|
|
Post by northwesterner on Nov 19, 2014 18:57:32 GMT -8
I didn't see this article from a couple of weeks ago posted elsewhere. Please see the section I put in bold above. Again, BC Ferries (and the BC Gov't) are ignoring the basic laws of economics that could provide an "out" for their pickle. Lower the fares a little. Implement price discrimination through demand based dynamic pricing. Make sure the ferries are full on as many sailings as possible (entice "choice riders" to take less popular sailings through discounts and surcharge the most popular sailings) and increase overall revenue based on increased volume while operating the existing sailings at their existing fixed cost. This is not rocket science. We are covering Price Discrimination this week in my MBA-level Managerial Economics class (though it is a bit hard to follow as my Argentinian professor is a bit of a character with every transition between topics followed by the phrase "do you understand me? is it clear? yes? yes? yes? okay moving on - consider the following." I'd like him to consider the BC Ferries model). This is the third time in college I've had this material presented to me (including an entire undergraduate course on it). Businesses engage in price discrimination every day to maximize revenues. I've implemented price discrimination as a manager at two different companies. How is the entirety of British Columbia tone-deaf to this concept? On-going research, study, and practice of Price Discrimination concepts in Industrial Organizational theory is, in my opinion, the single most fascinating application of economics to every day business (and consumer) practice. It has been greatly enhanced in its efficacy through computerized pricing and inventory control models (see: Bolt Bus). Governments are generally tone deaf to this concept (they generally view demand as static and always look towards higher prices - or taxes - for higher revenue with minimal acknowledgement of how incentivizing demand can bring the same revenues). BC Ferries, on the other hand, is supposed to be functioning as a private corporation. They just need to do their due diligence on a dynamic pricing model and present it to the regulator. At this point, what is there to lose? |
|
Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Nov 19, 2014 22:24:46 GMT -8
I didn't see this article from a couple of weeks ago posted elsewhere. Please see the section I put in bold above. Again, BC Ferries (and the BC Gov't) are ignoring the basic laws of economics that could provide an "out" for their pickle. Lower the fares a little. Implement price discrimination through demand based dynamic pricing. Make sure the ferries are full on as many sailings as possible (entice "choice riders" to take less popular sailings through discounts and surcharge the most popular sailings) and increase overall revenue based on increased volume while operating the existing sailings at their existing fixed cost. This is not rocket science. We are covering Price Discrimination this week in my MBA-level Managerial Economics class (though it is a bit hard to follow as my Argentinian professor is a bit of a character with every transition between topics followed by the phrase "do you understand me? is it clear? yes? yes? yes? okay moving on - consider the following." I'd like him to consider the BC Ferries model). This is the third time in college I've had this material presented to me (including an entire undergraduate course on it). Businesses engage in price discrimination every day to maximize revenues. I've implemented price discrimination as a manager at two different companies. How is the entirety of British Columbia tone-deaf to this concept? On-going research, study, and practice of Price Discrimination concepts in Industrial Organizational theory is, in my opinion, the single most fascinating application of economics to every day business (and consumer) practice. It has been greatly enhanced in its efficacy through computerized pricing and inventory control models (see: Bolt Bus). Governments are generally tone deaf to this concept (they generally view demand as static and always look towards higher prices - or taxes - for higher revenue with minimal acknowledgement of how incentivizing demand can bring the same revenues). BC Ferries, on the other hand, is supposed to be functioning as a private corporation. They just need to do their due diligence on a dynamic pricing model and present it to the regulator. At this point, what is there to lose? Are you suggesting charging residents of Quadra, Gabriola, and Bowen a premium to travel to and from work in peak periods? And do you not think that in an era of plummeting patronage, telling people that if they want half reasonable fares, they have to travel when they don't want to might exacerbate the problem? So much of the travel in ferry dependent communities is not discretionary- it involves the carrying on of life and commerce, and can't always be fitted to the needs of the service provider. The key issues on the coast are service cuts and continually increasing fares... shuffling daily or weekly rates around probably ranks pretty low, and in fact may do further damage in communities where there has already been enough harm done. |
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Nov 19, 2014 23:15:47 GMT -8
