Great Western Coffee Shop

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8348929.stm):

i suspect this will be more common,probably the same will happen on FGW in the near future,not with drivers but other staff like conductors,engineering and station.for the same reasons as FCC as the pay offer is the same across first group.

Typical, whosoever chose this date for industrial action, or should I say co-ordinated withdrawal of voluntary attendance, should be ashamed, to disrupt even a single persons attendance in Whitehall on Remembrance Sunday is unforgivable.

That was my thought.  A totally inappropriate day to take action.   

agreed it is an innapropriate day to do these things but the drivers and union will see it as job done because of the publicity it got in press/media.

Said before and will say it again - I doubt many of the travelling public will have support for this type of action.

Sundays should be part of the normal roster - end of.  Anyone who objects should be made to pack their bags - there are plenty of people out there who could be trained to do the job.  i'd rather suffer delays and cancellations because free loaders are hoofed than this unofficial industrial action.

Whilst it isn't quite as blissfully simple as that, I do agree that Sundays should be brought in as part of the rostered working week for all 'wages' staff - in exchange for a modest increase in pay to compensate what they would lose out on. Now that a second TOC has fallen foul of this in the space of a couple of months, I would expect that the DfT and TOC management will be keen to sort this loophole (which has existed for years, by the way) before it gets farcical. You can also expect the Unions to be as obstinate as possible to change.

Which is not exactly an advert for the dinosaurs that are unions

Well a certain TOC not far from FCC the train crews would almost sell their Granny to work extra Sundays !! (and they do not get double pay before anyone asks.)

TOCs want to keep Sundays out of the working week but make staff contractually obligated to work their booked Sundays.  Pay deals have been thrown out due to TOCs trying to change Sunday arrangements, so I doubt very much this will change in the future.  (And I am one of those that would happily be contracted to work every Sunday if possible.)

No, it's not. But the Unions aren't in the business of advertising. They are in the business of getting the best deal for their members. Their interest in good relationships with TOC's, Government and to a large extent the public is always secondary. That's the case with most of the Unions, and, whether you like it or not, that's not going to change unless their is some major change in employment law. I can't see that happening any time soon.

i'd love someone in my industry to join a union (even the non contractors - the permies I work with) to join a union and see how far they get......laughed all the way to their P45 I would guess

Its only the ex state run industries that have reasonable unionization.........

Union for software engineers?  Project managers?

looks like you might be just talking yourself into a new role here fallen angel...lol

Very true. It's a complicated situation. It's virtually impossible for sectors that have not had historical unionisation to get a proper established union up and running. If you join the railway as a front line member of staff then you join one of the three unions. A tiny fraction of people don't, but not enough to cause any cracks to appear.

Many organisations won't recognise unions, but if it was realistic that all the permanent staff in your industry did join a union then effectively they would be forced to recognise them and working conditions and pay would most likely improve - that's why people are in unions. But it's strength in numbers, so If only a few maverick's joined then they would most likely be 'laughed all the way to their P45' - albeit a long and protracted laugh involving an industrial tribunal and legal battles galore if the individual has any sense.

An interesting anomaly in the railway industry was that Heathrow Express staff weren't being recognised by their employees (BAA) when they joined a union initially. This changed over time (ASLEF in 2003 and the RMT in 2007) and was basically down to the weight in number of people who joined: http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100944&int1stParentNodeID=89732 (http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100944&int1stParentNodeID=89732)

The railway industry (excluding white collar workers), along with postal workers and some others are in a stronger position that most unions as the wholesale withdrawal of their labour has an immediate and costly effect on the business they work for.

Here's a link to a weighty research document that confirms the effect being in a union has: http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp143/ (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp143/)

Nope - because they'd just be laid off first and then the like of me brought in as an independent. 

Also, it would take the "good" contractors/employees to join otherwise the union staff would be known as the poor quality contractors - and the good ones will not join because we do not want to see our daily rates cut which we negotiate ourselves just to protect the dross

I have no problems with unions.  I do think however that this Sunday working business has been badly managed by all the TOCs since privatisation.  In a time where traditionally low salaries have increased (esp for drivers) getting Sunday working as part of the contract still hasn't been achieved.

It is no way to run a business and needs to be sorted out across the industry.  

Well I don't know enough about your specific industry to comment too much though there must be an advantage to your company having permanent employees otherwise there wouldn't be any and everyone would be an independent temp? Theoretically at least a union might be able to exploit that to the members benefit?

