Bust Éireann

Yourself isit

devnull wrote: »

At the end of the day though, public transport should be run in the interests of as many people as possible

Agreed. I actually use expressway though. I live beside a dart and work beside a dart station, and cycle to work when i am in the mood. So I don't have a car. To visit some relatives and to visit a few friends I take the bus. I am fine with it.

So what you are saying is that monopolies are bad, that is why we set up a state one?

No I'm saying that private capital wouldn't have stepped into the breach to build out our telecom, airline,electricity or national bus services.

And on the expressway routes bus eireann isn't a monopoly.

The way you ensure quality for unsustainable but socially necessary routes is by having performance criteria and if this is not met stripping the operator of it's contract and re-tendering the service. You could then exclude an operator who has been stripped of a contract from bidding in future tenders etc.

That's the PSO routes. If you think about this a local bus entrepreneur will in fact not be in incentivised to make a route profitable because he will lose the subsidy. And the NTA can't keep replacing tenders, that's no kind of business model. There won't be too many options on the termifecken to ballysmall route anyway.

For routes that are commercially viable the market will decide how they work, there are enough people in this state who will only be too willing to challenge a commercial operator who is being run in a less than perfect manner. This is a large part of the reason that BE have been beaten by the privates. The privates started from nothing, no bus station, no vehicles, no customers, yet were still able to overtake an incumbent who had many advantages and a massive passenger base.

It looks to me that bus eireann was beaten because of its bad management rather than anything else. However it's quite possible that outside of the major intercity routes there is only enough profit for one operator, which gets us back to the first quote. The interests of as many people as possible.

In terms of being a passenger more options are better. Now thus may mean a taxpayer subsidy (albeit one insignificant relative to say bank bailouts) but I think passengers now cheering the demise of BE because of that time the bus was late, and who think that the free market solves public transport issues are naive. And untravelled.

Yourself isit

devnull wrote: »

NTA Response:
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Initial_Review_of_withdrawal_of_some_Bus_Eireann_licensed_services.pdf

Clearly then a reduction in services for the customers on those lines even if the private services are "adequate"

devnull

About the X7 itself

Current Status of bus services between Clonmel and Dublin

Bus Éireann Expressway Route X7 service
Bus Éireann currently operates Expressway Route X7, Licence 11181 from Clonmel Rail Station to
Dublin Airport serving Kilsheelan, Grangemockler, Callan, Kilkenny Ormonde Road, Kilkenny Train
Station, Dublin Busáras and Dublin Airport. The same timetable operates Monday to Sunday with 8
services in each direction.

J.J. Kavanagh’s Clonmel to Dublin Airport service, Licence 95149 (Route 717)
JJ Kavanagh’s Clonmel to Dublin service currently serves the following locations: Clonmel, Kilsheelan,
Grangemockler, Callan, Kilkenny, Castlecomer, Ballylynan, Athy, Kilcullen, Naas, Luas Red Cow, Dublin
– Eden/George’s Quay and Dublin Airport. The same timetable operates Monday to Sunday with 7
services in each direction.

The following outlines the level of public transport services available in the locations affected by the
proposed withdrawal of Bus Éireann’s Route X7 service between Clonmel and Dublin.

Clonmel
To/from Dublin
 J.J. Kavanagh’s Clonmel to Dublin Route 717 service commences and terminates here 7 times
Monday to Sunday.
 Iarnród Éireann’s Waterford to Limerick Junction rail service stops here 2 times per day on
Monday to Saturday providing onward connections to Dublin City.
Interregional
 Bus Éireann’s Expressway Route 55 Waterford to Limerick service stops here 8 times Monday
to Sunday in both directions linking Kilsheelan with Clonmel. 2 additional journeys operate
on Fridays only.
 Bus Éireann’s PSO Route 355 Waterford to Cahir service stops here 4 times per day Monday
to Saturday travelling towards Waterford and 3 times per day travelling towards Cahir, with a
further 3 journeys per day in each direction commencing or finishing in Clonmel. On Sundays
2 journeys operate to and from Cahir with a further journey commencing and finishing in
Clonmel.

Kilsheelan
To/from Dublin
 J.J. Kavanagh’s Clonmel to Dublin Route 717 service stops here 7 times Monday to Sunday in
both directions.
Interregional
 Bus Éireann’s Route 55 Waterford to Limerick service stops here 8 times Monday to Sunday
in both directions linking Kilsheelan with Clonmel. 2 additional journeys operate on Fridays
only.
 Bus Éireann’s Route 355 Waterford to Cahir service stops here 4 times per day Monday to
Saturday travelling towards Waterford and 3 times per day travelling towards Cahir, with a
further 3 journeys per day in each direction commencing or finishing in Clonmel. On Sundays
2 journeys operate to and from Cahir with a further journey commencing and finishing in
Clonmel.

