NTA Incompetent?
Comments
-
Ah yes, I forgot that will be part of the new NTA GTFS version
0 -
So each operator DB BE GAI has an MD with the NTA overseeing them? Is that not a duplication of work also how many staff in the NTA have a background in road transport operations?
I heard of a story about an NTA official come out of Dublin Castle and demand that the double deck bus be driven into the courtyard of the castle, Even though the bus wouldn't be able to fit.
3 -
Very few most NTA staff are career civil servants with no real world experience so to speak
2 -
Most of their problems is a mission creep from regulator to an active interfering day-to-day controller and final decision maker in things.
Trying to ape TfL or anyone else is a huge problem in itself. It indicates a lack of leadership or direction of their own.
If they had stayed as pen pushers, awarding contracts transparently and fining performance, all good. Now their hands are all over the scales, creating networks, branding, hiding tenders, specifying vehicles on routes, liveries..all things they should've stayed a long way away from.
1 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,486 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22082
"So each operator DB BE GAI has an MD with the NTA overseeing them? Is that not a duplication of work also how many staff in the NTA have a background in road transport operations?"
I don't really see how that is any different from how RailGourmet and Corporate Catering (companies contracted they deliver food on trains [1]) have their own CEO/MD and then Irish Rail has a CEO and in turn there is the CIE CEO!
Pretty normal for the companies you contract with to each have their own executives for pretty obvious reasons.
[1] Yes I know the RailGourmet contract is currently cancelled, but the point stands.
"If they had stayed as pen pushers, awarding contracts transparently and fining performance, all good. Now their hands are all over the scales, creating networks, branding, hiding tenders, specifying vehicles on routes, liveries..all things they should've stayed a long way away from."
If you want an integrated public transport system that integrates multiple companies and different forms of transport across a city, then it is pretty much impossible to avoid having an overseeing regulator who drives all of the above.
Frankly it is pretty much normal to have a setup like this in most European cities and it was long overdue in Dublin.
1 -
Advertisement
-
Most European cities have one public transport usually part of the council that operates all buses, trams and metro like BVG in Berlin. Urban railways are usually part of the national operator such as the S-Bahn being Deustche Bahn operated.
Some cities contract out the operation of some or all public such as London, Copenhagen and Warsaw but most operate it directly.
1 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,486 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22082
"Most European cities have one public transport usually part of the council that operates all buses, trams and metro like BVG in Berlin. Urban railways are usually part of the national operator such as the S-Bahn being Deustche Bahn operated"
While buses, trams and the U-Bahn in Berlin are operated by BVG, the S-Bahn aren't operated by BVG, they are operated by a DB subsidiary. Instead those BVG services, plus S-Bahn, Ferries, etc. are all operated under the umbrella of the VBB and as a result have integrated services, ticketing, etc. despite being operated by different companies.
In fact 36 companies, both public and private operate under the VBB:
https://www.vbb.de/en/the-vbb/about-us/transport-companies/
The VBB is basically the equivalent of the NTA. A different ownership model, the VBB being a private limited company owned by the states of Berlin and Brandenburg, reflecting Germans more federalised form, but effectively they do the same thing as the NTA.
"Some cities contract out the operation of some or all public such as London, Copenhagen and Warsaw but most operate it directly."
I'd like to see a source for that? I'm aware of more examples of the former, then the latter.
But either way, it is largely irrelevant. In either case you have some single authority that overseas the services that operate in the city.
0 -
But the point is BVG is a state owned operator like DB or BE as opposed to a private operator like GAI. I've been to a lot of cities in Europe and only in London and Copenhagen I saw private operators like Arriva operating buses.
Most places have one state owned operator RATP in Paris is another example only one operator of buses and metro in Paris.
2 -
Crowd like BVG and RATP are exceptions, and frankly shouldn't exist, but then again apparently RATP and Dublin Bus would have a fun party together, and I'm not one bit sarcastic there.
