Hacker News Reader

Comment by SovietDissident | Hacker News Reader

I used to live in Playa del Rey, which is maybe 10 minutes from LAX. There's a minimum fare for cabs of something like $17, which I was forced to pay. But the worst part was that every freaking time the cab driver would give me attitude for the short fare (ostensibly because they have to wait in that long line). What do you want me to do? Walk an hour home carrying my luggage? Uber and Lyft are a complete blessing.

Despite all these taxi regulations which are supposedly there to protect the consumer, all they did was create an entrenched oligopoly, where taxi companies were complacent because they basically lacked competition and didn't have to increase the quality of their service. But now that people have an alternative and are eschewing cab services in droves, they are crying bloody murder. Stop blaming the consumer, lobby to get rid of the medallion/regulatory model, and get ready to finally compete (or perish)!

View on HN

I'm sympathetic to the medallion cost/lock-in situation, but in my experience in the US, taxis have always provided a vastly inferior experience to something like Uber. You get attitude for anything bar a giant tip, you get trashy cars, etc. With every Uber I used, the drivers were friendly and enthusiastic, the cars were excellent and the app/setup is obviously a huge improvement over anything taxis do.

What gets me is that there is nothing stopping taxis improving their customer service, ditching their attitude, not filling their cars with advertising or pushing for big tips, or creating a decent app that everyone wants. That is all within their control. And they didn't do it when there wasn't competition and they've failed to do it since.

What stops them is the lack of incentive. Because fares are regulated and customers have very little control over who their next driver will be, there's literally no incentive to do anything more than the minimum necessary -- they won't earn any more. Quite the contrary, if they don't push for big tips or fill their cars with ads, they'll earn less!

Uber coming at them should be incentive enough. People speaking favourably of Uber and less so of taxis should be incentive enough.

The entrenched always spend more on a gradually weakening defence of their turf than they do on improving or going on the attack. Mainstream news (newspapers, etc) are the same.

I feel for the guys who bought the medallions but are somehow pinned under a brand or group that won't innovate. The investment in the medallion prevents them from just driving for Uber, but the actions of those up the chain doesn't improve their situation at all.

Stupid thing is that so many of the things they could/should have done wouldn't have been obscenely expensive.

I think what the parent is saying is that you need to watch what you mean when you say "them" in the context of incentive.

If a single cab driver or small company stops doing these things he takes 100% of the downside (loses the extra ad and tip revenue) and 1 millionth of the upside (making people like taxis more in general so that the industry can compete with Uber). They don't have repeat business. Customers choose/are sent taxis randomly. Prices are fixed. Hence, there is no way for "signals" to travel up and down rewarding and punishing better and worse operators.

But they have the possibility of exit, right? They generally don't own the car or medallion, but only rent them, so it's pretty easy for them to jump ship and use their personal car for UberX/Lyft. That in turn should bid down medallion/car rental fees and thus the driver take-home gross, even with constant taxi rates for passengers.

"but in my experience in the US, taxis have always provided a vastly inferior experience to something like Uber"

Agreed. But also, taxis in the US have always provided a vastly inferior experience to taxis in other countries. I live in the UK and have zero complaints about cabs here. I've never had a good experience in the USA.

I think the UK is heavily dependent on where you're ordering the taxi. Some cities are truly awful. Nottingham is the worst I've personally seen for taxis, but always had good service in Leeds.

Taxis in Australia (where I live) are fine. The ordering experience is a bit annoying, but they're pleasant drivers, decent cars, etc. If you're hailing on the street (outside a pub, for example), it's fine.

I seriously dislike taxis in the US primarily because of the tipping pressure. Seems to make the drivers miserable somehow.

In Asia, I have walked huge distances just to avoid having to haggle with a driver or have them reject a fare they don't like. The experience there is pretty poor as a tourist where there is a large incentive for them to hold out for someone naive.

I got the cab attitude at SJC once for the same reason. I had to go to work, which was literally next door (property abutted the airport). Unfortunately there is no easy way to walk and I had luggage anyway.

When I told the cabbie where I was going, he got out of the car and started yelling at the dispatcher. They almost got into a fight until the dispatcher informed the driver that he is required to take me to keep his medallion.

He refused to talk to me for the entire 5 minute trip.

I felt bad because I knew he had waited in the long line, so I gave him $20 for the $9 fare.

Wow, I wish I could get all pissy and yell at my customers when they ask me to do things that are mildly inconvenient for me, but I am required by law to do. Your situation is why Uber exists.

But where's the law that ensures that Uber will take this fare over other (more profitable) fares?

Uber drivers don't see the destination until they start the trip. According to the drivers in London.

So Uber stops drivers (for now), but what guarantees exist that Uber will keep doing that if they feel they can make more money that way? Or adding a 20x surge charge? This is why regulation exists that bans discrimination.

If they start refusing trips or jack the price I will take my business to lyft. Competition dissuades companies from engaging in that type of behavior far better than legislation ever would.

No guarantees. Why do you need guarantees? What's the cost of downloading the competitor's app? Even make your own non-discriminatory rideshare service, but if it's not sustainable, don't force the cost on others.

Regulations that attempt to guarantee total security while favoring entrenched interests are exactly why the current horrible taxi cab situation exists.

Freedom to compete is like bleach to the pathologies of entrenched lazy players.

He drove you next door, I think $9 was probably generous to begin with.

I think it's reasonable if you consider the opportunity cost of waiting in the queue for airport customers, instead of searching elsewhere.

