Another fantastic day with Avanti

[Some guy]

Been chaos all day here at Preston loads of passengers getting chucked off a london bound train for it to turnaround and go to Glasgow. The 13:41 left with not even 10 people on board as barely anyone even knew if it was running

 

[Bletchleyite]

WCML - Full infrastructure available since lunchtime Euston-Watford (AC). LNR sticking with emergency plan all day is up to them.

0015 8 car and no working toilets. Appalling. Took the (very) delayed 2300 Avanti instead. The advantages of two singles being cheaper than a return when you have a NSE card.

I get the potential difficulties with tanking units last night with a strike on but they could have swapped it during the day, and not running everything 12 car when you are down to 2tph is really inexcusable.

 

[Oxfordblues]

It's OK, Avanti are raking it in: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64006885

 

[43066]

0015 8 car and no working toilets. Appalling. Took the (very) delayed 2300 Avanti instead. The advantages of two singles being cheaper than a return when you have a NSE card.

I get the potential difficulties with tanking units last night with a strike on but they could have swapped it during the day, and not running everything 12 car when you are down to 2tph is really inexcusable.

We’ve had the same issues with toilets. As you say it’ll likely be a lack of tanking during night shifts when signallers aren’t on duty for the moves to be made… And possibly the staff responsible for doing it also out, depending on location.

 

[realemil]

It's OK, Avanti are raking it in: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64006885

Avanti West Coast rewarded with £6.5m in bonuses​

Avanti West Coast was awarded millions of pounds worth of taxpayers' money in performance bonuses last year, new figures show.
The train operator has been criticised by passengers over delays and poor service this year.
But the government handed the firm more than £6.5m in 2021 for "operational performance" and "customer experience".

 

[thomalex]

I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry

 

[theking]

They are mocking us now.

How on earth can they dish out six and a half million to a failing company and tell the hard workers they must tighten their belts and choose between feeding their family and heating their homes.


No money for the workers plenty for corporate profits and foreign shareholders.

 

[Aasimuk]

This I'm guessing is based on their "Service Quality Regime"

I have worked on these for two companies, both of which spend more time arguing that something shouldn't fail then actually fixing the issue.

And to top it off, the "external company" that was running the campaigns for these, were deleting fails when the TOC asked. The whole Service Quality thing is a mess, with TOCs able to just delete fails to make themselves look better!

 

[AngusH]

The payment must be made because it is in the contract agreed.

Perhaps it is a stupid contract, but a contract is a contract.

If the government just changed the terms whenever they liked,
how could they be trusted with any future negotiation?
Their reputation would become worthless.

(Cynics might say this has happened already,
but in practice most people still mostly trust
the word of the government on things like agreed pay increases and pension payouts)

 

[zwk500]

Their reputation would become worthless.

Interesting use of the future tense here...

 

[43066]

The payment must be made because it is in the contract agreed.

Perhaps it is a stupid contract, but a contract is a contract.

If the government just changed the terms whenever they liked,
how could they be trusted with any future negotiation?
Their reputation would become worthless.

(Cynics might say this has happened already,
but in practice most people still mostly trust
the word of the government on things like agreed pay increases and pension payouts)

This is all true. However a headline like this certainly raises the question of how such a term could have been agreed to in the first place and, in particular, whether it reflects a market standard arrangement, or is simply the result of incompetent negotiation.

 

[Howardh]

The payment must be made because it is in the contract agreed.

Perhaps it is a stupid contract, but a contract is a contract.

If the government just changed the terms whenever they liked,
how could they be trusted with any future negotiation?
Their reputation would become worthless.

(Cynics might say this has happened already,
but in practice most people still mostly trust
the word of the government on things like agreed pay increases and pension payouts)

If it's for 2021 then a lot of the year was under covid (Jan - Mar/Apr) when unnecessary travel was outlawed, so nearly empty trains, they also cut back the number of services so they had the staff to cover, and in the summer/autumn I assume that there were still fewer travellers/commuters post-covid than there would be this year?