As I said and have said previously, there are some industries which are more suited to unions than others, and I am no fan of certain aspects of the union movement. Taking train drivers as an example, they are more suited as everyone is equal due to the fact it is near on impossible to differentiate between them. There is no sensible way to measure them against targets (aside from sickness and coming to work on time - the first of which is always a thorny issue). If you can tell me a practical and fair way that it can be done then please do?


And that's where our industries differ crucially. Even if it was possible to just get rid of a load of drivers just like that, then you can't just bring temps to cover then like in your industry. There are indeed plenty of people who would happily come in a do the job on worse conditions that the current incumbents get, but the training period is around 12 months, and that doesn't include advertising, interviewing, initial tests, medicals, etc. You can't effectively plan to run a company based on projections of new staff needed with a 15 month lead time.

Im told it costs somewhere in the region of ^75000 to train a Train Driver!

The point is, the RMT needs to go the same way and the NUM did - yes it will be awful in the short term for the likes of myself, and I would have much sympathy with the more moderate members of the unions, but we need a thatcher to break them as long as they continue to pull stunts like this.

you are quite welcome to your rather in my view extreme opinion but please get your facts right......the majority of train drivers belong to ASLEF ...so prehaps you could explain what actual stunt the RMT has managed to pull ???

I stand correct - RMT/ ASLEF - one is, as far as I can tell, a slightly less rabid version of the other.

The stunt they are pulling is to effectively go on strike by working to rule when it is an established practice that train crew work sundays.  now, that may be vague in working but that is the way it is portrayed, that is effectively as far as I can see what is happening and its all effectively going on strike without having to go through the voting/formal process.

But I stand to be corrected.  Its oft been said that the TOC's do not want the sunday to be part of the working week BUT how much of a premium are the unions asking for?  With the exception of places like the NHS, most industries that require sunday working are just that - they work sundays like any other day and their two days off are whenever rostered.  i'd be very surprised if the unions are not asking for some extra pay for rostering sundays even if they get their days off else where - be that two days or three days or whatever.

I charge a premium for working sat/sun but only because I work mon-fri.   I would be happy to work thur-mon and have tue/wed off - at least I could get things done on my "weekend".

that sounds about correct.

another thing to add is new drivers even ones from other tocs only sign a couple of routes after training.once they have more driving experience are they then able to learn more complex roads for example portsmouth and cardiff.
so it is not simply a case of getting rid and bringing more in  especially when new drivers spend time training with minders/old hands.

If traincrew are contracted to work a 35 hour week excluding Sundays and dont wish to work overtime then why should they be forced to do so??  if the TOCs negotiated responsibly with the Trade Unions instead trying to get something for nothing at every opportunity then half of these problems wouldn't arise. If traincrew worked a 35 hour week where Sunday was within the working week then I dont think many employees would have a problem with that - providing any revised working arrangements were negotiated professionally, as they would still get two days off a week. But why should people be under pressure to work a six day week, albeit one days worth of overtime if they dont want to?? Should a depot have say, 30 turns on a sunday, then to incorporate those turns into the working week (ie 30 divide by 5 = 6) that depot require six extra staff with all the extra costs that the TOC would incur. Conclusion therefore is that certain TOCs are trying to cover Sundays on the cheap and personally I have very little sympathy for any TOC(s) in that position! And, having been a regular commutor on FGW now for the last ten years I cannot ever recall my journey to work being disrupted by any form of industrial action by traincrew! Certain people that post on here seem to be almost paronoid when the subject of Trade Unions and industrial action is raised!! So please, can someone tell me, when was the last time FGW services suffered from industrial action???

I'm paranoid about trade unions and industrial action because THEY ARE WRONG

If you are good at what you do and worth your wage - you'll be paid it.  If not, you can go to another TOC if you dont like the deal where you are.

Even beyond the fact that 35 hours is about 5 hours short of the private sector (I wonder if five hours were added to the working week for every member of staff if they would still need 6 extra staff.......)

If your skills and abilities - and that includes negotiating, balls, and attitude are worth it - you will do fine or get a job elsewhere.  If not, why the heck should you be paid a premium.

If I don't cut it, I get replaced by an indian fast track visa on a third my rate.  I make sure I cut it. 

Employers are business and not charities and no one has any god given right to their job.

*Rant mode on*

To give an example - I bet if there was not union involvement, all aspects of a job were subject to performance review.

