Beware the Patton Flyer!

JoSoap

Waited for almost 30 mins in the cold on the Patton Flyer from Dublin Airport two weeks ago. In the end, I had to get a 50 euro taxi home to Dalkey. Having emailed the Patton Flyer the following day, they basically told me that traffic and road conditions often cause delays, and whilst they are in the course of updating their timetable to reflect these delays, they cannot accept responsibility for people waiting in the cold for a bus that doesn't arrive.
The moral of the story - don't rely on getting the Patton Flyer home from the airport without a long wait. Perhaps it's more reliable in the other direction?

KC61

JoSoap wrote: »

Waited for almost 30 mins in the cold on the Patton Flyer from Dublin Airport two weeks ago. In the end, I had to get a 50 euro taxi home to Dalkey. Having emailed the Patton Flyer the following day, they basically told me that traffic and road conditions often cause delays, and whilst they are in the course of updating their timetable to reflect these delays, they cannot accept responsibility for people waiting in the cold for a bus that doesn't arrive.
The moral of the story - don't rely on getting the Patton Flyer home from the airport without a long wait. Perhaps it's more reliable in the other direction?

Beware also that as of relatively recently this operator is running this service without a licence to do so!

Ste.phen

Is there something special about their service that means the Bus Eireann / Aircoach / Dublin Bus services aren't valid alternatives?
(Even to City Centre)

spareman

KC61 wrote: »

Beware also that as of relatively recently this operator is running this service without a licence to do so!

Really? How did you find that out?

davmi

Yeah they have no licence, they applied for one but apparently someone got in before them. The other company has been granted their licence I think so they should be up and running soon. The matter of them operating illegally is with the gardai but its unlikely theyll do anything about it.

spareman

davmi wrote: »

Yeah they have no licence, they applied for one but apparently someone got in before them. The other company has been granted their licence I think so they should be up and running soon. The matter of them operating illegally is with the gardai but its unlikely theyll do anything about it.

Where do you find this information? somewhere on the web? or what?

John R

spareman wrote: »

Where do you find this information? somewhere on the web? or what?

That particular nugget was published in the national media (indo AFAIR), normally verifiable evidence on licencing matters is very hard to find.

spareman

John R wrote: »

That particular nugget was published in the national media (indo AFAIR), normally verifiable evidence on licencing matters is very hard to find.

Found it there, thanks.

The department of transport has referred an airport coach operator to gardai because it says the company is illegally operating a route between Dalkey and Dublin Airport.


Officials say that the Patton Flyer service, owned by Curtis Coaches, does not hold a route licence and is therefore operating outside the law.

The provision of any public bus services on a specific route by a private bus operator is subject to the Road Transport Act, 1932.

But sources familiar with the legal situation have indicated a certain amount of sympathy for the operators because the 1932 act is seen as hopelessly inadequate to deal with modern day transport demands.

Wholesale reform of the 1932 act has been mooted for some time to make it easier to allow for competition on different bus routes.

A spokesman for the department of transport said: "When the department became aware that a company advertised as the Patton Flyer was operating unlicensed, scheduled bus passenger services between Dalkey and Dublin Airport, it immediately wrote to the company advising it that the operation of the service was in breach of section 7 of the Road Transport Act, 1932."

According to the department, the service providers are continuing to illegally operate thehourly route so the matter has been referred to gardai.

It is understood that another operator has already applied to the department to operate a similar route but has yet to receive permission from officials.

The operators of the Patton Flyer did not return calls last night seeking comment. Its buses travel from Dalkey to the airport via Blackrock and the Dublin Port Tunnel.

The service, which began just a few months ago, has proved popular with passengers and uses modern luxury coaches.

jimmycrackcorm

Private busses from the country used to operate on the basis that you became a temporary member of a travel club for the journey. Same legislation.

AlekSmart

Yup,its a regular hoot...

However there are some VERY serious points which remain unresolved concerning the Patton Flyers illegal status.

The Department has publicly confirmed that the service has NEVER been operating legally.

The Department confirms that IT wrote to the OPERATOR (One assumes this is also the Licence Holder?) advising of the illegal status.

The Operator failed to respond to the Licencing Authority.

The Department then places the matter officially in the hands of the Gardai.

