Patton Flyer (mod warning post #404) SEE POST #659 ALSO

patrickbrophy18

I heard that Trevor Patton was on the radio this morning regarding the fact that the Aircoach was given a license to operate along the same route. Is this true?

Taxipete29

Yes, I heard him on the radio yesterday. He reckons he is going to continue operating it though.

Run_to_da_hills

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Yes, I heard him on the radio yesterday. He reckons he is going to continue operating it though.

We can now look foreward to a €5.00 spin from Dalkey, competition is a great thing.

AlekSmart

We can now look foreward to a €5.00 spin from Dalkey, competition is a great thing

I would`nt be booking that vila in Spain just yet

The Department of Transport appears now to be about to reap it`s own whirlwind as the Galway Coach licence scenario shows.

Aircoach already has a Licence to operate Legally along much of the PF routing.
This could be the granting of the original Aircoach application for the Dalkey stretch which Trevor Patton set up camp on.

It needs to be understood that the reason the Patton Flyer is unlicenced is the PRE-Existing application which the Department had not adjudicated upon,and,it seems,has now granted.

What will be interesting is whether Aircoach will engage fully with the Patton Flyer through the Courts OR whether they may decide to stick it to the Departmenmt for sny Commercial losses due to the Departments inability/unwillingness to police it`s own backyard.

Of course it`s also open to First Aircoach group to make Mr Patton an offer he can`t/won`t refuse,and to offer him a free ride to Collinstown and thence to Puerto Banus or someplace warm like that !! :rolleyes:

devnull

The Patton Flyer has never had a license, and for Trevor Patton to complain is ridiculous, because he has been breaking the law for over two years.

Put it simply this is the story as confirmed in the Dail:

• Aircoach applied for a license for the Greystones route of theirs prior to February 2007
• Mr Patton applied for a license for a similar route in February 2007
• At the time as the Aircoach license application was placed first, it was dealt with on a first come first served basis.
• The Aircoach application was accepted in December 2007, such long decision times are typical of the way the system works
• In July 2007 Mr Patton decided he did not want to wait for a decision on his license as he disagreed with the law and process, and decided to break it and operate the service anyway.
• Since then the service has been operating without approval and without Garda clearence.

It is particularly ironic that the Patton Flyer is kicking off about Aircoach stealing their passengers, when the true reason is because of the fact Travor Patton's service is illegal and the way he has gone about things by showing contempt for the laws in this country and feeling if he does not like them he can just ignore them. Aircoach meanwhile has stuck to the painstaking process of spending quite a time getting their license approved, yes it's a huge pain in the ass to wait such a long time, but they didn't resort to breaking the law because they didn't like it.

At the time the government told the Patton Flyer "While there is a strong passenger demand for a service between Dalkey and Dublin Airport, my Department would only be prepared to make an offer of a licence to Patton Flyer if that company demonstrates that it would be prepared to operate in conformity with the law." Since they have continued to operate the service, it's hardly suprising if the Aircoach route has now been extended to Dalkey - Aircoach have followed all laws and regulations where the Patton Flyer have tried to bully their way into the market.

Patton claims that it is a classic guy of the large guy crushing the small guy. He's wrong. It's a classic case of one operator doing things the legal way and the other one showing complete disregard for the law then crying foul when it comes back and bites them.

Whatever the rights or wrong about the way the license system works here, and I agree it is far from being perfect, I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who breaks the law and operates an unlicensed service else that could lead to anyone and his spare bus starting up a service one day without any approval or safety checks at bus stops.

KC61

An almost perfect assessment of the situation devnull, except that you left out that Patton was (at one stage) offered a licence by the Department to operate a service from Dalkey, which I suspect restricted his pick up stops beyiond Monkstown, and he turned it down, and continued to operate regardless.

Like you I have very little sympathy for the man. Other operators have had to wait ages for approval, but like Aircoach they played by the rules. Yes the law is an ass in this regard (as observed by Mr Patton on Liveline on Tuesday), but it is still the law. Patton decided to ignore it.

