For several months now, the leading business associations and associations of manufacturers of metallurgical, agricultural and construction industries have been trying to convey to the government the idea of \u200b\u200bthe need to consider the alternative methods of financial recovery “Ukrzaliznitsy”, in addition to the increase in the tariffs for freight transportation. They warn that the scenario selected by the monopolist of the constant increase in tariffs will lead to long -term negative consequences. The greatest indignation causes not so much, in fact, an increase in the tariff, but the positioning of this scenario as a non -alternative way of healing the financial situation of a monopoly.
[see_also ids \u003d "
The only source of tank income is freight transportation. And from the point of view of any business, it is logical and natural to serve the budget -forming segment of customers. This logic of common sense dictates the need for constant improvement of business processes in order to reduce its own expenses and maintain the level of customer satisfaction.
It is enough to look at the examples of DHL, the “New Mail” that constantly expand their technological tools, improve the line of services, as a result, the concomitant correction of their tariffs looks in the eyes of customers adequate increase in their needs satisfaction. This is the logic of a business that develops and considers its expenses to meet the needs of customers and maintain competitiveness.
But " Therefore, all the innovations and customer -orientation of the bonds that we observe are obtained by the passenger direction. And the transportation of goods, which the only ones generate positive margins (and, in particular, are a source of financing passenger transportation), are still carried out according to the rules and mechanics of the last century.
[see_also ids \u003d "
On the ideology of these Normatives, an obsolete cargo technology is based on, where the carrier monopolist acts as it is convenient, and the user has no other options except with everything to agree and pay the monopolist the amount that he will determine. This is more reminiscent of the monopoly tax with all its internal shortcomings than the tariff for the service.
This year, the UZ decided that the owners of the goods must pay an additional 26 billion UAH to cover its operating costs, and calculated that for this it was necessary to increase the tariff by 37%. By this logic, nothing prevents the Uz to say that next year she will need, say, an additional 40 billion UAH. Indeed, activities on the principle of constant increase in tariffs without improving the quality of services tirelessly reduces the cargo base of Ukrzaliznitsi: some of the customers lose the economic meaning of transporting goods by rail, and someone-and the meaning of production in general.
The costs of Ukrzaliznitsі, which it shifts to owners of cargo, to manufacturers, largely caused by its ineffective work: Uz does not pay attention to efficiency at all, it is not concerned about expenses, the number of operations and attracted resources. While private business has always been forced to consider its expenses and select decisions that allow saving resources. The fundamental difference between business and “Ukrzalizitic” logic was shown by a precedent with the restoration of the railway bridge in the Nikolaev region.
The bridge was destroyed at the beginning of a full -scale war, and since then the bypass path of all goods to Odessa ports has increased by two days and has come up significantly. Metinvest restored the bridge at its own expense, because its costs for transporting goods in a detour were higher than on the restoration of the bridge. But even after the restoration of the bridge, Ukrzaliznitsa was in no hurry to save - neither their own funds nor the means of customers, continuing to go on a detour.
As a result, the operating efficiency of the dependent on the railway logistics of the business is determined by the technological backwardness of the Uz. After all, all railway transportation in Ukraine is now based on Ukrzaliznitzi technology and its regulatory documents, since others do not exist. This may seem absurd that the rules of one enterprise (which does not want to change) determine the functioning of the railway logistics of the whole country, but such is the realities.
[see_also ids \u003d "
If you decompose logistics processes into basic elements, it becomes obvious: only 20% of the time, assets perform operations, and 80% are idle in anticipation of the next operation or a person’s solution. This applies to both 60% of the time when wagons and goods are in the zone of bonds, and 40% of the time, when they are at concomitant infrastructures. The consequences in the financial measurement are as follows: two -thirds of the cost of logistics in Ukraine are the costs not to perform work, but for the content of assets and personnel producing (often irrational) decisions. And this happens in the 21st century, when modern digital technologies, telemetry, Internet of things, digital doubles and artificial intelligence algorithms are available, capable of processing giant data for seconds.
If we talk about the reform “Ukrzaliznitsi”, its goals, how it should occur and in what sequence, then its key element is a change in the technological approach. It is necessary to introduce a modern information system that will release millions of man-hours, reduce unnecessary operations, will save funds to both Ukrzaliznitzі itself and related infrastructures-elevators, ports and private parks.
This system should not only own information, but also exchange it, analyze, predict the work of railway and related infrastructures, and increase the efficiency of using assets. Regarding the arguments that there is allegedly no regulatory framework for this and there is no command to create it, the entire sequence of reform has already been prescribed in the Euro -directors (which Ukraine has obliged to implement until 2022). In addition, there is the first edition of the new Law "
Yes, the European integration reform of railway transport is a long process. This is work for five years, just before the entry into force of the Law " But there are no obstacles to start it now and develop not only the methodology, but also automated systems that can differentiately consider the cost of any transportation per second, without a commodity cashier.
The argument “Digitalization of railways will cost billions” - nothing else than cunning. The real reason for “high cost” is a desire for every idea, for each acquisition to “glue” someone's interests, which significantly increases the cost. How can IT-working of freight transportation develop if an UZ official closed everything on himself, limiting access for technology?
Make the data open-and an ecosystem of specialists will immediately appear who will develop IT solutions for the entire railway industry, for you, for your customers.
Manufacturers of goods, whose UAH 26 billion demands to cover their expenses, has the right to demand what they did not dare in 2022, when they raised tariffs by 70% and at the same time worsened the quality of services. Business, as in that situation with a destroyed bridge, should admit: it is more profitable to pay for reforming the UZ, which will save money and optimize the use of assets than to continue to pay tax on technological backwardness, which pulls to the bottom of all of us.
[see_also ids \u003d "
***.
Unfortunately, a dangerous illusion that has been rooted in the public consciousness prevents the criticism of the moment that supposedly economic growth and investment in the post -war restoration of Ukraine are inevitable, as the spring melting of snow.
Therefore, ignoring reforms and erroneous solutions are perceived as those that cannot cause significant damage, because the economic growth after the war is guaranteed.
In fact, the economic decline is a very real script, and one of its reasons is the lack of railway reforms. The conservation of technological backwardness reduces the competitiveness of all Ukrainian exports, and threatens the existence of a number of industries. If the railway continues to transfer its costs to manufacturers without modernizing the system, this is a dead end for the whole economy.