The number of TM's I see gassing in the buffet when they havent done a ticket check AT ALL since Reading is ridiculous.  Yes, there are stops, especially with SDO, where it is impossible to do anything between them - but if they can find time to sit there and gossip and not even do their paperwork, then they can do a blinking ticket check.

We know revenue is secondary to safety - but its not secondary to sitting there with your feet up. 

Now, if I were in my office with my feet up - I would expect (1) someone to shop me to my boss and (2) me to disciplined without a leg to stand on.  Suspect would not happen to a a unionized worker.

The fact is - most of the working world DO NOT have the benefit of the socialist stasi on their side, without the sick pay, pension, 35 hour week that rail workers/most ex public sector get.  Remember - its the private sector that has suffered so far in the recession - i'm lucky, I only suffer a rate loss even though my train ticket rises, I know some people - permies and contractors - who have been unemployed for 18 months. 

So it really does grate on the private sector (and yes I know officially rail is private but....) when people complain about having to work sundays when they have set a precedent by doing it (and no doubt appreciated the overtime pay!)

*Rant mode off*

For God's sake just make Sunday part of the week! It can't be that difficult, many people do so and the world goes on!

Quite agree - five day week including Sundays!! Problem solved!!!!  And I ask the original question again - when was anyone's journey on FGW affected by traincrew industrial action??

But this thread was NOT about FGW industrial action but industrial action in another TOC

We are in "The Wider Picture" with this thread, Exeter.

It wasn't industrial action, it was members of staff excercising their right, not to work enforced overtime, as per their contracts of employment.

They should not be forced to work.  BUT, my point about poor management is that a sensible employer would have amended the contracts by now (either via a process of negotiation involving the unions or just for new starters or whatever) but they appear to have ignored the issue for years and now when it comes to bite them they can only really blame themselves.

You can rant as much as you like - and I take your point about TM's, but I'm still waiting for you (or anybody else) to tell me what aspects of a train drivers performance could be sensibly and fairly judged to determine their wage?

• attendance/days off sick
  
• willingness to be flexible and helpful with rosters etc
• low number of SPADS/TPWS activations
• commitment to personal development (ie, willingness to learn new routes etc)

not a long list I know, but driver performance can be measured to a degree and some TOCs do measure it.

I've no problem with drivers T&C.  They get a good (but by no means spectacular) wage for a responsible and demanding job (driving into Paddington with a signal to observe every 30 seconds must be mentally exhausting).  Some antisocial hours but conpensated for this by low hours overall.

I don't like it when they go on strike and wish that they wouldn't because I think that they get a fairly good deal already.  The paradox of course is that without a willingness to strike they would not be on half as good a deal as they are currently.

 FA's arguement overlooks:

• The job is open to anyone.  She is able to apply for a job as a train crew should she wish to.  The fact that she doesn't suggets that despite her moans the overall deal she gets in her industry is (as she judges it) better.
  
• The points about lazy TMs etc are valid, but I think management is just as muh to blame as the staff involved.
   
  

Ok, well let's take a look at those individually with some examples:

1) attendance/days off sick:

So, a driver is unlucky enough to twist his ankle getting down from a train - are you saying he should be financially punished when his pay is decided for being certified sick for two weeks whilst his ankle repairs? Also, might this not mean that an unwell driver feels compelled to report for duty even though he is suffering from the flu? Isn't it asking for trouble if you have people that are not actually fit for duty driving trains?

2) Willingness to be flexible and helpful with rosters etc.

Rostering is a complicated thing. The fact there are national and local conditions about what can and can't be done means that everyone gets the fairest deal possible. I would predict chaos if these rules were tossed aside and everyone did just as they liked with the carrot of extra pay being dangled. As it is now, drivers at some FGW depots have no idea what shift they are going to be on each Saturday as they can be moved up to four hours each way of the time on their rota. There is already a financial incentive to be flexible in so much as rosters staff ask people at short notice to do overtime or move from their booked shift. Some will do that, some won't. How you would actually fairly apply that flexibility to a wage structure is beyond me.

3) Low number of SPADS/TPWS activations:

Drivers don't deliberately go out to have either of course. Many drivers will go through their whole career without having a single SPAD, and TPWS activations are not exactly common - perhaps a driver will have one once every three to five years on average? Every SPAD (and the underlying causes) is different. Some (regrettably) are 100% the drivers fault, using a mobile phone for example. Some could have been prevented by the driver doing something differently, but there were significant other factors which led to it, slippery rails due to a leaky oil train in front for example. When a driver has a SPAD they are already under pressure not to have another one as they may lose their job. Again I ask how that can be sensibly and fairly applied to an annual wage determination.

