Government contracting model for public bus industry
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Woah bloody hell. Singapore really so pathetic and brain-dead until must use LAND TRANSPORT AUTHORITY for a public transport livery? Cannot be somthing more intuitive? Even this:
looks better than putting the name of a ministry there. or something like "Transperth".
exactly! LTA is only showing to everyone its a symbol of nationalisation.
-
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
what i heard was trainee bus captains only receive some sort of pocket money allowance only? like $10+ per day? or is it nowadays trainee bus captains are given full wages as a new entrant bus captain?
Not sure about SBST, but the trainees are given full time pay as a new SMRT bus captain.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
Perhaps instead of having individual companies train bus captains, more could be done to provision for a organisation to manage bus operations. This should be seperate (but fully owned) by LTA.
My idea is that this organisation shall provide driver training courses (either self funded or contracted by the new PTOs) to all who are keen to be omnibus drivers/captains. The course should involve training in the two most used single deck bus types, as well basic maintaience training, fare equipment training, customer service, english language courses, as well as other necessary training.
In the case of a new applicant having taken up the course him/herself, the PTOs shall provide an additional incentive as well fully backpaying the amount the trainee paid for the course. This ensures that there is always a pool of drivers to tap on, similar to the current private bus driver vocational license scheme; and also could provide flexible training (shorter, part time, etc) for new captains who already have some form of experience (e.g. have class 4, BDVL, etc).
Further training is then undertaken by indivdual PTOs for company specific ops, as well for different routes.
Additional roles this organisation should undertake includes some functions which TfL is currently performing, such as placement of diversion signs during diversions and bus interior specification, design, and in the case of SG also procurement of buses and management of routes.
This could be carved out of the current bus section in LTA.
Driving schools? But they are not great in their current form.
In Perth, permanent signs are placed at junctions that direct drivers to the correct routes. However, drivers still lose their way (they either ignore them or aren't aware of their existence).
-
Early indications show that new entrants intend to take the easy way out - that is to give substantial raises to existing remuneration packages to lure qualified local and Malaysian bus captains away from the incumbent operators.
If such a strategy is adopted, it will be a step closer for the fictional case study scenario I have written that may become a reality. I have updated the scenario by adding an extra sentence, as presented below. (Disclaimer: Merlion Transit is a fictional name and does not exist.)
I will be very surprised if the incumbents do not respond in kind and rather risk QoS failure due to worsening bus captain shortage, which in turn will seriously jeopardize their prospects of winning future parcel tenders (or lose more territory, depending on your perspective). Otherwise I would expect the extra manpower costs to be passed on, which will result in significantly higher fare raises.
-
Revised version of the fictional case study. This is based on previous incidents around the world (e.g. Macau, UK) and is meant to encourage planning for such contigencies:
Merlion Transit, owned by Transport Tycoon, was set up to bid for the first parcel tender. The owner is an experienced overseas operator that has businesses in different parts of the world. Merlion Transit is able to use its expertise and knowledge to meet the quality aspects of the bid. However knowing that the first parcel tender was vital to setting a foothold as a Singapore operator given that the government is likely to limit the number of operators and competition is extremely fierce, Merlion Transit decided to undercut everyone else for the first parcel tender thinking that it would be able to recoup the amount when it gain other parcel tenders in the future.
In 2015, Merlion Transit won the first two parcel tenders and is set to become the third major bus operator in Singapore. To attract drivers over Merlion Transit promised to offer a high remuneration package, $300 more than the incumbent operators. However, just before the handover of routes to Merlion Transit the incumbent bus operators announced a $500 salary raise to all BCs to encourage them to stay rather than to go over to the new operator. Merlion Transit faced difficult questions from new prospective drivers who are much less inclined to accept the lower salary, and had to comply with the government framework to have the BCs not worse off than their current situation. Not wanting to cause a industrial dispute, Merlion Transit raised the salaries of BCs by $600.