Cookie_Monster

Are Air coach going to buy smaller busses then cos there is no way one of the tri-axles will fit along the roads from DL to Dalkey.

Will the service be reduced by aircoach as it will not be economical to run such a large coach to Dalkey every hour, there is just not enough demand, the PF is usually less than half full in my experience and I've only been on it once when completly full.

dub_commuter

So wait a minute, the Patton Flyer is accusing Aircoach of being a big company bullying a small company, despite the fact the Patton Flyer has no license, no safety approval for it's bus stops, and no legal right to operate their service and the fact Aircoach has stuck to the laws?

Now call me cynical, but I see more evidence of the Patton Flyer doing the bullying, by running a service that it has no permission to do so which then drums up support from the public, in order to bully the department of transport into giving it a license under pressure of public support.

The irony is unbelievable.

crocro

There is something wrong when the Department of Transport refuses a licence to operate a bus from Dalkey to the airport because for a short distance it overlaps another proposed service from Greystones.

Patton decided to operate a service with a Passenger Transport Operator Licence and insurance but in contravention of a law so minor that it carries a fine of €6.25 per day.

The people living in Dalkey, Glasthule, Dun Laoghaire and Monkstown have been provided with a great public transport service to the airport for the past 2 years that the Civil Service wanted to deny them in case it made the Greystones route less viable. In fact the Greystones service is very busy and only 2 of its 18 stops are in common with the Patton Flyer.

Run_to_da_hills

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Are Air coach going to buy smaller busses then cos there is no way one of the tri-axles will fit along the roads from DL to Dalkey.

Patton has been a good test bed for Aircoach, Ie a frequent run of smaller coaches. Also works well with Stelios on the Baker St to Luton route. They might by the coaches from Patton when they are finally booted off the route.

devnull

crocro wrote: »

Patton decided to operate a service with a Passenger Transport Operator Licence and insurance but in contravention of a law so minor that it carries a fine of €6.25 per day.

The people living in Dalkey, Glasthule, Dun Laoghaire and Monkstown have been provided with a great public transport service to the airport for the past 2 years that the Civil Service wanted to deny them in case it made the Greystones route less viable. In fact the Greystones service is very busy and only 2 of its 18 stops are in common with the Patton Flyer.

The Patton Flyer has no license for that particular route, so please don't try and tell me otherwise.

Nothing to do with making the Greystones route less viable either, it's a law for all transport operators and can be found on the transport.ie website if you look.

And last of all the Patton Flyer has no STOPS as it ahs not a license it cannot have any stops as these have to be approved by the Garda, from what I can read the service was offered a license for all stops that were nto serviced by the other service but turned it down.

patrickbrophy18

Basic question: Are Aircoach going to be running a service from Dalkey?

Run_to_da_hills

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Basic question: Are Aircoach going to be running a service from Dalkey?

Dalkey isn't exactly on the smooth Greystones route, the bus would have to turn off at Shankhill or Cherrywood and it would add to the journey.

KC61

I would imagine that it would operate as a separate service.

KC61

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Basic question: Are Aircoach going to be running a service from Dalkey?

Well they have been awarded a licence, so probably yes.

However, they will probably need to acquire buses to operate it first, so there will be a time lag.

patrickbrophy18

I thought that the Greystones Aircoach was given a license a year ago. Was it not?

KC61

Aircoach now also have been issued with a licence to service Dalkey.

It is separate from the Greystones licence, which was issued in December 2007.

Remember there can be a long lead time between a licence being issued and a service starting as vehicles and staff need to be acquired.

astrofool

As usual, the department of transport is so inept, that to get public transport out there, it's easier to break the law and pay the fine, then to operate "legally" within it's confines. And I term "legally" here as loosely as possible, as it would all likely get thrown out if it went up to the european court.

robd

astrofool wrote: »

As usual, the department of transport is so inept, that to get public transport out there, it's easier to break the law and pay the fine, then to operate "legally" within it's confines. And I term "legally" here as loosely as possible, as it would all likely get thrown out if it went up to the european court.

