(13 Jun 2022, 8:33 pm)Dan wrote And whilst that was the most predictable response, clearly that doesn't seem to be an option in today's market as we've seen from all three of the major operators in recent months (some more than others)...

If the stance from the commercial operator is that they can no longer run some of their commercial bus services and the local authority does step in to save them, the options they have are that the cheapest/best value price wins the contract (as per standard tender protocol), or that in some cases, they will purposely choose a more expensive price to exclude the incumbent from winning that contract (unheard of, but it would keep members of this forum happy).

I know which gets my vote, even if in some cases it will result in the incumbent no longer running that same service...

Except it is not such a polarised choice. There is a perfectly sensible solution which has been described on here not so long ago, whereby if the previous commercial operator doesn't want to take the commercial risk, but wants to bid for an identical tendered service, then this should be on the basis of a block payment with all fare revenue retained by the funding authority.  Any profits made could then be reinvested into other public services, or further secured services, and not simply line shareholders pockets.  I'm not sure there's any legal way in which an incumbent could be prevented from bidding, or that it would be in anyone's interest to do so as you point out they may ultimately submitted the best VFM tender.

To be honest while we have the current basketcase system whereby an operator can cancel any borderline service then submit a low tender to operate basically the same service, collecting the same level of fares as before, but now plus the shiny extra bit of dosh they get from their tender, why would any operator show any social responsibility and not rinse the taxpayer.