Are you suggesting charging residents of Quadra, Gabriola, and Bowen a premium to travel to and from work in peak periods? And do you not think that in an era of plummeting patronage, telling people that if they want half reasonable fares, they have to travel when they don't want to might exacerbate the problem? So much of the travel in ferry dependent communities is not discretionary- it involves the carrying on of life and commerce, and can't always be fitted to the needs of the service provider. The key issues on the coast are service cuts and continually increasing fares... shuffling daily or weekly rates around probably ranks pretty low, and in fact may do further damage in communities where there has already been enough harm done. I am suggesting charging a premium for the service that is most in demand. For some commuters, this will be an additional burden. BC Ferries, overall, is doing a terrible job matching their pricing to their demand. You have people who have to travel by ferry, at a certain time, every day. And you have ferry trips that sell out, or are oversold, on a regular basis (mostly on the major routes, on the weekends, in the summer). Pricing models can be set up to capture additional revenues at times when demand is the greatest. Note that this is not unheard of for commuters. Weekday all day private parking, peak and/or express bus fare surcharges, variable highway/bridge tolling based on traffic volumes and time of day, etc etc etc. The key here is BC Ferries needs to capture excess revenue when they can (I'm looking at you, 2PM sailing from Swartz Bay to TSA on a Sunday in July), and using pricing to incentivize those with a choice to utilize ferries at periods of lesser demand (for instance 9PM sailing from Swartz Bay to TSA). The costs are fixed for each sailing, but BC Ferries can do a lot to incentivize or even induce revenue, especially on the major routes, for those under utilized sailings. Neil, I appreciate your perspective on this issue. You have been consistent on this list for years in your position regarding the quasi-private structure of BCFerries. I don't think the current arrangement is working. But I can see how it could work. I can also see the pitfalls of the gov't directly taking over the ferries again. At this point, with the Clark gov't in power for the near future, and little stomach for bringing everything in house, that option seems to be off the table. What I am suggesting is that BCFerries could start acting like the private corporation they claim to be (but don't seem to function as) and work on their pricing structure. This is something that is within their control. Continuing to fight the basic laws of economics when it comes to pricing and supply and demand is not going to be a winning strategy. For anyone. Using those same rules and principles to generate more revenue and increase ridership is a much better strategy. One of the things I pointed out a few months ago in a separate post is that with fixed costs per sailing (at the current sailing level) and a situation where overloads are occurring (not nearly to the extent that they used to with the drastic drop in ridership), BCF needs to do start working to generate per sailing, per day, per week, and per month revenue targets on each route. On many of the minor routes, there isn't much that can be done. Many off-peak direction sailings will sail empty and truly, there is very little that can be done about that. But on the major routes, and the northern routes, there is a lot that can be done. BCF has mountains of data on pricing, ridership, and (with a full fledged advertising campaign in place, hopefully a ton of market research). The folks that filled the ferries to overload day in and day out a decade ago are still living in the Province, and certainly would still be interested in leisure trips on the ferries. How can BCF attract those price sensitive riders back, in a way that also helps revenue? This all comes from demand specific price discrimination. It works. Its been successful in many other transportation sectors. And it can be successful here. P.S. - Sorry if this is a little jumbled in organization. I've got so much running through my head right now that I don't know which way is up. But I do know that if I don't get my ideas out when they are fresh, I generally won't get around to expressing them. |
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Nov 19, 2014 23:22:14 GMT -8
Are you suggesting charging residents of Quadra, Gabriola, and Bowen a premium to travel to and from work in peak periods? And do you not think that in an era of plummeting patronage, telling people that if they want half reasonable fares, they have to travel when they don't want to might exacerbate the problem? So much of the travel in ferry dependent communities is not discretionary- it involves the carrying on of life and commerce, and can't always be fitted to the needs of the service provider. The key issues on the coast are service cuts and continually increasing fares... shuffling daily or weekly rates around probably ranks pretty low, and in fact may do further damage in communities where there has already been enough harm done. Price discrimination (which I'm also learning about in class, by the way) would work best on the Major Routes (and if you think of it, it's really being used on the Inside Passage routes) where there's more people, thus more would make the switch. If you're taking a major route you're somewhat more flexible than if you're getting off Quadra Island. There's reservations to start with, and then it's less likely to be a trip you take everyday on a specific ferry or just spontaneously. Price discrimination on smaller ferries on smaller routes would be harder to implement, and not make a lot of sense. But it would certainly help the major routes. FYI, price discrimination on ferries is super common in Europe. Cross-channel ferries run pretty much 24/7, and the companies make night tickets much cheaper than daytime ones (up to half the price) to fill their late night sailings. And it seems to work just fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 20, 2014 7:58:58 GMT -8
Regarding the discussion of "Dynamic Pricing" of ferry fares, it is important (for sake of not wasting our time here) to differentiate between minor and major routes. Sol Duc has done that differentiation in his previous post, and it makes for a more productive discussion.
