Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

AlekSmart

punisher5112 wrote: »

35% increase will be how they will look better as the nta can't let go ahead fail or it will actually show how much of joke quango it really is.

How many departments are needed to do the one thing.

To be fair,the 35% additional departures would have been required of BAC also,had they been successful in their tender.

This additional departure requirement is also part of the transition procedures agreed between the NTA/DoT/BAC in 2014,in relation to remaining Core BAC services,although so far,some of the schedule alterations have been "odd" to say the least.

With few having actually seen the new Tender Documentation,we are,as a result,forced to speculate on most of the detail.

It is also of note,that the actual contract between the NTA and Go-Ahead,is not yet available for public viewing,in the same manner as all of the other PSO contracts are,an oversight perhaps,but interesting nonetheless.

Cookie_Monster

bebeman wrote: »

The routes that are in the 10% have recently got new NTA timetables.
They have very generous running time, too generous by a guess of 33%.
Now when Go Ahead take over the 10%, i have no doubt that they will make new timetables soon after, and surprise,surprise they will have 3 departures per hour rather than DB's 2.
Just like that the NTA can say , it has been a huge success, a bus every 20 minutes it was every 30 minutes.
It is just smoke and mirrors.

that's nothing but pie in the sky speculation.

LeinsterDub

bebeman wrote: »

The routes that are in the 10% have recently got new NTA timetables.
They have very generous running time, too generous by a guess of 33%.
Now when Go Ahead take over the 10%, i have no doubt that they will make new timetables soon after, and surprise,surprise they will have 3 departures per hour rather than DB's 2.
Just like that the NTA can say , it has been a huge success, a bus every 20 minutes it was every 30 minutes.
It is just smoke and mirrors.

Still not following. Perhaps you can outline your issues in a clear and concise way?

punisher5112

AlekSmart wrote: »

To be fair,the 35% additional departures would have been required of BAC also,had they been successful in their tender.

This additional departure requirement is also part of the transition procedures agreed between the NTA/DoT/BAC in 2014,in relation to remaining Core BAC services,although so far,some of the schedule alterations have been "odd" to say the least.

With few having actually seen the new Tender Documentation,we are,as a result,forced to speculate on most of the detail.

It is also of note,that the actual contract between the NTA and Go-Ahead,is not yet available for public viewing,in the same manner as all of the other PSO contracts are,an oversight perhaps,but interesting nonetheless.

dB actually to the contrary put in the better bid....


Think of it what you will and I understand dB has its downsides but I for one believe in keeping Irish jobs and Irish power...

I can tell you now this is the start of selling us all off.

Why do we need a company that the UK and even Singapore if I'm not mistaken has problems with... Singapore could well be another but I can see through this sh1t....

StreetLight

bebeman wrote: »

The routes that are in the 10% have recently got new NTA timetables.
They have very generous running time, too generous by a guess of 33%.
Now when Go Ahead take over the 10%, i have no doubt that they will make new timetables soon after, and surprise,surprise they will have 3 departures per hour rather than DB's 2.
Just like that the NTA can say , it has been a huge success, a bus every 20 minutes it was every 30 minutes.
It is just smoke and mirrors.

One of those routes in the 10 percent is the 76. That timetable hasn't been changed in years and is still a shambles. 50 minutes total running time in addition to the extra loop in and out of Liffey Valley, which means it can't be done in less than 70 minutes.

The timetable collapsed in the run-up to Christmas, leaving hour-long gaps and people being left behind. I don't understand why there's no urgency to fix it.

AlekSmart

punisher5112 wrote: »

dB actually to the contrary put in the better bid....


Think of it what you will and I understand dB has its downsides but I for one believe in keeping Irish jobs and Irish power...

I can tell you now this is the start of selling us all off.

Why do we need a company that the UK and even Singapore if I'm not mistaken has problems with... Singapore could well be another but I can see through this sh1t....

As I said,the actual Tender Documentation,and the deliberations on the tender is not yet in the Public Domain.

When it is,we may have a clearer notion of what the actual deliberations entailed,until then we'll have to keep speculating.

The only aspect that is public,is that the tendering prcess was handled by two groups,who did not interact with each other.
The groups were Cost and Quality,with the weighting being 65/35.

The speculation is that BAC were stronger on the Cost element,but lagged behind on the quality aspect.

