THAT is the part you appear to be focussing on, and to do so is not relevant. Routes (plural) originating within each council's area - considered as a package - is where your consideration should focus.
wrong... it is totally relevant... and in fact your analysis of my point is wrong as I have known it happen where an operator only has one route in both of the paying authorities! It can also happen where the route is only worked from one end... so the authority giving less is wrong to say that it's based on a different cost base.... and of course there is the ridiculous situation where it is the authority where the pass holder boards that is liable for the re-imbursement... meaning that the operator is paid a different amount for each leg of a return trip.
and nobody is forcing them to choose to do so. They are at liberty to cease operating the service if they consider it unprofitable after accounting for pensioners' "fares" - even if they are at differing levels - and paying passengers' fares. It seems highly probable, then, that if a commercial service IS running then the fares and subsidies are sufficient to make it commercial
Quite apart from the fact that, as I have already pointed out, the bus company has little to no recourse if it feels the reimbursement rate is unjust... To be a registered local bus service and gain BSOG the company legally HAS to accept concessionary passes. There is no equity in the way the scheme is set up... the councils have all the power... the operator none... it is notable that rural areas where the Local Authority has historically been stingy in it's payments are the areas that have seen the biggest cuts in their rural networks... THAT in itself should tell you something about the failings in the structure of the Concessionary fares scheme!
and nobody is forcing them to choose to do so. They are at liberty to cease operating the service if they consider it unprofitable after accounting for pensioners' "fares" - even if they are at differing levels - and paying passengers' fares. It seems highly probable, then, that if a commercial service IS running then the fares and subsidies are sufficient to make it commercial.
of course they can choose to NOT run a service... but that doesn't alter the fact that if they want to operate the service then they MUST accept concessionary passes... and they MUST accept what they are offered in recompense for doing so... this has actually caused problems where the service needs to be enhanced because of usage, but due to a large amount of that usage being by concessionary passes, and the re-imbursement rate has been so low, there haven't been the funds available to be able to enhance the service.... fare payers then get fed up of being treated as sardines and voting with their feet, thus undermining the viability of the route, leading to cuts/ withdrawal... and then the council crying foul that the operator is trying to be too greedy!
How would you like it if you owned a business and you was told that half your customers were entitled to help with paying for your services... and this was what you are going to be paid for that.... oh... and if you don't agree to the payment you have only one option... shut up shop! THAT is what the concessionary fares scheme amounts to!