Infini2 wrote: » I should point out that this is the kind of poisonous cancer from the so called private sector supporters that leads to the likes of idiots like Trump or Brexit happening. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is a bloody retarded tool as it's basically used by certain private parties to undermine peoples terms and conditions. Undermine wages by bringing in foreign workers to undercut, I mean this is the kind of crap that erodes the middle class and starts race wars. I honestly think at this stage people only want to be jealous of peoples wages or find an excuse to be bitter or rant that its not fair on them. Really now, honestly, why does anyone here actually wanna be putting down people on a middle class wage, anything between 35~55k isn't exactly big money these days it only LOOKS like it and thats before taxes and costs. It seems to me people here only want to put down others for their own self interest and nothing more.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » I'm afraid it's nothing to do with jealousy, it's just being tired of being skinned by people who seem to think the taxpayer will bankroll them no matter what Time to shout 'STOP' here.
Boulevardier wrote: » Devnull, Irish rail leaves its overpriced, ramshackle and unsafe British (privatised) counterparts in the ha'penny place, but if you prefer the British model, I can't really help you.
donal na gealla wrote: » Spot on there. I just returned from a week of nightmarish travel on the the various privatised Southern English bus and rail services. The rolling stock in Essex was especially bad. Like a flashback to Ireland in the 70s.
dublinman1990 wrote: » Talks have collasped. Strike from Bus Eireann staff is well & truly on from next Monday.http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0221/854155-bus-eireann-dispute-back-at-wrc/
Grandeeod wrote: » However, within state/semi state sectors, we must accept the legacy issues and how they affect competition from the private sector.
Infini2 wrote: » Until then its a stalemate.
Infini2 wrote: » I should point out that this is the kind of poisonous cancer from the so called private sector supporters that leads to the likes of idiots like Trump or Brexit happening.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is a bloody retarded tool as it's basically used by certain private parties to undermine peoples terms and conditions. Undermine wages by bringing in foreign workers to undercut, I mean this is the kind of crap that erodes the middle class and starts race wars.
Infini2 wrote: » To be honest HOW are you getting skint exactly? Your not being presented with ANY bill here. You seem to think that somehow the transport sector is running off with huge chunks of the budget yet the amount of cash in the overall budget to keep BE financed would be miniscule compared to other stuff.
If anything why are fares allowed to rise instead of the subsidy being increased to keep fares down instead?
kingshankly wrote: » Surely it's time for the government to up their subsidies I'm sure there is plenty of rural services that are run at a massive loss but that's the point of a public service is to provide transport in these areas
“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. “In any case, over 80 per cent of Bus Éireann passengers travel on their subsidised services, which are under no threat whatsoever, with just 19 per cent using their commercial services such as Expressway. “Our primary responsibility in law is to the travelling public, and when we assess an application for a commercial licence, we do so with this in mind, while looking at a whole range of considerations including likely passenger demand, impact on existing services and impact on subsidised services. “It has consistently been the case that where new licences are issued in these markets, that overall passenger numbers have increased, in many cases, very significantly. For example, between 2012 and 2015, total bus passenger numbers on the Cork Dublin Corridor increased by 61 per cent, while on the Limerick Dublin Corridor, they increased by 50 per cent. “In other words, rather than saturating the market, what we have actually done is increase public transport capacity, and in so doing enabled many more journeys to be undertaken on the bus network. “Unfortunately, there has been some level of confusion in discourse around Bus Éireann in recent days and weeks, and it is crucial to reassure the company’s customers, particularly in rural areas by looking at the facts of the matter. “Bus Éireann commercial services like Expressway, account for only 19 per cent of all the company’s passengers. “81 per cent of Bus Éireann passengers are on routes subsidised under the Public Service Obligation (PSO) Contract that the company has entered with NTA. “This will not change, and these services are under no threat. In fact they have been a huge success story in recent years, with passenger numbers continuing to increase. Last week the NTA published figures for 2016, which indicated a 5.5 per cent increase in passengers on Bus Éireann subsidised services, jumping from 30.2m in 2015 to 32m last year. “Subvention for these services by the NTA to Bus Éireann increased from €34m in 2014, to €40m in 2016. And that figure is likely to go up again in 2017. The NTA successfully made a case for an increase from the state for PSO funding, and this year we will be allocating €262.6m in public transport subsidies to operators including Bus Éireann, up from €236.6 in 2016. “If it is the case that some Expressway services are discontinued at local level, NTA will, as our track record proves, step in and ensure that local demands for public transport are met. We will not leave any rural communities behind.
