AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No deal

23rd August 1986, Page 18
23rd August 1986
Page 18
Page 18, 23rd August 1986 — No deal
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• Attempts by BET Group subsidiary United Transport International to persuade the newly-formed West Yorkshire Public Transport Company to take a minority stake in a West Yorkshire-based minibus company have been rejected.

UTI is currently looking to set up minibus schemes in a number of large cities including Leeds. It recently contacted the new WYPTC offering it a minority stake in a Leeds-based UT! operation. The basis for the proposed joint agreement would have involved the new FTC in a deal whereby UTI introduced some 250 minibuses to replace up to 80 existing Metro double deckers, although some protection would have been included covering expansion into other areas of Leeds.

Bill Cottham, managing director of the new WYPTC, says the deal has been turned down as there "is obviously a limit to the number of minibuses which can be sustained by Leeds, and our own proposals for the Leeds area are now so advanced that we are already in a position to develop the situation to the full."

WYPTC hopes to have over 100 of its own minibuses operating in the Leeds area by the beginning of 1987. According to Cottham the proposed replacement of 80 double deckers by an outside company, with the resulting redundancies, were unacceptable even though WYPTC would have held a share on the UT! company.

The proposed UTI deal also came under fire from the West Yorkshire branch of the Transport and General Workers Union which has criticised UTI's business activities in South Africa.


comments powered by Disqus