The Operator then CONTINUES to operate the service,now in the FULL KNOWLEDGE of the Illegality.

As a result of the Operator failing to respond to the Departments written communications we now have a stand-off situation in which the Operator in-effect is challenging the State`s power to actually require a Road Passenger Service licence at all.

The Operator is now also,in effect,challenging the Gardai`s powers under both the 1932 Road Transport Act and the 1961 Road Traffic Act.

To cut to the chase, the Department may now seek to have the Gardai actually enforce Section 7 of the 1932 Act which presumably might involve the Department seeking a High Court order to shut the Patton Flyer operation down.

The Department may well seek clarification from the Irish Insurers Federation as to whether it`s Member Companies are now prepared to underwrite the Road Traffic Act risks of an operator who knowingly allows it`s vehicles and staff to operate in an illegal manner.

There may well be some very serious issues as to what level of general liability cover AND employers liability cover is actually in force once an employer knowingly places it`s employees in an Illegal situation.

All hypothetical....all if`s but`s and maybe`s....yes granted,but we should do well to remember that major road traffic disasters happen in milliseconds,while the physical,emotional,financial ramifications linger for entire lifetimes.

There is now also a very real question concerning the requirement to be "Of good Standing" in order to possess a Certificate of Proffessional Competency.

Some interpretations reckon this refers only to Financial Standing,however I understand the meaning in CPC terms to be far wider.
It would appear to me that displaying a total indifference to Official warnings and instructions could well be interpreted by a court as surrendering any right to an assumption of such "Good Character"

The company involved,Curtis Coaches,are obviously well aware that the penalties involved ( £50 POUNDS upon conviction PLUS £5 POUNDS Per Day for each subsequent day`s illegal operation) are derisory in 2007 terms.

If nothing else the amounts which are stipulated as penalties remain probably the area`of the 1932 Act which MOST need updating rather than the stipulations of the Act itself.

Perhaps Curtis Coaches fail to appreciate that there is a Principle at work here and it is one of proven disrespect for the Law.
Can it`s customers be confident that Curtis Coaches is,for example,prepared to comply with the Safety related stipulations of the various Acts ?
Disregard for one would tend to suggest disregard for all in the absence of any confirmation to the contrary.

There is NO doubt whatever that the continued operation of the Patton Flyer is putting it right up to the Department of Transport,The Gardai and the very notion of a regulatory system at all.......Lets see if anybody is awake in the Departments darkened offices,perhaps poring over those pages of the 1932 Act which have the words "IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST" underlined....

trellheim

Alek, I thought you might like this [ Dail Questions 6 Mar 08 ]


Deputy Barry Andrews: Information Zoom I am very proud of him.

During the week, an issue arose regarding the popular Patton Flyer bus service from Dún Laoghaire to Dublin Airport. This has been operating very successfully and is not in conflict with any other service. Given the reforms taking place, the fact that we are adopting an alternative approach and the fact that an application for a licence has been lodged with the Department for some time, flexibility should be afforded in this case. Although the operator does not have a licence, the service provides a link to the airport and is not in conflict with another route.

Metro West is to extend as far as Tallaght. Can I use the name “Tallaght” in the presence of the Acting Chairman, Deputy Charlie O’Connor? I believe he has a copyright on it. It has been argued that Metro West should extend from Tallaght to Sandyford so there would be connectivity with the Luas. The Minister spoke of radial links and this is one that needs to be extended entirely around the city.

Acting Chairman: Information Zoom I was hoping the Deputy would ask a question.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: Information Zoom Deputy Andrews is quite correct in that the Patton Flyer does not have a licence. It makes a mockery of the transport system that an excellent and very effective service by a private operator must operate illegally. The Minister said the last reform he will introduce will be to the 1932 Act but it should be the first.



[Deputy Fergus O’Dowd Information Zoom]

I agree with the Minister in that I do not care whether the bus is red, white or blue. It is important to passengers that there be buses available, that we protect the interests of the taxpayer and that the buses in place operate effectively and efficiently. If this is right-wing thinking, I am all in favour of it because it looks after the consumer, the traveller and the ordinary person. All the other ideologies, such as the Kremlin ideologies, are long gone. I do not know if Deputy Broughan knows that even Russia has changed.

