Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

MJohnston wrote: »

It's not out of the goodness of their hearts though, they're getting paid for it! For doing their jobs!


By your logic, Dublin Bus drivers should immediately stop working any of the routes which are being transferred to GoAhead.

It's the ingrained culture. Over time DB drivers have been conditioned to think that their role is something more than to show up at the appointed time and drive the bus they are told to drive for which they will be paid. That's it, that's their job. The background noise has absolutely nothing to do with them, they serve one function, drive the bloody bus.

Operators like Goahead will drive down terms and conditions and bring the job back to what it actually is. That can only be a positive step but is a big lump to take for a cohort of employees who have been wrapped in a blanket of cotton wool to think that the things they try to get involved in are any of their business.

No private operator would accept employee expectation like those at DB. The NTA know it can never be changed and have taken the second best step by leaving them in a corner to fight among themselves while operators and employees living in the real world get on with transporting the commuters of the city.

punisher5112 wrote: »

It is as that's the agreement.

Check it out if ya like but that's the stance that's been given out.

That's coming from union by the way.

n!ghtmancometh wrote: »

Routes are transferred to GA. GA (private company paying drivers less, worse OT &, T+C's) are getting paid for operating said routes. GA can't operate these said routes and need DB drivers. Why would you, a DB driver, help GA out? you would be acting against your own interests as a bus driver/employee.

It's quite simple.

If GAI were unable to commence operations as contracted,other than due to a force majure situation,then it would be subject to whatever penalty clauses are built into the contract.

(Coincidentally,another compelling reason for the NTA to IMMEDIATELY place the GAI PSO contract in the Public Domain)

In this specific incidence,"You" as a Dublin Bus driver,would not "be helping GAI out",but you would definitely be helping your employer,Dublin Bus,to prosper,as it would not be operating these routes on a charitable basis,it would be a negotiated commercial contract,outside the scope of the BMO agreement.

"You",as a Dublin Bus driver would be driving for Dublin Bus,under your existing Dublin Bus T's & C's,on a route paid for by the NTA.

All PSO routes are the responsibility of the NTA to source,so,if Dublin Bus had difficulty in cooperating,then the NTA is free to seek other operators who can.

(Translink's role in the Papal Visit springs to mind )

The other option open to the NTA,is to set up it's own operating arm,as Transport for London did with East Thames Buses from 1999 until 2009,before selling the company to,oddly enough,the Go Ahead Group. :eek:

The whole operation has ran relativity smoothly. I remember it was claimed they would never be able to get the staff but in fact the job offers were over subscribed.

That's not to say there hasn't been issues. Such as the timetable being issued late, the whole livery disaster and RTPI. I would point out those are issues on the NTA's side. It'd be safe to assume these all relate to staffing issues there.

To the end user the service is running well the only thing that is missing is RTPI which will be rectified shortly. GoAhead have done everything to ensure this service is running and I have no doubt there will be no issues on their side over the coming weeks.

The staff in DB have voted on the suggested options post route transfer. So the only issue we are likely to see is on DB's side. Bear in mind a pay claim is also expected to be issued shortly. I'd say its fairly likely we will see strike action and a long delay in expected fleet expansion with GoAhead running as normal. It won't look good when the direct award comes up for discussion in 2019 especially if the programme for government is extended by two years.

Stevek101 wrote: »

The whole operation has ran relativity smoothly. I remember it was claimed they would never be able to get the staff but in fact the job offers were over subscribed.

That's not to say there hasn't been issues. Such as the timetable being issued late, the whole livery disaster and RTPI. I would point out those are issues on the NTA's side. It'd be safe to assume these all relate to staffing issues there.

To the end user the service is running well the only thing that is missing is RTPI which will be rectified shortly. GoAhead have done everything to ensure this service is running and I have no doubt there will be no issues on their side over the coming weeks.

The staff in DB have voted on the suggested options post route transfer. So the only issue we are likely to see is on DB's side. Bear in mind a pay claim is also expected to be issued shortly. I'd say its fairly likely we will see strike action and a long delay in expected fleet expansion with GoAhead running as normal. It won't look good when the direct award comes up for discussion in 2019 especially if the programme for government is extended by two years.

It's worth pointing out only BAC staff directly effected by the contracts were involved in the ballot.
This equates to c.240 out of a total driver number of c.2,500.
It is likely that the issue will now go to the Labour Court for a recommendation,which could potentially result in a judgement with broader recommendations,to be put to a full ballot,which might not provide quite the result you suggest.

The Direct Award is up for discussion right now,as the Statutory Review must be carried out 12 months in advance of the ending of the relevant PSO contract.

AlekSmart wrote: »

I am constantly calling for the NTA-GAI Contract to be placed in the Public Domain,because such action is part & parcel of the National Transport AUTHORITY'S very reason to exist in the first place.

I very much doubt that releasing potentially sensitive information is part and parcel of the NTAs existence.

