Dublin Bus - changing the colours of buses

bk

poggyone wrote: »

Maybe you like to stir it up , like the attention, i don't know.
All i know is zero proof has been given.

Well the NTA wanting to brand the bus that they buy and pay for with their own unique livery is a well known fact within the Irish bus industry.

There have been major arguments between the NTA and DB management and unions about this and it also effects BE.

The reason for this is that the NTA want to move to a London Bus model. In London the red colour scheme and the name London Bus is owned by the Transport For London, who then contract out the running of routes to one of 12 different private companies. From the perspective of people using the bus in London, they never realise that they are using a private bus, every bus is the same, looks the same, costs the same, uses the same brand, tickets, etc.

Ideally the NTA should take over ownership of the Dublin Bus brand, colour scheme, website, etc. and the DB semistate company called something else. However I'm assuming DB would fight that tooth and nail and there might be legal issues, so instead the NTA seem to be going down the route of wanting to paint new buses they buy, own and control with their brand and livery.

I assume the thinking is that over 14 years, as the old DB buses are phased out and the new NTA liveried buses phased in, eventually all DB buses will have the NTA livery and that also some privately operated routes will also have those same buses and livery. A very messy solution.

poggyone

bk wrote: »

Well the NTA wanting to brand the bus that they buy and pay for with their own unique livery is a well known fact within the Irish bus industry.

There have been major arguments between the NTA and DB management and unions about this and it also effects BE.

The reason for this is that the NTA want to move to a London Bus model. In London the red colour scheme and the name London Bus is owned by the Transport For London, who then contract out the running of routes to one of 12 different private companies. From the perspective of people using the bus in London, they never realise that they are using a private bus, every bus is the same, looks the same, costs the same, uses the same brand, tickets, etc.

Ideally the NTA should take over ownership of the Dublin Bus brand, colour scheme, website, etc. and the DB semistate company called something else. However I'm assuming DB would fight that tooth and nail and there might be legal issues, so instead the NTA seem to be going down the route of wanting to paint new buses they buy, own and control with their brand and livery.

I assume the thinking is that over 14 years, as the old DB buses are phased out and the new NTA liveried buses phased in, eventually all DB buses will have the NTA livery and that also some privately operated routes will also have those same buses and livery. A very messy solution.

The best thing for all concerned would be to leave dublin bus in their livery, and put all new private operators in a new livery. Then the public will be easily able to see who is the more reliable better service, it would end the pro/anti privatisation argument in a few years.
The public could see who performs better and then we could go 100% State owned or private, there would be no muddying of the waters, we would all know who delivered the better service.

Victor

Conway635 wrote: »

Currently, as part of a scheduled heavy-overhaul cycle, every Dublin Bus gets a full repaint and retrim (replacement of internal fabrics and trim) every three years.

By 'trim' do you mean the panelling, hand-grips, signage, etc.

VWD8

The NTA wanted to introduce a special livery on the forthcoming Bus Eireann fleet but BE and unions objected. Instead there will be larger TFI branding on a revised BE livery.

I believe that these surveys are being conducted by Dublin Bus of their own accord as the current livery is up for replacement. It is a bit dated at this stage so a change is welcome.

Alun

VWD8 wrote: »

The NTA wanted to introduce a special livery on the forthcoming Bus Eireann fleet but BE and unions objected.

What on earth has it got to do with them?

end of the road

Alun wrote: »

What on earth has it got to do with them?

whats it got to do with who? the NTA? well they seem to think they can be exactly like TFL. IMO TFL they will never be. BE, DB, and the unions? well the livery for each companies busses works and is easily known by the average person, and for DB at least can be recognized by those with a visual impairment. frankly, they should be left alone.

Alun

end of the road wrote: »

whats it got to do with who?

The unions, you know, the bit that I put in bold.

KD345

poggyone wrote: »

The best thing for all concerned would be to leave dublin bus in their livery, and put all new private operators in a new livery. Then the public will be easily able to see who is the more reliable better service, it would end the pro/anti privatisation argument in a few years.
The public could see who performs better and then we could go 100% State owned or private, there would be no muddying of the waters, we would all know who delivered the better service.

This is not the way it needs to go and judging by the NTA plans, this is not how it will be done. Passengers should not notice any difference in operator - all they need to concern themselves about is the route number. The fare structure, timetable layout and vehicle spec will all fall into NTA control and will be identical regardless of who operates the service.

The Transport For Ireland brand is quickly establishing itself on all all services and, in time, will hopefully become the main logo which passengers come to identify with public transport.

As for the livery, my own prediction is that when the NTA begin to order hybrid buses, they will possibly replace the yellow with green on Dublin's buses. This will then tie in with the Transport For Ireland colours of green and blue, while at the same time reflecting how Dublin's buses have turned 'green'. However, I would be equally as happy if things remind the same with the current yellow and blue.

markpb

end of the road wrote: »

the unions? well the livery for each companies busses works and is easily known by the average person, and for DB at least can be recognized by those with a visual impairment. frankly, they should be left alone.

The staff do not run the company and while they should have a say in the running of the company, they certainly shouldn't be vetoing actions decided by management or the regulator.

end of the road

Alun wrote: »

The unions, you know, the bit that I put in bold.

they represent the staff, so it has everything to do with them

end of the road

markpb wrote: »

The staff do not run the company and while they should have a say in the running of the company, they certainly shouldn't be vetoing actions decided by management or the regulator.

they should if its not in the interest of all. which anything other the current livery for DB isn't. the unions represent the staff, so its their job to try deal with any problems

Victor

VWD8 wrote: »

The NTA wanted to introduce a special livery on the forthcoming Bus Eireann fleet but BE and unions objected.

Alun wrote: »

What on earth has it got to do with them?

Tendering.

Alun

end of the road wrote: »

they represent the staff, so it has everything to do with them

If I tried to tell a company I worked for how they should brand their product, I'd be told where to go, and rightly so.

end of the road

Alun wrote: »

If I tried to tell a company I worked for how they should brand their product, I'd be told where to go, and rightly so.

not rightly so at all, as its only a suggestion, just like its a suggestion from the BE unions

devnull

The Bus Eireann PSO arm and virtually the whole of Dublin Bus is a public service that is run to benefit the public, rather than a commercial company that is run for profit, as we are told on many occasions.

One of the benefits of this we're told, of having a fully publicly owned bus service is that companies at all times will be focused on what is good for the passengers rather than what is best for the companies, as such companies will not be interested in the commercial side since they are running for the greater good rather than for profit.

So it's amusing to see the CIE companies now going into self protection mode by arguing about liveries that the NTA may or may not have suggested, which would result in properly integrated transport with one common design, because it might hurt their company even though it would be for the greater good.

