Save the Patton Campaign

Run_to_da_hills

I am noticing posters in some retail premises around Dunlaoghire campaigning to save the Patton. I also see large posters on the back of their coaches claiming that a license was applied for three years ago. They have a link here for their own petition

It looks like their days are numbered. It would be a pitty to lose this service. :mad:

amacachi

Grr angryface.

They shouldn't have broken the rules then. Some private operators seem to manage it just fine.

thebman

amacachi wrote: »

Grr angryface.

They shouldn't have broken the rules then. Some private operators seem to manage it just fine.

What did they do that was breaking the rules? /is clueless about wahat the Patton is?

Sponge Bob

Citylink are offering an unlicenced 'express' service between Galway and Dublin as well. No sign of any enforcement.

Cookie_Monster

amacachi wrote: »

Grr angryface.

They shouldn't have broken the rules then. Some private operators seem to manage it just fine.

this

If I was bothered I'd setup a campaign to get rid of him

dub_commuter

The operation started operating without a license as they did not want to wait like every other legit operator.There is nothing legal about the Patton Flyer. He also has a chip on his shoulder about non Irish people too,

The Citylink one is slightly different, they have a license for Dublin-Galway, but are missing out stops, whereas the Patton Flyer is completely unlicensed.

See:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055730592

Cookie_Monster

dub_commuter wrote: »

He also has a chip on his shoulder about

Eh? but he only employs non-irish people on the buses. Presumably on the cheap

dereko1969

Is having the big poster stuck to the back window not dangerous? I would think there's no vision from the rear view mirror for the driver. Though I suppose that's just another one of those 'laws' thingys that don't apply to Patton.

Cookie_Monster

dereko1969 wrote: »

Is having the big poster stuck to the back window not dangerous? I would think there's no vision from the rear view mirror for the driver. Though I suppose that's just another one of those 'laws' thingys that don't apply to Patton.

Sure Aircoaches (and many others) don't even have a back window.

Fratton Fred

Marmite springs to mind

Incidentally, the driver and the "Conductor" both let out a huge "oh ohh" when we turned up at Goggins this morning. Just as they pulled up, a taxi driver quickly jumped in his large cab and sped off.....

Victor

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Should the Patton Flyer be allowed to continue?
Patton ran an unauthorised service and should be shut down.
Patton was bullied by state bureaucracy and favoritism and should be given a chance
Johenny Mc Knight had four black dogs.

Posting an unbalanced poll is not acceptable. Poll edited.

Cookie_Monster

Anyone else notice they now run from as far as Fitzpatrick's (Killiney Castle) hotel on about half the departures

Zynks

I use them regularly and it is a great service. Faster than some taxis (the ones where the drivers have tunnel-phobias), cheap and reliable. I hope they are given a license and the lobbyist supporting unfair competition are given the two fingers.

This country needs more of this entrepreneurial approach, rather than looking after monopolies and interests of big enterprise.

devnull

Zynks wrote: »

unfair competition

The only unfair competition is the Patton Flyer, as they are the ones without the license and are not complying with the law, Aircoach are complying with the law in every way like any other operator, the only one breaking rules is Mr Patton.

This country needs more of this entrepreneurial approach, rather than looking after monopolies and interests of big enterprise.

Nobody is looking after any monopoly, the department of transport is applying the same laws here, as they do to any operator, be that state supported such as Dublin Bus, large private shcuh as Aircoach, or small private operators. The only people who feel they deserve special treatment and different rules to everyone else are Patton Flyer.

If you do not understand the real reasons behind this issue, rather than the ones Patton presents, go and read the earlier thread.

angel01

Zynks wrote: »

I use them regularly and it is a great service. Faster than some taxis (the ones where the drivers have tunnel-phobias), cheap and reliable. I hope they are given a license and the lobbyist supporting unfair competition are given the two fingers.

This country needs more of this entrepreneurial approach, rather than looking after monopolies and interests of big enterprise.

so what you are saying this country needs more people to break the rules and regulations? :eek:

goingnowhere

I've used it found it great, and it runs legally outside the current licensing laws

He did apply for licence before aircoach, aircoach got the licence.

