Can we have cheaper bus fare ?
-
If you were to say what right has the govt to restrict them to 26, is because they knew they would cherry pick rts in the 1st place. Why does not want to make profits? All are not profitable? If everyone here insist that SBS is making money and why are there fare hikes, have they seen that many svs are not making money at all? It is obviously just using crude reasons to bully the bus coOriginally posted by snow leopard:
Never allow our firms to fail? How much can we afford? You wanna wait till no buses on the road as bus co went burst bef saying we should consolidate back again?
You may say what you want regards to service improvement, because I believe you are the selfish passengers that refuse to move to the rear and complain that the bus is 'packed' -
Originally posted by sbst275:
If you were to say what right has the govt to restrict them to 26, is because they knew they would cherry pick rts in the 1st place.
no matter how they cherry pick, those cherries can't be jucier than those the incumbent has reserved for itself can they?
Why does not want to make profits? All are not profitable? If everyone here insist that SBS is making money and why are there fare hikes, have they seen that many svs are not making money at all? It is obviously just using crude reasons to bully the bus co
so is it right then that profitable routes subsidise unprofitable routes? which are the profitable routes? those serving the masses in populous HDB centres? which are the unprofitable routes? those serving sparsely populated private housing estates? masses subsidising rich, private home owners? is that right?
Never allow our firms to fail? How much can we afford? You wanna wait till no buses on the road as bus co went burst bef saying we should consolidate back again?
you are the one who keeps harping about a big, bang failure ... gradual opening up, gradual balance of competitive forces when done properly will ensure any failure would be more than compensated by the emergence of better service providers and in all likelihood, long before that can happen, you can be sure the incumbent would've tightened its belts and become more customer focused.
... I believe you are the selfish passengers that refuse to move to the rear and complain that the bus is 'packed'
even if you can't engage in a gentlemanly exchange of opinions, do not sprout nonsense or insult your opponents with unfounded "beliefs". -
Again, you dun get itOriginally posted by snow leopard:
Whenever those private bus operators runs public bus services, that 'juicer berries are better' theory has to go. Just like Sv 191 that serves Buona Vista and Portsdown Road, some trips have no passenger at all. Yet SBS still has to run the service as of LTA's guidelines.
HDB estate services does not necessary mean the bus sv is profitable. It depends on where it serves and the demand to the destination served by the service depending on timing, whether is it peak hr or off peak hr
You sure opening up means better? You can accused me of saying I am not willing to open up, but, are you willing to bear the cost if end up all buses stop running due to destructive compeition? I am asking you, you have not answered me
I am sprouting nonsense? Think again, if you could come with this thinking as like many Singaporeans, you have not seen the bigger picture. If I let you run SBS, I dun think you would say it in the same manner -
Den make SBS a not for profit company,,,,,,,,,make it state run instead
-
No ptOriginally posted by no_1_idiot:Den make SBS a not for profit company,,,,,,,,,make it state run instead
Even if it is nationalised, govt expect it to be in the black as well...
Because if it is losing money, taxpayers $$ would have to be pumped in -
Originally posted by sbst275:
Again, you dun get it
again, you think you know best
Whenever those private bus operators runs public bus services, that 'juicer berries are better' theory has to go. Just like Sv 191 that serves Buona Vista and Portsdown Road, some trips have no passenger at all. Yet SBS still has to run the service as of LTA's guidelines.
in other words, a public bus service ought to be first and foremost, a public service dedicated to the welfare and benefit of the public without so much as a profiteering mindset. if that is what the bus company professes to deliver, why do we see such overriding concern with making money and insistence on increasing bus fares when in actual fact they are already making handsome profits? blaming private bus firms for cherry picking and not dedicating themselves to public service when in actual fact the incumbent is equally guilty of being money minded is just so hypocritical! if profit making and public service are mutually incompatible, then there is no reason for public bus companies to exist as a business in the first place, let alone a listed one.
HDB estate services does not necessary mean the bus sv is profitable. It depends on where it serves and the demand to the destination served by the service depending on timing, whether is it peak hr or off peak hr
bullshit, for the same time, same peak, a packed HDB crowd should rake in more dollars than one ploughing through a bungalow field.
You sure opening up means better? You can accused me of saying I am not willing to open up, but, are you willing to bear the cost if end up all buses stop running due to destructive compeition? I am asking you, you have not answered me
i have answered but you do not wish to hear and that's why you did not hear and will never hear. you equate opening up to destructive competition. such a pessimistic outlook can only come from a person with no confidence, who has been so used to protection he dares not deal with the reality of competition. competition can be constructive if the rules of the game are properly spelt.