4) commitment to personal development (ie, willingness to learn new routes etc)

I'm sure most drivers would be willing to learn new routes to add to the variety in the job. But, if a Paddington LTV driver who signs HST's was to volunteer to learn the route to Bristol then the depots that already sign that route would lose work as a result. Also, if too many drivers sign lots of different routes then there are all sorts of issues over retaining knowledge - for example if a driver passed out on HST's was to learn all the routes they covered then they would not be able to remember all the braking points for stations, signal meanings, linespeeds etc., and again that could lead to mistakes being made.

Also it's fair to point out that there is already financial reward for a drivers personal development in terms of becoming a Driving Instructor or a driver who is competent in assessing and passing out trainees as fit to drive. This varies from ^2-5k a year depending on the role.

Thanks very much for that detailed analysis of the situation, IndustryInsider!  ;)

Now, just to continue that idea: how would I, as an 'outsider' to the rail industry, go about getting a job as a train driver?

All I would say is 'good luck'! I'm currently in my training period to be a driver, and in a group of 10+, only 1 has no prior railway experience.

Job centre?  :D

Hmm.  As gaf71 has just indicated, such jobs are generally not available, or advertised, outside the industry.  Any other suggestions, devon_metro?  ;)

So you fancy a driver position Chris......best bet is to get a safety critical role on the railway, gain some experience in the industry and apply internally

Some would argue that there's no job on the railway which ISN'T safety critical.

A friend who has recently passed out as a driver found the job advertised on the FGW website at http://www.joinusonthejourney.co.uk/default.aspx (http://www.joinusonthejourney.co.uk/default.aspx) This was when several dozen were being taken on throughout the network when things were very bad a couple of years ago, so they won't be advertised as often now, but when the next big recruitment comes along...

http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/Main.php?sEvent=HomeCommuter

 Things are not getting any better.
 According to Sky news ASLEF also ballotting for industrial action.

 Will FGW follow suit ?

 There have been rumours of discontent speaking to platform staff - rumour has it FGW are stopping the children's activity packs to save money.
 
 How low can you get ?

Its about time the unions stopped arsing around negotiating pay deals that make little sense. Few people in other sectors will be receiving  pay rises in the coming financial year, indeed many have lost their jobs and would jump at the chance of a ^40k+ salary.

Do the unions really want to see a situation akin to NXEC, well thinking about it - they probably do and will only use it as an excuse the nationalise the railways.   

Thats my 2p.

why do the Unions want nationalisation?  Pay is much better now than it was under BR.

If the railways were nationalised again, the unions would quickly find that all the different ex TOC groupings would be on different pay scales. They'd have great fun trying to get everyone levelled up to the best pay, because you can be pretty sure no-one would take a cut.

Many existing TOCs haven't been able to achieve harmonisation of staffs following reorganisation, from what you read Northern effectively runs as two separate companies even now... 

Paul

RMT are always banging on about it!

not rumour fact

I'd rather they stopped these than first class perks.  Lets see - children under five travel free, they travel half price under 16 - so they pay LESS than your average punter. But they get an activity pack free of charge.

First class pay MORE than the average punter and a heck of a lot more than kids - yet they stopped the fizzy pop.  I would just maybe accept the stopping of the friday wine if they'd been honest and said it was to save money but NOT on grounds of "healthy lifestyle" when they increased the range of sellable alcohols at the same time.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but can I ask why you feel that the service offered by FGW suits your needs as a matter of importance over others? This is the impression I get from some of your posts. Yes First class passenger pay more so should get perks, but why should every other passenger be exempt from some kind of perk. These activity packs keep children quiet who would otherwise possibly become restless and noisy which would annoy people for the sake of saving a few quid on making the packs. There are more people that travel than just you and those in first class and it is impossible to cater for everyones specific needs so a compromise has to be made whther we like the compromise or not.

This is not a personal dig at you so please don't take it this way, but you are vocal about what you want from the railway and there are many others that want the railway to run ot their needs as well which is entirely understandable. Only difference is you are open about what you want which I admire for being open about but do not agree with in many circumstances. The post is aimed at anyone who seem to expect the railways to only cater for their individual needs forgetting that people in standard class or in other areas also exist.

Ok - this may turn into war and peace but I'd like to take this opening to say where I come from in terms of opinions etc and also point out a lot of what I say is tongue in cheek at times (e.g. the food free carriage - I KNOW it would never happen although I have heard they are going to make the herefords trav chef in F only but that may be hearsay).

