Greyhound/Peter Pan YO! Bus Introduces New York City-Washington

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I just took a look at GoToBus, I've never used them before, but it doesn't seem like that great of a site due to lack of any major operators. All the operators seem to be small operators, and while it looks like a bus copy of Kayak or HotelsCombined, it seems pointless when you can't book Greyhound tickets.

GoToBus' cheapest offering for SF-LA on September 17th, for example, is $35 on CA Shuttle, while Greyhound offers $9.50, yes, that's $9.50!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Swadian Hardcore said:
rickycourtney said:
The claim is supported by a Philadelphia Enquirer article:

"Between 1997 and 2007, Greyhound lost 60 percent of its market share in the Northeastern United States to Chinatown buses, according to Brian Antolin, a Philadelphia transportation researcher, who has worked for BoltBus."

Full article here: http://articles.philly.com/2013-08-08/business/41171232_1_megabus-boltbus-greyhound-express

If Greyhound was still running the same amount of runs... they had 60% less passengers onboard.
Click to expand...
I don't think so, that would be throwing money away.

metrolinecoach111 said:
rickycourtney said:
The claim is supported by a Philadelphia Enquirer article:

"Between 1997 and 2007, Greyhound lost 60 percent of its market share in the Northeastern United States to Chinatown buses, according to Brian Antolin, a Philadelphia transportation researcher, who has worked for BoltBus."

Full article here: http://articles.philly.com/2013-08-08/business/41171232_1_megabus-boltbus-greyhound-express

If Greyhound was still running the same amount of runs... they had 60% less passengers onboard.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. What actually happened was that they were getting the same number of passengers over a 10 year period ('97-'07), but the market grew by 60%. Because the ridership didn't grow much, they had to cut frequencies on Mo-Thurs service. The cuts were further accelerated by bringing Bolt online. They projected the "cannibalization" when they launched of "legacy" pooled schedules. But trust me when I say that no one in management ever expected the ridership numbers they got in the first two years.

While I can't quote exact numbers, I can say that the ridership numbers in total today are far and away greater now than in '07.
Click to expand...
60%?! Now that I think about it, I think Greyhound did lose some ridership, but gained it back by now and gained even more through BoltBus and are trying to gain even more through YO! Bus. I don't think they lost 60%, but perhaps they lost 30% and then the market grew by about 30% or something like that. I know it's not exactly like that because of the base-100 fractions, but pretty much. Also, Peter Pan grew tremendously in the late 1990's after purchasing Bonanza, Arrow Line, and Pawtuxet Valley, whose buses were all committed to the NEC and ate away Greyhound local passengers from rural towns, further dilating Greyhound ridership.

No to mention the fact that Greyhound's G4500 disaster heavily affected the NEC which were some of the first routes to get them, and resulted in financial problems, which in turn resulted in cuts and fleet shortages, dilating more ridership. Greyhound's fleet shrunk about 1,000 buses between 2003 and 2009.
Click to expand...
I can personally tell you (because I worked there with the guy who had the stats), the 60% in the way I said it was true.

As mentioned before, I can't say the exact numbers. But I can provide an example:

If in 1997 the intercity bus market in the Northeast carried 100 people, all those 100 people took Greyhound. In 2007, the intercity bus market had 180 people, but only those same 100 people took Greyhound, while the other 80 took other carriers. The ridership number was maintained (grew maybe a point or two in percentage), but the "loss" came from the fact that they didn't capture many of the new riders that grew the market.
 
Swadian Hardcore said:
metrolinecoach111 said:
Swadian Hardcore said:
I get it now, that's what they did with the second Chicago-Dallas schedule and the Atlanta-Jacksonville-Miami before both of those went daily.
Click to expand...
Yes. The saying in Rev Mgmt there is that if you can't make money on your "money" days, it ain't worth doing at all.
Click to expand...
Makes perfect sense to me. But where do the buses go when they are not running? Do they go into the regular Greyhound pool, or NEC pool?
Click to expand...
In most cases, they sit. Get some TLC in the garage pit or stay as reserve.

