GoBus/BE launch new Cork to Dublin/Airport Express service

KCAccidental

they've also plastered advertising on the back of the UCC Park and Ride buses. pretty good marketing tbf.

Jamie2k9

I'm starting to think that serious questions need to be asked about the relationship between BE and GoBus and how much public money is being pumped into GoBE to try and kill off Aircoach.

And why is this an issue. So they want aircoach off the route. There just want the operator that provides the exact same service off the route. Trains and Buses are very different and its two bus operators that will do more damage to each other than a bus against a train. No point in BE going after the train passengers.

BK do you have a problem with healthy competition between two bus operators or are you afraid that BE/GoBe will win in the end unlikely!

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

But are they targeting the right people?

They seem to be targeting Aircoach, rather then Irish Rail. It increasingly looks like GoBE are simply a front for BE to target and try an eliminate an innovative private sector competitor.

I'm starting to think that serious questions need to be asked about the relationship between BE and GoBus and how much public money is being pumped into GoBE to try and kill off Aircoach.

A rather disingenuous comment in your final paragraph given that BE cannot use any public funds to promote or finance its commercial activities. It doesn't do your anti-Irish Rail arguments any good making a fairly serious allegation like that.

Aircoach is frankly fair game for them.

As I've said before, there is plenty of room for rail and bus in the marketplace. People are free to choose whichever they want, which will boil down to personal choice. You prefer a coach, others the train.

bk

lxflyer wrote: »

A rather disingenuous comment in your final paragraph given that BE cannot use any public funds to promote or finance its commercial activities.

Yes and that is why there are very serious questions to be asked here:

- Are GoBus paying for access to BE stations (which were paid for by public money).
- How much are GoBus paying for this access?
- Is the same level of access available to Aircoach, Citylink, etc. for the same price?
- Are GoBus paying for the ads on the BE websites?
- What is the commercial relationship between BE and GoBus?
- How much money is BE pumping into the GoBE entity to pay for advertising etc.

We all know that there are all sorts of ways that public funds can help indirectly pay for BE's commercial services, the most obvious being BE commercial services using bus stations paid for by the public. But there are many other ways, BE doesn't have separate repair depots, mechanics, parts, account department, website, IT department, marketing department, etc. for their commercial and PSO routes, these sections are all at least partly funded by public money and gives BE a scale in purchasing power that benefits it's commercial operations too.

So the question is how much of this benefit is going to the GoBE entity.

I have absolutely zero issue with two private operators competing aggressively with one another. In fact I love it, it is good for the consumer.

But what I don't like seeing is a semi state in some sort of weird quasi relationship with a private company attempting to kill off another private company.

The worst thing that could happen for the travelling public to Cork is that Aircoach are killed off and then BE kill off GoBE and we go back to the old ways of no late night services, slow buses and expensive tickets. No one but CIE employees gain from that scenario.

And this is what is leading me to question if GoBE are really just BE now. Logically from a business perspective it makes sense for GoBE to target Irish Rail passengers, not Aircoach passengers.

GoBE's product is a higher end product then Aircoach, GoBE have a much newer fleet with all toilet equipped. Aircoach on the other hand have much cheaper prices and much better schedule.

It makes sense for Aircoach to be targeting the more price conscious student market. On the other hand it makes more sense for GoBE to be targeting less price sensitive but comfort oriented people.

The obvious easy pickings for GoBE here are Irish Rail passengers, the folks who are currently paying 2 to 4 times more then bus, of course you won't win them all over, but you will win over at least some of them, in particular with GoBE's higher spec product.

It is much, MUCH, easier for GoBE to win over people who are paying 2 to 4 times more, then it is to win over people who are actually paying less for a very similar service!

Look at it this way, in 2011 the modal share between Galway and Dublin was 50% car, 25% train, 25% bus. Between Cork and Dublin it was 50% car, 40% train, 10% bus. Looking at these numbers it is obvious that the major area of expansion for bus companies is to target train passengers, so they end up with a modal share similar to the Galway route.