Private operators applied to use the Dublin Port tunnel but it took a very long time to grant permission. When Dublin Bus wanted to use it, it was not allowed to do so. The whole system is a joke. Any bus that wants to use the tunnel should be allowed to do so, provided it can pass through it. The stops should be at the bus stops and not in the tunnel.

Let us have a modern, dynamic transport system in Dublin. Let us free up the market and have competition and let us have people in buses rather than cars.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: Information Zoom Nobody is stopping anybody from using the tunnel. It is open to any operator provided it has a licence and approval. We licensed the operation of a bus service between Swords and Dublin city via the tunnel. Dublin Bus has been advised that a proposal to reroute four of its six services on the 41X route from Swords through the tunnel must be considered under section 25 of the Transport Act 1958. We have not received an application for consent in that regard.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Information Zoom Is that not a delaying tactic?

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: Information Zoom The Minister is correct.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: Information Zoom It must be a delaying tactic. I cannot understand why Dublin Bus would introduce a delaying tactic by not applying for consent.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Information Zoom It is his Department.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: Information Zoom I cannot make a decision on a licence or an approval when they do not apply. It would be better if, instead of writing in to me, they wrote to Bus Átha Cliath and sent e-mails, or wrote to Mr. Joe Duffy or somebody else. If they sent them in to Bus Átha Cliath, they could state that they wanted the company to apply for this so that I can approve it.

Acting Chairman: Information Zoom I must ask the Minister to conclude.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: Information Zoom On the other operation, nobody in this House should condone anybody who is breaking the law, even if the law is inadequate. The 1932 Act is not being adhered to. It is an offence and it must be dealt with accordingly. All the reports I received about the service were that it is top class, but it is an illegal service.


here's the link
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20080306.xml&Node=H10&Page=13

dermo88

If thats the case then the laws are not adequate. They are clearly protectionist and in place to protect the rotten hegemony of CIE.

So quality gets prohibited and mediocrity permitted. Thank you Noel Dempsey, thank you Dublin Bus, you are changing with the city.

Just go in a ditch and disappear....silently. Please.

trellheim

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

what ?

Patton Flyer is not run by Dublin Bus [ at least last time I looked it wasn't ]

AlekSmart

Thanks Trellheim.

Imformative stuff indeed and indicative of the total unreality which pervades our Governmental apparatus.
The date of the debate is 6th March 2008.

From the published and as yet uncontradicted media reports somebody in the Ministers own Department attempted to contact the Patton Flyer people back in October 2007.
On receiving no response the Departmental functionary then placed the matter in the hands of An Garda Siochana who it seems needed further clarification on the definition of "Illegal" in the context of the Road Transport Act 1932.

Even the verbal gymnastics displayed by Fregus O Dowd (FG) cause me some woe...

Quote "an excellent and very effective service by a private operator must operate illegally. " END

For crying out loud...this is right up there on a par with another famous FG Leaders statement about " Being economical with the truth"....."I did`nt tell you,because you did`nt ask me".

Gimme a break Fergus,the only thing the Patton Flyer "MUST" do is obey the Law.

Before any Road Passenger operator can trade they must be in possession of a Certificate of Proffessional Competence,the holder of which amongst other things must prove themselves to be of good repute.

One of the benchmarks of proving one`s standards of repute is the respect which one displays for the requirements of the Law.

In the Patton Flyers case this would appear to be debatable,thereby rendering the CoC holder liable to have their Certificate revoked by the Minister and thus possibly threatening their personal livelihood.

The current situation may well see the Patton Flyer`s operators effectively disbarring themselves from obtaining further licences due to their apparent disregard for the requirements of the Law.

It must also be borne in mind that the Departments problem with the Patton Flyer`s operation is that a PRE-EXISTING application exists for a service operating along that routing,therefore the Patton Flyer must await the decision of the Minister on THAT application before having its own application adjudicated upon.

Its a Mirror-Image of the Bus Atha Cliath- Swords Express debacle on the opposite side of the tracks,except in that case Bus Atha Cliath swiftly complied with the Minsiters directive,whereas Patton Flyer`s people decided to tough it out.....which was the correct decision..???....Now there`s a $68,000 Question

trellheim

More than all the rest, this is most disturbing. Since the Minister has clearly declared the service illegal, and the coppers don't want to take the rap [ understandably ]

if I was a 'concerned citizen' I'd ring their insurance company and ask them 'If I take a trip on the Patton Flyer, and there's an accident, can I claim against you ?'