Otherwise, if we just put out our ideas as "one size fits all routes" for BCFerries (explicitly or implicitly), we will be guaranteed to always get the same discussion rebuttals and comments, without moving forward in our discussion.
Issues such as dynamic-pricing make it clear that BCFerries has at least 2 distinct divisions of routes. Maybe 3 if the inside passage route is mainly a summer tourist route.
As Sol Duc has said, the major cross-strait routes have more flexibility for changing traffic patterns, because there is more discretionary travel on those routes, compared with the lifeline routes.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Nov 20, 2014 9:30:31 GMT -8
Regarding the discussion of "Dynamic Pricing" of ferry fares, it is important (for sake of not wasting our time here) to differentiate between minor and major routes. Sol Duc has done that differentiation in his previous post, and it makes for a more productive discussion. Otherwise, if we just put out our ideas as "one size fits all routes" for BCFerries (explicitly or implicitly), we will be guaranteed to always get the same discussion rebuttals and comments, without moving forward in our discussion. Issues such as dynamic-pricing make it clear that BCFerries has at least 2 distinct divisions of routes. Maybe 3 if the inside passage route is mainly a summer tourist route. As Sol Duc has said, the major cross-strait routes have more flexibility for changing traffic patterns, because there is more discretionary travel on those routes, compared with the lifeline routes. Agreed. It is much easier for everyone to visualize how this would work on the major routes (and I'd argue, the northern routes). There is a sense of equity that tends to get in the way of visualizing it for the minor routes, because of the perception of necessity and lifeline service. But I would propose that this pricing strategy could still work, to a lesser extent. Considering population on these islands has remained relatively stable, but ferry trips have dropped as choice trips have dropped. How can pricing be adjusted to influence those choice trips to occur? What about the first sailing of the morning? If you are thinking about a go/no go scenario to travel (for instance) from Bowen Island to Vancouver for the day with your kids on a Saturday, would you go on the first trip of the morning (underutilized) if it was offered at a 20% discount? What about for commercial traffic? Trucks making deliveries to these islands generally operate opposite of the peak traffic flows. However, with uniform prices across all departures, they do not have any incentive to plan their trips for the lowest demand sailings. If low traffic sailings were discounted, it would encourage commercial traffic to select those those trips, rather than "join the line" for some of the oversubscribed trips. Again, incentivize demand to move from peak to off peak sailings, and actually capture some revenue on those sailings. The prime time sailings will fill up anyways, and BCF's revenue structure will look a lot better. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Nov 20, 2014 12:23:44 GMT -8
Are you suggesting charging residents of Quadra, Gabriola, and Bowen a premium to travel to and from work in peak periods? And do you not think that in an era of plummeting patronage, telling people that if they want half reasonable fares, they have to travel when they don't want to might exacerbate the problem? So much of the travel in ferry dependent communities is not discretionary- it involves the carrying on of life and commerce, and can't always be fitted to the needs of the service provider. The key issues on the coast are service cuts and continually increasing fares... shuffling daily or weekly rates around probably ranks pretty low, and in fact may do further damage in communities where there has already been enough harm done. I am suggesting charging a premium for the service that is most in demand. For some commuters, this will be an additional burden. BC Ferries, overall, is doing a terrible job matching their pricing to their demand. You have people who have to travel by ferry, at a certain time, every day. And you have ferry trips that sell out, or are oversold, on a regular basis (mostly on the major routes, on the weekends, in the summer). Pricing models can be set up to capture additional revenues at times when demand is the greatest. Note that this is not unheard of for commuters. Weekday