Beware the Patton Flyer!

JoSoap · 26-10-2007 12:26PM #1

Waited for almost 30 mins in the cold on the Patton Flyer from Dublin Airport two weeks ago. In the end, I had to get a 50 euro taxi home to Dalkey. Having emailed the Patton Flyer the following day, they basically told me that traffic and road conditions often cause delays, and whilst they are in the course of updating their timetable to reflect these delays, they cannot accept responsibility for people waiting in the cold for a bus that doesn't arrive.
The moral of the story - don't rely on getting the Patton Flyer home from the airport without a long wait. Perhaps it's more reliable in the other direction?

KC61 · 26-10-2007 01:09PM

JoSoap wrote: »

Waited for almost 30 mins in the cold on the Patton Flyer from Dublin Airport two weeks ago. In the end, I had to get a 50 euro taxi home to Dalkey. Having emailed the Patton Flyer the following day, they basically told me that traffic and road conditions often cause delays, and whilst they are in the course of updating their timetable to reflect these delays, they cannot accept responsibility for people waiting in the cold for a bus that doesn't arrive.
The moral of the story - don't rely on getting the Patton Flyer home from the airport without a long wait. Perhaps it's more reliable in the other direction?

Beware also that as of relatively recently this operator is running this service without a licence to do so!

Ste.phen · 26-10-2007 01:17PM

Is there something special about their service that means the Bus Eireann / Aircoach / Dublin Bus services aren't valid alternatives?
(Even to City Centre)

spareman · 26-10-2007 03:41PM

KC61 wrote: »

Beware also that as of relatively recently this operator is running this service without a licence to do so!

Really? How did you find that out?

davmi · 26-10-2007 03:52PM

Yeah they have no licence, they applied for one but apparently someone got in before them. The other company has been granted their licence I think so they should be up and running soon. The matter of them operating illegally is with the gardai but its unlikely theyll do anything about it.

spareman · 26-10-2007 03:54PM

davmi wrote: »

Yeah they have no licence, they applied for one but apparently someone got in before them. The other company has been granted their licence I think so they should be up and running soon. The matter of them operating illegally is with the gardai but its unlikely theyll do anything about it.

Where do you find this information? somewhere on the web? or what?

John R · 26-10-2007 04:56PM

spareman wrote: »

Where do you find this information? somewhere on the web? or what?

That particular nugget was published in the national media (indo AFAIR), normally verifiable evidence on licencing matters is very hard to find.

spareman · 26-10-2007 05:49PM

John R wrote: »

That particular nugget was published in the national media (indo AFAIR), normally verifiable evidence on licencing matters is very hard to find.

Found it there, thanks.

The department of transport has referred an airport coach operator to gardai because it says the company is illegally operating a route between Dalkey and Dublin Airport.

Officials say that the Patton Flyer service, owned by Curtis Coaches, does not hold a route licence and is therefore operating outside the law.

The provision of any public bus services on a specific route by a private bus operator is subject to the Road Transport Act, 1932.

But sources familiar with the legal situation have indicated a certain amount of sympathy for the operators because the 1932 act is seen as hopelessly inadequate to deal with modern day transport demands.

Wholesale reform of the 1932 act has been mooted for some time to make it easier to allow for competition on different bus routes.

A spokesman for the department of transport said: "When the department became aware that a company advertised as the Patton Flyer was operating unlicensed, scheduled bus passenger services between Dalkey and Dublin Airport, it immediately wrote to the company advising it that the operation of the service was in breach of section 7 of the Road Transport Act, 1932."

According to the department, the service providers are continuing to illegally operate thehourly route so the matter has been referred to gardai.

It is understood that another operator has already applied to the department to operate a similar route but has yet to receive permission from officials.

The operators of the Patton Flyer did not return calls last night seeking comment. Its buses travel from Dalkey to the airport via Blackrock and the Dublin Port Tunnel.

The service, which began just a few months ago, has proved popular with passengers and uses modern luxury coaches.

jimmycrackcorm · 27-10-2007 01:25AM

Private busses from the country used to operate on the basis that you became a temporary member of a travel club for the journey. Same legislation.

AlekSmart · 27-10-2007 01:50AM

Yup,its a regular hoot...

However there are some VERY serious points which remain unresolved concerning the Patton Flyers illegal status.

The Department has publicly confirmed that the service has NEVER been operating legally.

The Department confirms that IT wrote to the OPERATOR (One assumes this is also the Licence Holder?) advising of the illegal status.

