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

scolarda

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.

So many people here seem so hung up on the fact that they're breaking the law...the law exists FOR us and because of us. Doesn't anybody recall that apartheid used to be law? Under law women couldn't vote? You shouldn't follow the law just because it's there. I for one won't "live by the rules of the land" if I have a moral objection to it. 'Angel'; you're certainly no Rosa Parks.

Victor

The law is the law. Now sure, if the law is considered repugnant to present-day standards it can be repealed. However, I don't think it is repugnant to present-day standards - if someone obtains a licence, invests their money and provides a service consistent with what the community demands, then that shouldn't be capable of being undermined by people without the legally required licence. Thats how it works in the airline, freight haulage, radio and telecomms business, why should bus service be any different.

Fundamentally what is required is a revision of the details of the legislation and how the legislation is implemented.

JHMEG

Victor wrote: »

The law is the law.

From what I've read the lawmakers (or rather the Dept) are completely incompetent, especially in this case. The wheels that will fix the law turn very slowly and are influenced by all sorts of vested interests. If I were Patton I'd probably stick two fingers up at it too, considering the circumstances. Nothing to lose.

AlekSmart

Interesting to note that the Patton Flyer is to substantially scale back its services as a result of "Threats" from the Dept of Transport and Aircoach.

http://www.thepattonflyer.ie/

Odd really,as this the Departmental "Threat" has been there from the moment Mr Patton decided to ignore the legal niceities of the same Department.

It`s noteable also that the Legal holders of the licence,Aircoach,have as yet not announced details of their operation.

Aircoach are now in a strong position to mount a legal challenge for damages against both the Department AND Mr Patton hisself.....

This will get a LOT more interesting very soon......;)

Cookie_Monster

A typically cynical move from Patton, how does removing return ticket reduce costs in any way?

Just screwing the customer from more money :mad:



Edit: queried by email, lets see what they say

Fratton Fred

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

A typically cynical move from Patton, how does removing return ticket reduce costs in any way?

Just screwing the customer from more money :mad:



Edit: queried by email, lets see what they say

I think it is more like a man desperately trying to keep his business going.

Fratton Fred

I fail to see how Aircoach could make a claim against the Patton Flyer. There is nothing preventing them running a service if they wanted to. It looks to me as if they applied for the licence and were given it, but don't think they can make any money out of it so are not going to operate a coach.

In the meantime, if Trevor Patton takes the advice of people on here and conplies with the law, can someone tell me how to get to the airport for my 6:40 am flight? The coach I catch is, incidentally, pretty full so there will be quite a few interested people.

Cookie_Monster

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In the meantime, if Trevor Patton takes the advice of people on here and conplies with the law, can someone tell me how to get to the airport for my 6:40 am flight? The coach I catch is, incidentally, pretty full so there will be quite a few interested people.

same way you got there before the Patton Flyer.


Taxi / drive / Aircoach from Cabinteely are a few options.

Fratton Fred

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

same way you got there before the Patton Flyer.


Taxi / drive / Aircoach from Cabinteely are a few options.

Can I borrow your car/€50/a lift from Dalkey to Cabinteely at 5am?

Isn't saying do what I did before the Patton flyer a bit like saying why complain about the Dart when it stops, we should just do what we did before trains?

You get used to something, even go as far as to base your life around it and when it is taken away, it causes major inconvenience.

Sure I can get around it, like get a flight the night before, or get a cab, but the point is, there is a need for a coach service from the are to the airport so before the DTA quickly act to cut out this service provider, they need to ensure that an alternative is available.

JHMEG

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

same way you got there before the Patton Flyer.

Don't be a tool. What he did before was probably a pain in the hole otherwise he wouldn't be on here asking what to do.

Ham'nd'egger

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Can I borrow your car/€50/a lift from Dalkey to Cabinteely at 5am?

Isn't saying do what I did before the Patton flyer a bit like saying why complain about the Dart when it stops, we should just do what we did before trains?

You get used to something, even go as far as to base your life around it and when it is taken away, it causes major inconvenience.