Grangemockler
To/from Dublin
 J.J. Kavanagh’s Clonmel to Dublin Route 717 service stops here 7 times Monday to Sunday in
both directions.
Local services
 Local Link Route 817C Carrick-on-Suir service stops here 8 times per day on Monday to Friday
providing connections with Bus Éireann Route X7 or JJ Kavanagh Route 717 for onward travel
to and from Dublin. 7 return journeys are made to Carrick. On Saturdays 7 journeys operate
in both directions and on Sunday 6 journeys operate in both directions.

Callan
To/from Dublin
 J.J. Kavanagh’s Clonmel to Dublin service stops here 7 times Monday to Sunday in both
directions.
Kilkenny
To/from Dublin
 J.J. Kavanagh’s Clonmel to Dublin service stops here 7 times Monday to Sunday in both
directions.
 Dublin Coach Cork/Waterford to Dublin service stops here 9 times daily Monday to Sunday in
both directions.
 Iarnród Éireann’s Waterford to Dublin rail service stops here 6 times per day on Monday to
Saturday towards Dublin, 7 times from Dublin and 4 times on Sunday

devnull

Yourself isit wrote: »

Clearly then a reduction in services for the customers on those lines even if the private services are "adequate"

Depends on the line, there is an argument that says those on the 21 services will now have a better service that will be fully integrated with other public transport services which wasn't always the case before, since it talks about replacement services being timed and scheduled to fit in with such services.

The fact was Bus Eireann has decided that some of the services did not have enough customers to be commercially viable and like any other commercial operator, has cancelled services which are not viable. The fact they were not viable suggests that the corridor was over-served. There is still more than an adequate service being supplied on the other corridors, which more closely will now match supply with demand.

This is how the commercial world works and the very same thing with airlines. If there is more capacity than there is demand, one airline will reduce that capacity if it feels the services it is operating are not viable. The same happens with Ryanair, Easyjet and Aer Lingus where one or more of these goes head to head, in a bid for passengers, people up services, but if they don't retain the required number they are withdrawn.

devnull

Yourself isit wrote: »

No I'm saying that private capital wouldn't have stepped into the breach to build out our telecom, airline,electricity or national bus services.

Yet the privates provided services that the state companies in a lot of cases would not run or said would not be viable. The fact that they built out markets and BE didn't is one of the main reasons that Bus Eireann is in the position that they are now, they didn't see the potential of building and creating addition services, others did.

And you really think that Ryanair has done no more than Aer Lingus in this country? Because honest to god, I don't know how anyone can come to that conclusion unless all they care about is staff wages above the need to provide a service that people want.

That's the PSO routes. If you think about this a local bus entrepreneur will in fact not be in incentivised to make a route profitable because he will lose the subsidy.And the NTA can't keep replacing tenders, that's no kind of business model. There won't be too many options on the termifecken to ballysmall route anyway.

But he will be incentivised to run it with as little subsidy as possible, because he will want to win the contract in the first place, therefore making an incentive to make the business as efficient as possible. Direct award contracts without tendering make no such incentive.

And if there isn't how will we be worse off than know for example? There is a service called LocalLink which is ideally designed for these kind of routes as well, which has been a very big success. BE will tender for every route they still have to retain it.

It looks to me that bus eireann was beaten because of its bad management rather than anything else.

Bus Eireann said in a full costed and written report that there are 1,378 drivers who work overtime each day which equals the cost of 1,636 drivers. It said if the company was to maximise driver efficiency, there would be a requirement for 986 full-time drivers. This alone is a shocking statistic and must be addressed.

Right now they are paying for the equivalent 650 more staff members than the company feels it needs at the moment and the average pay is €45,000 at the driver grade. Essentially the company is saying that with modern working practices and rotas that make the best use of resources, they can save over €25m before even talking about changing any terms and conditions or rates and any other cost measures. That is staggering.

You cannot just ignore this and blame everything on management for failing to develop the service. Failing to develop the service certainly is a big part of it, but it's not the only part, not by a long way.

Now thus may mean a taxpayer subsidy (albeit one insignificant relative to say bank bailouts) but I think passengers now cheering the demise of BE because of that time the bus was late, and who think that the free market solves public transport issues are naive. And untravelled.