The fact GoBE aren't doing the logical, sensible thing makes me seriously question what the relationship between BE and GoBus is and who really is pulling the strings here.

devnull

lxflyer wrote: »

A rather disingenuous comment in your final paragraph given that BE cannot use any public funds to promote or finance its commercial activities.

But it's not as straight forward as that is it and to claim it is, is also pretty disingenuous to try and make out that it is, because when Bus Eireann's PSO and commercial wings are sharing resources, staff and the same financial accounts they are never truly separate and there will always be things to be gained from functions which are combined.

I'm not saying Bus Eireann are or aren't involved in what BK says, all I am simply pointing out is anyone claiming that the two sides of the business are totally separate is not painting a clear picture. Yes PSO funded vehicles are not allowed on commercial routes as it should be but there is a lot more to it than that.

Until the two sides of the business operate with their own staff who cannot overlap from one into the other, with their own budgets with no shared staff, services or facilities, the two parts of the business are never truly independent and as such that is why this topic will always be up for a debate as in this case.

It would be possible for any business to cross-subsidise work when this is the case, whether it is going on or not is of course open to debate and we cannot answer that question either way. This is why I'm a firm believer that the two arms of BE should be broken up, I don't want to see the end of BE like some, but at the same time this would make it impossible for the things which have been accused by others down the years to go on.

Of course some may ask themselves, if BE are funding a decent six figure sum for this advertising which it is clear they are at least, what is in it for them when it isn't even their service to begin with, especially when there is so little cash in that company. Which kind of backs up the theory that BE want to see Aircoach eliminated from the market so they can get their own direct license. Again no idea if that is true or not, but it certainly would make sense.

Aircoach is frankly fair game for them.

I agree that they have totally the right to take on other operators in the marketplace, it is a free market after all and anyone can do what they please and I've always been a big supporter of that principle.

I don't have a problem with the sign at the stop at Westmoreland Street (as long as it's not in place of timetables of PSO routes), I don't have a problem with the UCC bus advertising or the advertising Bus Eireann are doing on Facebook. I do have a problem however with the Google Adwords advertising is a bit below the belt and the kind of thing we don't need to see in the marketplace. I don't think using others trademarks to boost your own trade is really something that is good for the market.

Ideally I'd like to see an operator, like Aircoach did themselves, try and advertise their service with the aim of growing the market and going to try to appeal to the general public. At the moment the feeling some have with GoBE is that they've given up trying to do that and are now simply turning on their rivals which to be fair over the last few weeks has become clear. It's not what I think is best for the market but I don't have a problem with it other than the Google adwords stuff mentioned earlier.

Aircoach were the first to market with this service and brought a number of firsts to the route. A year or so ago they were the only people offering a direct link from Cork to Dublin Airport. The only people offering an early morning service to Dublin Airport. The first people to start up a non stop service. They took the brave decisions when BE simply weren't interested so they deserve credit for that, despite their faults (which have been done to death on this board)

LXFlyer

I would certainly expect that there is separate accounting within the company for its PSO and commercial activities and costs recharged as appropriate.

Just because those figures are not in the public domain does not mean that the procedures are not in place.

devnull

lxflyer wrote: »

Just because those figures are not in the public domain does not mean that the procedures are not in place.

If that is the case then why are there arguments against the splitting up of Bus Eireann into two separate arms? if they are totally separate then there is nothing to loss by doing it then is there?

You are right, the figures are not in the public domain and there is nothing to say whether this does happen or not. So to try and paint out that it does not happen without any back-up is a weak defence at best. Anyone can contradict anything with an answer like yours.

As I said, if they have nothing to hide and all the paperwork is done go and publish it into the public domain in full, split the companies up and nobody can moan again. It would put an end to all the allegations over the years so I don't see why they don't do it.

bk

Here is the question, why are BE pumping a 6 figure marketing campaign into GoBE, a company they don't even own?

It is clear that BE's only intent here is to try chase off Aircoach so that they can get a direct license for themselves and then dispatch GoBE.

Second question is where are BE getting a six figure sum from to pump into GoBE?

Aircoach may not have the fancy marketing budget here, but their are the true innovators on this route. As devnull points out they were the first to do many things.

And unlike GoBus/BE they continue to innovate, while GoBE have cut their schedule in half over the last two months and raised prices, Aircoach have kept their prices low and are now actually even adding extra services.

If BE manage to chase Aircoach off with their massive marketing budget, we the travelling public will be much the poorer for it.

If BE were competing by offering a better service for less then I'd say fair enough. But they are not, they are trying to kill off Aircoach by simply far out marketing them and by what I have heard other very dirty tricks.

foggy_lad

Both GoBé and Aircoach should be advertising their services inside and outside Heuston Station and should probably stop at the station on the outward journey.

serfboard

I agree with a lot of the posters on here wrt the GoBE model.

It'd be much cleaner if they had two private operators (or even two privates and a public) like they do on the Galway route, instead of this hybrid.

Limerick->Galway - private vs public (Citylink Express vs BE X51)

Dublin->Galway - private vs private vs public (Citylink Vs GoBus Vs BE - even though the public offering is slightly different in that it's not totally express i.e. it stops in Athlone/Ballinasloe/Loughrea as well)

Dublin->Cork - private vs hybrid

alaimacerc

bk wrote: »

- Are GoBus paying for access to BE stations (which were paid for by public money).
- How much are GoBus paying for this access?
- Is the same level of access available to Aircoach, Citylink, etc. for the same price?
- Are GoBus paying for the ads on the BE websites?
- What is the commercial relationship between BE and GoBus?
- How much money is BE pumping into the GoBE entity to pay for advertising etc.

I'd be interested in learning these things too, but the history of public-private partnership shenanigans tells me that neither body will be in a hurry to tell anyone. "We're a private company, no comment." "That's commercially sensitive information we're not in a position to disclose."

But there are many other ways, BE doesn't have separate repair depots, mechanics, parts, account department, website, IT department, marketing department, etc. for their commercial and PSO routes, these sections are all at least partly funded by public money and gives BE a scale in purchasing power that benefits it's commercial operations too.

So the question is how much of this benefit is going to the GoBE entity.

As it's clear that GoBus is the actual operator of the route, is doing the online ticketing, and so forth, I'd estimate "none whatsoever", on any of the above.

I have absolutely zero issue with two private operators competing aggressively with one another. In fact I love it, it is good for the consumer.

Competition theory suggest that's not actually anything like enough for actual competition, FYI. Even aside from what's good for the punter across the piece...

GoBE's product is a higher end product then Aircoach, GoBE have a much newer fleet with all toilet equipped. Aircoach on the other hand have much cheaper prices and much better schedule.

I think we have very different definitions of "much". If the GoBus bus goes when you need to go, good enough! (And it goes when the train doesn't, which is the real plus for me.) I'll have to slum it by Aircoach next time and let you know if the €4 saving seems like the bonanza saving you're making out...

It makes sense for Aircoach to be targeting the more price conscious student market. On the other hand it makes more sense for GoBE to be targeting less price sensitive but comfort oriented people.

A slightly more comfortable bus... is still a bus. I think your preferences in regard to an economic model for the country might be skewing your view of actual consumer preferences here.

Jamie2k9

GoBe can't win with Irish people can they, when they don't advertise they get slammed for it and when they do they get slammed. Its typical Irish people nothing ever changes. Yes BE get taxpayers money but nobody knows what its spent on. Whats not to say that BE money that goes to GoBe is from fare paying passengers accross the network or is any sort of public money allowed to go to GoBe because it might upset Aircoach.

How much money from First Group is being pumped into Aircoach so they can operate a Cork service. Not taxpayes money but its the public's money in the UK or does that make it alright.

