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

Ham'nd'egger

trad wrote: »

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Gardai nor the Dept of Transport take any action against him so it is safe to assume that the legislation is completely outdated and un- enfrocable.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.

The "nationality" of the company is absolutely irrelevant here. Patton is bitter because his chickens are coming home to roost after being brazen for too long.

devnull

But I will repeat again, what does the fact they are British have to do with it? They employ Irish staff and their management is in Ireland too, it's not as if they're just employing British workers. Of course it's entirley possible that Patton has a problem with British people and British companies full stop, but I thought we were well over that in this country?

The fact is that despite what Patton is saying through the media, he was never turned down for a license. The Greystones Aircoach one was approved, and Patton was offered a license for a service originating from Dalkey HE TURNED THIS DOWN.

As he turned it down, another operator applied for it and got the similar service. Patton doesn't seem to be keen on admitting this though and is determined to try and take Ireland back to the dark ages and create a divide between the Irish people and others rather than admit this is entirley his fault.

The regulations are nothing new to this case, and apply to all operators, Dublin Bus have had similar problems with Swords Express, same with Urbus and many other cases, none of these are English, so to try and insist it has something to do with, or is related to the fact a company is British is merely trying to stir up a very undesirable situation.

KC61

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.

This is the same government that gave Gobus (A Galway owned company) a licence for the non-stop Galway-Dublin service but did not issue Citylink (Owned by multi-national Delgro) with one????

I think you are being slightly misled on this issue...

Tarabuses

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.

That may be his, and your, opinion but where is the evidence for it?

antoinolachtnai

This is nothing remotely similar to Swords Express, or for that matter, Urbus. Dublin Bus went into competition with the Swords Express using a state subsidy. There is no issue of subsidy in this instance.

devnull

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

This is nothing remotely similar to Swords Express, or for that matter, Urbus. Dublin Bus went into competition with the Swords Express using a state subsidy. There is no issue of subsidy in this instance.

My point was more that if the department seriously favored and had bias towards bigger companies all the time as had been claimed in this thread, that instead of DB being denied licenses due to conflicts with Urbus and Swords Express, they would have been approved.

trad

This is my experience of Public Transport Licensing.

I made a licence application from an All Ireland body to operate a public transport service which was very inovative and fills a major gap in Dublin's Public Transport network. It was turned down on mickey mouse reasons. If my service was proposed by a multinational or the Dept of Transport / DTO this would have been heralded as a major step forward in public transport and probably recieve Government funding.

I am currently musing about a bus route application for an Airport service and from Patton's experience, I'm reluctant to proceed.

Lets all see what the new Transport Act will bring.

antoinolachtnai

Be interested to hear more about your refused application.

Cookie_Monster

trad wrote: »

This is my experience of Public Transport Licensing.

I made a licence application from an All Ireland body to operate a public transport service which was very inovative and fills a major gap in Dublin's Public Transport network. It was turned down on mickey mouse reasons. If my service was proposed by a multinational or the Dept of Transport / DTO this would have been heralded as a major step forward in public transport and probably recieve Government funding.

I am currently musing about a bus route application for an Airport service and from Patton's experience, I'm reluctant to proceed.

Lets all see what the new Transport Act will bring.

All Ireland body? - I presume you mean a transport company?

innovative how? - if it was so innovative another multinational/ DTO would have taken it up

What "major gap"?

what mickey mouse reason?

all sounds very made up to me.

You should go to First (big evil multinational) with your "proposal", maybe they give you a job, they are active in Dublin after all...

devnull

trad wrote: »

I made a licence application from an All Ireland body to operate a public transport service which was very inovative and fills a major gap in Dublin's Public Transport network.

I am currently musing about a bus route application for an Airport service and from Patton's experience, I'm reluctant to proceed.

You need to supply this information and the company you represent in the conflict of interest thread

It was turned down on mickey mouse reasons. If my service was proposed by a multinational or the Dept of Transport / DTO this would have been heralded as a major step forward in public transport and probably recieve Government funding.

No multinational in this country is getting government funding, Citylink are not and Aircoach are not, the only companis who are, are Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann so your argument is void.

trad

I applied to Waterways Ireland, an all Ireland body set up under the Good Friday Agreement (based in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland) for a licence to operate a ferry service on the Grand Canal between Suir Road and Portobello linking the 2 Luas lines. Portobell is 4 minutes walk from Charlemont Luas stop and there are no locks between Suir Road and Portobello. I was turned down because to be viable my ferries would have to exceed the 4 mph speed limit. Nesting bats under the bridges were also an issue.

