(10 Oct 2022, 11:43 am)Adrian wrote No, but they can timetable an achievable service that meets demand around it.
Rail strike is just another lazy excuse for a poor service. We'll be back here next week and looking for something else to blame. Maybe they'll suggest less people need to use buses to stop them being full?
An achievable service in this case requires a lot of extra resource. I’d assume it’s difficult to plan for what level of additional layover and/or running time is required to offset additional demand, as it’s slightly unknown (although these rail strikes are becoming more common).
All this at a time when operators are struggling for staff. So the achievable timetable may actually mean the service becomes even less achievable to cover. Is that better or worse for the customer?
If commercial teams were able to plan a new set of schedules for rail strike days, and there wasn’t any staffing issues, I wonder how well it would go down with staff that their rota has to change to accommodate a timetable change for one day? I suspect if you asked most bus drivers, the thing that they would find most challenging about the job at the moment is the pace of change and inability to plan their life outside of work. Imagine this would therefore go down like a lead balloon with driving staff and could potentially result in even more drivers leaving the business.
Firm believer in doing what’s right by the customer - but there’s more at play than lazy commercial teams not getting their fingers out. You can repeat all of the above for match days, Fridays, short-term roadworks, etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk