Respondent: - __________________ Date: __________

Representing: - _________________ Place: __________



Calmac User Groups-Services Enquiry Questionnaire


Introduction BCP.
Background/reasoning of overall exercise.
Discussion on fundamental principles as per Deliverable 9.1
Background to BCPs remit in respect of providing a Services
Specification
Questions to structure discussion, as below

Q1. Do you have a view on how the service specification should define Ministers' commitment to "protect levels of service." In specifying minimum standards, we could for example base these standards on:

Option X - preserving current service arrangements (routes, timetables etc) as they are operated by CalMac now, perhaps with the exception of some Out-of-Undertaking routes or some new sailings or where there is strong
local support for bidders to propose changes in the current delivery pattern

Option Y - protecting current service arrangements in terms of principles of provision (e.g. minimum frequencies) rather than operational specifics (e.g. precise timetabling requirements).

Any there any other options which the Executive should be considering to protect levels of service through the service specification?

Comments:



Q2. Do you have a view on how the service specification could define Ministers' commitment "to protect fares"?

[Option 1] To protect fares in real terms by linking to RPI and contractually preventing operators from raising prices except by prior agreement with the Executive. This fare protection would be applied on a route-by-route
basis.

[Option 2] To specify a 5-year maximum fares structure which would reflect further application of CalMac's CFARES policy in a way that would be revenue neutral, in real terms, across the network as a whole.

Under Option 2, the commitment to protect fares would be honoured at a network, rather than route, level: route fares (and increases in them) would be pitched at levels consistent with further application of the CFARES policy but in a way that was revenue neutral (in real terms) across the network. There are several ways in which this approach could be applied:

Option 2A - roll out the principles of CFARES throughout the contract period. This would involve setting out in the service specification detailed fares (in cash terms) for each route for each of the 5 years. These calculations together with an allowance for RPI would represent the maximum fares which any bidder would be allowed to apply to a particular route;

Option 2B - roll out the CFARES Review but only at the quinquennial point (ie at the outset of each 5 year contract). For the period of the contract relative fares would be frozen in real terms;

Do you have views on these options.? Are there any other options which the Executive should be considering to protect fares through the service specification?

Comments:





Q3. What kind of provision should be made in the service specification for encouraging and/or requiring integrated information exchange or integrated ticketing (e.g. with other ferry providers and/or other transport providers
in an agreed local zone)?

Comments:





Q4. What requirements should be laid out in the service specifications for the successful operator to engage in on-going consultation with ferry users?
Comments:





Q5. Where are the pressure points on the network? For example, are you aware of examples where vessels have sailed leaving customers behind?
Conversely, are there sailings which go significantly under capacity - ones, for example, where bidders might use a smaller ship giving scope for improvements overall?
Comments:





Q6. On the routes where Calmac competes against commercial operators, how does the competing service compare?
Comments:




Q7. Do you believe there is scope for service improvements without adversely affecting the subsidy paid by the Executive?
Comments:





Q8. What barriers are there to improvements in service provision and improved links with other transport providers (e.g. integrated timetables)? How can these be overcome?
Comments:





Q9. What changes, if any, would you like to see to the service provided? Why?

Areas of interest might include: onboard services (catering, safety, accessibility for disabled, seating, lounges) & service ethic of staff; onshore manpower, facilities & services (catering, crewing, parking, marshalling etc.);
reliability; punctuality; etc
Comments:

Q.10. Some CalMac ships welcome travellers aboard through the medium of Gaelic before safety announcements etc are issued in English and some current CalMac staff are familiar with Gaelic and the local culture, history and
tourist attractions of the localities served by the CalMac ferries. While the principle of non-discrimination is central to the forthcoming tendering process and it will not be possible to include requirements in the service specification that discriminate either directly or indirectly against other member states is there an argument for some knowledge of Gaelic etc?
Possibilities might include continued Gaelic announcements on some vessels, some knowledge of Gaelic among shore staff, and possibly some knowledge of Gaelic among seagoing staff on particular routes although this would need to be assessed against MCA regulations and EC procurement rules . Do you have views ?

Comments:




Q.11. Any other questions/comments/service improvement suggestions?
Comments:







BURNESS, CORLETT & PARTNERS Rev. Edition 4. 28/8/01