PTC scammed Singapore?

[Johorat]

From: AAAAAA50 May-14 10:26 pm

To: ALL (1 of 12)

64812.1

 

 

Turns out SMRT did not raise their maintenance budgets for a good 10 years.

 

Remember every time when PTC raised the fares, they ALWAYS cite increased operational and maintenance costs as the rationale?

 

It is time for a thorough investigation into PTC, all of its members, especially those affiliated with the transport operators to make them answerable and accountable for their past actions.

[Scb11980]

From: AAAAAA50 May-14 10:26 pm

To: ALL (1 of 12)

64812.1

 

 

Turns out SMRT did not raise their maintenance budgets for a good 10 years.

 

Remember every time when PTC raised the fares, they ALWAYS cite increased operational and maintenance costs as the rationale?

 

It is time for a thorough investigation into PTC, all of its members, especially those affiliated with the transport operators to make them answerable and accountable for their past actions.

 

please provide where you got this interesting information

[Roh96]

Not surprising to me. Maximising profit has always been the top priority in business. What more from a listed company like SMRT.

[Johorat]

Saw defends SMRT's maintenance regime

 

Published on May 10, 2012

 

 

Former SMRT chief executive Saw Phaik Hwa, leaving Court with her friends' help. Ms Saw defended SMRT's maintenance regime stoutly and deflected evidence that suggested there were shortcomings that might have led to the December breakdowns that affected more than 200,000 commuters and which triggered the government-appointed inquiry -- ST PHOTO: WONG KWAI CHOW

By Christopher Tan

 

Saw Phaik Hwa, former chief executive of rail operator SMRT, was the 87th witness at the Committee of Inquiry earlier on Thursday.

 

In the five hours or so she was on the stand, Ms Saw defended SMRT's maintenance regime stoutly and deflected evidence that suggested there were shortcomings that might have led to the December breakdowns that affected more than 200,000 commuters and which triggered the government-appointed inquiry.

 

Ms Saw said SMRT not only met maintenance standards set out by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and suppliers, it had set itself even more stringent standards.

 

When Second Solicitor-General Lionel Yee, who is representing the Attorney-General's Chambers, presented data showing how SMRT's maintenance budget had hardly changed from financial year 2002 to 2011, despite rising ridership, more frequent train runs and aging assets, Ms Saw said the company's capital expenditure on mid-life upgrades had helped to stave off big increases in maintenance cost.

 

But when inquiry panelist Professor Lim Mong King of the School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering at Nanyang Technological University presented another set of figures to show how SMRT's maintenance budget had not kept pace with rise in ridership, Ms Saw said 'incorrect parameters' were used in the data set.

 

Ms Saw said the events that triggered the breakdowns on Dec 15 and 17, 2011 - where a section of the electrical 'third rail' collapsed when several support claws became dislodged - were unprecedented.

 

She related how SMRT had gone around asking operators around the world who had faced a similar problem - to learn from them - but no one had experienced it.

 

When Prof Lim pointed out that 'third rail' sagging because of dropped claws had happened here at least twice before December 2011 - the latest having occurred in 2010 - Ms Saw said management was not aware of the seriousness of the symptom because the dropped claws were reinstated and secured by plastic cable ties.

 

On the evening of Dec 15, when the first of two serious breakdowns occurred, Ms Saw revealed that SMRT had actually wanted to shut down the North-south line for the whole night to conduct a thorough check.

 

But she said the LTA wanted service to resume as soon as possible.

 

Trains started running again at past-11pm that night, only to break down again on the morning of Dec 17.

[Ronleech]

Not surprising to me. Maximising profit has always been the top priority in business. .What more from a listed company like SMRT

 

To further include in your post....

 

What more from a listed company like SMRT who is approved by our government to monopolise and leech on their consumer fares but providing a below par services and stardard....

