[dead]
Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators
171–178 of 178 posts
Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Uber entered the market, what they were doing was technically illegal (the taxi industry was regulated, Uber wasn't a registered provider, its drivers didn't own a taxi permit (which no longer exist), etc). You can generally sue for illegal behavior that causes you losses.
Further to that, taxi licences were limited in number and sought after. So it became less of driving a taxi and more about financial investment. People bought dozens of licences and leased them out. It no longer became about driving taxis and was more an investment. As soon as Uber came, those who invested heavily were left holding a useless (or heavily reduced) investment.
I can't find a reference, but I'm pretty sure that someone on the Australian Financial Review's rich list, got rich from Taxi medallions. When Melbourne was to host the olympics, the licence authority decided there would not be enough taxis. They invited people to apply for free licences, and lots of people did apply for a licence. One person applied for a shedfull - something like 200?, and received them all.
Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators
#173My friend drives Red Cab in San Francisco. A couple of weeks ago he charged ~$500 from SFO airport to San Jose (taxi meter price). He informed the passenger, since he thought it's going to be too much for her, and gotten the response he shouldn't count her own money, and should just drive there, lol.
How in the world is that $500?!
Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sydney taxis are extortionate and often operate illegally around the airport, but also taxi plates in Australia costed $100,000’s (on the market, not sure how much when released by the government) and that investment got trashed by ride-share entry. From that perspective I’ve got some sympathy.
The article said they cost $500,000 (each), which was probably the least believable part of the article. If they actually cost $100,000, that might be close to reasonable. Somebody can probably do 5-6 rides a day at $50 a ride for a $100,000 tag. That's pretty believable for an average over a year. Even $200,000 might be. I have difficultly believing they're all making money needing 30 rides at ~$50 every day all yea…
You should believe it. They reach a high of $450,000 in 2014 dollars, so well over $500,000 now: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/cost-of-buying-a-taxi-li...
They were at that price because of artificial scarcity. They created a tidy income stream for the governments who sold them, who found by limiting supply the prices when auction rose spectacularly. The net result was not enough taxi's to fill natural demand, while taxi drivers paid to delivery an artificially limited service were paid stuff all. This wasn't unique to Sydney - the model was repeated all over the world; they just copied it.
It created the perfect environment for Uber to step into. Because it was copied everywhere it was a huge, worldwide market. To exploit it Uber had to knowingly break the law, and lie about it. You can see that reflected in Uber's highly criticised internal culture at the time. The governments and taxi drivers fought Uber tooth and nail. Where I live taxi inspectors booking rides with Uber, and fining the drivers for not having a licence. Uber responded with technology, using their apps to track their phones and modify what they saw. The inspectors saw no Uber drivers around. It was open warfare for a while, technology vs the law. Technology won in that case. Uber's "it's all about me, whatever it takes to win" culture was probably a necessary part of that victory. Now the war has been won I see Uber is changing it's culture.
Here in Australia, the taxi licence owners watched the value of their licences evaporate overnight under Ubers assault. When it became evident the huge debts they took on to finance the licences meant they had no hope of competing against Uber commercially, they sued the government over the inflated prices they were forced to pay. The government responded to the law suit by saying no one forced them, they were sold at auction. The courts largely sided with the governments, perhaps because they have near infinite legal resources and the taxi's were broke. Some governments later did hand some "sorry" payments to the taxi drivers, but there were more token amounts.
So the real reason for the enormous pain the taxi's have had to endure (I'm sure it cause financial ruin and suicides) is taxi's licenses were effectively a very poorly implemented tax. When a business discovered how to use new technology to exploit the opportunity created by that tax, it wasn't the drafters of the law who suffered, it was the taxi's. They have my sincere sympathy.
Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, you know, public transport...
He said “best” not barely adequate at the best of times.
Uh, if you're in Sydney CBD, public transport (train/light rail) or even walking is faster than any kind of motor vehicle in my experience (this assumes that you have no mobility affecting disability, in which case use what you need to use).
Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations? Shouldn't you be wondering why is it illegal for you to do the first thing rather than the last? Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation?
I don't know, I used to catch gypsy cabs in London twenty odd years ago and you were taking your life into your own hands. There were some pretty shady operators. I can see why a government might want to license taxi drivers. > Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation? Why do we bother licensing drivers then too?…
Except in this case you can't start that business without getting arrested. You can still get a license without getting arrested.
It's strange that you'd bring this false equivalence.
>I can see why a government might want to license taxi drivers.
Applying for a taxi-driver license is a whole another different thing than just having taxi mafia run your entire taxi industry. Can the said uber drivers even apply for a taxi license?
Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
He said “best” not barely adequate at the best of times.
Uh, if you're in Sydney CBD, public transport (train/light rail) or even walking is faster than any kind of motor vehicle in my experience (this assumes that you have no mobility affecting disability, in which case use what you need to use).
I lived and worked in the city. I did not find this to be the case at all. (I had a motorcycle).
Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article said they cost $500,000 (each), which was probably the least believable part of the article. If they actually cost $100,000, that might be close to reasonable. Somebody can probably do 5-6 rides a day at $50 a ride for a $100,000 tag. That's pretty believable for an average over a year. Even $200,000 might be. I have difficultly believing they're all making money needing 30 rides at ~$50 every day all yea…
You should believe it. They reach a high of $450,000 in 2014 dollars, so well over $500,000 now: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/cost-of-buying-a-taxi-li... They were at that price because of artificial scarcity. They created a tidy income stream for the governments who sold them, who found by limiting supply the prices when auction rose spectacularly. The net result was not enough taxi's to fill natural demand,…
Thank you for the rather long explanation that was not especially inflammatory.
The original point of the comment was that $500,000 seemed difficult to believe. You at least provide a thorough, if rather Machiavellian explanation.
Not sure if I agree on the sympathy, mostly because they probably had $AUS in their eyes initially, seeing the prices other people complain about. However, too far away in America, with too much American shadowbanning filter on all news, to have any relevant view on the issue.