Mailshot is your chance to
tell the subscribers of Dial-a-Cab exactly what you think. Complaints, compliments or just
to write about Call Sign. This is YOUR paper within your magazine....
You can also email your letters to: callsignmag@aol.comDIAL-A-CAB
AND MOUNTVIEW MERGER?
I have been a radio man for the past 15 years (11 years on Computer Cab and the
last 4 years on Mountview) and have been cabbing for 39 years. During this entire period,
I have always noticed the great similarities between Lords (Dial-a-Cab) and Mountview.
Their size, administration, bias towards the owner driver, method of dispatch and the fact
that they both have democratically elected Boards of Management. The slight differences
being, that Dial-a-Cab were more formal with Mountview more relaxed. I was always amazed
that they did not merge years ago. I appreciate that their founding fathers hated each
other, but I would have expected that hatchet to have been long since buried.
Recently big changes have taken place in the radio taxi business. Three small
circuits, Metro, Dial Urgent and Black Radio Taxis have gone, while the fourth, Data Cab,
has been taken over by Computer Cab making them the largest circuit by far. Dial-a-Cab and
Mountview have made changes and both are now much more professional. Their Boards consist
of intelligent men with high ethical standards and both are seriously looking to the
future. Mountview have gone GPS and have greatly upgraded their technical side. Dial-a-Cab
have improved their administration, but to my perception, seem unsure which way to turn
technically. Both face increased competition from Computer Cab.
It is my view that urgent discussions should take place with a view to
merging the two circuits. The advantages would be many: Both circuits have technical and
administrative premises. There is Mountview House, Brunswick House, Mountview's Station
Road depot, Dial-a-Cab's Roman Way depot and they all cost the circuits much money. I am
sure that with modern computer systems, the technical and administrative sides of a
combined circuit could easily be organised from half the sites releasing large financial
savings. Natural wastage could cut staff without redundancies. This money could be
channelled into even more technical equipment, smaller subscriptions and perhaps a one-off
loyalty bonus. For example, a man with 40 years service on one circuit would receive 10
times the amount paid to someone like myself with only 4 years. The only casualties would
be at the top. The new circuit would only require one Chairman, one Secretary and one
Treasurer. Sorry to mention it but it would also only need one house journal editor ie
less jobs for the boys. But even this could be overcome in the short term. I believe that
a combined circuit of Dial-a-Cab and Mountview is inevitable. Therefore, the sooner it
happens, the better.
D.Peterman (H67 Mountview)
Thank you for a very interesting letter. You obviously have a great knowledge
about the cab trade - especially the radio circuits. It would not be proper for the
management of DaC to conduct any discussions (if there are any) in the glare of their
in-house mag and I have no doubt that your own magazine Mountview News will not publish
the copy you sent them as they do not print letters from drivers, so I hope you don't mind
if I give my views. You are quite right about the 'founding fathers' dislike of each
other. Both Bonnie Martyn and Joe Stern disliked each other immensely - although that was
never turned into 'hatred'. The two companies relationship is now much better, but we are
competitors and therefore always slightly wary of each others intentions! But a merger is
a huge step. I can see the advantages that Mountview would get at this moment; their
profits are non-existent and their GPS system is hardly setting the world alight. But what
would DaC get? We have had three consecutive huge surpluses that would be swallowed up the
day after merging; we are close to refitting the fleet with new terminals and software
that you could only imagine in your dreams. So what is there? Well, there is the
opportunity to become the largest radio taxi organisation in Europe. With over 4000
mobiles and a huge account base within months of the merger, it sounds great, but who
would run it? Looking at recent-past and current performance, I could see only DaC
managing it, so would the current Mountview BoM be prepared to resign in order to maintain
the important continuity that clients would expect? As a DaC shareholder, I would be
loathe to merge with a company whose results leave so much to be desired. Yet the thought
of one huge circuit has an appeal. I said last month that a take-over of Mountview might
be the answer. While complicated, I still haven't changed my mind. As usual, Mailshot is
open for your constructive comments...Ed |
MERGER RUMOURS?
