Deloitte to advise on liquidation or examinership of Dublin Bus

StreetLight · 21-10-2013 4:47pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

So effectively a Sunday "workout" is a Sunday shift where you have a later start than weekdays and a normal sign off time but you don't get a lunch/meal break, yes?

That's correct.

ballooba · 21-10-2013 6:27pm

CTYIgirl wrote: »

It probably will. I remember being told - whether this is true or not, I don't know - that DB had only six profitable routes for the last year information is available. They'll be the only ones sold off, and even then we'll end up with even worse service on them.

There's profitable, and then there is Dublin Bus profitable. Just because Dublin Bus can't turn a profit on them doesn't mean another operator can't. Costs can change, revenues can change.

murphaph · 21-10-2013 8:28pm

ballooba wrote: »

There's profitable, and then there is Dublin Bus profitable. Just because Dublin Bus can't turn a profit on them doesn't mean another operator can't. Costs can change, revenues can change.

There should be no flogging off of "profitable" routes to private operators to profit directly from the farebox. I'd rather keep Dublin Bus the way it is than that sort of free for all.

The entire network should be privatised in the same way as TfL. The fares are returned to the NTA for distribution to the contracted operators in form of their payment for meeting their QoS terms. Failing to meet them means a reduction in the payment.

end of the road · 21-10-2013 10:11pm

CTYIgirl wrote: »

the NTA. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

couldn't have said that better myself

Grandeeod · 21-10-2013 11:07pm

end of the road wrote: »

couldn't have said that better myself

For years we called for a DTA and got a NTA. Now we dont trust them. Well I don't trust the CIE group and before we berate the NTA, we should start by overhauling and rebranding the CIE group. Included in this rebrand is a serious need for legislation that prohibits political interference. It suits the Minister to state that he/she cant get involved in certain aspects, but then you have wild west behaviour from TDs looking for the promised pound of flesh.

Replace/rebrand. Either one or both. This 70 plus years of absolute madness must end. CIE has outlived most of the original railway companies it inherited and has really done nothing constructive in terms of road based transport.

end of the road · 21-10-2013 11:28pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

For years we called for a DTA and got a NTA. Now we dont trust them. Well I don't trust the CIE group and before we berate the NTA, we should start by overhauling and rebranding the CIE group. Included in this rebrand is a serious need for legislation that prohibits political interference. It suits the Minister to state that he/she cant get involved in certain aspects, but then you have wild west behaviour from TDs looking for the promised pound of flesh.

Replace/rebrand. Either one or both. This 70 plus years of absolute madness must end. CIE has outlived most of the original railway companies it inherited and has really done nothing constructive in terms of road based transport.

lets be honest nobody really trusts CIE either, they have done more for road transport then railways though, remember when closing railways they ripped up a couple that actually had potential, they replaced trains that were carrying good amounts of freight with their road haulage company "CIE lories" (think that was what it was called) of course everyone went to private hauliers. along the old railways most went to their cars instead of the bus replacements. some of it was necessary but i can't say i trust much of the circumstances and reasons for why it all happened, had it been the companies before CIE i probably would have trusted them.

MGWR · 22-10-2013 4:51am

monument wrote: »

Sunday Times editor tweeted this in a preview of tomorrow's paper:

The ultimate bluff?

Here comes Veolia Transdev Bus?

dfx- · 22-10-2013 6:11am

CTYIgirl wrote: »

Public transport isn't there for profit. It's always going to make a loss, but just try to minimise it. Varadkar isn't making any sense with this.

This is ultimately the truth, unless companies can operate empty buses for free. Which they can't.

cdebru · 22-10-2013 10:45am

Grandeeod wrote: »

For years we called for a DTA and got a NTA. Now we dont trust them. Well I don't trust the CIE group and before we berate the NTA, we should start by overhauling and rebranding the CIE group. Included in this rebrand is a serious need for legislation that prohibits political interference. It suits the Minister to state that he/she cant get involved in certain aspects, but then you have wild west behaviour from TDs looking for the promised pound of flesh.

