Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun May 31, 2020 8:59 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 760 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 3:21 am
Posts: 869
Location: A taxi on a taxi rank
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10159

_________________
Caledonian Cabbie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:59 pm
Posts: 126
gusmac wrote:
lawman wrote:
Caledonian Cabbie wrote:
lawman wrote:
one trade
common sense from Bournemouth council at last they suggest if 45 of us
change our saloons to rear loading peugeot premier or similar they wont
have to newly licence 65 more big uns :-o


And the unlucky 45 are selected how?

For 'common sense' read 'clueless'.

And why 45 conversions as compared to 65 new ones anyway?

we have 18% of 249 so we need 45 more wav to reach 35% if we dont
the council will issue 65 new licences to make 35% of 304.
theres more than 45 of us willing to have these fine vehicles for the greater
good besides anything to appease those knuckleheads at westminster :)


Two things:

1 I doubt you will find 45 volunteers selfless enough to fall on their swords, for the greater good of the trade.

2 Where does the figure of 35% come from?

1 so far 66 have pledged to change from saloon to wav and many more interested
2 from our council whom methinks got it from your elected government
8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:59 pm
Posts: 126
toots wrote:
lawman wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
toots wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
toots wrote:
Quote:
common sense from Bournemouth council at last they suggest if 45 of us change our saloons to rear loading peugeot premier or similar they wont have to newly licence 65 more big uns

You think rear loaders are common sense :?

Any WAV is common sense when the dangers of complying with proportions is concerned.

Oh I see, so safety isn't important so long as we don't have to provide purpose built safe WAVs cos they're too expensive, got it, silly me :wink:

If they were unsafe they would not be on the road, let alone licensed.

come on you must understand that the lady who backed the farcical btec knows better than the design teams at peugeot citroen fiat vw etc
:lol:


If you going to laugh at least get it right. I never backed the Btec or the Nvq, I backed the idea of training. I'm not the only person that thinks rear loaders are unsafe. Why don't 45 of you purchase purpose built WAVs and make like a proper taxi and stop trying to be PH with silly roof sign :roll:

1 many elderly folk cannot get into purpose built, they take up so much precious rank space and they aint economical
2 i am not the only person who likes rear loaders
3 i like being a ph with silly roof sign its made a damn good living for twenty odd fun filled years
:wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:59 pm
Posts: 126
Caledonian Cabbie wrote:
lawman wrote:
theres more than 45 of us willing to have these fine vehicles for the greater
good besides anything to appease those knuckleheads at westminster :)


Well like the others I'm surprised to hear you've got so many volunteers, or perhaps there's just 45 people who think it's a good idea.

I think they tried the same in Bradford, but needless to say it didn't work - everyone was happy with the principle, but not so happy actually doing it.

So if things don't quite go to plan, remember you read it here first :wink:

Poole has used them for a few years customers love em as do the owners
and it keeps the council happy :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45416
Location: 1066 Country
gusmac wrote:
2 Where does the figure of 35% come from?

Wishful thinking. :-$

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45416
Location: 1066 Country
lawman wrote:
1 so far 66 have pledged to change from saloon to wav and many more interested

I look forward to seeing those vehicles being licensed, but I would advise no delay. :wink:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:59 pm
Posts: 126
Sussex wrote:
gusmac wrote:
2 Where does the figure of 35% come from?

Wishful thinking. :-$

at the moment we have 18% and LO says it could be AS MUCH AS 35% so maybe not as many as 45 cars need to change
thanks for all the support :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 14143
Location: On the move
Lawman wrote:
1 many elderly folk cannot get into purpose built, they take up so much precious rank space and they aint economical
2 i am not the only person who likes rear loaders
3 i like being a ph with silly roof sign its made a damn good living for twenty odd fun filled years


1. I agree and I've said this for ages only to be told I'm chattin sh*te cos everybody can get into a purpose built taxi

2. Obviously not otherwise they wouldn't be selling them, but, I am inclined to think it's more cost related than anything else. I mean why else would you put a person in a wheelchair in what is effectively the boot or what is more commonly known as the 'crumple zone' I think.

3. I'd love to a ph with a silly roof sign that was definately a twinge of jealously coming through :wink:

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45416
Location: 1066 Country
lawman wrote:
Sussex wrote:
gusmac wrote:
2 Where does the figure of 35% come from?

Wishful thinking. :-$

at the moment we have 18% and LO says it could be AS MUCH AS 35% so maybe not as many as 45 cars need to change
thanks for all the support :?

You don't need any support from the likes of me, just drivers to do what they say they will.

If I was a betting man I would say you have no chance, but please carry on trying and if you succeed then I will be the first to say well done.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:59 pm
Posts: 126
toots wrote:
Lawman wrote:
1 many elderly folk cannot get into purpose built, they take up so much precious rank space and they aint economical
2 i am not the only person who likes rear loaders
3 i like being a ph with silly roof sign its made a damn good living for twenty odd fun filled years


1. I agree and I've said this for ages only to be told I'm chattin sh*te cos everybody can get into a purpose built taxi

2. Obviously not otherwise they wouldn't be selling them, but, I am inclined to think it's more cost related than anything else. I mean why else would you put a person in a wheelchair in what is effectively the boot or what is more commonly known as the 'crumple zone' I think.