kingshankly wrote: » Surely it's time for the government to up their subsidies I'm sure there is plenty of rural services that are run at a massive loss but that's the point of a public service is to provide transport in these areas I have no problem with some cuts but surely the government should at least take some of the hit
The company has attempted to negotiate with the unions and has put every conceivable issue on the table without pre-conditions in an effort to address the financial crisis and ensure longer term competitiveness. The unions response to date has been to refuse to negotiate any change to terms and conditions, insist on a pay rise and seek compensation for staff who may have had a reduction in overtime earnings over the last few weeks. The company cost structure is inefficient with drivers on average being paid for 9.4 hours per day (1.6 hours of this at overtime premium rates) when they only drive for 5.5 hours on scheduled services. The tax payer is paying excessively for the services currently provided. What is clear at this stage is that the unions have no intention of reaching an agreement which will address the financial crisis. At current run rates of losses, the company could be insolvent by May. Immediate reductions in cost and improved efficiency are absolutely necessary to address the financial crisis.These initiatives must result in payroll savings of €12m now. The unions have refused to negotiate on terms and conditions which means that the insolvency issue cannot be addressed. Re-structurring is essential for longer term competitiveness but will not address the immediate insolvency crisis.
hmmm wrote: » Well, until it goes bust and shuts down. You can't run a company that makes losses forever - what sort of reserves do they have?
bk wrote: » And yet the private operators deliver a vastly superior intercity service (almost 24/7, hourly service, non-stop using motorways, toilets, wifi, plugs, etc.) for the same ticket price as BE Expressway and with zero subsidy.
Grandeeod wrote: » Salon Fire has a point. I will quote you examples. B+I Line - State owned, heavily unionised, loss making and prone to frequent industrial action. Sold off to ICG to become Irish Ferries. Old B+I Unions were tackled by management, mass redundancies followed and staff replaced by workers from abroad on different terms. Union Power smashed. Waste collection - Previously the responsibility of CC's, heavily unionised and prone to frequent industrial action. Privatised. Some CC staff made redundant/transferred to private operator. Only one serious dispute since privatisation and that was in Greyhound waste and only in one depot. All legacy employees from DCC. Out of 78 workers 13 retained their terms and conditions based on their length of service while the rest took redundancy or a 15 to 20 percent pay cut. Legacy issues dealt with. Union power smashed. Airline Industry - One word, Ryanair.
Infini2 wrote: » To be honest HOW are you getting skint exactly? Your not being presented with ANY bill here. You seem to think that somehow the transport sector is running off with huge chunks of the budget yet the amount of cash in the overall budget to keep BE financed would be miniscule compared to other stuff. I honestly think your being foolish with this whole "taxpayer" thing because there would be far bigger things to be honest in the budget that would be far more questionable. If anything why are fares allowed to rise instead of the subsidy being increased to keep fares down instead?
hmmm wrote: » Is there any part of the public sector that has been able to compete with private operators without subsidy? Perhaps it's time to accept that our public service cannot compete with private operators and plan accordingly - instead of slowly introducing private competition (e.g. the 10% Dublin bus route plan) we should instead shut down the public operator, pay generous redundancy and start from scratch with 100% private operators. We can't be having these endless strikes and hassle.
salonfire wrote: » Well, of course. If I am shopping around for car insurance for instance, I don't choose the one that costs me the most money. Likewise, I don't want to see my taxes and charges any higher than they need to be to fund salaries anymore than it needs to be. Nobody is jealous of others' wages. There is not a single post in this all forum bemoaning the wages earned by others outside the state sector. I don't give a monkey's what the senior management are Dunnes Stores is getting paid because it costs me nothing. I don't shop there. But when it comes to already overpaid state workers trying to extract even more money from the taxpayer (me), then I will raise my objections. And plenty others too. If the private sector can operate a superior service with no subsidy then surely it's obvious there should be more private sector involvement in transport.