It is the NTA's job to do what is required to regulate and provide a proper public transport system where no one company is more important than the overall service. It is amusing that the companies who are set up do provide services to do the same, are trying to prevent that, by trying to do whatever it takes to protect their companies, regardless of the bigger picture.

Before we've seen arguments for Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann officials saying that a mix and mash of lvieries from different operators would be bad for the system and there should be one livery to avoid confusion. What they really seem to be saying is there should be one livery, but only if it's their own.

I am passionate about public transport, not Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann or any other operator and if public transport is ever going to be as good as it can be in this country, it needs some group, such as the NTA to do something for the grater good, rather than companies who are looking after their own interests comercially, instead of actually doing what is for the greater good and to improve public transport.

But then again, if DB and BE PSO arms were focused on the passenger anyway, they'd kick up far less of a fuss than they are doing now. It's all about self preservation and that much is obvious.

The fact we have a situation in Bus Eireann where buses may end up in service late because the unions objected to NTA livery tweaks on buses the NTA paid for because there is union pressure about the livery, says it all. Basically the unions were unhappy that the NTA were moving towards a single brand and livery, and stated that they were worried about the brand of Bus Eireann being aroded.

The gist of the complaint was that the Bus Eireann brand was not visible enough and the Transport for Ireland one too much, so they were not happy with this so there was a stand off. There was even a possibility that for a time the vehicles could be delivered in plain white, because the two sides could not agree on a livery. The unions wanted to keep the existing Bus Eireann livery with minimal NTA branding, whilst Transport for Ireland wanted a livery with more prominent Transport for Ireland logos and smaller Bus Eireann ones.

What happened in the end on the double deck citybuses is there was a much bigger transport for Ireland branding applied, but the Bus Eireann red was kept just on a slightly scaled back version with a little more white rather than an NTA livery being used. On the coaches, I believe there was supposed to be something similar, but the first coaches have been seen and there doesn't appear to be much space if any for a Transport for Ireland logo. It is not known why that is, or even if they will be getting logos, since from what I understood, there was an even bigger problems with the livery on the coaches than the buses.

All it says that the unions are doing everything to harm proper integration, to protect the BE brand. But remember, BE isn't about looking after the company first, it's supposed to be about the public first, isn't that the whole idea of a publicly owned bus service? Of course (sarcasm)

MGWR

RayM wrote: »

They repaint the buses every few years anyway, don't they? I presume any livery change would be done as part of their regular repainting cycle.

The blue/yellow combination is pretty ugly, and it's been around a long time now. They should paint them green again.

Wouldn't that be the third time then?

Besides, titanium white is the cheapest pigment one can put into paint, so that ought to be default. No colour match necessary.

Cookie_Monster

lxflyer wrote: »

The yellow was chosen by then CEO Alan Westwell after significant input from visually impaired groups as it increases the visibility of the vehicles on street. Similarly that's why stops are painted yellow too.

Funny that Dublin is about the only city where this seems to be a consideration. Google Images for 'city bus" etc and there are an un-ending number of colour variations but the, frankly hideous, shade of bright lurid yellow is rare enough.

Bring back the green, it's noted as the Irish colour anyway, good symbolic national branding, can't really keep Dublin two tone blue on TfI buses now either...

Aard

I think the yellow+black is a really strong brand colour scheme. Why does everything have to be green in Ireland?

Victor

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Funny that Dublin is about the only city where this seems to be a consideration. Google Images for 'city bus" etc and there are an un-ending number of colour variations but the, frankly hideous, shade of bright lurid yellow is rare enough.

Bring back the green, it's noted as the Irish colour anyway, good symbolic national branding, can't really keep Dublin two tone blue on TfI buses now either...

Two of the most iconic bus styles in the world use strong, bright colours.

cdebru

devnull wrote: »

The Bus Eireann PSO arm and virtually the whole of Dublin Bus is a public service that is run to benefit the public, rather than a commercial company that is run for profit, as we are told on many occasions.

One of the benefits of this we're told, of having a fully publicly owned bus service is that companies at all times will be focused on what is good for the passengers rather than what is best for the companies, as such companies will not be interested in the commercial side since they are running for the greater good rather than for profit.

So it's amusing to see the CIE companies now going into self protection mode by arguing about liveries that the NTA may or may not have suggested, which would result in properly integrated transport with one common design, because it might hurt their company even though it would be for the greater good.

It is the NTA's job to do what is required to regulate and provide a proper public transport system where no one company is more important than the overall service. It is amusing that the companies who are set up do provide services to do the same, are trying to prevent that, by trying to do whatever it takes to protect their companies, regardless of the bigger picture.

Before we've seen arguments for Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann officials saying that a mix and mash of lvieries from different operators would be bad for the system and there should be one livery to avoid confusion. What they really seem to be saying is there should be one livery, but only if it's their own.

I am passionate about public transport, not Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann or any other operator and if public transport is ever going to be as good as it can be in this country, it needs some group, such as the NTA to do something for the grater good, rather than companies who are looking after their own interests comercially, instead of actually doing what is for the greater good and to improve public transport.

But then again, if DB and BE PSO arms were focused on the passenger anyway, they'd kick up far less of a fuss than they are doing now. It's all about self preservation and that much is obvious.

The fact we have a situation in Bus Eireann where buses may end up in service late because the unions objected to NTA livery tweaks on buses the NTA paid for because there is union pressure about the livery, says it all. Basically the unions were unhappy that the NTA were moving towards a single brand and livery, and stated that they were worried about the brand of Bus Eireann being aroded.

The gist of the complaint was that the Bus Eireann brand was not visible enough and the Transport for Ireland one too much, so they were not happy with this so there was a stand off. There was even a possibility that for a time the vehicles could be delivered in plain white, because the two sides could not agree on a livery. The unions wanted to keep the existing Bus Eireann livery with minimal NTA branding, whilst Transport for Ireland wanted a livery with more prominent Transport for Ireland logos and smaller Bus Eireann ones.

What happened in the end on the double deck citybuses is there was a much bigger transport for Ireland branding applied, but the Bus Eireann red was kept just on a slightly scaled back version with a little more white rather than an NTA livery being used. On the coaches, I believe there was supposed to be something similar, but the first coaches have been seen and there doesn't appear to be much space if any for a Transport for Ireland logo. It is not known why that is, or even if they will be getting logos, since from what I understood, there was an even bigger problems with the livery on the coaches than the buses.

