% attendance 9-5 Monday Friday. Merely a concerted movement in the right direction and some proper transparency over how different departments are performing. Some are apparently still languishing around 20% or below according to the Guardian which sends out a message which goes against what the government wants.

It isn't necessarily the right direction. The Civil Service exists to deliver a service. It should be left up to the local management to determine what the most effective way to deliver that service is, not a top-hatted bloke who thinks it's 1822, not 2022.

 

[Neptune]

It isn't necessarily the right direction. The Civil Service exists to deliver a service. It should be left up to the local management to determine what the most effective way to deliver that service is, not a top-hatted bloke who thinks it's 1822, not 2022.

Quite. If your team is performing well with 60/40 working (the minimum required in my wife’s contract) then why demand higher attendance levels, especially when the government themselves has cut office spaces to save money.

 

[43066]

It isn't necessarily the right direction. The Civil Service exists to deliver a service. It should be left up to the local management to determine what the most effective way to deliver that service is, not a top-hatted bloke who thinks it's 1822, not 2022.

I disagree. The civil service ultimately only exists to support and implement the policies of the government who, in turn, were elected by the taxpayers (the ultimate paymasters). If the taxpayers are being encouraged back to work it’s right that the civil service should set an example.

Perhaps the government also thinks the civil service would perform better if more of them were back in the office. From what I’ve read about many parts of it - the shocking DVLA and HMRC backlogs being two examples - I’d be inclined to agree with them. If so, they have the right to change that!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Apr 2022 ==

Quite. If your team is performing well with 60/40 working (the minimum required in my wife’s contract) then why demand higher attendance levels, especially when the government themselves has cut office spaces to save money.

What about if it isn’t performing well? Shouldn’t the senior managers and shareholders (analogous to the government and taxpayers for the civil service) be allowed to change that?

 

[ar10642]

Or is it that there are a lot of people on this forum who do jobs very suited to working from home (IT roles especially) and are blind to the value of working with other people physically, networking etc.?




I’m sure it would suit most people simply not to work at all. In fact being paid by the government not to work was a state to which many became a little too accustomed during furlough - hence we read of staff shortages while the scheme was still running!

People also need to remember the adage: “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. You may prefer working from home but, if your boss prefers you in the office, the choice is to either do as instructed or change jobs.

I make JRM 100% right on this. The government is now encouraging people to return to work so it’s quite right that, of all organisations, the civil service should be setting an example. If the civil servants are given a straight choice between coming back into work or going to find alternative employment in the private sector, I rather suspect many will promptly rediscover the joys of commuting!

The civil service will lose staff to the private sector, it's as simple as that. There are so many jobs out there right now you can pick and choose.

 

[NoRoute]

This assumes that simple driving down of prices is what we want.

Well lower prices is what a lot of passengers want because it makes it more affordable to travel and at the margins there will be potential passengers, currently using alternatives like the car or coaches, who could then afford to take the train. It is likely to encourage some additional travel from existing rail users.

I think any suggestion like that misses the point entirely. The competition has rubber tyres and is on the M1 and M6, or for Scotland it's got wings and going over the top. A railway working as one with a genuine push to get people out of cars and off planes would do far, far better than one squabbling over a far smaller number of people who already travel by train.

Same with buses, FWIW.

What does a 'railway working as one' actually offer to the passenger? Does it make it cheaper to park at the station? Or lower cost to travel? Or lower cost tickets when travelling across multiple operators? What is tangibly different for the passenger, compared to the current set-up?

 

[Neptune]

What about if it isn’t performing well? Shouldn’t the senior managers and shareholders (analogous to the government and taxpayers for the civil service) be allowed to change that?

If an individual isn’t performing well due to home working then yes, they should be asked to return to the office on a 100% basis but that shouldn’t impact those who are performing as dictated by their performance agreements.

 

[ExRes]

Why is he having a go at Civil Servants?

Perhaps it's because he works for the Government as do the Civil Service

 

[trebor79]

Quite. If your team is performing well with 60/40 working (the minimum required in my wife’s contract) then why demand higher attendance levels, especially when the government themselves has cut office spaces to save money.

Perhaps it might perform better with 100% office working?

 

[Delenn]

Perhaps it might perform better with 100% office working?

Having tried that for a number of years, and having tried the work from home split, I think people have a good idea of what works and what doesn't in any particular circumstances, at least if they are decent bosses they do.

 

[ar10642]

Perhaps it might perform better with 100% office working?

Probably not because they'll be wasting time doing recruitment for all the people that will simply leave if you try it. Not many want to go back to wasting £4-5k of after tax income and paying for pre/after school clubs to go back to 5 days a week in office when the job can be done just as well at home, and it can. We've been doing this for 2 years nkw.

 

[trebor79]

Probably not because they'll be wasting time doing recruitment for all the people that will simply leave if you try it. Not many want to go back to wasting £4-5k of after tax income and paying for pre/after school clubs to go back to 5 days a week in office when the job can be done just as well at home, and it can. We've been doing this for 2 years nkw.

Some jobs I agree can be done from home with zero impact, but these tend to be of the more transactional variety. As soon as you start needing in depth discussions, idea generation, talking through options, influencing, persuading etc remote working quickly become less and less effective. I'm still friendly with people at a former employer, they tried remote working when the first lockdown came in but gave up after a fortnight as it just didn't work (and I completely understand why it didn't even though in theory it ought to have).