To say Avon should close is pure stupid as they are saving Merseytravel money by running so many services as part tender, If anything Avon need to hand in a couple of tenders so they have the number of drivers to operate what is left
I think you will find if you read the post properly I never said Avon should close I actually said "IF THEY GO UNDER" there is a whole world of difference between and that and saying they should close.
It just goes to show that Merseytravel are just as guilty as they keep awarding them contracts when there are other operators who are either due to lose work or have lost work that could have been awarded the contracts and could probably run them without so much lost mileage because they have drivers in place to operate them.
It just goes to show that the lowest price is not always the best price to pay even in these times of Government cutbacks
They have simply bitten off more than they can chew. They also swapped and changed so many services that passengers got confused. They also introduced new services such as the 23 that simply were never going to work. Poor decision making. Only themselves to blame. I initially felt sorry for Avon, being a local independent operator but have lost respect for them now. I think it's a matter of time before they go under. The services that do run now are running half empty as they have become so unreliable. RIP Avon
(31/07/2017 09:58)CKC 312L Wrote: [ -> ]Like I have said before is it even worth their while opening the gates of a morning people are looking at other means or other services to get them from A to B so overall ultimately the company will suffer although to be honest if they did go under it would be no great loss as they are running so little at the moment. Looks like everyone will be playing the I-Spy game todat see if the can see a very rare breed a lesser spotted Avon
I'm sure the loyal hard working drivers that are working hard to keep things going at this clearly difficult time would really appreciate your comments about not bothering opening the gates.
It is concerning but perhaps their working hard behind the scenes to sort things out.
I agree with you WAITING FOR THE 437 they have bitten off more than they can chew,they also chop and change services too often. Commercialising services that are subsidised because they do not make a profit has also got to be a loss maker Subsidised services are subsidised for a reason they don't make money. Like I post previously most of the services I saw leaving Birkenhead Bus Station last week were leaving empty again like I have said previously passengers are finding alternative services or ways to get from A to B
I am not saying they will go under but it seems to be going the way so many others have gone before Maybe they will survive but at what cost to themselves as a business
(31/07/2017 11:09)CKC 312L Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with you WAITING FOR THE 437 they have bitten off more than they can chew,they also chop and change services too often. Commercialising services that are subsidised because they do not make a profit has also got to be a loss maker Subsidised services are subsidised for a reason they don't make money. Like I post previously most of the services I saw leaving Birkenhead Bus Station last week were leaving empty again like I have said previously passengers are finding alternative services or ways to get from A to B
I am not saying they will go under but it seems to be going the way so many others have gone before Maybe they will survive but at what cost to themselves as a business
How do you know they are not turning a profit on these now commercial services? They seem to have the vehicles and resources it's actual drivers they are short of.
A service could be subsidised but still turns a profit if it didn't have a subsidy. The reason could be that an operator feels they are making a profit, but not enough of a profit, and so want it "topped up" Stagecoach East Scotland route 95 was, for years, like this. But now, it doesn't have a subsidy, and, interestingly, is still profitable.
There are plenty of commercially operated services which have part funding by Merseytravel, HTLs 159 is an example of this. The real issue is the potential loss of passengers on services which are being consistently dropped. Merseytravels seemingly lack of involvement is strange too given other operators in the area could easily help out on various routes even on a temporary basis.
How many of these lost journeys are actually on services operated on behalf of Merseytravel for all or part of the journey.
I'm actually surprised that elected representatives have been rather quiet on this. Yes, I know some councillors probably serve on the Merseytravel committee, but for those that don't, surely they should be starting to express some concern at the situation.
One other thing. People are saying Merseytravel is to blame here. Yes, they are, for appointing Avon to run the services on their behalf where required, and awarding them tenders. But it's worth noting that the bids for the new tenders were probably submitted, before the staffing problems came up. It's also worth noting that Merseytravel does have a responsibility to the taxpayers of Merseyside. And, with cash seemingly tight, it has to go for what is the best value offer, i.e. the cheapest bid, if that's all the money it has. It's a catch 22 situation. If you have poor cash reserves, then you may get a poor service, but if you can't afford a good service, you can't expect to get one.
Lastly, in terms of the bids, is there a way of finding out who else bidded against Avon, and what their bids were?