Uber are getting shirty

[jmorgan]

400K signatures? Someone sat there filling it in over and over?

[Jonesy23]

Tech company & online form based petition?

[popeyewhite]

Whoozit said:

popeyewhite said:

Hmm not so sure. Look at Apple and Microsoft.

Quite a difference between invested infrastructure, and a cloud-based marketplace. One is hard to disrupt, the other is not.

How likely is it another company will pop along willing to waste hundreds of millions to get a loss making corner of Uber's market? Uber will ride roughshod over any competition, as it has in London, and monopolise the business. When all competition has gone it will put prices up and cut it's workforce. If you're happy with that because you get cheap available taxis for a year or two that's all well and good, but it's incrediblynaive to think Uber won't try to turn a profit!

[popeyewhite]

buggalugs said:

popeyewhite said:

Burwood said:

Try getting a Black Cab in the West End after 1am. 'Where you going?Err Canary Wharf...awh sorry mate I'm just on my way home'. Bunch of tossers. They let Uber walk through the front door. Don't take machines

Didn't Uber just undercut the black cabs by about 40% and proliferate the streets with drivers? If Uber is allowed to stay in London the black cabs will go out of business, Uber will have a monopoly and put prices up far higher than the black cabs currently are.

The issue is they’re doing it at a massive loss. They’re loosing billions a year to undercut the black cabs, and how long can they afford to keep that up? And what’s going to happen to the prices once the competition throws in the towel?

Exactement.

[hyphen]

Sa Calobra said:

How do Uber gets it's prices so cheap compared to the competition?

Taxi insurance is hideous
Running costs
Wear and tear
Fuel, yes even a hybrid needs fuel
Wage... To compete and undercut what's going to take a hit in that shiny new hybrid?

Punters don't care, all they care about is a convenient cheap app.

Uber uses a loophole to not pay any Uk VAT. Just that alone is a 20% competition advantage over normal uk services and a 20% reduction to the nations coffers.

But as you say, punters don't care/lack awareness.

[ClaphamGT3]

Don said:

My prediction is that Khan will regret this.

400K signatories (on a petition to reinstate Uber) out of a customer base of 3.5 million is a massive proportion.

Feelings are running high. And they are for Uber not against.

Indeed - a fundamentally Blairite mayor who wanted to attach himself to the Momentum bandwagon by being seen to stick it to one of those big, nasty corporates

Who does he choose though? He can't risk a big business rate payer or anyone who could ply their trade elsewhere - hurrah! That new app-based cab firm - big corporate? Check! Bit of bad PR around CSR? Check! Not materially contributing to City Hall's coffers? Check

Bingo - School bully Sadiq has found the weak kid to beat up!! Let's stick it to'em and take their licence away - that'll show how down with the peeps I am!!

Problem is, the peeps universally like Uber - contrary to what Archie and all his black-cab driving, daily mail reading, tax dodging, racist scum LTDA mates have been dripping into his ear - and Sadiq has a bit of a backlash on his hands.

His 'it wasn't me governor' statement yesterday was pitiful and I suspect that he's waking up this morning to the sickening realisation that he's just rolled the dice on his political career over taxi regulation.

What a pillock.

[ClaphamGT3]

hyphen said:

Sa Calobra said:

How do Uber gets it's prices so cheap compared to the competition?

Taxi insurance is hideous
Running costs
Wear and tear
Fuel, yes even a hybrid needs fuel
Wage... To compete and undercut what's going to take a hit in that shiny new hybrid?

Punters don't care, all they care about is a convenient cheap app.

Uber Manages its tax affairs efficiently and within the law to not pay any Uk VAT. Just that alone is a 20% competition advantage over normal uk services albeit doesn't swell the nations coffers by 20% that they would be wholly unentitled to in any event

But as you say, punters don't care/lack awareness.

Ive corrected your post for you

[PurpleMoonlight]

buggalugs said:

The issue is they’re doing it at a massive loss. They’re loosing billions a year to undercut the black cabs, and how long can they afford to keep that up? And what’s going to happen to the prices once the competition throws in the towel?

Are they paying their drivers more than they are charging their customers?

If not, then presumably the drivers are happy with the rates of pay. That means that black cabs are charging way to much and uncompetitive businesses usually fail eventually.

[valiant]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Don said:

My prediction is that Khan will regret this.

400K signatories (on a petition to reinstate Uber) out of a customer base of 3.5 million is a massive proportion.

Feelings are running high. And they are for Uber not against.

Indeed - a fundamentally Blairite mayor who wanted to attach himself to the Momentum bandwagon by being seen to stick it to one of those big, nasty corporates

Who does he choose though? He can't risk a big business rate payer or anyone who could ply their trade elsewhere - hurrah! That new app-based cab firm - big corporate? Check! Bit of bad PR around CSR? Check! Not materially contributing to City Hall's coffers? Check

Bingo - School bully Sadiq has found the weak kid to beat up!! Let's stick it to'em and take their licence away - that'll show how down with the peeps I am!!

Problem is, the peeps universally like Uber - contrary to what Archie and all his black-cab driving, daily mail reading, tax dodging, racist scum LTDA mates have been dripping into his ear - and Sadiq has a bit of a backlash on his hands.

