McGill's Scotland East (Midland Bluebird and Eastern Scottish)

[markymark2000]

From the airport end, a lot of people will just use google maps - if your bus is timetabled to offer a competitive travelling time into town, or offers good connectivity to your final destination, and is the next departure, a lot of arriving pax will just go where their phone tells them to, and use their phone to pay as they get on.

I am a supporter of McGills and I want them to succeed, especially against Lothian but all that Lothian need to do is ensure they have a bus on stand at all times and they could probably win it. Get people as soon as they walk out of the airport doors and don't give them chance to think 'when is the next bus' or 'what is the next bus', if a bus is sat there, on stand, at all times, Lothian could have this easily as people wouldn't even turn their heads to see the McGills bus.

 

[Tayway]

If I were tasked by McGills to make a profitable Airport service, I would not just be copying Lothian's offer almost like for like except with smaller buses and less brand recognition.

For starters I'd be serving Ingliston Park and Ride – there are currently no direct buses to the City Centre if we ignore Ember and FlixBus, and journey times would be comparable with the tram.

Waverley Steps does makes sense to attract people just off the train, as does Waterloo Place with the bus tours. However, I wonder if there are untapped markets in other parts of the City Centre.

Maybe something like Haymarket, Morrison Street, Bread Street, Lauriston Place, Forrest Road, Chambers Street, Bridges, Waterloo Place could work? You would probably want stops at the National Museum and in Fountainbridge.

There's plenty of hotels along this route, and you'd also likely get some footfall from the University and the business district surrounding Lothian Road.

 

[bobdoe]

Maybe something like Haymarket, Morrison Street, Bread Street, Lauriston Place, Forrest Road, Chambers Street, Bridges, Waterloo Place could work? You would probably want stops at the National Museum and in Fountainbridge.

The 35 Lothian used to operate took a very similar route to the airport and was very popular, but that was partly because it was the only airport bus with standard fare.

 

[LBObserver]

When Lothian introduced Skylink, the 300 replaced the 35 to the airport at premium rates. It was chopped and changed but ran a long time from Cameron Toll up past all the b&bs at Newington then Lauriston, Tollcross, Slateford, Sighthill Industrial Estate, Gyle Centre and Ingliston P&R. It operated Monday to Saturday then during Covid it got cut back to Tollcross, then lost its Saturday service, was reduced to hourly from half hourly, using two buses. It finally disappeared never to return so far. The 400 and the tram covers the Gyle and Bankhead while the 35 now running from Heriot Watt covers the rest. I used the 300 quite a lot in the city as it was handy to reach other places, and from observation of the small luggage rack there were only normally 4 or 5 small cases on it. Plus, as a normal stopping service it took twice as long as Airlink from central areas. Carried mostly students and office workers to Sighthill and Gyle area.

As far as I can tell Lothian always has at least one Airlink bus standing at the airport. When I am out there I see lots of people with luggage taking the more expensive tram (tram better/quicker than smelly old buses mindset) and passing the buses. I suppose it depends if McGills are allowed any signs or publicity in the terminal to direct people to their bus. I seem to remember when Guide Friday ran there they had a desk, potentially selling combined tour and airport tickets. Would McGills be able to do the same? No doubt if the price is right the airport would allow it.

 

[overthewater]

There is a Scottish Citylink inspector at the stance for its departures, so the Airport couldn't stop Bright bus having one of two people around its departure stance.

There is always a queue of people at west end stop, I doubt anyone will care what bus comes first.

​

 

[Theproinsider]

I am a supporter of McGills and I want them to succeed, especially against Lothian but all that Lothian need to do is ensure they have a bus on stand at all times and they could probably win it. Get people as soon as they walk out of the airport doors and don't give them chance to think 'when is the next bus' or 'what is the next bus', if a bus is sat there, on stand, at all times, Lothian could have this easily as people wouldn't even turn their heads to see the McGills bus.