All-in-all it wasn't too bad in 2021 - by Avanti standards. But fast forward to this year, and Avanti should do the decent thing and give that money back to us, the taxpayer. They won't, of course.

 

[crablab]

The payment must be made because it is in the contract agreed.

Perhaps it is a stupid contract, but a contract is a contract.

That's still a choice. They can refuse to pay it, which would probably put them in breach of contract, but one argument they might return is that Avanti are equally in breach of their contract and they are withholding previously due payments because of this (the contract may even have a clause to that effect - who knows!).

It would essentially be calling their legal bluff. Would Avanti really want to hammer it out in court with all the bad PR and having to air their dirty laundry too? They are of course technically due the money.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Dec 2022 ==

Avanti should do the decent thing and give that money back to us, the taxpayer. They won't, of course.

That's not how capitalism works.

 

[AngusH]

Could they break it? Sure.

I suspect someone probably calculated that paying out was cheaper
than the cost of avanti pulling out of the deal.

(At least I hope someone made the calculation)

edit: Actually though, how often does the UK government break contracts? I can't think of major examples...

 

[43066]

They can refuse to pay it, which would probably put them in breach of contract, but one argument they might return is that Avanti are equally in breach of their contract and they are withholding previously due payments because of this (the contract may even have a clause to that effect - who knows!).

It would essentially be calling their legal bluff. Would Avanti really want to hammer it out in court with all the bad PR and having to air their dirty laundry too? They are of course technically due the money.

Arbitrarily refusing to honour contractual obligations really wouldn’t be the proper way for the government to behave. It would mean the government’s word was effectively meaningless, and is the kind of thing that happens in banana republics, not mature democracies.

The thing to focus on is how and why that term was agreed in the first place.

 

[AngusH]

Yes, these contracts seem badly negotiated?

I suppose that they may have been negotiated quickly in the corona virus era and it was maybe thought more important to keep things going without loosing the companies entirely than to have them leave and pick up the pieces.

The amounts of money are actually small in government terms.

 

[zwk500]

edit: Actually though, how often does the UK government break contracts? I can't think of major examples...

Last major discussion of it I remember is when Cameron tried to change the Aircraft Carrier spec from STOVL to CATOBAR and the F-35s to suit, and it was worked out that the cancellation fees would be more expensive than any benefits at that stage and so the original plan was kept in place. Not before a lot of money had been pissed up the wall, of course.

Could they break it? Sure.

AIUI Contract law is part of the law of the land, so the government would need to pass an act of parliament nullifying the contract (if there was no contractual reason they could use). If they did that, guess how many people would be willing to enter into another contract with HM Govt...

 

[Clarence Yard]

Don’t forget the rail contract “performance” fees are not just for train performance. It’s also how well they keep to the DfT approved cost budget, how well they co-operate with the DfT and so on.

It’s also a one way bet - the regime is that money is only given to the TOC, not taken away.

 

[Merle Haggard]

This is all true. However a headline like this certainly raises the question of how such a term could have been agreed to in the first place, whether it reflects a market standard arrangement, or is simply the result of incompetent negotiation.

Hinges very much on the choice of performance indicators.

I've had experience in the past (on BR) where, with the aim of improving some aspect of performance, a Key Performance Indicator is devised. The theory of this is that, if performance is better, the KPI reflects this, but unfortunately the K.P.I. is one step away from the intention and the link can be lost.

Most times, one of two things happened. Either there was a (possibly dishonest) focus on the K.P.I. and a way was found to improve that even if that meant performance overall deteriorated or at best didn't get better; or an honest attempt was made to improve the underlying performance, which was achieved but the K.P.I. unfortunately deteriorated. Some of the actions that the first T.O.C.s took to meet original specifications of K.P.I. for passenger train performance seemed to me to be examples of the first. An example of the second, where I was more personally involved, was where drivers' efficiency was defined as 'productive hours per shift' and changes that clearly improved matters (by drivers covering more miles, or spending more time driving and less on other 'productive' duties) either did not increase, or actually decreased, the K.P.I..

