(09/05/2014 15:53)joe_alker Wrote: [ -> ]17241 running with On hire to JP Travel paper board in windscreen today.
Also, has anyone noticed 19104's exhaust? Sounds like a boy racer bus now, although it is a beautiful sound and don't want it repairing. Need to get a ride on it and get some sound recordings before it gets repaired 
Heard it yesterday roaring out of Manchester with a throaty rumble.
Also saw JPT 501 running yesterday morning with Stagecoach legals and 'JPT service' in the side windows.
I was hoping to go and see it today but not had the chance, I hope someone gets footage of it.
(09/05/2014 17:35)Mayneway Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand why vehicles are out in service with 'on hire to JP Travel' in the windscreens. Technically the services are being operated on Stagecoach's own licence as they registered them all the same day JPT cancelled them.
I thought the only condition while the takeover is looked into is that Stagecoach carnt sell any of the assets.
There's a whole long list of things Stagecoach aren't allowed to do while the CMA are poking around.
I would imagine that "On hire to JPT" notices are not to satisfy VOSA, but rather to comply with paragraph 5a/b of the undertakings;
Quote:Further and without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 4 and subject to paragraph 3, Stagecoach and GMBS shall at all times during the specified period procure that, except with the prior written consent of the CMA:
(a)the JP Executive Travel business is carried on separately from the Stagecoach business and
JP Executive Travel’s separate sales or brand identity is maintained
(b)the JP Executive Travel business and the Stagecoach business are maintained as a going concern and sufficient resources are made available for the development of the JP Executive Travel business and the Stagecoach business, on the basis of their respective pre-merger business plans
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.go...ecoach.pdf is the link. Paragraph 5 basically covers the no integration requirement.
(10/05/2014 16:02)mbonwick Wrote: [ -> ]There's a whole long list of things Stagecoach aren't allowed to do while the CMA are poking around.
I would imagine that "On hire to JPT" notices are not to satisfy VOSA, but rather to comply with paragraph 5a/b of the undertakings;
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.go...ecoach.pdf is the link. Paragraph 5 basically covers the no integration requirement.
"
JP Executive Travel’s separate sales or brand identity is maintained"
Can't help thinking they might find that a little difficult with most of JPTs fleet off the road unserviceable!!
Indeed, but I suspect Stagecoach can get round it by saying "yes, we are having to use our own vehicles due to poor condition of JPT assets, but they carry notices saying that they are being used by JPT, as is standard industry practice. What else do you want us to do?!"
I think I understand now. So even though the ex JPT services are running on stagecoach Manchester licence and JPT vehicles are carrying Stagecoach legals they are continuing to carry JPT fleetnames, and the stagecoach vehicles are carrying 'JPT Service' notices to keep the brand, in this case JPT, going incase they are forced to abandon the takeover.
I seem to remember when Stagecoach first took over Bullocks a lot of the Maynes vehicles were used on Bullocks services with signs in the windscreens saying for example 'Bullocks 42' and 'Bullocks 157' so I guess this was similar. The brand or trading name has to be kept going until the takeover is cleared.
It is beyond me why Stagecoach were allowed to buy Bullocks and Maynes when they competed in the same territory. Now with the 217/218 being axed Stagecoach don't operate any ex-Mayne routes and smaller communities have lost their link to Manchester, if the services had being bought by First for example they may have provided a little more competition into Manchester. Purchasing Bullocks also allowed Stagecoach to be even larger in the Stockport area.