Taking the 24 largest by population cities in Poland though, we find something quite interesting:
- five are part of the Upper Silesian conurbation, which has something like 50 local governments as part of its transport authority, hence I picked 24 - I meant for 20 but to counterbalance the common authority here;
- six have limited or widespread tendering, but formed in such a way that the local semi-state (or ex-semi-state, looking at you, Kielce... what happened there is criminal, but that's a different story) Operator(s) have the majority or all of the services contracted to them, OR they have numerous Operators, but aside from the main player they're all suburban services. Those 6 cities are Łódź (one major semi-state), Wrocław (suburban contracts; also: semi-state subtendering), Poznań (many operators, all city services by their own though), Szczecin (another criminal tender that just doesn't allow for an external to come in because it's always resolved on like December 28 for ops to start on January 1, plus two semi-states in status quo), Białystok (three semi-states in a status quo), and Kielce (worker-owned ex-semi-state);
- five have local operators who run the entirety of the network through direct-award contracts (Częstochowa, Toruń, Rzeszów, Bielsko-Biała, Zielona Góra). In the case of two of them, there're also trams involved. Częstochowa and Rzeszów have a separate authority, the other three are regulated by a section of the city government itself;
- and we are thus left with the 13 cities who practice tendering, however at different scales. In Warsaw, the semi-state operator was allocated 74% of the city network bus operations (in km), with five other companies operating under nine other contracts as well (one of them being another local operator actually). In Radom, the number tends to float between 65% and 70%. On the other hand, Kraków, Gdańsk, Bydgoszcz are all in situations of just a single private contract that barely dents the 10% number.
Tendering has seeped into most Polish cities reallistically as a way of keeping the incumbent semi-state in check, so that they don't explode the operating costs, usually though bloated overhead costs... but we do also have examples of cities going full-private, such as Tczew and Wałbrzych, where the post-communist operators just failed completely in the 2000s.
2 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,486 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22082
"But the point is BVG is a state owned operator like DB or BE as opposed to a private operator like GAI."
So Berlin has the VBB, which regulates the operations of the state owned company BVG and a bunch of other private operators.
Dublin has the NTA, which regulates the operations of the state owned company CIE and a bunch of private operators.
Looks almost exactly the same to me.
"I've been to a lot of cities in Europe and only in London and Copenhagen I saw private operators like Arriva operating buses."
So you don't have any source. I've travelled all over Europe too and beyond and have seen many examples of this sort of operation.
"Most places have one state owned operator RATP in Paris is another example only one operator of buses and metro in Paris."
Île-de-France Mobilités (IDFM) is the public authority responsible for public transport in Paris. RATP operate various services in Paris under contract with IDFM. While RATP operate the majority of services, there is also SNCF trains and 90 private bus companies that operate under IDFM.
In other words, Dublin, Berlin and Paris are almost exactly the same. A single public authority responsible for public transport in the region, usually over the traditional large public owned operator and a bunch of newer private operators.
This is pretty much the standard model for most European cities and in general it it is driven by EU competition rules which require the opening up of markets, along with other reasons.
1 -
Advertisement
-
Yeah but if they're incompetent at the whole 'overseeing' bit and instead become an interfering player but shirk responsibility or accountability, it's not a whole lot of use.
5 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,486 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22082
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense, how exactly are they incompetent?
Public transport in Ireland has radically improved since the NTA took over:
- Actual proper 24/7 bus services
- Increased off peak and weekend frequency
- Excellent orbital routes like the N4
- Dual door buses across the fleet and actually used now
- Finally proper integrated ticketing with the 90 minute fare
- Affordable tickets like the €2 90 minute, greatly reduced young peoples fares, etc.
- Switching Cork City to double decker buses and greatly increasing frequency, VAST improvement in buses in Cork.
- New updated bus poles and shelter (bigger deal in Cork).
- Introduction of the non stop intercity coach services was a complete game changer for intercity travel.
- Introduction of local link services.
How exactly are they "shirking responsibility"?
DB and GAI are the ones who are failing to deliver the services that they are contracted to deliver to the NTA. It is DB/GAI who are the ones who can't hire and retain enough bus drivers to operate the services they signed a contract to operate. NTA don't hire or decide the wages of drivers, it is DB/GAI who do that.
The NTA have meet their responsibility by fining DB/GAI for not delivering the services they are contracted to do.
