Uber vs Taxi

[ghs]

There was a thread discussing Uber vs Taxi which was deleted due to one member advertising one of the taxi companies.

It's an interesting debate so I thought I would start a new thread.

Should we support the local taxi companies or use Uber and pay 25% of the fare to an American company ?

[serca]

GHS you do realise Holdens is or was an unit of an American Company GM, it was never about where the profits were going rather the local jobs it created.

Does it not make sense to see thousands of South Australian earn that little extra driving for Uber which in turn stimulates the economy rather than focusing on what country the profits are going to, making a small group of people benefit.

[ghs]

GHS you do realise Holdens is or was an unit of an American Company GM, it was never about where the profits were going rather the local jobs it created.

Does it not make sense to see thousands of South Australian earn that little extra driving for Uber which in turn stimulates the economy rather than focusing on what country the profits are going to, making a small group of people benefit.

What the hell are you talking about ?

Uber coming in last year hasn't created new jobs here in Adelaide, there's still the same demand from passengers as there was before. The market is now diluted with a greater supply of cars / drivers - the supply is greater while demand is still the same.

These new online services aren't good for a town like Adelaide. Amazon is about to start here in Australia. So next year instead of buying a tv from a retailer here in Adelaide you'll buy it from a warehouse in Melbourne. Everyone on this forum talks Adelaide up. Personally, I am very concerned about the local economy.

[serca]

Hasn't created anymore jobs? Are you trying to tell me if there are now 1000 uber drivers for example there are 1000 less cabs on the road? doesn't work like that. Of course it has created Jobs

Anyways I know plenty of people who will Uber out of convenience now, where as previously would have not got a taxi in the same circumstance.

Yeah so what about Amazon ? Times are changing we just have to adapt. I have no sympathy for major retail stores they have had their fare share exploiting us for the last 100 or so years. Buying goods manufactured in third world countries under terrible conditions and selling it to us at 200% plus mark up, while paying their staff minimum wage. Boohoo to them

[rev]

Uber has created new jobs GHS.

There's a massive problem with under employment in this country.
What Uber has allowed is for people to pick up a second job, and make a second income to supplement their main income. And they do so on their time at their own convenience.
These jobs, be it the ride sharing service Uber provides, or the food delivery service UberEats, are new jobs. They didn't exist before, so I don't get why you say it hasn't created new jobs.

Sure it's not earth shattering stuff that will transform our economy. But there's many people under employed, and if they can pick up some extra money on the side, even $10,000 a year, then that's beneficial. It means more people have more disposable income to spend. Consumer confidence would also increase if people are making more money.

Boohoo to the taxi industry. Poor quality drivers, vehicles, and service over all. It's their own fault.
I've never had a problem with Uber as a passenger nor with Uber Eats.
Now where do I sign to write a mini series on problems experienced with the taxi industry.

[crawf]

There was a thread discussing Uber vs Taxi which was deleted due to one member advertising one of the taxi companies.

It was moved to the Beer Garden (aka Irrelevant Thread)
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1219&start=2595

[neoballmon]

Aside from the drivers, there are also jobs created in the support centre on Grote Street. I went in there the other day and there were a dozen or so employees on the floor. Plus more were most likely out the back.

Now ridesharing may be competing with an existing service, but Ubereats (And also competitors Mlkman and Deliveroo etc) are all quite a new concept for food delivery, previously it was majorly just pizza stores that did delivery, there are now hundreds of restaurants on these platforms, which creates new jobs for drivers (like myself, a second income and I usually earn $100 from delivering one night a week) and also increases business for the restaurants ordered from.

I know the restaurants do give a % to uber as well so reduces $$ a little bit with a greater customer base, and more visibility, will advantage them in the long run I believe.

[ghs]

So Uber has employed a few people on grote street. But surely this offset by the taxi council and the cab companies now employing less.

The cab companies wouldn't need as many call centre staff now.

How many staff do Uber have in their call centre ?

None, because it's all electronic.

[monotonehell]

So Uber has employed a few people on grote street. But surely this offset by the taxi council and the cab companies now employing less.

The cab companies wouldn't need as many call centre staff now.

How many staff do Uber have in their call centre ?

None, because it's all electronic.

The taxi companies have been trying to shift people on to apps, instead of calling since before Uber came to Adelaide. Because apps cost less than a call centre. Call centres are a thing of the past. Jobs have and will continue to be cut in call centres as they are automated and shipped offshore. Extra players in a market compete for demand. There's no more or less jobs created or destroyed according to demand and supply. But there's possibly more demand created with an innovation. Extra people who used to not take taxis, may be encouraged to use an Uber.

Market disruption has been a thing since the bronze age.

[zippySA]

It's a good debate this - I wouldn't be too quick to shoot down GHS's thinking - is there any evidence or analysis about whether Uber is creating demand or simply taking share from taxis? I would actually back GHS given the government has seen fit to apply an Uber surcharge to all taxi fares to prepare the funds for the inevitable crash of their business model. And no, I'm not against competition and disruption - but clear decision and policy making needs facts first.