In November 2017, about a year after the general elections where the ruling party won comfortably after touting how the new competitive tender system brought benefits to public transport and resolved the bad times since 2011, Merlion Transit found itself to be in serious financial trouble. They realized that the current salary they were paying was unsustainable, and they had serious underestimated the running costs when they first bid for the contract. Furthermore, diesel prices have soared due to world events and while they were given the latest fleet of buses to operate, they realized that they have been assigned the powerful 320hp and 360hp gas guzzlers. Other rival operators have raised the salaries of the drivers further to entice them to stay, as the industry as a whole still lacked drivers. Merlion Transit has not given a substantial increase since then and were pressured by their staff to do so. Unhappy with the disparity in remuneration, the staff threatened to take industrial action.
On 15 December 2017, Merlion Transit had no more cash flow to continue operations and pay BCs their monthly salaries. The government has refused Merlion Transit's plea for increased subsidy. Transport Tycoon refused to bail the company out, knowing that he is going to exit the bus business in Singapore anyway. Merlion Transit declares bankruptcy. None of the services contracted to Merlion Transit operated that day, affecting 25% of the island's bus services.
What would the government do?
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Revised version of the fictional case study. This is based on previous incidents around the world (e.g. Macau, UK) and is meant to encourage planning for such contigencies:
Merlion Transit, owned by Transport Tycoon, was set up to bid for the first parcel tender. The owner is an experienced overseas operator that has businesses in different parts of the world. Merlion Transit is able to use its expertise and knowledge to meet the quality aspects of the bid. However knowing that the first parcel tender was vital to setting a foothold as a Singapore operator given that the government is likely to limit the number of operators and competition is extremely fierce, Merlion Transit decided to undercut everyone else for the first parcel tender thinking that it would be able to recoup the amount when it gain other parcel tenders in the future.
In 2015, Merlion Transit won the first two parcel tenders and is set to become the third major bus operator in Singapore. To attract drivers over Merlion Transit promised to offer a high remuneration package, $300 more than the incumbent operators. However, just before the handover of routes to Merlion Transit the incumbent bus operators announced a $500 salary raise to all BCs to encourage them to stay rather than to go over to the new operator. Merlion Transit faced difficult questions from new prospective drivers who are much less inclined to accept the lower salary, and had to comply with the government framework to have the BCs not worse off than their current situation. Not wanting to cause a industrial dispute, Merlion Transit raised the salaries of BCs by $600.
In November 2017, about a year after the general elections where the ruling party won comfortably after touting how the new competitive tender system brought benefits to public transport and resolved the bad times since 2011, Merlion Transit found itself to be in serious financial trouble. They realized that the current salary they were paying was unsustainable, and they had serious underestimated the running costs when they first bid for the contract. Furthermore, diesel prices have soared due to world events and while they were given the latest fleet of buses to operate, they realized that they have been assigned the powerful 320hp and 360hp gas guzzlers. Other rival operators have raised the salaries of the drivers further to entice them to stay, as the industry as a whole still lacked drivers. Merlion Transit has not given a substantial increase since then and were pressured by their staff to do so. Unhappy with the disparity in remuneration, the staff threatened to take industrial action.
On 15 December 2017, Merlion Transit had no more cash flow to continue operations and pay BCs their monthly salaries. The government has refused Merlion Transit's plea for increased subsidy. Transport Tycoon refused to bail the company out, knowing that he is going to exit the bus business in Singapore anyway. Merlion Transit declares bankruptcy. None of the services contracted to Merlion Transit operated that day, affecting 25% of the island's bus services.
What would the government do?
I just don't understand, why can't the government plan out the maximum number of bus drivers needed for each parcel contract, as well as those areas currently under the incumbent operators such that there will be no poaching from each operator?
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Revised version of the fictional case study. This is based on previous incidents around the world (e.g. Macau, UK) and is meant to encourage planning for such contigencies:
Merlion Transit, owned by Transport Tycoon, was set up to bid for the first parcel tender. The owner is an experienced overseas operator that has businesses in different parts of the world. Merlion Transit is able to use its expertise and knowledge to meet the quality aspects of the bid. However knowing that the first parcel tender was vital to setting a foothold as a Singapore operator given that the government is likely to limit the number of operators and competition is extremely fierce, Merlion Transit decided to undercut everyone else for the first parcel tender thinking that it would be able to recoup the amount when it gain other parcel tenders in the future.