Go-Ahead,having long standing verifiable experience of the tendering process (mainly in London),could thus provide evidence of external quality monitoring,whilst BAC's tendering experience was very limited.

The arguement regarding "Irish" jobs,and "Irish" power are on the surface,valid,however since Ireland voted to join the European Economic Community almost 50 years ago,and later,freely decided to become a member of an economic and political European "Union",that arguement is now somewhat moot.

Many people roundly criticising U.S. President Trump for his "America First" stance,are also among the first to demand similar here in Ireland without seeing the parallells.

As a balance,under the same E.U.rules,there is nothing to prevent BAC itself tendering for some of the many E.U. wide Public Transport Tenders which have formed a large part of Europes Urban Transport market for decades now.

As to the status of the Go-Ahead Group in the UK and elsewhere,it is far from the bottom of the "problem" ladder in the Industry.

The Singaporean tender is the most recent,and after a somewhat rapid learning process,the Company now appears to have learned a lesson on how to enter such markets....

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/go-ahead-singapore-begins-bus-services-7781210

Perhaps there are some lessons for our Public Transport industry to be learned from studying Singapores ongoing experience of Bus Market Opening by Tender....

Amid a manpower shortage in the bus industry, the arrival of new entrants Go-Ahead Singapore and Tower Transit have among other things, prompted a review of bus captain salaries, and several pay hikes in recent months.

SMRT raised its basic starting salary for its bus captains to S$1,950 from Sep 1. SBS Transit increased its starting salary from S$1,775 to S$1,950 in June.

Go-Ahead Singapore increased its starting salary from the S$1,865 it announced in February to S$1,950 in July.

"We will conduct an annual review but at the same time, we will monitor closely on what is being offered within the transport industry," it said this week.

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/go-ahead-singapore-begins-bus-services-7781210

Considering that BAC has been operating in a tendered environment for ten years now,the concept should be well understood by now.

The main issue ,as I see it,is whether circling the wagons and throwing rocks at those outside the circle will bring any gains ?

Perhaps ten years ago it may well have,but now,it all sounds like a looped 1980's soundtrack of Unionists shouting Ulster sez NO !!!.

Whether anybody likes it or not,Go-Ahead has already recruited Administrative and Management grade staff,many of whom will be Irish,maybe even Dubs :eek: and that recruitment is likely to continue apace.

It's not as if their Company is sending recruiting Sergeants,or Press Gangs roaming the streets of Dublin,to bludgeon unsuspecting Busdrivers into their company,they lay out their stall and anybody interested applies,the rest simply walk on by.

Time and events have outpaced the situation,and those who adapt will survive.

In the meantime Dublin,as a City is going to see,through Busconnects, the very significant restructuring of it's entire Public Bus Service,for which there is now a significant and rapidly growing demand.

It's all to play for

punisher5112

Stop you know dam well jobs will come from abroad as in recruiting from outside of this island

mickoneill31

punisher5112 wrote: »

Stop you know dam well jobs will come from abroad as in recruiting from outside of this island

I keep hearing that one reason that companies don't want to move to Ireland as a result of brexit is because it's so expensive for their staff to live here.

But bus drivers can afford it? I've no idea how many people would see Ireland as an attractive operon to move their family over and start looking in the Irish rental market. Are there any stat on how many of these jobs will come from abroad?

AlekSmart

punisher5112 wrote: »

Stop you know dam well jobs will come from abroad as in recruiting from outside of this island

But,I don't "know damn well" any such thing.

However,what I DO know is that any 100% native Irish CIE Group employee will today,find themselves working and socialising alongside,people from over 150 different Countries.

In some cases the CIE companies themselves,actively sought applications from foreign parts,even foreigner than London or Birmingham.

The recruitment of These foreign folk did not suddenly spell the end of CIE as we know it,and so shall it be with Go Ahead,should they manage to recruit a rake of non freckle faced,tousel haired,Ginger gaelgeoiri to drive the NTA's buses.

The World has changed in so many ways,and children of the 1950's such as I,can often only gaze with wonder at how much of that change has filtered down to everyday life.

Do I agree with all of those developments ?...... No I do not.
Am I comfortable with all of these developments ?...No I am not.
Do I feel the need to campaign against these deveopments ?...No I do not.

