If First and Diamond are so terrible, it's interesting to see that they can sustain a service in Ramsbottom where Transdev can't. First/Diamond with all their own problems would be long gone if all the passengers were choosing to use Transdev's buses.
Part of it will simply be that some passengers will get the first bus that comes along, especially with ENCTS not demanding any customer loyalty. Perhaps there was also some nascent customer loyalty from non-pass holders; we often hear about how part First have been in West Lothian in comparison to Lothian Country yet it seems that there is some loyalty to First that may come from the power of the incumbent. Also, the Red4 may have had lovely buses but how many of their "features" are of use on a relatively high frequency, low duration route, and against another firm that perhaps prioritises that route and makes sure that buses are on it because of the competition?
Obviously so. But if you were getting bombarded with questions you'd seek further info before posting something like that. Just comes across as misleading otherwise.
Quite so, but turn it around from the other perspective. You're the Transdev Twitter bod and you're getting these questions. You ask the question in light of these rumours, only to be told "we're looking at the routes' performance" - what does the Twitter person say? Do you start responding to every rumour? If you were going to lie, there are better ways to do it, so I don't subscribe to the view that the Twitter bod has simply lied. It's fair enough that staff shouldn't post "poor responses" but you're going to be damned either way. If it's not finalised, you can't say anything. You can't simply ignore the customer. Even a holding comment which was the "we are reviewing the route following recent changes" will be interpreted by some negatively.
You can't put positive spin on bad news. It just makes the receiver of the message feel even worse about the negative news. The latest news is spun as an improvement to the Irwell Line, It isn't really an improvement to the Irwell Line (unless you like a lower direct frequency or longer journeys) and it detracts from the serious news of substantial and inconvenient cuts for many.
This is perhaps the area that I have the biggest issue with. It isn't good news, however you try to spin it. The idea that we're improving X as a headline when it is to help mitigate a bigger cut is rather disingenuous.
The fact is that bus companies across the country (and we're seeing it just over the hill in Calderdale) are having to make tough decisions. Any cut is regrettable but it's how you handle it and IMO, it's not been handled well. Perhaps the better approach would've been in August that you say you're going to axe it and with resultant furore, say that you will do X and Y to improve the situation but that it is last chance. It either rallies (great) or not and it goes but you gave it a chance.
Also, I do take issue with the "bean counter" argument about . It costs about £500 to run a vehicle so yes, you can have a full bus in the peak (with lots of discounted season ticket holders) and it then not pay its way. These are commercial organisations - they have to make a profit. Even you think that it's just the accountant in some darkened room barking out P&L figures, you're much mistaken. Any depot manager, commercial manager or MD worth their salt is all over their financials. It's like the manager of your local Co-op - they know what lines sell, when they need staff, what hours they need to be open.
Transdev may say that they have been open about the Irwell Line "improvement" being to cover the other changes, but it is clearly spin. I usually support any operator who actively seeks to promote their services. They will have the odd reverse where things don't succeed - see Stagecoach's Belles Express, First's Discover network or Transdev's Manchester CityZap. In this instance, just feels that they've got it wrong.