Raj Sachdave, managing partner, Black Box Partnerships

For many European corporates, modal shift is a key component of their business travel sustainability strategy. Getting travellers off planes and on to trains is a powerful lever as they pursue aggressive emissions reduction targets.

Yet, making this shift is anything but simple, and the challenges are well-documented: limited content and visibility of rail options in corporate booking platforms, a lack of competition on the tracks driving up fares, and a deeply ingrained perception that air travel is always the faster option.

A case reported in UK media earlier this year illustrates the issue starkly. A couple flew from Cornwall to Manchester via Malaga, Spain, for just ?53 each (as a base fare), while a direct train journey would have cost between ?89 and ?203 per person. I¡¯ll park my deeper analysis of comparing like for like for another day!

Then there is the matter of journey time, with rail at a distinct disadvantage. Flying from one European city to another is invariably assumed to be quicker than catching the train ¨C but is it, really?

As younger generations enter the workforce ¨C who we are consistently told are more sustainability minded ¨C the industry needs to present to them the evidence that supports environmentally friendly decision making when booking travel.

I was struck by something a travel manager was quoted as saying in a recent article from BTN Europe. ¡°I¡¯m trying to convince travellers to shift from air to rail but it¡¯s not easy,¡± they stated. ¡°Rail can take twice as long and often costs more too, so how can you justify that? It¡¯s hard to persuade people.¡±

While it¡¯s true that rail can take longer, are we really making accurate comparisons? As an industry, we may not have much influence over pricing, but we can improve the way we communicate total travel times to offer a more accurate reflection of the door-to-door journey.

It¡¯s my belief that corporate travellers are not currently provided with sufficient information at the point of sale to convince them that rail travel is a practical or viable option ¨C not to mention a significantly greener means of transport than air.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that current online booking tools are flawed. If your travel policy is based on fastest journey time or cheapest fare, you¡¯re unlikely to see rail options at the top of your search results.

But here¡¯s the crucial oversight: when flying, travellers typically spend at least two hours at the airport before departure, plus another 30 minutes (or more) disembarking upon arrival. Factor in that additional time and maybe it¡¯s not such a straightforward choice between air and rail.

There are also journey times to and from airports to consider ¨C whereas train stations are typically in city centres ¨C while the fragmented nature of air travel also impacts a traveller¡¯s productivity while on the move.

To boost rail¡¯s appeal, I believe we need booking tools to display ¡®real-world journey times¡¯ that incorporate flying¡¯s end-to-end experience. Imagine adding a standard 2.5 hours to the published flight time ¨C two hours at the airport beforehand and a conservative 30 minutes after disembarking. Suddenly, the ¡®real-world journey times¡¯ of catching a flight aren¡¯t so dissimilar to rail, putting them on a level playing field.

It's time we used technology to show verified and accurate journey times. This isn¡¯t a big ask given that we¡¯re surrounded by tech visionaries and hype around the potential of AI and automation.

A one-hour, 20-minute flight between Paris and Frankfurt has a real-world journey time of three-hours, 50-minutes ¨C the same as taking a high-speed train between the cities. Similarly, a real-world journey time for travelling between London and Edinburgh by plane falls in line with a train journey.

There are dozens of routes across Europe served by high-speed rail, from city centre to city centre, that would compete with air travel once a published flight time is instead represented by an overall journey time.?

Of course, there will always be routes where flying remains the faster option. But in an era where sustainability is paramount, businesses and travellers alike need a nudge in the right direction and online booking technology biasing to show true times. Real-world journey times could provide that push.

With the technology available to us today, implementing such a feature in OBTs is entirely feasible. And, by leveraging multiple data sources, it could even be possible to provide more accurate ¡®airport time¡¯ metrics. The time spent in immigration queues or transferring between the airport and city centre are likely to vary throughout the day, for example.

Granted, real-world journey times would need to be clearly explained and communicated to booking tool users, together with the rationale for switching the feature on, but its potential is huge. This also has the ability to hold travel managers to account. A policy rule of 'true times' can be switched on or off, based on the integrity of an organisation¡¯s desire ¨C and policies ¨C to genuinely push for sustainability.

Naturally, objections would arise, not least from airlines and tech distribution partners. But it needn¡¯t be a default setting in booking tools. As previously mentioned, it could be a feature that those travel managers encouraging modal shift could switch on as they please. Combine it with a first-class travel incentive and you have an attractive proposition at your disposal.

Many companies that have implemented modal shift strategies ¨C such as EY, AstraZeneca, Salesforce and Parexel ¨C have needed to identify specific routes where rail is preferred to air, but with real-world travel times switched on, corporates could expect to see organic modal shift too.

Real-world journey times in OBTs would deliver users a clearer picture of the true travel time, reinforce corporate¡¯s modal shift efforts, and ultimately reduce the environmental impact of business travel. It¡¯s time we made this change.