When I review my own journey through life,I see up's and down's,but when I ask myself if my current lifestyle is easier and fairer than that enjoyed by my late Parents,then I have to say a resounding Yes,it is.

My view now,is that like in the past,I have to find a way to work-around the inevitable changes,both personally and in the structure within which I work.

I can remember when Aircoach began operations,and all sorts of manic stuff about their staff,buses and employment were the grist of the canteen mill.

Yet today,so many years later,I share roadspace every day (and the occasional wave) with Drivers whom I recognise from Day 1 in their company.
Some of these lads have non-Dublin accents too,but they never troubled me in any way,and so too will it be with Go Ahead.

Realistically,Go Ahead,like BAC,have advertised their Jobs on a Website which can be accessed Worldwide,and again,just like BAC they will have to consider whatever applications they get.

I feel that some belief that Go Ahead has a Terracotta Army of Busdriver Clones,massed on the Welsh Coast,poised to wipe the traditional Irish busdriver out,may be a tad far from the reality.

With some 27,000 employees in it's group,it would be a safe bet to assume that some of these may even be IRISH themselves,and may well see here an opportunity to return to the oul sod,whilst remaining with their current employer.

Are we to regard that as a declaration of Bus war or suchlike ?

BAC is now almost ten years into operating in a Tendered Regime,albeit a directly awarded one.
Go Ahead has 30 years similar experience of working,in a competitively tendered world,and it is that experience which I believe tilted the balance for them this time.

Change is a coming,with Busconnects being the most obvious one,and I believe most of it will end up being managed in a way which will see all of our boats rising with the tide.

For sure there will be the occasional squall,but so be it.

We can either line up behind King Canute and shout loudly at the incoming tide,or,we can learn to paddle and remain afloat....there is always a choice.

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

Considering the size of the order that Volvo/Wright get from NTA funds every year, I doubt that they will have any problems keeping the old front going - note that both the old front and the new front are the same vehicle with different styling at the front and rear.

You also have to remember that the 'old front' is not solely for DB and The NTA plenty of operators around the UK still order the 'old front'. I don't see why the NTA don't go for the the 'new front' as it provides better visibility for drivers as it has a wrap around windscreen.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

You also have to remember that the 'old front' is not solely for DB and The NTA plenty of operators around the UK still order the 'old front'. I don't see why the NTA don't go for the the 'new front' as it provides better visibility for drivers as it has a wrap around windscreen.

Very few are opening the old front now - If someone asked for the odd vehicle or two Wright would be unlikely to build them or make the price for the older front more expensive than the newer front - they really want to encourage the new front but when people order huge batches of them they'll be more flexible - hence why Lothian for example got a custom designed front on their massive order a few years back.

Operators may prefer the old front for the time being because of the fact that it will be cheaper for them to maintain as they'd only need to keep parts in stock for one front and rear and they will not have to have two different types - plus you don't have to train maintenance on the differences etc.

ITV2

bebeman wrote: »

The routes that are in the 10% have recently got new NTA timetables.
They have very generous running time, too generous by a guess of 33%.
Now when Go Ahead take over the 10%, i have no doubt that they will make new timetables soon after, and surprise,surprise they will have 3 departures per hour rather than DB's 2.
Just like that the NTA can say , it has been a huge success, a bus every 20 minutes it was every 30 minutes.
It is just smoke and mirrors.

The 17/18/63/114/184/185 didn't get new timetables, I don't know where you get/got your information from???

Stephen15

ITV2 wrote: »

The 17/18/63/114/184/185 didn't get new timetables, I don't know where you get/got your information from???

I think the OP is saying that they will get new timetables once GA start operating them.

LeinsterDub

Stephen15 wrote: »

I think the OP is saying that they will get new timetables once GA start operating them.

What would the problem be with this?

Stephen15

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What would the problem be with this?

Ile give a neutral view on this some people seem to think that the extra funding, vehicles and resources the NTA is giving to GAD should just be given to DB to continue operating the services which are being tendered and not bother tendering out the services as they believe would do the same job.

dfx-

AlekSmart wrote: »

We can either line up behind King Canute and shout loudly at the incoming tide,or,we can learn to paddle and remain afloat....there is always a choice.

Alek, fair play, you do try to put up a defence of how we all have to get on with it...

