First Group: General Discussion

[F Great Eastern]

The issue though is with the interior spec rather than the chassis spec and I suppose the vehicles were looking for a home and the transfer to Ireland was short termism

The interior build quality and spec wasn't good and was certainly below the standards that Aircoach built the brand on over the previous ten years. The reliability was an issue though, especially towards the latter end of their time in Ireland but of course there are a number of reasons that could be.

On the X30 theme and bearing in mind the coaches transferred to Kernow appear not to have been used I wonder what is stopping them bringing them back even it is only a short term solution!

That's because the X30 is registered as a bus service rather than a coach service for tachograph and other regulatory reasons so bus related DDA rules applied to it which is why the 2008 Panthers had to be withdrawn so it would have to have new coaches that would meet bus DDA legislation.

Ironically at one point in 2016 there was speculation that the X30 Panther coaches might go to Aircoach to withdraw the Levantes.

 

[Blackpudding]

That's because the X30 is registered as a bus service rather than a coach service for tachograph and other regulatory reasons so bus related DDA rules applied to it which is why the 2008 Panthers had to be withdrawn so it would have to have new coaches that would meet bus DDA legislation.

Obvious now you point it out. Cheers.

 

[Robertj21a]

First Cymru Operating Profit to March 2017 was slightly better this year, at £4.034m (2016 =£3.907m) but, once again, they've been saddled with a massive contribution to pensions of £4.8m !!!
There's also a write-off of £1.5m for the doomed FTR buses.

 

[Jordan Adam]

In theory though the 2008 plate Panthers should be compliant as they were built after May 2005. Also phase 2 of the act does not come in to force for another 2 years (1/1/2020)

 

[Cesarcollie]

That's because the X30 is registered as a bus service rather than a coach service for tachograph and other regulatory reasons so bus related DDA rules applied to it which is why the 2008 Panthers had to be withdrawn so it would have to have new coaches that would meet bus DDA legislation.

The date for DDA (actually now PSVAR) compliance is based on vehicle type not how they are used. Coaches have until 2020 to be fully compliant if used on regular services (does not apply to tours, PH etc). This does not apply to coaches built post (I think) 2003 but in any event I believe the X30 coaches were compliant (wheelchair lift, destination displays etc).

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The date for DDA (actually now PSVAR) compliance is based on vehicle type not how they are used. Coaches have until 2020 to be fully compliant if used on regular services (does not apply to tours, PH etc). This does not apply to coaches built post (I think) 2003 but in any event I believe the X30 coaches were compliant (wheelchair lift, destination displays etc).

In addition, the rules on full size single decks changed as at 01/01/16 whilst the X30 coaches were used throughout most of 2016?

 

[Jordan Adam]

This does not apply to coaches built post (I think) 2003

The document i read a few months back (I'll see if i can find it again) said May 2005 and that would add up as Stagecoach have 54/05 plate coaches that are not compliant while First have 05 plates that are compliant and any from either company from 55 plate on are.

 

[F Great Eastern]

The date for DDA (actually now PSVAR) compliance is based on vehicle type not how they are used. Coaches have until 2020 to be fully compliant if used on regular services (does not apply to tours, PH etc). This does not apply to coaches built post (I think) 2003 but in any event I believe the X30 coaches were compliant (wheelchair lift, destination displays etc).

Well if that is the case and First still replaced the coaches with buses then I have to say that I was wrong in the past and rather than being a poor decision, it was a very stupid and unnecessary one.

However I was told by First themselves that the reason the vehicles were replaced was because they had to be since they could no longer run the coaches because of such regulations.

Now of course it's possible they're saying that it was forced on them to save face about what a disaster the buses were by trying to shift part of the blame to regulations rather than take the blame themselves.

 

[Jordan Adam]

In addition, the rules on full size single decks changed as at 01/01/16 whilst the X30 coaches were used throughout most of 2016?