During the past 2 months there has been a lot of intercourse between our Chairman in a
one- to-one meeting, with the Chairman of Mountview at our HQ and another with most of the
board at Mountview HQ ( I was surprised to hear that Mr A.Hill was not present at the
meeting). I therefore suggest the following to save face and the prosperity of Dial-a-Cab.
Should the Board contemplate taking on a lame duck that is making a financial
loss, I believe that the following should take place:
All members of Dial-a-Cab should receive a document setting out all of the
proposals from our Board.
All members of Dial a cab should receive a document from Mountview setting
out all of their proposals.
A period of 3 months should take place where forums are held for members of
Dial-a-Cab following which a synopsis should be sent to all members. Then a further 3
months should be allowed for all the membership to be able to write to the Board with
their views.
A special committee should be set up of 3 Board members (including Mr. A
Hill) and 3 Dial-a-Cab members, to sift through all the documents. This committee should
be chaired by Mr. T. Clarke giving a total of 7 persons.
A synopsis should then be sent to the membership of Dial-a-Cab and a postal
ballot form to be returned to the office to vote if we want an extraordinary general
meeting to discuss the merger. If this ballot falls then so does the merger at this stage.
I am surprised that all Board Members did not go to the meeting at Mountview.
The reason for this open letter is that it costs some ten to twelve thousand
pounds to hold an EGM or AGM meeting for our members and this route will save a
considerable amount of money.
We do not, in my opinion, need to take on a lame duck.
Gordon Poluck (R34) GROUND TRANSPORTATION
Brian Rice's item (August Call Sign) on Ground Transportation
contained a sentence which I believe needs some clarification. "Make no mistake,
given the opportunity I will offer the account client this new service." I hope that
this does not mean that Brian Rice and the BoM will approve a strategic change in the
Society for which they have no mandate, no funding and I believe no overall support from
the membership. The Chairman's article, like the two previous Board members, concentrated
only on the threat of not doing it. It made no mention of the other major issues involved:
Could Dial-a-Cab deal with up to 100% more capacity especially when it gets
busy? I hear customers already saying how difficult it is to get through on the phones.
Do we have the funding needed? Especially being a 'mutual' and not a PLC?
Do we want our reputation put on the line working with organisations who do
not meet our high standards?
Would Taxi Drivers suffer or benefit from it?
If Brian Rice wants membership approval to proceed, I hope it will not be an
AGM item which could be controlled, curtailed and where it would be impossible to fully
debate the real issues. Tom Whitbread who originally floated the idea, claimed he did it
to promote discussion. GREAT! Give us all the opportunity to do just that. Hold a meeting
at Brunswick House or wherever so that anyone interested can discuss the issues or at
least be reassured that they have been considered.
George Wilson (F17)
Chairman Brian Rice responds:
Dear George: Of course I can understand your concerns as DaC will be venturing into
uncharted waters, but I believe that you have not fully understood what I was trying to
say or more probably, that I have not expressed myself in a precise enough manner. You are
concerned with us dealing with extra capacity in our Call Centre; no extra work will be
going via that point, it will be despatched directly from the clients premises by our
implants. You are concerned on how we will finance this? The funding will be minimal and
well within our budget. Remember, we might be sub-contracting work out, but we certainly
would not be buying vehicles of our own.
You are concerned that we will be working with organisations that do not meet our own high
standards. I know that this might be a bitter pill for all of us to swallow, but there are
companies out there that are good - especially at the higher end of the market. The client
would also advise us on the companies they wish to use, so any problem would be the
responsibility of the client and not DaC. You are concerned, and rightly so, that Taxi
drivers might suffer, I assume you mean our members. The only way in which our members
will suffer is if DaC do NOT win the right to organise the ground transport. If another
company wins that right, we will all have to hope that they give the taxi work to DaC and
not another taxi radio circuit. If DaC win that right, then obviously all the taxi work
will go to us.
