Originally Posted by
NickB
OK. Now if AF sells tickets at £1000 ex LON to destination ZZZ via Paris and sells tickets from PAR direct to ZZZ for £2000, do you really think that the ex-LON ticket will remain at £1000 if people in Paris can buy the ticket ex-LON and just skip the first leg?
Listen I know how yeild management works thank you very much.
Where did I ONCE suggest (in either case) people should be allowed to not travel an initial segment and turn up for the later ones?
What will happen is that ticket prices will equalise somewhere nearer to the LON price than the PAR price.
I dispute that, well except for perhaps flights between LHR, CDG, AMS, FRA etc. And only if limited to carriers who want to operate in that market.
That in itself will make flight from LON on AF less attractive as you will have lesser of an incentive to go for an indirect flight over a direct flight and will generally favour direct flights and result in the strengthening of flag carriers in their home market as well as increasing fares at the bottom.
Not at all what we are talking about.
I fail to see the difference: they are advance tickets sold on specific services between specific city pairs, exactly the same way as discount Y tickets on airlines.
I'd say a fair comparison would be comparing Peak (Anytime) and *standard* (walk up & advance) Off-Peak (non capacity controlled) rail fares, to full flex Y and discount
I'd say the real headline prices 12.50 Manchester are closer sale airline fares.
Well, that's a wholly different debate. The issue is how you structure the revenue streams generated from fares. Whether they are subsidies in it affects the overall level of revenues from fares. It says nothing, however, on how that revenue is structured, whether it is structured by linear fares, proportional to distance (as is practised in a number of other Member States or as was practised by SNCF in France before they moved to a yield management system) or an airline-style system of city-pairs fares. They are advantages and disadvantages to both systems.
Indeed it is a totally separate debate, however that is my responce to this story.
But there are also many points between the revenue/yeild managent + city pairs approch, and pure distance pricing. That middle ground is covered by a yeild management approch to fares, but allowing sub distance use.
The advantage of the second system is that it allows deeper discounts on certain routes and probably result in an overall somewhat lower level of fares as it increases the level of occupancy of trains.
Don't you mean a somewhat lower level of fares as it increases the overall revenue?
Personally, my approch is simply if you have a ticket valid for A-Z and it stops at B, you should be able to get off there. If that ticket is more expensive than A-B, your loss. If it is less expensive, so be it. Basiclly, lowest common demoninator pricing.
As I said, a totally different debate, but that is my responce. And as I said, I don't think your comparison to airline pricing is aligned correctly. And I disagree with your conclusion about the consequence on airline prices other than perhaps major hub to major hub.