It's that time of year again......

[winston]

NX need some extra cash to pay for all the new buses:

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/12/06/black-country-bus-fares-going-up-by-5pc-to-pay-for-new-fleet/

(It's about time the Express & Star updated the pictures used)

[Liberator9]

Hardly a surprise considering the fleet investment - hardly going to please those passengers who will not be seeing new buses on their route, just transferred Tridents for example. Daysaver rise is a bit steep, and will annoy many of those who just want to make a return trip. Express and star should use a more up to date picture, with one of the more recent ADLs instead.

[Bryan]

I do think a 5% rise is too high, as most passengers will not have received a similar rise in income over the past year. In addition to that, a fleet renewal programme should be part of the company budget, without over inflation increases to pay for it.

Also, does the quoted 'London style smartcard' that is to be introduced include other bus companies?

[andyr]

National Express is a business, the aim of any business is to make a profit. Simple.

[Trident 4194]

Will the price of an nbus increase? All I know is diamond are going to have happier customers

[Tony]

Will the price of an nbus increase? All I know is diamond are going to have happier customers

How do you know that? There increase may be even higher, although I suspect it will be the same

[monkeyjoe]

Washwood heath road corridor get any benefit from this investment it, can't see it myself. Roll on claribels lol

[the trainbasher]

Ah well, at least I renewed my Yearly nbus in November...

[Roy]

West Midlands bus fares, like train fares, always increase in the first week of January and stay at that rate for a year.  Both sets of fare increases always receive banner headlines in the press, with the Daily Mail probably blaming the lefties at the BBC for the increase.

What always happens to bus fares is that a single fare increases by 10p - this year from £2.10 to £2.20 which works out at 4.76%.  You are not going to see fares such as £2.16 which would equate to the RPI increase.

I could probably predict now that fares will rise to £2.30 single and £4.40 daysaver in January 2016 and that the press will greet this announcement with banner headlines - "Bus Fares To Go Up AGAIN by 5%" (in fact it will be 4.5%). 

The last price increase for the Express and Star was 11% (45p to 50p) and for this you get a newspaper that gets thinner and thinner.  I don't remember seeing any indignant banner headlines when that happened.

(Great photo in the E&S - takes me back to the bad old days of B10B's on the 255).

[wilmotm (Matt Wilmot)]

"Bulk of the fleet will have a two tone maroon livery' great! I personally think it looks terrible, too red, and too London, and presume no Tridents will be painted and anything older meaning two liveries on the streets again, what a month after it will be eliminated? Maybe not if 1688 keeps going

[Stu]

The reactions to the announcement are also the same ones again, "it's cheaper to get a taxi" etc.

Passengers want new buses because the old ones are cold, tatty and rattle badly. But then they also want fares to go down.

Also, there's always a few that seem to think that Centro / "our taxpayers money" is paying for the new buses. Which isn't true.

There's one fella on my WMBU Facebook page that I can already predict how he will reply when I post this news: PROFIT before passengers. I've given up trying to argue with him!

[andy]

I do think a 5% rise is too high, as most passengers will not have received a similar rise in income over the past year. In addition to that, a fleet renewal programme should be part of the company budget, without over inflation increases to pay for it.

Finally, somebody in this place that gets it! Fleet renewal should not be connected to revenue, it should (and always did) have a completely seperate budget source. Revenue streams support operating cost variables such as fuel, wages, insurance etc.....NOT infrastructure and rolling stock. Bus companies have become far too good at passing excessive fares rises off as a route to fleet renewal, when fleet renewal is a basic and given programme that should have nothing to do with revenue atall.

If a company can't operate profitably and renew its assets at the same time (and that applies to any line of business), it needs to look at its operating model, not its fare structure.

[Tony]

I do think a 5% rise is too high, as most passengers will not have received a similar rise in income over the past year. In addition to that, a fleet renewal programme should be part of the company budget, without over inflation increases to pay for it.

Finally, somebody in this place that gets it! Fleet renewal should not be connected to revenue, it should (and always did) have a completely seperate budget source. Revenue streams support operating cost variables such as fuel, wages, insurance etc.....NOT infrastructure and rolling stock. Bus companies have become far too good at passing excessive fares rises off as a route to fleet renewal, when fleet renewal is a basic and given programme that should have nothing to do with revenue atall.

If a company can't operate profitably and renew its assets at the same time (and that applies to any line of business), it needs to look at its operating model, not its fare structure.

If fleet replacement doesn't come from Revenue Stream where does it come from? The money to buy new buses has to come from the same pot as everything else!

[andy]

I do think a 5% rise is too high, as most passengers will not have received a similar rise in income over the past year. In addition to that, a fleet renewal programme should be part of the company budget, without over inflation increases to pay for it.

Finally, somebody in this place that gets it! Fleet renewal should not be connected to revenue, it should (and always did) have a completely seperate budget source. Revenue streams support operating cost variables such as fuel, wages, insurance etc.....NOT infrastructure and rolling stock. Bus companies have become far too good at passing excessive fares rises off as a route to fleet renewal, when fleet renewal is a basic and given programme that should have nothing to do with revenue atall.

If a company can't operate profitably and renew its assets at the same time (and that applies to any line of business), it needs to look at its operating model, not its fare structure.

If fleet replacement doesn't come from Revenue Stream where does it come from? The money to buy new buses has to come from the same pot as everything else!

Investment. From shareholders and if necessary borrowing. Speculating to accumulate. Making your fleet pay for itself by making efficiencies on supply, maintenance etc. And we all know that this is what actually happens. No bus company in the country actually needs to wait until it increases fares to order new buses! So why do they continually insult our intelligence when it comes to fares rise time by wheeling the 'new buses' argument out? They should be honest and say that the increase is to cover operating costs and maintain profits. Because that's what it's for and everybody knows it. No company in the world just has a 'pot' with one budget for everything, so they shouldn't try to pretend to people that this is how they work.

Incidentally I am not only talking about NX here.

[Trident 4194]

The reactions to the announcement are also the same ones again, "it's cheaper to get a taxi" etc.

Passengers want new buses because the old ones are cold, tatty and rattle badly. But then they also want fares to go down.

Also, there's always a few that seem to think that Centro / "our taxpayers money" is paying for the new buses. Which isn't true.

There's one fella on my WMBU Facebook page that I can already predict how he will reply when I post this news: PROFIT before passengers. I've given up trying to argue with him!

Yes but if your local routes not going to be upgrade, why should we have to pay higher fares for other people to relax in comfort e.g :900,957 etc