All it says that the unions are doing everything to harm proper integration, to protect the BE brand. But remember, BE isn't about looking after the company first, it's supposed to be about the public first, isn't that the whole idea of a publicly owned bus service? Of course (sarcasm)

I would say that this has nothing to do with liveries and everything to do with tendering and that the new livery is seen as a step along the way to tendering which the unions object to. There as far as I know have never been any problem before with any livery change in any of the CIE group ( well not a union problem anyway). The unions position make perfect sense, they are currently in discussions with the NTA regarding all aspects of tendering so nothing is agreed till everything is agreed as is normal in these circumstances.

LXFlyer

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Funny that Dublin is about the only city where this seems to be a consideration. Google Images for 'city bus" etc and there are an un-ending number of colour variations but the, frankly hideous, shade of bright lurid yellow is rare enough.

Bring back the green, it's noted as the Irish colour anyway, good symbolic national branding, can't really keep Dublin two tone blue on TfI buses now either...

Well maybe the fact that it was a major consideration is actually a good thing, although I do sometimes wonder reading your posts if you think anything that is done for the benefit of people with a form of disability is a good thing.

Either way, being able to see the buses and stops clearly in the distance which you can certainly do with the current livery is I think a good thing. Speaking from experience, where I would walk onto a bus route midway between two stops which were reasonably far apart, being able to see whether a bus was coming in the distance meant that more often than not I would catch a bus rather than miss it as I could run rather than walk to the stop!

The current colours also have a Dublin connection as they reflect Dublin GAA (Blue) and Leinster Rugby (Blue and Gold)!

cdebru

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Funny that Dublin is about the only city where this seems to be a consideration. Google Images for 'city bus" etc and there are an un-ending number of colour variations but the, frankly hideous, shade of bright lurid yellow is rare enough.

Bring back the green, it's noted as the Irish colour anyway, good symbolic national branding, can't really keep Dublin two tone blue on TfI buses now either...

Just because Dublin is the only city that has asked the visually impaired what colour bus would make their life easier doesn't mean it is wrong, does it ?

devnull

cdebru wrote: »

I would say that this has nothing to do with liveries and everything to do with tendering and that the new livery is seen as a step along the way to tendering which the unions object to

The unions position make perfect sense, they are currently in discussions with the NTA regarding all aspects of tendering so nothing is agreed till everything is agreed as is normal in these circumstances.

The unions position does make perfect sense of course, but the reason they are doing what I say, is related to tendering and that is linked to what I have written above, everything is linked to tendering.

However one of the arguments to keep a public bus service was that to ensure that the service is run for the benefit of the people rather than the benefit of the companies, as we have been told many times is why we should not allow private companies to run our buses.

However the unions are now attempting to run the company in a way that is to the benefit of the company, rather than the benefit of the people, thereby carrying out some of the very same actions and tactics they considered as being wrong, because it benefits them.

Namely the unions have basically spent the whole time moaning about private companies and what they may do and the bad things about them, only to go and do some of the very same things themselves before the service has even been put out to tender.

At the end of the day it's opened my eyes that the unions certainly have no desire to have a properly functioning transport system in this country with better integration and proper regulation, they just want what is best for their members and best for the company that all of the staff work for. Nothing wrong with that you may say, that is what a union is for. Of course.

But by doing so, they underrmine their frequently repeated point that the bus service should be run for passengers and not for the benefit of any company or any sole party and that is why tendering should not happen. Because they're doing exactly the same as any private company would do, you know, the ones that they claimed were flawed.

The only difference is they want the company to be run for their benefit and for the benefit of Bus Eireann with little interference from a regulator. A full private model would be run for private benefit and for the benefit of the shareholders and they also would want de-regulation so they could do what they want. Neither model is good for the public.

So how about a model where someone ensures that the service is run for the public, the things that either party want to use to help their own vested interests (be that the unionised public operators or the private shareholder owned operators) they do not have control of so they cannot use it for their own gain against the good of the public, and then we have a compromise.

It's called tendering.

And the fact that we're now complaining that a government who spent two figure millions on buses and coaches for a company and the staff are moaning about the colour paint on them, shows just how crazy this is.

Can you imagine if a sister company or a parent company of my work supplied a product to us, when we could not afford our own, investing millions of pounds out of their money, and we told them that we would not be using them because they dared to put their logo on it. The word ungrateful does not do it justice, it would be labelled as a disgrace.

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

So how about a model where someone ensures that the service is run for the public, the things that either party want to use to help their own vested interests (be that the unionised public operators or the private shareholder owned operators) they do not have control of so they cannot use it for their own gain against the good of the public, and then we have a compromise.

It's called tendering.

tendering won't remove any of that in my opinion. its a waste of mine, and the time of publically owned transport in general. i believe if were to have a public bus service it should be run by a publically owned company. if private companies want to offer their own alternative services fine, but they shouldn't get a penny from the NTA or the government or be able to have a monopoly. their services should run on their own merrit. that is why i'm with the unions on this issue.

devnull

end of the road wrote: »

QUOTE=devnull;93808170]So how about a model where someone ensures that the service is run for the public, the things that either party want to use to help their own vested interests (be that the unionised public operators or the private shareholder owned operators) they do not have control of so they cannot use it for their own gain against the good of the public, and then we have a compromise.

It's called tendering.

tendering won't remove any of that in my opinion. its a waste of mine, and the time of publically owned transport in general. i believe if were to have a public bus service it should be run by a publically owned company. if private companies want to offer their own alternative services fine, but they shouldn't get a penny from the NTA or the government or be able to have a monopoly. their services should run on their own merrit. that is why i'm with the unions on this issue.[/QUOTE]

So basically you are saying that other companies should be held to certain standards and certain rules but Dublin Bus should not have to reach the same standards?

At the moment there is no bus service being run for the benefit of the public, that much is clear?

I'm sorry that you care more about the companies than public transport in this country.

Publicly run = for benefit of staff
private run = benefit of shareholders

It needs someone to oversee it.

ardmacha

Alun wrote: »

If I tried to tell a company I worked for how they should brand their product, I'd be told where to go, and rightly so.

All the same if I was any employee whose employer had been pleading poverty in order to cut my wages I wouldn't be happy with them spending money on fripperies.

Victor

end of the road wrote: »

tendering won't remove any of that in my opinion. its a waste of mine, and the time of publically owned transport in general. i believe if were to have a public bus service it should be run by a publically owned company. if private companies want to offer their own alternative services fine, but they shouldn't get a penny from the NTA or the government or be able to have a monopoly. their services should run on their own merrit. that is why i'm with the unions on this issue.

So, on the flip side, the private companies get to keep the profitable routes that they devise and only pay the €100(?) application fee?

devnull

ardmacha wrote: »

All the same if I was any employee whose employer had been pleading poverty in order to cut my wages I wouldn't be happy with them spending money on fripperies.

The company are not paying for the buses, the government are.