I find it ridiculous, that some of you are blaming the NTA, when it is DB/GAI who are failing in hiring and retaining drivers. That is literally the job of DB/GAI, to hire, train and keep drivers and they seem to be failing miserably at it!
Having said all of that, I don't really blame DB/GAI too much for this, as it is an industry wide issue that is impacting almost all operators. But it is complete rubbish to lay the blame on the NTA, when the issues here is with DB/GAI. Of course NTA/DB/GAI all need to work together to help resolve it.
8 -
They absolutely are responsible for the current issues with public transport in Ireland atm they are the body responsible for the provision of PSO services in the state not DB/GAI/IE/BE/CIE. Remember it's the NTA who are supposed to be in charge the operators are only doing as their told by the NTA.
You say that it's DB/GAIs problem that they can't keep drivers well that may be so but we keep getting told that public transport is extremely important to the national economy.
Clearly bus driving is an undesirable career to most how to you make it desirable improve pay and conditions. Look at linesmen working for the ESB who go out in all weather to restore power if there's been a power cut a very undesirable job you can be damn sure those guys aren't on low money same should apply to bus drivers. Undesirable job then becomes desirable loads looking to do apprenticeships with the ESB hardly anyone applying for driving positions with DB/GAI/BE.
All those "improvements" you mention are for the most part only bringing Ireland up to the standard of public transport which citizens should expect in an 1st world European country.
DB actually wanted to run the 24h routes back in the late 90s/early 00s but were refused a licence/funding by the DOT instead this was given to Aircoach. DB had dual door buses prior to the NTA AVs didn't get centre doors to make way for a wheelchair space as these were the first lowfloor buses DB got. DB had a 90 minute fare pre NTA. €2 fare was introduced by the government to help with cost of living. Motorway network wasn't build by NTA Aircoach had Dublin-Cork and Citylink had Dublin-Galway pre NTA.
2 -
All those "improvements" you mention are for the most part only bringing Ireland up to the standard of public transport which citizens should expect in an 1st world European country.
Even if you give credence to the view that the NTA only brought us up to the standards of a 1st world European country, we had been well below that beforehand. That is an achievement.
4 -
Except European countries have improved further so they still far exceed us. No rush for the NTA to introduce electronic or contactless payments on buses and trains in Ireland which has been in place in London since 2014. Most European countries have this now.
Post edited by mikeybhoy on2 -
What's the reasoning behind killing off the Dublin Bus app?
I actually find it pretty useful that it concisely lists the buses that are relevant for the journey I know I want to take. I don't want to have to 'visually wade through' a screen-load of irrelevant long distance Bus Eireann services and GAI services that are no good to me. They sometimes have the effect of pushing the information that I want completely off the front page.
When I need to make my 2/3 times a year Bus Eireann trip, I'll happily use the TfI app. But it can be complete info overload when I'm just trying to find the next 38A home or something.
1 -
They are bringing it in, but it requires changing every single payment unit on every single bus. Its not exactly easily done overnight.
The NTA started from a very low point, that is the reality they had to contend with. They have improved things massively.
2 -
Presumably because it has incomplete information and there is no guarantee that Dublin Bus will always be running the routes that you are interested in. Its something that works well for someone who knows exactly what they want, but eventually people will start complaining that its "missing" routes and other options. Best to just focus on the TFI one
1 -
That could've been done five years ago
1 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,486 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22082
"DB had dual door buses prior to the NTA AVs didn't get centre doors to make way for a wheelchair space as these were the first lowfloor buses DB got."
DB made the frankly criminal decision to get rid of dual door buses after they got rid of the conductor.
It was DB **** decision when they got rid of conductors, to move to the model of single door buses, with the drivers selling tickets, which lead to terrible dwell times. This is a great example of how incompetent DB management were.
It was like something straight out of the 1940's. When they got rid of the conductors, Luas style ticketing was common on buses through out Europe, multiple doors, no driver interaction, validate ticket on board. DB management choose to go with by far the worst ticketing and operation model possible.
It took the NTA to start buying buses, to see the re-introduction of dual door buses.
Down in Cork it was BE who stupidly got rid of Double decker buses, replacing them with single deckers, another decision that has since been corrected and reversed by the NTA.
"DB had a 90 minute fare pre NTA."