But then, that's K.P.I.s. My energy company had to answer 95% (I think that was the number) of complaints within 10 days. With no other target, this meant that they could totally ignore 5% of complaints - and I assume that I was once in that 5%...

 

[class ep-09]

Avanti West Coast rewarded with £6.5m in bonuses

The train company received bonuses last year, but has been criticised for poor service this year.

www.bbc.com

No comments

 

[crablab]

Arbitrarily refusing to honour contractual obligations really wouldn’t be the proper way for the government to behave. It would mean the government’s word was effectively meaningless.

I don't think it's particularly arbitrary. It's not unusual for payments to cease or be paused, even when they are due, when there is a contractual dispute or disagreement. Sometimes it is for leverage, to keep the other side at the negotiating table.

It's not saying "we won't pay you" (necessarily), it's saying "we're not paying you because of X reason". And one option Avanti would have is to enforce their contract by going to court.

I'm not suggesting what @zwk500 is referring to which is to legislate to undo the contract or something - that would be pretty drastic and have long term implications. But refusing to honour the contract because you dispute that the other party is fulfilling their side is a perfectly reasonable business tactic that companies might use in some situations (if you're happy for it to end up in court - as I say, legal bluff calling).

The thing to focus on is how and why that term was agreed in the first place.

Which term are we referring to here?

You can find the contracts here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/west-coast-partnership-2019-rail-franchise-agreement

 

[43066]

I don't think it's particularly arbitrary. It's fairly normal for payments to cease or be paused, even when they are due, when there is a contractual dispute or disagreement. Sometimes it is for leverage, to keep the other side at the negotiating table.

It's not saying "we won't pay you", it's saying "we're not paying you because of X reason". And one option Avanti would have is to enforce their contract by going to court.

What appeared to be being suggested above wasn’t anything to do with a contractual dispute or disagreement, but was simply that this payment should be arbitrarily withheld because the TOC has underperformed in other areas. That would almost certainly put the government (via whichever body entered into this agreement) in breach of contract. That is not a good way to carry on, least of all for a government that (supposedly) places value on the rule of law, and its ability to enter into future contracts.

Which term are we referring to here?

You can find the contracts here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/west-coast-partnership-2019-rail-franchise-agreement

No idea (and no particular inclination to check!). I have no doubt the amount being paid is contractually owed. The question is whether the negotiation giving rise to those arrangements was competently conducted.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Dec 2022 ==

Hinges very much on the choice of performance indicators.

I've had experience in the past (on BR) where, with the aim of improving some aspect of performance, a Key Performance Indicator is devised. The theory of this is that, if performance is better, the KPI reflects this, but unfortunately the K.P.I. is one step away from the intention and the link can be lost.

Most times, one of two things happened. Either there was a (possibly dishonest) focus on the K.P.I. and a way was found to improve that even if that meant performance overall deteriorated or at best didn't get better; or an honest attempt was made to improve the underlying performance, which was achieved but the K.P.I. unfortunately deteriorated. Some of the actions that the first T.O.C.s took to meet original specifications of K.P.I. for passenger train performance seemed to me to be examples of the first. An example of the second, where I was more personally involved, was where drivers' efficiency was defined as 'productive hours per shift' and changes that clearly improved matters (by drivers covering more miles, or spending more time driving and less on other 'productive' duties) either did not increase, or actually decreased, the K.P.I..

But then, that's K.P.I.s. My energy company had to answer 95% (I think that was the number) of complaints within 10 days. With no other target, this meant that they could totally ignore 5% of complaints - and I assume that I was once in that 5%...

A excellent demonstration of the law of unintended consequences!

Also shown by how the railway’s punctuality reached an all time high during Covid when passengers were excluded. In order to outperform against that particular KPI, the logical approach would surely be to ban passengers permanently …

 

[crablab]

What appeared to be being suggested above wasn’t anything to do with a contractual dispute or disagreement, but was simply that this payment should be arbitrarily withheld because the TOC has underperformed in other areas. That would almost certainly put the government (via whichever body entered into this agreement) in breach of contract. That is not a good way to carry on, least of all for a government that (supposedly) places value on the rule of law, and its ability to enter into future contracts.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting it's necessarily a good idea - it's very much a 'nuclear' option, probably to be reserved for when relations have completely broken down, and I agree that it would make other companies think very hard about whether they wanted to do business with someone that decided to do this. But there was a suggestion that the government "couldn't" do this, but they most certainly can and I don't think it is an uncommon situation.

