I'm looking at the changes to Mainline now... I can't see that as a reduction in terms of frequency, or a massive cut. Naturally it is going to be annoying for the 3% of people who do use the cross-city routes. But traffic all over the north now is becoming worse and cross-city routes almost always results in buses bunching and racking up lateness, so I guess this will help reliability.
And not only is is a mere 3% (however measured), but most of those only go one stop beyond the bus station. I don't know Burnley that well to know how far it is, but I imagine to be closer to another part of the town centre. I wonder whether this will end up being a similar reaction to Chatham, where the bus station was moved from around the side of the shopping centre to just outside, across a road. From the outcry you would think it had moved miles away. Nobody thought to mention the distance from door to bus station was still shorter than one end of the shopping centre to the other, let alone down the High Street.
But it isn't really an improvement, is it. It's a change that will see some routes curtailed, there's no real way to interpret it as an amazing improvement.
It depends on your perspective. If your journey is now more reliable because it isn't stuck in some problem on the other side of town, you will undoubtedly consider it an improvement. It would be less so were there big passenger flows across town that were suddenly being severed.
Re. the overall debate though - there's some harshness on both sides but ultimately, Transdev is a company ran by people who have a very close eye on PR. I don't like the fact that they do disguise fare increases or journey reductions as 'improvements' or 'simpler fares', but actually, it's not just Transdev who does it nowadays. First have recently started doing the same - in York I've seen them 'improve' services between the City and Uni (basically by reducing the frequency yet again, on an already chronically overcrowded corridor), and 'simplify' fares - by putting them up. But Transdev are just trying to keep things looking positive, and it's no different to what most businesses in every other sector do. The only difference is Transdev have no choice but to announce any changes. Any other company would just push anything negative out very quietly.
Arriva are just as guilty, and I'm sure Stagecoach are too. Roll out a few minimal improvements and suggest you've reinvented the wheel. But as other posters have said, no other business announces negativity, they just wait for you to find out (Although a Waitrose closing in Nottinghamshire to be replaced by a Lidl provoked some interesting "middle England reactions" yesterday!)
And let's be honest... First had/has for way, way too long not given a toss about making their services look appealing. Their 'it's a bus, if you can't drive you have no other option than our bus' meant unappealing exteriors, repulsive interiors and an overall service you couldn't make more unattractive if you tried.
This is exactly why Transdev have the reputation they do. They actually seem to care. Yes, it can get grating at times, but they are no different to TV adverts with grating slogans. A lot of what is criticized here could easily be transposed to the "Ashamed of buses" thread as a way of dragging people out of their cars.