OK, You decide what I mean, that'll make things easier...
Genuinely, I don't get it, but whatever.
I'm not expecting them to have to have checked the website, but it's not unreasonable for them to have happened to have looked at it - and seen the service is operated by Southern.
To be honest I think the vast majority of people won't have even seen it, nevermind actually think about what the potential consequences are.
I'm not sure which bit you think I've avoided - if you clarify I'll be happy to answer.
The post you quoted, which at least one other person quoted too (so it's not just you), was in response to Island saying 'Southern Only' was an abbreviation of Southern Railway Limited, rather than the trading name 'Southern'. I countered, in that post, saying that other train companies use the trading name with the exception of XC, pointing out also that XC was previously VXC. People have quoted that post, but not actually addressed the point made in it, which seems illogical as the whole post was to make that point alone.
That wasn't the intention.
They are much smaller than the header. However they are the same size as the majority of the text on that page, not hidden away in small print.
It is one sentence at the bottom of the page where most people won't see it because they won't look for it, hardly marketing.
*Yawn*
It's at the bottom of the page. Quite a short page, as websites go. It'd be fairly easy to miss on any given page but it's on every page on the website so there's a lot of opportunity to see it.
A page that you would still have to scroll down to see all of and people tend to scroll only as far as they need to.
There is nothing that claims the service is run by a company, real or imagined called "Gatwick Express". This is the only comment on the page that refers to who runs the service. I'm using marketing as a verb, not a noun.
There are two definitions of Marketing that I am aware of.
1. the act of buying or selling in a market.
2. the activities, as advertising, packaging, and selling, involved in transferring goods from the producer to the consumer.
I'm not sure which of these you feel it falls into, or indeed if it even does fall into one of them.
....It is FAR from coincidental that, despite what DfT say and Southern profess to believe, that, as Yorkie had noted, the latter have always refunded any excess/penalty fares charged to individuals using "Southern only" tickets on Gatwick Express.
Is it also FAR from coincidental that those refunds come from a department whose job it is to make sure you keep paying for Southern services rather than the cheaper FCC services, but don't let that minor fact put you off your train of thought.
The whole thing is a can of worms that they don't dare expose to the Courts! Any Court action on such a case would be the sort of thing likely to result in the whole plethora of EU consumer legislation being applied to the railways - one thing ATOC definitely does not want!
I'm not so sure, I mean, certainly if one person doesn't complain about paying more then it s worth refunding everyone else because the costs are pretty much the same anyway, but if it is sorted out, they won't have to go through the refunds. Lets think of the two outcomes for a moment.
One, the courts decide Gatwick Express is, for the purposes of Condition 10, a separate company, well then everyone is now happy because we all know where we stand and Southern can stop issuing refunds on tickets bought because the passengers were using Gatwick Express services.
Two, the courts decide it is not, for the purposes of condition 10, a separate train company, well now everyone is happy because we all know where we stand right? Well no, because now that Gatwick Express is no longer a train company, a restriction on the use of the services no longer has to be printed on the ticket, it is no longer subject to condition 10. It can still be listed on some website somewhere that you were supposed to check before buying the ticket though, very crystal clear.
....The fact is, without wishing to go over the whole topic again, the DfT and their laywers made a huge mistake when mergeing the two companies into one....
They could have done a worse job lets be honest, but I don't think they could have done much better without re-writing some of the NRCoC.
....They are trying to say that the two brands can be treated as different companies for ticketing purposes, even going so far as to list them twice in the list of companies. But the NRCOC's own definition of a train company uses the widely accepted definition of 'company' (because they don't further clarify it) and further states that it has a licence to operate trains in accordance with those conditions....
The NRCoC uses and defines the term 'Train Company'. Previous editions of the NRCoC had the franchise name listed once and all the trading names listed in brackets next to them, to be honest I think the current format is clearer.
If it's a choice of a service restriction printed on the ticket or having it printed in some manual (or publically accessible website) somewhere for you to search for when you get the chance, I'd rather have it on the ticket.
....There is only one company (in the widely accepted definition) holding a licence to run trains branded both as Southern and Gatwick Express....
Just a shame the NRCoC uses the specifically defined term 'Train Company' then.
....Further, the conditions state that tickets can be restricted to (or avoid) a geographical route OR the trains of one or more train companies. It's a mess, and it wouldn't take a very experienced lawyer to get a case thown out in court, which is why Southern will make absolutely sure that the issue doesn't get anywhere near a courtroom.
Might be in everyone's interest to let it get that far, although with Southern, Gatwick Express and FCC all becoming one in a few years, it's probably not worth it.
In the recent history of this forum there are numerous threads on the Gatwick Express / SOUTHERN ONLY thing. Both sides will never agree, and this thread will pan out the same way.
Probably true.
