Vic_08 wrote: » The Galway-Dublin Express route awarding is somewhat public following the court case over Citylink's illegal operation of express services and subsequent award of a licence over Bus Eireann despite Bus Eireann having applied for one several YEARS earlier.
Nermal wrote: » The ludicrous idea that it should be 'illegal' to run a bus service is at the core of the problem really...
Boulevardier wrote: » My question to the NTA is, did they realise when issuing licences to operators who pay their drivers much less than BE, that this was likely to put BE under unsustainable financial pressure? If they did not realise that why not, and if they did, what was their attitude to that? In any case, there should have been legislation to ensure that all operators had terms and conditions comparable to BE's. Labour in government had an opportunity to do this. Why did they not?
Boulevardier wrote: » If Irish and EU law forbids that, then that is a scandal.
schemingbohemia wrote: » NTA are subject to FOI Vic_08 - how many applications have you made to them?
schemingbohemia wrote: » There is commercial sensitivity to most of these decisions though so how should they get around that legally?
schemingbohemia wrote: » List of current licensed services available herehttps://www.nationaltransport.ie/bus-licensing/view-list-of-current-licences/
schemingbohemia wrote: » What kind of transparency are you looking for from them?
schemingbohemia wrote: » How many decisions have been taken to judicial review by aggrieved bus operators since the formation of the NTA? I would guess less than half a dozen, that doesn't seem to me to indicate a poor management of the licensing regime.
Boulevardier wrote: » If Irish and EU law forbids that, then that is a scandal. Could there not be a sectoral regulating agreement such as that in the hospitality sector?
sat matt wrote: This I cannot understand though as it seems only a year or so ago they were buying new buses for it at close to half a million € / bus. It speaks woeful management to me
Graham wrote: » Huh? You think EU law should stifle competition by artificially inflating pay rates to unsustainable public sector levels?
Anita Blow wrote: » What is the justification for making startups/new companies match the terms and conditions of existing monopolies when entering a new market? Can you name one free market in the world that does this? Your attitude is that BE should be run for the staff rather than the customer. If BE cannot compete on a route yet other companies can, then it must take steps to become more competitive on that route or withdraw. That is what a free market is about.
end of the road wrote: » there would be no stifling of competition by insuring the equalisation of terms and conditions for all employees in the same grade within a sector. they're would be no bringing wages up to supposed unsustainible public sector levels as the public sector have taken huge pay cuts and bus eireann drivers for example are within the market rate of pay for ireland.
end of the road wrote: » Graham wrote: » Huh? You think EU law should stifle competition by artificially inflating pay rates to unsustainable public sector levels? there would be no stifling of competition by insuring the equalisation of terms and conditions for all employees in the same grade within a sector. they're would be no bringing wages up to supposed unsustainible public sector levels as the public sector have taken huge pay cuts and bus eireann drivers for example are within the market rate of pay for ireland. Anita Blow wrote: » What is the justification for making startups/new companies match the terms and conditions of existing monopolies when entering a new market? Can you name one free market in the world that does this? Your attitude is that BE should be run for the staff rather than the customer. If BE cannot compete on a route yet other companies can, then it must take steps to become more competitive on that route or withdraw. That is what a free market is about. free market, yes. regulated for the greater good market, no, all has to be equal across the board for the greater good of insuring equality, standards, and fairness for all workers and users.
devnull wrote: » In reference to Bus Eireann having a license turned down I have never read this before outside unsubstantiated posts on a forum. Can you please provide a media or official source for your claim that they were discriminated against?
Indo 2009 wrote: CityLink is owned by the world's second largest transport group, ComfortDelGro, which had a turnover of $1.5bn (€1bn) in 2008. The service started operating on October 1, and has been sharply criticised by local bus operators. Jim Burke from Go Bus, which operates a rival service, said CityLink's activities were damaging his business."We were the first operator to have a non-stop service, and we applied for our licence in June 2006," he said. "We only got a letter of offer in February this year. It has had a major impact on us, we'd be down 50pc on passenger numbers."Bus Eireann last night warned the "illegal activity" was damaging revenues which would have a knock-on effect on services. "We have always used revenues from services such as Galway-Dublin to help maintain loss-making routes in rural areas, but these unlicensed services are now making it even harder to keep those rural services going," a spokesman said. Damage "It would appear that CityLink is trying to damage indigenous bus operators by running illegal services that enable them to 'cherrypick' our customers."The commercial semi-state transport company also applied for a licence to operate direct services in 2005 but is still awaiting a decision. The Department of Transport confirmed it had instructed CityLink to stop operating the service, and that the company had refused to do so. But it admitted that if convicted the company faced a fine of €63.49 on conviction and €6.35 for every day during which the offence continues.
monument wrote: » Full NTA statement: “Suggestions that decisions made by the National Transport Authority (NTA) in granting commercial licences to bus operators have been to blame for the difficulties being experienced by Bus Éireann, simply do not stand up to scrutiny. “The notion that there is saturation on the inter-city corridors served by Expressway services, and that the NTA grants licences to operators at the drop of a hat, is well wide of the mark. “In fact since 2011, we have rejected almost as many applications for licences on these key routes, as we have granted.
Vic_08 wrote: » Is that enough for you to stop insinuating I am lying?