I am not happy with the fact that my taxes are paying for assets that a public company, that is supposed to be run for the benefit of the public, will not operate because it's not in their interests to do so and is only in the publics interest.

end of the road

Victor wrote: »

So, on the flip side, the private companies get to keep the profitable routes that they devise and only pay the €100(?) application fee?

sure, but isn't that happening anyway all ready?

L1011

ardmacha wrote: »

All the same if I was any employee whose employer had been pleading poverty in order to cut my wages I wouldn't be happy with them spending money on fripperies.

If I knew they were only going to do the repaint to the old schedule (and on new buses) I'd not care - its marketing, something companies still need to do when times are crap.

However, if they said they were going to aggressively rebrand the lot in a shorter period of time I'd see it as cash out of my own pocket basically.

cdebru

devnull wrote: »

The unions position does make perfect sense of course, but the reason they are doing what I say, is related to tendering and that is linked to what I have written above, everything is linked to tendering.

However one of the arguments to keep a public bus service was that to ensure that the service is run for the benefit of the people rather than the benefit of the companies, as we have been told many times is why we should not allow private companies to run our buses.

However the unions are now attempting to run the company in a way that is to the benefit of the company, rather than the benefit of the people, thereby carrying out some of the very same actions and tactics they considered as being wrong, because it benefits them.

Namely the unions have basically spent the whole time moaning about private companies and what they may do and the bad things about them, only to go and do some of the very same things themselves before the service has even been put out to tender.

At the end of the day it's opened my eyes that the unions certainly have no desire to have a properly functioning transport system in this country with better integration and proper regulation, they just want what is best for their members and best for the company that all of the staff work for. Nothing wrong with that you may say, that is what a union is for. Of course.

But by doing so, they underrmine their frequently repeated point that the bus service should be run for passengers and not for the benefit of any company or any sole party and that is why tendering should not happen. Because they're doing exactly the same as any private company would do, you know, the ones that they claimed were flawed.

The only difference is they want the company to be run for their benefit and for the benefit of Bus Eireann with little interference from a regulator. A full private model would be run for private benefit and for the benefit of the shareholders and they also would want de-regulation so they could do what they want. Neither model is good for the public.

So how about a model where someone ensures that the service is run for the public, the things that either party want to use to help their own vested interests (be that the unionised public operators or the private shareholder owned operators) they do not have control of so they cannot use it for their own gain against the good of the public, and then we have a compromise.

It's called tendering.

And the fact that we're now complaining that a government who spent two figure millions on buses and coaches for a company and the staff are moaning about the colour paint on them, shows just how crazy this is.

Can you imagine if a sister company or a parent company of my work supplied a product to us, when we could not afford our own, investing millions of pounds out of their money, and we told them that we would not be using them because they dared to put their logo on it. The word ungrateful does not do it justice, it would be labelled as a disgrace.

It's opened your eyes has it ? Until now you were on the fence as regards trade unions but now you see clearly, you'd never have gotten that impression from your posts. Your posts give the impression of someone who is virulently anti-union and who sees any opportunity to grab a stick and twist something so they can start their usual union bashing.
Anyway the issue is that is the proposed NTA color scheme is part of the tendering project, that project is currently being negotiated, you can't separate elements of the tendering and allow them to proceed other wiseit undermines your entire position, but of course you're not stupid you know this but carry on with your lengthy rants nonetheless.

cdebru

devnull wrote: »

The company are not paying for the buses, the government are.

I am not happy with the fact that my taxes are paying for assets that a public company, that is supposed to be run for the benefit of the public, will not operate because it's not in their interests to do so and is only in the publics interest.

That's your opinion that tendering is in the public interest, that is not their opinion, and stop being a drama queen, they will be operated in the BE fleet colours that's all. Have you any evidence that the buses are delayed and that anyone will be discommoded ?

Highflyer13

Why do they feel the need to do something as wasteful as re-painting the fleet? A stupid waste of time and money imo. Pure waste, we cant be throwing money around like this. Current livery is fine.

devnull

cdebru wrote: »

That's your opinion that tendering is in the public interest, that is not their opinion,

There opinion has nothing to do with the public interest, and everything to do with their own. That much is obvious, I've already told you why it is dressing up, so I won't repeat it again.

If the company cared about the public interest then they'd be more keen on proper integration between all operators. Note how none of the CIE companies will use the National Journey planner and instead use their own.

Why? Because using a national journey planner including all operators may involve admitting other companies exist and giving people and integrated experience. That would be doing something in the public interest.

But if in their own interest, best not to use it to stop people using our rivals. This is the whole reason we need the NTA, to stop companies doing things that suit their own agendas, and to make companies do something for the greater good.

There has been improvements within DB in the last few years but still they see themselves and their sister companies as more important than public transport as a whole, and as I've said before, the argument has been before from the unions that nothing should come before the good of the public. Unless it's them, of course.

There is no real difference between a fully public owned model and a fully private model in many respects, apart from the fact that the former tends to be run for the benefit of a public company and it's staff and the later for private shareholders and it's staff, especially in Ireland. That is why it needs a good regulator with teeth to ensure nobody is pushing their own agenda ahead of the public.

Have you any evidence that the buses are delayed and that anyone will be discommoded ?

I think a fully integrated public transport system is in everyone interest, where a regulator is allowed to properly regulate.

The fact that there was a debate over liveries and a period where nothing was painted apparently from what I have heard and read elsewhere, suggests that vehicles were painted later whilst talks happened, and obviously that would impact on delivery dates.

But as I said before, it is amusing to see the unions squabble over a size of a logo on a bus, after the government propped up their company that cannot afford their own vehicles, and supplied it with more at no cost to the company. I'm sure there are many people in Ireland in many parts of the public sector who wish they had the luxury to moan about the size of the logo on the products they are given. If the staff and unions are so ungrateful it's high time we diverted the funds elsewhere to the likes of the health service where someone might actually be grateful.

cdebru

devnull wrote: »

There opinion has nothing to do with the public interest, and everything to do with their own. That much is obvious, I've already told you why it is dressing up, so I won't repeat it again.

If the company cared about the public interest then they'd be more keen on proper integration between all operators. Note how none of the CIE companies will use the National Journey planner and instead use their own.

Why? Because using a national journey planner including all operators may involve admitting other companies exist and giving people and integrated experience. That would be doing something in the public interest.

But if in their own interest, best not to use it to stop people using our rivals. This is the whole reason we need the NTA, to stop companies doing things that suit their own agendas, and to make companies do something for the greater good.

There has been improvements within DB in the last few years but still they see themselves and their sister companies as more important than public transport as a whole, and as I've said before, the argument has been before from the unions that nothing should come before the good of the public. Unless it's them, of course.