His 'it wasn't me governor' statement yesterday was pitiful and I suspect that he's waking up this morning to the sickening realisation that he's just rolled the dice on his political career over taxi regulation.

What a pillock.

All well and good but this has been rumbling on for years and well before Mayor Kahn was elected to office. Indeed, you should be asking why a Tory mayor like Boris didn't kill this at the beginning. He (or rather the mayor) is/was the chair of TfL after all.

Or Is it because the rules are reasonable, apply to all firms and that it's Uber who are refusing to comply. As I've said before, all Uber has to do is comply with the laid down rules of operating a ph firm in London and they'll be allowed to operate. Again, ask yourself why Uber are refusing to do this.

[ClaphamGT3]

valiant said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Don said:

My prediction is that Khan will regret this.

400K signatories (on a petition to reinstate Uber) out of a customer base of 3.5 million is a massive proportion.

Feelings are running high. And they are for Uber not against.

Indeed - a fundamentally Blairite mayor who wanted to attach himself to the Momentum bandwagon by being seen to stick it to one of those big, nasty corporates

Who does he choose though? He can't risk a big business rate payer or anyone who could ply their trade elsewhere - hurrah! That new app-based cab firm - big corporate? Check! Bit of bad PR around CSR? Check! Not materially contributing to City Hall's coffers? Check

Bingo - School bully Sadiq has found the weak kid to beat up!! Let's stick it to'em and take their licence away - that'll show how down with the peeps I am!!

Problem is, the peeps universally like Uber - contrary to what Archie and all his black-cab driving, daily mail reading, tax dodging, racist scum LTDA mates have been dripping into his ear - and Sadiq has a bit of a backlash on his hands.

His 'it wasn't me governor' statement yesterday was pitiful and I suspect that he's waking up this morning to the sickening realisation that he's just rolled the dice on his political career over taxi regulation.

What a pillock.

All well and good but this has been rumbling on for years and well before Mayor Kahn was elected to office. Indeed, you should be asking why a Tory mayor like Boris didn't kill this at the beginning. He (or rather the mayor) is/was the chair of TfL after all.

Or Is it because the rules are reasonable, apply to all firms and that it's Uber who are refusing to comply. As I've said before, all Uber has to do is comply with the laid down rules of operating a ph firm in London and they'll be allowed to operate. Again, ask yourself why Uber are refusing to do this.

TfLs decision was based on four highly subjective and unevidencable assessments. By accident or design, all are highly emotive and linked to the orchestrated campaign that LTDA have been running against Uber when their time would have been better spent trying to drag their members into the 21st century.

It would be fascinating to see what substance exists in any private correspondence between TfL and and Uber. On the face of it, I can see Uber's lawyers having a field day with this

[hyphen]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Ive corrected your post for you

No you have not...

Post before asked how Uber gets fares so low, I replied that a VAT tax loophole helps.

So not sure why you have twisted it into your own subjective angle? It is factual that Uber does not pay VAT.

If you want to make your own point, then please do, but don't 'correct me' when I didn't need correcting.

[PurpleMoonlight]

hyphen said:

Post before asked how Uber gets fares so low, I replied that a VAT tax loophole helps.

How many black cab drivers charge VAT?

[Carl_Manchester]

buggalugs said:

The issue is they’re doing it at a massive loss. They’re loosing billions a year to undercut the black cabs, and how long can they afford to keep that up? And what’s going to happen to the prices once the competition throws in the towel?

People like Lyft are using Ubers financing via Google (they own 7% of uber) as a legal bulldozer. Once the litigation has subsided, other players (including Google themselves and Amazon) will start to move in, possibly with fully automated or semi-automated cabs somewhere around 2022.

The real target however, is not Taxi's, it is delivery, logistics and freight.

U.S and EU combined market is worth approx $1.5 trillion USD per year, this is the prize, all this current kerfuffle is just a side-show to the main act.

There is a school of thought that proposes that some of the money currently buried in buy-to-let property will move into automated transportation. If the gateway to entry is simply buying an automated car or truck and plugging it into Ubers/Google's/Amazons network you could personally run your own mini-logistics or tax firm with just one person and just a fleet of automated taxis/vans/trucks.

These black-cab drivers are just canaries in the coal-mine for the millions of jobs about to be lost all across the transportation and car industry.

[ClaphamGT3]

hyphen said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Ive corrected your post for you

No you have not...

Post before asked how Uber gets fares so low, I replied that a VAT tax loophole helps.

So not sure why you have twisted it into your own subjective angle? It is factual that Uber does not pay VAT.

If you want to make your own point, then please do, but don't 'correct me' when I didn't need correcting.

Nor are they required to given their business model. It's not a loophole, its meeting their obligations. Keep up at the back.

[hyphen]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Nor are they required to given their business model. It's not a loophole, its meeting their obligations. Keep up at the back.

Definition of a loophole in the Oxford dictionary "An ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules."

I think the average person would look at the situation and agree it to be an inadequacy in the law, and as such loophole is a perfectly acceptable term.

Cool kids sit at the back, enjoy the view at the front!

