Originally posted by tranquilice:
In my opinion, and as far as I know, it is SBST which proposed to PTC to change its routes under the NEL rationalisation exercise. However, it's Transitlink which changed Tibs routes under the NEL rationalisation exercise, as it's obvious that Tibs would not change its route itself in the rival area as that mean the loss of passengers to the rival's NEL. So Transitlink has to step in.
I thought SBST used to say that "We are protecting our shareholder value.", why can't TIBS (SMRT) insists on that as well and insist on protecting its shareholder?
Is it because of cutback in106, TIBS was granted the rights to operate 966?
So it is not up to a bus company like to operate a new bus service, PTC can veto and oppose it, though a new bus service will benefit commuters.
What role does PTC do? Who pay for PTC's operational cost?