Edited May 15, 2012 by Ronleech

[Maroon5]

technically not wrong. i am sure their maintenance exp is up in absolute dollars. but the main point here is there is no choice for public transport users as there r no alternatives.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Maroon5

[Cymagnus]

"On the evening of Dec 15, when the first of two serious breakdowns occurred, Ms Saw revealed that SMRT had actually wanted to shut down the North-south line for the whole night to conduct a thorough check.

 

But she said the LTA wanted service to resume as soon as possible."

 

Who is in the best position to determine whether downtime maintenance is required? Who knows better? Who owns it? LTA or SMRT?

SMRT played downed the seriousness of the check, a lapse in judgement.

 

[Unidentified]

so the only expenses other than maintenance costs that kept increasing in the last 10years are the high fliers salaries?

 

somemore she also another farlali owner wor.don't know got scrimp on her farlali maintenance or not.her poor prancing horse must be eating some old grass. :. (

Edited May 15, 2012 by Unidentified

[Maroon5]

"On the evening of Dec 15, when the first of two serious breakdowns occurred, Ms Saw revealed that SMRT had actually wanted to shut down the North-south line for the whole night to conduct a thorough check.

 

But she said the LTA wanted service to resume as soon as possible."

 

Who is in the best position to determine whether downtime maintenance is required? Who knows better? Who owns it? LTA or SMRT?

SMRT played downed the seriousness of the check, a lapse in judgement.

 

pushing the buck. my boss wans my report "as soon as possible" but tat doesnt mean i give him a half baked report that wil embarass him in front of the shareholders.

[Picanto]

From: AAAAAA50 May-14 10:26 pm

To: ALL (1 of 12)

64812.1

 

 

Turns out SMRT did not raise their maintenance budgets for a good 10 years.

 

Remember every time when PTC raised the fares, they ALWAYS cite increased operational and maintenance costs as the rationale?

 

It is time for a thorough investigation into PTC, all of its members, especially those affiliated with the transport operators to make them answerable and accountable for their past actions.

 

nonsense.get your facts right before shooting your f--king mouth off..

[I-LOVE-CARS]

Saw defends SMRT's maintenance regime

 

Published on May 10, 2012

 

 

Former SMRT chief executive Saw Phaik Hwa, leaving Court with her friends' help. Ms Saw defended SMRT's maintenance regime stoutly and deflected evidence that suggested there were shortcomings that might have led to the December breakdowns that affected more than 200,000 commuters and which triggered the government-appointed inquiry -- ST PHOTO: WONG KWAI CHOW

By Christopher Tan

 

Saw Phaik Hwa, former chief executive of rail operator SMRT, was the 87th witness at the Committee of Inquiry earlier on Thursday.

 

In the five hours or so she was on the stand, Ms Saw defended SMRT's maintenance regime stoutly and deflected evidence that suggested there were shortcomings that might have led to the December breakdowns that affected more than 200,000 commuters and which triggered the government-appointed inquiry.

 

Ms Saw said SMRT not only met maintenance standards set out by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and suppliers, it had set itself even more stringent standards.

 

When Second Solicitor-General Lionel Yee, who is representing the Attorney-General's Chambers, presented data showing how SMRT's maintenance budget had hardly changed from financial year 2002 to 2011, despite rising ridership, more frequent train runs and aging assets, Ms Saw said the company's capital expenditure on mid-life upgrades had helped to stave off big increases in maintenance cost.

 

But when inquiry panelist Professor Lim Mong King of the School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering at Nanyang Technological University presented another set of figures to show how SMRT's maintenance budget had not kept pace with rise in ridership, Ms Saw said 'incorrect parameters' were used in the data set.

 

Ms Saw said the events that triggered the breakdowns on Dec 15 and 17, 2011 - where a section of the electrical 'third rail' collapsed when several support claws became dislodged - were unprecedented.

 

She related how SMRT had gone around asking operators around the world who had faced a similar problem - to learn from them - but no one had experienced it.