Sure I can get around it, like get a flight the night before, or get a cab, but the point is, there is a need for a coach service from the are to the airport so before the DTA quickly act to cut out this service provider, they need to ensure that an alternative is available.

There is a need. Sadly for Patton, he doesn't have the licence to operate said needed service and as such he is an illegal operator.

KC61

There's also a need from many other areas that don't already have a connection. It's not just Dalkey/Glasthule!

Such as Leixlip/Lucan (which Flybus are planning a service to), Clontarf/Raheny areas, and perhaps a service linking the southwest city areas (such as Walkinstown, Crumlin etc.).

Fratton Fred

KC61 wrote: »

There's also a need from many other areas that don't already have a connection. It's not just Dalkey/Glasthule!

Such as Leixlip/Lucan (which Flybus are planning a service to), Clontarf/Raheny areas, and perhaps a service linking the southwest city areas (such as Walkinstown, Crumlin etc.).

Get in there before Aircoach do then!

KC61

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Get in there before Aircoach do then!

I'm just making the point that there are other areas of the city that do not have a direct link to/from the Airport that could probably do with one.

The Dalkey/Dun Laoghaire area isn't exclusive in a need to have such services.

Perhaps other operators have plans I don't know.

What I would also like to see is the existing bus services (16a, 41, 102 and 746) all start much earlier - to arrive at the Airport at least for 05.30 if not 05.00, and have a later finish at about 00.30.

However, I'm sure that someone, be it DoT or other operators would object! And before someone asks, the agreements are in place internally in Dublin Bus to allow for such services.

In the meantime I'm sure that Aircoach will start their own Dalkey service in the fullness of time once they've procured the coaches/drivers to do so.

patrickbrophy18

AlekSmart wrote: »

Interesting to note that the Patton Flyer is to substantially scale back its services as a result of "Threats" from the Dept of Transport and Aircoach.

http://www.thepattonflyer.ie/

Odd really,as this the Departmental "Threat" has been there from the moment Mr Patton decided to ignore the legal niceities of the same Department.

It`s noteable also that the Legal holders of the licence,Aircoach,have as yet not announced details of their operation.

Aircoach are now in a strong position to mount a legal challenge for damages against both the Department AND Mr Patton hisself.....

This will get a LOT more interesting very soon......;)

Unbelievable. From about 2 in the afternoon onwards, it has halved its frequency. At least the last bus still leaves at the same time. More over, Aircoach are to begin operation on the route "imminently". What does this mean exactly? Nevertheless, Mr. Patton has made a serious amount of cut backs to prepare himself for the arrival of Aircoach whenever they are to begin service. This includes the removal of the return ticket and the cut back on staff. There is still no sign of the new service on the Aircoach website. They will probably have to install bus stops at their new locations before broadcasting their new service. There is no sign of this either. However, I do have a huge amount of sympathy to Mr. Patton. I hope that for his sake he is able to gain success elsewhere if The Patton Flyer is crushed by the Aircoach service. The advice I would give him is to provide a bus service linking Dalkey with the Luas when it opens in Cherrywood later this year unless Dublin Bus already have plans for one. Either way, at least Mr. Patton would profit from this given that he has absolutely no competition in this regard.

Cookie_Monster

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Get in there before Aircoach do then!

why, whats wrong with aircoach?



Also where is the aircoach busstop goign to be? presumably as a legal and legitimate service they will have to apply for planning permission to build one someone rather than just block up a carpark as Patton does

patrickbrophy18

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why, whats wrong with aircoach?



Also where is the aircoach busstop goign to be? presumably as a legal and legitimate service they will have to apply for planning permission to build one someone rather than just block up a carpark as Patton does

I know that this question was directed at Fratton Fred. However, I don't have anything against Aircoach. They aren't at all to blame or at least I don't think so. Nevertheless, I do think that some of their routes are frequently subjected to city traffic such as the Ballsbridge and Loughlinstown routes while others such as the Greystones service use the port tunnel. As far as I'm concerned, the middle man (i.e. The Department of Transport) are the perps in this ordeal. From what I have seen and heard, they have ruined Mr. Patton.