True. I suspect the most viable commercial option would be for Aircoach to simply buy the Patten Flyer service. Obviously at a discount, due to the lack of a license. They'd be up and running within weeks then, with coaches and drivers already there. All legal.

dowlingm

The minister should inform the Department that any licence applications not dealt with within 60 days should be deemed granted on a non-exclusive basis for a 12-month rolling term.

Example -

2009 Nov operator1 applies for licence
2009 Dec operator2 applies for licence on similar route
2010 Feb operator1 may proceed to operate route on a non-exclusive basis
2010 Mar operator2 may proceed to operate route on a non-exclusive basis
2011 Jun Dept of Transport denies op1 application, grants op2 licence
- operator1 may continue to operate until 2012 May at which point s/he must vacate and during which time s/he may not reduce fares below those offered by op2.

There are planning analogies - here in Ontario, if you lodge a planning application and the municipality does not make a decision within 120 days, you can take it directly to the provincial analogue to An Bord Pleanala for final decision merely on grounds of delay.

dowlingm

robd wrote: »

True. I suspect the most viable commercial option would be for Aircoach to simply buy the Patten Flyer service. Obviously at a discount, due to the lack of a license. They'd be up and running within weeks then, with coaches and drivers already there. All legal.

You'd be buying the driver contracts too, and a different vehicle fleet.

nicksinthemix

I think it's very sad. Those who claim Patton doesn't deserve to be in business because he was breaking the law are:

1. condoning an inept government department that takes three years to make a descision and

2. praising a multinational that can afford to sit and wait.

Those caught in the middle are Patton's patrons. Should they have done the 'legal' thing also and waited three years for the department of transport to make its mind up?

Patton has provided them with a service. Many are grateful. I can't say I know the facts but it would seem that the law is very minor indeed if this well known bus can operate for years without being shut down. Can anyone substantiate the claim that this service has been allowed to operate so long at it pays a 2k annual fine?

angel01

nicksinthemix wrote: »

I think it's very sad. Those who claim Patton doesn't deserve to be in business because he was breaking the law are:

1. condoning an inept government department that takes three years to make a descision and

2. praising a multinational that can afford to sit and wait.

Those caught in the middle are Patton's patrons. Should they have done the 'legal' thing also and waited three years for the department of transport to make its mind up?

Patton has provided them with a service. Many are grateful. I can't say I know the facts but it would seem that the law is very minor indeed if this well known bus can operate for years without being shut down. Can anyone substantiate the claim that this service has been allowed to operate so long at it pays a 2k annual fine?

So are you trying to say it doesn't matter that he actually broke the law while providing them with this service? Whats to stop me getting a bus and running the same route? would you say that is ok?

dermo88

Those who choose to follow the law for the sake of it being a law are supporters of bad law. They desire protection by the law, and want respect for the law, whereas in fact, they deserve neither protection or respect.

The delays in giving the Patton Flyer a licence are glorified protectionism under the guise of the "Law".

I have been brought up to respect the law. I have been brought up to respect something far greater. Its called "common sense". I agree with nicksinthemix, and personally suspect that the posters who support the law are closet Unionised bus drivers from a poisonous state owned outfit who fear competition and accountability.

The same poisonous state owned outfit which raised fares by 10% under a Government containing the "Green Party". A plague on both the passenger and taxpayer. I pray the day comes when that state owned company is abolished.

astrofool

angel01 wrote: »

So are you trying to say it doesn't matter that he actually broke the law while providing them with this service? Whats to stop me getting a bus and running the same route? would you say that is ok?

Laws are meant to reflect the will of the people. The current bus route laws fail at this, as people have said, even the Garda turn a blind eye to it.

devnull

From the Patton Flyer Facebook page:

NOEL DEMPSEY TD. MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT
As some of you might know a licence has been granted for the Dalkey/Airport/Dalkey route but not alas to the Flyer. It has been issued to Aircoach which is part of the Multi-National FIRST group. The Flyer identified this route and submitted an application to the Dept. of Transpor...t for a Route Licence in 2006.

