EZ link card with Giro

[Muckafutha]

I'm not sure how they work in their back end, and that's not my problem to know. However, I have personally tested to see if it will 'credit' a top-up to my card if I don't maintain enough funds in my bank account. Guess what, my Giro farecard don't work. So whether it does a direct debit or not it's not my issue. Your question is whether it's a credit system or not, I'm not sure too, but it is confirmed that if you don't maintain enough funds in your bank account, for sure it will not top up for you.

"Cardholders whose bank or credit/debit card account have insufficient funds or insufficient credit limit to effect a deduction for the Auto top-up will find their cards automatically blocked from further use.

When an Auto top-up enabled card is blocked, all other associated cards linked to the same account can continue to be used while there is remaining value, but cannot be auto top-up until the unpaid top-up is settled." source Transitlink

Maybe there was a card that was already blocked so when your own card needed a top up it didnt work.

 

[Limsgp]

I guess the issue is not about the "amount", but rather whether it is justifiable to impose a fee.

Considering the saving that they can get from a more efficient system with lower operating cost, any costs incurred due to the GIRO would have been pay for by itself.

For example, if 95% of commuters uses GIRO, they may need to maintain only 2 GTM at any stations (now some stations got like, 10?). Don't those GTMs incur electricity, servicing, and expenses to maintain? less machine = less cost.. and the savings could pay for the whatever costs associated with GIRO.

With the "convenient fee", the consumer pays for the GIRO and any savings by the company as a result of GIRO transforms into profits? Is it right?

Some forumers don't mind going to well known shops and pay slightly more expensive prices to get their camera gear, just for peace of mind. But yet 25 cents for convenience is too much to pay.

 

[Virgo]

"Cardholders whose bank or credit/debit card account have insufficient funds or insufficient credit limit to effect a deduction for the Auto top-up will find their cards automatically blocked from further use.

When an Auto top-up enabled card is blocked, all other associated cards linked to the same account can continue to be used while there is remaining value, but cannot be auto top-up until the unpaid top-up is settled." source Transitlink

Maybe there was a card that was already blocked so when your own card needed a top up it didnt work.

Let's not dicuss the technical details here. I have my only Giro card and that's it. No additional card whatsoever. I purposely transfer all my funds to another account and see if Giro top-up works. It didn't. So I presume the system is WORLD CLASS enough to detect it.

 

[Muckafutha]

There isnt a rule that savings must flow to customers. In a company, if I have developed a highly efficient system which cuts costs, that means higher profits. Which can go to employees in the form of higher bonuses, and of course the boss's pocket, or if the company is "nice" the savings can flow to customers in the form of cheaper products to promote goodwill. But its the perogative of the company whether or not such savings are transferred.

If i was an employee of SMRT/LTA, then I could also argue that why should these savings that we worked so hard to implement flow to passengers. If we don't absorb these costs, we can all have higher bonus.

I guess the issue is not about the "amount", but rather whether it is justifiable to impose a fee.

Considering the saving that they can get from a more efficient system with lower operating cost, any costs incurred due to the GIRO would have been pay for by itself.

For example, if 95% of commuters uses GIRO, they may need to maintain only 2 GTM at any stations (now some stations got like, 10?). Don't those GTMs incur electricity, servicing, and expenses to maintain? less machine = less cost.. and the savings could pay for the whatever costs associated with GIRO.

With the "convenient fee", the consumer pays for the GIRO and any savings by the company as a result of GIRO transforms into profits? Is it right?

 

[Virgo]

There isnt a rule that savings must flow to customers. In a company, if I have developed a highly efficient system which cuts costs, that means higher profits. Which can go to employees in the form of higher bonuses, and of course the boss's pocket, or if the company is "nice" the savings can flow to customers in the form of cheaper products to promote goodwill. But its the perogative of the company whether or not such savings are transferred.

If i was an employee of SMRT/LTA, then I could also argue that why should these savings that we worked so hard to implement flow to passengers. If we don't absorb these costs, we can all have higher bonus.

We are talking about public service mind you. I understand this system is run by the government, or quarsi-government? No? :think:

 

[mohgui]

Why is imposing a fee considered moving backwards?

my point is... why charge people a fee for the GIRO service when other payee organisations do not charge the same? whether you pay your telco bills manually, through AXS machines, Internet Banking or GIRO... there are no convenience fee. this is what i call customer-centric service.

i don't see why the Ez-link must have it differently... is it because they monopolise this service and can freely do whatever they please?

 

[Muckafutha]

my point is... why charge people a fee for the GIRO service when other payee organisations do not charge the same? whether you pay your telco bills manually, through AXS machines, Internet Banking or GIRO... there are no convenience fee. this is what i call customer-centric service.

i don't see why the Ez-link must have it differently... is it because they monopolise this service and can freely do whatever they please?

