(9 hours ago)Andreos1 wrote The alternative being buses run over an hour late (like with the example I shared), passengers being unable to get to/from work and the inevitable complaints (to both the authorities and directly) that result.
It's about managing the situation fluidly and making things as effective as possible for passengers.
Running an X93 to Guisborough and transferring to a 5, is much more beneficial for all parties, than running late, having to drop boards due to drivers hours etc.
The TC aren't going to be happy when reliability goes off the cliff, as much as they won't be happy with buses running short.
But if ANE can justify those decisions with demonstrable positive solutions and communicating it effectively (rather than tossing a coin in the air and seeing which way it lands), then I imagine the TC would be a lot more understanding.
The fact that you think transferring X93 passengers onto a 5 is a suitable solution is, in itself, ridiculous - and that's leaving aside your other points (the TC is likely to be pretty understanding of the reasoning behind the service reliability over this week - it's not exactly within their control). Could you please detail how you expect the 90+ passengers which can be carried by an E400 MMC or B9TL onto a 44 seater Pulsar - which itself will likely already have passengers on it?
Even if capacity wasn't an issue (which it is), what's your plan with the 5? Hold it until the X93 is due? Okay, so then what happens to the driver for the 5 if they're late off as a result? What do you tell all of the passengers on the 5 who are either delayed, or can't fit onto the bus down the road because you've filled it with an X93?
There are areas where operational teams at bus companies should be criticised, I've experienced some questionable decision making tonight by Stagecoach on my trip home, but if you're going to criticise at least have a better solution!