3. I'd love to a ph with a silly roof sign that was definately a twinge of jealously coming through :wink:


1. agreement at last

2. possibly never be used as wav its just getting one to keep our masters
happy

3 dangerous thingy :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:59 pm
Posts: 126
Sussex wrote:
lawman wrote:
Sussex wrote:
gusmac wrote:
2 Where does the figure of 35% come from?

Wishful thinking. :-$

at the moment we have 18% and LO says it could be AS MUCH AS 35% so maybe not as many as 45 cars need to change
thanks for all the support :?

You don't need any support from the likes of me, just drivers to do what they say they will.

If I was a betting man I would say you have no chance, but please carry on trying and if you succeed then I will be the first to say well done.


well us plateholders have unity and stomach to fight but if any big big brain out there has any better suggestions all sensible ideas considered but please no negatives :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
lawman wrote:
but please no negatives :?


You can't consider the options without looking at the negatives, lawman.
It's fine to have 66 pledging to licence a WAV but talk is cheap and times are hard.
Firstly, 35% did not come from my or your elected government. No figure has yet been announced and that one sounds a bit optimistic.
Before anyone does anything, find out where your LA got that figure from.

Assuming the government do settle on 35% (and I don't believe it will be that low for a minute) you need to get a large proportion of these to follow through on their promises.
The guys who do will have greatly increased running costs and a restricted choice of vehicle compared with the guys who don't, handing a financial advantage to their competetors.
Passengers will refuse to get in WAVs for a variety of reasons and there is nothing more gauling than sitting on a rank in a WAV that cost £thousands, just to watch your fare get in the 7 year old mondeo behind you because they don't like vans or they think WAVs cost more.
These guys will have to work longer to make the same money as their saloon competetors, impacting on their home lives and social life.
What's in it for these WAV volunteers to redress the balance?
Pretty quickly they will regret their choices and your trade unity will go out of the window.
Question: If they want, can they change back to a saloon?
If not, any value their plate has will be much less than those who can still license a saloon.

I'm not being negative just for negative's sake.
This is the reality of driving a WAV in a mixed fleet area.
I've been doing it for 15 years.

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 3:21 am
Posts: 869
Location: A taxi on a taxi rank
lawman wrote:
well us plateholders have unity....


Yes, I'm sure you all agree that someone else should run a WAV. :?

Of course, all us cynics could be totally wrong, but keep us posted.

_________________
Caledonian Cabbie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:59 pm
Posts: 126
gusmac wrote:
lawman wrote:
but please no negatives :?


You can't consider the options without looking at the negatives, lawman.
It's fine to have 66 pledging to licence a WAV but talk is cheap and times are hard.
Firstly, 35% did not come from my or your elected government. No figure has yet been announced and that one sounds a bit optimistic.
Before anyone does anything, find out where your LA got that figure from.

Assuming the government do settle on 35% (and I don't believe it will be that low for a minute) you need to get a large proportion of these to follow through on their promises.
The guys who do will have greatly increased running costs and a restricted choice of vehicle compared with the guys who don't, handing a financial advantage to their competetors.
Passengers will refuse to get in WAVs for a variety of reasons and there is nothing more gauling than sitting on a rank in a WAV that cost £thousands, just to watch your fare get in the 7 year old mondeo behind you because they don't like vans or they think WAVs cost more.
These guys will have to work longer to make the same money as their saloon competetors, impacting on their home lives and social life.
What's in it for these WAV volunteers to redress the balance?
Pretty quickly they will regret their choices and your trade unity will go out of the window.
Question: If they want, can they change back to a saloon?
If not, any value their plate has will be much less than those who can still license a saloon.

I'm not being negative just for negative's sake.
This is the reality of driving a WAV in a mixed fleet area.
I've been doing it for 15 years.


But we have a positive bunch of lads down here Gusmac must be the sunshine and the 7 miles of golden sands ready for whichever % they
chuck at us
I reckon it would be similar costs running a peugeot premier compared
with for example an Octavia far more economical and eco friendly than a
purpose built shed anyways
Never seen a passenger refuse to get in a Berlingo or similar whereas noticed plenty give purpose builts a wide berth so i think rearloaders
would be a decent compromise
Cannnot envisage plate values affected cos no extra would be dished out whereas if we did nuffin plates will come flooding onto our already overcrowded ranks
still its early days yet and we is ready for the good fight or should we just pretend it aint gonna happen :cry:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:59 pm
Posts: 126
Caledonian Cabbie wrote:
lawman wrote:
well us plateholders have unity....


Yes, I'm sure you all agree that someone else should run a WAV. :?

Of course, all us cynics could be totally wrong, but keep us posted.


And your suggestion is :?:

Suicide perhaps :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 760 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group