Rail franchise row moves to High Court

[Meerkat]

DfT funding cuts so they don't have the staff headcount. Lots of other issues flow from this as they are mostly in headless chicken mode lurching for crisis to crisis.

That isn’t really an excuse for rank poor policy decisions. Doesn’t the expertise come from expensive consultants? Do they ever get named and shamed for bad ‘expertise’, or do they just waltz off to another nicely paid consulting gig on the merry go round?

 

[hwl]

That isn’t really an excuse for rank poor policy decisions. Doesn’t the expertise come from expensive consultants? Do they ever get named and shamed for bad ‘expertise’, or do they just waltz off to another nicely paid consulting gig on the merry go round?

They can't even afford enough consultancy to compensate for lower internal skillset and headcount...

 

[Facing Back]

I doubt it. Arriva would certainly object. Even Franchise Agreements have the numbers redacted.

I doubt it too. The act contains some wording around information which would substantially prejudice substantially the commercial interests of the company being exempt from disclosure, so assuming the confidentially clause is well written I'd guess the details could be withheld.

 

[hwl]

I doubt it. Arriva would certainly object. Even Franchise Agreements have the numbers redacted.

Any significant £££s could show up in the Arriva accounts as income not from subsidiaries?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Any significant £££s could show up in the Arriva accounts as income not from subsidiaries?

As far as I know, Arriva is wholly owned by DB and does not have public accounts.
We only get to know what DB wants to make public.
Might change if Arriva is sold on by DB.

You'd think that any out-of-court settlement would mean DfT paying Arriva for something.

 

[HH]

Any significant £££s could show up in the Arriva accounts as income not from subsidiaries?

The level of detail required is generally pretty low and I doubt that it will be large enough to require its own “Note”, but when the relevant accounts are finally published you can see.

 

[HH]

As far as I know, Arriva is wholly owned by DB and does not have public accounts.
We only get to know what DB wants to make public.
Might change if Arriva is sold on by DB.

You'd think that any out-of-court settlement would mean DfT paying Arriva for something.

Arriva Plc does have published accounts, if that’s where the money goes.

 

[hwl]

The level of detail required is generally pretty low and I doubt that it will be large enough to require its own “Note”, but when the relevant accounts are finally published you can see.

I was expecting a bit of maths to be needed rather than a simple helpful note!

 

[talltim]

Arriva still have franchises so wouldn't want to upset the DfT too much. I would imagine the DfT went for the settlement rather than a court case setting unwelcome precedents.
Stagecoach may be less willing to settle out of court.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Arriva still have franchises so wouldn't want to upset the DfT too much. I would imagine the DfT went for the settlement rather than a court case setting unwelcome precedents.
Stagecoach may be less willing to settle out of court.

I think that’s a given as the other parties were presumably offered something too. But I agree the mindsets of Arriva and Stagecoach will be different, with the latter much more keen to give the DfT a bloody nose.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

DfT funding cuts so they don't have the staff headcount. Lots of other issues flow from this as they are mostly in headless chicken mode lurching for crisis to crisis.

Wilkinson has big enough organisation and uses consultants to support - flawed approach that was only concerned with reducing overall cost is what caused this. Williams review can't come too soon so we get the reset to this current policy

 

[3141]

I think that’s a given as the other parties were presumably offered something too. But I agree the mindsets of Avila and Stagecoach will be different, with the latter much more keen to give the DfT a bloody nose.

And it's conceivable that part of the settlement is that Arriva will get a better outcome at Northern than if they'd insisted on pushing the legal case to a conclusion. Stagecoach are in a different situation and the DfT presumably has no bargaining position to use with them.

 

[hwl]

And it's conceivable that part of the settlement is that Arriva will get a better outcome at Northern than if they'd insisted on pushing the legal case to a conclusion. Stagecoach are in a different situation and the DfT presumably has no bargaining position to use with them.

Stagecoach also have VTEC and SWT on their minds. DfT probably hoping they had forgotten.

 

[Edders23]

Any significant £££s could show up in the Arriva accounts as income not from subsidiaries?

If it is registered with companies house they have to submit annual accounts which can be accessed

 

[HH]

Wilkinson has big enough organisation and uses consultants to support - flawed approach that was only concerned with reducing overall cost is what caused this. Williams review can't come too soon so we get the reset to this current policy

Wilkinson has plenty of staff and he does use consultants, but there's only one person who makes the decisions. If that doesn't change then it's hard to see things improving.

 

[Wolfie]

I'm sure today's announcement about SWR will strengthen Stagecoach's resolve

 

[theironroad]

This is simply not true. All Railway Pensions are still Final Salary based. The only thing that has changed is that the retirement age has moved from 60 to 62 for most staff..

It's not the only change. In the same deal that moved the 'normal' retirement age from 60 to 62 was also a change to how much of a pay rise was pensionable.

Iirc, it is 0.5% above December? RPI.

If a grade within a toc decide to 'sell' some of their t&C's for a higher cash pay rise then it won't all be pensionable.

The old calculation that if you had 40 years in the scheme and retired at normal retirement whether you would receive 2/3rds of your final salary.
Unless all pay rises are less than that RPI + 0.5% cap then it won't in essence be a final salary scheme as has been widely accepted.

TSSA, RMT & ASLEF did these deals pretty much in secret with RDG/ATOC with no consultation with members and it was then presentented as a sealed and done deal.

 

[Robertj21a]

It's not the only change. In the same deal that moved the 'normal' retirement age from 60 to 62 was also a change to how much of a pay rise was pensionable.

Iirc, it is 0.5% above December? RPI.

If a grade within a toc decide to 'sell' some of their t&C's for a higher cash pay rise then it won't all be pensionable.

The old calculation that if you had 40 years in the scheme and retired at normal retirement whether you would receive 2/3rds of your final salary.
Unless all pay rises are less than that RPI + 0.5% cap then it won't in essence be a final salary scheme as has been widely accepted.

TSSA, RMT & ASLEF did these deals pretty much in secret with RDG/ATOC with no consultation with members and it was then presentented as a sealed and done deal.

I thought Trade Union leaders were obliged to represent the best interests of their members at all times, not have secret deals that are unknown to those they represent ?

 

[island]

I thought Trade Union leaders were obliged to represent the best interests of their members at all times, not have secret deals that are unknown to those they represent ?

The members are free to vote for or against the deal.

 

[theironroad]

The members are free to vote for or against the deal.

In the case of the pensions deal from 2016, there was absolutely no referendum or ballot of members . The ATOC and Unions agreement was imposed.

 

[Robertj21a]

The members are free to vote for or against the deal.

Any idea when this was put to them for a vote ?

 

[hooverboy]

They can't even afford enough consultancy to compensate for lower internal skillset and headcount...

I beg to differ. they can afford the consultancy, with nice shiny glossy leaflets, conferences with whizzy lights and funky powerpoints filled with corporate BS bingo.

it's the rest of it they have trouble with "concept pioneers,change management executives,innovation innovators",and people who could actually do the job, if they were anywhere near as good as those job descriptions.
The glowing job descriptions are sort of part of the problem, but nobody is going to advertise for the bloke in the back who is under the radar but is trusted to get the job done.
"we make it happen" department does not get anywhere near the level of funding the "bells and whistles" department does.