Paul Scott

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <oqy0eta4px1r$.1k3rxa6c5m9vy.dlg@40tude.net>, at 10:59:14
> on Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Chris Tolley <cjt.7@supanet.com> remarked:
>> Some months ago, I was listening to someone from the new XC operator,
>> being quizzed on "You and Yours" (R4) or something similar about the
>> way they set their fares. At one point in the discussion, it
>> emerged that if they can sell AP fares on their trains that are tied
>> to specific seats on specific journeys, then they keep all the
>> revenue. If they sell more flexible tickets, then they get less than
>> 100% of the revenue, perhaps less pounds and pee than from the AP
>> ticket. Suppose that to be true, then turn it on its head - if will
>> follow that one cannot have AP tickets unless there is a through
>> service between those points, which would answer both of your
>> questions.
>
> The final point cannot be true, as I've been issued an AP ticket where
> the legs were in turn: MML, CT, VXC, FGW. I believe it was "XC and
> connections", even though the longest leg by far was on FGW.

I was surprised Chris came to this conclusion, there have been regular
discussions here about 'AP + connections tickets', mainly dwelling on the
options for connecting services, such as the meaning of any reservations,
and if the connecting train details are advisory or mandatory in the absence
of reservations.

The XC rep on the radio (quoted above) mustn't have realised that they get a
proportion of the flexible ticket revenues sold by other operators on a
route. Maybe he was attempting to mislead his audience.

Paul