Fratton Fred

I've used the service quite a lot and found it to be great. There is no other way of getting to the airport for a 6am flight from the Dalkey/Dun Laoghaire area. If the Gardai stopped the service, they would make themselves very unpopular.

Why are our politicians so anal, this is a service and a good one at that (Although it took me an hour to get from the Merrion Gates to the East Link bridge in a car the other week, I guess the Patton Flyer would get caught up in that as well) so why do they want to stop it.

trellheim

There is no other way of getting to the airport for a 6am flight from the Dalkey/Dun Laoghaire area.

1. Driving yourself
2. Taxi to Airport
3. Taxi to nearest Aircoach stop
4. Getting someone else to drive you.


Hold on; are you suggesting that the operators of the PF should not be subject to the same rules as other operators ?

That's a brave statement.

So. All of the rules or some of the rules ?

E.g. do they use drivers who have a driving licence for the correct class of vehicle ?
Are the buses tested for safety periodically ?
Are they insured to run illegal services ?

Should the Port Tunnel allow illegal services run ?

Interested to hear your response.

ballooba

Why is the taxi rank at the airport such a joke?

I'll be arriving in late tonight and I will have to get the Aircoach because there will be a huge queue and no taxis.

dobsdave

ballooba wrote: »

Why is the taxi rank at the airport such a joke?

I'll be arriving in late tonight and I will have to get the Aircoach because there will be a huge queue and no taxis.

I use the Airport at least every two weeks.
Last time I had to queue for a taxi was November.

Run_to_da_hills

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is no other way of getting to the airport for a 6am flight from the Dalkey/Dun Laoghaire area.

There is plenty of ways to get to the Airport from Dunlaoghaire. I use a motorbike, chain it up well when I get there and don't pay any parking. costs me less than e5 for the round trip . You can get a Taxi to Ballsbridge or Sandyford and get the Aircoach or get the last bus out there kip on an bench in the departure lounge

Fratton Fred

trellheim wrote: »

1. Driving yourself
2. Taxi to Airport
3. Taxi to nearest Aircoach stop
4. Getting someone else to drive you.


Hold on; are you suggesting that the operators of the PF should not be subject to the same rules as other operators ?

That's a brave statement.

So. All of the rules or some of the rules ?

E.g. do they use drivers who have a driving licence for the correct class of vehicle ?
Are the buses tested for safety periodically ?
Are they insured to run illegal services ?

Should the Port Tunnel allow illegal services run ?

Interested to hear your response.

First choice should always be public transport of some description, driving yourself etc should not have to be an option when you are coming from a major town 18 miles from the airport.

Of course they should be subject to the same rules, but surely the government should be trying to work with these companies, not against them. There must be a quick check that can be done, do you have insurance, are your coaches up to standard etc. then worry about licences once these have been sorted out.

If there was decent public transport to the airport then companies like this would not be able to set up.

Ham'nd'egger

Fratton Fred wrote: »

First choice should always be public transport of some description, driving yourself etc should not have to be an option when you are coming from a major town 18 miles from the airport.

Of course they should be subject to the same rules, but surely the government should be trying to work with these companies, not against them. There must be a quick check that can be done, do you have insurance, are your coaches up to standard etc. then worry about licences once these have been sorted out.

If there was decent public transport to the airport then companies like this would not be able to set up.

Fred, the simple reality is that Patton's have knowingly set up the Flyer without the requisite license to operate; it is illegally operating it's service. Other companies are playing by the book; on the pre text that the service is useful (Which nobody denies that it isn't), surely every bus company can set up and run a route on it's own whim. While all are in agreement that the current route licensing legislation is backward in many respects, it's objective of saying who runs a route and which way it is to go is robust; unless people won't play fair.

Colm R

Stupid Question alert.

Whats the legal status of an operator who is hired by a group (e.g. for a school tour) to do a once off drop and pick up a week later at the airport.

