Uber launches flat fares in San Francisco through subscription

Post by calvinbhai » Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 9:49 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #61

whack wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That comes out to a guaranteed $73k/year, even if you take 3 weeks of vacation. For a family where both parents are driving uber, that comes out to a family income of almost $150k/year. Considering the only skill you need is the ability to drive a car, that's insane.

They only guarantee gross pay -- that figure doesn't include Uber's cut or operating expenses[1][2]. Together, that would make your taxable income something like 60% of the figure. [1] http://therideshareguy.com/what-to-make-of-the-2016-uber-hou... [2] And seriously, phrasing the guarantee as before their own cut? Come on, guys.

Post by revelation » Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

jbrambleDC wrote: post #55

tachyonbeam wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same reaction when I rode UberPool from the south bay into SF (a 45 minute ride) for just under $18, and nobody else pooled with me. How could this be fair to the drivers? So I asked the driver how much he was getting for the trip. I believe he said something like $50. Fortunately, he wasn't getting shortchanged. Later, someone pointed out to me that Lyft and Uber are aggressively competing right now. It se…

so i suspect they are trying to kill of Lyft, then replace drivers with autonomous driving and keep the prices relatively constant by having loyal customers join in on a subscription model like pool pass and use it as your daily commute. I am actually already taking Pool, with pool pass every day in DC for $1.00 per ride, $30 up front fee. Only way this is sustainable is to eventually replace drivers. Also to really…

Post by marblar » Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 9:55 PM UTC

gkop wrote: post #28

trjordan wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overage feels generous to me. I'm not sure there's much of SF you can't get to with $25, even in traffic. It seems like this is their way of addressing the problem of "being in the car". If you get in the car with your $7 UberX pass, then demand to go to San Jose, something has to happen. Getting out of the car is probably worse for the customer, so they cap the amount this pass buys you, knowing you'll never hit…

Going to San Jose is explicitly not covered "when your trip begins and ends north of Cesar Chavez St. in San Francisco."

Post by huac » Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 9:56 PM UTC

throwaway991199 wrote: post #67

hkmurakami wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably (hopefully) the socialist government for this hypothetical nation would have been voluntarily put in place by the voting public.

LOL. Go look at Europe. The answer to that is a definite hell-no.

Post by foobarqux » Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 10:01 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #75

hkmurakami wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those users who were only in it for the cheap fares would have left anyways in a world where Lyft survives but fares increase to profitable levels. If Uber succeeds in killing Lyft, they can dictate pricing more effectively and harvest a surplus from the remaining consumers.

Okay and then one of the 13 other startups doing this suddenly become able to undercut Uber because they have VCs who are willing to gouge the actual balance sheet in order to put Uber out of business. Crucially, Uber doesn't own the cars nor the drivers. Anyone willing to throw more cash to drivers and take less cash from riders (with the infusion of VC funding) can instantly steal both the supply and the demand fro…