News   Dec 18, 2024
You Are Here
 105     0 
News   Dec 17, 2024
City of Toronto Breaks Ground on First Public Developer Delivery Model Affordable Housing Project
 1.1K     2 
News   Dec 17, 2024
Change Bakers' CN Tower and Sankofa Square Gingerbread Kits Support Ronald McDonald House
 441     0 

VIA Rail

Urban Sky said:
Not all occupational risks can realistically be entirely eliminated; therefore, creating financial incentives for passengers to reduce the occupational risks of employees (which may have to assist passengers while boarding) might still be a valid mitigation strategy…
Click to expand...
In what way does the bag of an Economy class passenger pose a greater occupational risk than an equivalent sized bag of a Business class passenger?
 
reaperexpress said:
Clearly occupational health and safety is not the reason they are charging for large bags, given that Business class passengers continue to be allowed to bring 2 large bags on for free.
Click to expand...
reaperexpress said:
In what way does the bag of an Economy class passenger pose a greater occupational risk than an equivalent sized bag of a Business class passenger?
Click to expand...

There would be a maximum limit on weight for OSHA.
The cost is to get Via profitable.
 
reaperexpress said:
In what way does the bag of an Economy class passenger pose a greater occupational risk than an equivalent sized bag of a Business class passenger?
Click to expand...
I agree that the design of the baggage fees doesn’t exactly seem to be primarily motivated by operational health and safety concerns, but they nevertheless should help reduce such concern, even if that is arguably only a small side effect…
 
Urban Sky said:
I agree that the design of the baggage fees doesn’t exactly seem to be primarily motivated by operational health and safety concerns, but they nevertheless should help reduce such concern, even if that is arguably only a small side effect…
Click to expand...
How significant is that occupational health and safety concern in the first place, given that staff has no obligation to interact with passengers' carryon baggage?
 
reaperexpress said:
How significant is that occupational health and safety concern in the first place, given that staff has no obligation to interact with passengers' carryon baggage?
Click to expand...
The more individual pieces of lugagge passengers travel with (and the heavier and bulkier they are), the more likely they are to depend on someone’s help to handle it (especially at low-platform stations). And the more passengers need help, the more staff will feel compelled to offer their help, even if they are not obliged to so so. In the end, people tend to work in service jobs because they want to serve (assist) their customers, not just observe (supervise) them…
 
reaperexpress said:
How significant is that occupational health and safety concern in the first place, given that staff has no obligation to interact with passengers' carryon baggage?
Click to expand...
Picture your pensioned grandma with only a carry on.She is likely riding on the cheapest fare and will likely need help.
 
$25 per bag is not a big deal. But if VIA wants to compete with airlines on convenience, then making the passengers worry about the luggage size and weight at the time they book isn't the best way to win.

If they have to charge those $25, then I would at least bundle them into the standard ticket price, and let the passengers opt-out and save $25 if they don't need much luggage. Rather than forgetting to opt in, then bringing something bulky, getting hit by a higher fee, and deciding to book a flight next time.

I never had to pay extra for luggage on the rail trips in Europe.
 
Not that high, no, but they certainly do have platforms that are barely above track level that one has to climb up stairs to get into.
 
T3G said:
Not that high, no, but they certainly do have platforms that are barely above track level that one has to climb up stairs to get into.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but their platform heights are mostly 55 or 76 cm, which leads to a preference for low-floor rolling stock:

IMG_3540.jpeg

As a general rule, the higher the gap between boarding height and platform height, the more time-consuming (and dangerous) the passenger exchanges and VIA’s 43 inches (48” boarding height minus 5” inch low-level platform height) might be the largest gap you may encounter (as a standard at least!) anywhere on this planet…
 
Clearly, I think workplace safety was last thing on management's mind when they implemented this policy. The policy seems to be constructed oddly, but if end-rack space is at a premium, this is probably seen as a way to limit use. Airlines have all sorts of rules about luggage as well so it's not like they are alone.

As a post-retirement gig, I drove for an out-of-town airport van service. You wouldn't believe what some folks travel with.
 
T3G said:
They don't do a lot of things on rail trips in Europe that they do here...
Click to expand...

That's true. My concern is not that they restrict the luggage amount, but that they surprise the passengers with a relatively small but probably unexpected fee.

Many Canadians have more experience travelling by rail while in Europe and/or East Asia than travelling by VIA. Moreso for tourists from overseas.

That $25 fee is not enough to convince the passengers not to take a suitcase, but enough to create confusion if they don't read the conditions carefully when booking, or decide to bring a larger bag after they have booked.
 
Urban Sky said:
Agreed, but their platform heights are mostly 55 or 76 cm, which leads to a preference for low-floor rolling stock:


As a general rule, the higher the gap between boarding height and platform height, the more time-consuming (and dangerous) the passenger exchanges and VIA’s 43 inches (48” boarding height minus 5” inch low-level platform height) might be the largest gap you may encounter (as a standard at least!) anywhere on this planet…
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I just think that screwing over their user base because there are some people who have no self control and bring all their worldly possessions on a train is the wrong approach, and implicitly classist, as "high value" business class passengers are not hit by the same fees.

IMO you should be allowed to bring bags that are as large as you want, but with the understanding that it's your stuff, and no one but you or the people in your party should be in any way concerned with it. But then, as someone who has spent far too long working in customer service, I'm very much over people who try to make their problem your problem.
 
reaperexpress said:
In what way does the bag of an Economy class passenger pose a greater occupational risk than an equivalent sized bag of a Business class passenger?
Click to expand...
It doesn't.

But with more Economy class passengers per car versus business class passengers, there is also a reduced number of bag capacity per passenger available, considering the baggage capacity is fixed by the volume available in each car.

Plus, business class passengers are (generally) paying more for the privilege. Just like on the airlines, with that privilege comes perks.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top