...round three. Ding ding.
27 boxing terms used within. Sorry
The bout continues. In the blue corner, we have the light-heavyweight Go South Coast subsidiary calling itself Bluestar (with Wilts & Dorset as its corner man). In the red corner (well, purple really) is the bantam weight Black Velvet Travel, whose experienced ‘coach’ aims high and can still punch above his weight.
To date, we’ve seen nothing but pitty-patty punches. Now, the gloves come off in earnest, as the match goes bear knuckle. Forget Queensberry rules. From today, Bluestar leads with its chin by altering its long-running service 2 (Fair Oak-Eastleigh-Southampton) to provide a more resilient response to Velvet’s recent Eastleigh-Fair Oak, named by Velvet as the Fair Oak Flyer.
Velvet’s Flyer started life on 12th January 2009. The Flyer ran at the same frequency as established Bluestar service 2 but Velvet’s USP was direct operation along the B3037/Fair Oak Rd by cutting out the (actually sensible) two-sides-of-a-triangle Bishopstoke diversion, as favoured by Bluestar. Even before the Flyer took off, Bluestar had announced a ‘January Sale’ in which it reduced the Eastleigh-Fair Oak fare.
The Flyer followed and responded to the Velvet B/Beep Bus B counterpunch fiasco, when first Velvet then Bluestar withdrew, as opponents accused each other of blows below the belt. Who was wrong? Who was right? It all went very public in the Southampton Echo. Said Velvet’s Phil Stockley, “We will stand on their toes and won’t worry about taking their customers. We believe our services are as good as or better than Bluestar”. Bluestar’s Alex Hornby retorted, “We are not worried about Black Velvet and we think we run a better, more comprehensive service than them.”
So, today’s Bluestar service 2 changes may best be described as a haymaker aimed squarely at Velvet. On the pretext of punctuality improvements, Bluestar is cutting its through Eastleigh-Southamptons from every 15 to every 20 minutes. Bluestar is then supplementing the Eastleigh-Fair Oak section with shorts, giving in total a bus every 10 minutes between Eastleigh, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak—to Velvet’s every 15 direct. This is reported as PVR neutral. Everyone knows that a 10-minute service is pretty much the promised land, the mother of all frequencies, the one the punters remember and the minimum required before a passenger will discard the printed timetable & just turn up.
It’s true, of course, that service 2 suffers a number of arresting breadbaskets and bottlenecks on some journeys, not least in Southampton city centre and its grind through Portswood and Swaythling. Yet, if I am reading the timetables correctly, layover at Southampton is no different today, Monday, than it was on Saturday.
We’re not sure whether Bluestar through passengers are so naïve as to believe that the changes result less from punctuality issues and more from a need to protect Bluestar’s market (something Bluestar would be foolish to neglect). In consolation, Bluestar’s reported as promising a consistent low floor service. So long as they're double decks, this might assuage those who to date sometimes face a bursting MPD ride home, as Bluestar has seemingly been unable to allocate double decks consistently to the 2. All this presupposes Bluestar’s fitters ready enough of them.
Meanwhile, February now seems a favoured date during which time Bluestar likes to make its changes. This year also sees the Baby Bluestar C1 & C2 hitting the canvas, whose route is a rather complex ball of wool through Chandler’s Ford. Ironically, the holding pattern put in place by Hampshire council goes to Velvet, albeit on an interim basis.
The Solent Shuttle X27 is finally down for the count, having already hit the ropes following Portsmouth & Southampton councils withdrawing subsidy. Bluestar tried to save the X27 by the bell but has admitted defeat. To think once this operated hourly jointly by Hants & Dorset & Southdown as the X71 Solenteer.
Bluestar therefore continues to concentrate on going the distance on its core network. This includes a substantial upgrade to service 1 from 9th February (Winchester-Chandler’s Ford-Southampton), with brand new Scania double decks arriving. If they’ll do for the 1 what they’re doing on W&D’s X3 (Salisbury-Ringwood-Bournemouth), then Bluestar won’t be complaining. In fact, they'll hit a purple patch.
And that just leaves Sundays. As of yesterday, in something of a Sunday punch, Bluestar’s 2 is halved from every 30 to every 60 minutes, bucking the general trend that sees core route Sunday expansion. Had Velvet operated on Sundays, would this have halved?
Additional information by Mystery Contributor
i Visit the commendable Bluestar website for more images of the new Scanias and the service 1 launch party of old buses
Monday, 23 February 2009
Seconds Away...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
" It all went very public in the Southampton Echo. Said Velvet’s Phil Stockley, “We will stand on their toes and won’t worry about taking their customers. "
Very out of context there, Phil S only said that after the B fiasco, about the Flyer. Not about the whole thing which the article implies.