Replace/rebrand. Either one or both. This 70 plus years of absolute madness must end. CIE has outlived most of the original railway companies it inherited and has really done nothing constructive in terms of road based transport.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/extra-trains-costing-20000-per-day-put-on-ministers-lossmaking-route-26825930.html

That is just the most blatant example most never make headlines or have being going on so long people don't even count them any more like the free travel scheme.

LXFlyer · 22-10-2013 11:00am

CTYIgirl wrote: »

It probably will. I remember being told - whether this is true or not, I don't know - that DB had only six profitable routes for the last year information is available. They'll be the only ones sold off, and even then we'll end up with even worse service on them.

I want to have faith that it can be done well, but the difficulty is that this is Ireland, and any acts have to be overseen by the NTA. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

Exactly what has the NTA done that has produced this distrust?

Stevek101 · 22-10-2013 11:37am

NTA seems to be the first crowd doing the job right.

devnull · 22-10-2013 11:52am

lxflyer wrote: »

Exactly what has the NTA done that has produced this distrust?

And that is why certain people don't like them, because people are used to the light touch regulation and input previous bodies had, where CIE and it's three companies were not really accountable to anyone.

That makes life harder for the CIE companies, so obviously staff of them etc don't like the fact as they were used to the previously mentioned light touch regulation which did nothing for public transport users.

TheBandicoot · 22-10-2013 12:49pm

Don't put words in people's mouths.

My own reason for distrusting them is the perception I have that they are intentionally unwilling to work meaningfully with the current public service operators(CIE) and are instead actively sabotaging events in order to pursue a politically-mandated agenda of privatisation. I have no love of CIE, but I want to see it abolished and replaced with an entirely nationalised service with no trappings of a limited company, corporate machinery or expectation to make a profit; not replaced with private operators. It's ideological on my end, I have absolutely no personal or family connection to any CIE entity outside of being a daily Irish Rail commuter.

LXFlyer · 22-10-2013 12:52pm

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Don't put words in people's mouths.

My own reason for distrusting them is the perception I have that they are intentionally unwilling to work meaningfully with the current public service operators(CIE) and are instead actively sabotaging events in order to pursue a politically-mandated agenda of privatisation. I have no love of CIE, but I want to see it abolished and replaced with an entirely nationalised service with no trappings of a limited company, corporate machinery or expectation to make a profit; not replaced with private operators. It's ideological on my end, I have absolutely no personal or family connection to any CIE entity outside of being a daily Irish Rail commuter.

Exactly what evidence do you have that they are "actively sabotaging events"?

TheBandicoot · 22-10-2013 1:01pm

None, and I don't claim to have any or that there is any. It's just my perception/opinion.

devnull · 22-10-2013 1:05pm

The most important thing with any regulator is the PASSENGER is put at the front of the queue and the NTA has been a breath of fresh air in that regard, no operator is more important than the bigger picture and the crazy regime we had before the NTA where licenses were taking years to process and being rejected for spurious reasons is thankfully well in the past now.

Stevek101 · 22-10-2013 1:06pm

I don't know how you can distrust a group who are so transparent. They are the first transport organisation to have proper public consultations here. All contracts are on display and performance reviews are regularly updated. The more control they get the better.

LXFlyer · 22-10-2013 1:08pm

TheBandicoot wrote: »

None, and I don't claim to have any or that there is any. It's just my perception/opinion.

I'm merely curious as to what actions that the NTA have taken so far has given you this perception/opinion?

TheBandicoot · 22-10-2013 1:09pm

I'm not interested in debating as I cannot defend my position.

My position is just that I don't believe in private companies operating public services. Regardless of whether they appear to offer a better service in comparison.

TheBandicoot · 22-10-2013 1:10pm

lxflyer wrote: »

I'm merely curious as to what actions that the NTA have taken so far has given you this perception/opinion?

Like I said, none in particular. Just my subjective opinion from the tone of their reports that I've read and the way transport policy is moving.

TheBandicoot · 22-10-2013 1:15pm

Stevek101 wrote: »

They are the first transport organisation to have proper public consultations here.

No reason a reformed public service operator couldn't do that as well. Just because CIE are awful doesn't mean all public operators would be.

Stevek101 wrote: »

All contracts are on display and performance reviews are regularly updated.