Despite lobbying all of our local USELESS Politicians and the Dept. which is headed up by that "wonderful" Meath man Minister Noel Dempsey TD. (He of e-voting machine fame which has cost us €51m to date) nothing happened to secure the Licence for the Flyer. In these troubled economic times the Minister in his wisdom has decided to kow-tow to the Multi-National and completely ignore the local and Irish enterprise.

Shame on you Minister.. Shame on you. Minister Dempsey will not come out from his Ivory Tower and debate with us or justify the bungling of his Dept. in processing our application. I say to you Minister "The Fish rots from the Head..!" And as for Minister Dempsey.... Watch him come out next year for the photo shoot in his hard hat and hi-viz jacket to cut the ribbon on another of his money wasting schemes Terminal Two at Dublin Airport. Perhaps he could use it as a repository for his e-voting machines...!

The Flyer will continue to operate for the moment, but spare a thought for the 20 employees who face a very uncertain future.
Let this man know what you think at minister@transport.ie or noel.dempsey@oireachtas.ie.
You could also let our local TD Minister Mary Hanafin know what you think particularly as we had several meetings with her and she was no help whatsoever. mary.hanafin@welfare.ie or mary.hanafin@oireachtas.ie.

Maldini2706

Was it not Martin Cullen who was responsible for the electronic voting machines?

dermo88

No, it was definitely Noel Dempsey, during his tenure in Environment, hence his nickname "Dial up Dempsey"

Martin Cullen was Transport minister after Seamus Brennan (RIP)

angel01

astrofool wrote: »

Laws are meant to reflect the will of the people. The current bus route laws fail at this, as people have said, even the Garda turn a blind eye to it.

That doesn't make it right I am afraid. You have to live by the rules of the land whether you agree with them or not. They are breaking the law, I am afraid it is as simple as that.

dermo88

Yes and that being the case, watch me bring 2,000 cigarettes into Ireland on the 22nd December. Heaven help the customs officer that dares confront me over that, and I'll happily do time with the reaction I may have towards them. I am no angel and I admit it. Its off topic, granted, but excessive high costs, imposed by the Government under the guise of the law and the 'common good' are one reason why Ireland is in the mess it is in today.

We have a situation developing, where 30% of the population will spend their time being paid by the state to spy on the remaining 70%, in the 'national interest' in order to grind the maximum amount of revenue for the minimum of service given.

Angel, if that is the law, and the law is the law, then the moderators would (rightly) take issue with the words and description I could use. You are not worth the hassle.

angel01

dermo88 wrote: »

Yes and that being the case, watch me bring 2,000 cigarettes into Ireland on the 22nd December. Heaven help the customs officer that dares confront me over that, and I'll happily do time with the reaction I may have towards them. I am no angel and I admit it. Its off topic, granted, but excessive high costs, imposed by the Government under the guise of the law and the 'common good' are one reason why Ireland is in the mess it is in today.

We have a situation developing, where 30% of the population will spend their time being paid by the state to spy on the remaining 70%, in the 'national interest' in order to grind the maximum amount of revenue for the minimum of service given.

Angel, if that is the law, and the law is the law, then the moderators would (rightly) take issue with the words and description I could use. You are not worth the hassle.

I guess you and me are different then. I am law abiding, obviously others aren't and that is their choice or decision to live with.

So basically you see no problem in what they have done then?

MiniD

We wouldn't expect people to get into an unlicensed taxi, so why should it be different for a bus?

What happens if there is an accident involving this service? Are they covered by insurance? If someone is injured boarding at a bus stop, who is respnsible?

the posters who support the law are closet Unionised bus drivers from a poisonous state owned outfit who fear competition and accountability.

No, I'm a passenger who supports the law. Of course the DOT is a shambles, but that is no excuse to take the law into our own hands. There have been far worse decisions made where bus services have suffered.

