10% of CIE bus routes to be privatised

munchkin_utd

Transport Authority proposes to improve competition on bus routes

Bus Eireann and Dublin Bus are set to lose 10% of their routes to private operators.

The National Transport Authority is planning to amend the existing Public Service Obligation contracts with the companies in 2016.

The NTA says it plans to allocate certain routes in a tendering process aimed at improving competition.

The transport body has called on interested parties to submit their opinions to them before 5pm on Friday, October 11.
<snip>

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/transport-authority-proposes-to-improve-competition-on-bus-routes-606554.html

its a fair bit down the road before anything will happen on the ground, but the only way to sharpen Bus Eireann + Dublin Buses sense of professionalism and customer service is to have the threat of loosing routes hanging over them if they dont get their act together.
Bus Eireann Route 109 would be one candidate.

EDIT: the Dublin suburban routes under consideration for removal are-
100 Drogheda - Dunleer Castlebellingham - Dundalk - Newry
101 Dublin - Airport - Balbriggan - Drogheda - Termon Abbey
101X Wilton Tce - Balbriggan -Drogheda - Termon Abbey
133 Dublin Airport - Dublin -Bray -Kilmacanogue -Newtownmountkennedy - Ashford - Wicklow

which actually makes sense as there's already a substantial private operation on the routes (well, to Dundalk/ Drogheda anyhow) so this might simplify things if anything for the consumer.

munchkin_utd

full NTA info here:
http://www.nationaltransport.ie/public-consultations/current/public-bus-services/

cdebru

munchkin_utd wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/transport-authority-proposes-to-improve-competition-on-bus-routes-606554.html

its a fair bit down the road before anything will happen on the ground, but the only way to sharpen Bus Eireann + Dublin Buses sense of professionalism and customer service is to have the threat of loosing routes hanging over them if they dont get their act together.
Bus Eireann Route 109 would be one candidate.

EDIT: the Dublin suburban routes under consideration for removal are-
100 Drogheda - Dunleer Castlebellingham - Dundalk - Newry
101 Dublin - Airport - Balbriggan - Drogheda - Termon Abbey
101X Wilton Tce - Balbriggan -Drogheda - Termon Abbey
133 Dublin Airport - Dublin -Bray -Kilmacanogue -Newtownmountkennedy - Ashford - Wicklow

which actually makes sense as there's already a substantial private operation on the routes (well, to Dundalk/ Drogheda anyhow) so this might simplify things if anything for the consumer.

It is old news just being rehashed in an attempt to coerce DB drivers to accept cuts, much like Leo's intervention yesterday.

All I can say is

Transfer of Undertakings

A transfer of undertakings occurs when a business or part of a business is taken over by another employer as a result of a merger or transfer.

When a transfer takes place there is a legal obligation on the new employer to take on the existing staff of the business or the part of the business concerned. The employee's accrued service with his or her original employer is deemed to have been with the new employer. The employee is entitled to terms and conditions of employment with the new employer which are no less favourable than those he or she enjoyed with the previous employer immediately prior to the transfer.

But at least we are now seeing the bigger picture the attack on terms and conditions is with a view to making DB and BE services more attractive to the private operators who would be obliged to take on staff on their current terms and conditions. It is also interesting that the LC in its judgement tried to assert that sick pay was not part of your terms and conditions of employment, hence would not be reinstated after 19 months, if you accept that it might have bigger implications down the road in a transfer of undertakings scenario.

currins_02

But is this not the polar opposite of a "Transfer of undertakings". The routes, due not to local policy but EU law, must be put to a public tender rather than the current "direct award" system. At present all existing PSO routes are given to CIE group (i.e. BE/DB) by default. There is no tender process or anything like it, they just get it.

The EU has decried this and ruled quite a while ago that the system was to be overhauled by 2014 and public tendering of routes must be introduced. If you care to read the details on the NTA website my understanding would be that the NTA proposes (correct "proposes" - open to a consultation until October) to continue with direct award until 2016, then to begin by opening 10% of PSO routes to tender. BE & DB would have as much right (and correctly so) to tender as any private operator. The most competitive package (be that price, service, whatever or a combination of all) would win the route for a defined period of time. As such I don't believe "Transfer of Undertakings" would apply as it would simply be a Loss of contract situation, employees would remian BE/DB employees, may be reallocated within thata company or may be offered redunancy or some such. It would be like any other contracted service anywhere else in the world or in any other industry. For instance, when a large Irish haulier lost the Tesco contract to Eddie Stobart there was no obligation on Stobart to employ any of the previous contractors employees and any that did migrate had no entitlement to previous conditions. I don't beleive it will be a condition of any new contractor (for that is all CIE are on NTA PSO routes) to employ a previous contractors staff who had lost the contract by way of a public competitve tender.

Are the staff of private operators who lose CIE/BE school contracts by way of a tender after prolonged periods (school contracts 5 years at a time, some held for 20-30 years) entitled to automatic employment on the same conditions with the new contractor. Absolutely not.

The tone of the posts to date would solidify my long held beleif that tendered services, which, in theory should provide the best value for tax payers money, will be the start of a slow death for CIE group companies. Will they be able to compete against many of the private companies? There seems to be some sort oof implication that incumbant priavte operators will just be given the listed licences - not so - they can tender same as DB/Be or any other company. the route licences for the PSO route's are the NTA's I beleive and not CIE's. As a crude example we could see JJ Kavanagh winning some of the M1 contracts, running against the incumbant Matthews in BE's place, we could see Matthew's winning the N11 contract (133) and running against Wexford Bus etc etc.

Every post so far implies BE/CIE are guaranteed to lose the routes. Not so, if they can competitively tender they can win them and continue to run them. Question is, can they competitively tender?

cdebru

currins_02 wrote: »

But is this not the polar opposite of a "Transfer of undertakings". The routes, due not to local policy but EU law, must be put to a public tender rather than the current "direct award" system. At present all existing PSO routes are given to CIE group (i.e. BE/DB) by default. There is no tender process or anything like it, they just get it.

