Jean, a frequent commuter between Paris and Reims, prefers FlixBus for its affordability, often paying under 10 euros compared to train fares of up to 45 euros. While travel times with the coach are longer, FlixBus has transformed the market since the 2015 “Macron law,” introducing competition. However, both Jean and student Charlotte express concerns about declining service quality, including unreliable Wi-Fi and comfort issues, suggesting that pricing may not outweigh the need for better service in the long run.
Jean, a man in his forties, frequently travels between Paris and Reims to visit his family. For him, taking a bus is often the preferred option. “I like to check the prices for both bus and train, particularly for the Paris-Reims route,” he shares. While the train journey lasts about 1.5 hours and can be priced as high as 45 euros, he often finds FlixBus tickets for under 10 euros. Though this low fare has its drawbacks—like traveling during off-peak hours and needing some patience—Jean still sees it as a worthwhile choice. “The bus ride takes approximately 40 minutes longer than the train, but saving 30 euros makes it worth it,” he concludes.
This pricing flexibility was unthinkable prior to 2015. The “Macron law,” implemented nine years ago, revolutionized France’s intercity transport by allowing companies to run coach services on routes exceeding 100 kilometers. This liberalization freed the market from the SNCF’s control, leading to the emergence of new competitors like FlixBus and Ouibus, which expanded consumer options and lowered fares.
Declining Service Quality
While cost is the primary factor for many users, opinions vary regarding the service quality of FlixBus. Jean, who relies on this mode of transport five to six times per year, has noticed some changes. “Initially, the service was excellent,” he recalls. However, now FlixBus sometimes cooperates with third-party providers: “We might end up in a local bus used for school pickups. Occasionally, the Wi-Fi and restrooms don’t function. In terms of comfort, the experience falls short of what the train offers.” Regardless, he still favors taking the bus for trips under three hours, believing the low fare justifies the trade-offs.
Charlotte, on the other hand, has a slightly different perspective. As a student commuting between Lyon and Grenoble before the pandemic, she chose the bus mainly for its affordability: “Back then, it was a great deal. I paid less than 10 euros to see my family.” However, she feels the COVID-19 pandemic marked a shift for FlixBus, bringing about higher prices and diminished service quality. “Today, while the bus is still cheaper than the train, the gap is narrowing, especially in terms of comfort. Wi-Fi rarely works, and the seating isn’t conducive to working,” Charlotte observes. FlixBus has yet to respond to our inquiry regarding these concerns.
Competitive Pricing but Longer Travel Times
For these travelers, FlixBus’s user-friendly booking platform is a significant advantage over the SNCF. Jean particularly values the efficiency of online reservations: “In contrast to SNCF, which seems to be lagging behind.” By spending around 200 euros annually on FlixBus, he saves significantly compared to the 540 euros he would pay for equivalent train journeys. Nevertheless, he admits that for longer trips, the train’s comfort is unmatched. “It’s challenging to work on the bus due to broken shelves and limited space. I always find more comfort on the train,” he confides.
As the ninth anniversary of the Macron law approaches, FlixBus and its competitors continue to transform intercity transportation in France. However, if the quality of service does not improve, travelers like Jean and Charlotte may eventually switch from buses to more comfortable transportation alternatives.