Destination screens: Anybody do better?

[transmanche]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

Jolly good. And where does it says that a company cannot advertise its services on the vehicles that it operates?

 

[Sadsmileyface]

It would be an anticompetitive practice. In this example, FIrst would be using its position to influence passengers into using First Buses rather than McWhomevers Bus Co. That other Bus Co would suffer as a result and the resulting monopoly would be referred to the competition commission.

 

[transmanche]

It would be an anticompetitive practice. In this example, FIrst would be using its position to influence passengers into using First Buses rather than McWhomevers Bus Co. That other Bus Co would suffer as a result and the resulting monopoly would be referred to the competition commission.

No, it's called 'advertising'. Perhaps you should actually read the link you posted!

Many TOCs advertise on the PIS that you can buy tickets from their website. That's not anti-competitive... it's advertising.

Many bus companies (such as in the Stagecoach example below) advertise their own operator-specific daily/weekly/monthly passes. That's not anti-competitive.... it's advertising.

WAGN used to have a special livery for their Family Travelcard. That's not anti-competitive... it's advertising.

 

[Sadsmileyface]

No, it's called 'advertising'. Perhaps you should actually read the link you posted!

Many TOCs advertise on the PIS that you can buy tickets from their website. That's not anti-competitive... it's advertising.

Many bus companies (such as in the Stagecoach example below) advertise their own operator-specific daily/weekly/monthly passes. That's not anti-competitive.... it's advertising.

WAGN used to have a special livery for their Family Travelcard. That's not anti-competitive... it's advertising.

While you seem to understand the concept of advertising, you dont seem to understand the difference in this example.

Of course an operator can advertise that you can buy tickets from them. That is not contested. However, a business that is operating a franchise on behalf of the government cannot use that franchise to push its outside interests or operations on the customers of that franchise. It would be uncompetitive of, for exmaple, First to use the ScotRail franchise to push or otherwise lead customers of ScotRail on to its First Bus services.

A landmark case was that of Microsoft, which included Internet Explorer with Windows, giving it a monopoly on the web browser market. It was anticompetitive. In our example, Internet Explorer is Buses and Windows is ScotRail. This is why you dont see PIS screens saying "This is Glasgow Central, take the number 66 FirstBus if you want to go to Pollok".

This is why Virgin should not have been advertising its petition on its services.

 

[transmanche]

While you seem to understand the concept of advertising, you dont seem to understand the difference in this example.

Oh yes I do.

A landmark case was that of Microsoft, which included Internet Explorer with Windows, giving it a monopoly on the web browser market. It was anticompetitive. In our example, Internet Explorer is Buses and Windows is ScotRail.

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear. Completely different principle at point there

So, according to you, TOCs are allowed to carry advertising for their own TOC-related services and they are allowed to carry advertising for third party products and services. But they are not allowed to carry advertising for any other products or services from their group. Yeah, right.

Perhaps you ought to report CrossCountry to the EU Competition Commissioner, for mentioning that you can change for Tyne & Wear Metro services at Newcastle. Because according to you, their are abusing their monopolistic power.

 

[PR1Berske]

Virgin may not have been breaking competition law by any strict definition, but their use of Virgin display screens and the like to drum support for 'saving' Virgin's contract was highly dubious practice.

 

[transmanche]

Virgin may not have been breaking competition law by any strict definition, but their use of Virgin display screens and the like to drum support for 'saving' Virgin's contract was highly dubious practice.

Competition law has nothing to do with it! And I can't see how it's even 'highly dubious' practice. It's no different from a high street shop putting a poster in their window supporting/objecting to some proposal by the local council...

 

[whhistle]

Perhaps you ought to report CrossCountry to the EU Competition Commissioner, for mentioning that you can change for Tyne & Wear Metro services at Newcastle. Because according to you, their are abusing their monopolistic power.

Why?

They are both separate companies. Despite their parent company being the same, that is irrelevant. Yes it's not "best practice" or whatever phrase you like but businesses these days are being more and more cut throat (points to Asda and their relentless attack on other supermarkets - shame energy companies don't take the same approach!).

But good one on derailling the thread you two
All in the cause of "I know better than you"... :roll:

Displaying things on the CIS was an act of desperation from various individuals. There was no directive to do this, so the company could say with a clear concious they had not instructed their team to display anything.

 

[Sidious]

Virgin may not have been breaking competition law by any strict definition, but their use of Virgin display screens and the like to drum support for 'saving' Virgin's contract was highly dubious practice.

It's no different to what GNER did when it's first franchise was up for renewal. They generated a massive passenger petition and submitted it with their bid.

There is also a difference between a franchise and a consession. As an example Arriva has the franchise to run Crosscountry. It can market it's operations in any way it so chooses (livery, website, staff uniforms) and therefore it can market the services as it sees fit, but it has the consession to run the Tyne and Wear Metro - which is a contract specifying how things are run in return for a fee from Nexus.

 

[transmanche]

What if it were ScotRail advertising FirstBus services rather than the next stop or interchange or destination?

Perhaps you ought to report CrossCountry to the EU Competition Commissioner, for mentioning that you can change for Tyne & Wear Metro services at Newcastle. Because according to you, their are abusing their monopolistic power.

Why?

They are both separate companies. Despite their parent company being the same, that is irrelevant.

Tell that to Sadsmileyface...

 

[D1009]

Just seen one of FGW's newly refurbished 180s depart Didcot Parkway working 1D53 1718 Paddington to Oxford with its destination screens showing London Waterloo. Doubt if they're even cleared there!

 

[Eagle]

The Virgin 221 I was on today managed to forget the names of all the places. All of them.

It was showing "Welcome aboard the service to Arriv_Stn, calling at the following stations: Interm_Stn." And "We are now approaching Next_Stn. Change here for Conn_Stn."

 

[MCR247]

Yeah Ive seen them do that a lot

 

[Class172]

Just seen one of FGW's newly refurbished 180s depart Didcot Parkway working 1D53 1718 Paddington to Oxford with its destination screens showing London Waterloo. Doubt if they're even cleared there!

Why would they have Waterloo as a destination anyway?

 

[Zoe]

Around 2003 there were a few times when all four lines were closed between Reading and Paddington (due to engineering work) and some FGW services ran from Reading to Waterloo. I'm not sure if any of these were 180s or even if they were cleared.