The Operator failed to respond to the Licencing Authority.

The Department then places the matter officially in the hands of the Gardai.

The Operator then CONTINUES to operate the service,now in the FULL KNOWLEDGE of the Illegality.

As a result of the Operator failing to respond to the Departments written communications we now have a stand-off situation in which the Operator in-effect is challenging the State`s power to actually require a Road Passenger Service licence at all.

The Operator is now also,in effect,challenging the Gardai`s powers under both the 1932 Road Transport Act and the 1961 Road Traffic Act.

To cut to the chase, the Department may now seek to have the Gardai actually enforce Section 7 of the 1932 Act which presumably might involve the Department seeking a High Court order to shut the Patton Flyer operation down.

The Department may well seek clarification from the Irish Insurers Federation as to whether it`s Member Companies are now prepared to underwrite the Road Traffic Act risks of an operator who knowingly allows it`s vehicles and staff to operate in an illegal manner.

There may well be some very serious issues as to what level of general liability cover AND employers liability cover is actually in force once an employer knowingly places it`s employees in an Illegal situation.

All hypothetical....all if`s but`s and maybe`s....yes granted,but we should do well to remember that major road traffic disasters happen in milliseconds,while the physical,emotional,financial ramifications linger for entire lifetimes.

There is now also a very real question concerning the requirement to be "Of good Standing" in order to possess a Certificate of Proffessional Competency.

Some interpretations reckon this refers only to Financial Standing,however I understand the meaning in CPC terms to be far wider.
It would appear to me that displaying a total indifference to Official warnings and instructions could well be interpreted by a court as surrendering any right to an assumption of such "Good Character"

The company involved,Curtis Coaches,are obviously well aware that the penalties involved ( £50 POUNDS upon conviction PLUS £5 POUNDS Per Day for each subsequent day`s illegal operation) are derisory in 2007 terms.

If nothing else the amounts which are stipulated as penalties remain probably the area`of the 1932 Act which MOST need updating rather than the stipulations of the Act itself.

Perhaps Curtis Coaches fail to appreciate that there is a Principle at work here and it is one of proven disrespect for the Law.
Can it`s customers be confident that Curtis Coaches is,for example,prepared to comply with the Safety related stipulations of the various Acts ?
Disregard for one would tend to suggest disregard for all in the absence of any confirmation to the contrary.

There is NO doubt whatever that the continued operation of the Patton Flyer is putting it right up to the Department of Transport,The Gardai and the very notion of a regulatory system at all.......Lets see if anybody is awake in the Departments darkened offices,perhaps poring over those pages of the 1932 Act which have the words "IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST" underlined....

trellheim · 12-03-2008 05:23PM

Alek, I thought you might like this [ Dail Questions 6 Mar 08 ]

Deputy Barry Andrews: Information Zoom I am very proud of him.

During the week, an issue arose regarding the popular Patton Flyer bus service from Dún Laoghaire to Dublin Airport. This has been operating very successfully and is not in conflict with any other service. Given the reforms taking place, the fact that we are adopting an alternative approach and the fact that an application for a licence has been lodged with the Department for some time, flexibility should be afforded in this case. Although the operator does not have a licence, the service provides a link to the airport and is not in conflict with another route.

Metro West is to extend as far as Tallaght. Can I use the name “Tallaght” in the presence of the Acting Chairman, Deputy Charlie O’Connor? I believe he has a copyright on it. It has been argued that Metro West should extend from Tallaght to Sandyford so there would be connectivity with the Luas. The Minister spoke of radial links and this is one that needs to be extended entirely around the city.

Acting Chairman: Information Zoom I was hoping the Deputy would ask a question.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: Information Zoom Deputy Andrews is quite correct in that the Patton Flyer does not have a licence. It makes a mockery of the transport system that an excellent and very effective service by a private operator must operate illegally. The Minister said the last reform he will introduce will be to the 1932 Act but it should be the first.

[Deputy Fergus O’Dowd Information Zoom]

I agree with the Minister in that I do not care whether the bus is red, white or blue. It is important to passengers that there be buses available, that we protect the interests of the taxpayer and that the buses in place operate effectively and efficiently. If this is right-wing thinking, I am all in favour of it because it looks after the consumer, the traveller and the ordinary person. All the other ideologies, such as the Kremlin ideologies, are long gone. I do not know if Deputy Broughan knows that even Russia has changed.