I was brought up with "you dont get owt for nowt" - ok I'm a scouser and that the wrong side of the pennies but the sentiment is the same.  I also do not like children - I run a business - I do a lot of work myself but I do have subcontractors at other sites - I would NEVER take on a woman of child bearing age as an employee - if I had to take an employee, I would find some reason to get the guy - as a single person who does not particularly like children and who has worked her way up from the crappiest of starts here is where I come from....

1. You get what you pay for - in standard that is a ticket for travel.  I dont even think children on half tickets should be allowed to sit if adults are standing.  I'm 33 - that is how I was brought up - if I was sitting and an adult was standing, my mother would have clipped me around the ear hole if I had not have stood up. Try to enforce that today.  But these kids are not paying a full fare.  They pay half fare in first - I would mightily annoyed - and yes it happened once - when the only seat available was sharing a table with two rugrats and their toys took precedence over my laptop when I was paying more.

2. Children in quiet carriages - I have an colleague who boasts about taking his baby and toddler in a quiet carriage - after all they are not electronic gadgets and there is nothing they can do but at least THEY cannot be woken if sleeping by loud noise - but if they wake and create the noise, that is ok.  I have also witnessed this in G in first - numerous times. 

3. I would hazard a guess that people paying for peak anytime tickets and first long distance seasons - my season to reading alone is 750+ish (I do not know the exact figure cos the ticket is in my bag ready for tomorrow but I know that it is more than I paid in 2004 for WOS to PAD which was 736 I believe) - do EXPECT to have a premium service and that is NOT just a bigger seat!

I do not think for a long distance passenger the first service is value for money HOWEVER I pay it because the only way I can spend 4 hours a day on a HST is to have space to sleep and/or work with a full table. Now, with the advent of 2+7 like todays 1751, the carriages are full in first terms - oh and there was no trolley until oxford..........but you do not get a discount for that because it is, s I've been told, complimentary ............before the refits if I could have guaranteed a HST I would have travelled standard - more tables

I'll tell you how I became a regular first passenger.............I got fired from my permie job for slagging off my boss on an internet forum - did not know she was also a member of the same forum under a completely anonymous user name.  I did not name names, name the company but just was generic - she recognised it and since we hated each other anyway she went after me for gross misconduct.  I resigned, she refused a reference - I set up my own company - never looked back.

I got a standard season to Paddington - was working at tottenham court road. My first week was my birthday week and a bomb scare at paddington - March 2004. Weekly.  Journey down ok - was HST.  journey home - 165 - standard - was refused upgrade.  Walked into ticket office at |WOS asked he price of a first - realised that AFTER TAX AND EXPENSES (luxury of running own company) it was not that much more....bought it even though I still had a week on the standard - never looked back.  And that is why I LOATHE turbos so much. 

So - I cant explain it - I just think you should not get stuff unless you pay or sacrifice for it.  You choose to have kids - your choice.  Mothers have maternity leave for the birth and the recuperation - after that it is a life style choice to have kids.  You want to take a kid on the train, pay for the kiddie pack or entertain them yourself - and if they are antisocial, your responsibility even if it means you are detrained (not that that would happen).  Now - if you had a kid and paid half a first far on the grounds that if a full fare wanted the seat or needed the table space, the kid pack should be included in the price.  just like diet coke/orangina etc was included - and here is why I have a gripe.  The reason they removed it was because some people were taking many multiple cans away with them.  They did not need to remove the free 1 can for a shorter passenger or 2 cans for the WOS/HFD passenger - what they needed was a policy that the trolley popped the top before handing over to the customer thereby preventing removal of multiple cans.. The removal of the wine club I could maybe accept except here are some facts....

If I were working in London I can get a london midland plus virgin first class season per month for about the same as an FGW cotswolds season.  the journey time is quicker, more reliable and I get fed in each direction along with soft drinks, juices and free alcohol.  It is ONLY because I am routing from REading I use first anymore and about a year ago I would have been loyal to FGW because in general I like the staff.

 A lot of what I gripe about is that being a DINKY I get nothing for everything I do - I have no kids so no kiddie related benefits, I pay higher tax so are generally subsidising those kids, I have to accept in the 21st century kids are ferile and not seen and not heard, I have to live with my generation being increasingly obnoxious.

I'd like to think that even though I pay for first I am not an obnoxious passenger - if anyone on here knows me - I get on with what I do, I chat to the staff where it occurs, I dont complain since its not their fault in geneeral - ut I do object to the increasing view that it is somehow morally corrupt to get more/better service just because you can afford to pay for it.

