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

Cookie_Monster

Inquiry wrote:

HI there,

I have used your service on several previous occasions and while checking your site recently noticed several changes to the timetable and fares.
While I understand some of the changes due to the struggle with the department I have to query the removal of return tickets.

What reason would you have for this?
It creates no foreseeable addition admin cost and in fact would give you more money from the customer up front.
I can't helping thinking this is a bit of a cynical move and in the current deflationary times to be charging customers more for the same return journey is surprising to say the least.?


Regards

Patton wrote:

Firstly, thank you for your custom.

We didn't take the decision to remove return tickets lightly - we have already paid for the printing etc.

You're right about the benefit of return tickets being that we would have the money up front. The added difficulty with return tickets is that we have to manage their use so that they are not for the same direction as the outward journey and also so that they can?t be used outside of 30 days from date of issue.
This adds a layer of administration that is not associated with one way tickets.

We stopped selling return tickets on the 1st of March because we were told that Aircoach would be starting immininently - in fact, Mary Hanafin told us that Aircoach would start in December. Note that Aircoach had a deadline to get the service up and running on the 2nd of March 2010 (4 months as per licencing rules after they were granted the licence for the Dalkey route). We felt that this posed a more significant step to stopping The Patton Flyer with immediate effect. We made the decision to stop selling return tickets in a move to prevent our passengers being left with a return ticket for a service that no longer existed. We are still accepting return tickets up and until 31st March.

However, until the 31st March, we still have the liability for those return tickets.

Once the threat has been removed we will reconsider.

I hope this explains the situation.

I wonder if thats correct?

Ham'nd'egger

JHMEG wrote: »

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.

If that is the case, can you tell us why have the Department only granted a route licence to Aircoach fairly recently? And why Patton has been let trade illegally for several years in spite of some semblance of insider pull? Why did he turn down a route licence if, as you say, he is so eager to provide such a vital service? Why can't he run to other areas of Dublin? Why can't he play fair? Abide by the Law? Respect when he is in the wrong?

Patton may well have been turned down for legitimate reasons that Aircoach bettered him on or make a more sensible case for. Like better branding, a track record in running services, better frequency, greater capacity, route planning, legal running etc. It is ignorant at best to assume that all he says is untrue when the dogs on the street know what his game is.

JHMEG

Hamndegger wrote: »

Why can't he play fair? Abide by the Law? Respect when he is in the wrong?

I'm baffled that you are following this line considering the dept lost his original application. Being to suspect you have a vested interest. Either that or you are trolling. Do you work for the dept? Aircoach maybe? FF even?

Ham'nd'egger

JHMEG wrote: »

I'm baffled that you are following this line considering the dept lost his original application. Being to suspect you have a vested interest. Either that or you are trolling. Do you work for the dept? Aircoach maybe? FF even?

Maybe they did lose it (I frankly do not care) but regardless of this it still doesn't give anyboy permission to run a service and this is something that cannot be denied. Unless you are either pig ignorant or called Patton and working for a bus company:rolleyes:

Victor

Relax!

Cookie_Monster

Victor wrote: »

Relax!

Rabble, rabble rabble








:D:D

AlekSmart

Note that Aircoach had a deadline to get the service up and running on the 2nd of March 2010 (4 months as per licencing rules after they were granted the licence for the Dalkey route).

I`m open to correction here,but Mr Patton may be confusing the New,Improved Licencing Arrangements under the National Transport Authority`s remit with the situation existing within the Dept of Transport`s "old" system.

Under the NTA Licencing arrangements an applicant who is granted a route licence MUST begin operations within a specified time frame (AFAIR 16 weeks).

However,since the award of the Dalkey/Airport licence was made under the pre-existing Departmental Rules there is no such requirement for a start-up.

As a matter of interest it is worth pointing out that this failure-to-operate an awarded route licence was one of the major reasons for the setting up of a NTR in the first place.
Internal investigations within the DoT apparently reveal several hundred such "Fallow" Licence Awards.

JHMEG

Hamndegger wrote: »

Maybe they did lose it (I frankly do not care) but regardless of this it still doesn't give anyboy permission to run a service and this is something that cannot be denied.

That's your opinion, with which people disagree.

JHMEG

AlekSmart wrote: »

Internal investigations within the DoT apparently reveal several hundred such "Fallow" Licence Awards.

Very interesting post. Tho I would be curious as to main the reasons for "fallow" licences. ie is there a trend.

Ham'nd'egger

JHMEG wrote: »

That's your opinion, with which people disagree.

It is actually the legal position in Ireland;)

JHMEG

Hamndegger wrote: »

It is actually the legal position in Ireland;)

Legal positions can be wrong, which is why we have courts.:P

Ham'nd'egger

JHMEG wrote: »

Legal positions can be wrong, which is why we have courts.:P

This one hasn't been proved wrong as of today.

BT!

Hamndegger wrote: »

It is actually the legal position in Ireland;)

on a similar matter, what ever happened to the court case against Citylink in Galway, accused of operating an unlicensed service to Dublin Airport

paulm17781

JHMEG wrote: »

Legal positions can be wrong, which is why we have courts.:P

Courts are to decide what is correct in the law. Legal positions are never wrong (in the eyes of the law) unless a judge says otherwise. Is there a pending case on this one?

Ham'nd'egger

BT! wrote: »

on a similar matter, what ever happened to the court case against Citylink in Galway, accused of operating an unlicensed service to Dublin Airport

Judgement reserved according to a quick Google search.

Fratton Fred

paulm17781 wrote: »

Courts are to decide what is correct in the law. Legal positions are never wrong (in the eyes of the law) unless a judge says otherwise. Is there a pending case on this one?