During the week you try to minimize your loss. You won't make much money (in most cases you'll actually lose) because you don't have the volume and can't charge appropriately. So you run service to minimize the loss while maximizing the revenue. The way you do that is by limiting the number of miles on the road - in this case, miles = variable costs and variable costs come as fuel, tolls, taxes and driver expenses. The less buses on the road, the less variable expenses you have to eat at what little money you make and you rest for the days you can and will make money.

That, in a nutshell, is revenue management, fleet management, pricing and driver planning.
 
Swadian Hardcore said:
I just took a look at GoToBus, I've never used them before, but it doesn't seem like that great of a site due to lack of any major operators. All the operators seem to be small operators, and while it looks like a bus copy of Kayak or HotelsCombined, it seems pointless when you can't book Greyhound tickets.

GoToBus' cheapest offering for SF-LA on September 17th, for example, is $35 on CA Shuttle, while Greyhound offers $9.50, yes, that's $9.50!
Click to expand...
GoToBus' original purpose was to serve as a customer service/ticketing/payment processing/web design platform for the Chinatown carriers. It grew to include tours (directed to Asian travelers) and hotel packages (through an affiliate). It is a point of reference for bus services that do not want (or cannot for various reasons) be associated with Greyhound. The people who book here either do not like/trust Greyhound for whatever reason, or are just looking for what they perceive to be the "lowest" cost. This cost includes the actual fare, but also the "perceived" hassle of going to a bus station and "dealing" with Greyhound.
 
metrolinecoach111 said:
Swadian Hardcore said:
rickycourtney said:
The claim is supported by a Philadelphia Enquirer article:

"Between 1997 and 2007, Greyhound lost 60 percent of its market share in the Northeastern United States to Chinatown buses, according to Brian Antolin, a Philadelphia transportation researcher, who has worked for BoltBus."

Full article here: http://articles.philly.com/2013-08-08/business/41171232_1_megabus-boltbus-greyhound-express

If Greyhound was still running the same amount of runs... they had 60% less passengers onboard.
Click to expand...
I don't think so, that would be throwing money away.

metrolinecoach111 said:
rickycourtney said:
The claim is supported by a Philadelphia Enquirer article:

"Between 1997 and 2007, Greyhound lost 60 percent of its market share in the Northeastern United States to Chinatown buses, according to Brian Antolin, a Philadelphia transportation researcher, who has worked for BoltBus."

Full article here: http://articles.philly.com/2013-08-08/business/41171232_1_megabus-boltbus-greyhound-express

If Greyhound was still running the same amount of runs... they had 60% less passengers onboard.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. What actually happened was that they were getting the same number of passengers over a 10 year period ('97-'07), but the market grew by 60%. Because the ridership didn't grow much, they had to cut frequencies on Mo-Thurs service. The cuts were further accelerated by bringing Bolt online. They projected the "cannibalization" when they launched of "legacy" pooled schedules. But trust me when I say that no one in management ever expected the ridership numbers they got in the first two years.

While I can't quote exact numbers, I can say that the ridership numbers in total today are far and away greater now than in '07.
Click to expand...
60%?! Now that I think about it, I think Greyhound did lose some ridership, but gained it back by now and gained even more through BoltBus and are trying to gain even more through YO! Bus. I don't think they lost 60%, but perhaps they lost 30% and then the market grew by about 30% or something like that. I know it's not exactly like that because of the base-100 fractions, but pretty much. Also, Peter Pan grew tremendously in the late 1990's after purchasing Bonanza, Arrow Line, and Pawtuxet Valley, whose buses were all committed to the NEC and ate away Greyhound local passengers from rural towns, further dilating Greyhound ridership.

No to mention the fact that Greyhound's G4500 disaster heavily affected the NEC which were some of the first routes to get them, and resulted in financial problems, which in turn resulted in cuts and fleet shortages, dilating more ridership. Greyhound's fleet shrunk about 1,000 buses between 2003 and 2009.
Click to expand...
I can personally tell you (because I worked there with the guy who had the stats), the 60% in the way I said it was true.