In 2015, Merlion Transit won the first two parcel tenders and is set to become the third major bus operator in Singapore. To attract drivers over Merlion Transit promised to offer a high remuneration package, $300 more than the incumbent operators. However, just before the handover of routes to Merlion Transit the incumbent bus operators announced a $500 salary raise to all BCs to encourage them to stay rather than to go over to the new operator. Merlion Transit faced difficult questions from new prospective drivers who are much less inclined to accept the lower salary, and had to comply with the government framework to have the BCs not worse off than their current situation. Not wanting to cause a industrial dispute, Merlion Transit raised the salaries of BCs by $600.
In November 2017, about a year after the general elections where the ruling party won comfortably after touting how the new competitive tender system brought benefits to public transport and resolved the bad times since 2011, Merlion Transit found itself to be in serious financial trouble. They realized that the current salary they were paying was unsustainable, and they had serious underestimated the running costs when they first bid for the contract. Furthermore, diesel prices have soared due to world events and while they were given the latest fleet of buses to operate, they realized that they have been assigned the powerful 320hp and 360hp gas guzzlers. Other rival operators have raised the salaries of the drivers further to entice them to stay, as the industry as a whole still lacked drivers. Merlion Transit has not given a substantial increase since then and were pressured by their staff to do so. Unhappy with the disparity in remuneration, the staff threatened to take industrial action.
On 15 December 2017, Merlion Transit had no more cash flow to continue operations and pay BCs their monthly salaries. The government has refused Merlion Transit's plea for increased subsidy. Transport Tycoon refused to bail the company out, knowing that he is going to exit the bus business in Singapore anyway. Merlion Transit declares bankruptcy. None of the services contracted to Merlion Transit operated that day, affecting 25% of the island's bus services.
What would the government do?
Personally, I do not think the bus companies will increase the salary without considering factors such as costs. They will surely review their operations before adjusting the salary, otherwise it is not sustainable.
If they are not able to raise the salary without affecting their operations, I think it is only wise that they either raise salary and scale down (give up packages) or maintain the salary and improve other areas such as fringe benefits (eg. more comfortable seats for drivers, better engines, better jacket against cold, discounted bus rides, etc.).
If at any point of time the bus company starts showing signs of financial difficulties, I think the government should intervene and take actions.
First is to provide loans to trigger the bus company to turnover and recover. If the first action fails, second is to shorten the bus company's contract term and open the package for bids and let other bus companies take over the bus contract and operate it.
A bit similar to how the taxi industry is reviewed annually and how a taxi company was asked to close down last year.
Personally, I feel that similar to the taxi industry, when the bus contracts model is implemented, the government should do regular reviews on the bus contracts to check if the bus companies are operating healthily.
This should prevent the scenario of bus services not running because a bus company declares bankrupt due to financial losses.
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
Personally, I do not think the bus companies will increase the salary without considering factors such as costs. They will surely review their operations before adjusting the salary, otherwise it is not sustainable.
If they are not able to raise the salary without affecting their operations, I think it is only wise that they either raise salary and scale down (give up packages) or maintain the salary and improve other areas such as fringe benefits (eg. more comfortable seats for drivers, better engines, better jacket against cold, discounted bus rides, etc.).
If at any point of time the bus company starts showing signs of financial difficulties, I think the government should intervene and take actions.
First is to provide loans to trigger the bus company to turnover and recover. If the first action fails, second is to shorten the bus company's contract term and open the package for bids and let other bus companies take over the bus contract and operate it.
A bit similar to how the taxi industry is reviewed annually and how a taxi company was asked to close down last year.
Personally, I feel that similar to the taxi industry, when the bus contracts model is implemented, the government should do regular reviews on the bus contracts to check if the bus companies are operating healthily.
This should prevent the scenario of bus services not running because a bus company declares bankrupt due to financial losses.
I think its hard to deny the fact that monetary incentive is the best tool to get workers when there is a shortage. No matter what welfare you give, money is what feeds the family. Money also naturally brings more workers into this industry.
-
Originally posted by Gus.chong:
I just don't understand, why can't the government plan out the maximum number of bus drivers needed for each parcel contract, as well as those areas currently under the incumbent operators such that there will be no poaching from each operator?
The government can plan, can give a number. But at the very end, where are the bus captains going to come from? They don't simply appear out of thin air, especially not forgetting the training required.