That is the confusing thing at the moment. From what I understand, Dalkey Gardai were asked to investigate an illegal coach service over a year ago, but are still looking in to it.

JHMEG

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That is the confusing thing at the moment. From what I understand, Dalkey Gardai were asked to investigate an illegal coach service over a year ago, but are still looking in to it.

Co-incidentally Patton applied for the licence, and over a year later hadn't had any answer from the DoT.

AlekSmart

From what I understand, Dalkey Gardai were asked to investigate an illegal coach service over a year ago, but are still looking in to it.

Never mind the Dalkey Gardai,this went to the very top.

Subsequent to the Dept of Transport writing to the Patton Flyer`s principal informing him of his delinquence and his well publicised responses the Minister then directed his Departmental Officials to contact the Gardai.

I recall a Dail debate where mention was made that the matter was referred to the Garda Commissioner for his attention.

However the Gardai,sensing that something might be amiss and possibly desiring neither a pint nor a transfer promptly sought "clarification" of certain issues.

Perhaps the Minister was over hopeful of Garda action in the face of blatant Law breaking,however as has been demonstrated by the recent Taxi Driver protests the Gardai are possibly the worlds most patient Police force.

So the stand-off continues reminiscent of the early days of both World Wars.........we simply await the order to go over-the-top !!

Rock Steady Edy

Mr Patton says that he has had to make 50% cut in his staff, by which he presumably means his conductors / conductresses. These were always a bit of a luxury.

With regard to his one way tickets - now that he has reduced his service and there are 2 hourly gaps, passengers will not want to be locked into waiting for this amount of time until the next service, and will want to find an alternative way of getting home, so selling return tickets could lead to complaints.

I have harked on before about his charging adult fares for everyone over the age of 2 is never going to get families to use his service - and in a recession more than ever he needs to fill those buses. I really don't understand why he has so rigidly stuck to this policy. He lost us as passengers months ago because of this.

Ham'nd'egger

Rock Steady Edy wrote: »

I really don't understand why he has so rigidly stuck to this policy.

It would be too ironic if he said to you that rules are rules.

Rock Steady Edy

It would be too ironic if he said to you that rules are rules.

Well they are his rules alright. But if I was a consultant advising his business, I'd recommend that he changed his fares for children to free under 5 and about €5 for 5-12s (like Aircoach). And as payment for my advice I would happily take 50% of the extra takings for the first 3 months.

Rock Steady Edy

Spotted an Aircoach in Dun Laoghaire this morning. Maybe the service will start soon?

Fratton Fred

Rock Steady Edy wrote: »

Spotted an Aircoach in Dun Laoghaire this morning. Maybe the service will start soon?

I was wondering that, i saw one turning into Castlepark road yesterday.

Cookie_Monster

Rock Steady Edy wrote: »

Spotted an Aircoach in Dun Laoghaire this morning. Maybe the service will start soon?

tri-axle?

Run_to_da_hills

I also noticed a Patton bus yesterday without the campaign poster.

patrickbrophy18

If they have already been spotted two days in a row in the area, they could be preparing to commence the service after all. However, I did noticed a tri-axle Aircoach bus in Dun Laoghaire a few months ago. I think that they were held up when Eugene Regan took The Patton Flyer case to the European Parliament. Nevertheless, with the pairing back of service from The Patton Flyer service to 2 hourly mid afternoon, I am beginning to think that Mr. Patton and Eugene may have lost the battle. There is still no sign of the "new" service on the Aircoach website. Given the gravity of the situation, I don't think that it will be too long before the Aircoach service will be advertised online. Cookie_Monster, I think it could have been a tri-axle. Do you think they will be able to perform the turn at the "Square-about"?

The reason why I ask is that is that tri-axles are a whopping 14 meters in length. Not to mention the tight nature of some of the turns on the "Square-about".

devnull

As stated previously, they may be waiting for additional vehicles which are due to come on stream soon to run the service or to run other services to cascade the vehicles onto the new service.

Cookie_Monster

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Cookie_Monster, I think it could have been a tri-axle. Do you think they will be able to perform the turn at the "Square-about"?

The reason why I ask is that is that tri-axles are a whopping 14 meters in length. Not to mention the tight nature of some of the turns on the "Square-about".

I wouldn't have thought so. DB double deckers on the 59 have a hard time of it in both directions and often bounce off the path or swing way into the other lane when rounding the corner the garage is on.

patrickbrophy18

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought so. DB double deckers on the 59 have a hard time of it in both directions and often bounce off the path or swing way into the other lane when rounding the corner the garage is on.

If the route is operated by any tri-axle buses, I can see 4 options to avoid the trecherously tight bend to the west of The Ivory. Obviously, the existence of the service would NOT be enough to justify an infrastructural improvement of any kind. Nevertheless, the options I can think of to avoid these awkward manoeuvres would be if space was provided at Dalkey Park, Killiney Hill Car Park, The Church Car Park or the space in front of Dalkey DART station. The space in front of the Cuala might be enough for a u-turn in which case the other four options mentioned could be scrapped. Also, this would enable it to bypass the "Square-about" altogether. This should give some sort of clearence for the sheer length of the buses in question.

devnull

I have heard it is due to start in the next 10 days or so.

Latest from the Patton Facebook group who are now coming across as very childish.

Aircoach have been doing test runs every day this week in Dalkey. They are training their drivers on OUR route. We expect them to commence in the next week or so and the next sign will be the erection of their bus-stops. We will keep you posted as to what is happening as soon as we can. A Flashmob could be required very soon.