Because showing contempt for your customers is such a good business to support.

 

[delt1c]

McGills is a nasty word in West Lothian. Hope they get their fingers burnt with the airport service. It's Karma.

 

[route101]

There is often a queue for the AIR service at busy times or when service is disrupted.
Tourists will just want the first service to Edinburgh.

 

[Jordan Adam]

Often a Queue for he AIR service at busy times or when service is disrupted.
Tourists will just want the first service to Edinburgh.

AIR goes to Glasgow though?

 

[Mollman]

McGills is a nasty word in West Lothian. Hope they get their fingers burnt with the airport service. It's Karma.

So I assume you would have run a much better and more profitable operation despite inheriting a significant driver shortage from First and increasing rail competition?

 

[gomango]

AIR goes to Glasgow though?

Yes

McGills is a nasty word in West Lothian. Hope they get their fingers burnt with the airport service. It's Karma.

So you dont want people to have more options to get to Edinburgh Airport. It also increases Competition!

The whole idea sounds a bit stupid to me. Is there demand for an airport bus every 5-7 minutes throughout the whole day?

Probably is but not enough vehicles and drivers.

 

[delt1c]

So I assume you would have run a much better and more profitable operation despite inheriting a significant driver shortage from First and increasing rail competition?

Never said that, don't put words in my mouth please.

 

[roadierway77]

So I assume you would have run a much better and more profitable operation despite inheriting a significant driver shortage from First and increasing rail competition?

Blaming the railway for the downfall of Eastern Scottish is silly. It's the exact tactics McGill’s used themselves to try and divert blame. If anything railway competition has decreased since Covid as both the North Clyde line and Shotts line have been at lower frequencies compared to 2019 and there hasn't been any meaningful overall increase in rail service during McGill’s presence. Plus the railway has limited ability to compete in West Lothian anyway as neither line serves Livingston centre nor large settlements such as Broxburn, East Calder, Whitburn and Blackburn. This is part of the reason why Lothian Country's express routes are successful.

McGill’s could have improved the driver situation by offering better rates of pay and working conditions. The company as a whole and their owners have more than enough funds for this, and regardless any increase in costs due to higher wages would have likely balanced out as increased service reliability and frequency as a result of a higher number of drivers would have led to growth in passenger numbers. But no. With Lothian Country offering higher pay and a shorter working week, it's easy to see why a PSV driver looking for work would chose to go with Lothian and not McGill’s.

So you dont want people to have more options to get to Edinburgh Airport. It also increases Competition!

McGill’s don't seem to care about offering people more options; rather they care about the potential profit available. The potential short- to medium-term profit on the Edinburgh Airport corridor is likely higher than in Eastern Scottish territory, and they can use Lothian's presence in West Lothian as an excuse for 'retaliation'. Of course as a business, they have to make profit as much as possible where they can, but as a bus company, they also have to provide public service. I agree that competition can have its benefits but in this scenario, it's unfortunately at the expense of the West Lothian populace.

McGill’s claimed that Eastern Scottish was unprofitable, however just because such a venture is unprofitable now doesn't mean it never could be. When First pulled out of East Lothian, they believed the region to be unprofitable. However now, it seems that East Coast Buses does pretty well for itself. McGill’s could have almost certainly turned the financial situation in West Lothian around but they clearly just didn't want to when there was higher likelihood of profitability elsewhere.

 

[GusB]

I think that we have to accept the situation in West Lothian and move on. While I completely understand that the disruption has affected people's lives, there is no real point in crying over spilt milk. Perhaps somewhere in a parallel universe, First is still trading and there would have been no need for McGill's to get involved at all, but the pandemic really threw the situation out of kilter and we have to deal with the situation as it is now.

Whether or not this new airport venture will work out, I don't know - time will tell. For the moment, there is work for the staff who are still there; better that than McGill's pulling the plug completely and shutting down the whole operation.

