As per news article below, taxi owners are launching a class action in Victoria against Uber saying it has cost them $500m in lost revenue. Crazy to think just how badly we were getting ripped off before Uber arrived.
https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/taxi-drivers-…
If price is a factor (as it is for me), try them!
Grab a referral code off OzBargain (random) for each of them.
They consistently have 20-30% off vouchers automatically applied. Olacabs shat $20 at me every day for a week to use their service (as an existing customer).
They're also better in terms of taking less of a cut (so the driver will get paid more).
During peak pricing, didi drops their commission to 0% (rather than surcharging the customer).
So true. And its time the Vic government allowed the private transport operators to pay below living income so that they can compete with Uber. Also, throw out the window any fatigue management practices that these operators have, so that they can compete even better with Uber. Just make sure that the cost savings are passed onto the fare paying passenger.
After all, public transport is still the most effective way of moving large numbers of people in an efficient manner. We don't want the steets flooded with hundreds more cars. As long as passengers demand the lowest prices, the ethics of a paying living wage no long matters, nor does the safety of ALL road users.
Is this the future we want in Australia?
I have a feeling uber is in for a very nasty surprise with regard to this lawsuit.
Good on them I hope they win.
Uber has not been able to force it's way into the market in every city illegally, but it has here.
How about a US corporation starts bringing in foreign workers on tourist visas and starts building houses. Australian carpenters get paid $50 an hour. We are getting ripped off!
They would be doing us all a favour by operating illegally? An option non billionaires that run Australian businesses do not have?
Why was the value of taxi plates so high if income was so poor? Why should the community pay through high fares to give a certain sector a monopoly with poor service to boot.
They lobbied the government over the years to restrict the number of medallions available and let them have a free market to buy/sell at whatever price the market determines. Free market + low supply = high plate price.
Income was and always been extremely high.
The reason you get poor service is that most owners don't drive, they lease it out… so now your fare pay two incomes. Its a big reason why your driver is always trying to rip you off, they're trying to pay off the high rental cost of the license first
If licences were restricted to the owner driving only, the licences wouldnt cost as much, at the same time an increase in licence numbers would be needed.
There are few 1 licence owners, most licences are owned by companies,
Check their incomes in the past 10 years for possible tax evasions and you will have 5 million of stolen tax money back.
I used to drive my car before Uber, only ever caught a taxi occasionally (maybe 1x per year if I (profanity) up my planning).
They didn't lose anything from me. If anyone lost my money, it's:
a. Car manufacturers have probably lost my future business.
b. Some future landlord may have lost money as the next place I rent, won't have a parking spot.
Maybe they all need to get together and sue Uber as well?
Bring it on
Will anyone be launching a class action against the taxi industry for consistently ripping off passengers?
Theres's nothin classy about ripping stuff off on FakeTaxi
Here's a story from Beme news. It really frames the argument well.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http…
medallion = 🍎
True. Same dynamics though.
The lawsuit has already sourced some $20 million in funding from UK litigation bankroller Harbour, meaning that once the suit has been filed with the Victorian Supreme Court it is game the hell on.
https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/melbourne-taxi-suing-uber-500…
Apparently they got funding from VC litigation bankroller, hope the drivers can still claim at least 50% of the $500M (if they win)
Also interesting is they sued Uber instead of Victoria government.
Don't know if anyone else can confirm this, but I understand that you may not be covered by an Uber driver's (CTP?) insurance in the case of an accident as most of them do not have their vehicles registered for commercial use. If an employer sends employees off somewhere in an Uber and there is an accident, apparently it can be a bigger problem than if they used a taxi. So I was told recently by a disgruntled taxi driver client at least. Their $8-10k pa insurance premiums cover the commercial use of the vehicle, public liability etc.
Do you have the link to the actual policy at all? This is just a PR piece for the drivers. I am curious to know what they cover. I looked and could not find it. Thanks.
So I was told recently by a disgruntled taxi driver client at least.
The competition would say something like that.
they should also sue the government for allowing it
sue the government for allowing it
What would their claim be?
Governments are free to introduce bills. These bills are then passed by both houses and becomes acts. Australians cannot sue the government for acts the they don’t like.
Oh no - they can sue. And they can lose and pay the govt's legal bills.
Another aspect of the argument, say your uber driver makes a wrong turn or unnecessary detour, mention it on the app and you will often get an automatic partial refund of a few dollars at least for the inconvenience. Now try doing that in a taxi.
I have - they don't like it, but what are they going to do, waste hours at the police station while you argue your case?
I have also simple got out of taxis for deliberately taking me the wrong way, playing dumb, and denying they took an indirect route.
Now I don't have to.
Coming from someone who knows the business, the taxi industry (and transport industry in general) didn't see uber as a serious threat.
When I'm at conferences with my clients, I often hear the terms "we wont be uber'd again".
Bus and Coach are still ok but taxis are stuffed. They reacted far too slowly and now most people take uber even though the taxi industry has made huge changes.
Yep - did kodak sue canon (or others in the digital camera space early on?).
A lecturer of mine used to say: "what got us here, won't get us there".
Everyone needs to seriously look at their business model and consider disruptors. Just because the government limited taxi medallions/registrations etc - maybe, just maybe they should have considered whether that really was a viable investment, instead of expected they will be protected.
I'm sorry, suck it up taxi business, you failed to innovate, hire friendly drivers and keep your cars clean - maybe you should have looked at your customer proposition and did some customer research before you were disrupted.
