
Uber Closes in on Its Last Frontier: Airports - claywm
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/business/uber-closes-in-on-its-last-frontier-airports.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=0
======
fennecfoxen
The first time I landed in Atlanta (as a destination, not a connection
airport) I took a taxi from the Atlanta airport to Sandy Springs (exactly on
the opposite side of downtown, just outside the Perimeter). Shortly after
leaving the airport, my driver diverted off the interstate (ostensibly to
avoid a traffic jam) and promptly proceeded to drive around in circles,
lapping the same parking lot twice (he was about to do it a third time before
I intervened) because his GPS was telling him to turn around and get back on
the highway and he didn't quite realize that was happening and kept missing
the U-turn. (Also, the overall rate is close to twice Uber's.)

I don't really trust Uber any further than I can throw my smartphone, but
_anything_ is better than a generic airport taxi. (At LGA, I've taken cabs
more often than Atlanta -- it's harder to wait for Uber in the cold of winter
-- and while I've never had any real trouble with Uber ever I've had _two
different taxi drivers_ pulled over and issued a ticket _while I was in the
taxi_ , both of them for running a red light on a left-hand-turn signal...)

Anyway. In conclusion: fuck you, Atlanta airport/government.

~~~
1414441222
On the other hand, I've had a nearly identical experience with an Uber driver
relying on GPS. In fact, it's been my experience that Uber drivers rely on
their GPS _far_ more often than taxi drivers, who generally give me the
impression that they actually know the city that they drive in.

I wonder how long the average Uber driver has been driving professionally. I
would be interested to see some stats on that subject, especially compared to
regular taxi services.

~~~
fennecfoxen
Well, as long as we're hating on Uber a little too, I'll put under Full
Disclosure that there've been a number of times when the driver accepts my
hail then proceeded to drive _in the opposite direction_ for ten minutes...
that's my main complaint honestly. :b

~~~
richardbrevig
I had a driver stop to get gas on their way to me. Another one was very close
when they accepted the hail, but after several minutes after I expected them
to arrive I checked the map and noted they stopped at a CVS.

It's been a while since I had this problem: many times I'd hail an uberx, it'd
be accepted, and then I'd have to wait 8-10 minutes for the driver to _leave
their home_. It was upsetting, and I think uber may have fixed it by now, but
I had to remind myself it was still better than the experience I used to have
when calling for a cab.

I live in Dallas, btw.

------
cm2187
I find it interesting that most comments from people using uber are about
price. To me it is rather about convenience. I have never been in Atlanta's
airport but most airports and train stations I use in Europe have a 30min+
queue for taxis. To me the revolution was to be able to book on my smartphone,
not have to carry cash and worry about whether I have enough to go back home,
not having to wait outside of a bar looking for a cab but rather booking it
from my table and only leaving the bar when the taxi is there, etc.

I remember a taxi ride with some colleagues in Paris. That was even before
uber. The driver (a licensed taxi) was ranting about the fact that there were
too many taxis. And to make his points he said something like "a few years
ago, a client could call a taxi company and taxis were so rare that he
wouldn't even be sure he would get a taxi, these were the good days". We were
not very sympathetic.

In all the places I live in, taxis had a toxic monopole that needed to be
challenged.

~~~
icebraining
Yeap. Here in Lisbon, just a month ago, after I told him my destination (which
would come to ~5€), the taxi driver started ranting how they should raise the
minimum ride to 15€. What a nice way to greet your customer /s

~~~
tim333
I once got a regular taxi from terminal 4 to terminal 2 at Heathrow because
the tube had packed up and I needed to get a flight but the taxis hate that.
They have to queue for 3 or 4 hours to get a fare because the fares being so
marked up it pays for them to do so. Heathrow to Harpenden, ~40 miles is about
£120 by regular black cab, £50 by Uber for example. The system seems dumb -
they should drop the regular cab fare to something more like the market rate.

------
nl
In many cities (Florence comes to mind) there is a tacit understanding where
street vendors sell good on the streets, but have to be able to put them away
quickly enough to "hide" them when the police car comes past on one of it's
periodic circuits.

The variable enforcement of laws (like my example, and also like the laws
around taxi pick-ups) is something I'm very interested in from a formal
economics view. Are there any studies showing the how the loose enforcement
impacts different groups?

~~~
ufmace
Reminds me of this quote from Atlas Shrugged:

> “Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We
> want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch
> of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it...
> There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is
> the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
> criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it
> becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation
> of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the
> kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively
> interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in
> on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you
> understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

In turn, that makes it feel odd that the prevailing opinion in these parts is
often that the police enforce things too harshly, but the cure for every
economic and social ill is always more Government micro-managing...

~~~
pas
> In turn, that makes it feel odd that the prevailing opinion in these parts
> is often that the police enforce things too harshly, but the cure for every
> economic and social ill is always more Government micro-managing...

Show a principle that is broader than introducing new micro-regulations but
would result in better outcomes. Considering the complexity of our reality, I
doubt it's possible. Edge cases, functional requirements of life are numerous,
and sure, there are a lot of old policies on the books, simply removing them
would also cause too much perturbations. And no one cares enough about
abstract efficiency, elegance and such to propose and fight for a plant to
gradually deprecate them. (Minor examples are various tax exemptions, major
example is the whole social security problem looming on the horizon. And the
whole problem of healthcare economics fits here. People are rational, but have
nasty time-dependent preference inversions, just to point out a problem with
going with a simple and general solution.)

And this not too surprisingly has nothing to do with too harsh enforcement of
some laws. (You just guessed the war on drugs. And general over-militarization
of the police and the hostility of the criminal justice system.)