This is just the typical Irish people who can never be happy and ALWAYS find something to monan about.

foggy_lad

Are Bus Éireann trying to create a number of "premium" services which will be exempt from free travel pass holders like they tried before with the X33 service? Will routes like the X8, X20, X12, X4 be replaced by express GoBé services and fewer slowcoach stage carriage services to cater for the free pass brigade?

They obviously have a lot more to do with the GoBé service than just allowing them use bus stations when they are openly advertising the GoBé services on twitter using the BÉ account.

devnull

alaimacerc wrote: »

As it's clear that GoBus is the actual operator of the route, is doing the online ticketing, and so forth, I'd estimate "none whatsoever", on any of the above.

They are the operator of the route yes but they do have a curious partnership with Bus Eireann. Whilst none of us knows what the deal is for sure all of the advertising is being made under the Bus Eireann name on Social media rather than the GoBus name, and the GoBE name is even a trademark of Bus Eireann so that would indicate that BE have a big involvement in this. How big that is nobody can be sure, instead just look at what has been going on. If GoBus were paying for all the advertising it'd make sense to use their own name rather than one of their partner yes? It would make far more business sense, unless of course they were not paying it all.

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

GoBe can't win with Irish people can they, when they don't advertise they get slammed for it and when they do they get slammed.

I have no problem with ethical advertising and competition between companies, I welcome it, I just don't see that one company using anothers trademark on Google searches in order to drum up business from a company that owns the trademark to their own is a good road to be heading down.

Whats not to say that BE money that goes to GoBe is from fare paying passengers accross the network or is any sort of public money allowed to go to GoBe because it might upset Aircoach.

If that is from commercial routes then I have no problem with that, since at the end of the day that is money they have earned on a level playing field and that is all I and many people on this thread are asking for. Public companies should not be able to use taxpayer funds to drive out competition. Monopolies are bad for the public and many of the recent improvements in public transport are down to competition.

No public money should be used to compete with private operators. It should be a level playing field, and in any case the whole idea with PSO services paid for by the taxpayer is that they should do little more than break even, if any of the CIE companies are making anything but a small negliable profit on a PSO service then the PSO is too high.

How much money from First Group is being pumped into Aircoach so they can operate a Cork service. Not taxpayes money but its the public's money in the UK or does that make it alright.

Go look at their accounts and tell us. I'm sure they will be there, although what I've heard and read before suggests that the only support they're getting is that of second hand vehicles and advantages of bulk buying that part of a group entails. I doubt that they are getting a better deal in Ireland than CIE, since CIE would have far higher bulk buying power in the transport industry from Irish suppliers.

foggy_lad wrote: »

Are Bus Éireann trying to create a number of "premium" services which will be exempt from free travel pass holders like they tried before with the X33 service? Will routes like the X8, X20, X12, X4 be replaced by express GoBé services and fewer slowcoach stage carriage services to cater for the free pass brigade?

Well the GoBE is not a Bus Eireann service and they'd ideally like to have their own service but management unfortunately didn't apply for a license early enough so someone else got them. New services cannot sign up for travel pass acceptance since the government has froze the budget so it's not fair to blame that on any operator as it's not under their control. BE are not in a partnership with GoBus by choice, they are since there is no other way they can get into the market on that route due to them not applying for a license before the other two more innovative companies.

They obviously have a lot more to do with the GoBé service than just allowing them use bus stations when they are openly advertising the GoBé services on twitter using the BÉ account.

Of course, BE is not going to want to allow Aircoach for example to have too much of a success in this country because they would be a threat to BE long term, as stated before BE can't get a non stop direct license unless someone drops out of the market. Some people believe that is why they want to try and force Aircoach out the market so they drop out.