Flex wrote: » Was listening to something about this on Today FM, Dermot O Leary was on too. Apparently the company will be insolvent by May Dermot O Leary kept saying that 'its a public company so the notion of being a low cost operator is ridiculous', 'department of transport needs to get involved' and the usual lines about wanting to fleece taxpayers or that how dare people have the temerity to expect a public service to be efficient. He also said that the public are absolutely behind the workers and NBRU, however the host then told him they had been getting loads of texts during the interview and they were overwhelmingly in support of management and made the point that when your employer is facing bankruptcy you have to be willing to adjust. He swotted that away again by saying its a public company, etc. As others have said, I would have no problem with a further subsidy increase if the service was efficient effective cost structure was the same as private operators pay was in line with the private rates in the market But it isnt. In general, that is why Im very much in favour of low public spending in Ireland; the public sector in Ireland exists with the primary purpose of providing employment to people with higher rates of pay than they could achieve in the private market. The notion of providing an efficient and effective service for the public is a distant second. Thats also the reason our capital budget was gutted over the last 10 years; to prop up inflated current expenditure.
devnull wrote: » Unfortunately a lot of the problems in the United Kingdom have not been caused by the private operators but by the Strategic Rail Authority and the Department for Transport who in some cases have banned operators from ordering new rolling stock, have micro-managed orders or have took control of procurement exercises from private operators and took 4-5 years to complete a tender that would be done in a quarter of that time if left to the private sector alone. That's why you have silly situations where an operator predicts overcrowding on a line in a certain timeframe and places an order for rolling stock to deal with it, the department then turns around and tells them that their growth prospects are too ambitious and they are not allowed to order that many trains and when the trains are delivered and are proven to not be enough, the department then turns around to the operator and asks them to urgently do something about a problem that was caused by the department in the first place. As for Essex, you will be pleased to know that currently a whole new fleet is in construction for the whole of East Anglia including Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk services which will amount to over 1000 carriages to be implemented between 2019/2020 in a full fleet replacement after the British Government finally decided that they are no longer going to meddle or micro manage rolling stock the way they have in the past.
end of the road wrote: » private operation doesn't stop strikes, fare rises, people seeking pay rises, and the rest. i thought luas would have finally got this through, but it seems not. having the public companies existing is the only way to insure there is a bench mark for any private competition to beat.
privates operating with no subsidy means nothing as there is no comparison between the routes they mostly operate and the routes bus eireann over all run.
in what way is the service not effective or efficient? pay must be more then the private rates so that the company can have huge choice of staff. it's up to the privates what they wish to do for themselves.
Idbatterim wrote: » There are always pros and cons to privatisation. But in Ireland with no accountability, no regard for tax payers money and a pay them off to keep them quiet mentality. I think privatisation is the better option ...
end of the road wrote: » that is true, but it is still the case that privatization of the railways in britain brought poor value for money, overpriced fares and ridiculous costs for the most basic of things. the disintegration and disjointment. had british rail been able to get on with it (which, while they were far from perfect they were actually getting there by the end and delivering dispite the low subsidy) then chances are more would have been delivered had they been funded properly. most if not all the projects that need doing were on their list long before now, and chances are they would have been delivered. much of what is said to have been delivered by privatization, delivered by br. the dft's failings aren't proof that things on the railway should be left to private hands, they are just proof the dft are incompetent, in my view.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7a1d0f49d56f52d3cfb2145c5b8cbe5a.svg)