...but there's no getting away from the fact there has been no comparable situation to this. It doesn't need any speculation, the 'regulator' needs this 'trial' to work, hence, this operator to succeed than anyone before. This is supposed to be a trial for the further rollout, it has to succeed for the 'regulator'.

And it's ok to admit that some are prepared to just turn a blind eye to that conflict of interest.

AlekSmart

dfx- wrote: »

Alek, fair play, you do try to put up a defence of how we all have to get on with it...

...but there's no getting away from the fact there has been no comparable situation to this. It doesn't need any speculation, the 'regulator' needs this 'trial' to work, hence, this operator to succeed than anyone before. This is supposed to be a trial for the further rollout, it has to succeed for the 'regulator'.

And it's ok to admit that some are prepared to just turn a blind eye to that conflict of interest.

A tad cynical IMO.

Am I to assume the "some prepared to turn a blind eye" is a nudge in my ribs ?

I'm certainly not suggesting "Blind-eyeing" anything,and for sure,I am not defending anything on behalf of the NTA or anybody else.

Other than "Gettin on with it",what suggestions do you have at this 11th hour ?
Public disobdience....Industrial Action.....Increased Immigration Control ?

What we now have,is the culmination of 10 years of Direct Award contracts with the State Companies.

Direct Award Contracts,which remain available to the NTA going forward,and which I believe will play a role for many years to come.

Like it or not,the European Union's rules on State Owned entities having Dominance in their marketplace,are the rules we are having to play by.

Whilst there are many accounts of other EU States flouting these same regulations with regularity,Irelands proud history of EU membership has been one of compliance,even when the Rules were less than advantageous to us.

Suggesting that the main thrust of the NTA's Tendering Project is to facilitate the employment of large numbers of "foreigners",in order to cast out the native Irish Busdriving population,just does not sound like a rational 21st Century arguement against the Bus Market Opening project.

I feel that pursuing that line,leaves one open to be slapped down in double quick time,and made look like a bucktoothed backwoodsman.

What we now have,finally is the arrival of a totally new operational situation,which is open to the most investigative scrutiny.

You suggest that the BMO project "has to work",which for those passengers relying on it's routes is certainly true.

At the same time,the new post Maurice McCabe Ireland,has allowed for marked reduction in the ability of State Agencies to hide,fiddle with or ignore many elements which were traditionally so treated.

Indeed,never has the general public or involved persons,had greater ability to bring and hold to account,those at the helm.
If anybody truly believes that the NTA has a "Conflict of Interest" in the BMO,then the ability to bring this to the fore remains wide open,however as yet,I have not seen much grá for taking up this cudgel.

Public Transport in the Greater Dublin Area has never had a greater opportunity to break free from the lack of vision,which has traditionally held it down,and contributed to the dominance of private transport in a manner impossible to rationally justify.

Under the 2014 BAC/NTA/DoT agreement,there are guarantees of no job losses,maintainance of terms & conditions,and expansion of the existing network,all of which were freely entered into and therefore challengable by either side if not abided by.

Those,for me,are the positives.

By far and away the greatest Negative in the entire production,is the absence of any information on the progress (or lack of) being made between the NTA and BAC.

This lack of information,graphically illustrated by the Cllr Noel Rock route 40L "announcement",is causing frustration,suspicion and provides a fertile breeding ground for all manner of wild eyed crazyness,to the extent of dangerously lowering morale,at a time when demand for Public Bus Transport is increasing rapidly.

Anyway,back to the conflict of interest....how are we going to address it ?....assuming we can prove it

dfx-

It is not meant as a nudge in anyone's ribs in particular, Alek - apologies if it came across that way.

If anything you are recognising and highlighting some of the issues with the relationship - the lack of contract/details of how they won the tender. These should be absolutely enormous concerns about the transparency of the process. The sort of lack of transparency that if it was a direct award to DB would have the supporters of the tendering system up in arms.

But your analysis of just getting on with it because there's nothing else we can do at this advanced stage with the glaring problems you mention and vested interest in GA's success is a very sad indictment of the process.

devnull

dfx- wrote: »

If anything you are recognising and highlighting some of the issues with the relationship - the lack of contract/details of how they won the tender. These should be absolutely enormous concerns about the transparency of the process.

Do you believe this just because Go-Ahead won and not the public operator you would have preferred to have won this contest or do you really have genuine concerns with the transparency of the process no matter who won?