There is no way aircoach can make a 50 seater coach pay on the route

devnull

goingnowhere wrote: »

I've used it found it great, and it runs legally outside the current licensing laws

There is no way aircoach can make a 50 seater coach pay on the route

No he does not, he claims he does, but he actually doesn't, if you are refering to his "club" and "private hire" claims, they are all very well and good, but he declares his service as 'scheduled' with 'bus stops' and 'fares' on his website so no it's not legal and is merely spin. Also how can you operate legally outside the law?

Though it does seem like he likes to read peoples ideas and they use them as his defence, go read these few posts:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62887905#post62887905

As for if they will make it pay who knows? People said the same about the Greystones service when it first launched but it's since been expanded a couple of times.

dereko1969

goingnowhere wrote: »

and it runs legally outside the current licensing laws

say what now?

penexpers

Wasn't it aircoach who were the first to take on the monopoly of Dublin Bus on the airport routes?

rednik

My family use the service and find it excellent. Probably the best service Dalkey has ever had. Good luck to Trevor and I hope he wins in the end.

Run_to_da_hills

Just as a matter of interest how many busses dose trevor have in his fleet?

rednik

As far as I know he has three, two in service and one on standby.

thebman

I don't understand, why can't he get a license?

L1011

thebman wrote: »

I don't understand, why can't he get a license?

Because another operator has been given a licence for the same service. We don't do direct route competition here.

Zynks

devnull wrote: »

The only unfair competition is the Patton Flyer, as they are the ones without the license and are not complying with the law, Aircoach are complying with the law in every way like any other operator, the only one breaking rules is Mr Patton.

Their service was there long before Aircoach started serving the Dalkey-DA route and the first bus service to use port tunnel.

devnull wrote: »

Nobody is looking after any monopoly, the department of transport is applying the same laws here, as they do to any operator, be that state supported such as Dublin Bus, large private shcuh as Aircoach, or small private operators. The only people who feel they deserve special treatment and different rules to everyone else are Patton Flyer.

Actually, my argument is in support of the users of the service. Aircoach still does not serve Dun Laoghaire and Dalkey and I am not aware of any plans. If it is true that PF applied first, they should get the license, simple.
By the way, the Aircoach service that omly hits the sea front by Blackrock Park is frequently late and proving quite unreliable. I know because I have tried both services on several occasions.

devnull wrote: »

If you do not understand the real reasons behind this issue, rather than the ones Patton presents, go and read the earlier thread.

Which part are you suggesting I don't understand?

angel01 wrote: »

so what you are saying this country needs more people to break the rules and regulations? :eek:

Maybe I am suggesting that regulators are not putting the interest of the public ahead of the "importance" of their stupidly overcomplicated pieces of paper.

penexpers wrote: »

Wasn't it aircoach who were the first to take on the monopoly of Dublin Bus on the airport routes?

Yes, and they were a rather small Irish company with a clever business model. Today they are part of a large British company that just wants to crush competition as any other large business. Small businessese should benefit from some level of support.

Morlar

I use it too as it is efficient, clean, safe and on time. Good luck to them.

Zynks

Some views expressed here look worryingly biased. It would be great if interests were posted in the 'conflict of interest' thread so we are all clear on individual's background.
Link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=126578

devnull

Zynks wrote: »

Their service was there long before Aircoach started serving the Dalkey-DA route and the first bus service to use port tunnel.

It was, but that is only because they decided to lodge an application and run it anyway, whether it was approved by the Garda for bus stop locations and ruled legal or not. Everyone else in the business waits to get the legal go ahead before operating a service.

Actually, my argument is in support of the users of the service. Aircoach still does not serve Dun Laoghaire and Dalkey and I am not aware of any plans. If it is true that PF applied first, they should get the license, simple.

I am informed it will start soon, originally it was meant to be 1st December according to some people but there are a few issues that need to be ironed out with a few parties before that happens.

Which part are you suggesting I don't understand?

That Patton is lying through his teeth and is twisting things to suit his logic, he is playing the victimised local businessman, when if he would have played by the rules in the first place, he may well have got the license that he was looking for, but as he decided he could bypass them and ignore every rule every other legit operation stands by he deservedly is getting punished.

Maybe I am suggesting that regulators are not putting the interest of the public ahead of the "importance" of their stupidly overcomplicated pieces of paper.

Why should Patton be able to ignore the rules that everyone else, including Dublin Bus and Aircoach have to abide by? He keeps going on about special treatement, but at the end of the day everyone has got the same treatment until now Patton doesn't like the rules so wants an exception for himself - the irony is unbelievable.

