Controversial opinion - the railway should not be subsiding those who want to travel long distances at short notice, particularly on routes which are at capacity.
These are much more likely to be wealthy or business travellers. If there is spare money to go around, it should go towards increasing rail capacity or directly targeting poorer people (via increased benefits or railcards for those on a low income)
I realize that in some cases, people will have to travel at short notice, e.g. going to a funeral, but this doesn't apply to the vast majority of cases, and we shouldn't be basing fare policy on the extreme cases
Whilst long distance is more likely to be more planned in advance it is not the case that all long distance travel can be planned on advance and it is certainly isn’t the case that all return legs might not be subject to a need to change in timing for a whole host of reasons.
A system where advances are all a fixed price and you can change your ticket to another service for a reasonable additional fee up to the time of departure might have something going for it.
That is not what is proposed/being inflicted with this trial.
- The off peak price cap has been removed and so fares can be much higher that they were previously. This is commonly known as a massive price rise. In this case it is a hidden price rise as LNER lied about the purpose of the trial.
- If you miss your train, for whatever reason, and you didn’t buy the flex, or you did buy the flex but you have still not managed to make the next train, you will not be able to pay an additional fee to upgrade your ticket. LNER will pretend it never existed. You will need to buy a new ticket. Let’s say you paid £90 for the original ticket. You might have then to. Pay an additional £190. That is more money than some people have to live on for a week or even a month.
- if your travel plans were uncertain you will not be able to obtain a refund for your ticket if you don’t need to travel any more.
In every case the person affected by this change would, if they had bought an off peak ticket, have paid more in the first place than their fellow passengers travelling on advance and so they were usually the highest paying passengers on the service.
You can believe in an subsidised yet exploitative railway that implements disingenuous cliff edge traps and a weird mix of comparatively low cost advances and totally over the top pricing for the same seats. Alternatively you can believe in a subsidised and fair railway that seeks to maximise revenue in a manner that leaves the service as usable for those who need to use it as a method of transport for business, personal use and leisure.
LNER have opted for the former.