AlekSmart wrote: »

In the absence of ANY substantive information from the National Authority on how it's decisions were arrived at,we,not unsurprisingly,resort to speculation and often misinformed gossip.

The problem is even if any substantive information is made available you will still have people speculate and make misinformed opinions on what is presented, you will then have the Internet self appointed experts saying they should have actually done this, that and the other.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Why exactly do you suggest the results are "unlikely to be published"  ?

Commercial sensitivity it something long established and recognised for good reason, the chances of the NTA breaking what is industry best practice (and legally protected not least by the new know-how and business information Directive) is probably around the zero mark.

There are also likely NDA agreements in place and you can't contract out of protecting commercial interests either.

AlekSmart wrote: »

This is not a session of the Illuminati or the Grand Lodge of the Freemasons we are talking about here (I hope),but a State Authority entering into a freely negotiated contract,which,unless there are individual elements which are contrary to the Public Interest,should be freely available to that same Public as soon as it has been signed by both partioes and the relevant stand-off periods have expired.

Such contracts are not necessarily freely negotiated, a bid is made and has a price and other aspects offered to run the service, that is either accepted or rejected. Other companies knowing what exactly was offered etc undermines the whole competitive aspect of tendering, that's the sort of information inside traders just love to get their hands on.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Before anybody leaps through the curtain with a shout of FoI,FoI application...etc, I would strongly suggest NOT proceeding down this particular road at the moment,as it then potentially allows the NTA precedent to to make ALL of it's contractual dealings,subject to FoI applications,when in fact they should be laid out FULLY for their Public to Inspect and digest.

It's not as if the mass of Irish Public Opinion will make a rush for the Contract Documents,but it does allow for full,and INFORMED,discussion amongst genuinely interested parties,thus heads-off the more lurid speculation currently now the norm.

PS: It is heartening to note that some enterprising Journalist has alreday submitted  FoI requests on 3rd October and 10th November 2017,and been refused Information regarding the GAI-NTA Contract Process...

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/FOI_Disclosure_Log_2017.pdf

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/2017%20Requests/2017-0070

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/2017%20Requests/2017-0082

It's not a simple case of the request being refused.

When information is considered commercially sensitive the release of such information by a FOI request is forbidden by law.

dfx- wrote: »

There is absolutely no reason for this to not be available.

From a commercial point of view anyone who deals in commercial law or acts to protect commercial interests will tell you there is absolutely no reason why it should be available and that stance they hold would be backed by decades of case law to protect their interests.

Ask yourself why the two most prominent legal avenues for release of information (DP and FOI) have exclusions for commercially sensitive information. Yes there are balancing tests, but they are difficult to achieve, and the argument that a public service contract should be for the public to view won't cut.

AlekSmart wrote: »

What possible reason can the National Transport Authority have to act as if the new PSO Contract is Top Secret ?

A recurring theme when discussing the openness of such contracts is the NTA should do this, the NTA are being secret, the NTA should release etc. You need to remember that the NTA is only one half of the party, release could only be made if GA agreed to, even if the NTA wanted to force the issue. It is an unfair and unjust assumption that the NTA are being the secretive ones.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Can they not take some leads from how other juristictions manage their tendering regimes...

You regularly mention Singapore, but you need to remember that they are an exception to the rule, you will do well to find a handful more examples of tendered contracts being made publicly available.

They also stem from a different Jurisprudence model which is not heavily influenced by EU law and protections, for example we now have the know-how and business information Directive which aims to protect commercially sensitive information/trade secrets at EU level. There are also a number of European Court of Justice cases confirming the importance of commercially sensitive information in contracts being kept confidential to protect business interests, the new Directive which was recently transposed into Irish law makes disclosure of such contracts in Europe less likely than ever.

AlekSmart wrote: »

This is a basic element of transparency in these matters,and one which a State AUTHORITY should not need to be prodded,cajoled or FoI'd about...It should be in their own Constitution.

Perhaps we should ask the various other state agencies/authorities to release the details of their various contacts, after all nearly all contracts held by the various agencies are public related.

The reality is there is no basic element of transparency in these matters for any public contract in nearly every corner of the globe.

GM228 wrote: »

I very much doubt that releasing potentially sensitive information is part and parcel of the NTAs existence.

The problem is even if any substantive information is made available you will still have people speculate and make misinformed opinions on what is presented, you will then have the Internet self appointed experts saying they should have actually done this, that and the other.

Commercial sensitivity it something long established and recognised for good reason, the chances of the NTA breaking what is industry best practice (and legally protected not least by the new know-how and business information Directive) is probably around the zero mark.

There are also likely NDA agreements in place and you can't contract out of protecting commercial interests either.

Such contracts are not necessarily freely negotiated, a bid is made and has a price and other aspects offered to run the service, that is either accepted or rejected. Other companies knowing what exactly was offered etc undermines the whole competitive aspect of tendering, that's the sort of information inside traders just love to get their hands on.

