Stagecoach Manchester

[joe_alker]

RE: Stagecoach Manchester

(16/06/2014 18:24)Benzo Wrote:  Trident 17670 seems to have been relegated to the back of the yard at Stockport.
Been sat there for 2 weeks now?

Likely waiting for a Magic Bus repaint or (but much less likely) transfer elsewhere

[Owl]

RE: Stagecoach Manchester

(17/06/2014 08:05)MPTE1955 Wrote:  It does doesn't it, they are using a 23/24 year old bus whilst 12 year olds buses aren't fit for use. Of course it might also say something regarding modern buses as well.

I suspect that it is because JPT had not owned them long enough to turn them into wrecks. It really is a mystery to me how they were able to avoid VOSA for so long.

[Mayneway]

RE: Stagecoach Manchester

(17/06/2014 12:12)Owl Wrote:  I suspect that it is because JPT had not owned them long enough to turn them into wrecks. It really is a mystery to me how they were able to avoid VOSA for so long.

It does make me wonder if Stagecoach's continued use of the Olympians is some kind of political dig at the CMA for thier long drawn out investigation. I'm pretty certain if the CMA hadn't got involved the Olympians would be long gone by now along with many of the other sheds, with modern clean low floor Stagecoach vehicles operating the former JPT services instead.

[acocker96]

RE: Stagecoach Manchester

(17/06/2014 19:05)Dentonian Wrote:  I'm not sure about that. As already discussed, Stagecoach resources are already stretched with not only Jpt, but the 38 locally, plus Sheffield Supertram replacement and the occasional Metrolink, Horse Race meeting etc. etc. to cater for. Besides, Stagecoach wouldn't be daft enough to risk local reputation/reliability, just to make a political point. The CMA is a Whitehall quango, who know nothing about buses, bus passengers or frankly anything more than 20 miles in any direction from their multi-thousand pound desks. Remember, they don't understand the concept that private vehicles, taxis and rail compete directly (and unfairly) with the bus industry.

They've had a trident on the 76 yesterday and today they could easily reduce the frequency on the 192 by just a couple of minutes and have enough vehicles I reckon

[Mayneway]

RE: Stagecoach Manchester

(17/06/2014 19:05)Dentonian Wrote:  I'm not sure about that. As already discussed, Stagecoach resources are already stretched with not only Jpt, but the 38 locally, plus Sheffield Supertram replacement and the occasional Metrolink, Horse Race meeting etc. etc. to cater for. Besides, Stagecoach wouldn't be daft enough to risk local reputation/reliability, just to make a political point. The CMA is a Whitehall quango, who know nothing about buses, bus passengers or frankly anything more than 20 miles in any direction from their multi-thousand pound desks. Remember, they don't understand the concept that private vehicles, taxis and rail compete directly (and unfairly) with the bus industry.

Agreed they have taken on rather a lot, but when you consider this is just two very elderly high floor deckers were talking about, surly Stagecoach have two more modern vehicles available to use in service instead of these. I don't see a problem using JPT vehicles but these two elderly dears just seem crazy.

Would these Olympians be in use if the CMA hadn't interfered in the takeover?

[Owl]

RE: Stagecoach Manchester

(17/06/2014 20:15)Dentonian Wrote:  This second question is academic, as the CMA always interfere with anything Stagecoach do. Its about time the CMA/OFT started interfering in the retail industry. They were quite happy for Sainsburys to put their prices up in Picc Station when the Co-op down the approach shut. They were quite happy for Boots to takeover rival Superdrug in the same location, and put their prices up.

Indeed, it is difficult to understand why the CMA became involved in this case. Even the addition of JPT routes to Stagecoach's existing routes does not really provide Stagecoach with anything like the grip that First has in this area. The only potential issue would be the addition of the 118 to the 112 on Moston Lane, but even then First run the 81 down there every 10 minutes, so there is plenty of competition.

It's not as if Stagecoach drove JPT off the road - they did a public service by picking up the mess that JPT left when they imploded.

[Mayneway]

RE: Stagecoach Manchester

(18/06/2014 11:53)Owl Wrote:  Indeed, it is difficult to understand why the CMA became involved in this case. Even the addition of JPT routes to Stagecoach's existing routes does not really provide Stagecoach with anything like the grip that First has in this area. The only potential issue would be the addition of the 118 to the 112 on Moston Lane, but even then First run the 81 down there every 10 minutes, so there is plenty of competition.

It's not as if Stagecoach drove JPT off the road - they did a public service by picking up the mess that JPT left when they imploded.

