Source:
http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/public-...de-cities/
!!! All public transport prices converted into US dollars in mid-November, 2010
Munich, Germany (tram, bus, metro, subway) $3.29 – $6.58
Sydney, Australia (metro, bus) $1.96 – $3.24
Oslo, Norway (tram, bus, metro, ferry) $4.34 – $6.68
Singapore, Singapore (subway, light rail) $0.61 – $1.53 (never say bus, but you should know unless you never took buses.)
Just for perspective sake.
Especially for those who only travel inside tour coaches and have not tried public transport while vacationing overseas
No offense intended.
(10-12-2012, 02:07 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]SBS transit 3rd quarter result,
9mth results
Staff cost - $251 million
Operating profit - $20 million
So, at the most, SBS transit can only offer 5-10% salary increase for bus driver while maintaining same bus fares.
If we want our bus drivers to have higher pay, we need to accept higher bus fare.
Anyway, if we look at current bus operation results, SBS transit is making a loss. If we combine both advertisement and bus together, they only make S$8 million.
So for our bus drivers to have a decent salary, we probably will need a 20% increase in bus fares.
Singapore bus fare (average fare per boarding) vs similar operators in the region, by taking SMRT fare as 100%
- SMRT - 100%
- Sydney Bus - 135%
- KMB-HK - 178%
So 20% does not seem unreasonable...
of course not saying we also want our cake and eat it too while we want bus driver profession to be respectable but we also want low fares at the same time of course there needs to strike a balance.
Personally I think running as a corporation could be a conflict of having to please shareholders by giving good dividends had it not been run as a corporation could this money have gone to improving livelihoods of bus drivers? wouldn't a more satisfied bus driver in turn provide better service to public and lesser disruptions ?
i was surprised the minister chose to speak of raising fares just a few days after the chinese strikes.
the strikes were over 2 points:
1) "unfair" treatment between china FT and m'sian FT.
2) bad living environment.
1) has nothing to do with pay - it is poor labor communications.
2) has nothing to do with pay - it is poor labor welfare.
of cos, giving everyone a pay rise immediately is going to make a few people happy, but it is better off for Mr Lui to solve the immediate issue of why SMRT's management is doing so badly with the labor relationships.
all he is succeeding is to make EVERYONE pissed off now.
(10-12-2012, 02:30 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2012, 02:07 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]SBS transit 3rd quarter result,
9mth results
Staff cost - $251 million
Operating profit - $20 million
So, at the most, SBS transit can only offer 5-10% salary increase for bus driver while maintaining same bus fares.
If we want our bus drivers to have higher pay, we need to accept higher bus fare.
Anyway, if we look at current bus operation results, SBS transit is making a loss. If we combine both advertisement and bus together, they only make S$8 million.
So for our bus drivers to have a decent salary, we probably will need a 20% increase in bus fares.
Singapore bus fare (average fare per boarding) vs similar operators in the region, by taking SMRT fare as 100%
- SMRT - 100%
- Sydney Bus - 135%
- KMB-HK - 178%
So 20% does not seem unreasonable...
Even we do accept the fact that bus fares do need to be raised by 20%, the problem is getting Singapore's society to accept the fact of a fare hike. I feel many people will still grumble on such a spike in bus fares even if rational premises and figures are used like above. It is common for most people to not want their cost of living to rise.
(10-12-2012, 02:58 PM)CY09 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2012, 02:30 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2012, 02:07 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]SBS transit 3rd quarter result,
9mth results
Staff cost - $251 million
Operating profit - $20 million
So, at the most, SBS transit can only offer 5-10% salary increase for bus driver while maintaining same bus fares.
If we want our bus drivers to have higher pay, we need to accept higher bus fare.
Anyway, if we look at current bus operation results, SBS transit is making a loss. If we combine both advertisement and bus together, they only make S$8 million.
So for our bus drivers to have a decent salary, we probably will need a 20% increase in bus fares.
Singapore bus fare (average fare per boarding) vs similar operators in the region, by taking SMRT fare as 100%
- SMRT - 100%
- Sydney Bus - 135%
- KMB-HK - 178%
So 20% does not seem unreasonable...
Even we do accept the fact that bus fares do need to be raised by 20%, the problem is getting Singapore's society to accept the fact of a fare hike. I feel many people will still grumble on such a spike in bus fares even if rational premises and figures are used like above. It is common for most people to not want their cost of living to rise.
hmm... SMRT/SBST is a victim of its own success...
(10-12-2012, 02:45 PM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]of course not saying we also want our cake and eat it too while we want bus driver profession to be respectable but we also want low fares at the same time of course there needs to strike a balance.
Personally I think running as a corporation could be a conflict of having to please shareholders by giving good dividends had it not been run as a corporation could this money have gone to improving livelihoods of bus drivers? wouldn't a more satisfied bus driver in turn provide better service to public and lesser disruptions ?
