Patton Flyer (mod warning post #404) SEE POST #659 ALSO

MiniD

We wouldn't expect people to get into an unlicensed taxi, so why should it be different for a bus?

What happens if there is an accident involving this service? Are they covered by insurance? If someone is injured boarding at a bus stop, who is respnsible?

the posters who support the law are closet Unionised bus drivers from a poisonous state owned outfit who fear competition and accountability.

No, I'm a passenger who supports the law. Of course the DOT is a shambles, but that is no excuse to take the law into our own hands. There have been far worse decisions made where bus services have suffered.

Am I correct in saying in 2006, the Patton Flyer applied for a licence, but rather than waiting for a decision, decided to set up the service anyway? If this is the case, the point about a 3 year wait is nonsense, because the company didn't wait at all, they just went ahead and ran the buses. Why should the DOT engage with an company who is breaking the law?

Run_to_da_hills

We had a similar instance with pirate radio licensing back in the 70's & 80's. Some of these stations like Nova na Sunshine Radio became so professional they put official stations to shame. Eventually the state stepped in, some were handed licenses and went on to becoming community radio while others were wound up and put off the air.

Ham'nd'egger

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

We had a similar instance with pirate radio licensing back in the 70's & 80's. Some of these stations like Nova na Sunshine Radio became so professional they put official stations to shame. Eventually the state stepped in, some were handed licenses and went on to becoming community radio while others were wound up and put off the air.

No, that was not quite like the case here; radio stations back then had no legal framework to operate and chose to break the laws that were there (or not as the case may be) and make money from it; when licences were advertised, they were to be applied for under set criteria and rules.

Nobody doubts that his service is decent and well run, it's merely his legality to operate that is at question. The case is simply that Patton has decided not to wait for a licence under the system that is there and may well have awarded him the licence he pretends to either have or be hard done by not being awarded.

nicksinthemix

Haha, Patton the Vigilantly!

Look, can someone clarify this point - in these applications, if there is an unacceptable time lag then are there not provisions that allow for operation anyway? It would certainly seem that way as people have suggested that nobody is going to prison over this one.

And does 'illegal' have a black and white definition? I'm not a law man, you tell me...

People get very uppity about 'the law', don they. Do you reckon Trevor has such disrespect for it that he's getting into other areas as well. 'Illegal transport ' today, selling crack to kids tomorrow.

Some common sense please. The man employs people and I respect him for that. I'm sure it wasn't easy getting that service up off the ground as an independent fella. Case in point.

Cookie_Monster

He tried to run for a council seat in the last locals, purely to get his service recognised.

Needless to say he didn't get elected cos he's an arrogant p**** who's only in it for the money

Cuddlesworth

angel01 wrote: »

That doesn't make it right I am afraid. You have to live by the rules of the land whether you agree with them or not. They are breaking the law, I am afraid it is as simple as that.

Hitler would have loved you.....

KC61

An interesting post on the Patton Flyer Facebook page tonight:

Please note that the "Flyer" is not an illegal service. It is currently running (and always has been) as a Private Hire Operation. There is a private hire arrangement between a Ticketing Company and the Bus Company to transport its customers to the Airport. No Licence is required by law for a private hire agreement. More importantly, The Patton Flyer Buses are operated by a Company that is FULLY insured and is in possession of all required Certs for all bus operators ie CPC's International Transport Certs etc. All of these certs are available to be inspected by anyone who would like to make an appointment with us to see them. The Gardai are aware of this and have seen all of them over the last few years.

Ham'nd'egger

KC61 wrote: »

An interesting post on the Patton Flyer Facebook page tonight:

Please note that the "Flyer" is not an illegal service. It is currently running (and always has been) as a Private Hire Operation. There is a private hire arrangement between a Ticketing Company and the Bus Company to transport its customers to the Airport. No Licence is required by law for a private hire agreement. More importantly, The Patton Flyer Buses are operated by a Company that is FULLY insured and is in possession of all required Certs for all bus operators ie CPC's International Transport Certs etc. All of these certs are available to be inspected by anyone who would like to make an appointment with us to see them. The Gardai are aware of this and have seen all of them over the last few years.

Correct me if I am wrong here but you get onto the Patton Flyer and pay the driver or conductor, yes?

And their website says that they are a "scheduled service".

And the passenger pays "fares" on the bus.

And no mention of a ticketing company on their website.