Private operators applied to use the Dublin Port tunnel but it took a very long time to grant permission. When Dublin Bus wanted to use it, it was not allowed to do so. The whole system is a joke. Any bus that wants to use the tunnel should be allowed to do so, provided it can pass through it. The stops should be at the bus stops and not in the tunnel.

Let us have a modern, dynamic transport system in Dublin. Let us free up the market and have competition and let us have people in buses rather than cars.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: Information Zoom Nobody is stopping anybody from using the tunnel. It is open to any operator provided it has a licence and approval. We licensed the operation of a bus service between Swords and Dublin city via the tunnel. Dublin Bus has been advised that a proposal to reroute four of its six services on the 41X route from Swords through the tunnel must be considered under section 25 of the Transport Act 1958. We have not received an application for consent in that regard.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Information Zoom Is that not a delaying tactic?

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: Information Zoom The Minister is correct.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: Information Zoom It must be a delaying tactic. I cannot understand why Dublin Bus would introduce a delaying tactic by not applying for consent.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Information Zoom It is his Department.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: Information Zoom I cannot make a decision on a licence or an approval when they do not apply. It would be better if, instead of writing in to me, they wrote to Bus Átha Cliath and sent e-mails, or wrote to Mr. Joe Duffy or somebody else. If they sent them in to Bus Átha Cliath, they could state that they wanted the company to apply for this so that I can approve it.

Acting Chairman: Information Zoom I must ask the Minister to conclude.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: Information Zoom On the other operation, nobody in this House should condone anybody who is breaking the law, even if the law is inadequate. The 1932 Act is not being adhered to. It is an offence and it must be dealt with accordingly. All the reports I received about the service were that it is top class, but it is an illegal service.

here's the link
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20080306.xml&Node=H10&Page=13

dermo88 · 12-03-2008 05:59PM

If thats the case then the laws are not adequate. They are clearly protectionist and in place to protect the rotten hegemony of CIE.

So quality gets prohibited and mediocrity permitted. Thank you Noel Dempsey, thank you Dublin Bus, you are changing with the city.

Just go in a ditch and disappear....silently. Please.

trellheim · 12-03-2008 06:54PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

what ?

Patton Flyer is not run by Dublin Bus [ at least last time I looked it wasn't ]

AlekSmart · 13-03-2008 02:52AM

Thanks Trellheim.

Imformative stuff indeed and indicative of the total unreality which pervades our Governmental apparatus.
The date of the debate is 6th March 2008.

From the published and as yet uncontradicted media reports somebody in the Ministers own Department attempted to contact the Patton Flyer people back in October 2007.
On receiving no response the Departmental functionary then placed the matter in the hands of An Garda Siochana who it seems needed further clarification on the definition of "Illegal" in the context of the Road Transport Act 1932.

Even the verbal gymnastics displayed by Fregus O Dowd (FG) cause me some woe...

Quote "an excellent and very effective service by a private operator must operate illegally. " END

For crying out loud...this is right up there on a par with another famous FG Leaders statement about " Being economical with the truth"....."I did`nt tell you,because you did`nt ask me".

Gimme a break Fergus,the only thing the Patton Flyer "MUST" do is obey the Law.

Before any Road Passenger operator can trade they must be in possession of a Certificate of Proffessional Competence,the holder of which amongst other things must prove themselves to be of good repute.

One of the benchmarks of proving one`s standards of repute is the respect which one displays for the requirements of the Law.

In the Patton Flyers case this would appear to be debatable,thereby rendering the CoC holder liable to have their Certificate revoked by the Minister and thus possibly threatening their personal livelihood.

The current situation may well see the Patton Flyer`s operators effectively disbarring themselves from obtaining further licences due to their apparent disregard for the requirements of the Law.

It must also be borne in mind that the Departments problem with the Patton Flyer`s operation is that a PRE-EXISTING application exists for a service operating along that routing,therefore the Patton Flyer must await the decision of the Minister on THAT application before having its own application adjudicated upon.

Its a Mirror-Image of the Bus Atha Cliath- Swords Express debacle on the opposite side of the tracks,except in that case Bus Atha Cliath swiftly complied with the Minsiters directive,whereas Patton Flyer`s people decided to tough it out.....which was the correct decision..???....Now there`s a $68,000 Question

trellheim · 13-03-2008 10:52AM

More than all the rest, this is most disturbing. Since the Minister has clearly declared the service illegal, and the coppers don't want to take the rap [ understandably ]

if I was a 'concerned citizen' I'd ring their insurance company and ask them 'If I take a trip on the Patton Flyer, and there's an accident, can I claim against you ?'

