Buy our book here.




Our previous post looked at CVP when there is too much volume in the market. This post takes a look at the TGV (high-speed) service of SNCF. It’s in a spot of bother in terms of profit and management are considering various options.

I have been on the TGV several times. It is a fabulous service, but in today’s low-cost flight era it’s a bit expensive. And that’s exactly what a recent post from the Economist noted. According to the post, many TGV routes are no profitable. The reason for non- or low profitability is two-fold 1) increased competition from low-cost airlines who entice passengers with lower fares and 2) increasing costs paid to the rail track operator. SNCF management have apparently suggested three possible solutions, as follows:


1) decrease volume – i.e. reduce routes to those which are more profitable and attract adequate passenger numbers

2) increase volume, by lowering price. This could attract passengers back from low-cost airlines. It is a risky option though, as failure to attract enough passengers could worsen things

3) overhaul operations to be more like a low-cost airline i.e. become more cost conscious and efficient.

Which ever of the above three options are chosen, it is a classic case of the application of Cost-Volume-Profit (CVP) analysis. The costs and revenues will determine how profitable the TGV routes are, but so will the volume available. For example, using option 1 may improve profitability, but may not address costs or revenues. It may also be a bad option politically. Option 3 might keep service volume, but increase profitability and maintain pricing. And, as mentioned, option 2 might increase profitability if passenger volumes increased. It is not to hard to imagine a management accountant at SNCF using CVP techniques to show managers possible outcomes of each option.