 

[Theproinsider]

So I assume you would have run a much better and more profitable operation despite inheriting a significant driver shortage from First and increasing rail competition?

Bathgate regained its rail link in 1986. A difficult argument to hold onto that rail destroyed their business.

Simply, they didn't want it. Lothian pulled out of all local work. McGill's could have developed a local network, tied in connecting services and made a go of it. It could have chosen to pay its staff more. It's a gaslighting strategy akin to a big boy done it and run away. They had no desire to make it work.

Staff will now get a flat £14 per hour to work there, for a 45 hour week. Why would you do that, when by next April, they can earn over £50 per week more at LC for a 39 hour week?

 

[Mollman]

Bathgate regained its rail link in 1986. A difficult argument to hold onto that rail destroyed their business.

Simply, they didn't want it. Lothian pulled out of all local work. McGill's could have developed a local network, tied in connecting services and made a go of it. It could have chosen to pay its staff more. It's a gaslighting strategy akin to a big boy done it and run away. They had no desire to make it work.

Staff will now get a flat £14 per hour to work there, for a 45 hour week. Why would you do that, when by next April, they can earn over £50 per week more at LC for a 39 hour week?

Except Lothian stuck to competing on a few core routes which didn't help the situation.

 

[Theproinsider]

Except Lothian stuck to competing on a few core routes which didn't help the situation.

Protecting its core market, using its resources wisely. It could have gone for the jugular and restored the X38. It worked out that was a market it neither needed or wanted.

The McGill's east/midland/dundee operation is a hotch potch of parts that don't naturally fit together. It's hardly pulling up the grass with its Falkirk, Stirling and Dundee network. Perhaps if their management concentrated on that, they may actually be able to make a profitable operation, instead of taking pot shots at other operators and local authorities.

 

[CSB0241]

So you dont want people to have more options to get to Edinburgh Airport. It also increases Competition!

Some of us don’t even inherently like competition (granted, people who don’t are more of a minority so I can understand why people like competition)

 

[gomango]

Some of us don’t even inherently like competition

Competition is Great in my opinion! Although I do agree that some people might not like it for reasons. For example I don't want someone in a bright orange uniform advertising it while I'm just trying to enjoy a day in Edinburgh. If they do that then I would probably prefer to take lothian actually.

 

[Stan Drews]

I think many people on here completely misunderstand the ‘railway’ issue that McGill’s mentioned when they announced the withdrawal of their local commercial services in West Lothian.
First and its predecessors had a relatively stable network for many years, from which they were able to make a living. Yes, it suffered at times from the same issues that affected the whole industry, but by and large they managed to make a profit.
The improvements to the rail network through the area, clearly made train travel to/from Edinburgh considerably more attractive than it previously was. That would have a negative impact on the core routes to/from the city, where fares are higher. Consequently, the pressure on the local network to deliver revenue increases.
Then, along comes a competitor that registers routes across much of the network, further eroding revenue. The result being that a once profitable business was now running at a considerable loss.
Therefore, the issues referred to in their announcement was not meant to infer things that had happened within the 12 months of their ownership, but over many years/decades beforehand, but which had led to the situation they inherited.
Any business that needs an injection of multi-million pounds to keep its head above water, needs serious action, if it is going to continue. They took that action, which I suspect First had wanted to do themselves, but as has been seen elsewhere, they often seem to prefer selling, to firing the gun themselves.
When Mr Hall decided to launch the attack on the West Lothian area, I’m sure they’d have been delighted to get it all to themselves, so I’m sure you’ll see increased services as 2024 develops.

 

[gingerheid]

Bathgate regained its rail link in 1986. A difficult argument to hold onto that rail destroyed their business.

It wasn't that great at first. The old station started with an hourly service that went half hourly a few years later? It was really only when the link West opened that demand really took off.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Sat back and read and enjoyed many of the comments.