"Phase 1" was (Anything registered after this date used in service has to be compliant)
01/01/01 for buses
01/05/05 for coaches

"Phase 2" is (Anything not compliant can't be used in public service after this date)
01/01/15 for Buses under 7,5T
01/01/16 for Single Deckers over 7,5T
01/01/17 for Double Deckers
01/01/20 for Coaches

 

[jay38a]

The interior build quality and spec wasn't good and was certainly below the standards that Aircoach built the brand on over the previous ten years. The reliability was an issue though, especially towards the latter end of their time in Ireland but of course there are a number of reasons that could be.



That's because the X30 is registered as a bus service rather than a coach service for tachograph and other regulatory reasons so bus related DDA rules applied to it which is why the 2008 Panthers had to be withdrawn so it would have to have new coaches that would meet bus DDA legislation.

Ironically at one point in 2016 there was speculation that the X30 Panther coaches might go to Aircoach to withdraw the Levantes.

DDA doesnt apply to what kind of service it’s registered, it’s what vehicle is used. Those panthers that were used on the X30 were fully DDA complaint and had to be as they were built in 2008 so would have been fine past 2020.

If it was down to what the route is registered as how does the Stagecoach X5 get away with it, registered as a bus service in 3 sections.

 

[F Great Eastern]

So basically First made an operational decision to park up 5x 2008 higher passenger capacity and luggage capacity coaches up to do diddly squat in Kernow and spend £1m on replacement vehicles with less passenger and luggage capacity to the point luggage reduces the capacity further and people get left behind

Now we have the issue that the vehicles already need replacement and on top of that £1m someone is going to have to pay to remove the airport spec for wherever they go next and also pay for whatever hand me downs come in to replace them to be put into airport spec.

Christ. What a waste of money. No wonder First are in dire straights.

 

[Dentonian]

No, I am a member of the Local Government Pension Scheme and it's defined benefit.

I'm not sure of the exact reasoning behind disallowing access to lump sums but it's almost always a very bad idea if you're in a DB scheme.

This is way off topic for the buses forum so if anyone wants to discuss it further I suggest starting a new thread in the appropriate forum.

Granted; I raised it largely because it is one of those myths (or Clarkson-isms) that arises from time to time

 

[DragonEast]

So basically First made an operational decision to park up 5x 2008 higher passenger capacity and luggage capacity coaches up to do diddly squat in Kernow and spend £1m on replacement vehicles with less passenger and luggage capacity to the point luggage reduces the capacity further and people get left behind

Now we have the issue that the vehicles already need replacement and on top of that £1m someone is going to have to pay to remove the airport spec for wherever they go next and also pay for whatever hand me downs come in to replace them to be put into airport spec.

Christ. What a waste of money. No wonder First are in dire straights.

I wouldn't put it past First to have themselves misinterpreted the Regulations, c0ck up rather than cover up. (Arguably it wouldn't be anything new locally, it's a legacy issue). It raises the wider point of course, about First management - do they have the necessary checks and controls? We can all think of cases where a mistake gets nodded through for want of someone actually checking. It just might, perhaps, explain the First Essex MDs unannounced departure? Not necessarily his fault but someone might have carried the can. I do sometimes get an impression that First are poor at thinking things through. They're not alone in that but Stagecoach and Arriva do seem to me to be better organised, generally. (With larger ops it's probably easier to reorganise; First, spread about, are rather stuck with what they've got). There are always exceptions, each way, of course.

 

[Cesarcollie]

I wouldn't put it past First to have themselves misinterpreted the Regulations, c0ck up rather than cover up. (Arguably it wouldn't be anything new locally, it's a legacy issue). It raises the wider point of course, about First management - do they have the necessary checks and controls? We can all think of cases where a mistake gets nodded through for want of someone actually checking. It just might, perhaps, explain the First Essex MDs unannounced departure? Not necessarily his fault but someone might have carried the can. I do sometimes get an impression that First are poor at thinking things through. They're not alone in that but Stagecoach and Arriva do seem to me to be better organised, generally. (With larger ops it's probably easier to reorganise; First, spread about, are rather stuck with what they've got). There are always exceptions, each way, of course.