Fratton Fred · 13-03-2008 12:01PM

I've used the service quite a lot and found it to be great. There is no other way of getting to the airport for a 6am flight from the Dalkey/Dun Laoghaire area. If the Gardai stopped the service, they would make themselves very unpopular.

Why are our politicians so anal, this is a service and a good one at that (Although it took me an hour to get from the Merrion Gates to the East Link bridge in a car the other week, I guess the Patton Flyer would get caught up in that as well) so why do they want to stop it.

trellheim · 13-03-2008 12:13PM

There is no other way of getting to the airport for a 6am flight from the Dalkey/Dun Laoghaire area.

1. Driving yourself
2. Taxi to Airport
3. Taxi to nearest Aircoach stop
4. Getting someone else to drive you.

Hold on; are you suggesting that the operators of the PF should not be subject to the same rules as other operators ?

That's a brave statement.

So. All of the rules or some of the rules ?

E.g. do they use drivers who have a driving licence for the correct class of vehicle ?
Are the buses tested for safety periodically ?
Are they insured to run illegal services ?

Should the Port Tunnel allow illegal services run ?

Interested to hear your response.

ballooba · 13-03-2008 12:54PM

Why is the taxi rank at the airport such a joke?

I'll be arriving in late tonight and I will have to get the Aircoach because there will be a huge queue and no taxis.

dobsdave · 13-03-2008 01:07PM

ballooba wrote: »

Why is the taxi rank at the airport such a joke?

I'll be arriving in late tonight and I will have to get the Aircoach because there will be a huge queue and no taxis.

I use the Airport at least every two weeks.
Last time I had to queue for a taxi was November.

Run_to_da_hills · 13-03-2008 02:10PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is no other way of getting to the airport for a 6am flight from the Dalkey/Dun Laoghaire area.

There is plenty of ways to get to the Airport from Dunlaoghaire. I use a motorbike, chain it up well when I get there and don't pay any parking. costs me less than e5 for the round trip

. You can get a Taxi to Ballsbridge or Sandyford and get the Aircoach or get the last bus out there kip on an bench in the departure lounge

Fratton Fred · 13-03-2008 02:22PM

trellheim wrote: »

1. Driving yourself
2. Taxi to Airport
3. Taxi to nearest Aircoach stop
4. Getting someone else to drive you.

Hold on; are you suggesting that the operators of the PF should not be subject to the same rules as other operators ?

That's a brave statement.

So. All of the rules or some of the rules ?

E.g. do they use drivers who have a driving licence for the correct class of vehicle ?
Are the buses tested for safety periodically ?
Are they insured to run illegal services ?

Should the Port Tunnel allow illegal services run ?

Interested to hear your response.

First choice should always be public transport of some description, driving yourself etc should not have to be an option when you are coming from a major town 18 miles from the airport.

Of course they should be subject to the same rules, but surely the government should be trying to work with these companies, not against them. There must be a quick check that can be done, do you have insurance, are your coaches up to standard etc. then worry about licences once these have been sorted out.

If there was decent public transport to the airport then companies like this would not be able to set up.

Ham'nd'egger · 13-03-2008 02:42PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

First choice should always be public transport of some description, driving yourself etc should not have to be an option when you are coming from a major town 18 miles from the airport.

Of course they should be subject to the same rules, but surely the government should be trying to work with these companies, not against them. There must be a quick check that can be done, do you have insurance, are your coaches up to standard etc. then worry about licences once these have been sorted out.

If there was decent public transport to the airport then companies like this would not be able to set up.

Fred, the simple reality is that Patton's have knowingly set up the Flyer without the requisite license to operate; it is illegally operating it's service. Other companies are playing by the book; on the pre text that the service is useful (Which nobody denies that it isn't), surely every bus company can set up and run a route on it's own whim. While all are in agreement that the current route licensing legislation is backward in many respects, it's objective of saying who runs a route and which way it is to go is robust; unless people won't play fair.

Colm R · 13-03-2008 02:51PM

Stupid Question alert.

Whats the legal status of an operator who is hired by a group (e.g. for a school tour) to do a once off drop and pick up a week later at the airport.

Fratton Fred · 13-03-2008 03:07PM

Hamndegger wrote: »

Fred, the simple reality is that Patton's have knowingly set up the Flyer without the requisite license to operate; it is illegally operating it's service. Other companies are playing by the book; on the pre text that the service is useful (Which nobody denies that it isn't), surely every bus company can set up and run a route on it's own whim. While all are in agreement that the current route licensing legislation is backward in many respects, it's objective of saying who runs a route and which way it is to go is robust; unless people won't play fair.