The facts are that whilst Bathgate regained its rail line in 1986, an hourly link using 101s on a single line was only going to have a limited impact on local bus services and links to Edinburgh. Of course, there have been several enhancements to the service in terms of frequency and rolling stock since then and it's clear that rail has abstracted a lot of the trade as well as organic growth.

This, in part, led to the closure of Bathgate depot (under GRT ownership?) but in truth, the signs of a decline were there under SMT post privatisation era. Of course, you then get into the bad days of First and the use of superannuated ex SBG stuff, ex London tat and a few B7s and B9s. However, the fact is that First Bus was latterly investing in the fleet (e400mmc and Streetlites) yet Lothian decided to set up commercial, competitive services. It seems slightly at odds to criticise the McGills incursion now yet not to criticise the Lothian one in 2018?

Both parties would have been incurring losses. First's figures showed their pain, and imagine that Lothian would've been too (even if the set up costs were amortised and spread over several years). Nonetheless, that pain was there, and then exacerbated by Covid and the decline in patronage.

There simply isn't the trade to sustain those sorts of losses, and with the pressure on driver recruitment and retention, it was simply that First decided they weren't prepared to sustain the losses. McGills might've thought that they could square that circle but it was a vortex of pain and they've taken the decision to exit local bus services. The surprise is that they have decided to now introduce a competitive airport express. Whether it prospers, I'm a little dubious.

ps for those who are pointing out the capacity of e300s, a clear comparator is the former Glasgow Airport fleet. They managed with single deckers and 36 seaters for many years.

 

[computerSaysNo]

I think many people on here completely misunderstand the ‘railway’ issue that McGill’s mentioned when they announced the withdrawal of their local commercial services in West Lothian.
First and its predecessors had a relatively stable network for many years, from which they were able to make a living. Yes, it suffered at times from the same issues that affected the whole industry, but by and large they managed to make a profit.
The improvements to the rail network through the area, clearly made train travel to/from Edinburgh considerably more attractive than it previously was. That would have a negative impact on the core routes to/from the city, where fares are higher. Consequently, the pressure on the local network to deliver revenue increases.
Then, along comes a competitor that registers routes across much of the network, further eroding revenue. The result being that a once profitable business was now running at a considerable loss.
Therefore, the issues referred to in their announcement was not meant to infer things that had happened within the 12 months of their ownership, but over many years/decades beforehand, but which had led to the situation they inherited.
Any business that needs an injection of multi-million pounds to keep its head above water, needs serious action, if it is going to continue. They took that action, which I suspect First had wanted to do themselves, but as has been seen elsewhere, they often seem to prefer selling, to firing the gun themselves.
When Mr Hall decided to launch the attack on the West Lothian area, I’m sure they’d have been delighted to get it all to themselves, so I’m sure you’ll see increased services as 2024 develops.

There is also the fact that the railway is subsidised (though I don't know how much by, on this particular part of line), whereas any major bus route must make a profit in order to run, due to the way they whole system is set up.

 

[Ding Ding]

There is one reason, and one reason only, why Eastern Scottish is no longer serving West Lothian. They were previously FIRST BUS. First Bus operated in West Lothian without competition for ages, they became complacent, treated the travelling public with contempt, cancelling services mid way through journeys, operated buses in a terrible condition, suspension leaning, lights out, paper for destination screens, not going over 20mph on gradients, I could go on.
When Lothian started services, they did so with clean, properly maintained vehicles, everything working. If a bus broke down, they sent a driver and replacement bus to start the journey as close to the break down as possible, minimising lost mileage and inconvenience to passengers. They operated a professional service in total contrast to First. They were willing to try routes to see if there was a demand, if there was not they tried something else, until they settled on the network they have today.
When McGill's bought the business, they bought a part of the business that was on it's last legs. They gave it a go, but it was doomed to fail. It would have needed huge investment to turn a profit, an investment with no hope of a reasonable return. They have kept parts of the business that must be giving a return, but that's it.
So McGill's giving reasons why they pulled out, like the rail line, and Lothian entering the area are merely soundbites. The damage was done by FIRST BUS. They have previous, Musselburgh and Dalkeith.
If Lothian can now run services at a profit, and add to them in the future, it will show that FIRST BUS could have done the same, had they treated the public with respect and run the company in a professional manner.

