The Shotgun Blog
« Jeremy Clarkson Slams Canadian Health Care | Main | Nonsense About World War II from an Unexpected Source »
Saturday, September 05, 2009
The Greyhound Canada Fiasco
When I was in my 20's I lived in Southern Manitoba. I was single, working a few part-time jobs and paying rent, money was tight, I couldn't afford a car. I grew up in Northern Manitoba, so the way I would get back there to visit would be on the Greyhound bus. To drive to my home town by car would normally take about 6 hours, but taking the bus would increase that trip to 10-12 hours, because they made so many stops in small towns to pick up passengers or parcels.
Greyhound Canada announced on Thursday that it was discontinuing service in Manitoba and parts of Ontario because adhering to "government regulation" had become too costly. The regulation in question is the mandate that they are to provide bus services to unprofitable routes to small towns, which can no longer be subsidizes their their profit making revenue sources.
"Despite numerous attempts over the years to adjust this business model in order to gain a profitable footing, Greyhound Canada has now run out of options," (Greyhound Canada senior vice-president Stuart) Kendrick said Thursday.
Now Greyhound is asking for a $15-million subsidy from the provincial and federal governments so it can break even on these government-mandated routes.
Some people are suspect of Greyhounds true financial status, especially since they just built a new multi-million dollar bus terminal in Winnipeg.
Greyhound recently signed a 40-year lease on a brand new bus terminal by Winnipeg International Airport. Those aren't the actions of a company that had long-term reservations about doing business in the province, (Manitoba NDP MP Niki Ashton) suggested to CBC News.
The real problem is that the government got involved at all. I am not for government bail-outs or subsidizes, but in a situation where the government puts demands on a company to provide a service which causes them a loss, then perhaps they should be compensated by those people making the demands.
Yes, it's good that people have bus service to small towns, there is somewhat of a demand there. If those routes aren't profitable, then perhaps Greyhound should raise their prices to service those areas, but no doubt they would be accused of "gouging" and the government would step in at that point as well.
There are flight services to even the most remote of Northern Communities, business have found a way to make those trips profitable, but they aren't everyday and will cost you. In the absence of Greyhound going to every small town along a stop, perhaps another company could step in a fulfill the demand for that service, and adjust their rates accordingly, unless the government gets in the way.
-----------
I welcome feedback and I ask for civility in the exchange of comments. Vulgarity is discouraged. Please express yourself creatively with other language. We discuss ideas here, attacks on a person are discouraged.
Posted by Freedom Manitoba on September 5, 2009 in Canadian Politics, Travel | Permalink
Comments
It is sad that Toronto will receive billions to fund a rail link to the airport solely because other major cities have them, while those on the periphery are forced to do without even bus service.
Cancel the rail link immediately and fund NW Ontario and Manitoba's bus service. Priorities people. Toronto is a racist, elitist and fascist society that deserves nothing. They're rich, let them pay for their own needs.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-05 9:53:19 AM
Scott,
This is a simple property rights issue. Greyhound does not own the roads, so if they want to use those roads to do their business they have to be willing to meet the conditions set down by the road owners.
The Canadian people own the roads, and they have set conditions for their use by commercial operators like Greyhound. There is no question that those rules are legitimate, since as owner of the roads they can set whatever rules they like and Greyhound can either convince them to set different ones or walk away.
Now this case sounds like it, right now, anyway, is a lose-lose. Greyhound is not getting what it really wants and the Canadian people are not getting what they want*. The Greyhound announcemet could just be a negotiating ploy to put pressure on the Canadian people, but I'm not really sure. I thought the whole Paula Abdul leaving Idol was a publicity stunt too, and that does not seem to be right. In the end Greyhound and the Canadian people whould be able to work something out so both are satisfied, but it remains to be seen if that will happen and, if not, who the greater loser will be.
- - - -
* What? You question that the Canadian people really want service to remote areas at below cost? Well if they really want something else, they should vote at the upcoming shareholders meeting (aka federal election) to change that. If they don't make it an issue, then they have no right to complain.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-09-05 10:42:34 AM
There are flight services to even the most remote of Northern Communities, business have found a way to make those trips profitable, but they aren't everyday and will cost you.
Posted by Freedom Manitoba on September 5, 2009
Wanna bet those northern Manitoba flights and airports get a subsidy. Most people who have to go to northern Manitoba are those unfortunate to live there, and stupid Americans who want to see polar bears. Both should pay full cost.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-09-05 11:53:12 AM
....while those on the periphery are forced to do without even bus service.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-05 9:53:19 AM
That's why people buy cars
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-09-05 11:56:37 AM
Both should pay full cost.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-09-05 11:53:12 AM
Yes, they should. I don't know if those palces are subsidized, I'll check.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-05 12:06:11 PM
Toronto's progressive politics is severely undercut by its social "just-us" attitude. Pathetic. No wonder Ernst Zundel loved them so much - he could get away with anything.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-05 12:34:05 PM
Fact Check, that's complete bullcrap. "The Canadian people" have little to no say in anything regardless of what they make a fuss about. The party system insures that.