This is not the first time i heard similar comment. The answer is if it is not run as corporate, it is unlikely there is sufficient money ("profit") left. Thus probably most if not all employees including bus drivers' pay will be subsidized by tax payer money.
(10-12-2012, 02:58 PM)CY09 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2012, 02:30 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2012, 02:07 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]SBS transit 3rd quarter result,
9mth results
Staff cost - $251 million
Operating profit - $20 million
So, at the most, SBS transit can only offer 5-10% salary increase for bus driver while maintaining same bus fares.
If we want our bus drivers to have higher pay, we need to accept higher bus fare.
Anyway, if we look at current bus operation results, SBS transit is making a loss. If we combine both advertisement and bus together, they only make S$8 million.
So for our bus drivers to have a decent salary, we probably will need a 20% increase in bus fares.
Singapore bus fare (average fare per boarding) vs similar operators in the region, by taking SMRT fare as 100%
- SMRT - 100%
- Sydney Bus - 135%
- KMB-HK - 178%
So 20% does not seem unreasonable...
Even we do accept the fact that bus fares do need to be raised by 20%, the problem is getting Singapore's society to accept the fact of a fare hike. I feel many people will still grumble on such a spike in bus fares even if rational premises and figures are used like above. It is common for most people to not want their cost of living to rise.
Especially remember who is the largest shareholder in our Public Transport companies. Isn't it more equitable if everyone of the Public has a share? Then if a fare increase is necessary for whatever "reason", i don't think most of the Public will be against it. Ha! Ha! sound like "Communism". Will it works?
There are not many rational people around that will agree with the fare raise. But, I suppose the higher salary will attract both Singaporeans to be bus drivers and we probably can source for more educated foreign drivers than what we have now.
Since bus transport is a basic neccesity, I will prefer Singaporeans to drive to make a living. Not all Singaporeans can be lawyers, doctors, accountants and some of them will have problems looking for a decent job to cope with life. Bus driving does not require much in educational levels nor physical strength.
Bus driving, at the current workload + pay, is not a decent job yet.
But, the raise should not be accompanied by a general salary increment for all SBS transit employees.
Since the discussion is about buses, let's look at SBS Transit's reported financials.
2003
===
Revenue $548m
Staff cost $267m
Top 5 executives all paid less than $500k.
Directors' fees $248k
Energy & Fuel cost $55m
Bus Fleet 2,475
2011
===
Revenue $751m
Staff cost $306m
1 top executive paid $500k-$750k
Directors' fee $345k
Energy & Fuel cost $171m
Bus Fleet 3,015
So, what happened in the last 8 years?
1. Did workers' pay go up?
We can see that total staff costs went up by 14.6% in 8 years. This amounts to wage inflation of 1.7% a year, which is not much when you consider CPI in Singapore. But wait, the bus fleet also expanded by 21.8%.
If we assume that drivers work about the same number of hours in 2011 as in 2003, then the headcount also expanded by 21.8%. That means that wages per worker actually DECREASED in the 8 years from 2003 to 2011.
In other words, bus drivers have not benefitted from the last 8 years of Singapore's economic growth - rather they have suffered as their pay has actually gone DOWN while the cost of living has gone UP. Is it any wonder that the bus companies complain nobody wants to be a bus driver? "Join us! We guarantee long hours, low pay, and future pay cuts!"
2. Did management pay follow the same trend as the rest of the workers?
In 2003 the top 5 key executives were paid between $250k-$500k. The directors were all non-executive and were paid a total of $248k in fees. The Deputy Chairman did not draw a director's fee, so that leaves 7 directors sharing the pot, an average of $35k each.
In 2011 there was 1 executive director (Gan Juay Kiat, CEO). Gan took home $500k-$750k in pay, of which 47% was salary, 48% bonus and 5% "others". 9 directors shared fees of $345k, but Gan did not get a fee, so that means the remaining 8 directors got $43k each. Total remuneration of the directors and key executives comprising of short-term benefits was $2.4m.
So... if we assume that the CEO in 2003 was paid $500k, and the CEO in 2011 was paid $500k, then over the years the CEO did not get a pay cut while the drivers apparently suffered pay cuts. If we take the midpoints of the salary ranges, then the CEO got $375k in 2003 and $625k in 2011, or a pay rise of 6.6% a year, on average, while the drivers suffered pay cuts.
What about the directors? They got $35k in 2003, and $43k in 2011. This amounts to a rise of 2.6% per year, not huge, but again, contrast the modest fee increments with the pay cuts the workers have apparently suffered.
3. Is pay really the problem?
If we look at staff cost versus revenue, in 2003 it was 49% of revenues. In 2011 it was 41% of revenues. In other words, staff costs have been a smaller and smaller issue. Blaming staff costs for not making money is not a valid excuse.
What is the real problem? Fuel. In 2003 fuel was $55m, 10% of revenues. In 2011 energy and fuel was $171m, 23% of revenues. Look at the price of oil in 2003, and the price of oil in 2011. Therein lies the problem.