Nobody wants BE to go to the wall. Most people just want it to deliver the services in a way which gives value for money for their taxes. Most of the public would rather BE stay and do that, but the trouble is at the moment there is no sign that it is going to happen and people don't want to have to pay even more taxes on top to prop it up for longer still without any changes to working practices and the way the company uses its resources.

Yourself isit

devnull wrote: »

Depends on the line, there is an argument that says those on the 21 services will now have a better service that will be fully integrated with other public transport services which wasn't always the case before, since it talks about replacement services being timed and scheduled to fit in with such services.

The fact was Bus Eireann has decided that some of the services did not have enough customers to be commercially viable and like any other commercial operator, has cancelled services which are not viable. The fact they were not viable suggests that the corridor was over-served. There is still more than an adequate service being supplied on the other corridors, which more closely will now match supply with demand.

This is how the commercial world works and the very same thing with airlines. If there is more capacity than there is demand, one airline will reduce that capacity if it feels the services it is operating are not viable. The same happens with Ryanair, Easyjet and Aer Lingus where one or more of these goes head to head, in a bid for passengers, people up services, but if they don't retain the required number they are withdrawn.

While that is true of the X7 (although note that the 717 takes a longer route) it may not be true of all routes if BE collapses.

devnull

Yourself isit wrote: »

While that is true of the X7 (although note that the 717 takes a longer route)

This thread cracks me up at times, earlier the argument was that privates only take shorter routes calling at less places now we have an example contrary to that we have complaints that they take longer routes and call at more places.

Can't win.

it may not be true of all routes if BE collapses.

Unfortunately we don't know either way as unfortunately I don't posses a crystal ball and don't claim to know what is going to happen in the future, even though some people on this board seem to know straight away. Since they posses such powers you'd think they'd use them to predict the weekends lottery numbers that way they don't need to moan about how hard up they are when it comes to their pay

devnull

NTA Statement

NTA has today announced its response to the decision by Bus Éireann to withdraw from or reduce service on a small number of Expressway routes.

National Transport Authority Chief Executive Anne Graham said:

“When the prospect of reductions to Expressway services was raised recently, NTA said that we would step in, establish the extent to which these changes gave rise to gaps in public service coverage, and bring forward proposals to fill those gaps.

“Today, we are doing precisely that, and we believe that what we are putting forward will retain connectivity and retain services along the effected corridors.

“Should it be the case that the solutions we are bringing forward require some amendment or adjustment, we will of course respond positively to any feedback that we receive.

“The Authority has assessed Bus Éireann’s proposed changes and has determined that overall, there are enough existing services to meet demand. The exception is the withdrawal of Route 21 from Westport to Athlone where we have determined that there is a public service obligation and where we are considering amending an existing PSO service to meet that obligation.

“There remains some time and space over the coming days, for the parties to resolve this dispute. I would urge them, for the sake of the travelling public to use this opportunity to get around the negotiating table and engage with each other, so that passengers are not unnecessarily inconvenienced.”

To download the overall proposals and the report on the proposals for the Clonmel to Dublin corridor click on the links below;

Initial Review of withdrawal of some Bus Éireann licensed services
Review of withdrawal of Bus Éireann licensed services on Route X7 between Clonmel and Dublin

Yourself isit

devnull wrote: »

Yet the privates provided services that the state companies in a lot of cases would not run or said would not be viable. The fact that they built out markets and BE didn't is one of the main reasons that Bus Eireann is in the position that they are now, they didn't see the potential of building and creating addition services, others did.

And you really think that Ryanair has done no more than Aer Lingus in this country? Because honest to god, I don't know how anyone can come to that conclusion unless all they care about is staff wages above the need to provide a service that people want.

I was taking about the lack of capital investment in the past. (I said "In the first place"). I doubt that small operators will replace BE, if it comes to that.
There's not enough depth of capital to replace it.

But he will be incentivised to run it with as little subsidy as possible, because he will want to win the contract in the first place, therefore making an incentive to make the business as efficient as possible. Direct award contracts without tendering make no such incentive.

Ok. Let's say that paddy's bus gets 80k subsidy and a pre subsidy loss of 50k, giving him a post subsidy profit of 30k. There is no incentive to actually attract enough customers to make a pre subsidy profit of 10k as the routes may become "commercially viable". In any case small operators like that won't spend much on capital improvement. We'll have 1980's school buses.

And if there isn't how will we be worse off than know for example? There is a service called LocalLink which is ideally designed for these kind of routes as well, which has been a very big success. BE will tender for every route they still have to retain it.

I'm opposing the end of BE scenarios. Or full privatisation.i never discussed anything else.

