Marymount MRT Private Bus Service 721
-
bus seriously saying 721 doesnt earn much pax and money... very empty
-
Originally posted by Tilldeath23:
bus seriously saying 721 doesnt earn much pax and money... very empty
its a waste of time to intro 721 when there's a CCL.. people take CCL than 721. =.= -
Originally posted by SBS8533C:
its a waste of time to intro 721 when there's a CCL.. people take CCL than 721. =.=
721 duplicates w/ 410 serving Sin Ming EstateIf there's no CCL, there wun even be 721 in the first place!
-
yah lo, 1st day 1 pple only sad...actually LTA is planning to kill off private operator by restricting them to such a narrow operational limits
-
LTA set the regulation premium bus must 1.5 rate higher than the regular bus operator. Is it against the anti competition rule? The private bus operator want to operate at lower rate also cannot.
-
Originally posted by PLBus:
LTA set the regulation premium bus must 1.5 rate higher than the regular bus operator. Is it against the anti competition rule? The private bus operator want to operate at lower rate also cannot.
if that's being e case, surely those private operator or SBS wun be able to operate the Premium Svs to CBD area smoothlyThe pricing is for the operator's advantage actually because of it's "No Standing" ruling. It's literally to cover e cost of a bus tat's fully loaded
-
Originally posted by SBS n SMRT:
yah lo, 1st day 1 pple only sad...actually LTA is planning to kill off private operator by restricting them to such a narrow operational limits
Even so, you think they're really tat interested in operating trunk rts? They'll later tell you off peak not profitable or margin low and so on... -
Originally posted by sbst275:
Even so, you think they're really tat interested in operating trunk rts? They'll later tell you off peak not profitable or margin low and so on...Anyone notice that the route for 721 skips the road with the LTA office? haha... must be out to spite those pple...
-
Originally posted by PLBus:
LTA set the regulation premium bus must 1.5 rate higher than the regular bus operator. Is it against the anti competition rule? The private bus operator want to operate at lower rate also cannot.
If Singapore was in Europe LTA would get royally screwed for violating anti-competition laws... Usually companies take the onus on themselves to "eradicate" the competition by consolidating, but here, the government is doing it~!
-
Originally posted by Scania:
Ex-Woodlands Transport PA7L, Scania L113CRB/Soon Chow, used to do Sentosa-Habourfront. The rego PA7L went to a King Long belonging to another operator.
zzzzz, no wonder I see a Scania dashboard when I watched the news
-
Originally posted by pumpkin on bus:
Anyone notice that the route for 721 skips the road with the LTA office? haha... must be out to spite those pple...
look at e route, it's more of residential route than to serve e industrial area of Sin Ming -
Originally posted by Fryderyk HPH:
If Singapore was in Europe LTA would get royally screwed for violating anti-competition laws... Usually companies take the onus on themselves to "eradicate" the competition by consolidating, but here, the government is doing it~!
u sure there's free laws in e West?Then explain abt e fall of GM??? it's all thks to 30 yrs of protectionalism law on it's own car industry!
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
u sure there's free laws in e West?Then explain abt e fall of GM??? it's all thks to 30 yrs of protectionalism law on it's own car industry!
Freer than here for sure. In the case of GM... GM had just too many employees and was such a established and big part of the economy that the government simply couldn't afford to let them fail. In USA there are so many other car companies, so your statement cannot be used in context. Though GM is a strong lobby interest, they do not "control" others.
Here the government actually dictates what goes where... Otherwise you'd see much more liberalisation of the transport industry in Singapore.
-
Originally posted by Fryderyk HPH:
Freer than here for sure. In the case of GM... GM had just too many employees and was such a established and big part of the economy that the government simply couldn't afford to let them fail. In USA there are so many other car companies, so your statement cannot be used in context. Though GM is a strong lobby interest, they do not "control" others.
Here the government actually dictates what goes where... Otherwise you'd see much more liberalisation of the transport industry in Singapore.
I'm telling you this, it's all because of protectionalism tat all those things came about. Instead of embracing against Japanese car markers in e 1970s, they made protection law against e Japanese.Suddenly the Unions came into my mind as well for not being flexible, being e culprits of end up helping their union members to lose their jobs.
The Western govt do have protectionalism laws on it's industries as well.
Make it ironic, back in e 1970s, there were 3 bus cos yet they did not bother to find innovation like double decks or OMTS until all were forced merged into SBS.
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
I'm telling you this, it's all because of protectionalism tat all those things came about. Instead of embracing against Japanese car markers in e 1970s, they made protection law against e Japanese.Suddenly the Unions came into my mind as well for not being flexible, being e culprits of end up helping their union members to lose their jobs.
The Western govt do have protectionalism laws on it's industries as well.
Make it ironic, back in e 1970s, there were 3 bus cos yet they did not bother to find innovation like double decks or OMTS until all were forced merged into SBS.
Erm excuse me I was referring to the transportation industry overseas, where there is much liberalisation, unlike here. Please don't go into the automobile sector, becoz the automobile sector is complex and not relevant to the discussion here.
There are many transport operators in Europe and USA for instance. Premium long distance buses is a good point in which elaboration is not necessary. There are many operators like Grayhound which have given out market share. This is what I meant. The government should not overly harp on its two entities and be open about competition. The local government is just too scared on anything that could potentially destabilise the industry, though that is unfounded.
-
Originally posted by Fryderyk HPH:
Erm excuse me I was referring to the transportation industry overseas, where there is much liberalisation, unlike here. Please don't go into the automobile sector, becoz the automobile sector is complex and not relevant to the discussion here.
