

Uber drops fares for SF Taxi strike - BornInTheUSSR
http://blog.uber.com/2011/06/20/uber-drops-fares-50-for-sf-taxi-strike/

======
ryanf
It's bizarre that they're trying to spin this as pro-taxi-driver. I can't tell
if they really believe taxi drivers would be happy with them for doing this,
or if they're just cynically positioning themselves as "for the people" to
erode public support for the union (or score PR points from public disdain for
the union, I guess).

~~~
bhickey
Their drivers aren't taxi drivers in the sense that they don't drive medallion
cabs. Medallions in major cities are a scarce, and outrageously expensive on
secondary markets. Uber's interests here are aligned with their drivers, not
traditional hackney carriage drivers.

Edit: I'm a dope. See child.

~~~
ryanf
Right, but the text of this blog post claims in multiple places that they're
supporting traditional cab drivers somehow.

"Taxi drivers are going on strike, and while they circle City Hall in hopes of
getting a better deal..."

"...making sure ordinary folks can get around the city while the taxi drivers
strike to get a fair deal."

"Furthermore, we want to put a word of support out there to the hard working
taxi drivers in San Francisco..."

As far as I can tell, the reality is that they're deliberately undercutting
the strike and profiting by it. Which may or may not be justifiable (I don't
know anything about the strike), but it's certainly not supportive.

~~~
anigbrowl
They're supporting the drivers, not the medallion owners, who are the ones
renting the cabs to drivers 6 days a week at an outrageous markup and
preventing the city issuing any new medallions. The average taxi driver, who
does not own a medallion, gets screwed by the current arrangement and would be
far better off working for Uber IMO.

~~~
anamax
> not the medallion owners, who are the ones renting the cabs to drivers 6
> days a week at an outrageous markup and preventing the city issuing any new
> medallions.

Umm, no. The medallion owners are NOT preventing the city from issuing new
medallions. Yes, the medallion owners have consistently convinced the relevant
authorities to not issue new medallions, but the responsibility for that
choice rests with said authorities, not the current medallion owner.

If you can't figure out who is responsibile, you can't fix things....

~~~
anigbrowl
Anamax, you can't say the government exists in a vacuum when business is often
buying the votes in the regulatory body. I do not like the way city hall is
run either, but it's a two-way street.

~~~
anamax
> you can't say the government exists in a vacuum

I'm not saying that govt exists in a vacuum. I'm saying who is responsible for
what it does.

> I do not like the way city hall is run either, but it's a two-way street.

No, it's not. The way City Hall works in SF is entirely the responsibility of
the voters of SF. As long as they insist on setting it up so it can be bought
off, it will be, and that's their fault.

No, it isn't the fault of the people buying. Not one little bit.

~~~
anigbrowl
Yes it is partly their fault, because they are the ones corrupting the
political process at the electoral level. There are so many different factors
that go into electing people at city hall, and the public is no more a
monolithic entity than the government. Rather, it includes multiple groups
some of whose interests are aligned on some issues and conflict on others. The
electorate can't, and shouldn't, build the entire election around the taxi
issue; that would be irrational. But it's not obvious what the most effective
leverage point for change is; this is a basic lesson of public choice theory.

The people buying influence (and today, holding the public interest hostage by
blockading city hall) are also a part of the problem. You can't sensibly
object to rent-seeking and then give the rent-seekers a free pass when they
kick back some of their extracted rents in the form of political lobbying.

~~~
anamax
> You can't sensibly object to rent-seeking and then give the rent-seekers a
> free pass when they kick back some of their extracted rents in the form of
> political lobbying.

I'm not objecting to rent-seeking; that would be like objecting to gravity.

I'm objecting to folks who set up opportunities for rent-seeking and then
complain when it happens. I'm blaming folks who set up said opportunities for
the rent-seeking that occurs.

~~~
anigbrowl
Once again, the electorate is not monolithic, but highly fragmented. To
pretend otherwise is to endorse the divide-and-conquer approach of
professional lobbyists. Whenever someone proposes reforms it's billed as an
attack on freedom, whenever someone complains about the absence of reforms,
it's billed as the electorate's own silly fault. This has been pointed out to
you before, and you're an intelligent person, so I think it's rather
disingenuous of you to keep trotting out the naive form of the argument.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory>

~~~
anamax
> Once again, the electorate is not monolithic, but highly fragmented.