Bus Eireann said in a full costed and written report that there are 1,378 drivers who work overtime each day which equals the cost of 1,636 drivers. It said if the company was to maximise driver efficiency, there would be a requirement for 986 full-time drivers. This alone is a shocking statistic and must be addressed.

Right now they are paying for the equivalent 650 more staff members than the company feels it needs at the moment and the average pay is €45,000 at the driver grade. Essentially the company is saying that with modern working practices and rotas that make the best use of resources, they can save over €25m before even talking about changing any terms and conditions or rates and any other cost measures. That is staggering.

Looks like they need to cull alright. Hard to see why management aren't responsible though, unions may oppose redundancies but they don't necessarily support over hiring. Again however I'm arguing against privatisation not against BE needing to have cutbacks.

You cannot just ignore this and blame everything on management for failing to develop the service. Failing to develop the service certainly is a big part of it, but it's not the only part, not by a long way.

In general you can blame management in most cases where a company goes into the red. Staff too expensive? Don't hire so many.

Nobody wants BE to go to the wall. Most people just want it to deliver the services in a way which gives value for money for their taxes. Most of the public would rather BE stay and do that, but the trouble is at the moment there is no sign that it is going to happen and people don't want to have to pay even more taxes on top to prop it up for longer still without any changes to working practices and the way the company uses its resources.

As I said other people did support BE going to the wall and even with cuts it looks like it will without some government intervention.

Yourself isit

devnull wrote: »

This thread cracks me up at times, earlier the argument was that privates only take shorter routes calling at less places now we have an example contrary to that we have complaints that they take longer routes and call at more places.

Can't win.

Arguing against the thread is a strawman. Dont quote me and argue something I didn't say. With regards to this route - which is a commercial express route - it's clearly a reduction in the quality of the service from Clonmel and Kilkenny. Going though athy will add 50% more time at least. It avoids the motorway.

Unfortunately we don't know either way as unfortunately I don't posses a crystal ball and don't claim to know what is going to happen in the future, even though some people on this board seem to know straight away. Since they posses such powers you'd think they'd use them to predict the weekends lottery numbers that way they don't need to moan about how hard up they are when it comes to their pay

Although I'm not sure who you are referencing here either.

devnull

Yourself isit wrote: »

There's not enough depth of capital to replace it.

We will just have to wait and see won't we at the end of the day? I remain to be convinced that your argument is valid, you remain to be convinced that mine is, in any case none of us know for sure either way until it happens.

Ok. Let's say that paddy's bus gets 80k subsidy and a pre subsidy loss of 50k, giving him a post subsidy profit of 30k. There is no incentive to actually attract enough customers to make a pre subsidy profit of 10k as the routes may become "commercially viable".

You do realise that if a service is viable or not does not just depend on the customers. It depends on the companies cost base. If a company is more efficient with it's working practices it's costs are less than a company who is not, which means they can do it for less money and still bring in more money than a company with higher costs.

In any case small operators like that won't spend much on capital improvement. We'll have 1980's school buses.

Really? From what I have seen LocalLink have been using modern mini-buses for services with very low demand for rural areas? You don't have to take my word for it.

https://locallink.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/slide-1.jpg

I'm opposing the end of BE scenarios. Or full privatisation.i never discussed anything else.

In 2009 we formed a regulator, why would we form one if we are going to de-regulate like you claim (because deregulation is what full privatisation is) nobody has asked for that and neither has anyone in government proposed it.

Looks like they need to cull alright. Hard to see why management aren't responsible though.

You could argue that management should never have let it get this far and the company to be so ineffiecent, but if they try and cut terms and conditions but the staff won't accept it, what can they really do? Force it? That is what they are trying to do now and there is a strike.

In general you can blame management in most cases where a company goes into the red. Staff too expensive? Don't hire so many.

The problem is they need to hire more staff to run the company else they could not run their services or deliver on their contracts with current working practices. They would love to have less staff, but they cannot cope with less staff in combination with current working practices.

As I said other people did support BE going to the wall and even with cuts it looks like it will without some government intervention.

At the end of the day the unions could reign themselves in a bit as well and agree that they would take some cuts. So far I've seen from the unions they will allow no changes to pay, wages, terms and conditions, they will accept no inefficiencies, route closures, they won't accept anything that effects them. They can complain about management all they like, but management have already agreed to take cuts and redundancies, the drivers refuse everything and expect the taxpayer to contribute everything and them nothing.

