tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7432323264902617108.post6540756566508611284..comments2024-03-25T22:17:35.616+00:00Comments on Public Transport Experience: Worrying Withdrawal in Weston (3)fatbusblokehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06833340546527596517noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7432323264902617108.post-71242137306418837842017-03-31T12:25:54.529+01:002017-03-31T12:25:54.529+01:00Remember also that the CMS/First partnership is wi...Remember also that the CMS/First partnership is with First South West, not First West of England. Might be part of the same group but they have different management and different approaches.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7432323264902617108.post-53839082156727541422017-03-17T09:36:39.294+00:002017-03-17T09:36:39.294+00:00FBB wouldn't have a blog if he stuck to the fa...FBB wouldn't have a blog if he stuck to the facts. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7432323264902617108.post-52211060685661074942017-03-16T21:41:05.162+00:002017-03-16T21:41:05.162+00:00Surely there is a contradiction here. No one is su...Surely there is a contradiction here. No one is suggesting that you opine on the travails of CMS and the traffic commissioner. However, you feel quite empowered to suggest collusion between two operators?<br /><br />The fact that CMS are subject to an invite from the TC is something that can be reported as it is in the public domain and that, subject to what happens subsequently, this may influence the business decisions of Mr Pratt? Arguably, this is important contextual information and doesn't need to be salacious speculation. Instead, you have elected to make other "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" inferences.<br /><br />The reintroduction for the 5 may be down to two main reasons. Retaliation for the 107 being introduced is one. Also, perhaps First have got wind of the impending visit to the TC, can sense an ailing CMS and so force the issue. Remember that First reintroduced a number of previously withdrawn Cornish services once they scented blood in the water.<br /><br />Whilst you may have noted the various changes "adequately", your central thrust is that the withdrawal of competitive services is inextricably linked to the SPS deal. The fact that many of the competitive activities have occurred subsequent to that JV being announced does not seem to figure in your contention, and neither does the invite for tea and scones with the TC. <br /><br />Now, who knows the truth of the matter but at the moment, the blog seems to ignore (TC) or gloss over the facts (competitive incursions well after the JV was formed) and instead suggest suggest it's a clandestine deal forged in the smoky back rooms of Weston super Mare for which there is no evidence. Alt facts?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7432323264902617108.post-25230037239076612442017-03-16T20:33:38.003+00:002017-03-16T20:33:38.003+00:00Oh come on! There's having an opinion and ther...Oh come on! There's having an opinion and there's making comment that is straying close to libel - this series of posts is straying dangerously close to the later.<br /><br />Your constant references to smelling a rat are unfair to both operators. The Oxford University Press dictionary defines the phrase as meaning "suspect trickery or deception" - that's a bit stronger than having an opinion Peter and you know it. If you want to make accusations of deception, then have the decency to do so - enough of this rat odour rubbish.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7432323264902617108.post-5386435809686781012017-03-16T11:01:05.408+00:002017-03-16T11:01:05.408+00:00Not at all sure why I should not be allowed an opi...Not at all sure why I should not be allowed an opinion.<br /><br />Likewise I would NEVER hazard a guess as to what MIGHT be the problem with the Traffic Commissioners.<br /><br />Re the 105. If First couldn't make it pay, then why did they re-introduce it. Rat odour confirmed!<br /><br />All the other points that Anon makes have been covered adequately in the blogs.fatbusblokehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06833340546527596517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7432323264902617108.post-24837771449791713532017-03-16T08:49:06.229+00:002017-03-16T08:49:06.229+00:00Really FBB? A very disappointing bit of innuendo,...Really FBB? A very disappointing bit of innuendo, substituting opinion over fact.<br /><br />Some things that you really should have highlighted. <br /><br />It was Crosville who were very much the aggressors in starting up the 103 and 105; the latter to such an extent that First couldn't make it pay. Two operators on such a route was never sustainable.<br /><br />Then CMS moved in on the 107 - only last year. Also, there has been a certain amount of cat and mouse on the 3/103 - all coming well after the SPS deal was struck with First Group so the inference that it has been the driver behind CMS's retrenchment seems at odds with the chronology of the SPS deal and CMS's previous expansions.<br /><br />The most glaring omission is, of course, that the owner has been summoned in front of the TC. The severity of what is alleged isn't in the public domain but it COULD see a substantial curtailment in CMS's O license.<br /><br />So factor in that, a business that has been competing with new fleet on a major new route (107), a reduction in tendered services from the local authority plus the demands of the SPS operation, perhaps that might be more of a story rather than FBB's contention that iffy deals in darkened rooms have provided the impetus for these changes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com