You also state in your letter that Tom Whitbread floated |
the idea, actually he
didn't. What he actually said was that we could have our own cars but not driven by
licensed drivers, something I personally disapprove of. As regards us having meetings to
discuss the situation: On a topic such as the above, surely that is why we have a BoM to
make decisions on behalf of the membership without calling meetings. One of the reasons
that DaC has done particularly well in recent years is that we do make decisions. If the
BoM make bad decisions, then it is the member's prerogative to elect a new BoM. CAR
REGISTRATION NUMBERS
l'm very pleased that my recent letter on car registration numbers prompted some letters
from Call Sign readers, hopefully there will more. The following are a few more that I
have noticed in my travels.
A green van delivering Chanel perfume had the registration number NO 5 being,
of course, their most glamorous product. A teacher based in Leyton had the number plate
B10LGY. Not quite right, but near enough to make it look right! A doctor who specialised
in hip replacements and who worked at the Manor House hospital had DR H1P. Neat huh!
I spotted this one last week in town. Someone must think that 16 is his lucky
number as his reg was 444 FOR...
The Lord Mayor of London rides around in a limo with the plate LMO. The brand
new buses that run very frequently between Oxford and London are called the Oxford Tube
and I noticed that one of their latest had the number T UBE. And lastly, a very nice
client of ours who lives in Bayswater named Mr Kilby, has a even nicer car with the reg
K1LBY.
Bernie Pressman (M39J)
CLIFF RICHARD WAS HERE, YOUR WORSHIP!
Your columnist Chas Kissin mentioned Cliff Richard as having been popular everywhere
except the U.S. (His Worship the Rocker - August Call Sign). He had two hits here 20 years
ago when I lived in Minnesota. He came for a concert and I picked him up in my taxi. I
Still listen to his album once in a while.
Dan Shepard
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA... via email
GAS CABS
With the escalating cost of diesel (Editorial September Call Sign), could we
possibly have an article from Stan Roth who, I believe, is on Dial-a-Cab and actually
drives a gas cab?
Michael Green (F25)
Stan Roth (Y53) has promised to do a future article for Call Sign, but cannot
at present. Call Sign readers may be interested in knowing the reason why he cannot make
any in-depth comments at the moment. Stan's association with gas cabs is well known and he
has been driving his Natural Gas-converted FX4 Plus on Dial-a-Cab for four years. Because
of that gas association, Stan was recently asked by LTI to try out their new Liquid
Propane Gas cab, the TX1 - LPG for a three week period. The new cab has no release date
available but peeping into the mind of LTI could hint at 2000 as being appropriate - the
new cab for the new millennium?
The cost is assumed as being slightly higher than the current TX1, but HMG have said that
they will pay some of the difference in cost. Then you have the current cost of LPG in
Shell stations as 38.9p per litre with the current diesel cost at 74.9p per litre. Stan
had two final comments. Firstly, he thought that his experience with the LPG was wonderful
and he cannot wait for the model to come onto the market and secondly..."while the
savings in fuel are very nice, I believe that it is the duty of all of us to do what we
can to protect our environment from further pollution. Gas cabs are one way to provide
positive help."
CODE 77
I feel that I must write regarding the new code 77 facility. I have worked from
the Finsbury Square rank (EC5) for 15 years and have been a member of ODRTS for 20 years.
I have always covered any job which has been offered from the Finsbury, taking the good
with the bad. However, now drivers are holding the point of the rank on code 77, stopping
other drivers from getting to the point of the rank. I feel that it is a good idea to
offer drivers going home the chance of a job in the direction they live, but where have
they been for the last 15 years? They have certainly not covered this rank up until now
and drivers like myself are now being penalised. Could it be possible to keep EC5 'Code
77' free and use this system in EC1, EC2, EC3 and EC4? That way, the drivers working EC5
will have a fair choice of the work, as it has always been. The same could also be said
for E14C and SE75, because I am sure that these two ranks will also be abused. This is not
sour grapes! I feel that I have always taken a pride in the Society, try to cover account
work, uphold a good image for the Society and am very aware of customer care.
Surely, working EC5 in this way can only be detrimental to our account
customers, because |