There is no real difference between a fully public owned model and a fully private model in many respects, apart from the fact that the former tends to be run for the benefit of a public company and it's staff and the later for private shareholders and it's staff, especially in Ireland. That is why it needs a good regulator with teeth to ensure nobody is pushing their own agenda ahead of the public.



I think a fully integrated public transport system is in everyone interest, where a regulator is allowed to properly regulate.

The fact that there was a debate over liveries and a period where nothing was painted apparently from what I have heard and read elsewhere, suggests that vehicles were painted later whilst talks happened, and obviously that would impact on delivery dates.

But as I said before, it is amusing to see the unions squabble over a size of a logo on a bus, after the government propped up their company that cannot afford their own vehicles, and supplied it with more at no cost to the company. I'm sure there are many people in Ireland in many parts of the public sector who wish they had the luxury to moan about the size of the logo on the products they are given. If the staff and unions are so ungrateful it's high time we diverted the funds elsewhere to the likes of the health service where someone might actually be grateful.

That's your opinion of why they objected to the NTA branding, a rather biased opinion is fairly obvious for anyone bothered to read your lengthy rants. Personally I dont have much time for the self appointed experts on these forums, they jumped up and down about how great network direct and cross city routes would be, they jumped up and down about DB getting rid of center doors, so what do we have now ? Long unreliable cross city routes, and buses with smaller capacity to make way for unused center doors. And now the same self appointed experts are cheer leading tendering, that bodes well for the future.

devnull

cdebru wrote: »

It's opened your eyes has it ? Until now you were on the fence as regards trade unions but now you see clearly, you'd never have gotten that impression from your posts. Your posts give the impression of someone who is virulently anti-union and who sees any opportunity to grab a stick and twist something so they can start their usual union bashing.

Actually I have been in a union once in my life and I was happy to be in it since it was actually sensible and was only used when someone actually really had been wronged, and I'm all for unions in those situations. But what I am not for unions is the ones in the public sector who see the public sectors as a glorified jobs club, where any progess or improvements for customers or the public is blocked because it doesn't suit them. Management are paid to make decisions like that, not them.

In another company I did not join because one of the staff tried to take the whole team out on strike because she was given a final warning and told that she would lose her right to work from home which was at the companies discretion in her contract. She should have been fired, but the company did not fire her because of the fact that they were worried what the Union would do.

The woman then organised a meeting with the union and then the whole team went out on strike, based on the fact that she claimed she was being discriminated against since other people still had the right to work from home and she did not, and this would be unfair treatment. She claimed that as she had lost her privileges, so should they and as she would need to be in the office she may be needing to do more work and would now have to travel to work so she wanted to be paid for travel time.

The crime was that the staff member had a right to work from home, went on holiday, and left her laptop with a friend of hers, who did the work for her, without knowledge of her boss, wrote her emails and had all access to customer information. That should be an open and shut case of gross misconduct, she could have been fired for dishonesty, leaking confidential information, or fraud (since she was claiming she worked hours she was not even there!), The only reason she got found out is a sales manager bumped into her at a pub down the country about 10 minutes after 'she' replied to an email from 'home'.

Anyway the issue is that is the proposed NTA color scheme is part of the tendering project, that project is currently being negotiated.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but tendering did not happen yet and the NTA have also asked for branding to be put on vehicles in past year as well with increasing prominence, TFI branding and changes to liveries started as early as 2012.

Thing is a regulator is there to regulate and instruct and if they give an order it should be followed, else there'd be no point having one in the first place. Companies are by all means welcome to give their feedback, but a regulators decision should be final and if people don't like that it's too bad. It's childish and akin to a baby throwing their toys out the pram, saying it's our way or not at all.

The problem is that the companies are too used to getting their own way during the time when there was no regulator, and now they cannot get it and if someone tells them what to do they don't like it. Considering the capital investment and the PSO that that the regulator makes to the CIE companies every year, they certainly deserve a say. If the CIE companies don't like it, they can always tap their cash rich parent group for some money instead.

devnull

cdebru wrote: »

That's your opinion of why they objected to the NTA branding, a rather biased opinion is fairly obvious for anyone bothered to read your lengthy rants. Personally I dont have much time for the self appointed experts on these forums, they jumped up and down about how great network direct and cross city routes would be, they jumped up and down about DB getting rid of center doors, so what do we have now ? Long unreliable cross city routes, and buses with smaller capacity to make way for unused center doors. And now the same self appointed experts are cheer leading tendering, that bodes well for the future.

Well don't worry, I won't be condescending towards you as I'm a lot bigger than that, and don't have to resort to that to get my point of view across. Unlike others on this forum I have no connection with the industry, indeed some would argue that the people who do are the ones that are biased, since they are not coming from an objective position. So if my opinion as an outsider is biased, I hate to think what that makes staff within the companies.

You won't find me saying much good about cross city routes, infact if you search through my posts I have been vastly critical of network direct at large and network direct actually stopped me using Dublin Bus for a few years because it wrecked my route to work so I went back to the car. But it's disappointing that you have to try and mislead others that I made claims that I have never made to support your point. I used to take the 4 for years but I stopped because of network direct, so you must be confusing me with someone else.

Centre doors will improve things in the long run, but until they are used properly and the infrastructure is improved so they can be done so, obviously they will not be reaching their potential.

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

Actually I have been in a union once in my life and I was happy to be in it since it was actually sensible and was only used when someone actually really had been wronged, and I'm all for unions in those situations. But what I am not for unions is the ones in the public sector who see the public sectors as a glorified jobs club, where any progess or improvements for customers or the public is blocked because it doesn't suit them. Management are paid to make decisions like that, not them.

they aren't making decisians. management are. the unions disagree when necessary. thats how it works currently.

devnull wrote: »

In another company I did not join because one of the staff tried to take the whole team out on strike because she was given a final warning and told that she would lose her right to work from home which was at the companies discretion in her contract. She should have been fired, but the company did not fire her because of the fact that they were worried what the Union would do.

The woman then organised a meeting with the union and then the whole team went out on strike, based on the fact that she claimed she was being discriminated against since other people still had the right to work from home and she did not, and this would be unfair treatment. She claimed that as she had lost her privileges, so should they and as she would need to be in the office she may be needing to do more work and would now have to travel to work so she wanted to be paid for travel time.

