How well is the coach hire part of the business going and does an operator running both bus and coach services generally benefit the coach hire part or work to it's disadvantage? I recall people saying one reason Go Goodwins branded the bus operation differently was due to bus services working to the disadvantage of the coach hire part. Howards don't seem to know which name to use - some vehicles say Howards, others say Springfield, some say both while bus service registrations have been under both the Ian Howard licence and the Springfield Bus & Coach licence. It's a bit like GHA and Vale Travel in some respects.
(11/08/2018 08:31)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]How well is the coach hire part of the business going and does an operator running both bus and coach services generally benefit the coach hire part or work to it's disadvantage? I recall people saying one reason Go Goodwins branded the bus operation differently was due to bus services working to the disadvantage of the coach hire part. Howards don't seem to know which name to use - some vehicles say Howards, others say Springfield, some say both while bus service registrations have been under both the Ian Howard licence and the Springfield Bus & Coach licence. It's a bit like GHA and Vale Travel in some respects.
I would assume the service work goes on whatever licence has adequate disks surly?
As for Go Goodwins. Personally I think the reasoning for the rebranding of the service buses was a bit of a rouse. Apparently there was a disagreement on which way to take the business further, so the bus side of it was rebranded and distanced from the coach side. Given that all their service work was tendered bar a couple of commercial schools having the same name on the side of a bus as what's on a coach wouldn't have made a big difference.
Looking back though I do wonder whether the bus work was pulled away and rebranded ready for a sale?
(11/08/2018 10:54)Mayneway Wrote: [ -> ]I would assume the service work goes on whatever licence has adequate disks surly?
But why continue to have operating discs under two different names and if you do and have regular vehicles for routes (like Howards did) why make Howards branding more prominent if it's running a service on a Springfield licence?
Quote:As for Go Goodwins. Personally I think the reasoning for the rebranding of the service buses was a bit of a rouse. Apparently there was a disagreement on which way to take the business further, so the bus side of it was rebranded and distanced from the coach side. Given that all their service work was tendered bar a couple of commercial schools having the same name on the side of a bus as what's on a coach wouldn't have made a big difference.
Looking back though I do wonder whether the bus work was pulled away and rebranded ready for a sale?
People still blame operators for rubbish services even when they are running the exact number of services specified by the tender.
As Rotala didn't adopt the Little Gem brand there was no point to it, the bus business was separate to the coach business. All they would have needed to do was to ensure Go Goodwins buses were debranded by a certain date.
(11/08/2018 11:06)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]But why continue to have operating discs under two different names and if you do and have regular vehicles for routes (like Howards did) why make Howards branding more prominent if it's running a service on a Springfield licence?
People still blame operators for rubbish services even when they are running the exact number of services specified by the tender.
As Rotala didn't adopt the Little Gem brand there was no point to it, the bus business was separate to the coach business. All they would have needed to do was to ensure Go Goodwins buses were debranded by a certain date.
That would be something only Howard's could answer. I suppose the logical thing to do is to put all the disks onto one licence and have it all operating as one brand but it there must be a reason why they continue to run on two separate licences/names.
Going back to Go Goodwins. I still don't buy it. I honestly think the rushed hash job of a rebrand was done to line up a sale. Plenty of operators run both bus and coach ops under the same name/brand and don't have any issues. It was all just done too quickly and half hearted.
Running on 2 licences can have its benefits as if you go up in front of the traffic commissioner for any reason and they say they are withdrawing some o licences then they can only take it off the licence thats up in front of them.
Hence why stagecoach run under previous operators licences but with the stagecoach brand.
(11/08/2018 12:02)motormayhem1 Wrote: [ -> ]Running on 2 licences can have its benefits as if you go up in front of the traffic commissioner for any reason and they say they are withdrawing some o licences then they can only take it off the licence thats up in front of them.
Hence why stagecoach run under previous operators licences but with the stagecoach brand.
Doesn't need to be that way. Arriva Wales and Arriva Midlands both operate in the North West TC's area but if Arriva North West were sanctioned, Arriva Wales and Arriva Midlands would be unaffected. Arriva could also break up their business in to smaller operators if they wanted e.g. have Arriva Cheshire, Arriva Greater Manchester, Arriva Merseyside etc.
Stagecoach have a tradition of operating under non-Stagecoach brands from when they set up new companies with similar sounding names to existing companies in an attempt to trick the public in to thinking they were using a nice local company with modern buses, not a big greedy corporate company trying to force the little company off the road. Then when the little company went out of business the Stagecoach branded buses got brought in.
(11/08/2018 12:02)motormayhem1 Wrote: [ -> ]Running on 2 licences can have its benefits as if you go up in front of the traffic commissioner for any reason and they say they are withdrawing some o licences then they can only take it off the licence thats up in front of them.
Hence why stagecoach run under previous operators licences but with the stagecoach brand.
It's got to be more of a headache than running everything on one licence and let's not forget the TC isn't daft. They know what's what and can reduce or revoke associated licences if it's serious enough.
(11/08/2018 08:31)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]How well is the coach hire part of the business going and does an operator running both bus and coach services generally benefit the coach hire part or work to it's disadvantage? I recall people saying one reason Go Goodwins branded the bus operation differently was due to bus services working to the disadvantage of the coach hire part. Howards don't seem to know which name to use - some vehicles say Howards, others say Springfield, some say both while bus service registrations have been under both the Ian Howard licence and the Springfield Bus & Coach licence. It's a bit like GHA and Vale Travel in some respects.
The B52 is a 1/4 mill contract so regardless of how good the coach work is, there is a big co tract backing then up. Could it be with the omegas site expanding so rapidly, they need more buses around 8-9am to cover the B52 contract?
(11/08/2018 18:41)iMarkeh Wrote: [ -> ]The B52 is a 1/4 mill contract so regardless of how good the coach work is, there is a big co tract backing then up. Could it be with the omegas site expanding so rapidly, they need more buses around 8-9am to cover the B52 contract?
It's not healthy to prop any company on a good paying contract because things can rapidly change. How many bus companies have based there work on a couple of lucrative contracts only to loose them then end up collapsing.
From the latest timetable, it seems that the B52 (and now B52A too) are less resource-intensive than they used to be.
Can't see the AMA1 any more, which ran from Liverpool to Omega, has that ended?