The EU has decried this and ruled quite a while ago that the system was to be overhauled by 2014 and public tendering of routes must be introduced. If you care to read the details on the NTA website my understanding would be that the NTA proposes (correct "proposes" - open to a consultation until October) to continue with direct award until 2016, then to begin by opening 10% of PSO routes to tender. BE & DB would have as much right (and correctly so) to tender as any private operator. The most competitive package (be that price, service, whatever or a combination of all) would win the route for a defined period of time. As such I don't believe "Transfer of Undertakings" would apply as it would simply be a Loss of contract situation, employees would remian BE/DB employees, may be reallocated within thata company or may be offered redunancy or some such. It would be like any other contracted service anywhere else in the world or in any other industry. For instance, when a large Irish haulier lost the Tesco contract to Eddie Stobart there was no obligation on Stobart to employ any of the previous contractors employees and any that did migrate had no entitlement to previous conditions. I don't beleive it will be a condition of any new contractor (for that is all CIE are on NTA PSO routes) to employ a previous contractors staff who had lost the contract by way of a public competitve tender.

Are the staff of private operators who lose CIE/BE school contracts by way of a tender after prolonged periods (school contracts 5 years at a time, some held for 20-30 years) entitled to automatic employment on the same conditions with the new contractor. Absolutely not.

The tone of the posts to date would solidify my long held beleif that tendered services, which, in theory should provide the best value for tax payers money, will be the start of a slow death for CIE group companies. Will they be able to compete against many of the private companies? There seems to be some sort oof implication that incumbant priavte operators will just be given the listed licences - not so - they can tender same as DB/Be or any other company. the route licences for the PSO route's are the NTA's I beleive and not CIE's. As a crude example we could see JJ Kavanagh winning some of the M1 contracts, running against the incumbant Matthews in BE's place, we could see Matthew's winning the N11 contract (133) and running against Wexford Bus etc etc.

Every post so far implies BE/CIE are guaranteed to lose the routes. Not so, if they can competitively tender they can win them and continue to run them. Question is, can they competitively tender?

To answer your question no it is not the polar opposite of a transfer of undertakings, it is exactly what transfer of undertakings is supposed to cover.

And yes Stobarts would have been so obliged as would any contractor operating school services under contract to CIE.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0131.html

murphaph

cdebru wrote: »

And yes Stobarts would have been so obliged as would any contractor operating school services under contract to CIE.

Absolute rubbish.

currins_02

I am no legal eagle for a start but if that is the case why did the 300 odd unionised drivers with the previous Tesco contractor not get the benefit of it? Why have many many school bus drivers lost out (I know one who lost out after oding a run for 19 years)?

If you read article 3 of your statute it refers to a transfer and implies, to me anyway that it would apply if they ramdonly said right, BE from tomorrow we're giving your work to operator Y. This is neither a "Merger" nor a "Lease Transfer" which are both the specified situations in your statute. That is not the case, BE (and DB in their own case) are operating on fixed term contracts that are neither permanent nor rolling. They have enjoyed the renewal of said contracts by default. Now the NTA must open the contracts to competition (BE & DB may still tender). When the current contract ends, if a new entity wins it, a new contract will start then (so one ends at 00:00 on day X and new one starts probably at 00:01 on day X+1). A Fixed contract is completely different to a merger or any such.

This would be no different to the company supplying tyres to CIE loosing their contract at the end of the term to a more competitive bidder, the new tyre company does not have any legal or moral requirement to reemploy displaced staff from the previous contract holder on any terms never mind their previous ones.

CIE in this case are a contractor to the NTA, they have no divine right to this work and have been protected since the NTA's foundation by the "direct award" of the contract - i.e. without a tender process. The EU has ruled quite a while ago that this protection is illegal and that any contract worth over a certain value (I beleive it is €100,000 but I stand to be corrected) must be offered to public tender. As such the closing date for the NTA to tender was 2014, they are now PROPOSING to defer that again to 2016 and at that PROPOSING to only offer 10% of contracts to tender initially. It is currently merely a consultation (which closes in October) and many things could change between now and then. For instance our EU mandarins may shoot down the deferral to 2016 for example or may say 10% is not enough, they may ask for a longer plan to show when all routes will be tendered (which is the EU's ultimate aim).

I'm personally very worried for CIE and the implications of this. Also the tenders will be open to any EU company and barring the tender puts in protections for Irish operators (e.g. must be established here etc) they could in the main be won by non Irish companies such as Veolia, RATP, Arriva etc.

Unless a solictor says different I don't for a minute accept a fixed term contract expiring to be taken over by a new, more competitive contractor is the same as a merger or lease transfer which is what is trying to be implied. If so the unions would have scuppered Stobart's Tesco work in seconds as one high profile example.

dowlingm

Don't remember staff transfers when Euroceltic had to give up the PSOs and Aer Arann stepped in.

As I've noted in the past, a tactic of "starve the beast" by shaving off routes could lead to a collapse of one or more CIE companies or the whole group if the company isn't able to fully utilise its depots, vehicles and staff in a cash positive way (such as expanding non-regulated activities).

dowlingm

currins_02 wrote: »

I'm personally very worried for CIE and the implications of this. Also the tenders will be open to any EU company and barring the tender puts in protections for Irish operators (e.g. must be established here etc) they could in the main be won by non Irish companies such as Veolia, RATP, Arriva etc.

It could be argued that the working capital such companies would have to put in in order to create an operating entity would be a form of foreign direct investment. I suspect though that some new entrants might simply seek to purchase "leaner" (by which I mean lacking CIE's overheads and historical financial obligations such as pensions) private operators like JJ Kavanagh (as an example) to get a foothold without having to worry about figuring out where to buy land for depots.

LivelineDipso

currins_02 wrote: »

The tone of the posts to date would solidify my long held beleif that tendered services, which, in theory should provide the best value for tax payers money, will be the start of a slow death for CIE group companies.

CIE has been dying for 70 years. Finally the life support machine is being switched off.

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

To answer your question no it is not the polar opposite of a transfer of undertakings, it is exactly what transfer of undertakings is supposed to cover.

And yes Stobarts would have been so obliged as would any contractor operating school services under contract to CIE.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0131.html

Is transfer of undertakings not designed for when one company is taken over/bought out by another and the new company must take on the old staff at their old pay and must recognise the yrars of service to the old company.

If another company gets awarded contracts that Bus Éireann currently get by default there is no transfer of undertakings. the new company have no connection to Bus Éireann.

V.W.L 11

does this incorporate B.E in cork???

cdebru

currins_02 wrote: »

I am no legal eagle for a start but if that is the case why did the 300 odd unionised drivers with the previous Tesco contractor not get the benefit of it? Why have many many school bus drivers lost out (I know one who lost out after oding a run for 19 years)?