I am sprouting nonsense? Think again, if you could come with this thinking as like many Singaporeans, you have not seen the bigger picture. If I let you run SBS, I dun think you would say it in the same manner
not only are you sprouting nonsense, you are calling names that cannot be the words of a gentleman. for someone who is in the thick and thin of things, who is very much part of the picture itself, how can he truly step back and look at the whole picture. how can u see the whole picture when you are actually a part of it? let's wait till you let me run SBS. -
that seems like a good idea, if SBS professes to be doing a service for the people and not out to make money, let alone millions, then a state run firm ought to be more in line with such a mission ... unless all that we've been hearing are nothing but bullshit ...Originally posted by no_1_idiot:Den make SBS a not for profit company,,,,,,,,,make it state run instead -
in the black ... not in the gold ... cut the hypocrisy please ...Originally posted by sbst275:No pt
Even if it is nationalised, govt expect it to be in the black as well...
Because if it is losing money, taxpayers $$ would have to be pumped in -
The only guiding principle in Singapore is money.
Anything else plays second fiddle.
-
I have already said, if you continue this thinking thoughts, you are contridicting yourselfOriginally posted by snow leopard:
You said public operators cannot cherry pick rts yet you said pte operators can... So that means you are having 2 standards... Even your case of saying they dun need to make profits, face reality... No profits means no money to replace buses even if the fleet has to be scrapped... I would rather say this, cut this crap of public or private bus service if pte bus operators wants to run on equal footing. And stop that cherry picking of bus svs 1st bef asking for compeition.
If what you are saying is right, then go ahead and press the govt to open up... You would see the mess you have created -
Why are you bothering $48M being a lot? Do you know that to replace 1 fleet of 200 buses cost $80M? And anyway, 40% of the profits comes from ads revenue. It seems you dun mind having your tax money to be also used to support bus co otherthan the fares you paid dailyOriginally posted by snow leopard:in the black ... not in the gold ... cut the hypocrisy please ...
Then when co like SingTel make hundreds of millions you never complain? Aren't they running public svs? -
Originally posted by sbst275:
I have already said, if you continue this thinking thoughts, you are contridicting yourself
if there is any contradiction it is with your train of thoughts
You said public operators cannot cherry pick rts yet you said pte operators can... So that means you are having 2 standards...
no, that is not what i said, you are putting words into my mouth. i said no matter how private operators cherry pick, their cherries cannot be jucier than public operators meaning both are picking but the one who gets the juciest pick of all is the public operator and that is not fair.
Even your case of saying they dun need to make profits, face reality... No profits means no money to replace buses even if the fleet has to be scrapped...
again you are trying to put words in my mouth because you have nothing else better to say. i didn't say they can't make profits to recover costs. i merely pointed out that on the pretext of recovering costs, they actually make half a billion every year. that is so hypocritical!
If what you are saying is right, then go ahead and press the govt to open up... You would see the mess you have created
if i can have my way whatever i think is right, would i be sitting here writing to you? -
I dun think I did anything against youOriginally posted by snow leopard:
I clearly remembered you stated what right the govt has to restrict pte operator on choices of bus svs... Let me say this, even SBS is also restricted to launching of new bus svs
And I put my stand on this, there is no point in supporting even public svs whenever they are not making money. It is not fair to taxpayers. Unless you are OK with this. I think you have not seen MAS in a bad shape aft Dr M's govt when on to bail them out
If you still think making $49M profit is evil, then dun even come to the term of buying new buses at all.
And I believe you are one of a regular forumite here, this is your 2nd account -
Originally posted by sbst275:
Why are you bothering $48M being a lot? Do you know that to replace 1 fleet of 200 buses cost $80M? And anyway, 40% of the profits comes from ads revenue. It seems you dun mind having your tax money to be also used to support bus co otherthan the fares you paid daily
as you've said before, lifespan of the bus is 17 years. $80 million spread over 17 years is $4.7 million each year. so compared to fleet replacement costs, $48 million is more than 10 tens as much.
furthemore, depreciation of the bus fleet has already been deducted from profits to arrive at $48 million so this $48 million is pure profit for the company!
why should bus advertisements be a drain on tax payers' pockets?
Then when co like SingTel make hundreds of millions you never complain? Aren't they running public svs?
we can make that another thread if you like. the person who started this thread happened to take issue with our bus company ... -
There will be no end to this...