Come on, he said if GAG competed on his B then he'd cream off their business elsewhere. Why be so defensive of Velvet, anyone with any real sense can see Velvet for what it is.
And of course, because Bluestar overreacted to BVTs B, they have given themselves the problem of a competitor where one wasn't there before thus meaning they have to respond on their mainline.... Because if anyone attacks your mainline you have to respond.
Pause for thought there....one of their mainline routes would have been left alone by a small operator had they not overreacted to the registration of something designed to keep a few buses occupied between 0900-1500 and some positoning journeys for an HCC contract.
Sadly, the antics of GSC simply mean that the reputation of themselves and the industry takes another dent, rather undoing a lot of the effort that's gone into the business.
If GSC does what its good at, like all big operators, in focusing on those main corridors with big investment rather than looking to provide services which are lower margin then there's more than enough room for a secondary operation to do stuff you don't want to.
As an operator you concentrate your resources where you will get the best return???? Why worry yourself over a route running from 9 to 3 over bits you withdrew 6 months before?
GSC have given themselves a problem???!! Get real! You say it as if Velvet can claim the Fair Oak market with a clear conscience. Who's the aggressor at the moment??? And who's just protecting their turf??? Whilst getting on with lots of other things around the network too?
Oh I see... Velvet are "allowed" to encroach on to Bluestar turf because nasty GSC did "BeepBus" which was not allowed in the Velvet book of rules!
As for the rep of the industry? Dirty buses? Drivers welded to their hi-vis jackets? Gatherings of staff and hangers-on smoking and getting in the way at Eastleigh Bus Station? What a "Smooth Operator", and all doing the bus industry a real favour!
I think the third anonymous has hit the nail on the head there.
How much money have GSC effectively thrown away by their over-reaction? There are:
* The losses from operating the B in competition with Velvet. And as the Velvet-created timetable was highly inefficient for GSC, and GSC didn't need it for positioning journeys or to keep idle vehicles/drivers occupied off-peak, it would surely have made a very significant loss for them.
* The further losses from continuing the B for a while after Velvet gave up. (Possibly in order to avoid a response by the competition authorities?)
* The noxious combination of increased costs and decreased revenue that they are simultaniously now suffering on the 2, operating an increased frequency to defend a diminished market share.
* Some limited revenue extraction by the 500, at the expense of the 2 between Portswood and Southampton, the 34/65 between Eastleigh and Chestnut Avenue, and the E group between Eastleigh and Boyatt Wood. In respect of both Chestnut Avenue and Boyatt Wood, the 500 is timetabled quite aggressively against GSC's journeys.
* The general damage to Bluestar's reputation, especially following the coverage at regional level in the press.
Any more? What must the total of all that amount to? And all that to stop the infrequent, mostly non-aggressive Velvet B from extracting about tuppence ha'penny from a few Bluestar services that it happened to share a few roads with, mostly just in the places where there is no reasonable alternative road. The mind boggles, really...
And to the fourth anonymous: Ask Bluestar passengers for their opinions of Bluestar. Then ask Velvet passengers for their opinions of Velvet. I expect the answers may be quite instructive.
At the end of the day Bluestar will still be there. I doubt the same will be true of Velvet. This is business, not an enthusiast fest or a social service.
The odd assortment of staff at velvet and the obsessive antics of their boss against GSC are a standing joke.
Velvet claim to be some fantastic operator, above all others - what rubbish.
And just remember, no-one has interfered with their A, but they have halved the frequency, and no-one interfered with their 35 where they put the tender in and set the service pattern, but they chucked it back at hampshire County Council.
GSC can do what they want with their money - its their decision and their choice. If they want to protect their long term business then it's probably a small investment.
Its time the Velvet lot stopped whining to the Echo and everywhere else they can. Stockley knew what he was doing and what the consequences would be.
As an outsider who has worked for both a large and small operator, this is exactly what brings the perception of the industry down.
Large operators tend to have a local monopoly and then tend to attempt to profit maximise via a number of "good housekeeping" measures. This leaves gaps for small operators to come in, leading to the incumbent increasing frequency and reducing fares. Small operator goes elsewhere (or if lucky get taken over). Back to square one. This sort of thing happens less now, but still happens.
Often personal animosity can inflame the situation and lead to irrational decision making (on both sides). As a rule the large operator is better looking at their other routes and making sure there are no gaps for the newcomer to move in to. It's like somebody saving that Branson has bought 100 buses and is looking to use them against you - what would you do, and then do this anyway.
It could be argued that a large operator like GA should be a bit more switched on as to how this sort of publicity brings down the image of the industry.
Also as an outsider, I find the comments which follow any post on Velvet and BLue Line a bit tedious. It is quite obvious that feelings are running high in an area which has not seen competition on commercial services in recent years, but please can we keep to the events rather than the personalities?