That could very likely be the reason. However on our side we can choose whether or not to pay the fee, either by not using giro, or not using public transport.

We are talking about public service mind you. I understand this system is run by the government, or quarsi-government? No? :think:

Public services (giffen goods) are things that everybody needs but no one wants to pay for. Why not say that there shouldnt be bus fare or mrt fares, since its public service.

 

[Virgo]

That could very likely be the reason. However on our side we can choose whether or not to pay the fee, either by not using giro, or not using public transport.



Public services (giffen goods) are things that everybody needs but no one wants to pay for. Why not say that there shouldnt be bus fare or mrt fares, since its public service.

You can go pay for it, or you can go without Giro.

We're making a case here because we do not pay this using our current card. Why do we have to do so when changed to a new one, plus all sorts of other additional charges?

 

[Limsgp]

In summary, the purpose of the "convenient fee" is for profit.

Nothing wrong with that.

I guess if they say in their reply "We are charging the convenience fee so that we can make more profits". This thread would not have run so long as the intention is clearly explained.

Rather then saying in the tune of "we charge the convenience fee because it results in higher operating costs". It is the hypocrisy which result in so much debate in relation to the reason and justification for the existent of the "fee".

Don't say until like, oh.. operating cost is high, we appreciate your understanding, it cost us so much money to have GIRO and all those stuff. Just be honest and tell everyone straight that it is for profit and more profit. Period.

edit: And in those reply templates, indicate "we impose the convenience fee because we wanted more profit. Not happy is your problem". Then no case liao.. no one will question "why got convenience fee" again.

This also answer Virgo's concern on why got the "fee" now. Answer = Because we want to take this opportunity to MAKE MORE PROFIT. End of story.

There isnt a rule that savings must flow to customers. In a company, if I have developed a highly efficient system which cuts costs, that means higher profits. Which can go to employees in the form of higher bonuses, and of course the boss's pocket, or if the company is "nice" the savings can flow to customers in the form of cheaper products to promote goodwill. But its the perogative of the company whether or not such savings are transferred.

If i was an employee of SMRT/LTA, then I could also argue that why should these savings that we worked so hard to implement flow to passengers. If we don't absorb these costs, we can all have higher bonus.

 

[wildcat]

Bro, yes, I just received a letter from TransitLink, telling me to exchange my old card for a new one. As what you've mentioned, which makes my blood boils even faster, they will charge a deposit equal to the top-up amount, i.e., if you choose to top-up every time at $50, they EzLink will collect $50 as a deposit first!

I will choose to go back to manual top-up, using ATM, since there's an ATM below my office where I work. They want money, I won't even give them a single cent! If whole of Singapore can boycott them like this, I think EzLink sure close shop.

Agree with this :thumbsup:

I also manual top-up, mainly because I will most of the time pass by MRT station so quite convenient.

The problem is I normally top up one time quite a lot
So my money is their money even before it becomes their money :cry:

 

[Muckafutha]

All the marketing people will be out of jobs. Anyway higher profits is not because of charging convenience fee. Charging the fee covers some cost which in turn leads to higher profits. Therefore its not wrong to say they charge to recover some of the operating cost.

OK I will go and queue up to top up my card liao. If the fee is abolished in future due to all the chatter on online forums, I thank you in advance. I will definitely go back to Giro if it becomes free again.

I mean no offence to anyone. Was just expressing my view.

In summary, the purpose of the "convenient fee" is for profit.

Nothing wrong with that.

I guess if they say in their reply "We are charging the convenience fee so that we can make more profits". This thread would not have run so long as the intention is clearly explained.

Rather then saying in the tune of "we charge the convenience fee because it results in higher operating costs". It is the hypocrisy which result in so much debate in relation to the reason and justification for the existent of the "fee".

Don't say until like, oh.. operating cost is high, we appreciate your understanding, it cost us so much money to have GIRO and all those stuff. Just be honest and tell everyone straight that it is for profit and more profit. Period.

edit: And in those reply templates, indicate "we impose the convenience fee because we wanted more profit. Not happy is your problem". Then no case liao.. no one will question "why got convenience fee" again.

This also answer Virgo's concern on why got the "fee" now. Answer = Because we want to take this opportunity to MAKE MORE PROFIT. End of story.

 

[mohgui]

In summary, the purpose of the "convenient fee" is for profit.

Nothing wrong with that.

I guess if they say in their reply "We are charging the convenience fee so that we can make more profits". This thread would not have run so long as the intention is clearly explained.