 

When Prof Lim pointed out that 'third rail' sagging because of dropped claws had happened here at least twice before December 2011 - the latest having occurred in 2010 - Ms Saw said management was not aware of the seriousness of the symptom because the dropped claws were reinstated and secured by plastic cable ties.

 

On the evening of Dec 15, when the first of two serious breakdowns occurred, Ms Saw revealed that SMRT had actually wanted to shut down the North-south line for the whole night to conduct a thorough check.

 

But she said the LTA wanted service to resume as soon as possible.

 

Trains started running again at past-11pm that night, only to break down again on the morning of Dec 17.

 

Wah so smart, cannot defend= blame government body

[Unidentified]

Wah so smart, cannot defend= blame government body

 

thats why she used to be at the helm.

backstabbing and arrows shooting are norms to get 1 to the top.

 

i left out the 'spread legs' because......

[Kar_lover]

From: AAAAAA50 May-14 10:26 pm

To: ALL (1 of 12)

64812.1

 

 

Turns out SMRT did not raise their maintenance budgets for a good 10 years.

 

Remember every time when PTC raised the fares, they ALWAYS cite increased operational and maintenance costs as the rationale?

 

It is time for a thorough investigation into PTC, all of its members, especially those affiliated with the transport operators to make them answerable and accountable for their past actions.

 

 

Are you sure it is PTC that is scamming us??

 

http://www.ptc.gov.sg/about/overview.htm

 

PTC is a council playing a regulatory role. They do not collect the fares. When public transportation companies (mrt, taxi, bus) want to raise fares they have to apply to the PTC for approval.

 

From their website i don't see any of the council members are from any of the public transport companies.

 

At most you can question their decision process (when approving fare hikes). To say they are they are raising fares and scamming you is plain ridiculous which i guess is not surprising since it is typical of such posts.

 

[Donut]

Let us question who are the board of directors in SMRT.

 

Saw is hired as CEO, but she reports to the board of directors. Who are they and why they are not being asked to be involved in the public hearing?

[Maxus-MIFA9]

Are you sure it is PTC that is scamming us??

 

http://www.ptc.gov.sg/about/overview.htm

 

PTC is a council playing a regulatory role. They do not collect the fares. When public transportation companies (mrt, taxi, bus) want to raise fares they have to apply to the PTC for approval.

 

From their website i don't see any of the council members are from any of the public transport companies.

 

At most you can question their decision process (when approving fare hikes). To say they are they are raising fares and scamming you is plain ridiculous which i guess is not surprising since it is typical of such posts.

 

Whenever transport companies wants to increase fare, they just write to PTC.

 

Whether PTC doing their job by investigating the reason of the request to increase, no body knows. When they agreed to the request with simple reason like maintenance & operating cost up, those sitting in the board at PTC needs to be shot.

 

There is a company (don't want to name the company) reported in their annual report of after tax profit of $53 million some years back but fare increase still approved sighting maintenance & operations cost....

[Zniper]

nonsense.get your facts right before shooting your f--king mouth off..

 

so it's not true? u from SMRT higher ups?

[XenonWhite]

Are you sure it is PTC that is scamming us??

 

http://www.ptc.gov.sg/about/overview.htm

 

PTC is a council playing a regulatory role. They do not collect the fares. When public transportation companies (mrt, taxi, bus) want to raise fares they have to apply to the PTC for approval.

 

From their website i don't see any of the council members are from any of the public transport companies.

 

At most you can question their decision process (when approving fare hikes). To say they are they are raising fares and scamming you is plain ridiculous which i guess is not surprising since it is typical of such posts.

 

 

To think that PTC play as an independent regulartory role is not quite correct.. We need to understand who sit onboard the PTC and at the same time also sitting at some other companies that PTC regulates. Are they link or is there any conflict of interest here..

 

Sad to say, all those ppl are inter-link to each other in same way or another..

[Picanto]

so it's not true? u from SMRT higher ups?

 

waiting for TS to veirfy