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.
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.
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
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.