========
So, bus fares HAVE to go up. For 2 obvious reasons:
1. Wages
You can't keep cutting wages and expect to maintain service standards. The wages are clearly not keeping pace with inflation, unlike management salary and directors' fees. As a matter of fairness the gains and pains alike must be shared. Otherwise you end up with a very unhappy workforce (see: Minister salary review).
2. Fuel
You can't pretend that fuel cost is not an issue. Fuel costs have tripled in the last 8 years. The fare adjustment formula does not take fuel costs into account, therefore the formula is broken.
In fact, the PTC is allowed to deny fare increases, again this means the formula is broken - fare adjustment should be automatic, in both directions, to avoid the government "gaming" the fares in election years. Remember that denied fare increases are not held back to the next round - they are simply lost forever.
(10-12-2012, 04:04 PM)d.o.g. Wrote: [ -> ]Since the discussion is about buses, let's look at SBS Transit's reported financials.
2003
===
Revenue $548m
Staff cost $267m
Top 5 executives all paid less than $500k.
Directors' fees $248k
Energy & Fuel cost $55m
Bus Fleet 2,475
2011
===
Revenue $751m
Staff cost $306m
1 top executive paid $500k-$750k
Directors' fee $345k
Energy & Fuel cost $171m
Bus Fleet 3,015
So, what happened in the last 8 years?
1. Did workers' pay go up?
We can see that total staff costs went up by 14.6% in 8 years. This amounts to wage inflation of 1.7% a year, which is not much when you consider CPI in Singapore. But wait, the bus fleet also expanded by 21.8%.
If we assume that drivers work about the same number of hours in 2011 as in 2003, then the headcount also expanded by 21.8%. That means that wages per worker actually DECREASED in the 8 years from 2003 to 2011.
In other words, bus drivers have not benefitted from the last 8 years of Singapore's economic growth - rather they have suffered as their pay has actually gone DOWN while the cost of living has gone UP. Is it any wonder that the bus companies complain nobody wants to be a bus driver? "Join us! We guarantee long hours, low pay, and future pay cuts!"
2. Did management pay follow the same trend as the rest of the workers?
In 2003 the top 5 key executives were paid between $250k-$500k. The directors were all non-executive and were paid a total of $248k in fees. The Deputy Chairman did not draw a director's fee, so that leaves 7 directors sharing the pot, an average of $35k each.
In 2011 there was 1 executive director (Gan Juay Kiat, CEO). Gan took home $500k-$750k in pay, of which 47% was salary, 48% bonus and 5% "others". 9 directors shared fees of $345k, but Gan did not get a fee, so that means the remaining 8 directors got $43k each. Total remuneration of the directors and key executives comprising of short-term benefits was $2.4m.
So... if we assume that the CEO in 2003 was paid $500k, and the CEO in 2011 was paid $500k, then over the years the CEO did not get a pay cut while the drivers apparently suffered pay cuts. If we take the midpoints of the salary ranges, then the CEO got $375k in 2003 and $625k in 2011, or a pay rise of 6.6% a year, on average, while the drivers suffered pay cuts.
What about the directors? They got $35k in 2003, and $43k in 2011. This amounts to a rise of 2.6% per year, not huge, but again, contrast the modest fee increments with the pay cuts the workers have apparently suffered.
3. Is pay really the problem?
If we look at staff cost versus revenue, in 2003 it was 49% of revenues. In 2011 it was 41% of revenues. In other words, staff costs have been a smaller and smaller issue. Blaming staff costs for not making money is not a valid excuse.
What is the real problem? Fuel. In 2003 fuel was $55m, 10% of revenues. In 2011 energy and fuel was $171m, 23% of revenues. Look at the price of oil in 2003, and the price of oil in 2011. Therein lies the problem.
========
So, bus fares HAVE to go up. For 2 obvious reasons:
1. Wages
You can't keep cutting wages and expect to maintain service standards. The wages are clearly not keeping pace with inflation, unlike management salary and directors' fees. As a matter of fairness the gains and pains alike must be shared. Otherwise you end up with a very unhappy workforce (see: Minister salary review).
2. Fuel
You can't pretend that fuel cost is not an issue. Fuel costs have tripled in the last 8 years. The fare adjustment formula does not take fuel costs into account, therefore the formula is broken.
In fact, the PTC is allowed to deny fare increases, again this means the formula is broken - fare adjustment should be automatic, in both directions, to avoid the government "gaming" the fares in election years. Remember that denied fare increases are not held back to the next round - they are simply lost forever.
See! i tell you "TRIPARTITE" system works! i suspect it works all the time. Yes it works all the time at the expense of the lowly workers for 26 years already.
Who really needs a UNION if you need to give 14 days notice before you can force Management to take notice of your pay not enough and deteriorating working conditions?