It's not a simple case of the request being refused.

When information is considered commercially sensitive the release of such information by a FOI request is forbidden by law.

From a commercial point of view anyone who deals in commercial law or acts to protect commercial interests will tell you there is absolutely no reason why it should be available and that stance they hold would be backed by decades of case law to protect their interests.

Ask yourself why the two most prominent legal avenues for release of information (DP and FOI) have exclusions for commercially sensitive information. Yes there are balancing tests, but they are difficult to achieve, and the argument that a public service contract should be for the public to view won't cut.

A recurring theme when discussing the openness of such contracts is the NTA should do this, the NTA are being secret, the NTA should release etc. You need to remember that the NTA is only one half of the party, release could only be made if GA agreed to, even if the NTA wanted to force the issue. It is an unfair and unjust assumption that the NTA are being the secretive ones.

You regularly mention Singapore, but you need to remember that they are an exception to the rule, you will do well to find a handful more examples of tendered contracts being made publicly available.

They also stem from a different Jurisprudence model which is not heavily influenced by EU law and protections, for example we now have the know-how and business information Directive which aims to protect commercially sensitive information/trade secrets at EU level. There are also a number of European Court of Justice cases confirming the importance of commercially sensitive information in contracts being kept confidential to protect business interests, the new Directive which was recently transposed into Irish law makes disclosure of such contracts in Europe less likely than ever.

Perhaps we should ask the various other state agencies/authorities to release the details of their various contacts, after all nearly all contracts held by the various agencies are public related.

The reality is there is no basic element of transparency in these matters for any public contract in nearly every corner of the globe.

Still no sound reasoning for the terms of the Go-Ahead-NTA Contract to be witheld.

The Singaporean Land Transit Authority is not some Stalinist apparatchik organization,and the Go-Ahead group,which was successful in the process is the SAME group which is operating in Dublin,so much so that they refer themselves to the process in their annual report.

The Only figure available in the Public Domain is a total cost over 5 years of €172,000,000,but then again,maybe that slipped out when nobody was looking ? :eek:

AlekSmart wrote: »

Still no sound reasoning for the terms of the Go-Ahead-NTA Contract to be witheld.

The long established principles of commercial sensitivity and the various recognised legal protections they are afforded seems like pretty sound reasoning to me.

AlekSmart wrote: »

The Singaporean Land Transit Authority is not some Stalinist apparatchik organization,and the Go-Ahead group,which was successful in the process is the SAME group which is operating in Dublin,so much so that they refer themselves to the process in their annual report.

What's your point, as I stated they are different jurisdictions with different rules, they are an exception to what is pretty much standard the world over, my understanding is that the law in Singapore in relation to public contracts only allows for commercial sensitivity and non disclosure in relation to defence and security contracts.

You also need to remember that protections and restrictions on the publication of contract awards where commercial sensitivity is an issue is enshrined in EU law, perhaps we shouod lobby Brussels on the issue, I doubt much will change though considering it's a concept which is well recognised and accepted by institutions, governments, courts and businesses alike.

One thing I hope they do is crack down on fare evasion and missuse of free travel passes as those routes are rampant.

GM228 wrote: »

The long established principles of commercial sensitivity and the various recognised legal protections they are afforded seems like pretty sound reasoning to me.

What's your point, as I stated they are different jurisdictions with different rules, they are an exception to what is pretty much standard the world over, my understanding is that the law in Singapore in relation to public contracts only allows for commercial sensitivity and non disclosure in relation to defence and security contracts.

You also need to remember that protections and restrictions on the publication of contract awards where commercial sensitivity is an issue is enshrined in EU law, perhaps we shouod lobby Brussels on the issue, I doubt much will change though considering it's a concept which is well recognised and accepted by institutions, governments, courts and businesses alike.

My point is.....ALL NTA Public Service Obligation Contracts should be on the Public Record,once accepted and signed by the parties concerned.

To suggest that Contract details,for Public Bus Service provision should be kept concealed from Public View,is to me,not alone unsustainable,but flies in the face of the very concept of Public Accountability so often referred to in Authoritorial circles of late.

I have high regard for the commercial acumen of the Go Ahead group,and I have little doubt that their Strategies are well robust enough,having been laid bare to the Singaporeans,to cope with the Great Irish unwashed thumbing through the agreed documentation.

salonfire wrote: »

TBH, I don't give a toss. Just like I don't care if the local barber has to drop his costs due to competition.

the difference is the local barber would actually have competition which will benefit the user, rather then competition in the loose sense of the word that in real terms won't make any difference to the user.


Funny, how I don't see the posters here complain about competition in other sectors of the economy.[/QUOTE]

because in those sectors, there is actual competition and actual benefits come from it.

salonfire wrote: »

Next time you are shopping for car insurance, will the employee wages be a factor in which company you choose? I doubt it which makes your argument very hallow indeed.

i'm not seeing how that statement is relevant to anything. his argument isn't hallow either.