Yes, they do, and I know why you think that is good, but I don't believe in the very concept of having contracts in place in the public service world. The state should just directly run the service in-house and hold itself up to standards it sets based on international experience/public consultation, and then remedying the problems by arranging extra funding etc. if needed. Rather than creating a shell company it fully owns and then contracting it to do the work, which is just bizarre and wrong.

LXFlyer · 22-10-2013 1:18pm

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Like I said, none in particular. Just my subjective opinion from the tone of their reports that I've read and the way transport policy is moving.

I just find that rather staggering to be honest.

For the first time the management of our transport services - be they rail or bus - is now being handled by a unified organisation whose prime objective is to provide an integrated service to the end customer, who are finally being provided with exceptionally clear rationale for every decision that is being taken, something we have never had before in this country with regard to public transport.

The NTA is still in embryonic stage, and this process is going to take some considerable time. However, everything I have seen has suggested that at last the passenger is finally being considered before anyone else in the context of how the service is developed. That has to be a good thing.

Provided very tight performance criteria are included in any future contracts, why shouldn't private operators be able to operate PSO services?

Have you actually taken the time to read the various reports in detail or are you basing your comment on reports here?

LXFlyer · 22-10-2013 1:19pm

TheBandicoot wrote: »

No reason a reformed public service operator couldn't do that as well. Just because CIE are awful doesn't mean all public operators would be.

Yes, they do, and I know why you think that is good, but I don't believe in the very concept of having contracts in place in the public service world. The state should just directly run the service in-house and hold itself up to standards it sets based on international experience/public consultation, and then remedying the problems by arranging extra funding etc. if needed. Rather than creating a shell company it fully owns and then contracting it to do the work, which is just bizarre and wrong.

That is where I would fundamentally disagree - self-regulation just does not work - you have to have an element of independence and an arms length relationship.

Stevek101 · 22-10-2013 1:24pm

TheBandicoot wrote: »

The state should just directly run the service in-house and hold itself up to standards it sets based on international experience/public consultation, and then remedying the problems by arranging extra funding etc. if needed.

So the only solution is to keep throwing money at it? CIE has failed to meet an accepted level of standard for years now. All recent improvements are thanks to the NTA and how long have they been around!

TheBandicoot · 22-10-2013 1:25pm

lxflyer wrote: »

For the first time the management of our transport services - be they rail or bus - is now being handled by a unified organisation whose prime objective is to provide an integrated service to the end customer, who are finally being provided with exceptionally clear rationale for every decision that is being taken, something we have never had before in this country with regard to public transport.

All this is good, yes, and is much needed. But it is allowing private companies to tender and awarding them contracts, which to me invalidates it. I would be happier to see the NTA simply operate the services, given how strong it is as you have excellently pointed out.

lxflyer wrote: »

The NTA is still in embryonic stage, and this process is going to take some considerable time. However, everything I have seen has suggested that at last the passenger is finally being considered before anyone else in the context of how the service is developed. That has to be a good thing.

It is a good thing. But the state should be providing the service that the NTA judges is best, not private companies.

lxflyer wrote: »

Provided very tight performance criteria are included in any future contracts, why shouldn't private operators be able to operate PSO services?

Because they are private companies.

lxflyer wrote: »

Have you actually taken the time to read the various reports in detail or are you basing your comment on reports here?

Yes, on half-reading some of the reports posted here. I think in particular Antoin's analysis is spot on and his predictions accurate, but again, the point is Dublin Bus shouldn't be a 'company' that can be liquidated at all, and it shouldn't have to be tendering for contracts.

TheBandicoot · 22-10-2013 1:28pm

Stevek101 wrote: »

So the only solution is to keep throwing money at it? CIE has failed to meet an accepted level of standard for years now. All recent improvements are thanks to the NTA and how long have they been around!

So hold CIE up to those standards, but actually make the means available to it to meet those standards. My perception is that the NTA is currently setting standards which are very good for the passenger, but that CIE is unable to meet without a proper subsidy, which central government and the NTA refuses to provide. It is just a clever manoeuvre designed to get rid of CIE(thus saving the government money by getting out of the business of providing transport at all) and bring in private operators.

TheBandicoot · 22-10-2013 1:30pm

lxflyer wrote: »

That is where I would fundamentally disagree - self-regulation just does not work - you have to have an element of independence and an arms length relationship.