The crime was that the staff member had a right to work from home, went on holiday, and left her laptop with a friend of hers, who did the work for her, without knowledge of her boss, wrote her emails and had all access to customer information. That should be an open and shut case of gross misconduct, she could have been fired for dishonesty, leaking confidential information, or fraud (since she was claiming she worked hours she was not even there!), The only reason she got found out is a sales manager bumped into her at a pub down the country about 10 minutes after 'she' replied to an email from 'home'.

companies should be in fear of the unions. it makes sure they can't pull a fast one. we have only your word to take for the story about the woman in your work place
there could be more to the story and the company could have been taking the piss for all we know.

devnull wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but tendering did not happen yet and the NTA have also asked for branding to be put on vehicles in past year as well with increasing prominence, TFI branding and changes to liveries started as early as 2012.

they should pick something else. TFL they will never be in my opinion. TFI doesn't make that any more true, nor is it going to make them a good regulator.

devnull wrote: »

Thing is a regulator is there to regulate and instruct and if they give an order it should be followed, else there'd be no point having one in the first place.

not if its not in our interest. there should be an appeals process independant of the regulator.

devnull wrote: »

Companies are by all means welcome to give their feedback, but a regulators decision should be final and if people don't like that it's too bad.

its not to bad at all, it should not be final, there should be an appeals process independant of the regulator in cases where the regulation needs to be overturned or isn't in our interest.

devnull wrote: »

It's childish and akin to a baby throwing their toys out the pram, saying it's our way or not at all.

thats not happening.

devnull wrote: »

The problem is that the companies are too used to getting their own way during the time when there was no regulator

untrue

devnull wrote: »

now they cannot get it and if someone tells them what to do they don't like it.

the idea they always get their own way is untrue. there is always some compromise in every dispute.

devnull wrote: »

Considering the capital investment and the PSO that that the regulator makes to the CIE companies every year, they certainly deserve a say.

the capital and investment and any other money the supposed regulator gives the PSO comes from mine and your pocket. maybe we should all have a say? or just let the unions and company get on with it and iron out any problems.

devnull wrote: »

If the CIE companies don't like it, they can always tap their cash rich parent group for some money instead.

don't they not effectively do that all ready? isn't any money payed via CIE?

devnull

end of the road wrote: »

they aren't making decisians. management are. the unions disagree when necessary. thats how it works currently

And what is deemed "When Necessary" when they don't like something?

companies should be in fear of the unions. it makes sure they can't pull a fast one. we have only your word to take for the story about the woman in your work place there could be more to the story and the company could have been taking the piss for all we know.

Indeed, but unfortunately that goes for all posts on Boards, not just mine, so that is purely academic. I knew the way the story was because I happen to know the manager who bumped into her at the trade show and she admitted she was there and everything she did. Her argument was that it was discrimination to treat her differently because of the fact she has been disciplined and basically that if she lost perks given at the discretion, so should everyone else, and because she could no longer work from home, she should be compensated for the inconvenience.

Unions should be there to protect people who are shafted by bullies in the work place, bosses who hang people out to dry and set them up to fail, people who commit decietful acts to get someone sacked, and that kind of thing which I have seen happen in workplaces before and thankfully the union has stepped up to protect such people. But there are cases where unions stand up for people who really should be fired.

they should pick something else. TFL they will never be in my opinion. TFI doesn't make that any more true, nor is it going to make them a good regulator.

Of course they will never be for TFL. Because when TFL do things to improve the service for the customer of change a livery, the decision is respected and implemented with the minimum of fuss. How the hell is the NTA supposed to be as good as TFL when the operators here argue about the slightest little thing that is done with little problem in TFL and that is before you start on the fact that the Garda are worse than useless and enforcing traffic rules.

not if its not in our interest. there should be an appeals process independant of the regulator.

So you're asking for a regulator of the regulator?

The regulator is independent, that's the whole reason for having them, so on the one hand you're saying that the regulator we already have has too much power, but then you're arguing for the regulator to have another regulator that has more power? Interesting theory.So every decision should be accountable to a regulator. Do you have another regulator that is accountable to that one and so on? Why not have a tree of 20 regulators regulating each other.

Since you already agreed that a regulator should not have power over a company, since you stated that the NTA's decision should not be binding over Dublin Bus, therefore by extension then surely the regulator of the NTA should not be binding and the NTA should be able to appeal their regulators verdict.

Please don't say the regulator of the NTA should be binding, since you've already said it shouldn't which is your whole reason for having another regulator in the first place. And it would just make it look like that Dublin Bus should not be forced to do something it does not like, but the NTA should. Again different rules for different people and again a clear sign of wanting certain parties to have certain rights but not wanting others to have the same right.

don't they not effectively do that all ready? isn't any money payed via CIE?

If they really wanted to the parent company could inject money into the business themselves, I'm sure there would be a bit more wriggle room for

It's well known that the ticket machines in Dublin Bus are not fit for purpose and are probably costing the company cash in lost fares. Why don't they go and invest money in new ticketing equipment.

It's well known that there is a problem with fare evasion, why don't the company investment in more inspectors with a grant and some cash supplied from the CIE Group which is sitting on cash reserves?

Thing is they don't, and they are utterly dependent on the NTA in recent years and if they are taking such sums from the NTA in operating expenses and capital investment, then the NTA has a right to have a say in how that money is being spent.

If someone buys me something expensive I would be thankful, rather than moaning that it is slightly different from what I want. If I didn't like it, I always have the choice of buying it myself, and if I cannot afford it, I have no right to complain.

Cookie_Monster

Victor wrote: »

Two of the most iconic bus styles in the world use strong, bright colours.

a dark yellow and a pretty normal shade of red, not really the same as an artificially bright yellow shade.

lxflyer wrote: »

Well maybe the fact that it was a major consideration is actually a good thing, although I do sometimes wonder reading your posts if you think anything that is done for the benefit of people with a form of disability is a good thing.

I just hate the constant pandering to minority groups in Ireland for everything, just so happens the disabled are one of the 'major' minorities that factor in transport. Ireland spends way to much time trying to appease 100% of everybody and making a mess because of it for everything instead of focusing on the 98-99% and improving thing for the vast majority. Routing core routes down winding estate is a similar issue but at least there's been a lot of progress to correct this in recent years.

Either way, being able to see the buses and stops clearly in the distance which you can certainly do with the current livery is I think a good thing.

True. Regardless of how they arrived at it I just hate the colour, the old brown is the same, it's hideous.
Whoever called for CIE black and orange with the white stripe a few page pack, +1

The current colours also have a Dublin connection as they reflect Dublin GAA (Blue) and Leinster Rugby (Blue and Gold)!

I did mention that, but it's hardly ideal for TfI branding, surely the goal would be to have a consistent nationwide livery for all TfI stock. Makes interchange and cascading to differing cities easier too.

cdebru

devnull wrote: »

Actually I have been in a union once in my life and I was happy to be in it since it was actually sensible and was only used when someone actually really had been wronged, and I'm all for unions in those situations. But what I am not for unions is the ones in the public sector who see the public sectors as a glorified jobs club, where any progess or improvements for customers or the public is blocked because it doesn't suit them. Management are paid to make decisions like that, not them.