Fratton Fred

Hamndegger wrote: »

Fred, the simple reality is that Patton's have knowingly set up the Flyer without the requisite license to operate; it is illegally operating it's service. Other companies are playing by the book; on the pre text that the service is useful (Which nobody denies that it isn't), surely every bus company can set up and run a route on it's own whim. While all are in agreement that the current route licensing legislation is backward in many respects, it's objective of saying who runs a route and which way it is to go is robust; unless people won't play fair.

They have applied for a licence, shouldn't the question be why has one not yet been given, or is it a case that because this is a privately run company and not Dublin Bus, they are being messed around.

During the week, an issue arose regarding the popular Patton Flyer bus service from Dún Laoghaire to Dublin Airport. This has been operating very successfully and is not in conflict with any other service. Given the reforms taking place, the fact that we are adopting an alternative approach and the fact that an application for a licence has been lodged with the Department for some time, flexibility should be afforded in this case. Although the operator does not have a licence, the service provides a link to the airport and is not in conflict with another route.

As I said earlier, if it wasn't for the fact that public transport to the airport is so bad, this situation would not have happened in the first place. Yes, I agree, there is a principle here, but driving, licences and principles appear to be three things often open to flexibility.

Fratton Fred

Colm R wrote: »

Stupid Question alert.

Whats the legal status of an operator who is hired by a group (e.g. for a school tour) to do a once off drop and pick up a week later at the airport.

they must, i presume, be a licenced coach operator which, I believe, Curtis Coaches are. They just don't have a licence to operate this route.

ballooba

dobsdave wrote: »

I use the Airport at least every two weeks.
Last time I had to queue for a taxi was November.

23:30 last week there was a huge queue that wasn't moving.

I heard it was the same at circa 1:30 the night before.

I hope there's no queue tonight. Fingers crossed.

KC61

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They have applied for a licence, shouldn't the question be why has one not yet been given, or is it a case that because this is a privately run company and not Dublin Bus, they are being messed around.

As I said earlier, if it wasn't for the fact that public transport to the airport is so bad, this situation would not have happened in the first place. Yes, I agree, there is a principle here, but driving, licences and principles appear to be three things often open to flexibility.

Dublin Bus are being "messed around" as much as any private operator here, for example:

Swords QBC

• Proposed route 141 (for which purchase of buses were sanctioned by the funding section) is still awaiting approval 18 months after permission applied for by Dublin Bus
• Route 41X not permitted operate via Port Tunnel
• Use of large capacity tri-axle buses by Dublin Bus not permitted

This is due to the Department considering any of the above to be "unfair competition" to the Swords Express service

Lucan QBC

• No service enhancements on any Dublin Bus service to Lucan, Leixlip, Celbridge or Maynooth permitted
• Use of large capacity tri-axle buses by Dublin Bus not permitted

This is due to the Department considering any of the above to be "unfair competition" to the Circle Line service, which has itself been further reduced in frequency in recent weeks.

You are spot on about the poor public transport at the Airport. It is, however, improving, with private services to/from Portlaoise, Wexford, Bray recently coming on stream, Bus Eireann improving connections and this week the Dublin Bus route 102 between Malahide, Portmarnock and Sutton was extended to the Airport as a seven-day per week operation. The fines for non-compliance with legislation are miniscule, and Curtis Coaches obviously feel that they can afford to operate the service regardless. Why a licence is not forthcoming is beyond me.

However, remember a few years ago Dublin Bus purchased additional buses to operate the 746 between Dublin Airport and Dun Laoghaire as a 24-hour operation. At the last minute the Department said no, having previously said yes, and the proposal was shelved.

dewsbury

I have used the Flyer on several occasions.

The lack of licence would not make any difference to me.

I.e. I would not stop using it because it has no licence.

Victor

Deputy Noel Dempsey wrote:

Dublin Bus has been advised that a proposal to reroute four of its six services on the 41X route from Swords through the tunnel must be considered under section 25 of the Transport Act 1958. We have not received an application for consent in that regard.

Oh dear ....

Victor

Colm R wrote: »

Whats the legal status of an operator who is hired by a group (e.g. for a school tour) to do a once off drop and pick up a week later at the airport.

There are different types of licences. For the driver, the vehicle and the route.

KC61

dewsbury wrote: »

I have used the Flyer on several occasions.

The lack of licence would not make any difference to me.