I agree. But I think it is quite possible to have that relationship between two cogs of the state.

LXFlyer · 22-10-2013 1:40pm

Your logic bamboozles me.

What you're saying basically is that no private company should provide any service on contract to the state?

Have we moved overnight to a communist/socialist model of doing things in this state??

TheBandicoot · 22-10-2013 1:45pm

lxflyer wrote: »

What you're saying basically is that no private company should provide any service on contract to the state?

Yes, that is what I am saying. To a degree. It's fine to have a cleaning contractor or bus/building maintenance contractor, something like that which is for internal service. But services that are intended for public use, like a transport operator, should be public.

And no, the country does not work that way, and quite probably never will. It is just my personal political belief, and I see the NTA and current government policy as being way out of alignment with those beliefs that I hold.

Stevek101 · 22-10-2013 2:24pm

TheBandicoot wrote: »

So hold CIE up to those standards, but actually make the means available to it to meet those standards. My perception is that the NTA is currently setting standards which are very good for the passenger, but that CIE is unable to meet without a proper subsidy, which central government and the NTA refuses to provide. It is just a clever manoeuvre designed to get rid of CIE(thus saving the government money by getting out of the business of providing transport at all) and bring in private operators.

A blank cheque, those days are gone.

Latest tender for market research tender has this in it:

18 RE-ORGANISATION OF BUS ATHA CLIATH-DUBLIN BUS
18.1 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Contract. If BAC or the Government of Ireland or any Department thereof should re-organise the business and/or legal structure of BAC (whether by dividing its business between two or more corporate bodies or otherwise). the obligations of BAC may be divided between such bodies and the Contractor shall thereafter deal with such bodies as if the parts of this Contract relevant to the business of such bodies formed a contract between the Contractor and such corporate bodies.

Anyone?

ballooba · 22-10-2013 2:36pm

lxflyer wrote: »

Have we moved overnight to a communist/socialist model of doing things in this state??

People are perfectly entitled to their opinions and ideologies. There's no need for the hyperbole and it's going to make for a very boring discussion if this thread turns into a socialist versus capitalist one. Please.

LXFlyer · 22-10-2013 3:03pm

I have absolutely no issue with people's different ideologies, but in this context it is a valid comment as that is effectively what is being advocated - I'm not condemning the man for his viewpoint, he's perfectly entitled to it. I respect him for having his own beliefs.

But I would vehemently disagree that the services must be provided by a public body even where a private company can do it better - as the poster in question posted above. That is doing something for the sake of doing something and not putting the customer first.

The latter HAS to be the objective of public transport in Ireland and that is what I believe the NTA are trying to deliver, based on reading all the various reports published to date and the ongoing rollout of improved passenger information.

end of the road · 22-10-2013 7:32pm

devnull wrote: »

And that is why certain people don't like them, because people are used to the light touch regulation and input previous bodies had, where CIE and it's three companies were not really accountable to anyone.

That makes life harder for the CIE companies, so obviously staff of them etc don't like the fact as they were used to the previously mentioned light touch regulation which did nothing for public transport users.

yeah, because its only CIE staff who wouldn't trust a body like the NTA right?

antoinolachtnai · 22-10-2013 7:35pm

TheBandicoot wrote: »

All this is good, yes, and is much needed. But it is allowing private companies to tender and awarding them contracts, which to me invalidates it. I would be happier to see the NTA simply operate the services, given how strong it is as you have excellently pointed out.

Unfortunately, The Altmark ruling and the subsequent European Directive 1370/2007 require bus routes to go out to tender by 2019. There are exceptions, but they don't apply to our situation, so it isn't really something that is open to discussion. That is the greater context.

It is a good thing. But the state should be providing the service that the NTA judges is best, not private companies.

The problem is that this structure never really worked very well. The old Department of Posts and Telegraphs was the classic example. There are a bunch of reasons why it was so awful, but it really was awful. It famously used to take literally years to get a phone line and you needed political 'pull'. It was restructured into 'semi-state' companies to resolve this.

