Everything seems to be going up nowadays, but the recent rise in premium bus fares somehow reminds me of the rise in ERP charges. Someone mentioned that "if motorists pay to use the road, they will be assured of a smooth ride". It would have seemed that the public transport companies are taking the same stance, except that they are quoting "raising fuel costs" as the main reason.

As with previous announcements on hikes of whatever nature, it is never complete without an face-palm statement, quoting Mr Ong Kian Ming, deputy chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport, that "yes, bus operators are running a business, but it’s also a time to attract more people to switch to public transport".

Right.

Premium bus fares to go up

By Yeo Ghim Lay

PREMIUM bus fares will soon go up, as operators here feel the pinch from higher fuel prices.

SBS Transit, which runs more than half of such services, will raise fares by 30 to 60 cents, up to a maximum of $3.60 per trip.

The fare hike will affect all of its 40 premium services. Details are being worked out.

Currently, a trip on an SBS Transit premium bus costs between $2.70 and $3.60.

A company spokesman said that its electricity and fuel costs have increased by 52.4 per cent in the first quarter of this year, compared to the same period last year.

Rival SMRT has already increased fares for premium service 531, which travels the Simei to Central Business District route, from $3 to $4. Fares on its remaining premium services remain the same.

Smaller players Bus Hub and the Singapore School Transport Association have also applied to raise their fares by 50 cents to $1.

Bus Hub runs two premium services; the association has five.

The Public Transport Council (PTC), which approves bus-fare increases, said it ‘generally would not object to changes in premium bus services fares as operators make their own commercial assessments and risks to adjust their service pricing’.

Mr Ong Kian Min, deputy chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport, hopes fares will not go up drastically.

‘Yes, bus operators are running a business, but it’s also a time to attract more people to switch to public transport,’ he said.

Premium services, a key plank of the Government’s push to get more commuters to take public transport, have been gaining in popularity lately: There are now 76 services, up from 42 in January.

This includes six new SBS Transit premium services to be rolled out on Monday.

ghimlay@sph.com.sg

Source: Straits Times Interactive, http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_252343.html

Article extracted on straitstimes.com on 28th June 2008

Seats near the emergency exits and bulkhead seats have always been popular because of the additional leg room that an air passenger can get; not to mention not having to worry about when the person in front decides to take a "back seat" as and when he fancies - without regards if you are midway savoring whatever that’s edible on your plane diet.

Of course, there are pros and cons of sitting at exit or bulkhead seats. The most obvious advantage is the extra legroom, while the cons - well, you can’t put your laptop bag under the seat in front of you because there’s… no seat? Duh! But seriously, the "extra legroom" that you have is really meant for emergencies (for people to scramble out of a burning plane, for example) besides your legs.

So, with that in mind, perhaps the last row isle seat may be a good choice after all - since you can get to put your laptop bags under the seat in front of you, as well as being able to lean back without worry of smashing the poor fella’s face against his food during meal times. =)

To survive a fire in a plane, sit near exits

Passengers sitting near plane’s emergency exits have the best chance of escaping in a fire

LONDON - FOR the best chance of getting out alive from a burning aircraft, passengers should choose an aisle seat near the front within five rows of an emergency exit, a new study has found.

The study, commissioned by the Civil Aviation Authority and carried out by Greenwich University in London, examined 105 accidents and accounts from 2,000 survivors of how they managed to escape from crash landings and onboard fires, reported the Times of London newspaper yesterday.

It found that the seats with the best survival rate were in the emergency exit row and the row in front or behind it.

Between two and five rows from the exit, passengers still have a better than even chance of escaping in a fire but ‘the difference between surviving and perishing is greatly reduced’, it said.

The most dangerous seats were those six or more rows from an exit where ‘the chances of perishing far outweigh those of surviving’, the study said.

Passengers sitting towards the front of the aircraft had a 65 per cent chance of escaping a fire, while the survival rate for those at the rear was 53 per cent.

And, the survival rate in aisle seats was 64 per cent, compared with 58 per cent for other passengers.

Under international air safety regulations, aircraft must undergo a test to demonstrate that all those on board can escape within 90 seconds when half the exits are blocked.

But the study found that the evacuation test was flawed because it failed to take account of people’s behaviour in an emergency and assumed that no one on board had any ’social bonds’ with other passengers.

In fact, analysis of behaviour in real emergencies showed that many passengers waited to help their friends or relatives.

Another flaw with the tests, the study found, was that people were much more willing to comply with directions from cabin crew under experimental conditions than in real danger.

‘In real emergency situations, where passengers may have a choice of directions in which to escape, they may ultimately ignore crew commands and attempt to use their nearest exit,’ the study pointed out.

It also said that the test should take into account the survival instinct of passengers, which could result in people climbing over seats to jump the queue for the exit, and delay evacuation.

Mr Robert Gifford, director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, said the study ’shows your choice of seat on a plane really can be a matter of life or death. Your chance of survival should not be based on your ability to pay for an emergency exit seat or to reserve your seat online’.

Mr Gifford said airlines should consider putting families and elderly people near the exits. They might not be allowed to sit in the exit row, however, because regulations require passengers in those seats to be fit enough to help to open the door.

A transport safety group said that the findings called into question the increasing trend among airlines to charge extra for exit seats, which have more legroom, or for passengers to select their seats online.

One of the accidents analysed in the study was the disaster at Manchester airport in 1985, when 55 people died on a British Airtours Boeing 737 after it caught fire.

The majority of those who died were sitting well away from a usable exit.

The fire, caused by an exploding engine that punctured a fuel tank in the wing, engulfed one side of the aircraft and prevented escape from several exits.

Source: Straits Times Interactive, http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_252059.html

Article extracted on 28th June 2008