(03 Oct 2018, 2:18 pm)Andreos1 wrote It is obviously the way their strategic planning is now working. 
Same overheads (wages and vehicle costs aren't changing too much, if at all), but they feel it will improve margins. 


We've seen it up here on key corridors. 
Whilst it may lead to numbers increasing on those corridors, there is the potential to see the captive audience decreasing. 
I've mentioned the 'Fencehouses situation' many times in the past, particularly in the QCS thread. So won't go there again in too much detail. 
Needless to say, those passengers on the key corridor benefited from the 2006 changes. 
Those in the outlying areas haven't. I would argue annecdotaly, the services in the outlying areas have suffered with fewer bums on seats too. 

The problem with operators operating this way and focusing on those routes, in my opinion will see markets fall in the ignored areas and markets eventually become stagnant in the areas seeing attention. 

Where do the operators go then? What do they do to grow the ignored market, maintain the focused markets and increase margins? 
It appears they go cap in hand to the Government, asking them to come up with a strategy to fix the legacy of their previous operational decisions. 

Bizarre.

So much for the "evils of cross-subsidy"! 

In the short-term, this strategy didn't cost the Operator too much. The whole point being that those without cars are "Captive". Therefore, they have to use the increasingly expensive, reduced services run by older buses, so the profits will probably grow to start with. However, there has to be a breaking point where younger passengers in particular say enough is enough and there are now signs it is happening. They will re-double efforts to raise the cost of driving lessons and a car - or simply "obtain" cars and drive without following shall we say "legal niceties". Meanwhile, uber, gett, wambamm are waiting to pounce. After all, there must be a reason why taxi fare comparison websites quote journeys from BUS STOPS, rather than the exact location you want to take a cab from. Of course, once these multi billion gig economy companies have wiped out the commercial bus industry in poor areas, taxi fares will rocket.
It is also risky in Stagecoach's case because they are prioritising trendy, politically correct areas (Chorlton, Didsbury, Withington, Trafford etc) populated by "sheeple" environmentalists who don't want buses per se. Unlike the canny people of Leigh and Tyldesley who thought "Yes, we would prefer Light Rail, but now we've got a luxurious Euro6 Guided Bus charging the same for a 25 mile round trip as Stagecoach charge for a 3 mile round trip on a threadbare Euro4 in the eastern quadrant of GM, we'll at least give it a try".

OTOH, could the fact that Go-Ahead are emphasising a "national" strategy, just be code to bypass local authorities, especially those considering Franchising? We know in GM that Grayling wants to overrule the Devolution deal set up by George Osborne so maybe GA want to do the same in the North East and anywhere else considering Devolution via an Elected Mayor.