~~~
BurningFrog
> Show a principle that is broader than introducing new micro-regulations but
> would result in better outcomes

The alternative to regulating what, how and when everyone should do everything
is to let people do what they want, but allow anyone to sue if they damage
people or property.

If it results in better outcomes is of course debatable, but it has a long and
defendable track record.

~~~
acdha
> but allow anyone to sue if they damage people or property.

That's the same as saying the only people who should get justice are those
with the wealth and free time to file lawsuits for everything.

Consider, say, the case of a company over-billing you – are you going to take
time of work, pay to hire lawyers, maybe retain an expert witness to attack
the credibility of their billing system, etc. or will you just write it off
and pay the extra $50? Companies which do things like that tend to do them on
a scale where they can afford to pay for tons of attorneys to make that job as
hard as possible.

(Oh, wait, bad news will spread and the invisible hand will correct that!
That's sure worked wonders for Comcast…)

~~~
BurningFrog
The sarcastic answer is that the current system favor those with the wealth
and free time to purchase enough lobbying to get the regulations they want.

But you're of course right that perfect automatic justice doesn't arise in
either system.

I'm a big fan of the "loser pays" system for lawsuits that's very common
outside the US. That means that it's economically risk free both to file suits
and to be sued if the court rules in your favor.

Your Comcast story is more about class action law suits, which I think can be
a worthwhile feature of a legal system.

~~~
acdha
I like the idea of loser pays for certain classes of abuse but you need some
mechanism to counter the innate tendency to deter the non-rich from filing a
lawsuit in all but the most certain of cases. Some sort of a good faith
exemption would be nice but it'd have to be very carefully constructed.

This becomes particularly obvious when you look at things which aren't
extremely clear-cut cases. Say the company across the street is polluting.
With a remotely-competent regulatory system, you can contact the local
government and they [hopefully] have funding to investigate. With a lawsuit-
driven system, you'd have to be prepared to pay for all of that out of pocket
while trying to demonstrate direct losses for something which is rarely be
more precise than a statistical likelihood in the hope that you'll eventually
be compensated.

With loser pays, you now have the risk of having to pick up the tab for the
company's top-notch legal team, too, which gives them powerful leverage to
push you towards a settlement if the case isn't going 100% your way – after
all, it's only your house that's on the line. If the company loses, it's not
like the CEO has to pay for it personally.

The reason why we have the regulatory agencies we have is because we've
already proven that the “do whatever you want and sue if it goes wrong”
approach doesn't work well. The better question to debate is how to make those
regulators more effective and responsive

------
xyzzy123
It's not great that a private company is profiting off of crowdsourcing
misdemeanours.

On the other hand where I live (Sydney), airport charges are a total rort.
Trains to and from the city cost $17 (!) (versus $3 if you walk one stop). The
taxi surcharge is $4. So... carry on.

~~~
NamTaf
If it's anything like where I live (Brisbane), the airport railway line is
privately owned as opposed to publically funded like the rest of the network.
The service (maintenance and operations) is then contracted out and given that
there's only one player (cityrail) it goes to them. As a result, the fare is
much higher.

~~~
NeutronBoy
At least you have airport trains (I live in Melbourne, where an airport train
has been a political football for at least 20 years)

~~~
frio
As a regular visitor from Auckland, I've wondered about that. Auckland's
similarly mired in political crap, but at least Melbourne has an otherwise-
functional train/tram network.

It'd be a lot nicer taking a train than those airport busses, although getting
dropped at the station is nice.

~~~
NeutronBoy
The existing network is part of the problem. Options put forward include do
nothing, new dedicated line from CBD to the airport, or branch off one of two
existing lines in the area for a new airport spur line. Then you have to think
about, how often can you run airport trains on existing lines? Do they go
express or stop at stations? If they stop at stations, does it take too long
for airport passengers?

None of them are hard questions, but in a partisan political environment where
no parties can agree with each other, unless you can plan it in two years and
build it in another 2, there's no way it's going to happen before next
election.

------
blueskin_
Free: [https://archive.is/hfbkz](https://archive.is/hfbkz)

I tried to catch an Uber ride from Heathrow before, and it was a total
nightmare in terms of not knowing where to go, having come out of the wrong
exit, and the driver ending up in a car park. Really, the airports benefit
from allowing them too, as they reduce traffic congestion and the number of
confused people milling around looking for where their ride is...

------
AVTizzle
Interesting new application of the phrase "deadhead trips" here...

In the 1970's, that would have meant something else entirely :)

------
webwanderings
I'm not a savvy nor a regular traveler. When recently I had to travel, back
and forth airport to home in a suburb, I compared the uber and regular taxi
prices. I didnt find any difference so I opted for regular taxi's flat rate. A
regulated service gives a sort of confidence compared to anything else.

------
jacalata
Its last frontier will be wheelchair accessibility, surely.

------
turbostyler
Last frontier? I was just traveling around Europe, and most cities had
limited/no service. Outside of London/Paris, no one knows what Uber is.

~~~
MrSourz
I believe it is a last frontier from a legal perspective.

------
ionwake
Can someone explain to me how Uber took off? Why did a company like it exist 5
years ago?

~~~
dylanjermiah
Travis said they tried it 6 months earlier and the battery life of the current
gen phones couldn't handle what was required, even while plugged in.

Only one of the reasons however.

~~~
ionwake
Thank you for the insight =]

