(20-07-2012, 08:36 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]if the cost to SMRT lower by anyhow, the fare would adjust accordingly.
do you see the MRT fare dropping if the lease framework changes?
if not, then there is somewhere else the money is going to flow to.
IIRC, the formula to derive the MRT face is base on factors of energy price, inflation etc. None related to SMRT's internal biz operating expense and profit.
In short, NO, i do not see it will lower the fare with the framework changes.
IMO, the saving from the capital cost will likely be used to offset the escalated maintenance and staffing expenses.
today price is holding steady, dispite the recommendations to sell down by various analysts...
(20-07-2012, 08:46 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]IIRC, the formula to derive the MRT face is base on factors of energy price, inflation etc. None related to SMRT's internal biz operating expense and profit.
In short, NO, i do not see it will lower the fare with the framework changes.
IMO, the saving from the capital cost will likely be used to offset the escalated maintenance and staffing expenses.
Here's the fare increase formula for every year (extracted from AR2011 pg75) for 2008-2012:
Maximum Fare Adjustment = 0.5CPI + 0.5WI – 1.5%
CPI refers to the change in Consumer Price Index over
the preceding year and WI refers to the change in Average
Monthly Earnings (Annual National Average) over the
preceding year, adjusted to account for any change in the
employer’s Central Provident Fund contribution rate. The
productivity extraction of 1.5% is half of the public transport
operators’ average productivity gains achieved for the period
from 2003 to 2007, which was 3.0% per annum.
Indeed, it is based on inflation and general state of economy (wages). But these are just 'guidelines' and PTC has the right to reject any requests (which it has done so) accordingly.
I find it counter intuitive than 'productivity gains' is actually a handicap to getting a fare adjustment since I vividly remember that the Transport Minister had always claimed that by keeping public transport operators(pseudo) private, it would improve productivity and keep fares low.
(i am guessing that i have missed out something here)
Moving onto 2013, the current fare formula shown above is currently under review, and there will be a new formula.
In the end if SMRT becomes financially unsustainable (e.g. Fare adjustment cannot keep pace with cost increases) , guess who will prop it up?
Bloody Temasek Holdings!!...
Somemore with the new CEO, i think SMRT is going to be hopeless....They dont even know exactly where the problems are with their maintenance regime....I am sure somewhere down the road, there might be train collision due to signal issue....
Having been an previous employee for a government privatized company I am familiar how the way how these government privatized companies operate.
when the news broke regarding SMRT signaling equipment frequent breakdowns I know what is happening. This is 100% the government fault, not that they have no money but nobody wants to take the decision to spend as $$$ == KPI and KPI is linked to performance and bonuses and all managers and HOD have KPI and one of the KPI is to be profitable or not to waste resources unnecessarily
had the CEO adopted a good maintainence regime while she was running it it would probably have been costly but made the engineering depts and employees very happy, train rides would be smooth but she will get whacked frequently by government who are the biggest shareholders and are also her bosses who are going to review her performance. The small shareholder are just along for the ride and the public wouldn't care less one bit and will just take everything for granted. So tell me which party should the CEO make happy the employees or the shareholders?
Furthermore she was previously from DFS with retail experience so in other words government actually wanted to tap her retail experience and not somebody with engineering background.
So when this inquiry was going to happen she had no choice but to leave, she would be blamed regardless the outcome at least leaving can still retain a good legacy of having made the company profitable the new stewards running will have the legacy of spending it now since PM Lee and LTA new boss are looking closely into SMRT affairs means they now have full permission and discretion to spend spend spend all they need to shore up public image
Of course, you cannot blame them when nothing happened but on hindsight...
http://www.smrt.com.sg/Portals/0/PDFs/Ab...010_AR.pdf
Only 1.5 directors have an engineer degree.
Compared with Year 2001...
4 directors have engineering degree.
Engineering company runs by lawyers, chemists, social arts graduates and economists.
????
SMRT is a transport/logistics company isn't it? Why the obsesssion with engineering?
(13-08-2012, 10:15 AM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, you cannot blame them when nothing happened but on hindsight...
http://www.smrt.com.sg/Portals/0/PDFs/Ab...010_AR.pdf
Only 1.5 directors have an engineer degree.
Compared with Year 2001...
4 directors have engineering degree.
Engineering company runs by lawyers, chemists, social arts graduates and economists.
????
One should not be judged just due to their respective degrees earned. A degree provides one with other skills besides its area of competency. IF you are to look at other industries (e.g F&B),you may be surprised to see ppl who make ice-cream (whose business is now quite successful) possessing business degress (HR etc).
Looking at politics, you will notice that many of our ministers do not have the degree relevant to their portfoilo. Example: Minister for defence is a cancer specialist
(13-08-2012, 11:16 AM)CY09 Wrote: [ -> ] (13-08-2012, 10:15 AM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, you cannot blame them when nothing happened but on hindsight...
http://www.smrt.com.sg/Portals/0/PDFs/Ab...010_AR.pdf
Only 1.5 directors have an engineer degree.
Compared with Year 2001...
4 directors have engineering degree.
Engineering company runs by lawyers, chemists, social arts graduates and economists.
????
One should not be judged just due to their respective degrees earned. A degree provides one with other skills besides its area of competency. IF you are to look at other industries (e.g F&B),you may be surprised to see ppl who make ice-cream (whose business is now quite successful) possessing business degress (HR etc).
Looking at politics, you will notice that many of our ministers do not have the degree relevant to their portfoilo. Example: Minister for defence is a cancer specialist
I only agreed to a certain extent. The combination that a particular board is will shape the company policies.
If all of them have not involved in engineering design and development, I cannot see how they can understand the difficulty of doing it properly.
I had attended a biological project briefing before. It's totally out of the world even with years of technical development in engineering world.
Or simply, I did not understand what the hack the presenter was mumbling.
And try to make a decision to invest in the project.....
There is a reason that domain experts must be around to make sensible decisions. There may be lawyers and economists that are truely multipurpose but they probably do not know what is the difference between an AC or DC motor.
Or put it simply, the entire board can be smoked easily.
funny what is a director with social arts/chemistry/economics doing in the senior mgt/board of a rail company?