I would be 100% certain that, at least at senior level, First know the Regulations as well as anyone. A Capex proposal would not have been approved on the basis of misinformation (unless you're very good at it!!)

 

[F Great Eastern]

I wouldn't put it past First to have themselves misinterpreted the Regulations, c0ck up rather than cover up. (Arguably it wouldn't be anything new locally, it's a legacy issue). It raises the wider point of course, about First management - do they have the necessary checks and controls? We can all think of cases where a mistake gets nodded through for want of someone actually checking. It just might, perhaps, explain the First Essex MDs unannounced departure? Not necessarily his fault but someone might have carried the can.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone has carried the can for it - especially when there is little capex funds across the whole business and you see things like this where they spent the capex funding they do have and made a service worse with a negative return on said capex.

The almost £1m spent on the vehicles is the tip of the iceberg, once you add the loss of potential revenue, the loss of existing revenue who switched to other options and the cost of probably refitting two fleets that will no doubt follow it becomes a massive cock up that could quite easily cost someone their job.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I would be 100% certain that, at least at senior level, First know the Regulations as well as anyone. A Capex proposal would not have been approved on the basis of misinformation (unless you're very good at it!!)

Absolutely. There is no way that an investment of about £3m gets signed off on the basis of bus industry professionals not knowing the regs.

Instead, you have two different issues, I would suspect.

They’ve decided to invest in new fleet. At the same time, the Airport end of the route is doubled with the new X10 so according to the passenger figures already, it should suffice. Whether it’s because of a non clockface timetable or insufficient luggage space, there’s overloading. The choice of buses rather than coaches reflects the decisions elsewhere on shorter airport shuttles and avoids having too many midlife coaches that First struggle to redeploy. The e200mmc can be redeployed more easily. I don’t know this for a fact but suspect it’s something like that?

Then the other issue is that the X30 vehicles were sent to Kernow for work that they thought they were getting (Callywith?) but didn’t. It does seem odd that they’ll stand them up rather than use them elsewhere whilst older stuff is used on
Hinckley Point work or the Swansea 100.

 

[F Great Eastern]

They’ve decided to invest in new fleet. At the same time, the Airport end of the route is doubled with the new X10 so according to the passenger figures already, it should suffice. Whether it’s because of a non clockface timetable or insufficient luggage space, there’s overloading. The choice of buses rather than coaches reflects the decisions elsewhere on shorter airport shuttles and avoids having too many midlife coaches that First struggle to redeploy.

I see the business case in investing in new vehicles for the X10 as a new route. But that doesn't mean they have to also invest in vehicles for an X30 that have a third less capacity and massively less luggage space than the ones already there - it's the height of stupidity and you're spending money to make the service worse.

They could have left the coaches on the X30, saved themselves almost €1m on vehicles alone, not have to pay the refitting costs, not have lost both existing and potential revenue and they'd have been vastly better off than they are now but instead they've just added costs into the business.

They've also managed to create a situation where they've lost revenue too due to the low capacity, people getting left behind, switching to other modes and many view it as expensive as they've downgraded the service quality but kept the premium coach prices which are far higher than First charge on Glasgow and Bristol Airport services.

The point about issues redeploying coaches is somewhat of an ironic one when you consider in this case that there shouldn't be a need to redeploy them in the first place.

Then the other issue is that the X30 vehicles were sent to Kernow for work that they thought they were getting (Callywith?) but didn’t. It does seem odd that they’ll stand them up rather than use them elsewhere whilst older stuff is used on Hinckley Point work or the Swansea 100.

I suspect that they'd far rather leave them there parked up than admit they got it wrong - it would be very embarrassing for First if they returned them to service - hence why they started spinning in the press about demand being so great they need to bring in double deckers on the X30 rather than admit that their decision to replace coaches with lower capacity vehicles when they didn't need to is the true cause.