If it's the later then I assume that you are also unhappy and share the same concerns that the Bus Eireann contract for the Waterford area services for example was not transparent, since that is not in the public domain either?

The sort of lack of transparency that if it was a direct award to DB would have the supporters of the tendering system up in arms.

But this is not a direct award it is a competitive tender and the two tender exercises that have took place, one public operator has won and one private sector operator has won and neither contract award has resulted in the transparency that you call for

Personally I believe that if one operator who wins a competitive tender has full transparency as you call it or doesn't the same should apply to all operators that win tenders and for direct awards the same transparency rules for such direct awards should apply to each operator who gains a direct award no matter if they are public and private.

I don't see it as a "them" and "us" thing.

LuckyLloyd

Why was there no public declaration of how the tender was decided?

devnull

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Why was there no public declaration of how the tender was decided?

What has been disclosed so far has been pretty much the same for both the Waterford contract (won by Bus Eireann) and the Dublin Suburban contract (won by Go-Ahead Ireland) which were the first two competitive tendering contests that have been held for routes previously held by state operators.

devnull

Go-Ahead are now looking for mechanics
https://www.go-aheaddublin.ie/careers/head-office/heavy-vehicle-mechanic/

AlekSmart

devnull wrote: »

What has been disclosed so far has been pretty much the same for both the Waterford contract (won by Bus Eireann) and the Dublin Suburban contract (won by Go-Ahead Ireland) which were the first two competitive tendering contests that have been held for routes previously held by state operators.

Bearing in mind that the entire BMO Tender process ran well over the projected time scale,it is a matter of no little concern that the details of that process are not fully available to the public.

The closest that any of the responsible agencies has come to "Publication" of the details is in on the NTA's own website well concealed in publications/all-documents-published/ (Bus Market Opening Frequently Asked Questions)

2. How did the tender process work?

1. The tender assessments were conducted by two separate teams, price and quality. The two assessments were conducted with no information exchange between the teams until following detailed assessments, draft scores were awarded.
2. Only then did the two teams meet to consider if there were any inconsistencies between the price document and the quality document which were provided separately in the tenders.
3. The tender board was made up of three NTA Executives and an external consultant who has significant experience of bus tendering.
4. The weighting ratio between quality considerations and price considerations was 35:65
5. This was considered by the NTA as the best fit for this competition.

If there is evidence of the Process being fraudulently applied,then that evidence needs to be heard and deliberated upon,if the evidence is'nt there,then it's STFU time I'm afraid.

I would,at the very least expect an explanation from the NTA as to the reason/s for the delay in providing the full disclousure of what the actual tender process entailed.

Once the decision was announced and the statutory waiting period had passed,then the full details of that Tender Process should have been in the Public Domain.

Cookie_Monster

It'll be discounted under the usual "Commercial Sensitivity" rules, won't it?
The whole tender process is designed as the only way to get rid of Dublin Bus as an entity (or at the very least force it to change and be fit for purpose), the NTA are hardly going to come out and say this though are they?

dfx-

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It'll be discounted under the usual "Commercial Sensitivity" rules, won't it?
The whole tender process is designed as the only way to get rid of Dublin Bus as an entity (or at the very least force it to change and be fit for purpose), the NTA are hardly going to come out and say this though are they?

Absolutely, but 'they don't want to' isn't good enough reason not to show the evidence of their decisions though.

This is where the lack of responsibility and accountability of the NTA is damaging.

punisher5112

It's just another way of pissing money out on consultants and other extreme expenses and quangos.

dB may have it's issues and of course it does but we will be left with a hefty bill as a tax payer.


I don't have any trust in these departments or government officials.

nilescraneo

I've no trust in Dublin Bus to ever change from operating solely to suit themselves, as opposed to the (high) fare paying public.

If it takes a few consultants and quangos to finally change that, then so be it. Lesser of two evils in the long run.

ITV2

And at a cost to me/you the tax payer.

Night Falls

dfx- wrote: »

Absolutely, but 'they don't want to' isn't good enough reason not to show the evidence of their decisions though.

This is where the lack of responsibility and accountability of the NTA is damaging.