I came from a sink estate in L8 (remember toxteth riots) - we moved to bootle (remember Jamie Bulger - that was my high school) - I made myself an outcast because I wanted to do better than the prison or benefits and now I find..........which is often expressed on here .....because I can afford to pay for better I should not get it because someone else may not be able to get a seat or a kiddie pack.

If they want it - get off their ass and work for it like I did.

And this only comes from the last 2-3 years of getting the impression that if FGW could they would do away with first.  Fine - just give me a godamn table to work on!

Wow. Quite some post, Angel!!

Ever considered getting on a soap-box at Hyde Park Corner?  ;D

I'll have to disagree with 'children being a lifestyle choice' though. Darwin would have something to say about that.....and to paraphrase Whitney Houston "The children are our future".  ;D

I did say at the outset it could be war and peace.............

1300 words and still no attempt to answer my question to you at the top of page three in this thread.  ::)

News on a second day of action affecting FCC Thameslink services:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8356112.stm

Angel,

Thanks for the long explanation.  perhaps we understand eaxch other a little better. 

If I just restrict my comments to the matter of First class and Children:

I actually think that a weekly first class season Worcester to Reading at ^750 whilst by no means cheap is not actually expensive when you compare it to some other fares (ie Cardiff to London peak time return is almost ^200 for one day only in STANDARD class).  Most UK fares are expensive and I don't want you to think that I am defending them - I think that our fare system stinks - but please don't think that you are personally being disadvantaged.  I do not think that you are any more hard done by with the fare you pay than many other people.  Your enemy is the TOC/governemnt/frachise system not your fellow customers.

Three thing that get forgotten in discussions of "why should children/students/groups/old folk/locals etc get preferential fares", are 1) that noone stays in their own fare category for ever.  I am now paying full price for my tickets, but I have previously benefited from low price children's fares and my student railcard and one day my children will get cheap fares and when I get old, I might be in line for some kind of discount too.  You only really have a right to moan about paying full price now if you didn't take advantage of cheap tickets when you were younger and you promise to never use discounted fares when you get older, otherwise there is a wiff of hypocracy.
2) different groups tend to travel at different times of the day.  I know that this is a generalisation, but children are most likely to travel on trains in the middle of the day when commuters are sat in their offices. Discounts for groups like the old and young have the general effect of smoothing demand, by encouraging people onto the trains when there is spare capacity.   Someone paying half price or even an under 5 sitting for free next to a fare paying parent who wouldn't otherwise be travelling brings in more money for the TOC than an empty seat.  Discounts for young people can also be seen as a marketing expense - get them used to useing the trains when they are young and treat them well and you might have a good custoemr for life 3) children often travel as part of a family group.  for groups of 3 or 4 people the railway is up against the car as a key competitor.  Unless some mechanism is used to discount fares (be that Children's fares or things like group-save) the railway will loose out to the car because the car will always be cheaper than 4 full price fares.  You complain that under-5 travel for free on trains but you must remember that they also travel free when they are sat in the back of their parent's car in an otherwise empty seat.  I know that things like railcards and child fares are speciifced by the government, but even in unregulated industries children often get discounts (ie at the cinema), there must be a commercial advantage in the company doing this and TOCs must benefit from doing it on the railway in a similar fashion.

Worth remembering of course that many under 15s do not have employment and as such being asked to pay full whack on the day for the train would be silly.

Mum's taxi  is of course the next port of call...

Different prices for different people is product differentiation.  If you can make ^10 out of someone with little money, ^30 out of someone with more money and ^60 out of someone on expenses for the same journey you have higher total revenue than charging everyone the same price because you encourage more people to travel overall.   

https://www.southern.candidata.co.uk/view.aspx?JobID=1349

Here you go Chris - Closes today though.
Trainee Driver based at Horsham

Go for it, Chris. I trust your Quality Orientation and Interpersonal Sensistivity are up to scratch. WTF?  ;D ;D

According to Railway Eye, because FCC is under "cap and collar", 80% of any losses caused by industrial action will be met by the Government.  And because not running trains is cheaper than runninng trains, on the RMt's "days of action" FCC makes a net revenue gain.  This is hardly a case of the DfT incentivising good industrial relations and why should I as a tax payer be subsidising strikes?

The point there is this is not officially industrial action - Officially, FCC are just having to cancel services due to lack of train-crew.