It only worked on DB and you had to pre buy it. It wasn't an integrated ticket like the new 90 minute ticket that works across DB/GAI/Luas/Dart and which you can automatically get on a Luas card without pre buying or planning ahead. Massive difference.
"€2 fare was introduced by the government to help with cost of living."
Err, yes, the NTA is part of the government! It was done with negotiations between the NTA, Department of Transport and Department of Finance.
Also you seem to be conveniently ignoring all the great work that the NTA has been doing with the young persons ticket, etc.
To be clear, the NTA created the integrated 90 minute ticket, Young Adult Leap Card fare, and have been working towards removing the ridiculous, complicated, frankly stupid, stage fare system that DB left them with.
"Motorway network wasn't build by NTA Aircoach had Dublin-Cork and Citylink had Dublin-Galway pre NTA."
Citylink did exist pre NTA, but the Aircoach service pre-NTA was a stopping service that mostly didn't use the Motorway. It was under the NTA that they started a new non-stop direct service that used the Motorway, which ran in parallel with the old stopping service. After about a year, Aircoach discontinued the stopping service.
While services to Galway did exist, it was under the NTA's new licensing regime that allowed for two direct non stop services per route, which opened it up to all the other cities including Cork.
I know this very well, as it is the entire reason why I joined this forum. I was a Corkonian living in Dublin, who innocently came to C&T forum to ask why the BE service to Cork was so bad, why did it take 5 hours, didn't use the motorway and no service after 6pm?
Well I had CIE "supporters" jump all over me claiming there was no demand for non stop services, no demand for a service more frequent, no demand for toilets or wifi on board, no demand for services after 6pm!
I found that all extremely hard to believe and then of course along came Aircoach and GoBE with their non stop services, operating every 30 minutes, almost 24 hours, toilets/wifi on board and these services proving incredibly successful.
I'm absolutely convinced that if it wasn't for the NTA licensing changes and the new commercial operator routes, we would be still stuck with a terrible BE intercity service.
So please, stop trying to convince us things would be better under CIE, I'm more then old enough to remember what CIE services in Cork and Dublin were like pre-NTA and frankly it was a complete **** show. They were like something out of the 1940's
To be clear, this is no attack on individual staff or drivers, who overall I've always found lovely. I've fond memories of getting the bus home from school as a kid and the bus driver having a nice chat and giving us rolls of unprinted tickets to take home and play with!
No I'm talking about the overall operation and management of the services. Routes, schedules, frequency, capacity, ticketing, etc.
We had CIE running the show for decades and it was frankly TERRIBLE. The NTA are far from perfect and I have many complaints that I've voiced myself about them, but frankly public transport has VASTLY improved here since the NTA was formed and I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the bad old days of it all being run by CIE. The entire thought just makes me shudder.
5 -
Advertisement
-
New garages earmarked for Finglas and tallaght. Nta built and successful operators will have use during contracts.
1 -
The KCs, KDs and the RH/A/Vs all had centre doors and were OPO operated even some of the early AVs used for the Airlink had them which were later used on the 16/41. The AWs also had a rear door in the rear section.
Your right to a certain extent that dwell times were bad and that can be put down to Ireland copying the UK model as opposed to the better model used on the continent. The dwell times did improve in Dublin after Autofare was introduced in the late 90s after a spate of attacks on drivers when cash was carried. I can not for the life of me under why this was never introduced on BE city services in Cork, Limerick and Galway. I do remember hearing that BE even used throw the odd coach on a city service in Cork which is totally unsuitable.
A lot of the past issues with public transport in Ireland can be put down to a chronic underfunding of public transport services as opposed to CIE incompetence. The NTA look good because public transport is actually beginning to get a proper subsidy unlike before.
As for BE services from Dublin to Cork being crap before the motorway was built that could probably be put down to the fact that CIE probably didn't want to have it's bus service competing with the train. The train was probably seen as the better option in those days as the motorway had not been built. The M7 was only opened in 2010 after the NTA was founded.
I'm not saying the NTA are all bad but they do seem to be lacking in experience and seem to be making mistakes only learning as they go. Do you actually use GAI operated services on a regular basis because the general consensus I hear is they are crap. I fail to see how there has been any improvement over DB operating them.