If you read article 3 of your statute it refers to a transfer and implies, to me anyway that it would apply if they ramdonly said right, BE from tomorrow we're giving your work to operator Y. This is neither a "Merger" nor a "Lease Transfer" which are both the specified situations in your statute. That is not the case, BE (and DB in their own case) are operating on fixed term contracts that are neither permanent nor rolling. They have enjoyed the renewal of said contracts by default. Now the NTA must open the contracts to competition (BE & DB may still tender). When the current contract ends, if a new entity wins it, a new contract will start then (so one ends at 00:00 on day X and new one starts probably at 00:01 on day X+1). A Fixed contract is completely different to a merger or any such.

This would be no different to the company supplying tyres to CIE loosing their contract at the end of the term to a more competitive bidder, the new tyre company does not have any legal or moral requirement to reemploy displaced staff from the previous contract holder on any terms never mind their previous ones.

CIE in this case are a contractor to the NTA, they have no divine right to this work and have been protected since the NTA's foundation by the "direct award" of the contract - i.e. without a tender process. The EU has ruled quite a while ago that this protection is illegal and that any contract worth over a certain value (I beleive it is €100,000 but I stand to be corrected) must be offered to public tender. As such the closing date for the NTA to tender was 2014, they are now PROPOSING to defer that again to 2016 and at that PROPOSING to only offer 10% of contracts to tender initially. It is currently merely a consultation (which closes in October) and many things could change between now and then. For instance our EU mandarins may shoot down the deferral to 2016 for example or may say 10% is not enough, they may ask for a longer plan to show when all routes will be tendered (which is the EU's ultimate aim).

I'm personally very worried for CIE and the implications of this. Also the tenders will be open to any EU company and barring the tender puts in protections for Irish operators (e.g. must be established here etc) they could in the main be won by non Irish companies such as Veolia, RATP, Arriva etc.

Unless a solictor says different I don't for a minute accept a fixed term contract expiring to be taken over by a new, more competitive contractor is the same as a merger or lease transfer which is what is trying to be implied. If so the unions would have scuppered Stobart's Tesco work in seconds as one high profile example.

http://www.hayes-solicitors.ie/news/TransferRegulations

Have a read of that it explains a lot, but basically when a transfer happens if the original employer has positions they can offer them to existing staff if they don't the employees become the responsibility of the new employer who has to take them on with all the terms and conditions they enjoyed under the previous employer.

I actually know people that this has happened to where their employer lost a contract some of them were given the opportunity to redeploy with the current employer some weren't all had a right to stay in current position with new employer.

cdebru

murphaph wrote: »

Absolute rubbish.

Sorry that doesn't qualify as an argument, point out why it is rubbish. I have provided various links including the actual legislation.

liger

They include:
Route 17 from Rialto to Blackrock,
Route 33b Swords to Portrane,
Route 111 Dun Laoghaire to Loughlinstown.


What private operator would take these routes on?

LXFlyer

It could be any combination of the big international companies, local companies - that depends upon who tenders for them.

Cookie_Monster

liger wrote: »

They include:
Route 17 from Rialto to Blackrock,
Route 33b Swords to Portrane,
Route 111 Dun Laoghaire to Loughlinstown.


What private operator would take these routes on?

They seem to just picked out a few dogs of routes, no company in their right mind would go near the 111 without the surrounding routes, including the 7, as well in the basket. There is no money in the 111 at all.

LXFlyer

They've picked out all of the orbital and local services.

As for whether they would work or not - that depends upon what level of service is demanded, and how the operator would be compensated for operating the service in the contract.

markpb

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

They seem to just picked out a few dogs of routes, no company in their right mind would go near the 111 without the surrounding routes, including the 7, as well in the basket. There is no money in the 111 at all.

Did you read the document written by the NTA?

The Authority would propose a gross cost contract with incentives for the Operator for any competitively tendered bus services contract. A gross cost contract is where the operator is paid to operate the service, the fares revenue is kept by the Authority and the operator carries no risk in terms of revenues.

If the operator isn't keeping the fares, it doesn't matter what the passenger numbers are like as long as they're stable or could be grown. Furthermore, they don't include the 7 because:

The radial and cross-city routes are key components for the efficient functioning of the Dublin economy, due to the large numbers transported at morning and evening peak times. In terms of risk management, the first market competition should not include these routes.

Furthermore, the bus network will require an element of reconfiguration to complement the new Luas Cross City light rail route. If radial and cross city bus services were included in a competitive tender package, the risks around the process would increase substantially.

Limiting competitive tendering to local and orbital routes which serve outer areas of the city offers significant potential for delivering cost efficiencies and possible service improvement within a low risk environment.

Also, they want to start with low frequency routes because, with only buses bought in 2012/2013 are owned by the NTA. They don't want DB to win every tender by virtue of being the only ones with enough suitable buses so they're proposing to buy the buses and give/lease them to the winner of the tender. If they tender out high frequency routes, they'd have to buy more buses which means even more of an upfront cost.

etchyed

There's also the issue (mentioned in the report) that the NTA, although having the power to take back the buses they paid for in 2012 and lease them to a private operator, do not have any power to take control of Dublin Bus's depots, or compel Dublin Bus to allow their use by private operators. This lack of access to depots is another of the reasons for this 'toe in the water' approach to tendering.

markpb

etchyed wrote: »

There's also the issue (mentioned in the report) that the NTA, although having the power to take back the buses they paid for in 2012 and lease them to a private operator, do not have any power to take control of Dublin Bus's depots, or compel Dublin Bus to allow their use by private operators. This lack of access to depots is another of the reasons for this 'toe in the water' approach to tendering.

I'm at a loss as to why this is a problem. If the NTA think sharing depots is desirable, couldn't they have a word with the sole shareholder of Dublin Bus and have him direct DB to sell the depots to the NTA for a reasonable price.

I wonder if fear of the unions being awkward is the actual problem?

murphaph

cdebru wrote: »

Sorry that doesn't qualify as an argument, point out why it is rubbish. I have provided various links including the actual legislation.