As mentioned before, I can't say the exact numbers. But I can provide an example:

If in 1997 the intercity bus market in the Northeast carried 100 people, all those 100 people took Greyhound. In 2007, the intercity bus market had 180 people, but only those same 100 people took Greyhound, while the other 80 took other carriers. The ridership number was maintained (grew maybe a point or two in percentage), but the "loss" came from the fact that they didn't capture many of the new riders that grew the market.
Click to expand...
Ah, that makes sense now, but there has always been Peter Pan, Arrow Line, Pawtuxet Valley, and Bonanza. And I think Greyhound did lose ridership due to the G4500 disaster.

metrolinecoach111 said:
Swadian Hardcore said:
I just took a look at GoToBus, I've never used them before, but it doesn't seem like that great of a site due to lack of any major operators. All the operators seem to be small operators, and while it looks like a bus copy of Kayak or HotelsCombined, it seems pointless when you can't book Greyhound tickets.

GoToBus' cheapest offering for SF-LA on September 17th, for example, is $35 on CA Shuttle, while Greyhound offers $9.50, yes, that's $9.50!
Click to expand...
GoToBus' original purpose was to serve as a customer service/ticketing/payment processing/web design platform for the Chinatown carriers. It grew to include tours (directed to Asian travelers) and hotel packages (through an affiliate). It is a point of reference for bus services that do not want (or cannot for various reasons) be associated with Greyhound. The people who book here either do not like/trust Greyhound for whatever reason, or are just looking for what they perceive to be the "lowest" cost. This cost includes the actual fare, but also the "perceived" hassle of going to a bus station and "dealing" with Greyhound.
Click to expand...
But Megabus has nothing to do with Greyhound, and they are cheap, yet they do not sell of GoToBus. Also, CA Shuttle is ridiculous, they offer assigned seating but it backfires because the seats are the front cost far more than the seats at the back, and the seats at the back still cost more than Greyhound, ***? At least they have 102D3's without sagging seats, and I love the 102D3, but I won't ride them because they are only cheap when you sit in the back by the lav.
 
You bring up a good point.

Megabus doesn't sell on GoToBus for many reasons. The biggest is that for GoToBus.com, one of the requirements is that the company must use their inventory and payment processing system. Mega doesn't want to give up control over their seat inventory and distribution (constantly changes according to available capacity on any given schedule - add or subtract) and prefers people to recognize their brand - megabus.com, not Megabus.

That said, they do partner with an aggregator - Wanderu. The point here is that Wanderu directs people that they (Mega) might not have gotten to their site to book, thereby keeping control of their distribution and inventory, whereas with GoToBus.com they couldn't.

A while back however when Mega co-operated and branded with the Chinatown carrier Eastern between NY-BALT-DC, the Eastern tickets were sold on both GoToBus and megabus.com.

Hope this makes sense.
 
Thanks, yeah it makes sense now, but then I'm wondering how CA Shuttle can keep their seat-assignment system, with fares based on specific seats, while selling through GoToBus. This also reminds me why YO! Bus can sell through GoToBus while BoltBus cannot, I thought YO! and Bolt had the same booking system.

Thing is, I've never heard of GoToBus, and I don't think many people will know what they are. I actually know CA Shuttle from AIBRA, a site that lists every operator to every city and town in the US, though not very accurately. I could see YO!, Bolt, or Mega on the street, but I have no idea how GoToBus, as an aggregator, not a bus operator, would advertise their booking services.

And if I were running my own bus line, I would not sell through GoToBus for possible processing fees that are cut off my profits, I would rather do my advertising or cooperate with Greyhound.