If anyone thinks BE aren't doing this for reasons for their own gain then quite frankly whilst BE are not the best transport company in the world, I'm sure they are not amateurs when it comes to commercial business and from their point of view it would be a good tactic, even if I don't believe it is one that is good for the market overall.

foggy_lad

I believe that BÉ don't want to operate the express route as a BÉ route because they would probably be forced to accept free travel passes for the route and it would not be as profitable for the company when they have such competition as Aircoach but if they can push Aircoach out they would happily operate the route but as a semi-express 4+ hours service much like the X8, X20 etc

Jamie2k9

I have no problem with ethical advertising and competition between companies, I welcome it, I just don't see that one company using anothers trademark on Google searches in order to drum up business from a company that owns the trademark to their own is a good road to be heading down.

Hense what a joint venture is.....

If that is from commercial routes then I have no problem with that, since at the end of the day that is money they have earned on a level playing field and that is all I and many people on this thread are asking for. Public companies should not be able to use taxpayer funds to drive out competition. Monopolies are bad for the public and many of the recent improvements in public transport are down to competition.

No public money should be used to compete with private operators. It should be a level playing field, and in any case the whole idea with PSO services paid for by the taxpayer is that they should do little more than break even, if any of the CIE companies are making anything but a small negliable profit on a PSO service then the PSO is too high.

Money is money so its it taxpayers or general public money what is the problem, they are competing on a route. Money is money at the end of the day and dosn't matter what name you put before it.

devnull

Sorry foggy - don't agree with any of that at all. The reason that BE didn't get the express non stop route was they were too late in applying and were beat to it by GoBus and Aircoach.

The trouble is that for the last few years BE haven't been brave enough commercially to be the first to launch a new route. They ran duplicate non stop services at peak times for years but never applied for a license for a regular service despite many calls for it here and elsewhere.

devnull

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Money is money so its it taxpayers or general public money what is the problem, they are competing on a route. Money is money at the end of the day and dosn't matter what name you put before it.

Because competition improves services, drives down price and if one company is using tax payers money it no longer becomes a fair one as the state is effectively funding the loss of jobs in the private sector.

Especially considering that none of the private sector operators can tender for the same works that are being carried out by such public companies which in turn leads to lack of innovation because companies become complacent.

I'm all for competition, but fair competition and if a company is allowed to use PSO funding then all competitors would be driven out overnight and then the transport system will be much the worse for it.

How can anyone compete truly with a public company when the public company would get their vehicles for free, are insured for free, get facilities provided for free, and get their overall costs paid for by the government. It wouldn't happen and we'd be left with one operator.

I care about the bigger picture of public transport in this country.

SandyfordGuy

It also would be very dodgy under European law if there was a free for all and people were allowed to use state funds in that way. Thankfully it is not allowed else prices would be higher, services less frequent and less innovation.

Think of all the innovation on coach transport in Ireland over the last 5 years and how much of that was the brainchild of Bus Eireann. Very little, all you see is them reacting to what the competition does rather than making innovations themselves.

Not sure how a joint venture means it's any less jutifiable to criticise Bus Eireann to advertise the services of GoBE under searches for the term 'aircoach' on the Google search engine. As said before, it's not illegal, but it's a tactic I don't like.

LXFlyer

There is still no proof of any of the allegations of cross-subsidisation posted here, which would be in breach of EU anti-competition legislation, so I think posters ought to be careful what they are alleging.

It stands to reason that of course within BE for management accounting purposes that they will account for commercial and PSO services separately, which will involve recharges for the use of shared services and facilities - how else will they know whether particular operations are making a profit or loss?

But as to whether that information should be publicly available is a completely separate argument. I would tend to take the view that it would be commercially sensitive information - why should they divulge it to their competitors?

devnull

I don't think anyone suggested that it did happen - more that it could in theory happen but there are some posters on here who seem to have no problem with it if it did go ahead which as was pointed out, would be in breach of EU regulations and wouldn't be good for the market as a whole which is my primary focus.

Of course they would have some way of seeing what was working well and what was not working well on a particular service. But my point earlier was there are economies of scale and some departments are central to both arms which would always benefit any operator in such a position. Nobody knows to how much of a degree that is since the figures are not in the public domain so none of us know for sure either way.