-
Originally posted by Gus.chong:
I just don't understand, why can't the government plan out the maximum number of bus drivers needed for each parcel contract, as well as those areas currently under the incumbent operators such that there will be no poaching from each operator?
Someone have reply you.. just to highlight that for first package, there are currently 290 buses running the 24 routes... so for simple sake, we will take it that one bus need 2 drivers, so all 580 drivers will move over to the new company.. but what about the spare /standby drivers? are SBST/SMRT willing to let go their standby/spare drivers? dun think so..
Also, LTA have say that they will progressively increase the no of buses to 380 and further up to 500 by 2020.. so where is the new company going to find drivers for these additional buses? either they train (which mean it take time) or they try to offer better benefit to lure SBST/SMRT drivers over (which is the simple/faster way)..
..
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
Someone have reply you.. just to highlight that for first package, there are currently 290 buses running the 24 routes... so for simple sake, we will take it that one bus need 2 drivers, so all 580 drivers will move over to the new company.. but what about the spare /standby drivers? are SBST/SMRT willing to let go their standby/spare drivers? dun think so..
Also, LTA have say that they will progressively increase the no of buses to 380 and further up to 500 by 2020.. so where is the new company going to find drivers for these additional buses? either they train (which mean it take time) or they try to offer better benefit to lure SBST/SMRT drivers over (which is the simple/faster way)..
Basically for now, the best option is to just hand over the first package to SBS Transit...in years to come it should be suitable for other operators to tender for it.
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
Someone have reply you.. just to highlight that for first package, there are currently 290 buses running the 24 routes... so for simple sake, we will take it that one bus need 2 drivers, so all 580 drivers will move over to the new company.. but what about the spare /standby drivers? are SBST/SMRT willing to let go their standby/spare drivers? dun think so..
Also, LTA have say that they will progressively increase the no of buses to 380 and further up to 500 by 2020.. so where is the new company going to find drivers for these additional buses? either they train (which mean it take time) or they try to offer better benefit to lure SBST/SMRT drivers over (which is the simple/faster way)..
..
There are still not enough drivers to go around. Until there are enough drivers entering the industry at a rate faster than vacancies are created, driver movements between operators remain a zero-sum game.
Ironically, the one method to increase the overall supply of drivers (especially locals) in the industry as a whole is to increase their pay substantially that is comparable with other industries.
-
Speaking about this, news coming from another related industry may be relevant:
http://mypaper.sg/top-stories/bag-handlers-walkout-led-jetstar-delays-20141031
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
There are still not enough drivers to go around. Until there are enough drivers entering the industry at a rate faster than vacancies are created, driver movements between operators remain a zero-sum game.
Ironically, the one method to increase the overall supply of drivers (especially locals) in the industry as a whole is to increase their pay substantially that is comparable with other industries.
I thought that we are importing another 1000 drivers from China. Was it stopped because of their strike?
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Speaking about this, news coming from another related industry may be relevant:
http://mypaper.sg/top-stories/bag-handlers-walkout-led-jetstar-delays-20141031
This one a lot of twisted stories la,ASIG that time not enough manpower to play around,Only 7 teams for all 3K,JQ Flights?The former ground handler with 16 teams also struggle..Now they had only 35% increase of manpower excluding contract staffs which honestly still not enough..Their Baggage side is more worse,A lot of untrained staffs.
-
Originally posted by kooldog59:
I thought that we are importing another 1000 drivers from China. Was it stopped because of their strike?
Where got Sg ever stopped importing PRC?Our dear Gahmen already had trade agreements and investment of billion dollars leh..1000 go back another 3000 come..Sooner or later 40% of our population will consists of them
-
Originally posted by Gus.chong:
Basically for now, the best option is to just hand over the first package to SBS Transit...in years to come it should be suitable for other operators to tender for it.
Justify.
Why SBST?
-
Soon Lee Depot,Tuas,Joo Koon & Boon Lay all to SMRT
Bt Batok,Choa Chu Kang,Bukit Panjang,Woodlands,Sembawang,Jurong East,Clementi,Bulim Depot,Bukit Batok Depot,Woodlands Depot & Kranji Depot all to SBST
Kent Ridge,Buona Vista,Ghim Moh,Bukit Merah,Harbourfront & Ayer Rajah Bus park to SMRT
Bishan,Ang Mo Kio,Yio Chu Kang,Yishun and Ang Mo Kio Depot(SBST) all SMRT while SMRT Ang Mo Kio to SBST.