Ham'nd'egger

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

From what I have seen and heard, they have ruined Mr. Patton.

As incompetent as the Department of Transport are, they are not the ones operating illegal buses.

JHMEG

Hamndegger wrote: »

As incompetent as the Department of Transport are, they are not the ones operating illegal buses.

The legality or not is a minor detail in this case. The service, if the DoT hadn't had their thumbs up their asses, would be legal.

JHMEG

The fine for having a second satellite dish on a house is 12.7 million euro because some civil servant put the decimal point in the wrong place when converting from punts. Just because it has become law doesn't mean it's correct.

Fratton Fred

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why, whats wrong with aircoach?



Also where is the aircoach busstop goign to be? presumably as a legal and legitimate service they will have to apply for planning permission to build one someone rather than just block up a carpark as Patton does

nothing wrong with Aircoach, just pointing out a potential business opportunity.

Ham'nd'egger

JHMEG wrote: »

The legality or not is a minor detail in this case. The service, if the DoT hadn't had their thumbs up their asses, would be legal.

If Patton had have asked first up he either would have gotten the go ahead or else he was refused for good reason. Either way, he is running an illegal service. The legality of his service is very much a major detail as somebody else (Aircoach) now have the route licence on the route. Morton, Aircoach, Dublin Bus, Finnegan's etc all play by the rules, Patton has yet to explain why he doesn't have to.

JHMEG

Hamndegger wrote: »

If Patton had have asked first up

He did. They "lost" his application, and found it again when a FOI request was submitted.

Ham'nd'egger

JHMEG wrote: »

He did. They "lost" his application, and found it again when a FOI request was submitted.

That doesn't explain why he operates illegally nor does it explain why he refused a licence that he was offered ahead of Aircoach accepting same.

JHMEG

Hamndegger wrote: »

That doesn't explain why he operates illegally nor does it explain why he refused a licence that he was offered ahead of Aircoach accepting same.

It does. It explains all of it.

He was refused a licence because he submitted only the 1st page of his application. As a result the licence was awarded to Aircoach.

In reality the DoT had lost the rest of his application, which they found again after an FOI request was submitted.

Now if you think what he's doing is illegal, that's your business. I see it as someone getting out and earning a crust and providing a service despite the shítty hand he was dealt solely due to the incompetence of the authorities. I am sure a court will rule in his favour, in which case his service will have been deemed to be legal, and rightly so.

Cookie_Monster

JHMEG wrote: »

It does. It explains all of it.

He was refused a licence because he submitted only the 1st page of his application. As a result the licence was awarded to Aircoach.

In reality the DoT had lost the rest of his application, which they found again after an FOI request was submitted.

Now if you think what he's doing is illegal, that's your business. I see it as someone getting out and earning a crust and providing a service despite the shítty hand he was dealt solely due to the incompetence of the authorities. I am sure a court will rule in his favour, in which case his service will have been deemed to be legal, and rightly so.

Ah now don't forget he WAS offered a licence which he turned down cos it wasn't good enough for him.

Ham'nd'egger

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Ah now don't forget he WAS offered a licence which he turned down cos it wasn't good enough for him.

Thanks, I knew it wasn't just me that heard he did just that. And all from a "lost application".

KC61

To be quite honest, the service frequency changes probably have more to do with the downturn in the economy than anything else and trying to blame everyone else is somewhat of a red herring.

The plain facts are that fewer people are travelling and this is more than anything else a reflection of that.

AlekSmart

I am sure a court will rule in his favour, in which case his service will have been deemed to be legal, and rightly so.

I would very much doubt if the Patton Flyers principals will venture anywhere near the High Court on this matter.

Mr Patton has been given an inch and continues to roll out the golden thread which now spans several miles at least....

JHMEG

Hamndegger wrote: »

Thanks, I knew it wasn't just me that heard he did just that. And all from a "lost application".

1st application submitted, lost and discounted by the DoT in 2006. Aircoach applied later in 2006. Reduced/revised Route was offered to Patton only in 2009, and was based on the fact that someone had applied "before" them, ie Aircoach.

The whole thing smacks of brown envelopes.