They have applied for a licence, shouldn't the question be why has one not yet been given, or is it a case that because this is a privately run company and not Dublin Bus, they are being messed around.

During the week, an issue arose regarding the popular Patton Flyer bus service from Dún Laoghaire to Dublin Airport. This has been operating very successfully and is not in conflict with any other service. Given the reforms taking place, the fact that we are adopting an alternative approach and the fact that an application for a licence has been lodged with the Department for some time, flexibility should be afforded in this case. Although the operator does not have a licence, the service provides a link to the airport and is not in conflict with another route.

As I said earlier, if it wasn't for the fact that public transport to the airport is so bad, this situation would not have happened in the first place. Yes, I agree, there is a principle here, but driving, licences and principles appear to be three things often open to flexibility.

Fratton Fred · 13-03-2008 03:09PM

Colm R wrote: »

Stupid Question alert.

Whats the legal status of an operator who is hired by a group (e.g. for a school tour) to do a once off drop and pick up a week later at the airport.

they must, i presume, be a licenced coach operator which, I believe, Curtis Coaches are. They just don't have a licence to operate this route.

ballooba · 13-03-2008 03:13PM

dobsdave wrote: »

I use the Airport at least every two weeks.
Last time I had to queue for a taxi was November.

23:30 last week there was a huge queue that wasn't moving.

I heard it was the same at circa 1:30 the night before.

I hope there's no queue tonight. Fingers crossed.

KC61 · 13-03-2008 04:00PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They have applied for a licence, shouldn't the question be why has one not yet been given, or is it a case that because this is a privately run company and not Dublin Bus, they are being messed around.

As I said earlier, if it wasn't for the fact that public transport to the airport is so bad, this situation would not have happened in the first place. Yes, I agree, there is a principle here, but driving, licences and principles appear to be three things often open to flexibility.

Dublin Bus are being "messed around" as much as any private operator here, for example:

Swords QBC

Proposed route 141 (for which purchase of buses were sanctioned by the funding section) is still awaiting approval 18 months after permission applied for by Dublin Bus
Route 41X not permitted operate via Port Tunnel
Use of large capacity tri-axle buses by Dublin Bus not permitted

This is due to the Department considering any of the above to be "unfair competition" to the Swords Express service

Lucan QBC

No service enhancements on any Dublin Bus service to Lucan, Leixlip, Celbridge or Maynooth permitted
Use of large capacity tri-axle buses by Dublin Bus not permitted

This is due to the Department considering any of the above to be "unfair competition" to the Circle Line service, which has itself been further reduced in frequency in recent weeks.

You are spot on about the poor public transport at the Airport. It is, however, improving, with private services to/from Portlaoise, Wexford, Bray recently coming on stream, Bus Eireann improving connections and this week the Dublin Bus route 102 between Malahide, Portmarnock and Sutton was extended to the Airport as a seven-day per week operation. The fines for non-compliance with legislation are miniscule, and Curtis Coaches obviously feel that they can afford to operate the service regardless. Why a licence is not forthcoming is beyond me.

However, remember a few years ago Dublin Bus purchased additional buses to operate the 746 between Dublin Airport and Dun Laoghaire as a 24-hour operation. At the last minute the Department said no, having previously said yes, and the proposal was shelved.

dewsbury · 13-03-2008 09:36PM

I have used the Flyer on several occasions.

The lack of licence would not make any difference to me.

I.e. I would not stop using it because it has no licence.

Victor · 13-03-2008 11:08PM

Deputy Noel Dempsey wrote:

Dublin Bus has been advised that a proposal to reroute four of its six services on the 41X route from Swords through the tunnel must be considered under section 25 of the Transport Act 1958. We have not received an application for consent in that regard.

Oh dear ....

Victor · 13-03-2008 11:20PM

Colm R wrote: »

Whats the legal status of an operator who is hired by a group (e.g. for a school tour) to do a once off drop and pick up a week later at the airport.

There are different types of licences. For the driver, the vehicle and the route.

KC61 · 14-03-2008 12:01AM

dewsbury wrote: »

I have used the Flyer on several occasions.

The lack of licence would not make any difference to me.

I.e. I would not stop using it because it has no licence.

That's fine.

So what do you say to the people in Swords and Lucan who are deprived an adequate bus service because other operators do comply with the legislation?

Beware the Patton Flyer!

Comments