Yes, and they were a rather small Irish company with a clever business model. Today they are part of a large British company that just wants to crush competition as any other large business. Small businessese should benefit from some level of support.

Small businessman entirley deserve support, I agree with that fully. However small businesses should not be able to bypass the law and rule, just because they are lot, the same rules apply to everyone and Patton does not seem to like that.

I don't think the remarks about crushing competition have any basis on reality, Aircoach are just following the system in the same way that JJ Kavanagh, Citylink, Dublin Bus, Swords Express Citylink and Go Bus etc have. Aircoach have followed the law every step of the way whilst Patton has done the opposite, so it's amusing people are jumping on their back, considering they ar the ones who respect irish law and Patton doesn't.

devnull

Zynks wrote: »

Some views expressed here look worryingly biased. It would be great if interests were posted in the 'conflict of interest' thread so we are all clear on individual's background.
Link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=126578

Sorry, I did not realise you were the moderator?

I have no conflict of interest, but it is hillarious that if you happen to have a different view of something to someone else, straight away you are accused of having one.

AlekSmart

I feel that the options offered in this poll are somewhat cynically presented.
It has been oft stated in this thread and elsewhere that Mr Patton is a small businessman of some ingenuity and dedication.

Indeed his dedication was such that he offered himself as a candidate in the Local Elections.
I,for one,would not wish to see such people merely submerged under a torrent of supposed biased begrudgery.

The fact remains that Mr Patton was offered a get-out clause (albeit belatedly) by the Department opf Transport,but chose to decline that offer.

Given Mr Pattons business acumen in the past,surely this accquisition of fully legal status would present him with a stepping-stone to further success,based upon his existing business model.

Contrary to what many people believe,participation in the Public Transport industry is neither easy nor cheap.
The industry is currently mired deeply in a sea of EU sponsored legislative and operational changes,some of which are of dubious relevance to the business at hand.

One relevant point which follows on from this is that if Mr Patton found the domestic Route Licencing procedures too restrictive for his liking then there is a virtual Bulk Carrier full of similar leglislation sitting offshore just awaiting his attention.

If anybody expects EU Public Transport reform to result in fleets of happy,smiley Trevor Patton Flyer lookalikes zipping about the place,then think again

I would really have preferred the Poll Choices to be along the lines of

"Should the Patton Flyer avail of the DoT`s Route Licence offer" Yes/No.

Zynks

devnull wrote: »

It was, but that is only because they decided to lodge an application and run it anyway, whether it was approved by the Garda for bus stop locations and ruled legal or not. Everyone else in the business waits to get the legal go ahead before operating a service.

I am informed it will start soon, originally it was meant to be 1st December according to some people but there are a few issues that need to be ironed out with a few parties before that happens.

Ah! So they are coming for Patton's current line?!? So basically licensing only is relevant when the big guys come in to crush the small players. I get it now!

devnull wrote: »

...when if he would have played by the rules in the first place, he may well have got the license that he was looking for, but as he decided he could bypass them and ignore every rule every other legit operation stands by he deservedly is getting punished.

I see...surely there is no red tape and the licensing process is fair and unbiased.[/QUOTE]

Aircoach wouldn't be taking the same approach Dublin Bus took to kill competition on the Lucan route, would they?

devnull wrote: »

Why should Patton be able to ignore the rules that everyone else, including Dublin Bus and Aircoach have to abide by? He keeps going on about special treatement, but at the end of the day everyone has got the same treatment until now Patton doesn't like the rules so wants an exception for himself - the irony is unbelievable.

There was a real need in South county Dublin. If we were to depend on the regulators we would still be depending on taxis that refuse to use the port tunnel to get more money out of passengers (this happened to me in at least six occasions). As one of the people who needed this service quite badly, I applaud their initiative.

devnull wrote: »

... it's amusing people are jumping on their back, considering they ar the ones who respect irish law and Patton doesn't.

Yeah, our priorities are totally screwed. We the users should stand up against Patton and tell them to stop the service to ensure the power of the efficient and consumer-driven regulator is enforced :rolleyes:

devnull wrote: »

Sorry, I did not realise you were the moderator?

I have no conflict of interest, but it is hillarious that if you happen to have a different view of something to someone else, straight away you are accused of having one.

