Castanet

GordonH wrote:Young to middle age this can work, seniors not so much.

Since when seniors are not allowed to drive cars?

Have I missed something here ?

The Passenger Transportation Board, seems to have allowed GH to pull out of non-profitable routes and retain the profitable ones.

Now, just how can another bus line or the government service these non-profitable without a huge government outlay.

Don't you negotiate, give them some profitable routes with a looser ?

GordonH wrote:Young to middle age this can work, seniors not so much.

Even Steven wrote:Since when seniors are not allowed to drive cars?

Those who don't drive or those who have had to give up their D/L. Was not talking about those who currently drive.

my5cents wrote:Have I missed something here ?

The Passenger Transportation Board, seems to have allowed GH to pull out of non-profitable routes and retain the profitable ones.

Now, just how can another bus line or the government service these non-profitable without a huge government outlay.

Don't you negotiate, give them some profitable routes with a looser ?

Yes you did obviously miss that the gov't, NDP to boot, agreed that subsidizing routes that were beyond small losses would end up tanking their entire business model. So in order to maintain some kind of transportation system for a majority of people, they granted the exclusion.
Would you have preferred that they forced GH to continue to provide service to routes that no one uses that even comes close to paying the wages for the driver never mind the fuel, maintenance, and overhead costs? Never mind the expectation to make a small profit. You would rather see GH pull out of the Province altogether? I'd like to see your own capital running a bus network in the Province and see if you could make a go of it being forced with running routes with no ridership. Me thinks you would decline but somehow you think GH is making so much money that they should.

The Greyhound reductions are just another example of the free-enterprise system doing what it does best. It allows the most fit (those with money) to prosper, and it penalizes the poor because they don't have anything that the system can use (money).

The rental properties in the small towns are cheaper than those in the cities and a lot of seniors without income beyond basic OAP and CPP gravitate there. With Greyhound reducing their routes these people are pretty much stuck in the hick towns. It's not Greyhound's fault. They aren't going to provide a service that loses money. Maybe some small, local bus services will move in with smaller vehicles. It's the free-enterprise system at work.

There we go more service cut. Kelowna Capitol news reports Oyama the latest to be cut. They also report that regional transit will be left to pick up the slack which is great that we have public transit in place to provide service to the individuals that want/need it. The problem is as I already suggested is that the for profit company based in Scotland that owns Greyhound also Manages the regional transit system in the north and central Okanagan and is subsidized by the provincial government Via BC Transit; you and I. Hence, the Parent company will now transport those people at a profit rather than a loss on the backs of the citizens of British Columbia. Can you say conflict.

1life2live wrote:There we go more service cut. Kelowna Capitol news reports Oyama the latest to be cut. They also report that regional transit will be left to pick up the slack which is great that we have public transit in place to provide service to the individuals that want/need it. The problem is as I already suggested is that the for profit company based in Scotland that owns Greyhound also Manages the regional transit system in the north and central Okanagan and is subsidized by the provincial government Via BC Transit; you and I. Hence, the Parent company will now transport those people at a profit rather than a loss on the backs of the citizens of British Columbia. Can you say conflict.

As already pointed out, you clearly have no understanding of what you're talking about.

Oyama has been serviced by Vernon Regional Transit as part of the route 90 for 8 years already. It was planned when Vernon Regional Transit was run by the previous contractor which was before First was even awarded the Vernon Regional Contract and has been in the planning to have expanded service (more frequencies for the last 2 years) and will come into effect later this year.

First does not "profit" from a bus stopping here or there, thats not how the contracts work. The contracts are more or less based on how many buses a system has and how many yearly hours of service a system provides - this gives the contract a specific value that the contractor bids on and must provide the service for that value or less. If BC Transit were to decide to axe the Oyama stop on the 90 and simply bypass along the highway, this would have absolutely zero effect on the contract value and First's profit - absolutely zero, nada, nichts, zilch.

The reason Greyhound is axing the Oyama stop is because no one is using it - its that simple! Why would any business offer a service that isn't being used? Thats stupid. Even the ridership between Oyama and Vernon or Kelowna on the 90 is quite low, but it would make more sense for them to service Oyama since it works perfectly for them in regards to scheduling the 90 run.

Please, stop making stories up as you obviously have zero clue on how these contracts work.

It's funny how the corporate apologists out there try and cloud the fact that morality should somehow not be part of the business equation. If greyhound can only be successful if it makes enough money and complains about these non-profitable routes and will only play if they are left running the most profitable then they and the parent company should be eliminated from the equation as unfair partners. I have enough experience to know that if it looks like dog.... and smells like dog.... It's dog....