all day private parking, peak and/or express bus fare surcharges, variable highway/bridge tolling based on traffic volumes and time of day, etc etc etc. The key here is BC Ferries needs to capture excess revenue when they can (I'm looking at you, 2PM sailing from Swartz Bay to TSA on a Sunday in July), and using pricing to incentivize those with a choice to utilize ferries at periods of lesser demand (for instance 9PM sailing from Swartz Bay to TSA). The costs are fixed for each sailing, but BC Ferries can do a lot to incentivize or even induce revenue, especially on the major routes, for those under utilized sailings. I think this is a correct way of thinking. When I worked downtown, and traveled during the rush, I expected to pay more for nearly every aspect of my commute - from higher parking rates, to increased transit fares, just for packing on the bus and the train, right when everyone else wanted to do the same. My hours were not flexible, and I didn't have a choice. I stand behind the premise of road pricing (tolls) on our more congested roads, especially during peak periods. This would be similar to that. The model of price structure proposed by Northwesterner is fair and equitable, and in line with what one would expect from a transportation service. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Nov 20, 2014 13:14:25 GMT -8
I cannot believe that people think that raising fares at the time most customers want or need to travel is a good fix for BC Ferries.
Look, there has been a powerful narrative established in the public mind that ferry travel is too expensive. That has caused people to vacation elsewhere, and has caused coastal economies to stagnate and shrink- as well as populations. The comparison with transit is not valid in this case, because there is not the same perception about cost, and transit use is growing considerably.
If people are talking about reducing fares in off peak times, then that is a good idea. Any further increases will exacerbate the shrinkage in coastal economies. People will not be impressed by the fact they can save a few bucks by taking the 9pm sailing.
SolDuc mentions the variability in pricing on European routes. Those routes are private, commercial operations. As far as I know, systems which are comparable to BC Ferries where the bulk of the routes are of the lifeline nature, do not have variable pricing.
In any event, I can just see Christy and company rubbing their hands with glee at yet another 'fix' for BC Ferries. We've had privatization, continual fare increases, administrative paring, cuts to executive salaries, and now service cuts. Nothing has increased patronage or helped the communities the ferries are supposed to serve. Variable pricing is another side issue, and does nothing to address the 'elephant in the room', which is inadequate government financing.
Perhaps when the whole poisoned narrative around BC Ferries has changed and confidence in the system is restored, this might be a worthwhile discussion. But now is the absolute worst time to talk about any fare increases, ever. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Nov 20, 2014 14:36:34 GMT -8
Didn't chime in regarding major routes, but I will briefly... A reservation-only system would be best for major routes, I feel. Prices would be based on how many customers have already booked for that specific sailing. This would obviously not work for minor routes for logistical reasons. I cannot believe that people think that raising fares at the time most customers want or need to travel is a good fix for BC Ferries.
Look, there has been a powerful narrative established in the public mind that ferry travel is too expensive. That has caused people to vacation elsewhere, and has caused coastal economies to stagnate and shrink- as well as populations. The comparison with transit is not valid in this case, because there is not the same perception about cost, and transit use is growing considerably.
If people are talking about reducing fares in off peak times, then that is a good idea. Any further increases will exacerbate the shrinkage in coastal economies. People will not be impressed by the fact they can save a few bucks by taking the 9pm sailing.
SolDuc mentions the variability in pricing on European routes. Those routes are private, commercial operations. As far as I know, systems which are comparable to BC Ferries where the bulk of the routes are of the lifeline nature, do not have variable pricing.