2 -
Thought the garage in Finglas was a temporary arrangement whilst other depots were being fitted with chargers. Haven't heard anything about Tallaght.
1 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,486 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22082
"I'm not saying the NTA are all bad but they do seem to be lacking in experience and seem to be making mistakes only learning as they go. Do you actually use GAI operated services on a regular basis because the general consensus I hear is they are crap. I fail to see how there has been any improvement over DB operating them."
I'd argue that the benefit of GAI's presence was a good firm kick up DB's arse.
I feel like since tendering was introduced, DB have significantly improved the quality of their service, I'd assume because management realised they no longer had a monopoly and they needed to get their house in order or they would potentially lose even more routes to GAI or other operators. Even more so for BE which were far worse.
Personally I don't really care if a service is operated by a commercial company or a public one. Like most people I don't care as long as the bus turns up and gets me to my destination. All I care about is that a quality service is delivered to the public. I would have happily taken a BE Expressway service between Cork and Dublin if it had offered the same service as the commercial operators (3 hours, toilets, wifi, 24/7, etc.), but it didn't.
What I am against is monopolies. Both private and public monopolies, in my experience they both lead to a bad experience for the customer, just bad in different ways. My experience with public monopolies like Telecom Eireann or CIE, was a lack of efficiency, innovation, drive to do new things or introduce new services. A lack of customer focus. Even a little competition seems to improve that greatly.
I don't think GAI are anything special either. But I do think it is a little unfair as they have been given the worst bus routes in Dublin, forced to buy and build their own depot and they face much the same driver hiring and retention issues that DB and the entire industry face.
"As for BE services from Dublin to Cork being crap before the motorway was built that could probably be put down to the fact that CIE probably didn't want to have it's bus service competing with the train. The train was probably seen as the better option in those days as the motorway had not been built. The M7 was only opened in 2010 after the NTA was founded."
The non stop Aircoach service was launched in 2012, well after the Motorway was opened and the NTA formed.
That is what is so INSANE about it. The government had spent hundreds of millions building a new motorway between Dublin and Cork and for two years BE, a public owned company, couldn't even bother making use of that Motorway!!!!
Frankly it was a disgrace, all that public money spent on a new motorway and a public company wouldn't even use it!
I agree with you that the reason they likely didn't make use of the Motorway, was because they feared the damage it would do to their sister companies rail service. I admit I always took the train because it took 3 hours versus 5 hours or so for the BE service. Once Aircoach came along I immediately switched to Aircoach and have only used the train to Cork once since.
But this is a perfect example of why a monopoly like this is bad for us customers. BE should never have been allowed to get away with this. This is the perfect example of why we shouldn't have a single public company having a monopoly over all services and have at least some competition.
To be honest, I feel DB/BE/IR should all be completely separated from CIE and made truly separate (but public owned) companies. No reason why DB couldn't compete for tenders to run city bus services in Cork or BE vice versa. Hell even IR could perhaps try to run bus and coach services, like Deutsche Bahn does in Germany. Competition is good for customers.
3 -
I don't care who's operating the bus service either actually when GAI first came in I welcomed them in and was looking forward to the improvements that were promised by the NTA and gave them a chance. Unfortunately four years into the contract and I've been very disappointed by them the service wasn't great at the beginning but since covid ended they've been an absolute joke.
I'd actually go as far to say GAI have been a complete disaster I'd actually agree with you the only good it's done has been to DB. I don't see how GAI got the worst routes they signed the contract they should've known what they were getting themselves in for.
Funnily enough even though you think BE were worse than DB. BE have actually won more tenders than DB. BE won the tender to operate the Waterford City routes and have recently retained the 101 and 133 only losing the Kildare/Offaly commuter routes to GAI. DB on other hand have lost both their original tendered routes to GAI and have more recently lost the W4/W6 tender to GAI.
I agree with competition myself but only where it's logical intercity and airport routes it makes but not so much on city routes where PSO type services are the way to go. I can see the logic of competition on commercial services in this way but to me I can't see much advantage of tendering out PSO services the NTA are just subcontracting an operator to provide services on their whether that be DB, BE, IE, GAI, Transdev, Stagecoach, Arriva or whatever other international operator decides to enter the Irish market.