The purpose was to link the Luas lines using infrastructure that was already in place and is almost totally unused. I'm sure if the Luas operator or the Deparament of Transport promoted this service it would be fully Government funded as is Irish Rail, Dart, Luas and Dublin Bus / Bus Eireann.

Any comments?

Cookie_Monster

trad wrote: »

I applied to Waterways Ireland, an all Ireland body set up under the Good Friday Agreement (based in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland) for a licence to operate a ferry service on the Grand Canal between Suir Road and Portobello linking the 2 Luas lines. Portobell is 4 minutes walk from Charlemont Luas stop and there are no locks between Suir Road and Portobello. I was turned down because to be viable my ferries would have to exceed the 4 mph speed limit. Nesting bats under the bridges were also an issue.

The purpose was to link the Luas lines using infrastructure that was already in place and is almost totally unused. I'm sure if the Luas operator or the Deparament of Transport promoted this service it would be fully Government funded as is Irish Rail, Dart, Luas and Dublin Bus / Bus Eireann.

Any comments?

1. Hardly a massive gap

2. The two reason for not granting it are not mickey mouse. they are valid and sensible.

3. Placing bike stations from the current scheme is a far more efficient, quicker and environmentally friendly way of closing this "percieved" gap.

trad

CM Hardly a massive gap? The last estimate I saw to connect the Luas lines was over €500 million not counting the impact on existing infrastructure.

I take it you were in favour of the M7 being held up by snails also. 4 mph is walking pace. Do you want to go back to walking in front of a car with a red flag?

You must never have cycled along the canal at peak traffic. Try read the cycling threads here. If you were going to cycle you already have your own bike.

csd

trad,

The fundamental problem is with the speed you'd need to travel along the canal to make the service viable. Any faster than a brisk walking pace leads to a wash, which leads to bank erosion. WI would then have to spend money fixing the canal after the damage your service had caused, so I can see why they objected.

Other than that, I think it's a great idea. Maybe if you could find a boat that didn't generate a wash...

/csd

trad

Csd, I was working on a twin hull (catamaran) design with a bidirectional drive mid mounted between the hulls to minimise wash /wake. Boats were bi directional so they wouldn't have to turn around saving time and minimising bed disturbance. Only allocated 30 minutes to state my case.

While I agree that it is possible that there might have been some erosion of the banks over time it would probably be simular to constant traffic by hgv's and busses on public roads which is repaired by public money. It would have been a service to the public after all.

Cookie_Monster

trad wrote: »

CM Hardly a massive gap? The last estimate I saw to connect the Luas lines was over €500 million not counting the impact on existing infrastructure.

I take it you were in favour of the M7 being held up by snails also. 4 mph is walking pace. Do you want to go back to walking in front of a car with a red flag?

yeah i'm all for that:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

trad wrote: »

You must never have cycled along the canal at peak traffic. Try read the cycling threads here. If you were going to cycle you already have your own bike.

yeah, the massive take up of the bike schem is proof only people with their own bikes cycle:rolleyes: cycling the canal is grand.

Fratton Fred

This entire situation is a bloody joke.

The patten flyer provides a good service to Dalkey etc and it is a real shame that "Jobsworth" civil servants have put him out of business.

There is no viable way of getting to Dublin Airport from Dalkey by public transport for people with luggage/kids etc. unless you get a cab, which costs the guts of 50 quid. If your flight is before 8am, then without the patten flyer, you can basically forget it.

I don't care who operates the service, but Chris Patten has proven that he can do it well, so why didn't the Department rush through his licence?

devnull

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This entire situation is a bloody joke. The patten flyer provides a good service to Dalkey etc and it is a real shame that "Jobsworth" civil servants have put him out of business.

But that still doesn't stop it being illegal, and the fact he has made a mockery out of every law abiding transport company in the country. All of the other companies had areas that could have benefitted, however they did not decide to break the law.

I don't care who operates the service, but Chris Patten has proven that he can do it well, so why didn't the Department rush through his licence?

Why should they rush through his license? Why should Patton be any different from the countless other companies who suffered exactly the same issue, but instead of deciding they didn't like the law so they would ignore it, they actually waited it out.

May I also remind people once more that the reason Patton's service is under threat is entirley his fault, as not only did he actually operate the service illegally, he also TURNED DOWN the chance to make it legal, as once more, he felt that he should not have to live by the same rules as every other operator again.

What you start to see is a clear pattern, that Patton feels that if he doesn't like the rules, he will just ignore them. Patton has both created this situation and is letting it continue to drag on, the whole reason Aircoach have the service now is because Patton turned it down - his own fault.