In another company I did not join because one of the staff tried to take the whole team out on strike because she was given a final warning and told that she would lose her right to work from home which was at the companies discretion in her contract. She should have been fired, but the company did not fire her because of the fact that they were worried what the Union would do.

The woman then organised a meeting with the union and then the whole team went out on strike, based on the fact that she claimed she was being discriminated against since other people still had the right to work from home and she did not, and this would be unfair treatment. She claimed that as she had lost her privileges, so should they and as she would need to be in the office she may be needing to do more work and would now have to travel to work so she wanted to be paid for travel time.

The crime was that the staff member had a right to work from home, went on holiday, and left her laptop with a friend of hers, who did the work for her, without knowledge of her boss, wrote her emails and had all access to customer information. That should be an open and shut case of gross misconduct, she could have been fired for dishonesty, leaking confidential information, or fraud (since she was claiming she worked hours she was not even there!), The only reason she got found out is a sales manager bumped into her at a pub down the country about 10 minutes after 'she' replied to an email from 'home'.




Correct me if I'm wrong, but tendering did not happen yet and the NTA have also asked for branding to be put on vehicles in past year as well with increasing prominence, TFI branding and changes to liveries started as early as 2012.

Thing is a regulator is there to regulate and instruct and if they give an order it should be followed, else there'd be no point having one in the first place. Companies are by all means welcome to give their feedback, but a regulators decision should be final and if people don't like that it's too bad. It's childish and akin to a baby throwing their toys out the pram, saying it's our way or not at all.

The problem is that the companies are too used to getting their own way during the time when there was no regulator, and now they cannot get it and if someone tells them what to do they don't like it. Considering the capital investment and the PSO that that the regulator makes to the CIE companies every year, they certainly deserve a say. If the CIE companies don't like it, they can always tap their cash rich parent group for some money instead.

I'll tell you this much, you have an opinion on unions in CIE and you are hugely wide of the mark, IMO they dont run it as a jobs club or for the benefit of their members there are two over riding aims with most of the trade union movement one is that they protect themselves ie the union. And second is an idealogical belief that public ownership is better and those come before all else, including their own members interests, see if CIE was the place that was run for the benefit of those working there how can that be when ridiculous running times and completely unsafe bus stops etc etc are the norm why dont these mighty unions put their foot down and say no how can the ridiculous situation of the Labour court center door ruling still be rumbling along 30 odd years later.
If the unions ever decided to actually look after their members then the **** would really hit the fan but they are happy to walk them into ****e as long as the union is OK and the companies stay in public ownership.

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

And what is deemed "When Necessary" when they don't like something?

among other things.

devnull wrote: »

Unions should be there to protect people who are shafted by bullies in the work place, bosses who hang people out to dry and set them up to fail, people who commit decietful acts to get someone sacked, and that kind of thing which I have seen happen in workplaces before and thankfully the union has stepped up to protect such people.

thats what they do though

devnull wrote: »

But there are cases where unions stand up for people who really should be fired.

very rare, and that is really only when the reasons for firing or the evidence is dubious. like what you more or less said above. being set up to fail.

devnull wrote: »

Of course they will never be for TFL. Because when TFL do things to improve the service for the customer of change a livery, the decision is respected and implemented with the minimum of fuss.

just like here, its not always true. the same talking and negotiating happens there in london i bet. you won't hear about it though unless a strike is called.

devnull wrote: »

How the hell is the NTA supposed to be as good as TFL when the operators here argue about the slightest little thing that is done with little problem in TFL

TFL don't get everything they want. they don't always get to implement everything with little to no fuss. if you think they do, probably best think again. the NTA are the NTA. they are not and never will be TFL

devnull wrote: »

Thing is they don't, and they are utterly dependent on the NTA in recent years and if they are taking such sums from the NTA in operating expenses and capital investment, then the NTA has a right to have a say in how that money is being spent.

sure, if those on the NTA have relevant experience in working in the transport industry. do any of them have such experience?

devnull

cdebru wrote: »

I'll tell you this much, you have an opinion on unions in CIE and you are hugely wide of the mark,

My opinion may be wide of the mark in your opinion, but some people's I feel are too. Everyone has a right to one, you do, I do, we may disagree, but both of us have the right to air our views even if we dont' agree with each other. You have an opinion on the transport situation in Dublin and I think that you are wide of the mark as well but you are perfectly entitled to have it just as I am too. I'm not going to try and shut down discussion on this matter since it's a discussion board after all and people have different views to each other.

there are two over riding aims with most of the trade union movement one is that they protect themselves ie the union. And second is an idealogical belief that public ownership is better and those come before all else,[
including their own members interests,

The first priority should be serving the public I think, that is what public services are for. Ideaology and protecting themselves should always come after that.

when ridiculous running times and completely unsafe bus stops etc etc are the norm why dont these mighty unions put their foot down and say no how can the ridiculous situation of the Labour court center door ruling still be rumbling along 30 odd years later.

I agree that running times are bad on some routes but on others they are a little bit too generous, I also agree that the Garda are absloutely useless when ti comes to enforcing rules of the road and stopping traffic offences and the unions have my full support if they brought that up, since honestly the way the Garda allow the city centre to be like is a complete disgrace.

The Labour court ruling was to prevent the buses being opened when it was dangerous to do so, which I completely agree with. Some drivers are using it as an excuse to not use the centre doors even when it is safe to do so.

That is putting themselves first because of the fact they don't like centre doors, rather than putting the customer first by using them when it is safe to do so and not when it is not. I never had a problem of drivers not using the centre doors when it wasn't safe to do so, but I do have a problem with drivers who plain refuse to use them regardless of it's safe or not.

The fact that we're still talking about things from 30 years ago when transport has moved on a hell of a lot in that time says a lot about the kind of transport companies we have here, since it's not very developed, it's not very intergrated, we have an out of date fare system and so many other things, Dublin's transport system is light years behind most European cities and I want to see that improved and brought up to date, we shouldn't be harping on about things that happened 30 years ago, have ticketing equipment that is way beyond it's sell by date and a fare system based on the 1980s but we do unfortunately and that needs to change and at least the NTA re trying to do that, before they came along Dublin Bus certainly weren't going to do in on their own.

If the unions ever decided to actually look after their members then the **** would really hit the fan but they are happy to walk them into ****e as long as the union is OK and the companies stay in public ownership.