[Citylink? who knows, all we do know is they ilegally started and were subsequently given licence in 2009. Either Citylink applied before Go Bus else and Citylink + Bus Eireann should have the licences or they applied after so Go-Bus and Bus Eireann should have the licences.
Yeah, sure no dodgy dealings going on in bus licencing
What possible reason would it be for this government activity to be carried out in full view of the public rather than behind closed doors? :rolleyes:
The timeframes in that article also show why operators, particularly Bus Eireann seemed to stagnate through the 2000s under the dead hand of the DoT.
dfx- wrote: » Carefully worded spin there. That other applications have been rejected does not mean that corridors are not saturated.
What's the basis or criteria for allowing an application?
A race to the bottom on price?
Anita Blow wrote: » Existing labour laws and a minimum wage ensure minimum standards of employment and fairness for all users across all sectors. Bus Eireann is no different. Are Lidl and Aldi forced to pay the same as Supervalu and Dunnes? Does ESB pay the same as Bord Gais? Should Virgin have been made pay the same as Eir? I'm sorry but your protectionist wishes are not applicable in the real world. Forcing companies to adopt an over-inflated wage bill for no other reason than to protect the terms of the staff of the monopoly at the expense of the customer. We live in a free market. Private enterprise is here to stay, and so far it has been great for the consumer. It has led to lower prices, more frequent schedules and more routes. You will reject all of this despite it being fact simply because your version of "the greater good" is maintaining favourable overtime pay and unrealistic shift patterns/staffing levels at a higher cost and poorer quality service to the consumer
end of the road wrote: it's not protectionist. it's equalisation of terms and conditions within a regulated industry. they're are no over inflated wages within the rank and file workers within the bus industry in ireland. maybe at management level but that's it. the bus industry in ireland is not a free market, it's a regulated market. they're are no unrealistic shift patterns, staffing levels or anything within bus eireann, dublin bus or irish rail. there is staff to run the service and cover should staff be unavailible, with over time to keep costs down (otherwise they would have to employ more staff) as it should be. i should think other operators in ireland operate along the same way.
end of the road wrote: » it's not protectionist. it's equalisation of terms and conditions within a regulated industry. they're are no over inflated wages within the rank and file workers within the bus industry in ireland. maybe at management level but that's it. the bus industry in ireland is not a free market, it's a regulated market. they're are no unrealistic shift patterns, staffing levels or anything within bus eireann, dublin bus or irish rail. there is staff to run the service and cover should staff be unavailible, with over time to keep costs down (otherwise they would have to employ more staff) as it should be. i should think other operators in ireland operate along the same way.
PeadarCo wrote: » Operators shouldn't operate the same way as that just means more expensive fares and worse services to the detriment of nearly everyone in the industry.
PeadarCo wrote: » Look at the airline industry low cost airlines have been great. More people are able to fly on a more regular basis. That means more jobs for airline pilots and Stewart's. More jobs in airports and more business and jobs in and near the towns and cities of those airports.
PeadarCo wrote: » Same with the bus industry. If new operators can operate routes that bus eireann can't because of its high cost base it means more jobs in the long term for bus drivers. You can't just pick a bus driver of the street, buses do need some level of skill to operate so drivers will never be destitute. About the only people who lose out are the minority of bus drivers employed by bus eireann and other staff within the company. Everyone else including other drivers win. More jobs, cheaper prices, more regular buses and better quality.
Graham wrote: » Fortunately that's not happening and you're unlikely to convince enough people to ever make it happen.
end of the road wrote: » what's not happening? staff on overtime rather then employing extra staff? i think that is happening all ready.
end of the road wrote: i agree but the airline industry cannot be compared to the bus industry. they are both very different apart from the fact aircraft and busses have wheels and engines.
end of the road wrote: it doesn't . overtime is cheeper then employing extra staff and the costs that go with employing extra staff. i personally believe in employing more staff but i understand why overtime is often chosen instead and i also recognise staff sometimes do want it.
end of the road wrote: none of that has anything to do with my suggestion, which doesn't change any of those. allowing the terms of people to go down in the name of cheeper prices cannot be allowed in a regulated industry. as said all ready anyway both pay between bus eireann and the others is little different anyway for which we can be thankful so if that is the case then legally insuring equality may not be needed. bus eireann can't make as much on their expressway routes as they could because of the fact their expressway routes effectively double up as a PSO route along all or part of the journey. private operators don't have that worry. also, they're won't be any more jobs for drivers as the industry is regulated and operators have to apply for licences.
devnull wrote: » It depends how you define saturated at the end of the day doesn't it? The unions claim that this is the case on corridors where Bus Eireann is doing poorly, but do you think for one moment if Bus Eireann was offered a license on a route they currently do not serve they would say they didn't want to run it because they were worrying about the market being saturated by adding an additional service? The problem I find with the term saturation is that it's normally followed by the claim that there are too many services operated on a particular route, normally followed by somebody claiming that someone else, normally who has a much higher load factor must cut back to stop this, which is essentially a thinly veiled way of saying, they are filling their buses and we are not, make them cut some of their services so we can have more passengers
end of the road wrote: » it's not protectionist. it's equalisation of terms and conditions within a regulated industry.
dfx- wrote: » Saturation is a clear term. It is too many services/operators for the corridor to sustain. If BE entering a market caused saturation, they should not be given that licence - the problem there is BE being offered a licence by a regulator.