So if they claim to have applied for a licence yet they claim that this arrangement is legal, this begs the question as to why they need still apply for a route licence?

devnull

The way I have heard it described elsewhere is that when you get on the bus you pay the representative of the 'ticket company', who also happens to be the driver, a 'membership fee' which constitutes becoming a member of the events and ticketing company.

As you are now a signed up as a member of the company, you are permitted to travel on their 'Private Hire' services, as you need to be a member to travel with them. There is no such thing as a fare, as there is no way for members to travel without paying the membership fee. The only fee payable is for membership, which entails you to travel.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

AlekSmart

Draw your own conclusions from that.

Indeed.

It`s interesting that the Patton Flyer somewhat belatedly publicises it`s "Private Club" only after the notion was publicised here on Boards,ie and on the Garaiste.com enthusiasts page.

As Ham`n egger points out the Patton Flyer website was/is specific about the Scheduled nature of it`s services as well as the fact that they possessed "Stops".

It`s not a big issue at all in terms of where Ireland actually is right now,but it does give a very good illustration as to HOW Ireland got into its current situation.... :mad:

Ham'nd'egger

devnull wrote: »

The way I have heard it described elsewhere is that when you get on the bus you pay the representative of the 'ticket company', who also happens to be the driver, a 'membership fee' which constitutes becoming a member of the events and ticketing company.

As you are now a signed up as a member of the company, you are permitted to travel on their 'Private Hire' services, as you need to be a member to travel with them. There is no such thing as a fare, as there is no way for members to travel without paying the membership fee. The only fee payable is for membership, which entails you to travel.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

There is several flaws in this "club" scenario. Patton clearly refer to "fares" on his website. They refer to a schedule and a timetable. The don't mention any membership criteria, club conditions, rules, constitutions etc. The coaches that come up and down from the country towns tend to work on a basis of you being covered to travel from A to B for a weekly/month at a time and a coach being hired on behalf of people with a wee potty to tip a driver or cover any minor running costs. On them, Patton is hiring the coaches to himself. Several times a day. With totally different passengers every day. And trying to make a profit from it.

Nobody is denying that his service isn't good (It is) and not needed (Again, it is) but as it stands he is making a mockery of every legit operator out there who plays by the book.

nicksinthemix

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Needless to say he didn't get elected cos he's an arrogant p**** who's only in it for the money

Yes, isn't it terrible when people try to make a living for themselves.

Even worse when it leads to the employment of 20 people.

penexpers

Just listened to the Joe Duffy show.

Did Patton apply for the license before Aircoach? He says that he applied in June 2006 but then revised it in February 2007. Does a revision to an application invalidate the first application?

angel01

Hamndegger wrote: »

Nobody is denying that his service isn't good (It is) and not needed (Again, it is) but as it stands he is making a mockery of every legit operator out there who plays by the book.

I couldn't agree more with this quote. Why should every other legit operator play by the book when this operation don't and are making a mockery of it all.

Cookie_Monster

nicksinthemix wrote: »

Even worse when it leads to the employment of 20 people.

Who's to say aircoach won't?

patrickbrophy18

If Aircoach are indeed to go ahead with introducing the route to Dalkey, it will be tricky to drive the tri-axle buses around the roundabout. Also, how frequent will they be?

nicksinthemix

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Who's to say aircoach won't?

No one. That's not the point.

Can you explain to me how a business is going to work if it's directors aren't 'in it for the money'?

I suppose aircoach won't be 'in it for the money' if it offers the poverty stricken people of dalkey a free ride part of the way to their Tuscan villas.

KC61

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

If Aircoach are indeed to go ahead with introducing the route to Dalkey, it will be tricky to drive the tri-axle buses around the roundabout. Also, how frequent will they be?

A little patience and time will tell.

They have been issued with a licence. There will be a lag before they start services. In good time they will tell us all what their plans are.

I am afraid you will just have to wait to find out!

But they do will not necessarily use tri-axles - maybe they will source new vehicles. I don't know, and nor does anyone else posting here - Aircoach will tell us all in due course.

Cookie_Monster

they do still have dual axle full size coaches but i think even these are probably too big for the area, even DB have issues getting around the roundabout in Dalkey.

patrickbrophy18

Oddly enough, there was nothing in the papers or news about this. Also, there is no mention of it on the official Aircoach website.

KC61

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Oddly enough, there was nothing in the papers or news about this. Also, there is no mention of it on the official Aircoach website.

