I would imagine if they and Ryanair could get away with it, then they would.
I would imagine they world do something more like this
1 - sell group tickets
2 - overbook the plane
3 - tell people they have to fly on separate flights
4 - charge you the full fare as you are no longer travelling together
I'm a bit baffled by this. The ticket is only valid on the train it's booked for, so if "D" doesn't travel on that train he simply loses the use of the ticket.
...for this sort of ticket, yes, but l presume it's a general rule for group discounts which applies to more flexible tickets too?
But the bit I'm still having trouble getting my head round is the issue of collective responsibility. One person paid for all the tickets. One person did not travel. The person who paid for the tickets is not the same person who did not travel, and neither the person who paid for the tickets nor the person who did not travel were threatened with fines.
It was only the two "innocent" parties who were threatened with fines.
I don't really get why this is confusing - the ticket inspector is hardly going to have access to details of everyone who paid for the tickets used on the train! They look at the codes on the tickets, which don't give any indication as to who paid.
And if you use a ticket you accept the conditions of travel. It's a group ticket offer, so I don't really understand how it could possibly not be collective responsibility!
I'm a bit baffled by this. The ticket is only valid on the train it's booked for, so if "D" doesn't travel on that train he simply loses the use of the ticket. It's not refundable so the travellers make a net loss if the ticket isn't used.
Yes, but the train company may well also make a net loss if the price of two full-price tickets was more than 3 discounted ones, which it could well be.
That's the risk you take buying non-refundable, cheaper tickets. No reason why you shouldn't bear the risk if you're paying less.
But the cheap ticket is often still more expensive than the equivalent journey by car. Assuming you already have a car and only calculating the extra cost that would be incurred.
When a small group is traveling, however, then you can probably throw in all the fixed costs of owning a car and it would still be cheaper! And also 100% flexible; with first class comfort; the ability to take all sorts of unwieldy luggage; and door-to-door service.
To make someone give that up, tickets would have to cheap and hassle-free. So you miss one train, you just take the next, just like it used to be. Or break your journey at any point. Or decide to come back a day late. Or travel from A to B then to C before returning to A. Etc. In Italy, you used to be able to do all this by train, and it was cheap (but becoming more expensive and less flexible now).
If I bought a carton of milk and decided not to drink it, should I be fined because somebody else could have bought it?
It's more like, if they had a special offer on two cartons, and you decided not to drink the second. But that would only make sense if two cartons were cheaper than one. We don't know in this case whether buying 4 (or 3) tickets was actually cheaper than buying 3 (or 2).
There used to be similar thing on channel ferries, where you had a £10 day return, but a single might cost £50 (or along those lines). If you tried buying a cheap return and using it as a single, then they could claim back the extra £40 later on, if you didn't come back that day.
So if you'd shown all 3 of the tickets would they still be invalid? I'm sorry but there is absolutely no logical reason for the train company to do this - it's ridiculous.
I challenge anyone here to explain how it could negatively effect the company in any way.
So if you'd shown all 3 of the tickets would they still be invalid? I'm sorry but there is absolutely no logical reason for the train company to do this - it's ridiculous.
I challenge anyone here to explain how it could negatively effect the company in any way.
This is it in a nutshell.
The train company chose to sell three train tickets to these three people as a group purchase (for cheaper than it would be to sell three individual tickets to three seperate individuals not travelling in a group).
Now, if the ticket inspector then tried to use the excuse that the train company would have made more money if the group ticket hadn't been bought, and so the two who did travel would have had to buy an individual ticket each, and the third seat could have been sold to a completely different passenger, well tough shit.
The train company shouldn't offer group tickets if they don't want people to buy group tickets. Yes, they lose out compared to selling three individual tickets. But at least they have sold three tickets - if the two who did travel had each bought individual tickets, and the third seat ended up unoccupied for the whole journey, the train company would have made less money than they did by selling three tickets at a discount.
