Since when has any private company ever put customers first? Profits come first, always.
If you were to 'privatise the whole lot', the first decision to be made would be "how quickly can we close all the loss-making lines, now that the taxpayer subsidies have disappeared?"
I have rarely read such an ignorant statement about the reason for being, and the motives of, private companies.
It is true that a private company has a simple purpose. It is there to make money for its owner or its shareholders or, in some rare cases, deliver to its shareholders some other defined aim. For example, Cadbury was privately held and had objectives other than just making a profit although, of course, it was only by making a profit that it could fulfil its philanthropic ambitions.
But in order to make money a company must supply goods or services, or a combination of both, which fulfil the requirements and needs of its customers.
If it does not get the product right it will not be profitable and will cease to exist. For a product or service to be financially successful its designers must have a good understanding of its intended market; the costs of manufacture and distribution must be such that the product is affordable; it must be reliable - not only because it keeps the customers happy but because it reduces the drain on profits caused by guarantee claims. The product must meet all applicable laws and regulations.
Only if the company has got all this right will it make profits. Profits are the result of getting all the bits in the chain as close to optimum as possible and profits ensure the continued existence of the company and the jobs it offers. Profits come last,
always.
Once they have been achieved than steps have to be taken to maintain them.
The second sentence is also nonsense.
It is known that not all railway passenger operations are profitable. Since the late 1960s there have been very, very few closures of railway lines and services because the public has made it known that it is prepared to pay for the continued operation of these services. The way the privatisation process was set up was to enable public money to be passed in a transparent manner (subsidies and premiums for the different service groups are public knowledge) to private companies to operate services on behalf of the state. The 'whole lot' has been privatised - and yet the services, rather than being closed down, continue to run.
Oh, and by the way. If there is only one monopoly employer of railway staff their pay will fall over time relative to those employed in the private sector. The fact that railway staff with specialised skills now command living wages and salaries is due to there being more than one employer. This is one of the reasons the railway costs more these days than it did when BR existed - you keep banging on about it but would you willingly accept the consequence of re-nationalisation?
