點解城記唔大規模買兩膽volvo b9?

原帖由 AV385 於 2012-1-24 17:03 發表
而家九記既傾向似係12M雙,12M單,10米單就搞掂哂
新記對11.3M有興趣,33XX多到都暫時唔需要諗短車住
成個市場有訂單既都係得城記個幾十部貨仔
仲要同人競爭,咁我何必去修改咁多野去迎合你呢?


如果要VOLVO動身,我覺得 ...

咁老九對短車既需求其實一D都唔細
只不過之前已經入夠je
有D線無可避明要用短雙
64K、299已經係一個好例子

原帖由 Snoopy@FB8617 於 2012-1-24 17:23 發表
咁老九對短車既需求其實一D都唔細
只不過之前已經入夠je
有D線無可避明要用短雙
64K、299已經係一個好例子

仲有好多線其實係十二米太大, 單層又唔夠
兩軸雙層正正攝到位

原帖由 FD5410 於 2012-1-24 18:12 發表

仲有好多線其實係十二米太大, 單層又唔夠
兩軸雙層正正攝到位

仲要若果老九唔入11.3米車既話
兩軸雙層既需求就仲大

原帖由 FD5410 於 2012-1-24 18:12 發表

仲有好多線其實係十二米太大, 單層又唔夠
兩軸雙層正正攝到位

仲有D客量唔太好睇既長途線，落單層通常會因為少座位而畀人反對
用兩軸雙層的話，座位數量同大車唔會差得太遠
但同時各樣成本就可以慳到好多，甚至多人起上泥個實際載客量更加唔輸蝕畀雙層

原帖由 petcity 於 2012-1-24 00:46 發表


不如，又拎下你所謂業界資料(幫人反問定)

你咁講我會覺得有人總係以巴士公司職員口述資料當寶劍用
巴士冇油擺街犯法架，唔好要我拎證據，前輩咁講你要信 ...

o我
如果咁都叫寶劍
你係咪眼紅呀？
(呢次唔關上面講價錢事..係關你事)

原帖由 ~誰@359~ 於 2012-1-24 18:17 發表
仲有D客量唔太好睇既長途線，落單層通常會因為少座位而畀人反對
用兩軸雙層的話，座位數量同大車唔會差得太遠
但同時各樣成本就可以慳到好多，甚至多人起上泥個實際載客量更加唔輸蝕畀雙層 ...

以 66 號線來講，跑 AVC 或跑 E400，
我估 AVC 會慳油好多，唔駛浪費咁多油去對抗風阻...

原帖由 tomchen 於 2012-1-24 19:37 發表


以 66 號線來講，跑 AVC 或跑 E400，
我估 AVC 會慳油好多，唔駛浪費咁多油去對抗風阻...

66畀盡咪企一條屯公，而且人地真係好長時間都keep住少客
但對比起269B呀、690呢類線咁，多人起上泥真係唔輸蝕
咁派架單層落去咪會畀人插
兩軸雙層岩岩就可以o係「大車」同「單層」中間落墨
成本有得慳，多人時段又頂到，少人時段又冇乜問題，靈活好多

原帖由 NV58 於 2012-1-24 03:56 發表


Commercial contracts does not work like that. For acquisition contracts like that, it is likely that the final payment - which tends to be a significant portion of the full value - is required to be ...

Actually normal commercial contract for acquisition of fixed assets with significant amount would compose of several instalments for the whole invoice sum likely deposit, 1st and 2nd instalment on delivery, final payment upon fulfilling inspection criteria (驗收) and retention. Regarding long serving commercial relationship, final payment upon fulfilling inspection criteria would consist of 30-40% commonly, being favourable for purchaser in terms of cash flow and remaining retention would be about 5% after the pre-determined service period agreed for the fixed assets, commonly 2-5 years after receipt of fixed assets.

Although I haven't learnt the exact specific term for the said unsettled debts referring to, it would be a significant amount if referring to the final payment upon fulfilling inspection criteria. If supplier has fallen the trap that licensing new buses would be the criteria invoking the due for the debts, then LC can't guarantee the receipt of remaining debts until the bus finally got licensed. I do think supplier would not foresee the debt being aged more than 1 year resulting a great impact for the supplier financially. But it is not surprising that the business relationship has already been damaged, not to say any incentives for further new business opportunities unless all debts have been settled.