For the ticket inspector to then try and extract more money from the two remaining passengers, after they have already made money selling a third ticket which hasn't then been used (and in fact they could make even more money by then re-selling the unused seat to a completely different passenger who was nothing to do with the group purchase) is just laughable.
Nobody has to travel just because they have bought a ticket which entitles them to travel - regardless of how much or how little they paid for that ticket. And nobody can be fined for not making that journey - as long as they paid the initial cost for that ticket (which person D did, even if he chose to not then make the journey) then the train company cannot expect to get any more money from the passengers who did elect to make the journey.
If train companies don't like people buying tickets in advance (or as part of a group discount) because they can make more money selling individual tickets on the day of travelat a higher price, then they shouldn't offer tickets in advance (or as part of a group discount) at cheaper prices in the first place.
It's more like, if they had a special offer on two cartons, and you decided not to drink the second. But that would only make sense if two cartons were cheaper than one. We don't know in this case whether buying 4 (or 3) tickets was actually cheaper than buying 3 (or 2).
There used to be similar thing on channel ferries, where you had a £10 day return, but a single might cost £50 (or along those lines). If you tried buying a cheap return and using it as a single, then they could claim back the extra £40 later on, if you didn't come back that day.
Actually we do, the small group discount entitles the party to a 25% discount (that is what the small group discount is, it doesn't change) - a small group is between 3-9 passengers.
I costed up today for travel tomorrow and the price was:-
Nobody has to travel just because they have bought a ticket which entitles them to travel - regardless of how much or how little they paid for that ticket. And nobody can be fined for not making that journey - as long as they paid the initial cost for that ticket (which person D did, even if he chose to not then make the journey) then the train company cannot expect to get any more money from the passengers who did elect to make the journey.
If it is a condition of the ticket that three people must be travelling together for them to be valid then having two people invalidate those tickets and you can be treated as though you are having no ticket at all. The person not travelling cannot be fined but they two who are CAN be,
So if you'd shown all 3 of the tickets would they still be invalid? I'm sorry but there is absolutely no logical reason for the train company to do this - it's ridiculous.
I challenge anyone here to explain how it could negatively effect the company in any way.
Taking South West Trains 4 for 2 offer as an example. Town XXX to London Waterloo £10 each, £20 for two, or £20 for four using a 4 for 2 Group Save discount.
Two people travelling together could purchase the 4 for 2 group save, then attempt to sell the extra tickets to some random who happens to turn up at the station. After all, Waterloo is a fairly popular destination.
If they sell it, great - they are quids in and the train operator loses a ticket sale.
If they do not, then they have not lost anything.
Granted it would constrain the return leg somewhat.
If it is a condition of the ticket that three people must be travelling together for them to be valid then having two people invalidate those tickets and you can be treated as though you are having no ticket at all. The person not travelling cannot be fined but they two who are CAN be,
The Friends and Family railcard is a good example. To be valid, you need to have at least one child with you.
Otherwise adults could use it to get cheaper tickets, even if they have to pay for one discounted child fare. (You get 1/3 off adult fares and 60% off child fares.)
You can't buy a child ticket, and then not have the child travel (if he existed at all).
The Friends and Family railcard is a good example. To be valid, you need to have at least one child with you.
Otherwise adults could use it to get cheaper tickets, even if they have to pay for one discounted child fare. (You get 1/3 off adult fares and 60% off child fares.)
You can't buy a child ticket, and then not have the child travel (if he existed at all).
True, and in the case of the family railcard would in most cases make the fare cheaper for 2 adults. But this small group discount wouldn't do that, it would still be more expensive paying for 3 instead of 2.
True, and in the case of the family railcard would in most cases make the fare cheaper for 2 adults. But this small group discount wouldn't do that, it would still be more expensive paying for 3 instead of 2.
I have a F&F railcard, but if my wife and I, and two of our children travel together, then it usually works out cheaper to get a 4 for 2 Group Save than use the railcard.
The Friends and Family railcard is a good example. To be valid, you need to have at least one child with you.
Otherwise adults could use it to get cheaper tickets, even if they have to pay for one discounted child fare. (You get 1/3 off adult fares and 60% off child fares.)