I.e. I would not stop using it because it has no licence.

That's fine.

So what do you say to the people in Swords and Lucan who are deprived an adequate bus service because other operators do comply with the legislation?

Boardsbud

dewsbury wrote: »

I have used the Flyer on several occasions.

The lack of licence would not make any difference to me.

I.e. I would not stop using it because it has no licence.

At this rate anyone can go out, buy a bus and so long as they turn up, operate a service on any route. What kind of precedent is this ?

As someone who has used the services of JJ Kavanagh for nearly 15 years I remember when the rapid express bus route was run on a "travel club" basis. To the best of my knowledge they have since obtained proper licences for the "inter city" routes that they operate. The only reason they ran the original club type service was that legislation didn't allow for private operators to compete with CIE/Bus Eireann. Whoever foresaw private companies running clean and modern coaches in competition with CIE/Bus Eireann at largely discounted prices ? They drove prices down in a Ryanair type way but the irony is that their service continues to be far superior to that of Bus Eireann in terms of comfort and cleanliness, and price.

The fact is however that Patton Flyer doesn't even try bend the rules with the "travel club" type operation. They are putting two fingers up to the law and in turn the law is saluting them for their bare faced brazeness.

Anyone want to club in towards a coach ?

munchkin_utd

Boardsbud wrote: »

At this rate anyone can go out, buy a bus and so long as they turn up, operate a service on any route. What kind of precedent is this ?

The precident in Irish law enforcement is that you can often get away with breaking the law!!

Am I not right in thinking that:
- Anyone can go into a council office, get a provisional driving licence and (..is tolerated by the law to) drive home on their own with it despite the fact that they should be accompanied.
- Anyone with a provisonal licence can drive on a motorway unaccompanied (if they are already breaking the law driving unacompanyed in the first place then sure why not on a motorway too?)

So if you are going to have a free for all on the roads, then why not allow (i.e. tolerate and not prosecute) unlicenced bus services?

To be fair I am trying to be devils advocate here, but the parallel is there.
Provisional licence holders are tolerated to drive alone because of "their job" and they would miss out on their livelyhood if stoped. Therefore they are allowed to ignore/ break the law.
Patton could say the same that he is missing out on his "livelyhood" because of the stalling in granting a licence for the service.
Why isnt he allowed to ignore/ break the law too without getting prosecuted??

Irish Solution in both cases when your livelyhood is at stake:
Ignore the law and just pile on regardless!!

trellheim

I merely pushed the point forward that all our politicos from both sides have now declared this service to be illegal

Since the Patton Flyer must be making money, why do you think

- no one else is competing on the route ? Because they would be operating illegally.

As KC61 and others have pointed out why do you think the Swords Express and the Circle line are not matched by competing routes ? Because they would be operating illegally because the Department haven't let them.

There's a bit of "I'm all right Jack" here.

trellheim

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deputy Noel Dempsey
Dublin Bus has been advised that a proposal to reroute four of its six services on the 41X route from Swords through the tunnel must be considered under section 25 of the Transport Act 1958. We have not received an application for consent in that regard.
Oh dear ....

It's all right Victor, he said the same thing about Phoenix Park tunnel rail services

there there, he's a Meath Politician



"These aren't the routes you're looking for"

KC61

trellheim wrote: »

It's all right Victor, he said the same thing about Phoenix Park tunnel rail services

there there, he's a Meath Politician



"These aren't the routes you're looking for"

He neatly ignored the fact that it took over 6 months for the Department to reject the original application for the 41X to use the Port Tunnel.

AlekSmart

Quote Trellheim
[ "As KC61 and others have pointed out why do you think the Swords Express and the Circle line are not matched by competing routes ? Because they would be operating illegally because the Department haven't let them."]
End.

The point which many appear to disregard in relation to the Patton Flyer service is that the Dept of Transport advised Curtis Coaches that the REASON for the current situation is the PRE-EXISTING licence application from ANOTHER OPERATOR.

Quite clearly that "Other Operator" would be entitled to be as miffed as Antoin O L might be should the Bus Atha Cliath 41X hordes be unleashed alongside Swords Express through the port tunnel.