There is nothing odd about it.

Operators tend not to announce new services until they are ready to commence operations. There is normally a long time lag before this happens.

For example, Aircoach were awarded the Airport-Greystones licence (the one that Patton is in conflict with between Blackrock and Sandymount) long before they announced their plans.

In due course they'll announce what they plan to do, and I'm afraid you'll just have to wait until that point!!!

patrickbrophy18

Despite the fact that I have a huge amount of sympathy for Mr. Patton, it will be interesting to see what the Aircoach group have in store for Dalkey and beyond. If they do indeed run Mr. Patton out of business, it may be wise for Mr. Patton to start up a completely different route. For example, one which would take people from the likes of Dalkey, Killiney and Sandycove to the likes of Dundrum, Sandyford and/or UCD. He could run it on the same basis as The Patton Flyer. At least this way, it allows him to completely distinguish himself from Aircoach. I don't think any other operator would try to crush that service.

Cookie_Monster

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

He could run it on the same basis as The Patton Flyer.

What, illegally? :pac:

crocro

This company has operated a business that has provided a great service to the public in Dalkey, Glasthule, Dun Laoghaire and Monkstown where none existed before. The company's actions have been a net benefit to the city.

Yes they have not complied with all the legislation relating to route licencing but this is a very minor offence, carrying an appropriately tiny punishment.

When the state requires a business to obtain a licence before providing a service to the public but then spends years contemplating the granting of that licence, there is a good moral case for the licence to be granted by default. This is how planning permission works. If the local authority can't decide one way or another on a planning application within 8 weeks, then the applicant is granted permission by default.

I think we are all reminded of a few things by this episode:
1) the department of transport often takes years to decide on route licences. During this time the general public receive no service whatsoever. This is an outrageous abuse of power. Everyone knows this and yet nothing is done about it.
2) the authority that grants licences also owns the largest public transport authorities and can in no way be considered independent
3) past governments have not bothered to update unfair licencing legislation for 77 years
4) the staff in the department of transport are a law unto themselves, taking any amount of time to carry out the simplest of tasks at the cost of the general public

KC61

If anything the DoT have been harsher on the CIE Group of companies in terms of service approvals than the private operators so I think the accusation of them not being independent is not really fair!

They have been a law unto themselves, with the licensing and funding sections often at loggerheads.

patrickbrophy18

I just saw an Aircoach tri-axle bus in Dun Laoghaire town today. The information display said "Not in service". I then saw it turning in the direction of Dalkey. Would anyone say that this was a test run for the replacement route?

Cookie_Monster

must be. i till see them struggling to get around Dalkey though. If running from outside Cuala they'll need to turn around using the "roundabout" in the village. Dublin Bus double deckers can have issues getting round this if the corner is not taken correctly. If any cars are parked badly then the busses need to go up on the footpath to get around. The tri-axles are a good bit longer. I can't see them making that nor anywhere else where they can turn around easily.

trad

Patton has a notice in the back window of his coach. His main point, and I agree with him, is that the government favours multinationals over Irish companies.

devnull

trad wrote: »

Patton has a notice in the back window of his coach. His main point, and I agree with him, is that the government favours multinationals over Irish companies.

I've seen the notice personally, and he now just comes across jealous and bitter more than anything now, and is starting to look very pathetic as he appears to try and blame anyone but himself, remember this is the man who turned down the chance to run a legal service now is crying that someone else took up the offer he rejected.

At the end of the day the issue has got nothing to do with the Irish government favoring multinationals over Irish companies, that's merely a smokescreen to drum up support amongst his users, if that was the case he would never have been offered the chance to run the route in the first place, he was given the chance and he declined, he's simply trying to bully his way into getting his own way.

trad

Look at it from Pattons point of view.

He get an idea, he applys for a licence, he acquires 2 coaches, insurance etc. and then his licence application is turned down on the basis that a British bus company shares a few kilometers of the route not core to his business.

So he goes ahead and, using a legislative loophole, operates a successful business. Neither the Gardai nor the Dept of Transport take any action against him so it is safe to assume that the legislation is completely outdated and un- enfrocable.

Meanwhile the British company is viewing Pattons business and says I'll have that, and applies for a licence for the same route in the full knowledge that the route is viable. Transport then issue the licence because if any one else applies for the licence the British company will object on the same grounds as they did when Patton applied.

If I was Patton I'd be bitter too.