You can't buy a child ticket, and then not have the child travel (if he existed at all).
When you buy tickets online you only get railcard savings if you specify that you have one, whereas the group saver this thread is about was applied automatically without giving the purchaser any choice. That's why the ticket inspector's threat to charge each traveller an extra £120 came as such a shock.
I have a F&F railcard, but if my wife and I, and two of our children travel together, then it usually works out cheaper to get a 4 for 2 Group Save than use the railcard.
Well yes that is logical because you can use the family card on any fare. This small group discount also applies if children are travelling as well, they are counted as part of the group, and then you also get the savings with the railcard.
I use it to go to London, works out at £18.00 return for me & two children, travelling from the Midlands. Including the small group discount and railcard savings.
When you buy tickets online you only get railcard savings if you specify that you have one, whereas the group saver this thread is about was applied automatically without giving the purchaser any choice. That's why the ticket inspector's threat to charge each traveller an extra £120 came as such a shock.
If the inspector really could legally charge each traveller an extra £120 then I doubt they would have let them off so easily. I suspect it was all bravado and BS.
If the inspector really could legally charge each traveller an extra £120 then I doubt they would have let them off so easily. I suspect it was all bravado and BS.
Just checked and the full price "anytime single" fare from Harrogate to London is £128.50.
Comments
I would imagine they world do something more like this
1 - sell group tickets
2 - overbook the plane
3 - tell people they have to fly on separate flights
4 - charge you the full fare as you are no longer travelling together
...for this sort of ticket, yes, but l presume it's a general rule for group discounts which applies to more flexible tickets too?
Not a very good incentive if the slightest, unexpected change to your plans (or simply missing the train by a few minutes) results in huge fines.
No different to any 'advance' ticket though, which will be non-refundable and only entitle you to travel on a specific train.
I don't really get why this is confusing - the ticket inspector is hardly going to have access to details of everyone who paid for the tickets used on the train! They look at the codes on the tickets, which don't give any indication as to who paid.
And if you use a ticket you accept the conditions of travel. It's a group ticket offer, so I don't really understand how it could possibly not be collective responsibility!
Not necessarily, depends on when the tickets are booked.
Yes, but the train company may well also make a net loss if the price of two full-price tickets was more than 3 discounted ones, which it could well be.
That's the risk you take buying non-refundable, cheaper tickets. No reason why you shouldn't bear the risk if you're paying less.
But the cheap ticket is often still more expensive than the equivalent journey by car. Assuming you already have a car and only calculating the extra cost that would be incurred.
When a small group is traveling, however, then you can probably throw in all the fixed costs of owning a car and it would still be cheaper! And also 100% flexible; with first class comfort; the ability to take all sorts of unwieldy luggage; and door-to-door service.
To make someone give that up, tickets would have to cheap and hassle-free. So you miss one train, you just take the next, just like it used to be. Or break your journey at any point. Or decide to come back a day late. Or travel from A to B then to C before returning to A. Etc. In Italy, you used to be able to do all this by train, and it was cheap (but becoming more expensive and less flexible now).
This post just does not make sense.
If I bought a carton of milk and decided not to drink it, should I be fined because somebody else could have bought it?
I was actually interpreting 'someone else's' point to another poster with this post, not making a point myself! You are taking it out of context!
I really wish people would read threads rather than trying to make someone look stupid or prove them wrong!
It's more like, if they had a special offer on two cartons, and you decided not to drink the second. But that would only make sense if two cartons were cheaper than one. We don't know in this case whether buying 4 (or 3) tickets was actually cheaper than buying 3 (or 2).
There used to be similar thing on channel ferries, where you had a £10 day return, but a single might cost £50 (or along those lines). If you tried buying a cheap return and using it as a single, then they could claim back the extra £40 later on, if you didn't come back that day.
But there is no "fine", despite the OP's melodrama. Merely an offer to sell a valid ticket, as the ones presented were (allegedly) not valid.