Am I correct in saying in 2006, the Patton Flyer applied for a licence, but rather than waiting for a decision, decided to set up the service anyway? If this is the case, the point about a 3 year wait is nonsense, because the company didn't wait at all, they just went ahead and ran the buses. Why should the DOT engage with an company who is breaking the law?

Run_to_da_hills

We had a similar instance with pirate radio licensing back in the 70's & 80's. Some of these stations like Nova na Sunshine Radio became so professional they put official stations to shame. Eventually the state stepped in, some were handed licenses and went on to becoming community radio while others were wound up and put off the air.

Ham'nd'egger

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

We had a similar instance with pirate radio licensing back in the 70's & 80's. Some of these stations like Nova na Sunshine Radio became so professional they put official stations to shame. Eventually the state stepped in, some were handed licenses and went on to becoming community radio while others were wound up and put off the air.

No, that was not quite like the case here; radio stations back then had no legal framework to operate and chose to break the laws that were there (or not as the case may be) and make money from it; when licences were advertised, they were to be applied for under set criteria and rules.

Nobody doubts that his service is decent and well run, it's merely his legality to operate that is at question. The case is simply that Patton has decided not to wait for a licence under the system that is there and may well have awarded him the licence he pretends to either have or be hard done by not being awarded.

nicksinthemix

Haha, Patton the Vigilantly!

Look, can someone clarify this point - in these applications, if there is an unacceptable time lag then are there not provisions that allow for operation anyway? It would certainly seem that way as people have suggested that nobody is going to prison over this one.

And does 'illegal' have a black and white definition? I'm not a law man, you tell me...

People get very uppity about 'the law', don they. Do you reckon Trevor has such disrespect for it that he's getting into other areas as well. 'Illegal transport ' today, selling crack to kids tomorrow.

Some common sense please. The man employs people and I respect him for that. I'm sure it wasn't easy getting that service up off the ground as an independent fella. Case in point.

Cookie_Monster

He tried to run for a council seat in the last locals, purely to get his service recognised.

Needless to say he didn't get elected cos he's an arrogant p**** who's only in it for the money

Cuddlesworth

angel01 wrote: »

That doesn't make it right I am afraid. You have to live by the rules of the land whether you agree with them or not. They are breaking the law, I am afraid it is as simple as that.

Hitler would have loved you.....

KC61

An interesting post on the Patton Flyer Facebook page tonight:

Please note that the "Flyer" is not an illegal service. It is currently running (and always has been) as a Private Hire Operation. There is a private hire arrangement between a Ticketing Company and the Bus Company to transport its customers to the Airport. No Licence is required by law for a private hire agreement. More importantly, The Patton Flyer Buses are operated by a Company that is FULLY insured and is in possession of all required Certs for all bus operators ie CPC's International Transport Certs etc. All of these certs are available to be inspected by anyone who would like to make an appointment with us to see them. The Gardai are aware of this and have seen all of them over the last few years.

Ham'nd'egger

KC61 wrote: »

An interesting post on the Patton Flyer Facebook page tonight:

Please note that the "Flyer" is not an illegal service. It is currently running (and always has been) as a Private Hire Operation. There is a private hire arrangement between a Ticketing Company and the Bus Company to transport its customers to the Airport. No Licence is required by law for a private hire agreement. More importantly, The Patton Flyer Buses are operated by a Company that is FULLY insured and is in possession of all required Certs for all bus operators ie CPC's International Transport Certs etc. All of these certs are available to be inspected by anyone who would like to make an appointment with us to see them. The Gardai are aware of this and have seen all of them over the last few years.

Correct me if I am wrong here but you get onto the Patton Flyer and pay the driver or conductor, yes?

And their website says that they are a "scheduled service".

And the passenger pays "fares" on the bus.

And no mention of a ticketing company on their website.

So if they claim to have applied for a licence yet they claim that this arrangement is legal, this begs the question as to why they need still apply for a route licence?

devnull

The way I have heard it described elsewhere is that when you get on the bus you pay the representative of the 'ticket company', who also happens to be the driver, a 'membership fee' which constitutes becoming a member of the events and ticketing company.

