EU moves to end state rail monopolies

[The Stationmaster]

The big problem is basically the French I think.  They have been very slow (probably as slow as they possibly can be) to make any sort of move on 91/440 for passenger trains and have raised all sorts of obstacles such as the previously unheard of tax on rail passenger vehicles which they said at one stage every other operator passing through France would have to pay.  I think part of the problem is that SNCF is such an over-bureaucratised and inefficient organisation (and a standing joke among French business consultants as it happens) that the French Govt wishes to protect it from the inevitable impact of open competition while the union influence would fight bitterly against any attempt to weaken their hold on things and introduce more efficient use of manpower.

 

The consequence of all this is the very peculiar timetables you get on many French routes along with SNCF's somewhat warped logic about what makes a commercially successful train (45% load factor makes a train 'successful' - irrespective of the operating costs especially in rolling stock utilisation).  In many places privatisation of French passenger operation would introduce major changes and efficiencies overnight, and show up SNCF for what it is once you get past the glitter of TGV/LGV and some Regional services.

 

BTW talking of open access operators in Germany here's a pic of a train I travelled on back in 2003 - the operator's name clearly visible on the front end, below the destination -

 

 

[Allegheny1600]

DB ceased to be a "state organisation" (in the sense of their earlier incarnation, or like BR was) many years ago..

Despite my being a big fan of DB, I am a realist (I hope!).

When did DB cease to receive state subsidies?

The arguments against EU state corporations buying up British assets and profiting from them has got to be based upon the perception of EU corporations receiving state subsidies whilst able to profit from UK corporations, especially where our businesses were denied state funding in order to survive.

This kind of thing leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth.

Curious,

John E.

[Fenman]

When did DB cease to receive state subsidies?

The arguments against EU state corporations buying up British assets and profiting from them has got to be based upon the perception of EU corporations receiving state subsidies whilst able to profit from UK corporations, especially where our businesses were denied state funding in order to survive.

 

This is an interesting question and goes to the heart of one of the contradictions of the globalised economy. When is something a "state subsidy", and when is something simply a government contract to provide a service? Why should companies which are successful at winning government contracts in their home country then be banned from operating in other countries?

 

The recent spat -- over Starbucks/Google/Amazon using internal transfers to other companies in other countries and, thus, making a "loss" in the UK and, thus, not paying any corporation taxes in the UK -- is a related example of some of the problems thrown up by free, open markets. But what those companies did was entirely logical within the system and we either want open markets or we don't.

 

I did like the story of a couple of weeks ago, about the US-based computer programmer who mostly worked from home and was his company's star worker, until they found out that he used a quarter of his salary to buy numerous Chinese programmers who produced vast amounts of code for him. He then spent his time watching daytime tv and using social networking sites (I wonder if he was an RMWebber?). Interestingly, the company sacked him; apparently it is only big business that is allowed to outsource, not us mere humans.

 

Paul

[Adrian Wintle]

This is an interesting question and goes to the heart of one of the contradictions of the globalised economy. When is something a "state subsidy", and when is something simply a government contract to provide a service? Why should companies which are successful at winning government contracts in their home country then be banned from operating in other countries?

That is also the heart of the Airbus/Boeing spat. Boeing is a large corporation that has both a commercial aircraft division and various military/government supply divisions. Because those divisions are not arms-length, Airbus considers any government contracts that are received (even those with minimal relevance to passenger aircraft) to be "state subsidies". For its part, Boeing considers European loan guarantees to Airbus (sometimes forgivable) to be "state subsidies". The A380 probably would not have been built without those guarantees, while for the 787, Boeing brought in worldwide partners to share the risk (you probably see where my sentiments lie). I have worked for subcontractors to both companies over the 14 years I spent in the aerospace industry.

 

Adrian