That's irrelevant to my point.

I'm not making a public choice theory argument. Yes, public choice theory
discusses rent-seeking, but it isn't the only basis for doing so.

~~~
anigbrowl
It's entirely relevant; your whole argument on the notion of unitary agency.
Public choice theory explains why this line of reasoning is fundamentally
flawed. If you don't understand this then all I can suggest is that you spend
some time thinking it over, because you have certainly not articulated a
coherent argument in defense of your position and I grow tired of explaining
the obvious.

~~~
anamax
> It's entirely relevant; your whole argument on the notion of unitary agency.

No, it doesn't, even if your argument requires that it does.

Yes, some folks support structures that make rent-seeking easy while others
oppose. In both groups, you have folks who want govt to provide a particular
good and some folks opposed. All of thse are still responsible for the
resulting rent-seeking, even though clearly they're not "unitary".

> I grow tired of explaining the obvious.

You haven't explained anything. You've dropped a buzz-word that is only
tangentially related and made some false assumptions.

I like public choice theory, but it isn't a complete explanation of everything
in govt. In particular, while it talks about treating govt as an economic
problem, it makes some assumptions about govt that aren't necessary.

~~~
anigbrowl
So the people who are opposed to rent-seeking are just as responsible for the
phenomenon as the people who are supportive of it, even if the former have
voted against it. Riiiiight.

~~~
anamax
There are lots of ways to oppose rent-seeking. One is to oppose situations
where it is inevitable. The other is to support measures "intended" to limit
it. Since the latter don't work, said support is meaningless.

And yes, an unsuccessful opposition bears some responsibility.

Surely you're not arguing that all responsiblity is the same....

------
masterzora
I definitely understand the cabbies' concerns about prices, but this is huge
for Uber. As the cabbies seek to shorten the gap between taxi prices and Uber
prices and shut down for an entire day, Uber swoops in with a huge customer
acquisition push. This won't be the death of the cabs, but I'll love to see
how Uber makes out on the deal.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I hope they're advertising it enough that people who have never heard of Uber
actually use them.

~~~
masterzora
That's an excellent point. I don't know what kind of advertising Uber is
actually using, but my Twitter anecdata says that there's already starting to
be a nice bit of viral push to go with it. I really hope it'll be significant,
because I absolutely love Uber and I'm planning on fully supporting them
tomorrow.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Wouldn't it make more sense for Uber's supporters to avoid using them
tomorrow, thus freeing up more of their fleet for potential new converts?

------
brezina
not sure if promoting this to existing customers was a good idea for uber.
They sent me the marketing email. I'm a happy customer. But i didn't realize
their prices were 2X cab prices. Now that is stuck in my head every time I
call an uber

~~~
bdittmer
They are pretty open about the fact most fares are around 2x that of a normal
taxi.

------
abeppu
That's a downright twisted use of the word "solidarity".

~~~
mcantelon
Yeah, if they're going to be scabs, and undermine the leverage that striking
creates, they should at least be up front about it.

~~~
anigbrowl
'Scabs'? The taxi firms have bent over backward to keep competition out of the
market, and now you're saying they should get solidarity because they want to
hold consumers hostage to their monopolistic demands? Consumers who already
pay more for their cabs than in any other US city?

~~~
michaelochurch
Thank you. "Scab" is inappropriate because a scab is someone who works for the
company that the strike is against.

------
sciurus
The taxi strike is described at [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry...](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=91202)

"From noon to 2 p.m. on Tuesday, taxi drivers are being urged to park their
cabs to protest the practice of charging drivers 5 percent of every credit
card transaction, the consideration of an electronic tracking system and an
idea to put more taxis on the street."

~~~
potatolicious
Heh, they're opposing more cabs on the street? Well _there's_ a surefire way
to endear your cause to the people of the city...

~~~
mikeryan
I'm not going to comment on the taxi regulation system in SF because its
pretty ugly. But the drivers have to drive for about 15-20 years to win a
medallion. SF is changing this process and wants to start _selling_ medallions
for about $250,000. If you're at the top of the list (ie you've been waiting
15 years) you get first chance at buying a medallion but you're SOL if you
don't have the 12K deposit.

If I were someone near the top of the list but hadn't been saving up I'd be
pretty pissed too.

------
MatthewPhillips
So why are Uber fares higher than taxis on a typical day?