As you are now a signed up as a member of the company, you are permitted to travel on their 'Private Hire' services, as you need to be a member to travel with them. There is no such thing as a fare, as there is no way for members to travel without paying the membership fee. The only fee payable is for membership, which entails you to travel.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

AlekSmart

Draw your own conclusions from that.

Indeed.

It`s interesting that the Patton Flyer somewhat belatedly publicises it`s "Private Club" only after the notion was publicised here on Boards,ie and on the Garaiste.com enthusiasts page.

As Ham`n egger points out the Patton Flyer website was/is specific about the Scheduled nature of it`s services as well as the fact that they possessed "Stops".

It`s not a big issue at all in terms of where Ireland actually is right now,but it does give a very good illustration as to HOW Ireland got into its current situation.... :mad:

Ham'nd'egger

devnull wrote: »

The way I have heard it described elsewhere is that when you get on the bus you pay the representative of the 'ticket company', who also happens to be the driver, a 'membership fee' which constitutes becoming a member of the events and ticketing company.

As you are now a signed up as a member of the company, you are permitted to travel on their 'Private Hire' services, as you need to be a member to travel with them. There is no such thing as a fare, as there is no way for members to travel without paying the membership fee. The only fee payable is for membership, which entails you to travel.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

There is several flaws in this "club" scenario. Patton clearly refer to "fares" on his website. They refer to a schedule and a timetable. The don't mention any membership criteria, club conditions, rules, constitutions etc. The coaches that come up and down from the country towns tend to work on a basis of you being covered to travel from A to B for a weekly/month at a time and a coach being hired on behalf of people with a wee potty to tip a driver or cover any minor running costs. On them, Patton is hiring the coaches to himself. Several times a day. With totally different passengers every day. And trying to make a profit from it.

Nobody is denying that his service isn't good (It is) and not needed (Again, it is) but as it stands he is making a mockery of every legit operator out there who plays by the book.

nicksinthemix

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Needless to say he didn't get elected cos he's an arrogant p**** who's only in it for the money

Yes, isn't it terrible when people try to make a living for themselves.

Even worse when it leads to the employment of 20 people.

penexpers

Just listened to the Joe Duffy show.

Did Patton apply for the license before Aircoach? He says that he applied in June 2006 but then revised it in February 2007. Does a revision to an application invalidate the first application?

angel01

Hamndegger wrote: »

Nobody is denying that his service isn't good (It is) and not needed (Again, it is) but as it stands he is making a mockery of every legit operator out there who plays by the book.

I couldn't agree more with this quote. Why should every other legit operator play by the book when this operation don't and are making a mockery of it all.

Cookie_Monster

nicksinthemix wrote: »

Even worse when it leads to the employment of 20 people.

Who's to say aircoach won't?

patrickbrophy18

If Aircoach are indeed to go ahead with introducing the route to Dalkey, it will be tricky to drive the tri-axle buses around the roundabout. Also, how frequent will they be?

nicksinthemix

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Who's to say aircoach won't?

No one. That's not the point.

Can you explain to me how a business is going to work if it's directors aren't 'in it for the money'?

I suppose aircoach won't be 'in it for the money' if it offers the poverty stricken people of dalkey a free ride part of the way to their Tuscan villas.

KC61

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

If Aircoach are indeed to go ahead with introducing the route to Dalkey, it will be tricky to drive the tri-axle buses around the roundabout. Also, how frequent will they be?

A little patience and time will tell.

They have been issued with a licence. There will be a lag before they start services. In good time they will tell us all what their plans are.

I am afraid you will just have to wait to find out!

But they do will not necessarily use tri-axles - maybe they will source new vehicles. I don't know, and nor does anyone else posting here - Aircoach will tell us all in due course.

Cookie_Monster

they do still have dual axle full size coaches but i think even these are probably too big for the area, even DB have issues getting around the roundabout in Dalkey.

patrickbrophy18

Oddly enough, there was nothing in the papers or news about this. Also, there is no mention of it on the official Aircoach website.