I still think it's weird to have a "Kayak" for buses, yet no Greyhound, Mega, Bolt, Trailways, Peter Pan, or anyone big. Trailways could surely sell on GoToBus if they wanted to, right?
 
metrolinecoach111 said:
railiner said:
A few years ago, long before they started the 'Yo-Bus' operation, GL briefly ran a frequent shuttle bus between New York's Chinatown, and the PABT, with a Chinese speaking agent on board, in an effort to compete with the Chinatown carrier's. It ran for about maybe a year, and then was discontinued, having failed in its mission....

Bolt Bus, I believe was conceived more to compete with Megabus, and indeed followed much of their business model.....
Click to expand...
Yes on both accounts. I'm sure you also heard the grumblings at the time when Bolt was created that GLI approached Mr. B about implementing the same model in the North Wing. Thus NeON :)
Click to expand...
Thank goodness that 'NeOn' is a thing of the past....what a royal PITA, it was to stop at "Penn Station"..... :rolleyes:

And don't get me started on the 'brain surgeon' that programmed the TRIPS computer to book trips from that location to points South, by sending them up to Binghamton, and then back to The Port, to connect to southbound schedules.....and a whole lot of other such routings in an apparent effort to make a sale by any means possible....

And I personally hate those graphics applied to buses that cover any part of the windows.....

Okay, rant over.

I feel much better now, thankyou. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not exactly sure, but for the last several years, their contribution to the pool were getting rather "long in the tooth", and not up to the standards of the new GLI and TNY equipment.

That is only my speculation, nothing official....

The only time we see GLC equipment down here now is during the American Thanksgiving holiday weekend, when a few might 'slip in'.

It is kind of ironic the way GLI and GLC equipment have sort of 'flip-flopped"....During the period when the two companies were separated, GLC had much nicer equipment than GLI...GLC 'D's' had enclosed baggage compartments, and video system's, for example....
 
The D4505's in the pool I believe were a few years old when we first saw them....and they did have many mechanical problems....lots of road failures....

Our driver's did not like driving GLC buses, and would look for reasons to cut them, and replace with one of our buses, if possible...

The seats in that last photo are comfortable,,,much better than in the new buses, even though they don't have as much legroom...
 
railiner said:
The D4505's in the pool I believe were a few years old when we first saw them....and they did have many mechanical problems....lots of road failures....

Our driver's did not like driving GLC buses, and would look for reasons to cut them, and replace with one of our buses, if possible...

The seats in that last photo are comfortable,,,much better than in the new buses, even though they don't have as much legroom...
Click to expand...
They are Mexican Amaya seats, and everyone knows have comfortable a good Mexican seat can be.

Either this with fabric covering: http://www.amaya-astron.com.mx/EN/products/coach_seats/torino_vip/.

Or this: http://www.amaya-astron.com.mx/ES/productos/asientos_foraneos/siglum_ph/.

DL3's all have Mexican Amaya seats, and on seats alone they CRUSH the new buses. Same reason why YO! Bus beats BoltBus for all its faults.

I know the GLC D4505's were probably bad, but what made drivers dislike them? Just the fact that they were D4505's, or did they prefer the GLI (US) DL3's vs GLC (Canada) Dl3's?
 
Nothing in particular against the D4505's, but most GLC buses in general. They did not have a good track record compared to our buses, performance-wise. We always ran our newest equipment on at least the first section of the Toronto pool runs. They did not, or didn't have any, for the last few years that we pooled with them. We did not pool with GLI at that time....GLI was still pooling with Trentway-Wager (now Coach Canada or Megabus). When Laidlaw reunited the two GL carrier's, GLI started pooling with GLC again, on a trip or two, while still mainly pooling with Trentway. When Trentway went into the Stagecoach family, GL severed their ties with Trentway, and pooled only with GLC, and about that time also pooling with Trailway's of New York....
 
Yeah, but if the GLC buses had all those amenities like video systems, didn't passengers like them? I know their D4505's apparently did not have video systems.
 
I'm talking about the driver's.....the GLC buses did not pull the hills very well, among other deficiencies....
 

Latest posts

Back
Top