I know nothing about it - but I bet Uber has something to do with it.

You won't find many people willing to take your bet!

I've been hearing on LBC an advert about an app for "legal taxis"
which I assume means London Hackney Cabs. Leaving aside the
oh so typical attempt to suggest that minicabs are illegal, this app
is significant. It shows that at long last the Hackney Cab trade is
prepared to compete with Uber whereas previously they were
demanding that politicians remove all competition from the playing field.

On 22/04/2016 18:23, Robin9 wrote:

Offramp:
I know nothing about it - but I bet Uber has something to do with it.

You won't find many people willing to take your bet!

I've been hearing on LBC an advert about an app for "legal taxis"
which I assume means London Hackney Cabs. Leaving aside the
oh so typical attempt to suggest that minicabs are illegal, this app
is significant. It shows that at long last the Hackney Cab trade is
prepared to compete with Uber whereas previously they were
demanding that politicians remove all competition from the playing
field.

Both the Hailo and Gett (formerly Get Taxi) apps that offer this have
been operating in London since 2011, before Uber arrived here in 2012.

Many taxi drivers fell out of love with Hailo when it also started
offering private hire (minicab) bookings as well, though I think this
was defended by them as being more of a 'back up' should no taxis be
available.

Well, this proves quite conclusively that Uber have massively
outperformed the Hackney cab trade. They had an app (two to
be precise) to which the general public did not respond with any
great enthusiasm. Uber come along with no experience in the
London market and promptly persuade most young people with
smart phones that this is the way to book cabs.

It has not been widely publicised but conventional minicab firms
are also suffering from competition from Uber. I was told recently
by a staff member at Marie Stopes in Buckhurst Hill that whereas
previously they used to book minicabs for their clients, nowadays
the clients prefer to do it themselves with Uber via a smart phone.

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

Mizter T;155097 Wrote:
On 22/04/2016 18:23, Robin9 wrote:
-
Offramp:-
I know nothing about it - but I bet Uber has something to do with it.-

You won't find many people willing to take your bet!

I've been hearing on LBC an advert about an app for "legal taxis"
which I assume means London Hackney Cabs. Leaving aside the
oh so typical attempt to suggest that minicabs are illegal, this app
is significant. It shows that at long last the Hackney Cab trade is
prepared to compete with Uber whereas previously they were
demanding that politicians remove all competition from the playing
field.-

Both the Hailo and Gett (formerly Get Taxi) apps that offer this have
been operating in London since 2011, before Uber arrived here in 2012.

Many taxi drivers fell out of love with Hailo when it also started
offering private hire (minicab) bookings as well, though I think this
was defended by them as being more of a 'back up' should no taxis be
available.

Well, this proves quite conclusively that Uber have massively
outperformed the Hackney cab trade. They had an app (two to
be precise) to which the general public did not respond with any
great enthusiasm. Uber come along with no experience in the
London market and promptly persuade most young people with
smart phones that this is the way to book cabs.

but Uber has one big advantage

It can sell itself as offering "cheaper rides", even if it doesn't, always,
do that

An app which just enables you to book a ride at the normal rate isn't very
appealing if, where you live, you never have a problem getting a cab at that
rate by normal methods (though I accept that doesn't apply to all staring
points).

This IS the Business Model of all B2C internet sites. They all major on
"selling it cheaper".

Sometime because selling that way is genuinely cheaper and sometimes (as
here) that saving has come about because the product on offer doesn't have
to jump through the regulatory hoops that have historically been set up for
that type of business, usually either to enforce tax collection or improve
consumer standards.

Unfortunately, over time some of those hoops become obsolete, but are left
in place still imposing an unnecessary cost on operators. What an "offline"
industry has to do to compete with online (if for whatever reason you decide
that it needs to compete) is change the rules so that both types of company
meet the actual modern day requirements (and I would suggest that here Uber
drivers, even as a group, are not meeting disabled accessibility
requirements) without just blindly trying to persist with the anachronistic
ones.

