Learn Hardcore Spanish (Spain): Mi padre dijo que en agosto no trabajaría y que entonces podríamos hacer una excursión más larga. - My father said that in August he would not work and that then we could do a longer trip.

Direct speech: En agosto no trabajaré. – “In August I won’t work.”
Reported later: Mi padre dijo que en agosto no trabajaría. – “My father said that in August he wouldn’t work.”

In Spanish, when you report a future statement that was made in the past, the usual tense is the conditional:

trabajará = future from now: “he will work”
trabajaría = future from a past point of view: “he would (not) work”

Trabajaba would describe a past habit or ongoing action (“he used to work / he was working”), which doesn’t fit here, because the sentence talks about a future plan relative to when he spoke.

Why is podríamos hacer also in the conditional instead of podremos hacer?

For exactly the same “future-in-the-past” reason.

Direct vs reported:

Direct speech: Entonces podremos hacer una excursión más larga. – “Then we’ll be able to take a longer trip.”
Reported speech: …y que entonces podríamos hacer una excursión más larga. – “and that then we would be able to take a longer trip.”

So:

podremos = “we will be able to” (future from now)
podríamos = “we would be able to” (future from the past point of view of dijo)

It keeps the time relationships: at the time he spoke (past), the excursion was still in the future, so Spanish switches the future to conditional in reported speech.

Who is the subject of trabajaría and podríamos? Why are there no subject pronouns?

The subject of trabajaría is mi padre (he).
The subject of podríamos is nosotros (my father + the speaker, typically “we”).

Spanish usually drops subject pronouns when the verb ending already shows the person:

trabajaría can mean yo trabajaría or él trabajaría or ella trabajaría → here context (mi padre) makes él trabajaría the only sensible reading.
podríamos only matches nosotros / nosotras, so the subject is clear.

You could add pronouns:

Mi padre dijo que *él en agosto no trabajaría…*
…y que entonces *nosotros podríamos hacer…*

but they’re unnecessary and the first one (with él) would even sound a bit heavy or over‑explicit in normal Spanish.

Why is que repeated: “…dijo que… y que entonces podríamos…”? Could we omit the second que?

The double que is very natural here, because dijo que introduces two separate clauses:

…que en agosto no trabajaría…
…y que entonces podríamos hacer…

You can omit the second que in everyday speech:

Mi padre dijo que en agosto no trabajaría y entonces podríamos hacer una excursión más larga.

This is still correct and common, but:

With que repeated: a bit clearer and often more formal / careful.
Without que: a bit lighter and more colloquial.

Both are acceptable in Spain.

Why is it en agosto and not en el agosto?

In Spanish, months are normally used without an article when you just refer to them in a general time sense:

en enero, en febrero, en marzo, en agosto…

You use an article only in more specific structures, e.g.:

el agosto de 2020 – “August 2020”
en el agosto más caluroso de la década – “in the hottest August of the decade”

So in this sentence, en agosto is the standard, natural form.

Could we say “Mi padre dijo que no trabajaría en agosto” instead of “que en agosto no trabajaría”? Is there any difference?

Yes, you can say it that way, and the meaning is basically the same.

…que en agosto no trabajaría
…que no trabajaría en agosto

Both are correct. The difference is only slight emphasis:

Putting en agosto first can put a tiny bit more focus on the time frame (“as for August, he wouldn’t work”).
Putting no trabajaría first is more neutral in rhythm and order.

In ordinary conversation, both word orders sound natural in Spain.

What exactly does entonces mean here? Is it “then”, “at that time”, “so”…?

In this sentence, entonces has a temporal meaning: “then / at that time”.

Timeline:

In August, the father will not be working.
Then (i.e. at that time, during August), they will be able to take a longer trip.

It is not the logical “so / therefore” meaning of entonces here.
Alternatives with a similar idea:

para entonces podríamos hacer… – “by then we could take…”
en ese momento podríamos hacer… – “at that moment we could take…”

Why is excursión used here, and not viaje? Is there a difference in Spain?

Yes, there is a nuance:

excursión
- Often a shorter outing: a day trip, a hiking trip, a weekend outing.
- In Spain, una excursión is very commonly a trip not too long, often recreational: to the countryside, mountains, nearby town, etc.
viaje
- More general “trip / journey / travel”.
- Often used for longer or more significant trips (a holiday, a business trip, travelling abroad, etc.).

In this sentence:

una excursión más larga suggests a longer-than-usual outing, maybe more hours or more days than their normal short excursions, but not necessarily a huge international “viaje”.

Why is it una excursión más larga and not más largo? How does the agreement work?

Adjectives in Spanish must agree in gender and number with the noun:

excursión is feminine singular (la excursión).
So the adjective must also be feminine singular: larga.

Structure:

una excursión larga – “a long excursion”
una excursión más larga – “a longer excursion” (comparative with más)

If the noun were masculine, the adjective would change:

un viaje más largo – “a longer trip”

Could we say “Mi padre dijo que en agosto no iba a trabajar” instead of “no trabajaría”? What’s the difference?

Yes, you can say:

Mi padre dijo que en agosto no iba a trabajar…

Differences in nuance:

no trabajaría
- Standard for reported speech.
- Slightly more neutral / formal.
- Presents the future plan as a projected future from the past.
no iba a trabajar
- Uses ir a + infinitive (ir a trabajar) in the imperfect (iba).
- Very common in spoken Spanish, can sound more informal / conversational.
- Often emphasizes a plan or intention: “he was not going to work (as his plan).”

Both are correct in Spain; choice is mostly about style and nuance.

What would the original direct speech be, before it was reported?

A natural reconstruction of the direct speech is:

En agosto no trabajaré y entonces podremos hacer una excursión más larga.

Then someone later reports:

Mi padre dijo que en agosto no trabajaría y que entonces podríamos hacer una excursión más larga.

You can see the tense changes:

trabajaré → trabajaría
podremos → podríamos

Why is podríamos (conditional) used and not podíamos (imperfect)? What’s the difference in meaning?

podríamos (conditional of poder)
- “we would be able to”
- Typical for future-in-the-past in reported speech.
- Points to something that would be possible later, under certain conditions (here: if he doesn’t work in August).
podíamos (imperfect of poder)
- “we could / we were able to (habitually or generally)”
- Describes a past ability or repeated possibility, not a specific future plan from the past.

Compare:

Mi padre dijo que entonces podríamos hacer una excursión más larga.
→ future possibility from his past statement.
Mi padre dijo que entonces podíamos hacer una excursión más larga.
→ sounds more like “he said that at that time we could (already) do a longer trip”, more as a description of conditions, not clearly a future project. It’s possible in some contexts, but the conditional is the standard choice here.

Why is the indicative used (trabajaría, podríamos) and not the subjunctive (trabajara, pudiéramos) after dijo que?

Because decir que plus indicative is used when you are stating or reporting information that the speaker presents as fact or as a real plan.

Mi padre dijo que en agosto no trabajaría…
→ reports his plan as something he stated as a real future action.

Decir que + subjunctive appears when decir has a more command / influence meaning, similar to “tell someone to do something”:

Mi padre dijo que *trabajara más.*
→ “My father told (me) to work more.” (order/advice, not information)
Me dijo que *fuera con él.*
→ “He told me to go with him.”

Here, the father is not giving an order; he’s informing about his future non-working and the future excursion. So Spanish uses the indicative (in its conditional form for reported future: trabajaría, podríamos).