It is absolute rubbish to suggest that if Firm A loses a contract to Firm B to haul for Retailer X, and in the prcess Firm A goes bust, that Firm B will be in any way shape or form obliged to employ the now REDUNDANT staff from Firm A. You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that's how such contracts work.

cdebru

murphaph wrote: »

It is absolute rubbish to suggest that if Firm A loses a contract to Firm B to haul for Retailer X, and in the prcess Firm A goes bust, that Firm B will be in any way shape or form obliged to employ the now REDUNDANT staff from Firm A. You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that's how such contracts work.

Have you read up on TUPE ?

First off if a company loses a contract and firm B takes over such contract that is exactly what happens, the only exception is liquidation which is not the case here, if firm A stays or goes out of business is irrelevant, if you tender for a contract you do it on the basis of TUPE.
Not cloud cuckoo it is the law of the land as directed by the EU.

If you think a company can tender for a contract and then just start fresh with new or existing employees on conditions below the previous arrangement it is you that is in cloud cuckoo as you put it.

end of the road

markpb wrote: »

If the NTA think sharing depots is desirable, couldn't they have a word with the sole shareholder of Dublin Bus and have him direct DB to sell the depots to the NTA for a reasonable price.

no, what would be the point, it would just be money flushing around from one tax payer funded company to a tax payer funded authority

cdebru

markpb wrote: »

I'm at a loss as to why this is a problem. If the NTA think sharing depots is desirable, couldn't they have a word with the sole shareholder of Dublin Bus and have him direct DB to sell the depots to the NTA for a reasonable price.

I wonder if fear of the unions being awkward is the actual problem?

The problem is that the 10% model with local and orbital routes doesn't give you a geographic base even if you forced DB to hand over a depot what depot would be a good base for such a geographical spread that wouldn't involve significant dead running to get from depot to termini.
Also what would you do with the radial routes based in that depot that DB will still operate.

Ideally you would depot share but working that out would be a logistical headache at the moment particularly with the NTA preferring to avoid TUPE if allowed.

Cool_CM

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

does this incorporate B.E in cork???

I read that it might include limited cork city services but not which ones. Interesting to see how that would play out with the city/city and suburban passes.

Peppa Pig

cdebru wrote: »

If you think a company can tender for a contract and then just start fresh with new or existing employees on conditions below the previous arrangement it is you that is in cloud cuckoo as you put it.

These solicitors would disagree with you

If Matthews or JJ Kavanagh, for example won one of the routes they do not have to use DB/BE buses. They can use their own and their own drivers. No need for DB/BE drivers to tupe across.

Happy to be corrected though, if there is some other arrangement.

currins_02

Queried this TUPE craic with a HR expert (a family friend - who runs a successful HR consultancy for blue chip clients) but granted she is not a solicitor. Agreeing with the points made by me and others including Peppa Pig above. She reckons one of the key points would be that the existing contract would come to it's natural end. As such any new contractor would have no TUPE obligations in her opinion (what would happen the staff if the contract was simply not renewed? - no difference in her opinion).

Now, if (and maybe this is cdebru is alluding to) the NTA took the contract off BE/DB/CIE Before the scheduled end date/time and then appointed a new contractor on an identical contract then yes she beleives TUPE would apply.

As Leo V said at his speach at the CTTC dinner in Dublin last October the whole point of tendering the routes is to improve efficiency and reduce cost. The cost reductions in the main will come from wages, packages of average value of €48k will price BE/DB out of it. Now an interesting point on some of your TUPE links is that it specifically states TUPE does not apply to pensions!

Also, a quick google on the Tesco/Stobart/Keelings case of a few years back would reveal that 300 Keelings staff were made redundant on the basis that Keelings failed to secure the renewal of their Tesco contracts following a more competitive bid by Stobart. Stobart's offered all staff their positions back (under no TUPE obligation) with average wage cuts of €2 per hour, no pension (which they had before) and no medical (which they had before) only 130 opted to take up the new positions, rest were simply made redundant by Keelings.

I'm just going to watch and see but I'll be man enough to admit I'm wrong if TUPE is found to apply if any contarcts are lost but for the moment I firmly beleive this is not a TUPE situation - I suspect part of why the DB unions have gotten so upset by it as they feel it's an indirect threat of job loses to their members.

cdebru

Peppa Pig wrote: »

These solicitors would disagree with you

If Matthews or JJ Kavanagh, for example won one of the routes they do not have to use DB/BE buses. They can use their own and their own drivers. No need for DB/BE drivers to tupe across.

Happy to be corrected though, if there is some other arrangement.

The law on tupe states tangible and intangible assets, you are looking at 2 tangible assets only staff and buses, there are other assets that may be tangible and intangible.
For example route recognition if you take over a defined route with its own customer base you are taking over an asset that is not there to a company trying to establish a route from scratch.
The NTA in their document accepts, that tupe applies.

cdebru

currins_02 wrote: »

Queried this TUPE craic with a HR expert (a family friend - who runs a successful HR consultancy for blue chip clients) but granted she is not a solicitor. Agreeing with the points made by me and others including Peppa Pig above. She reckons one of the key points would be that the existing contract would come to it's natural end. As such any new contractor would have no TUPE obligations in her opinion (what would happen the staff if the contract was simply not renewed? - no difference in her opinion).

Now, if (and maybe this is cdebru is alluding to) the NTA took the contract off BE/DB/CIE Before the scheduled end date/time and then appointed a new contractor on an identical contract then yes she beleives TUPE would apply.

As Leo V said at his speach at the CTTC dinner in Dublin last October the whole point of tendering the routes is to improve efficiency and reduce cost. The cost reductions in the main will come from wages, packages of average value of €48k will price BE/DB out of it. Now an interesting point on some of your TUPE links is that it specifically states TUPE does not apply to pensions!

Also, a quick google on the Tesco/Stobart/Keelings case of a few years back would reveal that 300 Keelings staff were made redundant on the basis that Keelings failed to secure the renewal of their Tesco contracts following a more competitive bid by Stobart. Stobart's offered all staff their positions back (under no TUPE obligation) with average wage cuts of €2 per hour, no pension (which they had before) and no medical (which they had before) only 130 opted to take up the new positions, rest were simply made redundant by Keelings.

I'm just going to watch and see but I'll be man enough to admit I'm wrong if TUPE is found to apply if any contarcts are lost but for the moment I firmly beleive this is not a TUPE situation - I suspect part of why the DB unions have gotten so upset by it as they feel it's an indirect threat of job loses to their members.