In any event, I can just see Christy and company rubbing their hands with glee at yet another 'fix' for BC Ferries. We've had privatization, continual fare increases, administrative paring, cuts to executive salaries, and now service cuts. Nothing has increased patronage or helped the communities the ferries are supposed to serve. Variable pricing is another side issue, and does nothing to address the 'elephant in the room', which is inadequate government financing.
Perhaps when the whole poisoned narrative around BC Ferries has changed and confidence in the system is restored, this might be a worthwhile discussion. But now is the absolute worst time to talk about any fare increases, ever. I can't speak for the collective, but my agreeing with Northwesterner wasn't about finding a "fix" for BC Ferries. It's a tool that transportation providers use for spreading loads out more evenly (making the system operate more efficiently), and it was relevant to the discussion of a demand-based fare structure. Inherent within such a structure is an increase in fare during peak times, and decrease in fare during off peak - and I don't foresee it being based around the fares that exist today (i.e. lower 'base fare' than what exists today, and fluctuates from there). Re. transit: Yes, there is very much the same perception about cost. TransLink has been hit hard by lack of secure funding over the past five years, and has cut back many of it's services on routes that aren't performing above a 20-30% load (in some cases, cutting routes outright). While it isn't viewed as a private company by government, it is taking many of the same steps as what has been forced upon BC Ferries. Just as ferries cannot turn a profit, transit can't, either, despite perpetually growing ridership. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Nov 20, 2014 20:52:35 GMT -8
Didn't chime in regarding major routes, but I will briefly... A reservation-only system would be best for major routes, I feel. Prices would be based on how many customers have already booked for that specific sailing. This would obviously not work for minor routes for logistical reasons. I can't speak for the collective, but my agreeing with Northwesterner wasn't about finding a "fix" for BC Ferries. It's a tool that transportation providers use for spreading loads out more evenly (making the system operate more efficiently), and it was relevant to the discussion of a demand-based fare structure. Inherent within such a structure is an increase in fare during peak times, and decrease in fare during off peak - and I don't foresee it being based around the fares that exist today (i.e. lower 'base fare' than what exists today, and fluctuates from there). Re. transit: Yes, there is very much the same perception about cost. TransLink has been hit hard by lack of secure funding over the past five years, and has cut back many of it's services on routes that aren't performing above a 20-30% load (in some cases, cutting routes outright). While it isn't viewed as a private company by government, it is taking many of the same steps as what has been forced upon BC Ferries. Just as ferries cannot turn a profit, transit can't, either, despite perpetually growing ridership. I (respectfully) have to completely disagree. First, 'reservations only' on the major routes adds to the perception that BC Ferries is either too difficult or too expensive to use. Any restriction on travel, other than the fifty year old reality that ferries are sometimes full, adds to the system's woes, at this point. Secondly... "the collective"? I didn't know The Borg had a horse in this race.  Thirdly. Land based transit has a number of huge projects in the offing or at least at concept stage; I think the public has the sense that needs are being examined and that methods of financing are being explored. In recent years, I've seen new bus routes introduced in my (Surrey) area, and I regularly see coaches rumbling around nearly empty at night, or empty on the return end of rush hour trips. Yes, some routes have been cut back, but there is absolutely no sense that transit is operating with only the grudging support of government, as opposed to BC Ferries. Another thing: I don't think there is a scintilla of evidence that high transit fares are diminishing the ability of communities to function, and therefore there is not the public resentment towards policy that you have in ferry dependent communities. I think that makes for a profound divergence of sentiment toward the two transportation functions. You suggest a variable pricing structure after a fare cut. That's an entirely different proposal to the one originally advanced a few posts back, and one that might have merit... but only after a sea change (pun intended) in public attitude, which those lower fares and a demonstration of a different governmental attitude might achieve. |
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Nov 20, 2014 21:26:12 GMT -8