Fratton Fred

It should have been rushed through because there wqasa a desperate need for the service, but hey, Heaven forbid the people of this country has public transport that meets their needs, some penpushing civil servant has more important things to do than serve the public..

Ham'nd'egger

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It should have been rushed through because there wqasa a desperate need for the service, but hey, Heaven forbid the people of this country has public transport that meets their needs, some penpushing civil servant has more important things to do than serve the public..

In that case, rush through every other bus route applicant as there is a "desperate need" for them. Like Dublin Bus and the Lucan bus debacle. Or the 128 and 141. We all know that the system is as slow as snails but Patton didn't try to change the law here, he just said feck it and broke it. Just because the law is an ass doesn't mean the law should kiss Pattons Ass as he clearly seems to reckon it should.

dub_commuter

The latest rant from Patton:
http://www.thepattonflyer.ie/LatestNews.htm

He claims he is now going to start more routes and break the law even more so, for someone who seems to hate other companies from other countries, he seems to absloutely hate the laws in his own.

J_Dublin15

Having not contributed to this thread yet I thought I'd see how it goes but now it's just getting ridiculous.

Now forgive me if I'm wrong but he says he applied in 2006, but he did not have a bus passengers license until February 2007, am I right in thinking a pre-requisite of applying for a license is to have one, therefore the Aircoach one was the first valid application?

I also understand he is moaning about the fact they cannot use certain stops, but Aircoach can, I was under the impression as with Dublin Bus, routes can duplicate each other in certain ways or conflict with each other slightly, as long as they are from the same company, which is how DB have some of their own routes overlapping?

AlekSmart

The most salient point about Trevor Pattons decision to ignore the "insignificant" elements of the Road Transport Acts is that once begun that decision is open ended.

One could reasonably enquire of Mr Patton as to which aspect of the various Road Transport laws is next on his list for the "Flyer" treatment ?

Once this process is in motion, events and pressures will ensure that there is always a next big-thing which will demand a Pattonesque response.

In some ways this harks back to the chaotic free-for-all which existed in Dublins public transport sector pre 1945 and which required the founding of Coras Iompar Eireann in order to get the shambles back into a workable state.

Fratton Fred

Hamndegger wrote: »

In that case, rush through every other bus route applicant as there is a "desperate need" for them. Like Dublin Bus and the Lucan bus debacle. Or the 128 and 141. We all know that the system is as slow as snails but Patton didn't try to change the law here, he just said feck it and broke it. Just because the law is an ass doesn't mean the law should kiss Pattons Ass as he clearly seems to reckon it should.

if more people acted like Mr Patten, then it would soon be sorted out.

Everyone moans about public transport, but until people do something about it, nothing will change.

Fratton Fred

AlekSmart wrote: »

In some ways this harks back to the chaotic free-for-all which existed in Dublins public transport sector pre 1945 and which required the founding of Coras Iompar Eireann in order to get the shambles back into a workable state.

which is why our Public transport is better than it was in 1945 then?

or is it?

devnull

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if more people acted like Mr Patten, then it would soon be sorted out.

Everyone moans about public transport, but until people do something about it, nothing will change.

That is an interesting comment, if a few people think that they can improve things in this country, they should be entitled to break the law in order to do so.

What a dangerous precedent that is, but I guess it helps people with god complexes.

HydeRoad

devnull wrote: »

That is an interesting comment, if a few people think that they can improve things in this country, they should be entitled to break the law in order to do so.

What a dangerous precedent that is, but I guess it helps people with god complexes.

People go to jail in China for speaking up for democracy and human rights. They break 'the law' too.

AlekSmart

which is why our Public transport is better than it was in 1945 then?

or is it?

Now there`s a thread topic all of itself !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

Fratton Fred

devnull wrote: »

That is an interesting comment, if a few people think that they can improve things in this country, they should be entitled to break the law in order to do so.

What a dangerous precedent that is, but I guess it helps people with god complexes.

We're talking about running a bus service here, not mass murder.

This country's foundations are built on people who decided to break the law, in a somewhat more drastic fashion.

AlekSmart

People go to jail in China for speaking up for democracy and human rights. They break 'the law' too.
__________________

Interesting to note how often China is being brought up in many topical conversations these days.....
There is little doubt but that China will emerge from the current Western Recession as a far more influential entity than it currently is.

We can turn our noses up at the Chinese Governments policies as much as we like but we have to accept that they are in-control of their environment,whereas much of Western Society is drifting rudderless awaiting a Lifeboat...

As for Trevor Patton...well perhaps he`ll order a fleet of Chinese Built Hybrids to keep Dalkey green ????