Yes, on half-reading some of the reports posted here. I think in particular Antoin's analysis is spot on and his predictions accurate, but again, the point is Dublin Bus shouldn't be a 'company' that can be liquidated at all, and it shouldn't have to be tendering for contracts.

One particular problem with the P+T setup was that the people inside it were never really responsible for the costs, because they knew it could never be liquidated. Cost overruns would always have to be picked up by the government, and the government would then have to try to recover the money from the users. The organization had the government over the metaphorical barrel.

It does not seem intuitively 'right' that a public bus company can be liquidated, I agree with you. But there is good logic to the idea nonetheless.

end of the road · 22-10-2013 7:37pm

Stevek101 wrote: »

NTA seems to be the first crowd doing the job right.

yeah, just while they get settled in, once they do it will be back to business as usual, they allowed one rail line to be sacrificed to divert funds to a political stunt and when IE eventually want to shut the lot they will bend over backwards to allow it to happen, no i'm afraid the NTA are just another "jobs for the boys" club just like CIE management

end of the road · 22-10-2013 7:46pm

lxflyer wrote: »

Provided very tight performance criteria are included in any future contracts, why shouldn't private operators be able to operate PSO services?

because it will end up costing double or triple as fairs will sky rocket and very high subsidies will have to be payed to incentivize private companies to bid for the contract, and the tax payer has a duty to pay a high premium for privatisation so that the private companies can make a proffit on loss making routes, the NTA might set the fairs and subsidy for a while but they will bend over for the private operators later on, only public non-proffit companies can operate public services.

end of the road · 22-10-2013 7:50pm

TheBandicoot wrote: »

So hold CIE up to those standards, but actually make the means available to it to meet those standards. My perception is that the NTA is currently setting standards which are very good for the passenger, but that CIE is unable to meet without a proper subsidy, which central government and the NTA refuses to provide. It is just a clever manoeuvre designed to get rid of CIE(thus saving the government money by getting out of the business of providing transport at all) and bring in private operators.

which of course won't save the government money, but it will delude the public into thinking that it will when actually it will cost the government more

antoinolachtnai · 22-10-2013 7:51pm

If the subsidies are so high, then surely more private companies will come in to compete? The tax payer already has to pay for the shortfall on loss-making routes.

You have a point to some degree in relation to train contracts, but getting into the bus business doesn't exactly have big barriers to entry.

end of the road · 22-10-2013 8:01pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If the subsidies are so high, then surely more private companies will come in to compete?

possibly, but then it could get to the stage where only a couple of operators operate the services as it could become unsustainable for the rest meaning any benefits of having lots of operators because of high subsidies goes out the window, of course it could also end up that even if multiple operators come in that the competing could be small and that the subsidies go up more.

Cookie_Monster · 22-10-2013 8:10pm

I don't particularly like the NTA either, there is no reason for them to exist. It's just yet another quango doing the job the DofT is supposed to be doing and duplicating all the costs and expenses by being seperate.

antoinolachtnai · 22-10-2013 8:24pm

possibly, but then it could get to the stage where only a couple of operators operate the services as it could become unsustainable for the rest meaning any benefits of having lots of operators because of high subsidies goes out the window, of course it could also end up that even if multiple operators come in that the competing could be small and that the subsidies go up more.

If that really did happen, then the CIE companies, wily and efficient White Knights of the Exchequer that they are, would swing into action to take back these super-profits and return them to the taxpayer.

lucernarian · 22-10-2013 8:42pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I don't particularly like the NTA either, there is no reason for them to exist. It's just yet another quango doing the a job the DofT is supposed to be doing and duplicating all the costs and expenses by being seperate.

I think it's understandable that people would be skeptical of the NTA (and without being CIE employees :eek:) after the mess that was the ODTR/Comreg. Another body that took over some of the functions of a government dept. with an added regulatory aspect and which mainly dealt with (when it was founded) a massive semi-state incumbent. There are crucial differences between the NTA and the ODTR but there are still going to be inefficiencies when the NTA is set up as a separate agency instead of the DoT managing it all directly.

cdebru · 22-10-2013 9:06pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If that really did happen, then the CIE companies, wily and efficient White Knights of the Exchequer that they are, would swing into action to take back these super-profits and return them to the taxpayer.

There won't be a CIE when that happens though?