"The Greyhound announcemet could just be a negotiating ploy to put pressure on the Canadian people..."
My take on that is that it's absolutely the case. If they were legitimately threatening to shut down to save money, they wouldn't be shutting down shortly before Christmas, they'd shut down shortly after Christmas when their pockets are lined with the proceeds of a high volume of non-discounted fares. They're threatening to shut down before to get pressure on the government from people who rely on the service to get to family during the holiday season. It's disgusting.
Posted by: K Stricker | 2009-09-05 12:38:51 PM
Greyhound only looks at their Passenger service...they make alot off freight. On many runs they could carry 4-5 passengers and be full of freight and that run would make money. Its like that throughout much of Greyhounds system..Freight is their Gravy! They have farmed out runs that carry a ton of freight with little people other operators have came in and done quite well because of the freight. FIRST BUS ONLY bought Laidlaw for the school buses they inherited Greyhound!! And Need to either sell the company or live with their purchase.
Posted by: Jeff Roe | 2009-09-05 5:21:56 PM
"If they were legitimately threatening to shut down to save money, they wouldn't be shutting down shortly before Christmas"
That makes sense, espeically since they just spent millions of doallrs on a new terminal in Winnipeg. When you start mixing big government in with private business you start getting this kind of hoopla.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-05 7:15:53 PM
Fact Check has a point.
Since the Goobermint owns the roads it has the power to make whatever regulations it wants. It could even force everyone with a car to give rides to those who do not. I bet this could replace Greyhound in Manitoba without a problem.
Posted by: GeronL | 2009-09-06 12:49:35 AM
I don't know if those palces are subsidized, I'll check.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-05 12:06:11 PM
A quick check showed that in 2006 Gillam, Thompson, Bloodvein, Little Grand Rapids, and St. Andrews airports collectively got almost $2 million from Transport Canada. I've never heard of any of these places. I'd bet a lot more airports in Manitoba have gotten money.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/pnr/2006/06-pn002e.htm
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-09-06 8:49:28 AM
" It could even force everyone with a car to give rides to those who do not."
Yep, that's the same logic.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-06 9:13:51 AM
"and St. Andrews airports collectively "
Funding the airports is not the same as subsidizing an airline, which would be the equivalent to the Greyhound situation.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-06 9:15:04 AM
It should also be noted that Transport Canada gave the following Alberta airports in 2009 collectively $1.5 million to buy new snow clearing equipment.
Grande Prairie - $98,133
High Level - $440,000
Medicine Hat - $188,000
Red Deer - $362,450
Red Deer - $488,575
This is an outrage. We hear repeatedly from one moron on this blog about Toronto using the Army to clear snow, yet Alberta expects the federal government to buy their local airports new snow clearing equipment.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-09-06 9:21:44 AM
Funding the airports is not the same as subsidizing an airline, which would be the equivalent to the Greyhound situation.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-06 9:15:04 AM
All the airlines that serve northern Manitoba participate in the Food Mail Program administered by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Were it not for this many wouldn't offer services to the places they fly to. And this is only one of many subsidies that air services get for flying in northern Manitoba. The Indians that live up there never ate bananas and oranges before the federal government staring subsidizing them.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-09-06 9:32:54 AM
Stig: airports are a federal responsibility. I don't like it either as I wish Alberta to be totally independent from fascist Ontario, but that's the way it is.
I've seen Alabamians deal with snow better than Tronna people. I say that the world should spit on the fascists until they smarten up, eliminate Holocaust denial from their racially segregated schools, and stop deceiving themselves about their "progressive" politics.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-06 9:39:39 AM
Stig: airports are a federal responsibility.
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 2009-09-06 9:39:39 AM
Those Alberta airports are all owned by the cities they are in. In fact they were all built by the feds and given to the cities for free. It's not the federal governments responsible to to clear snow for them. Da Punk is a typical moron Albertan who thinks that everybody except Alberta gets subsidies when the facts say otherwise.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-09-06 10:27:10 AM
Stig,
Please do not equate what Zebulon says to what Albertans say or think. He may be eligible to work for the Alberta Government but he in no way represents Albertans, from my experience anyway.
Posted by: Bret | 2009-09-07 3:24:04 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.