I agree with you regarding the competition aspect but I do think it's right that the deal itself is looked into. Don't forget Stagecoach have never shown any interest in JPT and waited till JPT were on their knee's before they allegedly made them an offer, plus the surroundings of the whole deal were unusual. It seemed to be kept quiet until it had been signed and sealed - all very different to previous takeovers.

The thing that annoys me is that the CMA seemed to have failed to consider the circumstances of the situation. Imposing the condition that JPT vehicles must be used where possible on former JPT services is near impossible considering the state of the vehicles.
During the Preston bus fiasco the OFT claimed it was in the best interests of the passenger that Stagecoach sold PB, so bearing that in mind surly the passenger is much better off in Middleton with the services being run by Stagecoach and not the shambles that was JPT.

[turbo777]

RE: Stagecoach Manchester
What's the status of 19069, I know it was on loan to Holbrook from Sharston but I seen it yesterday afternoon (Wednesday) in Southport, it was my understanding Manchester was short of vehicles.

[Owl]

RE: Stagecoach Manchester

(18/06/2014 19:38)Mayneway Wrote:  I agree with you regarding the competition aspect but I do think it's right that the deal itself is looked into. Don't forget Stagecoach have never shown any interest in JPT and waited till JPT were on their knee's before they allegedly made them an offer, plus the surroundings of the whole deal were unusual. It seemed to be kept quiet until it had been signed and sealed - all very different to previous takeovers.

The thing that annoys me is that the CMA seemed to have failed to consider the circumstances of the situation. Imposing the condition that JPT vehicles must be used where possible on former JPT services is near impossible considering the state of the vehicles.
During the Preston bus fiasco the OFT claimed it was in the best interests of the passenger that Stagecoach sold PB, so bearing that in mind surly the passenger is much better off in Middleton with the services being run by Stagecoach and not the shambles that was JPT.

I couldn't agree more. The conditions are obviously standard ones designed to prevent the merger taking place in a way that cannot be reversed, but certainly in this case does not reflect the reality of the position on the ground. The length of time that the CMA is taking to consider what is in reality is a very small takeover is also unreasonable.

Having said that I am not sure that Stagecoach were actively involved in JPTs downfall. I think that they managed that very succesfully themselves. I suspect that they were sounded out by TFGM, and must have thought that had the resources to take the services on.

[8860Brian]

RE: Stagecoach Manchester

(18/06/2014 19:38)Mayneway Wrote:  I agree with you regarding the competition aspect but I do think it's right that the deal itself is looked into. Don't forget Stagecoach have never shown any interest in JPT and waited till JPT were on their knee's before they allegedly made them an offer, plus the surroundings of the whole deal were unusual. It seemed to be kept quiet until it had been signed and sealed - all very different to previous takeovers.

The thing that annoys me is that the CMA seemed to have failed to consider the circumstances of the situation. Imposing the condition that JPT vehicles must be used where possible on former JPT services is near impossible considering the state of the vehicles.
During the Preston bus fiasco the OFT claimed it was in the best interests of the passenger that Stagecoach sold PB, so bearing that in mind surly the passenger is much better off in Middleton with the services being run by Stagecoach and not the shambles that was JPT.

Are we sure it was Stagecoach who made the move, my understanding is JPT announced they were to cease the Thursday before Easter leaving their Bank Holiday and their normal services uncovered. I hear that there was no fuel at JPT and buses were regularly running out on service yet all of a sudden right at the last minute they had a reprieve and covered most of their Easter contracted services, more so on the Sunday and Monday. The following week JPT buses were fuelling at Stagecoach Middleton and then it was announced Stagecoach would take on the 118 and 156 services plus schools and the evening/weekend tenders, it was later still when the fleet moved to Stagecoach. The question is did TFGM approach Stagecoach to help and ensure the contracts were covered and set the ball rolling, not forgetting most of the contracts are up for re-tender in July anyway leaving only the 118 and 156 as an addition to Stagecoach’s Middleton services. Surely Stagecoach wouldn’t want the fleet under normal circumstances having condemned most the previous week and it must be costing a considerable amount to put them back on the road many of which have a very limited life due to their age.
The next consideration is we believe the CMA require the services to be run as a JPT operation, yes one or two buses have JPT stickers but why when there are 10 JPT buses back on the road at Middleton are the majority of buses on the 156/118 services Stagecoach’s own. I’m not forgetting the 276 service to Withington which I think is tendered I just don’t think it’s relevant to the vehicle allocation or any long term plan. This is certainly more than a simple take over and for once without the full facts I think Stagecoach actually helped.
Brian