The end-game here could very well be the "Other Operator" here deciding either to put their service in place (A là Patton Flyer) and go head-to-head OR to commence proceedings against the Minister, Dept of Transport and An Garda Siochana for failure to administer the regulations in a fair manner.

This choice may be influenced by developments out Dublin Airport way as the questioning of the DAA`s vehicular access policies take on a certain pointed and legalistic nature.
I rather fancy that certain members of the DAA Board are becoming a trifle uneasy at the manner in which their handling (or non-handling) of the Permit situation is now assuming centre stage.....

"Oh what a tangled web we weave,when first we venture to etc etc etc....."

L1011

munchkin_utd wrote: »

- Anyone can go into a council office, get a provisional driving licence and (..is tolerated by the law to) drive home on their own with it despite the fact that they should be accompanied.

They can't. They can get a learners permit instead (issuing of new provisional licences was pulled overnight back in October and replaced). I don't know how effectively the guards intend to enforce the even stricter rules on permits (must be accompanied by a driver qualified for 2 years, can't sit a test for 6 months, never get the right to drive unaccompanied, etc) though...

We're slowly, slowly getting towards a modern system here...

Fratton Fred

the upshot of all this is, basically, I don't care who provides the coach from Dalkey/Dun Laoghaire to the airport. The simple fact is that public transport from Dun Laoghaire (One of the largest towns in the are) to the airport is pretty much non existant (Completely so if you need to get to the airport before 9am) which has created the opportunity for an enterprising person to step in.

If they have applied for a licence (I presume the drivers and vehicles are all licensed) but the department is taking it's time, then it should be they who are pressurised, not the patton flyer. I have often caught the 5am bus and it is full by the time it gets to Blackrock, so there is definately a need there.

If another operator has applied for the route, then great, give them the licence, just sort the bleeding thing out. In the mean time, I will be catching the Patton Flyer on the 5th April for my visit to Wembley

L1011

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the upshot of all this is, basically, I don't care who provides the coach from Dalkey/Dun Laoghaire to the airport. The simple fact is that public transport from Dun Laoghaire (One of the largest towns in the are) to the airport is pretty much non existant (Completely so if you need to get to the airport before 9am) which has created the opportunity for an enterprising person to step in.

5.58 DART, Connolly at 6.22.

Aircoach from O'Connell Street at 06:45, Airport at 07:15

How on earth is that 'completely non existant'

Alun

MYOB wrote: »

5.58 DART, Connolly at 6.22.
Aircoach from O'Connell Street at 06:45, Airport at 07:15

... or a 747 from BusAras just around the corner (less distance to walk!)

How on earth is that 'completely non existant'

Exactly, just what I was going to say.

Victor

Or the 0730 46x. 746 doesn't start until 0800.

Fratton Fred

MYOB wrote: »

5.58 DART, Connolly at 6.22.

Aircoach from O'Connell Street at 06:45, Airport at 07:15

How on earth is that 'completely non existant'

alright, if you need to be at the airport before 7. Jesus, what difference does it make.

Flights from Dublin Airport start at 6am so that is a two hours of flights that you can't make it to by public transport, presuming a 7:15 arrival is ok for an 8am flight.

christ on a bike, it is only 18 miles away why is it so difficult to get to, or is there a conspiracy to make people spend €50 on a taxi?

L1011

Two hours makes rather a lot of difference. It changes the number of flights missed from 'lots' to 'not very many'.

Now, during that time period, how much would a taxi to Leopardstown - where the Aircoach runs from - cost? Shouldn't be too much...

Fratton Fred

MYOB wrote: »

Two hours makes rather a lot of difference. It changes the number of flights missed from 'lots' to 'not very many'.

Now, during that time period, how much would a taxi to Leopardstown - where the Aircoach runs from - cost? Shouldn't be too much...

so, to effectively get from one side of the country's capital to the country's major airport. You think it is acceptable to catch a taxi to leopardstown, which is about a 20minute drive, then catch an aircoach which takes over an hour to get to the airport. Maybe I should just get a taxi to Tallaght and wait for them to build the metro, that wouldn't take much longer:rolleyes:

no wonder the public transport in this country is so ****e, people have such low expectations.

KC61

Fratton Fred, in your frustration regarding the lack of early morning services I am in full agreement with you.

