I'm not trying to pass judgement on any of the parties involved, just making a pragmatic observation on the long term impact of failing to provide the service which people are paying for, when alternatives to that service exist. My other half commutes by train, and over the last few months almost 20% of her journeys have been disrupted by either strikes, or the usual poor standard of punctuality and reliability.
She's seriously considering changing her rail season ticket for a bus one, because although the bus journey is twice as long, she actually gets there quicker on average, since they actually bother to turn up 99% of the time, and even when they don't, it's not such a big issue because there's another one due in ~7 mins. It's also significantly cheaper (£40/month for the bus, vs £65/month for the train + £4/day when she ends up having to take the bus anyway).
While in isolation 1 person making the change isn't going to make a difference, the worse the service is, the more people are going to switch to alternatives - this snowballs as there is less money to improve the service, until it gets to the point that providing the service is no longer economically viable. The same can be applied to RM, as
@Hagar says, there are plenty of alternatives, email, couriers etc.