We will only have an NTA who will be beholden to the operators or operator and what price they want for delivering a contract.That is the international experience that the cost of tenders rise and the number of tendees decreases over time and the cost rises above the costs of the old state operator.

antoinolachtnai · 22-10-2013 9:06pm

Honestly, inefficiency as a result of the DoT/NTA split doesn't come into it. The DoT was utterly shambolic and directionless. No one will deny this. NTA has many serious problems and shortcomings but it it is a massive improvement over the old situation.

antoinolachtnai · 22-10-2013 9:10pm

cdebru wrote: »

There won't be a CIE when that happens though?

Why not?

We will only have an NTA who will be beholden to the operators or operator and what price they want for delivering a contract.That is the international experience that the cost of tenders rise and the number of tendees decreases over time and the cost rises above the costs of the old state operator.

Can you name even 20 cities where this has happened and provide some documentation?

cdebru · 22-10-2013 9:15pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I don't particularly like the NTA either, there is no reason for them to exist. It's just yet another quango doing the job the DofT is supposed to be doing and duplicating all the costs and expenses by being seperate.

The problem with the NTA model is that they have already shown what their solution is when fare box revenues don't meet the difference between operating costs and the subvention. That is cut services and massively increase fares.
At the end of the day the NTA is just another state body, anyone under the illusion that the NTA will protect the travelling public is in for a nasty shock.
The NTA can no more stand up to government than CIE when it comes to government funding or free travel schemes etc.
The NTA is really going to run into problems when they take the reins as regards controlling revenues and paying the bills. When the government does the same to them as it does to CIE and cuts subventions where do you think the NTA is going to make up the shortfall ? Its contractors will still have to be paid even if passenger numbers are falling, it is not their problem it is the NTAs problem.

LXFlyer · 22-10-2013 9:17pm

Frankly reading some of the posts here, the sort of negativity expressed about the NTA and *potentially* what might go wrong is what sums all that is wrong in this country.

For all that negativity there is every chance that they could get things right and deliver real improvements.

Look at some of what has happened so far:

* Much improved bus licence approval process with very clear guidelines regarding competition
* National journey planner rolled out
* RTPI rolled out for CIE and being rolled out to other operators
* Fare determinations with full rationale being published for all changes
* Recast networks in Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford and the South East region, incorporating private operators where applicable
* First step in providing integrated bus and rail services on a corridor (Dublin-Mullingar)
* Full consultative process on any major transport proposals
* Draft BRT proposals

I find it rather sad that people think that an organisation that has delivered that many positive things so far could be a bad thing. I also think that anyone who imagines that civil servants in the DoT could ever do this is living in cloud cuckoo land. It needs transport professionals.

cdebru · 22-10-2013 9:21pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Honestly, inefficiency as a result of the DoT/NTA split doesn't come into it. The DoT was utterly shambolic and directionless. No one will deny this. NTA has many serious problems and shortcomings but it it is a massive improvement over the old situation.

I agree, but the problem remains that the DoT are still the boys with the control of the purse strings and the NTA will be a buffer between the mandarins in the DoT and the contractors.
Something similar to the HSE, the department of health is responsible for nothing everything is the HSEs fault or responsibility they just say you are getting 666 million less make it work.

antoinolachtnai · 22-10-2013 9:32pm

cdebru wrote: »

The NTA can no more stand up to government than CIE when it comes to government funding or free travel schemes etc.

What do you expect them to do? Stage a coup? The NTA is subject to our democratic and political system.

When the government does the same to them as it does to CIE and cuts subventions where do you think the NTA is going to make up the shortfall ? Its contractors will still have to be paid even if passenger numbers are falling, it is not their problem it is the NTAs problem.

Why would passenger numbers fall? If the NTA run the thing any way half right they will grow from the current nadir.

Grandeeod · 22-10-2013 11:05pm

Massive Save CIE thing going on here and I really dont know why. What is the boardsies fascination with CIE while the general public want rid of it?

Source?

I'm not sure boards has the space for the reasons. CIE needs to be removed from transport of any kind in Ireland. Its culture. Its history. Everything. Then we can move forward.

Deloitte to advise on liquidation or examinership of Dublin Bus

Comments