I'm not saying the union has every little thing their own way, but they have most. There are little decisions int he company that the union don't have some input in. Sometimes decisions need to be made for the greater good that may inconvenience the unions and i t's management jobs to do that. The unions seem to think they are on the same level as management at times (although not all of the time) and I agree on SOME things the unions have give a little leeway, but if you compare Bus services in Dublin with bus services in many European cities, unions have far less power in them than they do in Dublin, and sorry to say it, but most European capitals are light years ahead of Dublin when it comes to transport and intergration and have far more developed services with none of the issues we see here.

Of course some of that is down to subsidy, but not all of it.

devnull

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

surely the goal would be to have a consistent nationwide livery for all TfI stock. Makes interchange and cascading to differing cities easier too.

That is what was proposed for the previously mentioned Bus Eireann vehicles but the unions objected.

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

bus services in many European cities, unions have far less power in them than they do in Dublin

i wouldn't be so sure that thats the case.

cdebru

devnull wrote: »

My opinion may be wide of the mark in your opinion, but some people's I feel are too. Everyone has a right to one, you do, I do, we may disagree, but both of us have the right to air our views even if we dont' agree with each other. You have an opinion on the transport situation in Dublin and I think that you are wide of the mark as well but you are perfectly entitled to have it just as I am too. I'm not going to try and shut down discussion on this matter since it's a discussion board after all and people have different views to each other.



The first priority should be serving the public I think, that is what public services are for. Ideaology and protecting themselves should always come after that.



I agree that running times are bad on some routes but on others they are a little bit too generous, I also agree that the Garda are absloutely useless when ti comes to enforcing rules of the road and stopping traffic offences and the unions have my full support if they brought that up, since honestly the way the Garda allow the city centre to be like is a complete disgrace.

The Labour court ruling was to prevent the buses being opened when it was dangerous to do so, which I completely agree with. Some drivers are using it as an excuse to not use the centre doors even when it is safe to do so.

That is putting themselves first because of the fact they don't like centre doors, rather than putting the customer first by using them when it is safe to do so and not when it is not. I never had a problem of drivers not using the centre doors when it wasn't safe to do so, but I do have a problem with drivers who plain refuse to use them regardless of it's safe or not.

The fact that we're still talking about things from 30 years ago when transport has moved on a hell of a lot in that time says a lot about the kind of transport companies we have here, since it's not very developed, it's not very intergrated, we have an out of date fare system and so many other things, Dublin's transport system is light years behind most European cities and I want to see that improved and brought up to date, we shouldn't be harping on about things that happened 30 years ago, have ticketing equipment that is way beyond it's sell by date and a fare system based on the 1980s but we do unfortunately and that needs to change and at least the NTA re trying to do that, before they came along Dublin Bus certainly weren't going to do in on their own.



I'm not saying the union has every little thing their own way, but they have most. There are little decisions int he company that the union don't have some input in. Sometimes decisions need to be made for the greater good that may inconvenience the unions and i t's management jobs to do that. The unions seem to think they are on the same level as management at times (although not all of the time) and I agree on SOME things the unions have give a little leeway, but if you compare Bus services in Dublin with bus services in many European cities, unions have far less power in them than they do in Dublin, and sorry to say it, but most European capitals are light years ahead of Dublin when it comes to transport and intergration and have far more developed services with none of the issues we see here.

Of course some of that is down to subsidy, but not all of it.

The unions don't have power, it is all a facade, unions by and large with the odd exception are as much part of the establishment as employers or politicians, they feign democracy but the reality is that decisions are made by career trade unionists who by and large have as much in common with the people they represent as the employer does.
Unions have long since given up on the ideals on which they were founded and by and large they are a middle class tool used to control the employees, oh every now and then they will have a show of force, but it is all contrived, just like the last strike in DB and BE, they are like our politicians when we voted no to Nice, it was all about respecting our decision in public but behind the scenes it was all about how they could rerun it and get a yes vote, they weren't representing us they were representing the EU.
Its all just a game, none of it is real they are all acting their parts and if someone comes along and doesn't play ball they will work together to rid themselves of troublemaker, it is not that long ago that a branch secretary of one CIE union was sacked with the connivance of another union and management, why ? Because he wasn't playing nice was rocking the boat a little too much, he won an unfair dismissal case some years later but by that time they had won he was gone for good.
You unfortunately are still believing the propaganda, its the big bad unions vs the management, thwarting their every move, its not like that at all.
They are effectively two sides of the one coin, most of them start of with great intentions but it all goes awry somewhere, they get further and further up in the union and further and further away from those they are supposed to represent.

Oh BTW tendering won't get rid of unions, they have known this was coming for a long time and they are positioning themselves to be there after it, just like they are in luas and aircoach etc like I said two over riding aims but their survival is number one and they won't let CIE disappearing threaten their own existence.

dfx-

cdebru wrote: »

That's your opinion of why they objected to the NTA branding, a rather biased opinion is fairly obvious for anyone bothered to read your lengthy rants. Personally I dont have much time for the self appointed experts on these forums, they jumped up and down about how great network direct and cross city routes would be, they jumped up and down about DB getting rid of center doors, so what do we have now ? Long unreliable cross city routes, and buses with smaller capacity to make way for unused center doors. And now the same self appointed experts are cheer leading tendering, that bodes well for the future.

I'd thank this several times if I could.

What we have in reality is an NTA getting involved in petty, self-absorbed, self interested spats over the size of branding and liveries and Twitter. There's no one responsible for the NTA's approach. It is just accepted that they are right, especially if they are against a union or a transport company. Then they are absolutely right.

Blind faith?

dublindiehard

The following is a list of the many projects the NTA has been involved in, a lot of them solely products of the NTA and some of them things they have worked on with others and drove.

Proper intergrated Journey Planner
Almost cutting out student ticket fraud
Spider Maps for public transport services
Leap Card
Simplified Fare Structure
Real Time Information Nationwide
Next Stop Information
Cycling Planner
Taxi Fare Calculator
Intergrated Real Time App
Journey Planner App
Expansion of Dublin Bikes Nationwide
Introduction of Visitor Leap Card
Installation of modern ticket machines at Dublin Airport
Introduction of Wifi
Creaiton of Minimum Customer Service Standards
Creation of information screens and maps at major interchange points
Errection of LCD real time screens at major interchange points.
Expansion of Dublin Bikes to other counties.

Clearly as you can see it is all about liveries and twitter.

whisky_galore

Think the current yellow/blue livery a bit garish and the older 'army green and snot green' quite dowdy esp. in dull Irish lighting.

If green is problematic with sighting buses in semi rural areas, would think some shade of cream or off white to replace the yellow, maybe as a nod to the old GNRI's bus services.

The BE red/white scheme in its various incarnations is a great example of 'if it aint broke...'

Alun

whisky_galore wrote: »

Think the current yellow/blue livery a bit garish ...

It's not too far off the current Ryanair interior "design" .. which was first?