TRIX wrote:It's funny how the corporate apologists out there try and cloud the fact that morality should somehow not be part of the business equation. If greyhound can only be successful if it makes enough money and complains about these non-profitable routes and will only play if they are left running the most profitable then they and the parent company should be eliminated from the equation as unfair partners. I have enough experience to know that if it looks like dog.... and smells like dog.... It's dog....

So a company should be forced to loose money, just because its morally right?

Good grief

Greyhound was in trouble here for a long time. NDP pushed them to the breaking point. Funny how the people claiming to help the downtrodden do the most to hurt them. Plays out across every thread on here. From drugs to homelessness to job creation. Those who claim to advocate for the poor are doing the most harm.

Dizzy1 wrote:

TRIX wrote:It's funny how the corporate apologists out there try and cloud the fact that morality should somehow not be part of the business equation. If greyhound can only be successful if it makes enough money and complains about these non-profitable routes and will only play if they are left running the most profitable then they and the parent company should be eliminated from the equation as unfair partners. I have enough experience to know that if it looks like dog.... and smells like dog.... It's dog....

So a company should be forced to loose money, just because its morally right?

Good grief

No one said anything about losing money. What I said is what has been quoted to me by a lead Greyhound Negotiator.
"It's not about making money, It's about making enough money." That is corporate code for if we do not make our projected targets and make our bonuses it is not worth our while. What I am saying is when is enough, enough. The American side of greyhound has been choking off the Canadian side for years while trying to save face corporately. If we only picked the best cherries on the tree and let the rest rot on the tree soon the orchard would be full of rats. That is what is happening here. Greyhound is cherry picking and forcing public transit to pick up the slack where it can. That is ok because for me the more public transit the better. Unfortunately the companies that stand to gain are the same companies that own Greyhound. Greyhound is already screaming for public subsidy and this is another way of covertly achieving that goal. It should be seen for what it is and not apologized for. Just openly analyzed and decided upon whether this is a sound transit model serving the citizens of British Columbia.

TRIX wrote:No one said anything about losing money. What I said is what has been quoted to me by a lead Greyhound Negotiator.
"It's not about making money, It's about making enough money." That is corporate code for if we do not make our projected targets and make our bonuses it is not worth our while.

Bussing is a dying industry, especially intra city buses in rural areas. The ridership is not there anymore - and busing companies (not just Greyhound) are losing money on some routes and not just in BC, but all over North America.

TRIX wrote:What I am saying is when is enough, enough.

It was enough for Laidlaw, the Greyhound division just about put them out of business before they sold it off to First.

TRIX wrote:The American side of greyhound has been choking off the Canadian side for years while trying to save face corporately. If we only picked the best cherries on the tree and let the rest rot on the tree soon the orchard would be full of rats. That is what is happening here. Greyhound is cherry picking and forcing public transit to pick up the slack where it can.

Thats right, they are cherry picking - they're keeping the ones that they can sell and getting rid of the ones that they can't sell. If they can't sell the cherries because they're all bruised, scarred, mushy and moldy - why would they not get rid of it? It'll just cost them money.

TRIX wrote:That is ok because for me the more public transit the better. Unfortunately the companies that stand to gain are the same companies that own Greyhound.

They don't stand to gain anything more than any other vendor that bids for the RFPs, and with the increasing number of bids that First has been unsuccessful with lately, they stand to lose more than anything.

I can't get into much detail on this, as it hasn't been made publicly yet. But there is another large busing company that will be selling in the next year. They've been around more a very long time but the last 15 years have been brutal for the bussing industry - ridership has dropped, fuel prices have risen and they're hemorrhaging money at this point. Employees can only take so much in wage cuts, you can only raise fares so much before you loose even more ridership. Its just the way the industry is now. First is no exception either.

Maybe Air Canada should have to support these areas? Would be nice to have a jet from Kelowna to Osoyoos.

alanjh595 wrote:Maybe Air Canada should have to support these areas? Would be nice to have a jet from Kelowna to Osoyoos.

Well, better be a real fast take off passenger jet with runway under 2,400 Ft. lol

alanjh595 wrote:Maybe Air Canada should have to support these areas? Would be nice to have a jet from Kelowna to Osoyoos.

They can't make money on a 5 min flight! Not to mention that by the time you drove to the airport, parked, went thru security and waited to board. Taxied and took off you could drive to Osoyoos and back already.

Sorry alan but that's not one of your smartest ideas. Stick to cooking.