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

It's very different because a competitive tender places pressure on a company to be more cost effective because at the end of the day if they are not someone else will be and will win the contract.

the question i asked the poster was whether on the basis of his post, should transdev have lost the luas contract because their staff went on strike. what you have written in responce isn't one bit relevant to the question. all you have done is moan about the use of the word contract. the fact is, transdev are contracted to run the luas. they weren't gifted it and they didn't build it. they were contracted to run it. the fact they got it via a tender which i didn't state otherwise still means they are contracted. a contract was signed.

devnull wrote: »

No conflict of interest whatsoever, I just think it's a bit strange you are doing Imelda Munsters canvassing for her by publicising every single quote she has made about the matter. I have never worked in the transport industry or been involved in politics, just a regular user of public transport on here, free of vested interests. It is clear however you have some involvement in the industry or politics though!

no . he simply asked questions and posted information he wanted clarriffied. if he has a conflict of interest due to him posting information then you have a conflict of interest as you post long winded posts defending the NTA and you then make an issue of someone stating words such as contracted.

devnull wrote: »

It could also trigger an improvement in service to the public and a better value service for the taxpayer and also limit the effect that future strikes had on the travelling public if it meant that not all services were ran by the same company?

fares will go up whoever runs it. subsidy won't go down as we have saw from the uk. i don't want my tax money going on minny monopolies on some supposed belief that it might limit the odd strike, something which actually has no guarantee of happening. and yes any potential for tendering leading to downgrading of terms and conditions has to be stopped.

devnull wrote: »

Having a monopoly win a contract every time never has been and never will be a way to extract the best business for the public.

minny monopolies are worse again as they have separate management structures and less economies of scale. the monopoly isn't perfect but over all from my many experiences it is better at cross-managing and dealing with issues else where when needeed.

devnull wrote: »

Nobody is fined. If a company is contractually obliged to provide certain services to the state and does not provide those services, then they should not be paid for them, that is a fairly sensible idea and a lot of contracts in many industries would be on the basis that they pay for work and if the work is not done they do not pay. If the taxpayers pay for a service and the company doesn't deliver them, the company should not get the money.

the companies don't get paid whether you want to call it a fine or simply non-payment.

devnull

Yourself isit wrote: »

With regards to this route - which is a commercial express route - it's clearly a reduction in the quality of the service from Clonmel and Kilkenny. Going though athy will add 50% more time at least. It avoids the motorway.

And if it went via the motorway or cut places out you'd moan about that too saying that because of this places are left without a service. As I said, can't win no matter what they do.

On one hand people complain if stops are cut out and people have a fair sized reduction in service, on the other people complain if they are not left out and journey times are increased.

Can't have it both ways on the same route.

devnull

Ignoring the tit for tat arguments and personal digs.

end of the road wrote: »

fares will go up whoever runs it. subsidy won't go down as we have saw from the uk.

The UK has no relevance to this debate because the UK has a deregulated bus system, we have a regulated bus system, you know that but once again you are spinning and comparing apples with oranges like you usually do. If the UK had a regulated system maybe you have a point, but it doesn't so you don't.

i don't want my tax money going on minny monopolies on some supposed belief that it might limit the odd strike, something which actually has no guarantee of happening.

But you have no problems with your tax money going on monopolies now?

How many private bus operators have gone on strike in the last 10 years in Ireland? You have been asked this question about 100 times now yet you still refuse to answer it.

any potential for tendering leading to downgrading of terms and conditions has to be stopped.

Any potential of providing a better public service for the public who pay for it has to be welcomed since that is what public transport is all about.

Any potential of giving the taxpayer value for money and making sure that the company is run in a way which is making good use of such monies shoudl be welcomed.

Any potential of making the company work in a way that is efficient and makes the most of its resources should be welcomed. Right now the company doesn't do that.

Bus Eireann said in a full costed and written report that there are 1,378 drivers who work overtime each day which equals the cost of 1,636 drivers. It said if the company was to maximise driver efficiency, there would be a requirement for 986 full-time drivers. This alone is a shocking statistic and must be addressed.

Right now they are paying for the equivalent 650 more staff members than the company feels it needs at the moment and the average pay is €45,000 at the driver grade. Essentially the company is saying that with modern working practices and rotas that make the best use of resources, they can save over €25m before even talking about changing any terms and conditions or rates and any other cost measures. That is staggering.

the companies don't get paid whether you want to call it a fine or simply non-payment.