[valiant]

ClaphamGT3 said:

TfLs decision was based on four highly subjective and unevidencable assessments. By accident or design, all are highly emotive and linked to the orchestrated campaign that LTDA have been running against Uber when their time would have been better spent trying to drag their members into the 21st century.

It would be fascinating to see what substance exists in any private correspondence between TfL and and Uber. On the face of it, I can see Uber's lawyers having a field day with this

I quite agree that the LTDA ,and TfL for that matter, should be looking at new ways for black cabbies and firms like Uber to co-exist and improve their offering to the general public. Complaints like credit card machines not working and the like shouldn't be allowed to happen but the LTDA exists mainly to protect and promote their members interests first and foremost, just like any Union, trade organisation or pressure group. And politically, any politician will court their members if it means securing a few more votes or getting them on board if they can influence others. Both Kahn and Boris have done this with the LTDA.

Similarly, time could have been better spent by Uber getting its own house in order to comply with the rules to operate in London that apply to all ph firms.

As you imply, this will end up in court and, like you, I will be very interested in what both sides have to say and how they'll defend their respective decisions.

[Don]

valiant said:

Similarly, time could have been better spent by Uber getting its own house in order to comply with the rules to operate in London that apply to all ph firms.

As you imply, this will end up in court and, like you, I will be very interested in what both sides have to say and how they'll defend their respective decisions.

This is interesting. The following is a summary from the Telegraph.

Telegraph said:

TfL's reasons for not renewing Uber's license include its approaches to reporting serious criminal offences, obtaining medical certificates and its use of the Greyball software, which helps it evade authorities.

Uber claim that they were not pre-warned that any of these were an issue. (Who knows if that statement can be trusted!)

If they didn't report serious criminal offences then they were corporately some kind of accessory after the fact! Surely some sort of criminal charges should be being brought?

Obtaining medical certificates? How does one obtain these in an underhand manner!? Without committing an offence they should be being charged with?

Greyball software. This software is nothing more or less than the ability to deny rides to specific Uber accounts. Whilst denying service based on ethnicity or sex or sexual orientation might be illegal there is no obligation on business to serve everyone...

It's all a bit odd and, I expect, we will indeed see these claims tested in court.

Like all American tech giants Uber are unpopular with European politicians because they pay the majority of their taxes in the US. The Americans, of course, would be mighty unhappy with any other arrangement. That's a political problem.

I am of the opinion that this ban is an exercise in negotiation.

[98elise]

hyphen said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Nor are they required to given their business model. It's not a loophole, its meeting their obligations. Keep up at the back.

Definition of a loophole in the Oxford dictionary "An ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules."

I think the average person would look at the situation and agree it to be an inadequacy in the law, and as such loophole is a perfectly acceptable term.

Cool kids sit at the back, enjoy the view at the front!

The "average person" doesn't have a fking clue about Tax law. Ask them if anyone other then themselves should be paying more tax and the answer is normally yes.

They either comply with the law or they don't.

[rscott]

Don said:

valiant said:

Similarly, time could have been better spent by Uber getting its own house in order to comply with the rules to operate in London that apply to all ph firms.

As you imply, this will end up in court and, like you, I will be very interested in what both sides have to say and how they'll defend their respective decisions.

This is interesting. The following is a summary from the Telegraph.

Telegraph said:

TfL's reasons for not renewing Uber's license include its approaches to reporting serious criminal offences, obtaining medical certificates and its use of the Greyball software, which helps it evade authorities.

Uber claim that they were not pre-warned that any of these were an issue. (Who knows if that statement can be trusted!)

If they didn't report serious criminal offences then they were corporately some kind of accessory after the fact! Surely some sort of criminal charges should be being brought?

Obtaining medical certificates? How does one obtain these in an underhand manner!? Without committing an offence they should be being charged with?

Greyball software. This software is nothing more or less than the ability to deny rides to specific Uber accounts. Whilst denying service based on ethnicity or sex or sexual orientation might be illegal there is no obligation on business to serve everyone...

It's all a bit odd and, I expect, we will indeed see these claims tested in court.

Like all American tech giants Uber are unpopular with European politicians because they pay the majority of their taxes in the US. The Americans, of course, would be mighty unhappy with any other arrangement. That's a political problem.

I am of the opinion that this ban is an exercise in negotiation.

What TFL don't say is whether there are specific targets for reporting offences as a condition of the license. Do they need to be reported within a specific timeframe after conviction or simply at renewal? If it's not defined in black and white, TFL are going to have a hard time defending it. However, if they can prove that Uber were slower at reporting than the PH and black cab operators, then they might have a case.

Similar issue with medical certificates and background checks - Uber apparently used 'friendly' organisations to do this and TFL want them rechecked by others. Fair enough, but have they said the same to all the other PH & black cab drivers who might have used the same ones?

[hyphen]

98elise said:

The "average person" doesn't have a fking clue about Tax law. Ask them if anyone other then themselves should be paying more tax and the answer is normally yes.

They either comply with the law or they don't.

We are talking about a loophole, and as such, they by definition comply with the law, or it wouldn't be a loophole now would it.

I would have expected the average person to have know that