From being involved in construction tenders for over 10 years there 100% are commercial reasons for the results not being made publicly available. The evidence of their decisions is given to the various tendering parties (i.e. their scores and an explanation as to how the scores were arrived at are in the letters that go to the successful and unsuccessful tenderers) and it is up to them to decide whether they feel that they've been treated unfairly or not. There are any number of obvious reasons as to why a bidding party won't want their results being made public, the obvious one being that it could well give their competitors an edge in future tenders.

punisher5112

nilescraneo wrote: »

I've no trust in Dublin Bus to ever change from operating solely to suit themselves, as opposed to the (high) fare paying public.

If it takes a few consultants and quangos to finally change that, then so be it. Lesser of two evils in the long run.

Eh... It's the nta who set the fares that are so high that you speak of.

Go ahead gets a set price no matter what but I am sure they can apply for additional costs but we won't be told that.

devnull

punisher5112 wrote: »

Eh... It's the nta who set the fares that are so high that you speak of.

For a number of years the National Transport Authority listed both the proposed Leap Fare increases by Dublin Bus as well as the new Leap Fare that they had determined would be acceptable and would take effect.

You will actually find most of the time for these occasions, Dublin Bus proposed steeper rises to fare bands, especially on Leap Card fares, than the NTA would allow because it felt the rises were too high for customers.

In fact, for 2017 fares Dublin Bus proposed increases to almost all adult single fare bands when the NTA wouldn't sanction any increase across any of these fare bands.

Go ahead gets a set price no matter what but I am sure they can apply for additional costs but we won't be told that.

As would Dublin Bus if they had won and as will Bus Eireann on the Waterford routes.

end of the road

nilescraneo wrote: »

I've no trust in Dublin Bus to ever change from operating solely to suit themselves, as opposed to the (high) fare paying public.

If it takes a few consultants and quangos to finally change that, then so be it. Lesser of two evils in the long run.

even if for argument sake it was to cost hundreds of billions? a case of "so be it. Lesser of two evils in the long run" even if it meant taking money from other services to pay for it?

bk

end of the road wrote: »

even if for argument sake it was to cost hundreds of billions? a case of "so be it. Lesser of two evils in the long run" even if it meant taking money from other services to pay for it?

Well it would never cost that, so why make an argument like that!

For hundreds of billions you could have a 20 metro lines in Dublin and not a single bus needed :rolleyes:

end of the road

bk wrote: »

Well it would never cost that, so why make an argument like that!

i know that and you know that. what i am interested in doing is to see how far he would go in taking his viewpoint hence using an extreme costing.

bk wrote: »

For hundreds of billions you could have a 20 metro lines in Dublin and not a single bus needed

we could but we can't even get 1 never mind 20.

Cookie_Monster

punisher5112 wrote: »

It's just another way of pissing money out on consultants and other extreme expenses and quangos.

As opposed to just letting DB operated as it had previous and wasting millions on outdated working practices, equipment, inappropriate vehicles specification, empty running etc.

I'll happily take the pain of short term costs of consultancy and set in return for cheaper and more viable long term operations thanks.

end of the road

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

As opposed to just letting DB operated as it had previous and wasting millions on outdated working practices, equipment, inappropriate vehicles specification, empty running etc.

empty running is not unique to dublin bus. outdated equipment is what you get with when funding hasn't been availible for a long time. outdated working practices aren't unique to dublin bus and even then one's idea of outdated is another's modern.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I'll happily take the pain of short term costs of consultancy and set in return for cheaper and more viable long term operations thanks.

the operations are very cheap and fully viable. the only way to get them cheaper now is to most likely eradicate good terms and conditions which thankfully the unions won't allow that to happen.
if you are happy to take the pain of supposed short term costs of consultancy then for how long are you willing to take that pain, and how much are you willing to pay for it?

Cookie_Monster

end of the road wrote: »

empty running is not unique to dublin bus. outdated equipment is what you get with when funding hasn't been availible for a long time. outdated working practices aren't unique to dublin bus and even then one's idea of outdated is another's modern.

OK so, lets just do nothing. Some other places experience the same things, great.

outdated equipment is what you get with when funding hasn't been availible for a long time

. No, buying outdated equipment , such os on board ticket machines...

the operations are very cheap and fully viable.

compared to where or what metrics, have you a full cost analysis to back up that claim? Because all of what has occured in the last several years at the behest of the NTA would argue otherwise.

the only way to get them cheaper now is to most likely eradicate good terms and conditions which thankfully the unions won't allow that to happen.