 

[CN04NRJ]

Any business that needs an injection of multi-million pounds to keep its head above water, needs serious action, if it is going to continue. They took that action, which I suspect First had wanted to do themselves, but as has been seen elsewhere, they often seem to prefer selling, to firing the gun themselves.
When Mr Hall decided to launch the attack on the West Lothian area, I’m sure they’d have been delighted to get it all to themselves, so I’m sure you’ll see increased services as 2024 develops.

Didn't we already establish that it wasn't an 'injection' of funds or an investment, but simply the day to day running costs of the business. A few repaints and a small number of ex London E400s doesn't equal £4.6 million?

 

[Stan Drews]

Didn't we already establish that it wasn't an 'injection' of funds or an investment, but simply the day to day running costs of the business. A few repaints and a small number of ex London E400s doesn't equal £4.6 million?

Who do you think ‘injected’ that £4.6m to balance the books? The tooth fairy??

Nobody (sensible) ever suggested that amount had been spent on purchasing vehicles.

 

[CN04NRJ]

Who do you think ‘injected’ that £4.6m to balance the books? The tooth fairy??

Nobody (sensible) ever suggested that amount had been spent on purchasing vehicles.

Before buying the business what did they expect it to run on, fairy dust?

By announcing in the press release they'd "invested £4.6m but failed to turn it around" Joe Public would draw a different conclusion than what the actual amount was used for. It's a misnomer at best.

 

[Ding Ding]

Who do you think ‘injected’ that £4.6m to balance the books? The tooth fairy??

Nobody (sensible) ever suggested that amount had been spent on purchasing vehicles.

I don't think the travelling public are interested in distinguishing between investment for vehicles or day to day running costs, they don't care what it's for, they just want a bus turning up.
McGill's put out their statement to deflect criticism away from their decision to pull out. They were never interested in service work in Livingston, that was obvious from day one.
I don't doubt they blew a fair amount of cash in West Lothian, but they made out that they were less favoured than Lothian because they were a municipal, and they had an advantage because of this. They also blamed Rail, again pointless. There is only enough business for one main operator, and that's it.
As a side note. People who think that McGill's are just a bus company, and that's where they make their money, should know that they have many other businesses, property, van hire etc and that's where the big profits come from. They are not going to squander that, on propping up a basket case.

 

[Stan Drews]

I don't think the travelling public are interested in distinguishing between investment for vehicles or day to day running costs, they don't care what it's for, they just want a bus turning up.
McGill's put out their statement to deflect criticism away from their decision to pull out. They were never interested in service work in Livingston, that was obvious from day one.
I don't doubt they blew a fair amount of cash in West Lothian, but they made out that they were less favoured than Lothian because they were a municipal, and they had an advantage because of this. They also blamed Rail, again pointless. There is only enough business for one main operator, and that's it.
As a side note. People who think that McGill's are just a bus company, and that's where they make their money, should know that they have many other businesses, property, van hire etc and that's where the big profits come from. They are not going to squander that, on propping up a basket case.

Their statement wasn’t about deflecting blame, it was about providing the explanations behind the significant losses that were being made, and how much the owners had already invested in running it for a year. The average bus user (and worryingly most politicians!) has no clue about how the industry functions, so they often misunderstand/misinterpret explanations provided by operators when services are withdrawn.

McGill’s are just a bus company, however the owners also have many other business interests.

 

[GusB]

I think we're done here.

If anyone has anything specific to say about McGill's Midland Bluebird operation, feel free to start a thread as and when there is something to discuss. Likewise, when there is movement on the airport service, a separate thread would probably be useful.

In the meantime, this thread is closed.