And it is that latter option that the taxi industry are trying to do.
Ultimately they will fail, and from my point of view the sooner the better
because having 20% of every taxi fare paid in the UK being siphoned off to
some company in San Francisco (whether they pay their taxes on it when it
gets there or not) is not a good situation for UK PLC to be in.

It has not been widely publicised but conventional minicab firms
are also suffering from competition from Uber. I was told recently
by a staff member at Marie Stopes in Buckhurst Hill that whereas
previously they used to book minicabs for their clients, nowadays
the clients prefer to do it themselves with Uber via a smart phone.

Is that because they offer better fares?

(if so see above)

tim






--
Robin9

In message , at 10:36:21 on Sat, 23 Apr
2016, tim... remarked:

Sometime because selling that way is genuinely cheaper and sometimes
(as here) that saving has come about because the product on offer
doesn't have to jump through the regulatory hoops that have
historically been set up for that type of business, usually either to
enforce tax collection or improve consumer standards.

Or in this case, invent their own pirate ranks on double yellow lines,
and clog the traffic as well as making it much harder to black cabs to
pick up and drop off at various venues.

I'm not sure if "having insurance" comes under your "consumer standards"

And then of course there's the "employment standards" where the drivers
are trading short term work for longer term security. But that's also
the model for other ecommerce supplier with courier drivers on zero
hours self employed contracts.

When they get too old or sick to work, the public purse will have to
pick up the tab.

--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:36:21 on Sat, 23 Apr 2016,
tim... remarked:

Sometime because selling that way is genuinely cheaper and sometimes (as
here) that saving has come about because the product on offer doesn't have
to jump through the regulatory hoops that have historically been set up
for that type of business, usually either to enforce tax collection or
improve consumer standards.

Or in this case, invent their own pirate ranks on double yellow lines,

So ticket them, I don't see the problem here (well I do see the problem,
what I don't see is why we have to "invent" a new solution, there is an
adequate one already available)

and clog the traffic as well as making it much harder to black cabs to
pick up and drop off at various venues.

I'm not sure if "having insurance" comes under your "consumer standards"

Of course

I am not on the side of Uber here

I think they are a predatory cherry picker.

And then of course there's the "employment standards" where the drivers
are trading short term work for longer term security.

Casual drivers are self employed, as long as they meet that definition
(supply own equipment, work hours to suit them etc etc) it's their choice.
If they don't like it they need to apply for a real job like the rest of us.
(By which I mean the rest of us have made that free choice, not that we are
all "employed" - because I know that WE are not)

But that's also the model for other ecommerce supplier with courier
drivers on zero hours self employed contracts.

That's a different matter (and possibly one that wouldn't stand to a legal
challenge if there were people with both the means and the motivation to
take it that far)

When they get too old or sick to work, the public purse will have to pick
up the tab.

as it will with employed people who haven't contributed sufficiently to a
pension. That's a total red herring

tim

I don't think the main appeal of Uber is price. Before they
arrived, the black cabs were doing good business even though
it was well known that their prices were far higher than minicabs'.

What Uber have done is bring online shopping to the cab trade.
They clearly have based their business model on Amazon and a
huge section of the customer base prefers online shopping to
the traditional way of hiring cabs.

There are several advantages to using an app. If you are in a
noisy environment, tapping on a phone is easier than talking. If
you're sitting comfortably in a restaurant, it's much more
pleasant to book your cab with an app and then to sit back
drinking coffee and brandy than to go out into the street on
the off chance a black cab will come by fairly soon. If you're
in an area you don't know, using an app avoids the problem of
finding which is the best local cab firm.

The Uber business model also prevents customers being
overcharged by dishonest drivers, a very sore point among
many female users of minicabs.

My main concern is that Uber may eventually have a monopoly in
London. I'm glad the Hackney Cab trade is now publicising their
own app. I want other large minicab firms to compete with Uber
and to advertise their apps too.