My view is that "It would be great if " people declared their interests. Some views here look strangely biased either "pro-regulator", "pro-Aircoach" or just "anti-Patton Flyer". That is my personal opinion, and I stand by it.

Please note I did declare my status in the 'conflict of interests' thread a long time ago. I thought that would be fair to others. Maybe you don't?

Cookie_Monster

AlekSmart wrote: »

Indeed his dedication was such that he offered himself as a candidate in the Local Elections.

Running on the single issue of using his elected status to get a licence. And he made no attempt to disguise his campaign as anything esle

devnull

Zynks wrote: »

Ah! So they are coming for Patton's current line?!? So basically licensing only is relevant when the big guys come in to crush the small players. I get it now!

Patton dosn't have a line. If he just starts operating a route as he doesn't like the wait that everyone else does, it just starts a free for all. Whats to stop me deciding to buy a bus and run a service one day without any license if he is?

Aircoach wouldn't be taking the same approach Dublin Bus took to kill competition on the Lucan route, would they?

That case has no comparison with this one, both of those operators had a license, perhaps there may have been manipulations of what was and wasn't acceptable of those, but thats not for me to say, but both were licensed by the government, Patton is not.

There was a real need in South county Dublin. If we were to depend on the regulators we would still be depending on taxis that refuse to use the port tunnel to get more money out of passengers (this happened to me in at least six occasions).

There is a need in other places, and has been a need in the past, but the operators waited it out rather than breaking the law. Swords Express had to wait for a license for ages I believe but they did not decide to go ahead and oeprate it anwyay.

My view is that "It would be great if " people declared their interests. Some views here look strangely biased either "pro-regulator", "pro-Aircoach" or just "anti-Patton Flyer". That is my personal opinion, and I stand by it.

I am a member of the public who is voicing my opinion with no ties to the industry or any company involved in it so I have no conflict of interest?

I could argue the same about some of the Pro-Patton Flyer people look strangely biased, but I don't because everyone has a right to an opinion.

AlekSmart

Aircoach wouldn't be taking the same approach Dublin Bus took to kill competition on the Lucan route, would they?

Oddly enough the major Legal Action which was to ensue from the Circle Line demise appears not to have resulted in any great sweeping away of unpopular and restrictive laws.

My view is that "It would be great if " people declared their interests. Some views here look strangely biased either "pro-regulator", "pro-Aircoach" or just "anti-Patton Flyer"

Since this IS a discussion board the abundance of divergant views is to be expected is it not ?

Im certainly not overly concerned about posters occupations or allegiances and am quite prepared to accept their opinions as posted.

Just because one is employed by a particular entity does not mean one is beholden to it for every aspect of lifes wonderful journey.

angel01

I have no connections to any transport company, I am a member of the public like I imagine most are on this forum. I like things to be done the correct way and I would like companies to go by the rules and not do things illegally.

People have their opinion and are welcome to post their views, I think noone has the right to make judgements like some have done here.

penexpers

Zynks wrote: »

My view is that "It would be great if " people declared their interests. Some views here look strangely biased either "pro-regulator", "pro-Aircoach" or just "anti-Patton Flyer". That is my personal opinion, and I stand by it.

Please note I did declare my status in the 'conflict of interests' thread a long time ago. I thought that would be fair to others. Maybe you don't?

So being "pro-obey the law" is a veil for a clonflict of interest now?

Zynks

AlekSmart wrote: »

Since this IS a discussion board the abundance of divergant views is to be expected is it not ?

Of course! But unlike discussions on issues like taxation, where we know where most people stand (someone else should pay them taxes), views on the current situation on Patton are a bit broader. You have on one side the users who may want a continuation of the service, then people who may be genuinely interested in the rules being upheld, no matter if it goes against public interest, but then you have a third group, which are the ones that would benefit from Patton's demise, but these might choose to hide behind the "they are illegal" type of argumentation.

All I am saying is that is would be nice to understand what is the motivation of people who want to see the only decent and reasonably priced service many people in South County Dublin can avail of when going to the airport.

I personally welcome any argumentation in favour and against the continuation of the service, and am willing to reconsider my views if the opposing argument is strong enough. But so far, I still don't see any value in removing the service, spcially if it is done solely to the benefit of Aircoach.

Zynks

penexpers wrote: »

So being "pro-obey the law" is a veil for a clonflict of interest now?