A company is contracted to provide a service, it didn't provide the service, it doesn't get paid, it's pretty standard in most of such contracts where the public is paying a third party or a company to provide a service on it's behalf. It's right too, since taxpayers should be paying for service, not writing blank cheques where the parties get paid if they provide services or not.

oppenheimer1

end of the road wrote: »

minny monopolies are worse again as they have separate management structures and less economies of scale. the monopoly isn't perfect but over all from my many experiences it is better at cross-managing and dealing with issues else where when needeed.

Do you think BE, with their great size have achieved economies of scale, because it looks like bloat and largesse from here.

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

The UK has no relevance to this debate because the UK has a deregulated bus system, we have a regulated bus system, you know that but once again you are spinning and comparing apples with oranges like you usually do. If the UK had a regulated system maybe you have a point, but it doesn't so you don't.

the uk is very relevant. yes outside london is mostly de-regulated however tendered services do exist in many areas. i am spinning nothing.

devnull wrote: »

How many private bus operators have gone on strike in the last 10 years in Ireland? You have been asked this question about 100 times now yet you still refuse to answer it.

i answered it plenty of times, you and others didn't like the answer. that is your problem, not mine. it's irrelevant as we have all ready saw from the uk that privatization doesn't stop strikes.

devnull wrote: »

Any potential of providing a better public service for the public who pay for it has to be welcomed since that is what public transport is all about.

Any potential of giving the taxpayer value for money and making sure that the company is run in a way which is making good use of such monies shoudl be welcomed.

Any potential of making the company work in a way that is efficient and makes the most of its resources should be welcomed. Right now the company doesn't do that.[/QUOTE]

none of that will happen at the expence of lowering terms and conditions. low terms and conditions lead to low staff morale which unfortunately passes down to the user.

devnull wrote: »

A company is contracted to provide a service, it didn't provide the service, it doesn't get paid, it's pretty standard in most of such contracts where the public is paying a third party or a company to provide a service on it's behalf. It's right too, since taxpayers should be paying for service, not writing blank cheques where the parties get paid if they provide services or not.

which is what i said. they don't get paid. you haven't contradicted that.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Do you think BE, with their great size have achieved economies of scale, because it looks like bloat and largesse from here.

absolutely. capacity can be moved from route to route wherever whenever, they mostly have a standard fleet so a bus can run a rural route and then head for dublin, so no busses stuck to speciffic routes. economies of scale are separate to the bloat issues which management are now dealing with.

devnull

end of the road wrote: »

the uk is very relevant. yes outside london is mostly de-regulated however tendered services do exist in many areas. i am spinning nothing.

You are comparing a de-regulated market in the UK and saying that is what will happen to a regulated market in Ireland, despite the fact nobody has said that they are looking to follow the UK model, so yes you are spinning. De-regulation happened throughout the entire UK, the only system different is in London.

i answered it plenty of times, you and others didn't like the answer. that is your problem, not mine. it's irrelevant as we have all ready saw from the uk that privatization doesn't stop strikes.

You did not answer the question directly you avoided it and started talking about companies who did not operate buses and instead other methods of transport. That was not the question, I was asking about bus operators and you to date have not named any,

This topic is about buses, so again I will ask you to name me a company who has gone on strike who is private in Ireland. If not, say there were not any. It's a very simple question to answer, if you have answered it before, then you'll have no problem answering it again.

Any potential of making the company work in a way that is efficient and makes the most of its resources should be welcomed. Right now the company doesn't do that.

none of that will happen at the expence of lowering terms and conditions. low terms and conditions lead to low staff morale which unfortunately passes down to the user.

EOTR has just said what we always knew, but he never said directly before. He's just admitted that he views the terms and conditions of the staff are more important than the taxpayer getting value for money and a good level of service.

absolutely. capacity can be moved from route to route wherever whenever, they mostly have a standard fleet so a bus can run a rural route and then head for dublin. so no busses stuck to speciffic routes.

BE have many many different bus types in their fleet:
http://www.buseireann.ie/inner.php?id=396

Which is quite sensible really, because different routes have different requirements in size of bus and whether a bus or coach should be used, even if there could be less micro-fleets of some types of vehicle, having different sizes, such as minibuses, midibuses, double deckers, single deck coaches, double deck coaches and triaxle coaches is sensible.

economies of scale are separate to the bloat issues which management are now dealing with.

No, the idea is economies of scale should reduce bloat and make a company more efficient because the number of staff makes the company more flexible for dealing with things which reduces the cost of overheads.