For example how are drivers dealt with? Are there drivers who are barred from driving PSO routes and can only drive commercial routes for instance? This would be an example of where they would benefit from economies of scale if this was not in place since it would reduce the number of spare drivers they'd need across the business if they could work both types of route.

You say it's commercially sensitive information, but at the same time they are supposed to be two separate companies so if that is the case then it could be argued that there is nothing commercially lost by doing it, since every private company in the state has to file accounts with the companies registration office, so why should the BE Expressway arm not have to do the same, if they are after all a separate business.

LXFlyer

I think that you will find that one poster is coming damn close to doing just that.

And why do they have to be separate companies?

There is nothing in law that requires that.

They just need to be accounted for separately, which can be done internally.

Shared services such as drivers, facilities, etc. can be recharged to the appropriate division.

SandyfordGuy

I hope you are not refering ot me, I was speaking in theory....

devnull

lxflyer wrote: »

And why do they have to be separate companies? There is nothing in law that requires that.

True there isn't, I just think that it would be more transparent if they were.

Many people say that BE PSO and BE Expressway are supposed to act like separate companies so if that is the case then why not go the whole hog?

They just need to be accounted for separately, which can be done internally.Shared services such as drivers, facilities, etc. can be recharged to the appropriate division.

But in your opinion, what are the benefits of them doing that rather than being totally separate? I'm just wanting to see the argument for this.

LXFlyer

devnull wrote: »

True there isn't, I just think that it would be more transparent if they were.

Many people say that BE PSO and BE Expressway are supposed to act like separate companies so if that is the case then why not go the whole hog?



But in your opinion, what are the benefits of them doing that rather than being totally separate? I'm just wanting to see the argument for this.

"People say" does not equal the law.

Different companies in any industry can operate different divisions that may use some shared resources. It is common practice to recharge costs in such situations as appropriate.

I fail to see the issue here. As long as the company publishes its overall results in compliance with the Companies Acts and there is appropriate recharging between commercial and PSO activities I don't see why the company actually needs to publish separate divisional results.

devnull

I didn't mean that it equals the law - more so that this is what I see as expressed by people in the business in the past, both on here and in other places and it's a fair debate I think (as long as people don't present opinions posted as hard facts which they can't back up.)

I do agree that companies will operate this with other divisions and BE aren't unique at all in this respect and it's something that people are going to have a wide range of views on as we've seen.

In any case, it seems their advertising on Facebook now goes to the GoBe Homepage so maybe they are reading this?

schemingbohemia

bk wrote: »

Second question is where are BE getting a six figure sum from to pump into GoBE?

Where do you get this six figure sum from?

devnull

I reckon the money spent on marketing GoBe, whoever it comes from has to be something like that or approaching it, since the Facebook posts that were promoted got around 1,000 likes altogether and the Google advertising you'd say would have been at least 20c a pop. Then add in the banner ads that have appeared on boards and suchlike.

alaimacerc

devnull wrote: »

For example how are drivers dealt with? Are there drivers who are barred from driving PSO routes and can only drive commercial routes for instance? This would be an example of where they would benefit from economies of scale if this was not in place since it would reduce the number of spare drivers they'd need across the business if they could work both types of route.

Are you looking for transparency, or are you looking for BE to deliberately lower its efficiency in the name of "fairness" to the competition?

You say it's commercially sensitive information, but at the same time they are supposed to be two separate companies so if that is the case then it could be argued that there is nothing commercially lost by doing it, since every private company in the state has to file accounts with the companies registration office, so why should the BE Expressway arm not have to do the same, if they are after all a separate business.

If BE were split into BE-PSO and BE-nonPSO (snappy, huh?), it still wouldn't necessarily be the case that they'd be obliged to publish every detail of all commercial partnerships with other entities.

devnull

I'm not asking for them to commercially publish details of the GoBus link-up, lets make that clear. They shouldn't have to do that.