Look at it in another way. If someone would benefit from pushing for Patton's demise, wouldn't it be easy to trash them here? If such arguments are made with commercial interests in mind, don't you agree it goes against the essence of what Boards is about?

devnull

Zynks wrote: »

Look at it in another way. If someone would benefit from pushing for Patton's demise, wouldn't it be easy to trash them here? If such arguments are made with commercial interests in mind, don't you agree it goes against the essence of what Boards is about?

Or perhaps look at it another way, if someone has benefitted from using his service or does, they would not look at the bigger picture, and also the same people will only beleive what Patton tells them, whether it's true or not as Patton is claiming anything what anyone else says is spin exageration or lies. They don't care about the laws just the service so will naturally back Patton whether he is right or wrong.

The facts are I have no connetion to anyone, I'm sorry that you are disappointed that someone may have an opinion different from you without having an ulterior motive, I guess some people are just paranoid.

rednik

Maybe hold a poll for people who actually use the service and would be affected by the loss when it happens.

devnull

Nobody will be effected as the illegal service I say will not be fully finished until at least the legal Aircoach service starts.

rednik

Of course people will be effected its obvious you don't use the service.

devnull

Why will they? They will have another service in it's place that is more regular as it will run every half an hour so I only see improvements?

Zynks

devnull wrote: »

Or perhaps look at it another way, if someone has benefitted from using his service or does, they would not look at the bigger picture

Bigger picture? All I can see is a good service beneficial to the public suddenly becoming a target because it is in big corporation's way. Why didn't this happen two years ago?

If you are talking about the law and so on, if we were to stick 100% to the rules we would need an efficient application of the regulations, which includes issuing of licenses promptly. In my view this situation infringes on article 45 of the constitution, though it is not enforceable.

Should we now refuse all retention applications on the grounds that they didn't apply for a permit in the first place? Should all people who got tax amnesty when repatriating funds because they actually evaded taxes in the first place? This country has many precedents of flexibility when it is perceived to be in the common interest. I think Patton Flyer falls into that category.

devnull wrote: »

... and also the same people will only beleive what Patton tells them, whether it's true or not as Patton is claiming anything what anyone else says is spin exageration or lies. They don't care about the laws just the service so will naturally back Patton whether he is right or wrong.

All I read was the letter from the link on the first post, and i think it is absolutely crap argumentation. What I am saying here are my views.

In fairness, I do have a strong bias towards free enterprise and despise policies that put politically and financially biased policies that curtail honest entrepreneurship.

devnull wrote: »

The facts are I have no connetion to anyone, I'm sorry that you are disappointed that someone may have an opinion different from you without having an ulterior motive, I guess some people are just paranoid.

Not disappointed at all, thanks for the clarification. I do however resent being called paranoid. I thought it was a fair question, and apparently the mods also felt at some stage that this disclosure would be beneficial when they created the 'conflicts of interest' thread, which was turned into a sticky. I wonder if you view that as paranoia also?

KC61

Zynks wrote: »

Aircoach wouldn't be taking the same approach Dublin Bus took to kill competition on the Lucan route, would they??

That has yet to be decided in the courts, and is planned to be heard in the New Year. However it is far from as cut and dried as you suggest.

All we have heard in some detail is Paul Morton's side on this, and not that of Dublin Bus, other than that they deny the alleged actions. I would be rather cautious in spreading allegations around given that it has yet to be heard in the courts.

As posted before, many of Morton's problems stemmed from extending a niche peak hour service to/from Celbridge to an all-day operation, operating with no subsidy, and which suffered from very poor marketing and information. Load factors during the day were poor.

Interestingly the Lucan operation never changed service pattern, and it is in Lucan that the alleged unfair competition took place and apparently not Celbridge, despite that being the area where the increase in Mortons service took place.

However this is something that will be heard in the New Year.

Zynks

KC61 wrote: »

That has yet to be decided in the courts, and is planned to be heard in the New Year. However it is far from as cut and dried as you suggest.

All we have heard in some detail is Paul Morton's side on this, and not that of Dublin Bus, other than that they deny the alleged actions. I would be rather cautious in spreading allegations around given that it has yet to be heard in the courts.

Point taken. I wasn't aware of the pending court case. Looking forward to the outcome though!