Just 70 miles north of Eastleigh, in the small university city of Oxford, two large group companies operate networks which have a considerable overlap. Yet rather than niggling at each other, they each try to improve their own offer to attract new and additional passengers. Go Ahead company City of Oxford offer virtually a 100% low floor fleet, much of it made up of high quality Citaros, and offers smart card ticketing options. Stagecoach company Thames Transit is currently replacing the ALX300 bodied MANs used on its Headington and Kidlington services with new Enviro300 MANs, and has revamped its country network as Superior services, offering best evr frequencies and wi-fi access on some services.
There is very little tendered mileage operated by the two big boys, leaving gaps for significant smaller operators such as Thames Travel, Whites of Culham and RH Transport to build viable businesses running on the corridors which the big operators don't want.
Occasionally, there is a shock, such as the recent win of the Brookes Bus university contract by Go Ahead from Stagecoach - a cynical move in my opinion as Go Ahead initially stated that the network wasn't needed and therefore they didn't wish to be involved when it was set up; now that Stagecoach has established it as an integral part of the city's network they seem a lot more interested!!
However, my point is that all of these operators seem to find a slice of the market which suits them, and they manage to exist peacefully alongside each other.
I believe that Stockley is correct in his analysis that BlueStar do want to concentrate on their core corridors, and that there is a place for Velvet to run the bits that don't fit in that business plan. Hopefully, both companies will manage to co-exist and each will make a success of their own
routes, stopping all the bad publicity and leaving Eastleigh and it's environs with a better public transport service all round.
Things move on!
BVT's 500 is advertised in VOA as being cancelled from 20th April.
The C route recently taken over by Velvet is too convoluted to be efficient. It goes all round the houses to extract every last passenger possible. What is needed is a direct route to Fryern which does not go all round the Velmore estate, I.E along Oakmount Road, as used to run a few years ago. What we want is a Chnadlers Ford Flyer. The velmore estate could be served by another route which could finish at ASDA. Anyone listening ?
"no-one has interfered with their A, but they have halved the frequency"
Oh yeah - maybe you want to research your claims.
Apart from the large scale 3-month road closure of a main road in Eastleigh which caused it to have to be sent on a long diversion, so the frequency was cut.
Passenger numbers on the diversion route picked up, so the route coniuted when the road reopnend.
If only bluestar put as much effort into their customer service as they did with 'protecting their interests'.
There are the odd few BS drivers that are polite and helpful, but on the whole, it is rarely a pleasurable experience, and when you do have a complaint, the management are shockingly bad at dealing with it. It is beyond me how a company like bluestar can operate for years and years (albeit as solent blue line), yet still have customer service of such an appalling standard. After all, customers aren't anywhere near as important as some flashy press releases on a new website or some brand new buses...
I really hope that Uni-link continues to be the success it has been for years, and that bluestar management don't manage to bring that down with them too.
Bring on the competition for bluestar, be it purple, or any other colour for that matter. Maybe it'll give all at bluestar the kick up the backside they deserve, giving customers a service they are happy to use and praise.
Anon 4 - I look at the 'war' from a netural viewpoint and from the perspective of someone who wants bus travel to replace the car for most journeys, which is something it can do. A 'war' whipped up by Transit who idly speculated as to Velvet's intentions when they applied for their operating licence.
You miss the point of my post...which is that GSC now have a bigger problem because they chose to respond to the introduction of a route between 0900-1500 on a corridor they canned 6 months previously.
I know what I'd have done if I was in the position of having to deal with a registration such as that...I wouldn't have responded. I would have waited until they went for my mainline which I did good business on where most of my customers were. Because they responded, they now face the problem which they could well have avoided.
To be honest, Velvet have as much right as Bluestar under the 1985 Transport Act to run where they like. Given Phil's background, he is merely using the media as a tool for his viewpoint. That comes over as being skilled at PR to my mind - I think I'd use all free publicity at my disposal.
What was GSCs policy before an operator came along who could run secondary services? They had a business losing money and had to take action to address it - therefore housekeeping such as getting rid of poor potential routes is essential to its future. Operating costs must be lower than income, else the company loses money.
I can't be bothered being personal - but a few pounds spent at Companies House will enlighten you to the true picture of GSCs companies and their profits. Or lack of.
I just wish GSC would focus and do what its good at as a big operation- going for mainline corridors and growth where the people are, getting the basics right on those mainlines and leaving second division roads to other companies.
Their colleagues in Oxford do well- as do the smaller companies. It does suggest such theories transfer if they want to do them. Didn't Oxford Bus start doing better when it ceased being a 'reactive' business responding to whatever Thames Transit did?
Another thing to learn from Oxford perhaps?
Post a Comment