I think what you're suggesting is that because one party is a public sector body they shouldn't engage in such behaviour? And I kinda disagree with that - it's a strategy and can be used tactically to your advantage. If there is money on the table then the other party has to negotiate with you if they want to get paid. Or they can go to court and get a judgement against you.

I have no doubt the amount being paid is contractually owed.

Agreed.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They are mocking us now.
How on earth can they dish out six and a half million to a failing company and tell the hard workers they must tighten their belts and choose between feeding their family and heating their homes.
No money for the workers plenty for corporate profits and foreign shareholders.

Because the money was for services in 2021 and nothing to do with recent issues.
I dare say they won't get a bonus for 2022.
All DfT TOCs are on the same fee/bonus regime.

 

[43066]

But there was a suggestion that the government "couldn't" do this, but they most certainly can and I don't think it is an uncommon situation.

The government can do whatever it wants to, breach whatever contracts it wants to, and can pass whatever retrospective legislation it wishes to in order to legitimise its actions (just so long as it can get the legislation through Parliament). There is a good reason why this isn’t how it does business, however.

I think what you're suggesting is that because one party is a public sector body they shouldn't engage in such behaviour? And I kinda disagree with that - it's a strategy and can be used tactically to your advantage. If there is money on the table then the other party has to negotiate with you if they want to get paid. Or they can go to court and get a judgement against you.

Deliberately breaching a contract to put pressure on another party quickly starts to sound like extortion*. If this was widespread what would likely happen is that many parties would indeed get judgments against the government, and it would rapidly become very difficult for public sector bodies to do business with the private sector.

*And before anyone points it out, yes I’m fully aware that strike action is a breach of contract. However the difference there is that withdrawal of labour is a specific, long-standing right, only exercisable in highly prescribed circumstances, to enable employees to redress an imbalance of power.

 

[crablab]

Deliberately breaching a contract to put pressure on another party quickly starts to sound like extortion

I really don't think it's extortion! You might wish to check the specific definition of that

If this was widespread what would likely happen is that many parties would indeed get judgments against the government, and it would rapidly become very difficult for public sector bodies to do business with the private sector.

The private sector frequently have similar disputes, some of which end up in court. I think you're perhaps rather overthinking it, or maybe we're talking at cross purposes.

Anyway, IANAL and this is going a bit off topic so I'll stop here

 

[43066]

I really don't think it's extortion! You might wish to check the specific definition of that

Figure of speech.

The private sector frequently have similar disputes, some of which end up in court. I think you're perhaps rather overthinking it, or maybe we're talking at cross purposes.

I know how contractual disputes work. I can assure you that, at least in reputational terms, there’s a big difference between being a party to a legitimate contractual dispute, and simply breaching a contract for the sake of it. I have practiced as a solicitor (I don’t any longer), so I get the concepts.

Anyway, IANAL and this is going a bit off topic so I'll stop here

I just had to google that, I wondered what on earth was being suggested .

 

[peter166]

Because the money was for services in 2021 and nothing to do with recent issues.
I dare say they won't get a bonus for 2022.
All DfT TOCs are on the same fee/bonus regime.

I would hope that the contract also allows for penalties to be paid for not meeting performance targets. So for 2022 I would suggest that at least £6.5 million would be the minimum penalty charge to be made against Avanti and probably double or triple that would be fair for the atrocious service provided for most of 2022.

 

[Huntergreed]

Avanti PPM at 47 today - is this the highest since the timetable change?

trains.im

trains.im — National Rail performance data for Great Britain. Live PPM, historical trends, and route analysis.

trains.im

 

[Requeststop]

An Absolute disgrace. No other words for it.