So the only definite way is to maybe do something, genius. I wish I had though of that!:rolleyes:

if you are happy to take the pain of supposed short term costs of consultancy then for how long are you willing to take that pain, and how much are you willing to pay for it?

doesn't matter as long as the long term savings or outcomes are more beneficial than any costs.

end of the road

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

OK so, lets just do nothing. Some other places experience the same things, great.
. No, buying outdated equipment , such os on board ticket machines...

compared to where or what metrics, have you a full cost analysis to back up that claim? Because all of what has occured in the last several years at the behest of the NTA would argue otherwise.

So the only definite way is to maybe do something, genius. I wish I had though of that!
doesn't matter as long as the long term savings or outcomes are more beneficial than any costs.

so for arguments sake, would you be happy to pay multiple billions like i asked another poster?

LeinsterDub

end of the road wrote: »

so for arguments sake, would you be happy to pay multiple billions like i asked another poster?

For arguments sake would you continue to blindly support and defend every thing Dublin Bus does if it costs multiple billions?

dfx-

nilescraneo wrote: »

I've no trust in Dublin Bus to ever change from operating solely to suit themselves, as opposed to the (high) fare paying public.

If it takes a few consultants and quangos to finally change that, then so be it. Lesser of two evils in the long run.

This is the sort of thing I was mentioning earlier.

end of the road

LeinsterDub wrote: »

For arguments sake would you continue to blindly support and defend every thing Dublin Bus does if it costs multiple billions?

no, as i never have blindly supported and defended every thing Dublin Bus does.

LeinsterDub

end of the road wrote: »

no, as i never have blindly supported and defended every thing Dublin Bus does.

end of the road wrote: »

empty running is not unique to dublin bus. outdated equipment is what you get with when funding hasn't been availible for a long time. outdated working practices aren't unique to dublin bus and even then one's idea of outdated is another's modern.

Blind support and defence

StreetLight

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Blind support and defence

Those views could apply to and be valid for any bus company.

LeinsterDub

StreetLight wrote: »

Those views could apply to and be valid for any bus company.

I don't know I've used Wexford Bus a fair bit and can't say I would be able to apply those argument to them but that's besides the point in this case EOTR is using them as a blanket defense of DB with no admission of fault or a willingness to improve. It's simply a case "that's the way it is and always will be".

I could pull out hundreds of other such posts but we aren't here to discuss EOTR. My post was simply to highlight there ridiculousness of his Billion euro argument

end of the road

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I don't know I've used Wexford Bus a fair bit and can't say I would be able to apply those argument to them but that's besides the point in this case EOTR is using them as a blanket defense of DB with no admission of fault or a willingness to improve. It's simply a case "that's the way it is and always will be".

I could pull out hundreds of other such posts but we aren't here to discuss EOTR. My post was simply to highlight there ridiculousness of his Billion euro argument

there is no blanket defense of DB with no admission of fault or a willingness to improve.
the billions argument was an attempt to flush out more of the opinions of the posters i responded to, to see how far they would take their viewpoint. it was not an argument.

StreetLight

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I don't know I've used Wexford Bus a fair bit and can't say I would be able to apply those argument to them but that's besides the point in this case EOTR is using them as a blanket defense of DB with no admission of fault or a willingness to improve. It's simply a case "that's the way it is and always will be".

I could pull out hundreds of other such posts but we aren't here to discuss EOTR. My post was simply to highlight there ridiculousness of his Billion euro argument

No more ridiculous than an earlier post, which alluded to never needing a bus if we had 20 Metro lines.

LeinsterDub

end of the road wrote: »

there is no blanket defense of DB with no admission of fault or a willingness to improve.
the billions argument was an attempt to flush out more of the opinions of the posters i responded to, to see how far they would take their viewpoint. it was not an argument.

So off you go there now. What areas of poor operation are Dublin Bus at fault for and how do you suggest improving them. Perhaps you can start a new thread on it?

LeinsterDub

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So off you go there now. What areas of poor operation are Dublin Bus at fault for and how do you suggest improving them. Perhaps you can start a new thread on it?

Still waiting EOTR.

devnull

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So off you go there now. What areas of poor operation are Dublin Bus at fault for and how do you suggest improving them. Perhaps you can start a new thread on it?

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Still waiting EOTR.

Less of this please - I consider it baiting.

- Moderator

liger

Now hiring driving instructors