 

[overthewater]

Just to ask, what has first said to you after you raise your unhappyness?

 

[F Great Eastern]

Just to ask, what has first said to you after you raise your unhappyness?

What I was told in the past was that they had to remove the coaches because of regulations on DDA.

I have also been told that passenger growth figures mean that they are looking into double deck vehicles for the route which would leave 'plenty of room to grow' there has been no admission whatsoever that they have made any mistakes in this whole charade.

 

[Robertj21a]

Could they be getting some double deckers that have just become redundant off the Green Line 702 ?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I see the business case in investing in new vehicles for the X10 as a new route. But that doesn't mean they have to also invest in vehicles for an X30 that have a third less capacity and massively less luggage space than the ones already there - it's the height of stupidity and you're spending money to make the service worse.

They could have left the coaches on the X30, saved themselves almost €1m on vehicles alone, not have to pay the refitting costs, not have lost both existing and potential revenue and they'd have been vastly better off than they are now but instead they've just added costs into the business.

They've also managed to create a situation where they've lost revenue too due to the low capacity, people getting left behind, switching to other modes and many view it as expensive as they've downgraded the service quality but kept the premium coach prices which are far higher than First charge on Glasgow and Bristol Airport services.

The point about issues redeploying coaches is somewhat of an ironic one when you consider in this case that there shouldn't be a need to redeploy them in the first place.

I suspect that they'd far rather leave them there parked up than admit they got it wrong - it would be very embarrassing for First if they returned them to service - hence why they started spinning in the press about demand being so great they need to bring in double deckers on the X30 rather than admit that their decision to replace coaches with lower capacity vehicles when they didn't need to is the true cause.

Surely you're not suggesting that the coaches should be working for the entirety of their lives on the X30? They would have needed replacement and, for a premium service, increasingly old fleet would be equally (if not more) conspicuous.

I would strongly doubt any thought that they've moved them to Kernow and stood them up because they're embarrassed or to avoid redeploying them - moving them almost as far away as possible. My understanding is that they were sent there as they believed some work was potentially on the way and it never turned up. I do agree with you that so park up some 2008 year old coaches, when there are ones that are 2002-4 working in Cornwall or 2005/6 working the Swansea 100, seems to be a waste of money.

You get the feeling that the ex Green Line stock might well be the likely outcome but we will have to wait and see.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Surely you're not suggesting that the coaches should be working for the entirety of their lives on the X30? They would have needed replacement and, for a premium service, increasingly old fleet would be equally (if not more) conspicuous.

No - but they should remain there until they can be replaced with something that suits the route - there can only be a negative return on investment on these new bus vehicles for the X30

Can you show me any benefit to purchasing over half a dozen vehicles for that route that have less capacity, less luggage storage, by far worse value for money as they charge a premium on other First airport services, even then you may have to stand or even worse be left behind which has led to people abandoning the route and that is before you take into account the loss of potential growth.

Have you seen the prices for the X30 - They charge a premium when you compare it to the Glasgow Shuttle / Bristol Flyer that uses buses rather than coaches - they justified this before because they used coaches, but now they removed the coaches but still charge the same for a massively flawed service.

I don't know anyone who prefers the current set-up to the existing one.

You get the feeling that the ex Green Line stock might well be the likely outcome but we will have to wait and see.

Probably they will - however it still means that someone is going to have to pay to retrofit them to be suitable for the route involved and then retrofit the Enviros back to a city spec and then you have the repainting - when you look at it like this and add up all the costs and revenue loss it would have been far cheaper to have simply bought the right vehicles in the first place.

 

[Volvodart]

First seem to manage to run airport services with buses elsewhere. Stagecoach have an award winning bus service in Aberdeen using buses. As far as I am aware the Glasgow service looks expensive for its distance!

