Get your travel irritations on the Government’s action list

Support making compensation for delays usable online where the cheapest tickets are to be had.
Never been able to use any of my vouchers obtained for cancelled or delayed services.
Even more important with more ticket offices up for closure.

There is no need for fuel supplements. The price of the ticket should account for the fuel costs, whether they be high or low. Charging a fuel supplement in addition to the main fare is simply a way of giving a misleading indication of price.

I am not sure about this but I think cruise lines reserve the right to add a fuel supplememnt if there is a significant upward movement in the price of oil between the date of booking and the date of sailing. A lot of cruise passengers tend to book a year or more in advance (a) so they can make sure they get their choice of cabin, and (b) to take advantage of early booking discounts. Over that time the price of oil could move significantly and there is presumably some formula for calculating the supplement. As the date of sailing gets closer the prices change, first upwards and then downwards as they try to sell the remaining places. These prices probaly incorporate the current and forecast fuel price so they might not be subject to a supplement. I certainly agree that the supplement formula and calculation should be transparent; I don’t know whether any fuel supplements have actually been applied in recent times or whether it’s inclusion in the terms and conditions is more of a hedge against unforeseeable events like a Middle East war. I also agree with Ron Reg about the refund of any port taxes if a port call is cancelled for any reason. I have no idea how much a cruise ship pays in port taxes but there must be considerable expense for the port authorities, police, customs, and immigration control. If a call is cancelled many of these costs ought to be avoided [depending on the amount of notice given] and passengers should be entitled to a refund. Obviously, the cruise company has other port expenses [like excursion coaches, tour guides, ship handlers, stevedores, and so on], and some perishable stores that were going to be taken on might have to be abandoned but still paid for; nevertheless, some of those various costs and charges might also be avoided enabling a refund. The unavoidable costs should be absorbed in operating expenses as part of the risk of running a ship on the high seas. Unfortunately I cannot see the likelihood of any campaign to achieve transparency and refunds gaining much traction since overall there is not much sympathy for the woes of cruise passengers; the crusie lines themselves project the image of a privileged class even if that is not entirely representative.

No, this is incorrect. Large commercial users of fuel can buy their fuel in the forward market for future delivery or at least hedge against price rises using derivatives. Therefore the price of the fuel is known, or certainly can be fixed, well before the time of booking. If a travel company fails to hedge or buy its fuel in advance, then it, and not the passengers, should bear the loss.

What you describe could equally apply to energy companies couldn’t it? Apart from, we all know who bears the brunt of their buyers not doing their jobs well enough.

The energy companies do buy forward to help even out price fluctuations, and to provide a hedge for fixed price contracts. It happens in lots of industries.

I notice a couple of weeks have elapsed since you posted this, so we must be getting close to having an announcement. Any idea when ?

Future. programme 2014 – Article 3

I am pleased The Transport Committee are forging ahead with HS2 Project in as much as it will provide fast and efficient connections between Northern and Southern Regions, spreading industrial and economic links and easing congestion at air terminals.

Beryl, have you thought of the actual time saved? How long will it take you to get to the HSs2 station, and how long to get to your final destination after leaving the train at Birmingham or Leeds. So the 40 mins travel time saved will be insignificant. Just get up a bit earlier. Spend the money on improving existing rail lines, freight terminals and commuters to reduce congestion. It’s just another Concorde vanity project that will be of no benefit to most people. Can’t we think of better ways to spend £60 billion? I can.
The best way to develop the North and Midlands is to encourage industry and business to locate there, then to make use of the cheaper and more abundant housing opportunities and relieve the pressure on the south-east. HS2 will only add to the pressure.

Yes Malcolm I have thought of the benefits which are incalculable. We have to look ahead to the future and provide for our grandchildren who will be the beneficiaries of this project. We are a densely populated and congested small island with a tendency to resist change but with increasing competition in a global market we cannot allow other countries to push ahead and progress while we sit back on our laurels and just hope it will all come good.

To answer your question I would suggest you log on to http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000127999.pdf where you will see some of the many benefits of the excellent high speed rail system which has been in operation since 1964 in Japan and has contributed to the success of not only their economy but to the advantage of the environment and the populace in general. I have been there and found the whole experience quite awe inspiring.

Beryl, The Major Projects Authority prepared a report on the viability of HS2. I asked why this had not been made public. In reply – a “rarely-used veto” prevented the publication of this report raising “very serious concerns as to the content of the report;we can only assume that the conclusions reached are not ones the Government wishes to share with us”.
This suggests it is a politically-motivated project, not one with a robust commercial case.
I do not like secrecy when it comes to spending my taxes. Projects such as this should be subject to proper and public scrutiny.
There are better uses for my money if this project is not commercially viable.

I accept there is always going to be democratic opposition to a project of this magnitude as was the case when railways were first built in the 1800′, some of the reasons then being:

* Shareholders in turnpikes and canals
* Those whose livelihoods depended on coach travel
* Landed gentry who feared the destruction of their estates and livestock, or who said they did so
they could claim more money for the land that the railway companies wanted.
* Farmers who might lose land.

Nimby was a word unheard of in those days but thank goodness the opposition lost out!
There has to be political intervention in order for MP’s to study proposals and objections which is part of the democratic process before reports are placed in the public domain.

The Concorde project was an unfair comparison as it was a noisy and dirty pollutant which serviced only the privileged wealthy and was never commercially viable but nevertheless a beautifully designed aircraft. I lived under it’s flight path and the windows would shake and rattle as it flew over my house. High speed trains on the other hand are fast, efficient, reasonably quiet and environmentally friendly, they will ease congestion and pollution on motorways, encourage tourism and will eventually pay for themselves over time as more people will be encouraged to use them.

I hope I will still be around to enjoy the ride!