巴士醞釀加價 陳祖澤促市民「接受可能出現調整」

原帖由 238X 於 2007-5-7 01:10 發表


其實有 D 好客又服務中上既小巴、村巴公司早應升格，
俾佢地一部份專利公司優惠去做大 D。

AMS ... 你叫佢轉專利公司佢都未必轉,
那種靈活性會因受規限而減少~

陽光??? 升做九巴咩?
其它? 會否同專利權有衝突?

原帖由 053h4 於 2007-5-7 01:10 發表
10年來除了油價, 及維修
無論人工, 租金/保險等開支
專利巴士成本的確持平

而油費上升了4年, 是否是加價的理由
本人認為是可加1~2%

而什麼可加可減基制,
物價水平同巴士成本根本關係不大
在通賬來臨的環境, 對巴士公司最有利

但新九城在近 2 年都有加人工,
油價由 30 美金 升到 65 美金一桶~
現有 2% 之水位並不出奇.

原帖由 siupy 於 2007-5-7 00:49 發表

仲有roadshow 條數........

好似分開架喎

就算你買架禍根豪, 筆錢落888度架, 唔會補貼專利車營運

原帖由 orange 於 2007-5-7 00:35 發表
PS:食米唔知米貴,而家一包金x 8公斤都要$61.8,巴士仲可以
keep住10年前價錢,真係幾難得,早係以前每2年加3次

你唔好忘記, 建華八年期間通縮, 又唔見巴士公司減價

原帖由 fp8329 於 2007-5-6 23:21 發表


巴士公司作為上市公司，要加價
就應該拿出數據，說服市民及議
員接受。

以工資為例，過去一年陳先生工
作的公司，單是在車長「補水」
環節上慳了不少。在車長人工方
面，近年新入職的月薪制員工，
與日薪制的車長在人工方面頗 ...

I dont know about labor, or other overhead.
But I think I can say a word about fuel
In 1997, the average price of crude oil is about 20USD per barrel
10 years from then, its around 65USD per barrel, up by over 200%!
For people do not drive, or never deal with oil,
they will NEVER understand how brutal the oil price is!

In my transit, our buses' gas millage is about 2 miles per gallon
(3.2 Km per 3.8 Liters)
consider the transits in HK, please do the math,
see how much does the transits pay for fuel everyday

After you have done all the math, you should be able to find out
the money saved from labor and other overhead
is NOTHING compare to the fuel price.

Of course, the transits are resposible to environmental changes (such as fuel price, new regulations)
but I dont understand why the commuters
are not resposible at all when the fuel price is up by over 200%
through the last 10 years.

原帖由 dicksonboy 於 2007-5-8 04:07 發表


I dont know about labor, or other overhead.
But I think I can say a word about fuel
In 1997, the average price of crude oil is about 20USD per barrel
10 years from then, its around 65USD per barrel, ...

Probably you have stated the main point. According to the previous annual report announced, fuel oil expense increased by 19.9% to HK$970.4 million compared with 2005 and an increase for nearly an half in comparsion with figures 10 years ago, not to say the recent drastic increase in insurance cost and tunnel toll charges. I think the cost control especailly in increasing labour effeciency has succeeded to maintain the profitability in current level these years.

What I realise is that the cost for labour is not an important component in leading to the sharp decline(40% after excluding the unusual capital gain) of net profit for KMB. Reducing cost in this component seemed to be ineffective when inflation comes although it is always the easier and less resistant way to cut cost in this compoent.

At this moment, maybe too many people have their own vested interest. It is quite common to hear the resistant voice for fare increase. I don't know the stage of "all benefit and one suffers" would last long. Honestly, I would agree to pay a higher fare for maintaining the service quality instead of unchanged fare with declining quality of service.

真係痴線
全冷加左三成價都唔心足?
(新車應該慳油過舊車)
我比九巴加夠一倍好唔好?
唔使兩年執得...

原帖由 manlok 於 2007-5-8 18:27 發表
真係痴線
全冷加左三成價都唔心足?
(新車應該慳油過舊車)
我比九巴加夠一倍好唔好?
唔使兩年執得...

弊在「可以接受」同「痴線」之間又好似有一大段距離...

我地唔係逢加必反，但我地覺得九巴並無提供
令人覺得值回票價既服務，呢樣先係問題。

小巴係咁多管制下仍然咁風生水起，九巴難辭其咎。

原帖由 manlok 於 2007-5-8 18:27 發表
真係痴線
全冷加左三成價都唔心足?
(新車應該慳油過舊車)
我比九巴加夠一倍好唔好?
唔使兩年執得...

Do you know how much fuel does AC buses burn compare to non A/C buses?
Just think about your home
if you turn the AC on 24 hours a day, 7 day a week,
how much will the electricity bill be?

people have been talking about mini buses & illlegal shuttle services
these business have different settings. its a whole different ball game: such as different bureacrate structure
Is it realistic to compare businesses with different settings?

I am not saying transits can increase fares as they want
but they should be allowed to adjust the fares accordingly
people just cant understand the same service could have cost more over time

原帖由 dicksonboy 於 2007-5-9 00:54 發表

people have been talking about mini buses & illlegal shuttle services
these business have different settings. its a whole different ball game: such as different bureacrate structure
Is it realistic to compare businesses with different settings?

This is totally understandable, what I wish to say is,
bus companies (KMB in this case) can simply do more and should be more open to problems.
Does it make sense that red minibuses stealing traffic that should be done by buses or even MTR?
[Say, Tsuen Wan to and from Wan Chai or Kwun Tong]

If they don't like MTR, at least the volume is obviously capable for buses.
Did KMB tried anything to help itself earn more from this?

And some route simply is wasting resources.
Can you imagine having 3 or 4 routes serving a long, slow way,
and at least 2 of them deserve faster service?
This can, in turn can let KMB use less bus to earn more, but did it do anything?

If the above questions' answer are false, why I have to pay more?
Again, it did increase the fare when the services become A/C!

And of course, KMB is not the only one to blame.
I take less minibus after they raised their fares either.

[ 本帖最後由 238X 於 2007-5-9 01:05 編輯 ]