|
Post by LT 20181 on Jan 20, 2018 18:47:58 GMT
Noticed on Alistair Liddle's photo stream the 299, 289 and 399s buses are on their way flic.kr/p/JG9bze389*
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 20, 2018 18:51:37 GMT
Noticed on Alistair Liddle's photo stream the 299, 289 and 399s buses are on their way flic.kr/p/JG9bze389* Oops, fixed it now
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 20, 2018 21:03:39 GMT
Interesting to see they've managed to get the E400 city moquette which Sullivans adopted on a Wright bus? Or am I being naive and the moquette is not ADL exclusive and just happened to be the stock moquette of the E400 City? It's a TfL moquette - it even incorporates the TfL roundel. So it could be used on any bus built for a London operator. Indeed and Mr Sullivan stated that it was to become his interior of choice when purchasing the W9’s MMC’s.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Jan 27, 2018 9:51:49 GMT
As stated on the Sullivan Buses website: "We are pleased to report that Transport for London has awarded us the contract to operate route 626 for another 5 years from September 2018. We will be buying four buses to replace the existing buses which will move onto commercial services." Will be interesting to see what these vehicles are, there is quite a few former London Buses on the market at the moment including the former 18s B9TLs, so will be interesting to see what is bought
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Jan 27, 2018 11:23:29 GMT
As stated on the Sullivan Buses website: "We are pleased to report that Transport for London has awarded us the contract to operate route 626 for another 5 years from September 2018. We will be buying four buses to replace the existing buses which will move onto commercial services." Will be interesting to see what these vehicles are, there is quite a few former London Buses on the market at the moment including the former 18s B9TLs, so will be interesting to see what is bought They could also buy ex Tower Transit DN33776-781 providing if they haven't been bought by anyone yet.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 27, 2018 22:44:55 GMT
Interesting to see they've managed to get the E400 city moquette which Sullivans adopted on a Wright bus? Or am I being naive and the moquette is not ADL exclusive and just happened to be the stock moquette of the E400 City? It's a TfL moquette - it even incorporates the TfL roundel. So it could be used on any bus built for a London operator. Indeed, in November my final 3 buses were a CT Plus E200-MMC, a GAL LT and an Arriva E400H-City. They all had TfL LTB moquette.
|
|
|
Post by BusesInLondon on Feb 3, 2018 22:13:43 GMT
So a unproblematic first day for Sullivans Buses on the 299. 14 drivers were meant to transfer over to SB, but Go Ahead only allowed 7 to move over. This caused problems trying to source drivers for the upcoming change. Luckily everything was sorted on time, using school rota drivers.
Sullivan Buses 299
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 4, 2018 0:55:20 GMT
So a unproblematic first day for Sullivans Buses on the 299. 14 drivers were meant to transfer over to SB, but Go Ahead only allowed 7 to move over. This caused problems trying to source drivers for the upcoming change. Luckily everything was sorted on time, using school rota drivers. How on earth can you get to the point of transfer when the old employer says "only 7 people not the 14 people we told you about"? That's a ridiculous state of affairs given each employee is required to sign a legally binding document well in advance of the transfer date. If I was Sullivans I'd be having a very pointed discussion with GAL.
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Feb 4, 2018 1:06:29 GMT
So a unproblematic first day for Sullivans Buses on the 299. 14 drivers were meant to transfer over to SB, but Go Ahead only allowed 7 to move over. This caused problems trying to source drivers for the upcoming change. Luckily everything was sorted on time, using school rota drivers. How on earth can you get to the point of transfer when the old employer says "only 7 people not the 14 people we told you about"? That's a ridiculous state of affairs given each employee is required to sign a legally binding document well in advance of the transfer date. If I was Sullivans I'd be having a very pointed discussion with GAL. Stagecoach knew how many 257 Drivers were coming over the day before we took over the route
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 4, 2018 1:06:50 GMT
So a unproblematic first day for Sullivans Buses on the 299. 14 drivers were meant to transfer over to SB, but Go Ahead only allowed 7 to move over. This caused problems trying to source drivers for the upcoming change. Luckily everything was sorted on time, using school rota drivers.