Read my reply above, unions are upset if they are upset, because of the timing as far as I can see as they think it makes the current situation re cost savings more difficult.

There is also an issue that this is ideologically driven rather than anything else, the NTAs own document accepts that there may be no cost savings and that the international experience is that any cost savings are short lived as the costs of administering the system wipe out any savings.

You also have to look at the report from the NTA regarding DB performance over the lifetime of the direct tender and see that DB has generally exceeded all the measures the NTA has implemented and the deloitte report said that DB was efficient so why break up a system that is actually working and efficient to replace it with a system that won't save money?

Peppa Pig

cdebru wrote: »

The law on tupe states tangible and intangible assets, you are looking at 2 tangible assets only staff and buses, there are other assets that may be tangible and intangible.
For example route recognition if you take over a defined route with its own customer base you are taking over an asset that is not there to a company trying to establish a route from scratch.
The NTA in their document accepts, that tupe applies.

I've had a look at the NTA document, I cannot see how they accept TUPE - they say it may apply, but not necessarily so.

nta document wrote:

4.1.2 Operating staff
The tendering of all Dublin Bus services would include either the potential need to transfer Dublin Bus staff to another employer, if the incumbent were not successful in the competition, in which case EC TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment) regulations would come into play.
12 | P a g e
A smaller tender completion allows the potential for Dublin Bus to downsize and reduce the requirement to transfer staff to a new operator.

If the DB staff have to transfer, then it's tupe, if they don't then it's not.

It's actually poorly written. The "either" only appears to state one option, then the other one is in a new sentence on the next page. I read it as a company taking all the routes has to take the staff, but a company taking some routes will not have to.

SandyfordGuy

no bus operator can be called efficent when it has the dwell time dublin bus.has. some of the routes would be at.least a third quicker with a proper.multi door system and fare system with better spaced stops if.not.more. some routes the dwell time end.to end.is.more.than.the.driving time

but as one driver said less dwell rime equals less time to complete a route. Equals less vehicles to run a timetable equals need.for less drivers. so it is.not.in.his.intrest.to use.his.middle.doors since he believes it.could affect his.job security

of course the fact.that a faster more direct.less.waiting around.service would attract.more.demand.is.lost.on such people

cdebru

Peppa Pig wrote: »

I've had a look at the NTA document, I cannot see how they accept TUPE - they say it may apply, but not necessarily so.
If the DB staff have to transfer, then it's tupe, if they don't then it's not.

It's actually poorly written. The "either" only appears to state one option, then the other one is in a new sentence on the next page. I read it as a company taking all the routes has to take the staff, but a company taking some routes will not have to.

The use of the word "would" is a definitive as you know tupe applies to all or part of a business, if tupe "would" apply if you transferred all routes, it also applies if you transfer some routes, the reason it may not apply is that " Dublin Bus may have downsized in anticipation so they could absorb the drivers displaced, so they would not need to type, but type applies it is only whether DB and the unions play ball with how the NTA would like it to happen.

currins_02

It should be noted, I am not fully convinced this is a good move and I'm merely trying to stay objective on my views. If I'm proved wrong then so be it.

I would love if someone could obtain a transcript of Leo V's speach last October in which he categorically stated that Fine Gael's Election Manifesto and prevailing view is that bus service provision should be broken up and privatised, I think the words he used where that it was now a "compromise" of their coalition with Labour that they were backing off on that position. That said he accepted they are currently in breach of EU law and as such they had to ultimately move to a fully tendered model for PSO bus route provision for both bus and coach services. He also said that they were looking an incremental introduction over a period of time due to inevitable issues which will occur with such a change. One of his major issues was that private operators would not equal the packages nor absorb the pensions of existing CIE group staff and hence he openly stated that he expected major issues with unions during the changeover. Maybe a faux pax for him to make such a statement but, in fairness, and I'm no fan, he's usually fairly calculated in his statements. He highlighted that international best practise would prefer a tendered model for providing cost benefits and other efficiencies.

Regarding the Deloitte report, I would give it very little credence, it was comissioned by CIE/the state and as such is not independent and favours those who were paying for it. Likewise the Mazars report comissioned by the CTTC shortly thereafter tore apart the CIE group companies, but again that report was comissioned by the private operators and favoured their position. Both reports need to be taken in the context of who was paying for them.

The existing NTA parameters are a joke and most are based on figures provided by CIE. Should CIE or the private sector be awarded the contracts in future the NTA should be more active in policing them, the limits should be much tighter. CIE scored basically 100% in all but a few. Included are such things as "punctuality" and "cleanliness". Now on the punctuality in the UK not alone can the operator be penalised by the local authority but also risks losing their licence if a bus/coach runs through any stop over 1 min early or over 5 mins late. I know of 1 PSO BE route where I regularly stand for up to 15 mins after the scheduled time waiting on my bus. I'm happy enough with the delay (as I can now account for it) but that said how can the operator score 100% for punctuality when the vehicle regularly is a quarter of an hour late? On the cleanliness one of the requirements is that vehicles are vacuumed inside before use - whatever about DB I can assure you that it is not happening in the majority of the BE PSO routes, there is no mention of external cleaning, floor mopping, glass polishing etc just vacuuming. The NTA get a report from CIE each year reporting on how they have met the targets and low and behold they are excellent and score top marks in all the categories.

The NTA consultation document (for that's all it is at present - many suspect the EU will veto any delay of tendering until 2016 as is proposed as it was agreed in 2009 that tendering would be underway by 2014) specifically mentions that the process is desigend to give cost and operational efficiencies. The consultation doesn't close until 11th October. But the buses will cost broadly the same, diesel will cost broadly the same, stationary, tickets etc will cost broadly the same, the only place I can see cost savings coming from is the wage bill and admin/management structure. There will be much bigger fish than any of us looking at this and while the quotes you provide suggest TUPE may (or may not) apply I would expect all kinds of legal challenges to that from, especially some of the international players based on it being a new fixed term contract after the expiration of the the previous one. As I say the biggest unions in Ireland were involved in the Keelings/Tesco/Stobart situation and if they couldn't make TUPE stick I doubt it will here given the full operation of Tesco's outsourced transport including the RDC in Ballymun was included.