Rather then saying in the tune of "we charge the convenience fee because it results in higher operating costs". It is the hypocrisy which result in so much debate in relation to the reason and justification for the existent of the "fee".

Don't say until like, oh.. operating cost is high, we appreciate your understanding, it cost us so much money to have GIRO and all those stuff. Just be honest and tell everyone straight that it is for profit and more profit. Period.

edit: And in those reply templates, indicate "we impose the convenience fee because we wanted more profit. Not happy is your problem". Then no case liao.. no one will question "why got convenience fee" again.

This also answer Virgo's concern on why got the "fee" now. Answer = Because we want to take this opportunity to MAKE MORE PROFIT. End of story.

straight to the point... be transparent about it and nobody will ever question your intentions. btw, i thought SG is supposed to be very transparent and is ranked like 2nd (if i recalled correctly) in the world when it comes to transparency? what happened?

the more you wanna cover up your intentions, the more fuel is gonna be poured into the fire. i don't think EZ-link want to trod down the path the old NKF trodded right?

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

In summary, the purpose of the "convenient fee" is for profit.

Nothing wrong with that.

I guess if they say in their reply "We are charging the convenience fee so that we can make more profits". This thread would not have run so long as the intention is clearly explained.

Rather then saying in the tune of "we charge the convenience fee because it results in higher operating costs". It is the hypocrisy which result in so much debate in relation to the reason and justification for the existent of the "fee".

Don't say until like, oh.. operating cost is high, we appreciate your understanding, it cost us so much money to have GIRO and all those stuff. Just be honest and tell everyone straight that it is for profit and more profit. Period.

edit: And in those reply templates, indicate "we impose the convenience fee because we wanted more profit. Not happy is your problem". Then no case liao.. no one will question "why got convenience fee" again.

This also answer Virgo's concern on why got the "fee" now. Answer = Because we want to take this opportunity to MAKE MORE PROFIT. End of story.

You've summarized it all perfectly!
In the end it's blatant profiteering with a poor cover-up story that's as leaky as a cracked vase. I hate those template answers which they write to members of the public. What do they take us for? Morons?

 

[Homme]

I believe very soon all other organizations will follow suit & start to charge for GIRO usage...sigh

 

[armadillo]

I don't mind to pay the so called "convenience fee" if they just charge 10 cents but 25 cents a little too much :dunno:
Especially last time no need to pay and now with more advance technology shd be even cheaper :sweat:

 

[night86mare]

Public services (giffen goods) are things that everybody needs but no one wants to pay for. Why not say that there shouldnt be bus fare or mrt fares, since its public service.

乱讲话。

please see definition of giffen goods here.

:thumbsd::thumbsd::thumbsd:

 

[night86mare]

just because somethings weren't done before doesnt mean they shouldn't. Its just their way of transfering costs to commuters, whereas they have absorbed the costs last time. i was also shocked to find that there is now a fee charged, when i changed my giro linked card, but for me i will choose not to pay the 25 cents but top up manually. so in a way become i choose to forego the convenience and save my money.

so what is the reason given, if everything else was held equal?

if there is no charge levied to the company, how do they justify any transferrance of cost?

 

[night86mare]

for people who have been following; official definition of giffen goods involves:

1) an inferior good. a giffen good has to be an inferior good, i.e. hamburgers is one of the classic example used in textbooks.

2) a good that must take up considerable percentage of income, most often important part of person's life as well.

so for example, if i am a dirt poor american, and all i can afford are hamburgers, the lowest of low foods, then if their price goes up, i cannot even afford the occasional cafe meal. therefore i consume more hamburgers. i.e. when price goes up, demand goes up.

in short:

public service is not a giffen good

i am shocked and appalled how someone could make that statement and give such an absurd explanation for the term.

 

[Muckafutha]

乱讲话。

please see definition of giffen goods here.

:thumbsd::thumbsd::thumbsd:

so its not a giffen good, its a public good then. so i may have gotten the economic term wrong but still doesnt change the fact that people are unwilling to pay for something they recognise give them some level of convenience. Seems they are then part of the "Free rider problem"

Since you like wiki so much, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods

 

[night86mare]

so its not a giffen good, its a public good then. so i may have gotten the economic term wrong but still doesnt change the fact that people are unwilling to pay for something they recognise give them some level of convenience. Seems they are then part of the "Free rider problem"

Since you like wiki so much, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods

i'm not the one who said that public goods are giffen goods.

if i know the correct definition of giffen goods, you bet i know the proper definition of public goods, please use the link yourself.

while you're at it, maybe pick up a basic a level economics textbook, or stay away from such terms altogether, you are scary.