Upp East Coast,Eunos and Changi Bus Park(Retrofitted with several rooftop,pump islands,Workshop areas and bus washers)to SMRT
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Justify.
Why SBST?
As long as they can keep the cost of public transport down, it does not matter who gets to run it. Of course we must not also see so many bus breakdowns.
-
Originally posted by kooldog59:
As long as they can keep the cost of public transport down, it does not matter who gets to run it. Of course we must not also see so many bus breakdowns.
difficult to keep the cost of public transport down.....more buses, more drivers, all these are cost.... look at the first package, govt is going to put another 90 more buses for the 26 services there, so average each service is going to get 3 more buses.... is there really a need to put so many more buses on each service? the demand is mostly fix for each particular route/service... right now, SBST/LTA/SMRT is struggling to find services to add more buses....
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Soon Lee Depot,Tuas,Joo Koon & Boon Lay all to SMRT
Bt Batok,Choa Chu Kang,Bukit Panjang,Woodlands,Sembawang,Jurong East,Clementi,Bulim Depot,Bukit Batok Depot,Woodlands Depot & Kranji Depot all to SBST
Kent Ridge,Buona Vista,Ghim Moh,Bukit Merah,Harbourfront & Ayer Rajah Bus park to SMRT
Bishan,Ang Mo Kio,Yio Chu Kang,Yishun and Ang Mo Kio Depot(SBST) all SMRT while SMRT Ang Mo Kio to SBST.
Upp East Coast,Eunos and Changi Bus Park(Retrofitted with several rooftop,pump islands,Workshop areas and bus washers)to SMRT
Why the switch for AMDEP??
Like that might as well combine as one (preferably SMRT coz they house taxis in AMK too)
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
difficult to keep the cost of public transport down.....more buses, more drivers, all these are cost.... look at the first package, govt is going to put another 90 more buses for the 26 services there, so average each service is going to get 3 more buses.... is there really a need to put so many more buses on each service? the demand is mostly fix for each particular route/service... right now, SBST/LTA/SMRT is struggling to find services to add more buses....
Agree... at least on SBST side... there are so many SP WEGs and Citaros from BSEP... that SBST/LTA does not know which services to give to.
Also all new services launched are short-haul.. taking fewer buses and not needing WEGs... it would have been more effective if sv like 50/972 were launched...
-
In response to this post: http://sgforums.com/forums/1279/topics/486959
There are enough articulated buses and double-decker buses as a whole to go around. The only problem is that this ratio is disproportionate in both incumbent operators.
I am thinking if the government is willing to take a bold step to ditch this restriction of bus fleet divided along operator's lines under the new contracting model.
That is, certain feeder routes currently under the purview of SBS Transit to use articulated buses under the new contracting model, and SMRT Buses trunk routes currently using articulated buses substituted with double-decker buses under the new contracting model.
Of course, this is provided that the transport planners at LTA deem the operation of articulated buses as appropriate in the long term. It is possible that LTA may have already made their intentions known (or even plan to implement this very idea) in the tender documents. At this point I am making speculations, as these documents are not available for public access for legal reasons and I do not know what its contents are.
Fleet exchange is not going to happen between operators in the meantime. The only way for this to happen is when the entire fleet comes under one common ownership.
-
Seriously i prefer SBST win over the first tender.In exchange Bukit Batok Depot goes to SMRT.LTA need to built a depot for Bukit Merah/Harbourfront and CBD svc and a depot for SMRT Ang Mo Kio.After new Ang Mo kio depot is built then Yio Chu Kang svc should goes to SMRT with the exception of svc 13
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Seriously i prefer SBST win over the first tender.In exchange Bukit Batok Depot goes to SMRT.LTA need to built a depot for Bukit Merah/Harbourfront and CBD svc and a depot for SMRT Ang Mo Kio.After new Ang Mo kio depot is built then Yio Chu Kang svc should goes to SMRT with the exception of svc 13
Me too, as long as not SMRT is perfectly fine!