So it's more like saying your carton of milk has expired, and you'll need to buy a new one if you want to drink milk.
I challenge anyone here to explain how it could negatively effect the company in any way.
This is it in a nutshell.
The train company chose to sell three train tickets to these three people as a group purchase (for cheaper than it would be to sell three individual tickets to three seperate individuals not travelling in a group).
Now, if the ticket inspector then tried to use the excuse that the train company would have made more money if the group ticket hadn't been bought, and so the two who did travel would have had to buy an individual ticket each, and the third seat could have been sold to a completely different passenger, well tough shit.
The train company shouldn't offer group tickets if they don't want people to buy group tickets. Yes, they lose out compared to selling three individual tickets. But at least they have sold three tickets - if the two who did travel had each bought individual tickets, and the third seat ended up unoccupied for the whole journey, the train company would have made less money than they did by selling three tickets at a discount.
For the ticket inspector to then try and extract more money from the two remaining passengers, after they have already made money selling a third ticket which hasn't then been used (and in fact they could make even more money by then re-selling the unused seat to a completely different passenger who was nothing to do with the group purchase) is just laughable.
Nobody has to travel just because they have bought a ticket which entitles them to travel - regardless of how much or how little they paid for that ticket. And nobody can be fined for not making that journey - as long as they paid the initial cost for that ticket (which person D did, even if he chose to not then make the journey) then the train company cannot expect to get any more money from the passengers who did elect to make the journey.
If train companies don't like people buying tickets in advance (or as part of a group discount) because they can make more money selling individual tickets on the day of travelat a higher price, then they shouldn't offer tickets in advance (or as part of a group discount) at cheaper prices in the first place.
Actually we do, the small group discount entitles the party to a 25% discount (that is what the small group discount is, it doesn't change) - a small group is between 3-9 passengers.
I costed up today for travel tomorrow and the price was:-
2 tickets - £46.00 approx
3 tickets - £53.00 approx
So no point in paying for 3 people if only 2 are travelling, it will work out more expensive for the 2 people.
If it is a condition of the ticket that three people must be travelling together for them to be valid then having two people invalidate those tickets and you can be treated as though you are having no ticket at all. The person not travelling cannot be fined but they two who are CAN be,
Taking South West Trains 4 for 2 offer as an example. Town XXX to London Waterloo £10 each, £20 for two, or £20 for four using a 4 for 2 Group Save discount.
Two people travelling together could purchase the 4 for 2 group save, then attempt to sell the extra tickets to some random who happens to turn up at the station. After all, Waterloo is a fairly popular destination.
If they sell it, great - they are quids in and the train operator loses a ticket sale.
If they do not, then they have not lost anything.
Granted it would constrain the return leg somewhat.
The Friends and Family railcard is a good example. To be valid, you need to have at least one child with you.
Otherwise adults could use it to get cheaper tickets, even if they have to pay for one discounted child fare. (You get 1/3 off adult fares and 60% off child fares.)
You can't buy a child ticket, and then not have the child travel (if he existed at all).
True, and in the case of the family railcard would in most cases make the fare cheaper for 2 adults. But this small group discount wouldn't do that, it would still be more expensive paying for 3 instead of 2.
I have a F&F railcard, but if my wife and I, and two of our children travel together, then it usually works out cheaper to get a 4 for 2 Group Save than use the railcard.
When you buy tickets online you only get railcard savings if you specify that you have one, whereas the group saver this thread is about was applied automatically without giving the purchaser any choice. That's why the ticket inspector's threat to charge each traveller an extra £120 came as such a shock.
Well yes that is logical because you can use the family card on any fare. This small group discount also applies if children are travelling as well, they are counted as part of the group, and then you also get the savings with the railcard.
I use it to go to London, works out at £18.00 return for me & two children, travelling from the Midlands. Including the small group discount and railcard savings.
If the inspector really could legally charge each traveller an extra £120 then I doubt they would have let them off so easily. I suspect it was all bravado and BS.
Just checked and the full price "anytime single" fare from Harrogate to London is £128.50.