Since you appear to not know what it means, I've included a link for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

You are comparing a de-regulated market in the UK and saying that is what will happen to a regulated market in Ireland, despite the fact nobody has said that they are looking to follow the UK model, so yes you are spinning. De-regulation happened throughout the entire UK, the only system different is in London.

tendered and subsidized services exist outside london. yes the vast majority of services outside london are de-regulated but councils and other authorities do tender and subsidize some services. no spinning from me.

devnull wrote: »

You did not answer the question directly you avoided it and started talking about companies who did not operate buses and instead other methods of transport. That was not the question, I was asking about bus operators and you to date have not named any,

This topic is about buses, so again I will ask you to name me a company who has gone on strike who is private in Ireland. If not, say there were not any. It's a very simple question to answer, if you have answered it before, then you'll have no problem answering it again.

i did answer it, you and others didn't like the answer. i won't be re-answering a question i answered.

Idbatterim

why not sell off CIE to highest bidder? other than being a leach on the taxpayer, what is it achieving that a private operator couldn't do. Also what makes a route a PSO one? I mean if BE are poor at what they do, what's to say a private operator couldn't serve a route and make it profitable without a subsidy?

road_high

Which are BE routes are profitable/paying their way (if there's any at all)? Because I'd imagine once they start axing routes, it won't stop there.

end of the road

Idbatterim wrote: »

why not sell off CIE to highest bidder? other than being a leach on the taxpayer, what is it achieving that a private operator couldn't do. Also what makes a route a PSO one? I mean if BE are poor at what they do, what's to say a private operator couldn't serve a route and make it profitable without a subsidy?

i think you know what makes a PSO route a PSO route. if it isn't financially viable and requires a subsidy then it will be that whoever runs it. selling CIE off to the highest bidder would bring nothing to the table, little income could potentially be gained and there would be even less accountability. it must remain publically owned and funded for the greater good.

Brendan Bendar

Idbatterim wrote: »

why not sell off CIE to highest bidder? other than being a leach on the taxpayer, what is it achieving that a private operator couldn't do. Also what makes a route a PSO one? I mean if BE are poor at what they do, what's to say a private operator couldn't serve a route and make it profitable without a subsidy?

There would be very few bids given the cost base, work practices, and the desire to remain in the past, I would think.

Who would take on that company.

Idbatterim

I am talking about buying the buses and infrastructure mainly. Other than being a political problem, is there any good reason this wouldnt be done?

if it isn't financially viable

this is a real grey area in my opinion, some companies can make a go of something, that others werent able too...

end of the road

Idbatterim wrote: »

I am talking about buying the buses and infrastructure mainly. Other than being a political problem, is there any good reason this wouldnt be done?

yes, nothing would be gained.

Idbatterim wrote: »

this is a real grey area in my opinion, some companies can make a go of something, that others werent able too...

it's not really. the vast vast majority of routes ran by bus eireann are very unlikely to fit into what you are talking about. 1 or 2 routes at most maybe. that's excluding expressway which all ready have private operators but where the competition from bus eireann provides some extra competition for the others to match or beat so must remain as much as is possible.

devnull

end of the road wrote: »

tendered and subsidized services exist outside london. yes the vast majority of services outside london are de-regulated but councils and other authorities do tender and subsidize some services. no spinning from me.

The UK has a de-regulated market, Ireland does not, whatever way you want to dress it up, that is the truth, the systems are totally different and you know it so why try and say otherwise? Just to underline that.

Irish System
- By default, all services within cities and commuter town services are deemed as being unviable and needing subsidization.
- These services are never open to private operators to run commercially since to date, BE/DB has an automatic right to them as PSO routes.
- Even if a private operator believes it can operate a PSO route commercially, it is not allowed to do so, the state still pays.
- Commercial services are regulated by the NTA restricting two operators per route offering services in a non predatory way.

British System
- By default all services are left to the open market to decided how they should be served.
- Operators can run whatever timetable they like, predatory or not
- As many operators as they want can operate on a route there is no limit
- If nobody picks up the routes and there is a social need, a tender is issued

There is a major difference. In the UK, a tender and subsidy is issued if the market is given every chance to serve it and does not. In Ireland the market is given no chance to serve the route since Bus Eireann get subsidy by default because they say it is not viable, even if other operators believe it may be viable, the exclusive contract still goes to Bus Eireann. 9.9/10 city bus services in Ireland are deemed in need of subsidy to keep them going, in the UK that figure is much much much lower.

How can it be that major cities in the UK have whole networks of routes ran without subsidy, with a few services tagged on with subsidiy with an undeniable social need, whilst Dublin Bus or Bus Eireann cannot run a single city bus route between them that can be viable on it's own? Would it be because in the face of lack of protection from competition, they trim their costs and keep them in check because they know they are vulnerable if they don't?