I'm going to sit on my hands from here and just want to be clear that I do not endorse the tendering, I do not accept that CIE group are as efficient as they should be by any means and I don not beleive TUPE will apply. I could be wrong on some or all of the above but we'll wait and see.

cdebru

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

no bus operator can be called efficent when it has the dwell time dublin bus.has. some of the routes would be at.least a third quicker with a proper.multi door system and fare system with better spaced stops if.not.more. some routes the dwell time end.to end.is.more.than.the.driving time

but as one driver said less dwell rime equals less time to complete a route. Equals less vehicles to run a timetable equals need.for less drivers. so it is.not.in.his.intrest.to use.his.middle.doors since he believes it.could affect his.job security

of course the fact.that a faster more direct.less.waiting around.service would attract.more.demand.is.lost.on such people

Lol so centre doors use is a well thought out plan to secure jobs by increasing running time, is there not a specific thread for conspiracy theories ?
Centre door use has always been an issue of safety, poorly designed stops little to zero enforcement of parking regulations and a desire to hold drivers responsible for passengers exiting via these doors is what scuppered there use.
It is now unfortunately culturally engrained in Dublin even when the doors are used now people walk past them to force their way out the front door.

SandyfordGuy

People are going to the front door as they are not sure if the middle doors will open and miss their stop'

I have missed my stop a few times because of this' in other cities the doors will open regardless if anyone is waiting at them if it is safe to do so and this will encourage people to use them

like it or not the fact dublin bus had middle doors for years and did not use them makes people expect them not to open and some drivers do not use them at all.

I did complain about this and was told it would be dealt with since it was only when this one driver was on this route they did not open at any stops. The answer by dublin bus was to allocate a different type of bus to that driver since they told me they dealt with it.

SandyfordGuy

In dublin middle doors have loud alarms and sliding plug doors a camera and a screen drivers can see this is deemed unsafe.

Meanwhile in other countries they manage with no camera no screen and no sliding doors just folding ones.

Are we also going to remove all doors on the trams and trains too since there are many doors here so therefore even more unsafe than a bus since on a bus a driver won't have a screen for each door as on his bus.

SandyfordGuy

currins_02 wrote: »

It should be noted, I am not fully convinced this is a good move and I'm merely trying to stay objective on my views. If I'm proved wrong then so be it.

I would love if someone could obtain a transcript of Leo V's speach last October in which he categorically stated that Fine Gael's Election Manifesto and prevailing view is that bus service provision should be broken up and privatised, I think the words he used where that it was now a "compromise" of their coalition with Labour that they were backing off on that position. That said he accepted they are currently in breach of EU law and as such they had to ultimately move to a fully tendered model for PSO bus route provision for both bus and coach services. He also said that they were looking an incremental introduction over a period of time due to inevitable issues which will occur with such a change. One of his major issues was that private operators would not equal the packages nor absorb the pensions of existing CIE group staff and hence he openly stated that he expected major issues with unions during the changeover. Maybe a faux pax for him to make such a statement but, in fairness, and I'm no fan, he's usually fairly calculated in his statements. He highlighted that international best practise would prefer a tendered model for providing cost benefits and other efficiencies.

Regarding the Deloitte report, I would give it very little credence, it was comissioned by CIE/the state and as such is not independent and favours those who were paying for it. Likewise the Mazars report comissioned by the CTTC shortly thereafter tore apart the CIE group companies, but again that report was comissioned by the private operators and favoured their position. Both reports need to be taken in the context of who was paying for them.

The existing NTA parameters are a joke and most are based on figures provided by CIE. Should CIE or the private sector be awarded the contracts in future the NTA should be more active in policing them, the limits should be much tighter. CIE scored basically 100% in all but a few. Included are such things as "punctuality" and "cleanliness". Now on the punctuality in the UK not alone can the operator be penalised by the local authority but also risks losing their licence if a bus/coach runs through any stop over 1 min early or over 5 mins late. I know of 1 PSO BE route where I regularly stand for up to 15 mins after the scheduled time waiting on my bus. I'm happy enough with the delay (as I can now account for it) but that said how can the operator score 100% for punctuality when the vehicle regularly is a quarter of an hour late? On the cleanliness one of the requirements is that vehicles are vacuumed inside before use - whatever about DB I can assure you that it is not happening in the majority of the BE PSO routes, there is no mention of external cleaning, floor mopping, glass polishing etc just vacuuming. The NTA get a report from CIE each year reporting on how they have met the targets and low and behold they are excellent and score top marks in all the categories.

The NTA consultation document (for that's all it is at present - many suspect the EU will veto any delay of tendering until 2016 as is proposed as it was agreed in 2009 that tendering would be underway by 2014) specifically mentions that the process is desigend to give cost and operational efficiencies. The consultation doesn't close until 11th October. But the buses will cost broadly the same, diesel will cost broadly the same, stationary, tickets etc will cost broadly the same, the only place I can see cost savings coming from is the wage bill and admin/management structure. There will be much bigger fish than any of us looking at this and while the quotes you provide suggest TUPE may (or may not) apply I would expect all kinds of legal challenges to that from, especially some of the international players based on it being a new fixed term contract after the expiration of the the previous one. As I say the biggest unions in Ireland were involved in the Keelings/Tesco/Stobart situation and if they couldn't make TUPE stick I doubt it will here given the full operation of Tesco's outsourced transport including the RDC in Ballymun was included.

I'm going to sit on my hands from here and just want to be clear that I do not endorse the tendering, I do not accept that CIE group are as efficient as they should be by any means and I don not beleive TUPE will apply. I could be wrong on some or all of the above but we'll wait and see.

So let me get this right the operator monitors it's own performance and says if it meets the targets set by the state? Such things shoukd.be.monitored.by a neutral Third party who decides that!!!!

it's like.enteeing a competition and being the judge as well a clear conflict.of.interest

currins_02

Yep seems so

cdebru

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

In dublin middle doors have loud alarms and sliding plug doors a camera and a screen drivers can see this is deemed unsafe.

Meanwhile in other countries they manage with no camera no screen and no sliding doors just folding ones.

Are we also going to remove all doors on the trams and trains too since there are many doors here so therefore even more unsafe than a bus since on a bus a driver won't have a screen for each door as on his bus.