Correct. Innovation is key to survival. The Taxi industry got fat and lazy (not to mention that they were bullies as well) and this is whats happened. Hollywood is feeling the same thing with Netflix, Hulu, etc. Record companies same scenario too. They thought they were too big to topple.
I have no pity for the industry that held everyone to ransom and delivered terrible service at inflated cost.
Some of the biggest whingers the ones who bought licences at lower prices in the last 5 years… gambling that Uber would go away and prices wouldnt skyrocket again
Pointless exercise: There is no real Uber entity in Australia that would pay in the unlikely event the cabbies would win in the highest court. The law firm will simply make them sign a piece of paper with mumble jumble the average driver will not understand and they could even lose their house by being exposed to costs. So they start in a Victorian court. Well dumb cabbies do not know that not paying a non govt entity is not a criminal matter, just a civil one. I can see the outcome: First cabbies win and will celebrate in joy. Uber will simply not pay and go to a higher court. More papers to be signed for cabbies more risk. It will take years to come before the high court. Uber operates under 2 different named entities, one does prey on drivers, the other sells them technology. So just WHO is MB going to sue? Uber is still going in London despite losing their license. It is a matter of Donald saying to Theresa: Your surname spells uncertainty but you need our printed money for certain!
It’s not taxi drivers suing Uber, because the ones who drives but don’t own the license earns peanuts.
It is the taxi license owners who are feeling the pain of:
Only the well off riches are able to sue Uber and be more greedy. Sue the government, it’s the government allowing it.
Also, it’s not Uber’s fault for taxi owners not innovating and thinking taxi industry can last forever.
Just wait till Uber’s fleet of driverless cars to crush the whole market.
Good luck they should be suing the state government Uber did nothing wrong the government should of fined them operating without proper accreditation but they let it slide.
Personally i think the reason why the government didnt intervene is because the Taxi industry had a monopoly on the industry providing a poor service at a high price didnt invest in updating technology and gave zero f***s about customer service until Uber came along. Im Glad Uber is here i hope another 5 ride apps come along to bring real competition to the market.
But if you ask me the class action will end up with a settlement 1 10th of what they are going for…
Note: Anyone who took a taxi regularly pre-Uber in Melbourne would have at least 1 story of being over charged, drivers with disguising personal hygiene, drivers taking the 'long way' to bill more and simply poor customer service… I do feel for the drivers but the licence owners where generally rich lazy pricks milking a poorly run system and i hope they get jack all in the end (Greedy C***s)
The taxi radio ads where its 'customer feedback' is amazing at how terrible it is
Most likely they will win the case and Victoria will end up in the same situation as NSW: every rider has a tax imposed on their ride-shares which is used to directly subsidise the taxi industry. I think we have $1.00 a ride "uber tax" at the moment. It was claimed to be a temporary tax but we all know how "temporary" taxes go.
Taxi drivers can get f*****.
The amount of time's I've waited for a Taxi Driver and they drive up and ask me 'Where are you going?'.
They proceed to drive off knowing the place I'm going is only 5 minute drive away.
To be fair, cuntly Uber drivers have been known to call me up, ask where I'm going, then demand that I cancel if it's not where they want to go.
People use Uber just because its cheap. Please dont give all the crappy reasons. There are chauffeur cars professionals and corporate people use them, Regular people want excuses to find cheap alternatives. people dont even care whom they are sitting with ( Uber Pool). Iam not a Taxi supporter but i hate uber. The drivers dont know where they are going, they just follow the GPS. one of the guys had a problem with his phone and I had to give my phone to him for the GPS. Its tool early guys.
they just follow the GPS
As opposed to Taxi drivers who intentionally take you the long/wrong route…
Its always funny how when you're drunk and using a taxi, the fare is always higher/trip longer than usual
Service is twice is good from Uber, because the driver is the owner. As oppose to the majority of drivers who are renting out an expensive license, drivers.
If they increased taxi license numbers and restricted the license owner to be the only driver, Uber would never have taken off.
By doing the above, service would increase significantly. One of the first post in this thread mentioned a taxi driver earning 150k, that would have to be a owner driving not a renter.
From what I remember Uber Black was a properly licensed commercial chauffeur service that no one had an issue with. Uber X is/was a private ride sharing service which ironically taxi drivers jumped on as a way to create a pseudo taxi service instead of being forced to work for low wages by the official taxi owners/license holders.
If taxi drivers had decided to stick to driving official taxi's and Uber X had only been used by people sharing a ride that they intended to take anyway (eg driving to work)then there would be no issue.
I can see why the taxi owners are upset though.It would have been fairly easy for Uber to ensure Uber X was only ride sharing by limiting drivers to sharing only 3 or 4 rides per day with a gap between them rather than a taxi "shift" where its pretty much non-stop one ride to the next. Also if taxi owners had tried to create an unofficial alternative they would have been slapped down.
Taxi owners on the other hand are guilty of creating a cartel of sorts, failing to innovate and would lobby against any changes that would increase competition or lower prices for consumers. It used to make me laugh when the taxi companies would say they had an app except they did not have one for windows phone whilst Uber did. They were so lazy that even when they created a poor quality app they could not be bothered making it for more than two types of phone.
I think the taxi owners should probably be able to sue Uber for 200M however they should also receive a 150M fine for anti-competitive behavior.
Uber pool is now often cheaper than taking a tram for me. I live in Brunswick East and it's less than $5 for two of us to go to the CBD, on the tram it's $8.60 for both. There are now a few other players, DiDi, Taxify and Ola, although I've not tried them yet.