You suggest a variable pricing structure after a fare cut. That's an entirely different proposal to the one originally advanced a few posts back, and one that might have merit... but only after a sea change (pun intended) in public attitude, which those lower fares and a demonstration of a different governmental attitude might achieve. I will have more to say in the morning after I get some rest and am able to think clearly. A couple of months ago I highlighted a quote by a UVic Econ Professor who noted that the current pricing strategy BC Ferries is having the exact result predicted by economic theory, however that same result brought about shock and surprise on the part of BCF administration as well the government. In my post a few months ago I suggested that a base fare be set and discounts and surcharges applied based on demand. The base fare could be the existing fare level, though I don't think that's wise. Probably should be a little lower, with surcharges up to current fare, and heavy discounts based on ridership and target attempts to change consumer behavior. BC Ferries is in better position to implement this kind of strategy than most private businesses. They have more than a decade of data that demonstrates the relationship between price changes, ridership, and revenue. Many companies would literally kill for this kind of data, as they are in sectors where price changes are rare or essentially equivalent to inflation. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Nov 20, 2014 22:55:07 GMT -8
You suggest a variable pricing structure after a fare cut. That's an entirely different proposal to the one originally advanced a few posts back, and one that might have merit... but only after a sea change (pun intended) in public attitude, which those lower fares and a demonstration of a different governmental attitude might achieve. I will have more to say in the morning after I get some rest and am able to think clearly. A couple of months ago I highlighted a quote by a UVic Econ Professor who noted that the current pricing strategy BC Ferries is having the exact result predicted by economic theory, however that same result brought about shock and surprise on the part of BCF administration as well the government. In my post a few months ago I suggested that a base fare be set and discounts and surcharges applied based on demand. The base fare could be the existing fare level, though I don't think that's wise. Probably should be a little lower, with surcharges up to current fare, and heavy discounts based on ridership and target attempts to change consumer behavior. BC Ferries is in better position to implement this kind of strategy than most private businesses. They have more than a decade of data that demonstrates the relationship between price changes, ridership, and revenue. Many companies would literally kill for this kind of data, as they are in sectors where price changes are rare or essentially equivalent to inflation. I think you're seeking an unfair advantage. I'm willing to post at the drop of a hat, whether I'm thinking clearly or not.  BC Ferries might have all sorts of data at hand, but I had a good laugh recently when I read them explaining away stagnant passenger counts for last year by citing bad weather over Christmas, and even the placement of the Easter holiday. These people will engage in the most elaborate, well oiled massage of statistics if it diverts attention from unpleasant realities. I would also point out again, at the risk of tedium to those who for whatever reason regularly read my posts, the Scottish experience. The government there, with an operational model similar in many ways to BC Ferries, was seeking to stimulate patronage as well as economic activity in the communities served. They cut fares. Passenger counts improved significantly, as did local economies. Now there's rocket science. |
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Nov 20, 2014 23:47:37 GMT -8
They cut fares. Passenger counts improved significantly, as did local economies. Now there's rocket science. This^^^^^^^^^ I agree with this. Economics agrees with this. BCFerries and the gov't disagree with this. More in the morning. |
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Nov 21, 2014 6:39:38 GMT -8
I will have more to say in the morning after I get some rest and am able to think clearly. A couple of months ago I highlighted a quote by a UVic Econ Professor who noted that the current pricing strategy BC Ferries is having the exact result predicted by economic theory, however that same result brought about shock and surprise on the part of BCF administration as well the government. In my post a few months ago I suggested that a base fare be set and discounts and surcharges applied based on demand. The base fare could be the existing fare level, though I don't think that's wise. Probably should be a little lower, with surcharges up to current fare, and heavy discounts based on ridership and target attempts to change consumer behavior. BC Ferries is in better position to implement this kind of strategy than most private businesses. They have more than a decade of data that demonstrates the relationship between price changes, ridership, and revenue. Many companies would literally kill for this kind of data, as they are in sectors where price changes are rare or essentially equivalent to inflation. I think you're