OPINIONS and QUERIES
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SHOULD9,HE ANCILLARY USER BE RESTRICTED?
T'ANTALUS, in his article, "The Problem of Haulier A Versus Ancillary User" (issue April 30), divided operations into three groups, but the natural division is two, i.e., Nos. 2 and 3.
In order to make a case for the haulier, Group 1, the transport of bulk loads was extracted from Group 2 and claimed as the God-given right of the haulier. Why not of the railways? They surely can claim an equal right to bulk loads. But the man who provides the traffic, apparently, has no right whatever to carry it.
The 1933 Act is blamed, by implication, for much of this traffic being carried by the ancillary user and taken from the haulier, but this Act did not prevent the haulier from carrying where he carried before, although it may have made it troublesome for him to enlarge his fleet in order to carry more.
I have in mind a haulier who, before the war, lost a considerable amount of short-distance traffic from • one trader alone, but this haulier's fleet has increased. He, apparently, had no difficulty with the licensing authority when renewals were made.
Tantalus' final_ suggestion, that the C licensee be put on the same basis as the haulier and required to prove need before obtaining any additional licences, was obviously macle without much thought. Any increase in a trader's business (and there should be much after the war) .would necessitate an application to the licensing authority for additional vehicles if he desired to carry the traffic himself. But most of the hauliers in the area would protest that their services were available to the trader. If this proved to be the case, how come these idle vehicles for which licences were granted for proved needs? T.M. Edinburgh.
roNSIDERING the controyersy concerning, and the 'criticism of, the alleged "bed of roses" of ancillary operators, and the article by "Tantalus," I am prompted to suggest that all this misdirected energy would do far more good if. directed to the improvement of all operators in this most persecuted industry—road haulage. Surely any amenities of freedom enjoyed by the C-licensed operator should be applauded rather than condemned, and the freedom enjoyed should be set up as a standard for achievement by all operators, A and B.
It seems to me that the A operator has a "dog in the manger" attitude, and having been surrounded by expensive legislators and fighting a losing battle against the railways and Government, purely through the lack of organized opposition and energetic leaders, is like a drowning man who wants to take everyone else down with him. Personally, I am at an utter loss at such mentality, and can only suggest that while such a mental outlook is paramount, he is surely digging his own grave.
My employers have been, for over 12 years, paying quite a substantial annual premium to a road operators' association representing all classes of operator, purely for the reason of giving financial support, without which no association can become strong or effective.
Any suggestion that the C operator is living in Utopia surely shows a mental degeneration.
In no other country in the world would an operator in the A, B or C classes pay such colossal amounts in direct and indirect taxation for the meagre 'privilege of operating his own vehicles in an attempt to wrest a living.
In conclusion, instead of this back-biting attitude of the less fortunate, let all classes of operator choose strong leaders, and having done so, give them all the support in the world .to fight this slow strangulation of the right to get a living by hard work and initiative, which can be achieved only by relief in taxation and the removal of bureaucratic control, in the success of • which we .
should all share. H. M. Swrrr, Chief Engineer,
Trowbridge. Usher's Wiltshire Brewery, Ltd.
WHY PICK ON THE CONTRACT A LICENSEE?
WITH regard to the letter, "Should the Contract A IT Licence be Discontinued?" by Mr. Spink in your issue dated April 23, what have the 4.-licence holders done to warrant being protected and wrapped in cotton wool against competition? How many "sleeping partners" are remunerated by A-contractors? How , many of the original A-licence holders are in business to-day?
Most of the small firms have been smashed, or bought out, when on their last legs, by the octopus concerns which continually extend at the least overflow of work; they will not leave a crust for anyone.
Does Mr. Spink consider the position of his clients, and.whother they are protected from competition?
The A:licence holders have been well treated, but their methods generally are mean. They should not complain of others cutting prices; they created ratecutting and the trade has been rotten with it for years. Look at the wages they paid prior to the war. What hopes had a driver or a mechanic of becoming a master man unless he could first obtain a contract, although he may have spent the best part of his life in the _trade?
I hold a Contract A licence; I obtain the official rates; I have never undercut anyone; and I pay my drivers much more than the union rate.
My solution is, limit capital and assets, and we will
all live—but not gluttonously. • PLAYFAIR. Ilford.
s NOT A LANDMARK IN BUS HISTORY
THE admiration for the late Thomas Tilling expressed 1 by Mr. C. R. Taylor in his letter published in your May 7 issue, seems to have led him to make a statement which goes far beyond the facts of the case. Most certainly it was not Tilling who first made patrons come .ro the bus, excepting in the purely limited sense of one morning journey from the suburbs. The operation of buses on fixed routes and in regular services began in London 114 years ago with George Shillibeer, and the surviving records of the industry allow of no doubt or ambiguity about the unbroken continuance of the practice.
With the development of residential suburbs before the construction of local railways, the custom sprang up of the "business journey" in the morning being maintained by a bus which modified its ordinary route in order to pick up regular patrons. This was the practice which Thomas Tilling opposed successfully on the route between Peckham and Oxford Circus. It is an interesting point in London bus history, but not the landmark which Mr. Taylor apparently imagines.
London, W.C.1. • CHARLES E. LEE.