If we do go down the road of full scale tendering which seems to be the aim of the NTA whether they'll get their way or not is another question like London. And if CIE were to be disintegrated completely would it not make more sense for DB and BE to merge and IE to solely focus on rail. No point having two state owned bus operators.
2 -
GAI's contract has been a complete disaster. They're doing exactly what the NTA demands of them: operating the highest possible amount of services with the lowest possible amount of resources (i.e. buses/drivers), while paying as little as they can get away with. Interestingly, that worked really well during the early days of the pandemic, when there were plenty of drivers desperate for work, generous timings/turnovers and (crucially) no traffic on the roads.
To make the services work properly, regardless of who operates them, the state needs to spend big - ensure that drivers receive a fair wage, buy a lot more buses and neutralise (by whatever means necessary) the effect that private traffic has on buses. The NTA needs to dig deep and do a lot better.
5 -
If they felt that the contract was unachievable then GAI really shouldn't have signed it in the first place and asked for changes to make it realistic and achievable. The first lockdown was really an ideal world scenario for public transport operations no traffic or passengers nothing that could possibly delay service so I wouldn't read much into that as it was a once off event.
GAI seem to have trouble with the number of buses they have but I don't see the same issues with lack of buses with DB from going past Donnybrook on the top deck of the 46a/145/155 I would say at a guesstimate 15-20 buses are parked up there and that's at the height of the evening rush. Now those could be buses off the road for various reasons but if they have a lot of spare capacity in terms of buses that should really be sent to GAI.
100% on private traffic needs to be more bus lanes and more enforcement of existing bus lanes. Gardai need to do their job. I remember being on holidays in Italy a few years ago and noticed an illegally parked car was blocking a bus getting through a tight stretch if road within five minutes a truck with a hiab was there and had it removed in less than two minutes.
1 -
DB made the frankly criminal decision to get rid of dual door buses after they got rid of the conductor.
It was DB **** decision when they got rid of conductors, to move to the model of single door buses, with the drivers selling tickets, which lead to terrible dwell times. This is a great example of how incompetent DB management were.
It was like something straight out of the 1940's. When they got rid of the conductors, Luas style ticketing was common on buses through out Europe, multiple doors, no driver interaction, validate ticket on board. DB management choose to go with by far the worst ticketing and operation model possible.
I was once given one reason why off-board ticket sales wouldn't have worked in the 1980s was a poorly developed network of shops at the time, which would have made it difficult to provide tickets everywhere, which admittedly is a reason outside of CIE and DB's remit. At the same time, for some reason mainland Europe was able to do the same, and I doubt the situation would have been much different - what, did we have more newsagents around at the time?
I do remember hearing that BE even used throw the odd coach on a city service in Cork which is totally unsuitable.
Until the 3 March 2012 network reconstruction in Galway, there was a regular departure on the 4W operated by a coach, because it was built into a 425 duty and the driver just kept the bus through for the outbound 425 right after it.
I can see the logic of competition on commercial services in this way but to me I can't see much advantage of tendering out PSO services the NTA are just subcontracting an operator to provide services on their whether that be DB, BE, IE, GAI, Transdev, Stagecoach, Arriva or whatever other international operator decides to enter the Irish market.
The advantage is when you have one major operator already at the scene, especially one who has a monopoly - it becomes a control tool to ensure that the incumbent monopolist doesn't explode their operating costs, and that they don't have too much power over the functioning of the network as a whole. On the other hand, I usually don't agree with full-on contracting like London or Copenhagen have done - my attitude is to have a 60/40 split (the split between a direct-award and tendered contracts is irrelevant) so that the network doesn't collapse altogether, but at the same time we cannot afford monopolies here. @bk has said enough in post #55.
If they felt that the contract was unachievable then GAI really shouldn't have signed it in the first place and asked for changes to make it realistic and achievable.
This isn't the kind of things you could have possibly predicted back in 2017 while coming in as an outsider, unless you dedicate an entire team to observing how DB were doing it, which obviously wasn't anywhere near what GA would have eventually operated like. Dublin's problems are systematic and are going to strike all operators - the difference is going to be economics of scale.
1