I do have a strong wish to see a system where protected organisations like state owned and semi-state companies play fair and their financial advantages and influence are not used against entrepreneurship and competition. Having said that, my views on that point are influenced by what was reported in the press and, as you say, were very much based on one side of the story.

thebman

MYOB wrote: »

Because another operator has been given a licence for the same service. We don't do direct route competition here.

lol and my next question is why the hell not?

Zynks

thebman wrote: »

lol and my next question is why the hell not?

Because the wrong people would benefit from it.

devnull

Zynks wrote: »

Because the wrong people would benefit from it.

You may not agree with the rules, but everyone else has to put up with them.

Bigger picture? All I can see is a good service beneficial to the public suddenly becoming a target because it is in big corporation's way.

#

No, it's because he broke the law, if he had got the license and had operated the service within the license nobody would be 'targeting' him, but he did not do this, and turned down the offer he was made, so therefore it was offered to someone else.

If you are talking about the law and so on, if we were to stick 100% to the rules we would need an efficient application of the regulations, which includes issuing of licenses promptly. In my view this situation infringes on article 45 of the constitution, though it is not enforceable.

But the facts are, Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann, Citylink, JJ Kavanagh and many more have all been subject to the same regulations, and have accepted that if they wish to do business in this country they have to respect them. Why should Patton be given an exception compared to all the others who have been in the same situation but have not? Why should he get preferential treatment?

In fairness, I do have a strong bias towards free enterprise and despise policies that put politically and financially biased policies that curtail honest entrepreneurship.

Is it honest if it involves breaking the law? Is it honest if he hides behind the fact he calls hios service a private hire but on the website describes it as a scheduled? No, it's called a lie, lie and honest do not go together very well...

What I am saying here are my views.

And what I am saying are my views, but the only person who has a problem with someone elses views is you.

It is quite amsuing though seeing this thread go round and round in circles like the other one.

Victor

Zynks wrote: »

Some views expressed here look worryingly biased. It would be great if interests were posted in the 'conflict of interest' thread so we are all clear on individual's background.
Link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=126578

If you have an issue, press the "report post" button. What is your actual problem?

Zynks

devnull wrote: »

You may not agree with the rules, but everyone else has to put up with them.

I am not sure about the use of the word 'else' in your statement. Anyway, the rules and it's implementation are anti-competitive and detrimental to small business, and yes, I do not agree with that.

devnull wrote: »

No, it's because he broke the law, if he had got the license and had operated the service within the license nobody would be 'targeting' him, but he did not do this, and turned down the offer he was made, so therefore it was offered to someone else.

Using your own words:

devnull wrote: »

Nobody will be effected as the illegal service I say will not be fully finished until at least the legal Aircoach service starts.

So the fact that after 2 or three years in operation, the termination of this service and the rollout of the new one are just a coincidence, right?

And your argumentation about breaking the law, yes it seems to be the case, and they are being penalised to the full extent of the law...or €6.25 per day. WOW, that must be a very serious infraction!!!

devnull wrote: »

But the facts are, Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann, Citylink, JJ Kavanagh and many more have all been subject to the same regulations, and have accepted that if they wish to do business in this country they have to respect them. Why should Patton be given an exception compared to all the others who have been in the same situation but have not? Why should he get preferential treatment?

There was a reference earlier to Citylink not being licensed for their Dublin - Galway service. Does anyone know if that is true?

In any case, the law is archaic and it's implementation is anti-competitive. I guess we should agree to disagree on this one.

devnull wrote: »

Is it honest if it involves breaking the law? Is it honest if he hides behind the fact he calls hios service a private hire but on the website describes it as a scheduled? No, it's called a lie, lie and honest do not go together very well..

Is it more dishonest and illegal than building a house an later applying for retention?

devnull wrote: »

And what I am saying are my views, but the only person who has a problem with someone elses views is you.

I already explained that I have no issues with anyone's views, but if there are any motives and interests that they should be declared. Why do you have an issue with that? You disclosed your position and so have I. That's good, isn't it?

devnull wrote: »

It is quite amsuing though seeing this thread go round and round in circles like the other one.

I am hadn't heard about 'the other one', but thanks for pointing it out. I checked your previous posts and found the few threads were you have
posted comments related to Aircoach, including a description of UK services that have on board wifi. Anyhow, if I was aware of those threads this discussion wouldn't have gone into circles, because I would have known better.