Personally I don't think that the UK market is one we should copy because there always need to be an element of regulation and a free for all to run predatory services and large numbers of operators on a single route is not desirable, even if it does lower costs, I feel that it would lead to an oversupply of services on some corridors and lead to a race to the bottom. But nobody has asked for that kind of market here.

i did answer it, you and others didn't like the answer. i won't be re-answering a question i answered.

You did not answer the question. I asked you about bus services, you did not reply about bus services, you answered a question I never asked in the first place because you don't like the answer to the actual question.

devnull

end of the road wrote: »

i think you know what makes a PSO route a PSO route. if it isn't financially viable and requires a subsidy then it will be that whoever runs it.

Do you know what a cost is? The expenditure of funds or use of property to acquire or produce a product or service. Because this is key to where a service is viable or not.

The higher your costs are, the more income you need to make something viable, an operator with lower costs can make a route viable that an operator with higher costs deems nonviable

In addition an operator who has lower costs even for services that are losing huge amounts of money, can do a PSO route for less subsidy because their business is more efficient.

Bus Eireann is not an efficient business.

it must remain publically owned and funded for the greater good.

The greater good is a common expression which refers to the fact that you are doing something that most likely will not benefit you but many other people will benefit. I just thought I'd underline that because you appear not to know what the phrase means.

The difference between myself and you is that I believe that a public transport system should put the public first and improve the level of services to the public and this is the greater good and considered as improvements.

A few posts ago you said that the taxpayer should not get a better service and better value for their money if it effected the workers. Your version of the greater good in this instance doesn't seem to be in line with the meanings of the words and is a false narrative.

devnull

end of the road wrote: »

it's not really. the vast vast majority of routes ran by bus eireann are very unlikely to fit into what you are talking about. 1 or 2 routes at most maybe.

Bus Eireann said in a full costed and written report that there are 1,378 drivers who work overtime each day which equals the cost of 1,636 drivers. It said if the company was to maximise driver efficiency, there would be a requirement for 986 full-time drivers. This alone is a shocking statistic and must be addressed.

Right now they are paying for the equivalent 650 more staff members than the company feels it needs at the moment and the average pay is €45,000 at the driver grade. You are saying that private operators have the same level of fat and excess in them that BE has?

Essentially the company is saying that with modern working practices and rotas that make the best use of resources, they can save over €25m before even talking about changing any terms and conditions or rates and any other cost measures. That is staggering.

Bus Eireann is not an efficient business. This impacts on their ability to make routes viable.

that's excluding expressway which all ready have private operators but where the competition from bus eireann provides some extra competition for the others to match or beat so must remain as much as is possible.

The fact was Bus Eireann has decided that some of the services did not have enough customers to be commercially viable and like any other commercial operator, has cancelled services which are not viable.. There is still more than an adequate service being supplied on the other corridors, which more closely will now match supply with demand.

This is how the commercial world works and the very same thing with airlines. If there is more capacity than there is demand, one airline will reduce that capacity if it feels the services it is operating are not viable. The same happens with Ryanair vs Aer Lingus and Easyjet vs Ryanair., where one or more of these goes head to head, in a bid for passengers, people up services, but if they don't retain the required number they reduce services.

Jamie2k9

road_high wrote: »

Which are BE routes are profitable/paying their way (if there's any at all)? Because I'd imagine once they start axing routes, it won't stop there.

Non Expressway ones, you won't find out what Expressway ones are/not profitable. The cuts/reductions were the most obvious after that you could potentially see some merging/enhancing services.

One wonders did introducing the X7 do more harm than the regular 7 service

GM228

devnull wrote: »

NTA Response:
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Initial_Review_of_withdrawal_of_some_Bus_Eireann_licensed_services.pdf

The NTA reckon 4 out of 5 routes being cancled/scaled back don't need any additional services. Fair enough, but I wonder if they looked at the entire operation as a whole if they would find the same results for other routes, especially PSO services.

Obviously Expresseay is a matter for BE only but I'm wondering if the PSO as a whole was reviewed would the NTA find similar results for those services and potentialy reduce/amend BE (and other operators) PSO services when other operators are factored in? Or perhaps other operators are already taken into consideration when PSOs are determined?

devnull

GM228 wrote: »

Obviously Expresseay is a matter for BE only but I'm wondering if the PSO as a whole was reviewed would the NTA find similar results for those services and potentialy reduce/amend BE (and other operators) PSO services when other operators are factored in? Or perhaps other operators are already taken into consideration when PSOs are determined?

PSO routes do not have any competition however and are protected from competition so I would say that they would not find the same for an PSO routes