Really? You are trying to equate a train station or tram stop with bus stops ?
I suggest you get out and look at some of the bus stops in this city, bus stops with no footpath, that buses can't fit into, that constantly have parked cars, private coaches, or are being used as a taxi rank. I have yet to see any of those issues on the Luas or train network. Have you ?

cdebru

currins_02 wrote: »

It should be noted, I am not fully convinced this is a good move and I'm merely trying to stay objective on my views. If I'm proved wrong then so be it.

I would love if someone could obtain a transcript of Leo V's speach last October in which he categorically stated that Fine Gael's Election Manifesto and prevailing view is that bus service provision should be broken up and privatised, I think the words he used where that it was now a "compromise" of their coalition with Labour that they were backing off on that position. That said he accepted they are currently in breach of EU law and as such they had to ultimately move to a fully tendered model for PSO bus route provision for both bus and coach services. He also said that they were looking an incremental introduction over a period of time due to inevitable issues which will occur with such a change. One of his major issues was that private operators would not equal the packages nor absorb the pensions of existing CIE group staff and hence he openly stated that he expected major issues with unions during the changeover. Maybe a faux pax for him to make such a statement but, in fairness, and I'm no fan, he's usually fairly calculated in his statements. He highlighted that international best practise would prefer a tendered model for providing cost benefits and other efficiencies.

Regarding the Deloitte report, I would give it very little credence, it was comissioned by CIE/the state and as such is not independent and favours those who were paying for it. Likewise the Mazars report comissioned by the CTTC shortly thereafter tore apart the CIE group companies, but again that report was comissioned by the private operators and favoured their position. Both reports need to be taken in the context of who was paying for them.

The existing NTA parameters are a joke and most are based on figures provided by CIE. Should CIE or the private sector be awarded the contracts in future the NTA should be more active in policing them, the limits should be much tighter. CIE scored basically 100% in all but a few. Included are
such things as "punctuality" and "cleanliness". Now on the punctuality in the UK not alone can the operator be penalised by the local authority but also risks losing their licence if a bus/coach runs through any stop over 1 min early or over 5 mins late. I know of 1 PSO BE route where I regularly stand for up to 15 mins after the scheduled time waiting on my bus. I'm happy enough with the delay (as I can now account for it) but that said how can the operator score 100% for punctuality when the vehicle regularly is a quarter of an hour late? On the cleanliness one of the requirements is that vehicles are vacuumed inside before use - whatever about DB I can assure you that it is not happening in the majority of the BE PSO routes, there is no mention of external cleaning, floor mopping, glass polishing etc just vacuuming. The NTA get a report from CIE each year reporting on how they have met the targets and low and behold they are excellent and score top marks in all the categories.

The NTA consultation document (for that's all it is at present - many suspect the EU will veto any delay of tendering until 2016 as is proposed as it was agreed in 2009 that tendering would be underway by 2014) specifically mentions that the process is desigend to give cost and operational efficiencies. The consultation doesn't close until 11th October. But the buses will cost broadly the same, diesel will cost broadly the same, stationary, tickets etc will cost broadly the same, the only place I can see cost savings coming from is the wage bill and admin/management structure. There will be much bigger fish than any of us looking at this and while the quotes you provide suggest TUPE may (or may not) apply I would expect all kinds of legal challenges to that from, especially some of the international players based on it being a new fixed term contract after the expiration of the the previous one. As I say the biggest unions in Ireland were involved in the Keelings/Tesco/Stobart situation and if they couldn't make TUPE stick I doubt it will here given the full operation of Tesco's outsourced transport including the RDC in Ballymun was included.

I'm going to sit on my hands from here and just want to be clear that I do not endorse the tendering, I do not accept that CIE group are as efficient as they should be by any means and I don not beleive TUPE will apply. I could be wrong on some or all of the above but we'll wait and see.

First off deloitte was not commissioned by CIE it was Noel Dempsey who commissioned that to prove his belief that DB was inefficient and wasting tax payers money it found the opposite.

Second the NTA set the targets and monitor them including surveys and inspections, times for DB are all on the RTPI which is operated by the NTA, they have all that information at their fingertips it is not just DB telling them they are on time the proof is there on the RTPI.
The targets are set by the NTA and DB meets andnexceeda them, it is disingenuous to then just dismiss that and claim those targets are no good, remember the NTA will be setting the targets for any private operators as well.

On TUPE, it is case by case, the NTA have accepted TUPE would apply, if you are saying will the NTA, governmemt , and any private operator try their best to get out of TUPE then yes I agree 100% of course they will, but that will be a matter for unions and their members to ensure doesn't happen.

Lastly I have no idea how BE operate but DB clean every bus everyday and then buses are deep cleaned every couple of weeks.

LXFlyer

currins_02 wrote: »

Regarding the Deloitte report, I would give it very little credence, it was comissioned by CIE/the state and as such is not independent and favours those who were paying for it. Likewise the Mazars report comissioned by the CTTC shortly thereafter tore apart the CIE group companies, but again that report was comissioned by the private operators and favoured their position. Both reports need to be taken in the context of who was paying for them.

A quick comment on this.

I would say that on Deloitte, it was not commissioned by CIE - it was commissioned by an openly sceptical Minister for Transport, who was questioning the efficiency and effectiveness of the two companies. Noel Dempsey was anything but convinced about that, so I'd actually suggest that it has far more relevance than you suggest.

It did find serious issues in the way Dublin Bus designed routes, schedules, and rosters.

I'd also say that most of the report's recommendations for improvements have been ones that any of us who have been observing public transport in Ireland for some time have been advocating for a long time.

The Deloitte report was a turning point in terms of how public transport schedules, rosters, and the network are designed here - we finally started to get corridor scheduling, with clockface and regular intervals. We have still got some way to go, but that report has been the main driver of the changes we have seen, and as such I certainly wouldn't dismiss it in such an offhand way.

LXFlyer

cdebru wrote: »

Really? You are trying to equate a train station or tram stop with bus stops ?
I suggest you get out and look at some of the bus stops in this city, bus stops with no footpath, that buses can't fit into, that constantly have parked cars, private coaches, or are being used as a taxi rank. I have yet to see any of those issues on the Luas or train network. Have you ?

There are some bust stop issues, but frankly the vast majority of the time drivers just don't bother with the centre doors - that has to start changing, and non-operation become the exception rather than the rule.

foggy_lad

lxflyer wrote: »

There are some bust stop issues, but frankly the vast majority of the time drivers just don't bother with the centre doors - that has to start changing, and non-operation become the exception rather than the rule.