~~~
masterzora
A few reasons.

Convenience:

* There's a very easy-to-use app to request a driver that shows the locations of nearby cars and an estimate on how long it'll take for a car to arrive. No need to try and flag down a cab or call a company.

* Payment is done via stored credit card info, so no need to worry about paying at the end of the ride. No need to worry about tip, either.

Comfort:

* The town car is far more comfortable than a normal taxi. Nice seats, ample leg room (and I'm a large guy), no ads, actually useful air conditioning.

* There are magazines to read, if that's your thing. Some of the cars seem to be wifi equipped (one of my drivers has told me that that car had wifi, at least).

Experience

* They definitely ride the line between limo and taxi, to the point where I can't help but laugh. The driver even hops out of the car to open the door for you!

Really, if you're in SF, it's worth checking out Uber at least once.

~~~
silencio
> The driver even hops out of the car to open the door for you!

I loved this the last time I used uber. The driver went as far as to hold out
his arm for me to lean on while I was getting into the car, which was a great
help because I was having unpredictable dizzy spells all morning long. Then he
drove like a maniac so I could get to SFO in time to catch my flight, and he
deposited my luggage next to curbside baggage check. Taxi drivers generally
don't go that far, they'll just haul your bags out and leave them on the road
in my experience :(

Not to mention I had over two dozen taxis, most of them empty, ignore me as I
spent a futile 15 minutes to hail a cab on Market Street before I gave up and
used uber. Not my problem if they don't want $50, and uber was only $65 in
comparison..

~~~
chrischen
They've been known to fetch water and provide chocolates.

~~~
silencio
The drivers I've come across tend to have water bottles already set out, as
well as snacks, mints, gum, Starburst and more sitting around. That's just a
side perk :)

------
jaekwon
i wondered if this was as gray moral area, but I couldn't find a single reason
why this hurts traditional cabbies.

In fact, the fact that uber has the cabbies' back in terms of serving the
city, makes it a win-win situation for everyone involved except the target of
the cabbies' strike cries.

If you are a cab driver and you're upset by this marketing gimmick, holler.

------
kai-zer
Why would you drop prices when there is no competition? Makes no sense. Basic
supply and demand.

~~~
masterzora
Gouging may be good for a day (assuming there weren't other good transport
options, which is simply untrue in SF), but it sucks as an acquisition method.

My experience with Uber was essentially: (1) "Hey, it sounds great, but that's
a bit pricey. It can't really be worth it, can it?" (2) Decided to take
someone to dinner via Uber because it was more impressive than a cab. (3)
"Hey, this is actually pretty cool and totally worth it." (4) I'm now a repeat
customer, even when traveling alone.

In my eyes, the key is that they need to find a step (2) for a more general
case. Having a day where there are no cabs might be a small push, but having a
day where there are no cabs and Uber is the price you would have paid anyway
is absolutely killer.

Short answer: Long-term thinking is better for them than short-term thinking.

~~~
BenSS
I was going to post nearly the same thing. It may upset the strikers, but it's
a brilliant business move by Uber to snag some customers that may not have
given it a shot otherwise, and turn them into repeat users.

------
antihero
Bloody scabs! At a time when unions worldwide need solidarity and they're
undercutting them. Nice one. I guess this is the lovely caring capitalism
we've been hearing about.

~~~
anigbrowl
Fuck the unions. They've half bankrupted the city already and are well on
their way to completing the job. Uber does not owe the medallion owners a damn
thing, and neither do the people of SF. They've made out like bandits for
years by keeping the market deliberately undersupplied and inflating prices.
Now we have the most expensive cabs in the US and you can't hail one outside
of downtown for love or money. It's hard to get cab _in_ the downtown area. I
have no sympathy.

~~~
michaelochurch
_Uber does not owe the medallion owners a damn thing, and neither do the
people of SF._

There is something owed the medallion scumbags, but it hasn't been in fashion
since Paris 1793.