There are many transport operators in Europe and USA for instance. Premium long distance buses is a good point in which elaboration is not necessary. There are many operators like Grayhound which have given out market share. This is what I meant. The government should not overly harp on its two entities and be open about competition. The local government is just too scared on anything that could potentially destabilise the industry, though that is unfounded.
you started saying abt anti - compeition laws in e West. thing is, in reality in there's still protectionalism in e much acclaimed 'free' West
Long distance bus routes have a bigger market share because of it's capacity issue. 1 coach can carry just like 30 passengers per trip and it's still very limited on e frequencies. Just like e SIN - KL or SIN - IPH rts.
if you really open up public tpt, would e smaller player end up folking out more $$ to buy buses? buying say 100 buses vs 500 buses at 1 go now?
dun ever forget what happened in e 1970s over the 3 chinese bus co? no one had been interested to buy double decks or going OMTS though buses were packed terribly compared till today. Maybe they lacked capital to invest on it being small companies. It was only till e merger to SBS tat things changed.
if you give it to smaller co maybe e private operators. are they going to be interested in runnnig it from 0530 - 2400 when alrdy say only peak hr feeder svs back in e past? now to say investing in double decks
dun ever talk abt compeition for e sake of it
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
you started saying abt anti - compeition laws in e West. thing is, in reality in there's still protectionalism in e much acclaimed 'free' West
Long distance bus routes have a bigger market share because of it's capacity issue. 1 coach can carry just like 30 passengers per trip and it's still very limited on e frequencies. Just like e SIN - KL or SIN - IPH rts.
if you really open up public tpt, would e smaller player end up folking out more $$ to buy buses? buying say 100 buses vs 500 buses at 1 go now?
dun ever forget what happened in e 1970s over the 3 chinese bus co? no one had been interested to buy double decks or going OMTS though buses were packed terribly compared till today. Maybe they lacked capital to invest on it being small companies. It was only till e merger to SBS tat things changed.
if you give it to smaller co maybe e private operators. are they going to be interested in runnnig it from 0530 - 2400 when alrdy say only peak hr feeder svs back in e past? now to say investing in double decks
dun ever talk abt compeition for e sake of it
So you saying SG should have a duopoly on bus routes?! So this unhealthy competition that kills off prospective new entriants into the market should be continued?! Look at what LTA is doing... This is state-controlled monopoly. Look at how many percent in shares are the current two operators owned by the government and how "efficient" the network in SG is. Ask yourself this. Do you find it efficient to travel from a SBST controlled territory to a SMRT controlled territory? Have you thought why? If then so, how to solve?
-
Originally posted by Fryderyk HPH:
So you saying SG should have a duopoly on bus routes?! So this unhealthy competition that kills off prospective new entriants into the market should be continued?! Look at what LTA is doing... This is state-controlled monopoly. Look at how many percent in shares are the current two operators owned by the government and how "efficient" the network in SG is. Ask yourself this. Do you find it efficient to travel from a SBST controlled territory to a SMRT controlled territory? Have you thought why? If then so, how to solve?
I'm not saying of duopoly or sort. End of the day it boils down to this question. 1) Would having more small players keep cost lower over purchase or it'll escalate over economies of scale? 2) Would new operators be interested into investing capital into bigger buses like double decks? 3) Would they be committed to providing bus svs bet 0530 - 0000 other than e profitable peak hr slot? 4) Are they willing to committ themselves into investing on things that'll improve passengers life i.e. IRIS or ez-link card as and when opportunity arises?
If it's a No, then it's not worth to compete just for e sake of competing. The days before SBS is a golden example.
e area issue I'll put it tis way, it's just like wat's going on in HK right now.. Kowloon rt and HK Island rts are exclusive to their own sideAs for state owning, dun tell me you can't buy SBS's share in SGX?
-
To have a double deck or not, the bussiness is not stupid to judge. The 2 operator only deploy it at area there are needed not for the sick of show only. Anti competition rule apply to all trade to prevent monopolise but to give excuses and never let the private operator a chance to try is monopolise. The present mode of operating the MRT n Buses route for 2 coy only can be apply for other private operator also.
-
Originally posted by 721:
To have a double deck or not, the bussiness is not stupid to judge. The 2 operator only deploy it at area there are needed not for the sick of show only. Anti competition rule apply to all trade to prevent monopolise but to give excuses and never let the private operator a chance to try is monopolise. The present mode of operating the MRT n Buses route for 2 coy only can be apply for other private operator also.
But to start, do you have the capital required to purchase say 100 double decks at 1 go if you're a small operator?back in the 1970s there was 3 bus co... yet there was no improvement, no double decks, no OMO.. yet all these became a reality when all was forced merged into a bigger SBS
-
Set up comfort bus but suffer loss then merge to comfort Delgo using strong background and people money to compete with the normal people. Comfort Bus losses for years and to prevent close down SBS come and help. Now bus plus and transit come into market and compete with the private coy also.They have not really do their original duties propperly and still have resouces to expand.
-
Originally posted by 721:
Set up comfort bus but suffer loss then merge to comfort Delgo using strong background and people money to compete with the normal people. Comfort Bus losses for years and to prevent close down SBS come and help. Now bus plus and transit come into market and compete with the private coy also.They have not really do their original duties propperly and still have resouces to expand.
do you see SBS buses being chartered out during peak hrs? it's ComfortDelgro buses these daysI've the buses, but do I have the drivers to cope with growing population and the horrible growth in cars tat causes today's traffic mess?
-
Featured on News tonight!
The uncle say "huh? I wait at the bus stop, never see this 721 before" :P
They're making losses of $200/day.
Let's organise an outing to support them!! :P
-
when their last day of ops?
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
when their last day of ops?
Think already unofficially cease long ago, it's been forever since i spotted a 721