I was on an 11 the other day and the driver stopped at stops whenever the bell sounded even if there was nobody waiting, he also opened both doors at most stops where people were getting off and most people used the centre doors.

If all drivers were to say "exit through the middle doors" to people that approach the front near stops it might be helpful to get people trained to using the middle doors again.

currins_02

Yes report was comissioned by Noel D's department which effectively owns CIE so cannot be termed independent or impartial, no more than the Mazar's report by the private sector can claim the same. For me the truth lies somewhere between both reports - maybe that's simplistic but so be it. I'm not dismissing the reports off hand, what I was trying to say is that for a state comissioned report into a state body to say that body is highly efficient deserves some scepticism as does a private (and hence anti state) report which says they are highly inefficient. I take both and look at the middle ground.

The RTPI is only in place, in my understanding in the last year or 2 and as someone who stood at Drumcondra on the 14th of May waiting on a bus which never appeared I would have doubts on it's accuracy (the RTPI indicated a time of arrival which never happened). I don't use DB alot so I can't say how common that is. Just my own experience. Wrote an email to DB on 15th May, got an acknowledgement back and nothing since.

Most of the results, according to the NTA themselves are in the main based on survey responses from CIE/DB/BE. That is their stated position. Is it not uncanny that in all but a couple of the parameters they scored 100% in pretty much every area? Surely that in itself would indicate the leeway is too loose, target is too low or the survey is being smudged? In some areas the target is 98%, what do CIE score - 98%!!!, uncanny that, based on their own survey responses. I am not just dismissing them but it should you a sole function of the NTA or an independent intermediary to survey the results, it should not in any way be down to CIE to respond by way of a survey or otherwise.

The cleaning one states something like the vehicle should be vacuumed before EVERY service (forgive me haven't got it here to read and on a phone so a pain in the a$$ to look up), never mind daily supposed to be before the service. Simply not happening I would beleive and I know it's not even happening daily on some BE PSO routes I have cause to use.

As I say, don't get me wrong I'm not trying to say anything else other than the monitoring and reporting of standards in the current PSO system is flawed, that's more to do with the NTA than CIE. I agree and I hope the NTA do police every operator doing PSO in future (private or state) and like the UK I beleive it should be a case of monitoring set services over a day or week creating averages and working from that. No operator should be asked to grade themselves in ANY area which in most areas is what the NTA in their own report state has been happening to date. Accurate RTPI should tackle some of this but my experience in May would tell me it is not working 100% just yet.

LXFlyer

currins_02 wrote: »

Yes report was comissioned by Noel D's department which effectively owns CIE so cannot be termed independent or impartial, no more than the Mazar's report by the private sector can claim the same. For me the truth lies somewhere between both reports - maybe that's simplistic but so be it. I'm not dismissing the reports off hand, what I was trying to say is that for a state comissioned report into a state body to say that body is highly efficient deserves some scepticism as does a private (and hence anti state) report which says they are highly inefficient. I take both and look at the middle ground.

The RTPI is only in place, in my understanding in the last year or 2 and as someone who stood at Drumcondra on the 14th of May waiting on a bus which never appeared I would have doubts on it's accuracy (the RTPI indicated a time of arrival which never happened). I don't use DB alot so I can't say how common that is. Just my own experience. Wrote an email to DB on 15th May, got an acknowledgement back and nothing since.

Most of the results, according to the NTA themselves are in the main based on survey responses from CIE/DB/BE. That is their stated position. Is it not uncanny that in all but a couple of the parameters they scored 100% in pretty much every area? Surely that in itself would indicate the leeway is too loose, target is too low or the survey is being smudged? In some areas the target is 98%, what do CIE score - 98%!!!, uncanny that, based on their own survey responses. I am not just dismissing them but it should you a sole function of the NTA or an independent intermediary to survey the results, it should not in any way be down to CIE to respond by way of a survey or otherwise.

The cleaning one states something like the vehicle should be vacuumed before EVERY service (forgive me haven't got it here to read and on a phone so a pain in the a$$ to look up), never mind daily supposed to be before the service. Simply not happening I would beleive and I know it's not even happening daily on some BE PSO routes I have cause to use.

As I say, don't get me wrong I'm not trying to say anything else other than the monitoring and reporting of standards in the current PSO system is flawed, that's more to do with the NTA than CIE. I agree and I hope the NTA do police every operator doing PSO in future (private or state) and like the UK I beleive it should be a case of monitoring set services over a day or week creating averages and working from that. No operator should be asked to grade themselves in ANY area which in most areas is what the NTA in their own report state has been happening to date. Accurate RTPI should tackle some of this but my experience in May would tell me it is not working 100% just yet.

Unless we are reading different reports, Deloitte did not say Dublin Bus was effective - in fact it said anything but.

The result has been a massive change in the DB network and the schedules in the past 3 years.

There is work to be done on the RTPI but it will never be 100% accurate due to unforeseen events - this was a completely new process and yes there are some areas where the stop schedules need revising - but it has made a huge difference to using public transport - I use the apps constantly when I'm out and about, and by and large it is accurate. I use at least 4 different buses every day, so that gives me some experience of the system.

But, if you are near the terminus, it will take the schedule up until 2 minutes before departure when it switches to the bus itself. If a bus is cancelled, for example, and for whatever reason the controller doesn't take it off the system, it will continue to appear until it switches to the bus. There is still that human element that can create issues - which I suspect is what happened here.

cdebru

lxflyer wrote: »

There are some bust stop issues, but frankly the vast majority of the time drivers just don't bother with the centre doors - that has to start changing, and non-operation become the exception rather than the rule.

It is easier to just be consistent, then passengers know what to expect rather than this time you open then next time you don't, you end up with passengers in confusion not knowing which way to head, then they are standing at the centre doors waiting to get off they don't open, meanwhile at the front door intending passengers think no one is getting off and start to board, suddenly the people who were at the centre door are now tryng to push their way through the boarding passengers and the whole thing is a mess. Next stop those passengers who witnessed the chaos of the last stop just ignore the centre door and head for the front door whether it opens or not and on it goes.


I agree it should be the norm but that won't happen while, trucks, cars and private coaches use bus stops as handy parking bays, while taxi drivers use them as overflow taxi ranks, while road planners make them too short to fit a bus into etc etc