Sullivan Buses 299I believe agency drivers had to be hired in as well according to Mr. Sullivan?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 4, 2018 1:16:56 GMT
How on earth can you get to the point of transfer when the old employer says "only 7 people not the 14 people we told you about"? That's a ridiculous state of affairs given each employee is required to sign a legally binding document well in advance of the transfer date. If I was Sullivans I'd be having a very pointed discussion with GAL. Stagecoach knew how many 257 Drivers were coming over the day before we took over the route Sounds to me like the process is not working properly at all then. No business can work on that sort of deadline even allowing for some element of "spares" in the pool of drivers. I can understand drivers may want to hedge their bets and might delay their decisions but we had no option at LU when I was TUPE-ed to TfL. If you didn't sign by a given date you had sacked yourself as there was no job to go back to LU.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Feb 4, 2018 7:34:50 GMT
So a unproblematic first day for Sullivans Buses on the 299. 14 drivers were meant to transfer over to SB, but Go Ahead only allowed 7 to move over. This caused problems trying to source drivers for the upcoming change. Luckily everything was sorted on time, using school rota drivers. How on earth can you get to the point of transfer when the old employer says "only 7 people not the 14 people we told you about"? That's a ridiculous state of affairs given each employee is required to sign a legally binding document well in advance of the transfer date. If I was Sullivans I'd be having a very pointed discussion with GAL. It is a problem with small scale TUPE (unlike the bulk one you did) because there probably isn’t a set of drivers that work majority of time on the route that is moving (case law determines how you identify those moving), Therefore there may have been no one who met the compulsory TUPE rules (because it was a minority of their work as part of a pool of work where majority was unaffected) The question will be how these 14 names were compiled, and a legal claim could be made if this was fundamentally wrong. There is a deadline to pass the list of employees moving, but clearly you should confirm with employees before sending it, some of these drivers might have been called in and opted to take other roles, but why GAL sent a list including those not leaving is clearly a fundamental error I wouldn’t be having a pointed discussion, I would get the companies solicitor to lodge a claim, it is not one late change that was beyond companies control.
|
|
|
Post by grubbysa on Feb 4, 2018 7:49:04 GMT
So a unproblematic first day for Sullivans Buses on the 299. 14 drivers were meant to transfer over to SB, but Go Ahead only allowed 7 to move over. This caused problems trying to source drivers for the upcoming change. Luckily everything was sorted on time, using school rota drivers. How on earth can you get to the point of transfer when the old employer says "only 7 people not the 14 people we told you about"? That's a ridiculous state of affairs given each employee is required to sign a legally binding document well in advance of the transfer date. If I was Sullivans I'd be having a very pointed discussion with GAL. Apparently originally NP said 'we have got no work for you so go SM.' However very recently they said 'OK you can stay but only if you come onto a GAL contract and not stay on the First contract' so I assume some drivers just wanted to stay instead of travelling to SM for every start of shift.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 8:26:01 GMT
This all smacks a feeling of very unsportsmanship behaviour, and doesn't sound legal either??
I wonder if Go-Ahead did this to put other operators off from bidding for their work in future ... Will be interesting to see what happens when the 231 and 491 move to Metroline in the summer.
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Feb 4, 2018 10:14:14 GMT
How on earth can you get to the point of transfer when the old employer says "only 7 people not the 14 people we told you about"? That's a ridiculous state of affairs given each employee is required to sign a legally binding document well in advance of the transfer date. If I was Sullivans I'd be having a very pointed discussion with GAL. Apparently originally NP said 'we have got no work for you so go SM.' However very recently they said 'OK you can stay but only if you come onto a GAL contract and not stay on the First contract' so I assume some drivers just wanted to stay instead of travelling to SM for every start of shift. This all smacks a feeling of very unsportsmanship behaviour, and doesn't sound legal either?? I wonder if Go-Ahead did this to put other operators off from bidding for their work in future ... Will be interesting to see what happens when the 231 and 491 move to Metroline in the summer. The last part of the post by grubbysa is true. When Go-Ahead lost the 19 and 249 to Arriva, drivers were given the choice to move, but very few drivers wanted to move over to Arriva, creating a huge surplus of drivers and leaving Arriva with some recruitment to do. The surplus drivers moved all over GAL, to C, NP, Q and other garages. I was told that Go-Ahead pay the most out of the London bus companies, but now Sadiq Khan has implemented that equal pay deal, I’m not sure if that’s still true. However, when Metrobus won the X26, I was told quite a lot of drivers wanted to come over from Quality Line, and I sorted out the new driver's locker keys before they arrived on April 15. The amount of drivers coming over were known however well in advance. In the case of NP’s 299 drivers, as mentioned above, 14 were originally intended to come over, but I can only assume the 7 drivers who didn’t go to SB preferred to stay at GAL, and maybe found work on the 153 rota. Any drivers surplus might have been loaned out to other garages until the 214 or another route enters NP in the next few months. I'm not entirely convinced that the 7 all wanted to stay at GAL at the last minute, they must've been talking about it but when it came to the deadline didn't put their names down, but another factor must've been that they lived a bit too far from South Mimms, which I understand is just outside the London boundary, but don't quote me on that because I'm only assuming this. All drivers who are affected by a route loss at GAL are given the option to move, but quite a lot of drivers when it comes to that decision prefer to stay with the company, so I don't think there's any unsportsmanlike behaviour here.
|
|