seeking an unfair advantage. I'm willing to post at the drop of a hat, whether I'm thinking clearly or not. BC Ferries might have all sorts of data at hand, but I had a good laugh recently when I read them explaining away stagnant passenger counts for last year by citing bad weather over Christmas, and even the placement of the Easter holiday. These people will engage in the most elaborate, well oiled massage of statistics if it diverts attention from unpleasant realities. I would also point out again, at the risk of tedium to those who for whatever reason regularly read my posts, the Scottish experience. The government there, with an operational model similar in many ways to BC Ferries, was seeking to stimulate patronage as well as economic activity in the communities served. They cut fares. Passenger counts improved significantly, as did local economies. Now there's rocket science. The last three lines of Neil's posting here has hit the nail right on the head! Bulls-Eye! He is absolutely correct by stating that what the Scottish have done is tantamount to 'rocket science'. The Scottish have historically been cast with such labels as: stingy, penny-pinching, frugal etc., however, they also get the 'last laugh' as they understand one very simple economic principle that seems to have eluded all the hairbrained folks within the current provincial government and BC Ferries. Anyone selling ANYTHING, be it a single item, a service, whatever, will tell you that if their asking price is too high you probably won't attract a buyer. Duh! Hasn't anyone out there had to do a downward selling price revision on their original asking price for their house or condo? And what ensued? You eventually got a sale. Bingo! As has been reported, ferry traffic is at it's lowest point since 1991 and the decline can be charted in lock-step with each and every fare increase. I don't have an MBA, nor do I profess to be any kind of economics genius, but I would venture a wee Scottish guess here that if BC Ferries was to come out with a massive ad campaign announcing an ACROSS THE BOARD 25% DECREASE in fares effective December 15th, 2014, could we reasonably assume traffic volumes might increase during the upcoming Holiday season and beyond? After all, the wee Scots got it right didn't they? |
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Nov 21, 2014 16:19:31 GMT -8
Secondly... "the collective"? I didn't know The Borg had a horse in this race. Neil, you of all people surely witnessed Todd Stone and other BCF officials standing before you at the Cable Ferry consultations repeating the words "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated" |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 3, 2014 9:42:05 GMT -8
Here's a new thread for this specific PT4 efficiencies item that has a very good chance of becoming reality. It comes with many issues and impacts, and so here is its own thread for our news postings and discussions on it. - ie. we will be able to discuss the topic here, through the whole process of original idea, to feedback/options, to implementation. The context of the Fare Flexibility and Digital Experience Initiative is from this quote from the main PT4 thread: ================= 2)Technology (ie. getting a point-of-sale system that will allow for dynamic pricing etc, and that will help to match customer traffic demand to available sailings, thereby improving utilization - my own comment) - pages 13-15
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 3, 2014 9:44:37 GMT -8
Here is the link to the Ferry Commissioner's feedback request form: Opportunity to Comment is HEREAnd here is the link to the 194 page BCFS report on this initiative: 194 PAGE REPORT HERE....and now to read the report and to quote some excerpts here in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 3, 2014 10:47:11 GMT -8
Here's the introduction on pages 3-4 of the report:
(bold items are my own emphasis)
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 3, 2014 12:04:25 GMT -8
From page 9-10 of report:
- looking at this in the context of 3 principles outlined in a 2012 Ferry Commissioner report:
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 3, 2014 12:17:32 GMT -8
Current practices and related issues excerpts:
- from page 10 of the report.
--------------------------
More on the strategy, from pages 17-20 of the report:
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 3, 2014 12:25:01 GMT -8
from pages 21-22 of the report: The structure of the new website:
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 3, 2014 12:53:46 GMT -8
Implementation Plan (pages 24-27 of the report)
----------
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 3, 2014 13:02:50 GMT -8
2 excerpts from page 43:
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 3, 2014 15:21:56 GMT -8
Here are some excerpts from the "Appendix A: Fare Flexibility and Revenue Management Strategy Report" part of the document, starting on page 60 of the PDF:
----------------
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 3, 2014 15:37:48 GMT -8
I'm now on page #67 of the PDF doc, and it has some pricing guidelines:
Guiding Principles for Price:
|
|