But if people were to continue never look at the article that PTC rejected SBS's application to run 6 express svs to CBD, you will understand things better
The smack of ignorrance will continue to see that SBS or whoever is out to make profits. Even the pte operator is so eager to run public svs is also out for profit, even they run 3 express svs that cos $3 (Even higher than SBS express fares), they still say not earn enough
The true face will come when the thing happens -
Originally posted by sbst275:
I dun think I did anything against you
yes you did, you accused me of doing something out of groundless "belief"
I clearly remembered you stated what right the govt has to restrict pte operator on choices of bus svs... Let me say this, even SBS is also restricted to launching of new bus svs
come on, who has the lion's share?
And I put my stand on this, there is no point in supporting even public svs whenever they are not making money. It is not fair to taxpayers. Unless you are OK with this. I think you have not seen MAS in a bad shape aft Dr M's govt when on to bail them out
making profit is never the issue, making unfair profits under the protection of monopoly is the issue.
If you still think making $49M profit is evil, then dun even come to the term of buying new buses at all.
$48 ... now $49 million is not evil, but to accomplish that under protection is. besides we're not changing bus fleet every year are we?
And I believe you are one of a regular forumite here, this is your 2nd account
yes, i'm pretty regular here, can't remember when i joined but it's always printed underneath our nicknames. 2nd account? what do you mean? need so many accounts for what? -
the smack of ignorance is right in your face ... will you leave the private operators out? they make $48 million?Originally posted by sbst275:The smack of ignorrance will continue to see that SBS or whoever is out to make profits. Even the pte operator is so eager to run public svs is also out for profit, even they run 3 express svs that cos $3 (Even higher than SBS express fares), they still say not earn enough
The true face will come when the thing happens -
In my face?Originally posted by snow leopard:the smack of ignorance is right in your face ... will you leave the private operators out? they make $48 million?
Wait till they open up if they listen to you
The private operators true face will come, they run buses at 30 mins frequency to maximise profits
Why are you saying leave them alone now? You said you wanted compeition right? In the 1st place, pp like you will only bully the public operators... Because of the term public...
Those pte operators are also hungry for profits and anyway, the points I have mentioned abt the Express you still dun get it...
SBS charges $1.56 - $2.31 for Exp svs, pte charge $3... By right, they are more profitable as in pte operator... By right, they are making much better margin than public operator as they cherry pick...
If you want to forever say compeition, I will let you be... Because you are just totally getting your way to bully public operator w/o looking into their constraint... -
oh really? they also happen to have much much higher income taxes than us, you work out the math.Originally posted by snow leopard:how about germany? -
use some common freakin sense, you expect someone living in a country where his worplace is 300km from his home to take a bus or mrt?Originally posted by snow leopard:also, tell me which country has our level of car ownership costs? -
If you want to be realistic I will throw out what pte operators will do in the compeition
Only accept cash, OMTS system... Though fares might be $0.50 for feeder, it is still much ex than the $0.39 with rebate
Why cash only? That's how their claim of cheaper fare works
Will there be student fare? Ans is no... Currently pte operator under PTC rules is that student fare is $0.30... But many driver charge them full adult fare... Obviously concession fare dun talk here -
I daresay If sbs was a state run company,it does nt nid to pay divdends to shareholders thus it could be instead use to subsidise bus fare rites
-
and much higher income as well ... don't need math ... just common sense will doOriginally posted by vito_corleone:oh really? they also happen to have much much higher income taxes than us, you work out the math. -
you mean people living in LA drive everyday to Las Vegas to work? you use some common sense ... any kindOriginally posted by vito_corleone:use some common freakin sense, you expect someone living in a country where his worplace is 300km from his home to take a bus or mrt? -
Originally posted by sbst275:
The private operators true face will come, they run buses at 30 mins frequency to maximise profits
empty talk isn't it? if you're so confident you offer the best frequency, open up and accept the challenge of competition.
Why are you saying leave them alone now? You said you wanted compeition right? In the 1st place, pp like you will only bully the public operators... Because of the term public...
i can use private operators because they are being bullied and not treated to a fair competition. you can't use private operators to say that the incumbent is being bullied when in fact it is the biggest bully of all.
Those pte operators are also hungry for profits and anyway, the points I have mentioned abt the Express you still dun get it...
hungwee? after gulping down $48 million after $48 million each year, i wonder why the incumbent is still so hungwee ...
SBS charges $1.56 - $2.31 for Exp svs, pte charge $3... By right, they are more profitable as in pte operator... By right, they are making much better margin than public operator as they cherry pick...
how many express services are there compared to main stream buses? just because SBS is cheaper in one or two routes doesn't deny the fact that it is pricier in all the other routes.
If you want to forever say compeition, I will let you be... Because you are just totally getting your way to bully public operator w/o looking into their constraint...
i can't believe it ... the bully runs out of argument and says he is being bullied ...