 

[smtglasgow]

The Glasgow Airport bus is pushing at the bounds of what is acceptable, but I *think* that the explanation lies in part with the Airport itself – neither Glasgow and Edinburgh Airports are shy about screwing every last penny out of travellers/bus firms/taxi operators etc

The Essex operation, on the other hand, has always looked expensive.

 

[F Great Eastern]

First seem to manage to run airport services with buses elsewhere. Stagecoach have an award winning bus service in Aberdeen using buses. As far as I am aware the Glasgow service looks expensive for its distance!

Look at the price that First are charging for Chelmsford - Stansted (£10/£15) compared to Bristol Airport (£7/£11) - Glasgow Airport - Glasgow (£8/£12) - the previous justification for the higher prices were that we had a coach rather than a bus no longer apply anymore.

I'm sure that Stagecoach didn't replace vehicles that were fairly well loaded with vehicles that could seat a third less passengers and wonder why people are left behind on a regular basis which results in extremely poor passenger experiences to the point where some just switch to the train.

You either spend capex on improving a service or you don't at all. All what happened here is that they've spent almost £1m on vehicles that less than 12 months down the line which makes investing in them in the first place a very poor choice as they already are going to have to be retrofitted and redeployed sooner rather than later.

They could have kept the coaches on for another 18 months, they'd have more revenue, more goodwill from customers, less revenue abstraction and have saved themselves a 7 figure sum in the process - any vehicle which is bought new that spends only a year on a route before needing to be replaced is clear proof of poor decision making.

 

[overthewater]

The Glasgow Airport bus is pushing at the bounds of what is acceptable, but I *think* that the explanation lies in part with the Airport itself – neither Glasgow and Edinburgh Airports are shy about screwing every last penny out of travellers/bus firms/taxi operators etc

The Essex operation, on the other hand, has always looked expensive.

Your right, the departure fees for the bus and taxi people are a disgraceful. FSE service 21A dont have these high fare only because its a thought service... I have traveled on a few services and overheard disgruntled passengers. I made it clear its the airports faults and there look gobsmacked.

 

[overthewater]

Look at the price that First are charging for Chelmsford - Stansted (£10/£15) compared to Bristol Airport (£7/£11) - Glasgow Airport - Glasgow (£8/£12) - the previous justification for the higher prices were that we had a coach rather than a bus no longer apply anymore.

Do you know the departure/stance fee for each company at the airports?

I'm sure that Stagecoach didn't replace vehicles that were fairly well loaded with vehicles that could seat a third less passengers and wonder why people are left behind on a regular basis which results in extremely poor passenger experiences to the point where some just switch to the train.

YES there have, in some respect. 747 in Fife, Versa were awful held less people and a smaller rack, but hey the buses were newer... End result was, it become every 20mins and 6 brand new BIGGER buses had to be brought.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Do you know the departure/stance fee for each company at the airports?

Unfortunately not, however this was never mentioned as an issue to me - the justification always was that it was a coach service and demands a premium over buses to reflect the investment that First made in the coaches to provide a premium service, which is fair enough.

However judging by the fact that First made the excuse that they had to withdraw the coaches because of DDA I will take anything they say with a pinch of salt.

YES there have, in some respect. 747 in Fife, Versa were awful held less people and a smaller rack, but hey the buses were newer... End result was, it become every 20mins and 6 brand new BIGGER buses had to be brought.

What was there before them and how old were they? How long did the new stuff last before being overcrowded?

 

[samuel791]

Have I read it right that the First South Yorkshire loss has increased from £2m to £4.5m!?!

Got to now be the worst performing op-co in the entire group?

 

[F Great Eastern]

Have I read it right that the First South Yorkshire loss has increased from £2m to £4.5m!?!

Got to now be the worst performing op-co in the entire group?

Operating Lost was £4.5m but when you take into account tax credits etc it was £3.1m

They also took a massive pension scheme whack of over £10m