I took Uber for the first time the other week (yes - I declare I am a taxi person and aside from some funny language barriers and needing to give directions - I feel much better in a regulated, traceable taxi than I do in a private vehicle) and what really got me was the uncertainty of pricing - the surcharge rates that follow demand.

My suspicion is Uber's grand plan is to disrupt (aka destroy) the competition, then we will all see the fares creep up and up and up and I wonder how much the new drivers will get versus Uber corp - and guess as always us poor saps the paying public will end up footing the bills!

I'm getting cynical as a grow up!

[bits]

I think Ubers grand plan is autonomous vehicles lead to small individuals not owning a car/truck etc.

Uber will become a major transport booking system for all passenger and freight movements etc. Controlling the booking of the majority of vehicles.
As you drive down the road you should consider in the future you are in a vehicle booked through uber and every vehicle around you was also.

Taxis and trucking companies are the same thing as Uber just with an outdated booking system(taxis new apps are not at the same level as Uber), outdated model of licensing drivers/cars, outdated franchising arrangements and outdated user charging scheme.


Today the taxis cry, tomorrow the logistic companies cry.

If these existing companies want to survive they need to offer consumers more of what they desire than Uber does.

Currently the taxi industry wants to offer more of the same inferior service that lead to Uber becoming such a success in the first place. The taxi industry is screaming that there should be laws protecting the crap service the taxi industry was giving from better services such as Uber. That is how out of touch the taxi industry is.
Why are they not just offering a better service than Uber to keep customers?!

Progress will not stop and dinosaurs will be left behind.

[crawf]

It's a good debate this - I wouldn't be too quick to shoot down GHS's thinking - is there any evidence or analysis about whether Uber is creating demand or simply taking share from taxis? I would actually back GHS given the government has seen fit to apply an Uber surcharge to all taxi fares to prepare the funds for the inevitable crash of their business model. And no, I'm not against competition and disruption - but clear decision and policy making needs facts first.

I took Uber for the first time the other week (yes - I declare I am a taxi person and aside from some funny language barriers and needing to give directions - I feel much better in a regulated, traceable taxi than I do in a private vehicle) and what really got me was the uncertainty of pricing - the surcharge rates that follow demand.

Your Uber ride is traceable via the app, therefore you can watch the exact route and current location on your phone whilst in the car. Taxi rides on the other hand are not traceable.

Before you book an Uber ride, it lets you know if any surcharges will apply aswell as the approximate cost amount (e.g. between $14-18). Once it's booked, the fare will stay that amount regardless if demand suddenly increases or if you are stuck in bad traffic.

[ghs]

I think everyone would agree that taxis have provided poor service in the past. But not all of this
can be attributed to the taxi drivers or owners. It's fair to say that the government and the taxi council
haven't regulated the industry well.

Up until recently there was an 11% surcharge if you paid by card. This surcharge has been reduced to 5.5% since
Uber has come in. Paying an extra 11% was a joke and this is purely the fault of the state government and the
taxi council.

The Uber rating system is quite good and the same thing needs to be introduced for taxi drivers, but has the government
been smart enough to bring it in ?

No.

In terms of the drivers, if you pay peanuts then you get monkeys. The drivers are doing 12 hour shifts for about $10 an hour.
If the working conditions were better then you would get better service from the drivers.

[mshagg]

I think it's a brave soul that suggests we should accept a more expensive and lesser service in the name of loyalty or nationalism.

I'd have more sympathy for the taxi industry if it wasn't run like the protected racket it had become. They'd rather protest, lobby and threaten government and the community rather than lift their game.

It's an important signal for many other industries. You can only resist change for so long.

[bits]

Up until recently there was an 11% surcharge if you paid by card. This surcharge has been reduced to 5.5% since
Uber has come in. Paying an extra 11% was a joke and this is purely the fault of the state government and the
taxi council.

Uber charges no surcharge. Most businesses these days charge no surcharge and have no minimum spend. The very few that do charge a surcharge are normally ~0.5%.
Alinta Energy one of the greedy energy companies charges no surcharge.

1000% mark up compared to the "expensive" companies. It is unforgivable.

5.5% is a joke. Again things like that show how poor a service the taxi industry wants to give customers. Every business uses a gsm/utms/lte based eftpos terminals, there is literally no reason taxis charge 5.5% other than they are ripping off customers.

The stupid thing is the taxis should want to use eftpos over cash as it prevents theft.
Yet they charge so much in what appears to be an attempt to keep taxis as purely cash payments.
Maybe taxis have some kind of income incentive to keep taxis as cash payments?

Not a single issue can be blamed on the government. The government allowed uber, they are open to innovation.
It is the taxi industry that did nothing and will be wiped out by companies that want to offer more.