Dublin Bus have shown little initiative in starting services earlier than 0630, and that needs to change on a network-wide basis. A limited service (every 20-30 minutes) starting at 0500 on all main corridors is needed.

Having said that, I suspect that part of the problem is that the staff in the Department making these licensing decisions don't actually use the bus!

For info, the 0558 DART will get you into town in time (just about) for the 0630 747 from O'Connell Street, a service that never takes more than 20 minutes, getting to the Airport for 0650 (which in 52 minutes ain't too bad). If you've checked in online, that's ok for flights that leave after 0740. As you say though, that is no use for early flights.

Fratton Fred

KC61 wrote: »

Fratton Fred, in your frustration regarding the lack of early morning services I am in full agreement with you.

Dublin Bus have shown little initiative in starting services earlier than 0630, and that needs to change on a network-wide basis. A limited service (every 20-30 minutes) starting at 0500 on all main corridors is needed.

Having said that, I suspect that part of the problem is that the staff in the Department making these licensing decisions don't actually use the bus!

For info, the 0558 DART will get you into town in time (just about) for the 0630 747 from O'Connell Street, a service that never takes more than 20 minutes, getting to the Airport for 0650 (which in 52 minutes ain't too bad). If you've checked in online, that's ok for flights that leave after 0740. As you say though, that is no use for early flights.

Thank you KC61, however the next time I fly is the 6:30am flight to Stanstead for an FA cup semi final, the following Thursday it is an 8am charter flight to Egypt with a 2 hour check in. Therefore, all things according to plan, I will be catching the Patton Flyer.

If our flight to Egypt were later, we could walk the 15 minutes to Sandycove Station, then the walk from Connolly to Busaras. I'm sure my young daughter would lend a hand with the luggage. Silly of me really to expect a bus ten minute walk from the house to take me straight there.

I wonder how many of our ministers who are off on their St Patrick's day junkets even carry their own suitcase let alone catch a bus to the airport. (If they are able to that is:rolleyes:)

markf909

I saw this on Monday and thought we might see some action on the lack of a licence.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0324/1206144653990.html

'Patton Flyer' operator plans more unlicensed bus routes

TIM O'BRIEN

TREVOR PATTON, the operator of the "Patton Flyer" - the unlicensed Dalkey to Dublin airport bus service - has said he has plans to open another four routes in Dublin.

Mr Patton told The Irish Times he has no wish to challenge the Minister for Transport, Noel Dempsey, who has referred the Patton Flyer to the Garda. But he maintained he was operating in line with the policies of the Government, the Dublin Transportation Office and even environmental guidelines in offering a public transport alternative to motorists.

Imagine my surprise when the Patton Flyer pased a squad car stopped at the junction of Carysfort Ave. and Frascatti Rd this morning and then stop at the DB stop outside the shopping centre to pick up passengers while blocking a 4 trying to stop also.

meathstevie

And indeed why not flag a taxi from an illegal bus stop and share the journey to the airport and get there quicker for a maybe marginally higher cost. Any 7 seater taxi fully loaded up will get you there for the same cost as the unlicenced bus. Would you step into an unlicenced taxi btw ? No, then why would you use an unlicensed bus service ?

See how long I would last on a lapsed licence for my taxi ? See what the Taxi Regulator crowd will make of the defence : "OK, yeah, I operate without a licence but otherwise everything is hunky dory folks. Nothing to worry about.. "

is_that_so

If people are so exercised about this "illegal" service, then why not email/write to the Minister and every one of your local TDs, especially the opposition ones and all at the same time.
They will reply if only to say that they asked the Minister and he did nothing. It's only the cost of a stamp or two.

The individual in question will carry on until he effectively removed. He sees an opportunity and there is obviously a demand for the service, nobody has stopped him exploiting it so why should he. It's probably "not his fault" he doesn't have a licence. Remember that chap and his car park in a Dublin city centre square.

The discussion here does highlight Fred's point very clearly. We are supposed to be a modern city and any place of comparable size I've ever lived would have allowed me to get any of the flights he mentions. So much for Transport 21.:rolleyes:

trellheim

And this is part of Transport 21 how ?

Surely the person who applied for the route first should be entitled to run it ?

Note : someone [ probably more than one operator, actually ] wants to operate this route legally.