Maybe if they didn't have a queue and instead used an on demand app...

...then what?

I'm not sure what problem you think you're solving here: the existence of a queue suggests that they're slightly over capacity in cars, and thus something like Uber would still have to rotate the fares between the drivers.

Of course, there are perfectly sensible reasons that you need to have extra capacity available at an airport as a metro area, and thus we have the question of how best to provide surge capacity to the airport.

All the answers I can think of, including an "on demand app", involve waiting in some kind of queue managed by someone.

So could you please finish your sentence?

... then they could take fares around the airport and get matched for an actual ride at the airport without having to wait in line idly. The difference here is that they can make better use of their time while still possibly getting an airport fare, if that's what they desire for some reason.

Was that so difficult?

That's what airport cabbies near where i live in India now do. The queue is really long (such that they may only get 1 or 2 rides the whole day), but now they take Uber/Olacab rides while waiting for their slot.

Often the airport is in the middle of nowhere that really doesn't need frequent local cab service.

..then when they make their drop off, they'll have another fare request waiting for them and their downtime will be absolutely minimal.

If increased demand exists at the airport, pricing increases until capacity is met. This is a much more natural governor than simply creating a queue at projected in demand areas.

I paid a huge fare once for a long drive home from the airport (in Chicago) because I didn't feel like taking the L as planned. Of course, the taxi driver also had attitude about that, because apparently they are acustomed to quickly flipping back and forth from the nearby hotels, not driving all the way into the city to drop people off. I have avoided taking taxis as much as possible because I hate the attitudes that many of the drivers have. I actually find I'm more willing to pay for an Uber/Lyft because the drivers are usually pleasant, or at least not actively hostile.

It's $15 minimum fare from SJC. Strange that the meter would read $9. Check the posted fare card.

This was many years ago. Also I was looking before we stopped. It's possible that it ticked up when he hit the "finish" button.

I wouldn't have tipped him a single fucking cent. What does he expect people to do, move further away from the airport just for him?

Cab drivers like him are shitheads, and are the reason that Uber is doing so well.

Taxi driver's attitude problems are the main reason why I wish uber would take over. I was in Vegas recently and got a taxi to take me ~0.8 miles. He was so sarcastic about how he was happy for me that it's such a short trip. I don't need any of that attitude when I hop in a a car. I have almost always had pleasant conversations with my uber drivers. Customer service is so important and it seems like uber got it right.

My pet peeve is when drivers try to tell me that their machine to process credit cards is broken and I need to pay in cash (so that they can avoid a payment processing fee). When I respond that I don't have any cash and that they're just going to have to give me the ride for free, miraculously they are able to resolve the problem and take my card...

Also when you need change, all of a sudden they have $0 on them.

> Despite all these taxi regulations which are supposedly there to protect the consumer, all they did was create an entrenched oligopoly

Economists call this phenomenon "Regulatory Capture". It is one of the most important things to be aware of if you want to understand modern society.

Brief intro: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp

Similar problem in Melbourne, Australia.

The taxi lobby groups have stopped a train line being built from the city to the airport (20 miles) so cabs are the only realistic way to get home with a 25 minutes journey costing $70.

Skybus is $18, which is not great, but it's better than $70 and it does run ridiculously frequently. It's pretty quick in traffic too, since it uses the carpool lane.

Edit: So long as you can deal with the sometime nausea inducing movement.

Yeah the Skybus is actually fine but its the last place you want to be after a 15h flight from LA (and you have to then get a train/tram connection).

I've never got it in peak traffic as always seemed risky in regards to missing your flight. Good to hear it uses the carpool lane.

I've told this story before on HN but I'll tell it again here. On current Google Maps statistics I used lived 18km/24minutes from the airport in Melbourne while the CBD is 23km/22minutes away (faster roads to get to the CBD). Getting a taxi home one time the driver berated me and told me I shouldn't have taken a cab for such a short trip. It wasn't like he was grumpy, he was literally telling me off in the street, after I'd got out and couldn't see his driver ID of course. According to Google maps it takes 3h30m to walk from the airport back to where I was living so I suppose I should have done that.

I think he needed to see a mental health professional.

Try Wingz.me or Blacklane.com for pickup alternatives. Both are scheduled, not on-demand, and in both cases the driver actually wanted that fare (they can see your destination and optimize their schedule based on that, which partially explains lower prices than UberX or UberBlack).

Wingz.me is great, I've used it twice and had no trouble.

I entered my house to SFO in blacklane and wingz to see their prices, and they seem to be a little bit higher than taking uber would be. Getting an uber from SFO is usually just 4 minutes of waiting.

So it seems like these guys are basically surge / traffic insurance?

Good point, my departure point is usually LAX where the words "surge / traffic insurance" should not be spoken lightly.

I live in Playa del Rey now and absolutely detest thinking about taking a cab home. I almost have to ensure I mention a nice tip so the cabbie doesn't roll his eyes.

Usually I just say that I'll give turn by turn directions instead of just saying where I'm going.

My dad is in Westchester so I fly in to LAX and have the exact same problem! It was so ridiculous the way cab drivers would give me so much attitude for a short fare that I was being hugely overcharged for. I eventually gave up and started walking 20 minutes to In N Out, and getting an Uber from there. Glad to see the tides are changing!

So is Uber less expensive than the taxi 17usd? Or just polite about it? Or coming in from out of the city to get you ?

I don't get why 17 bucks to an uber driver is worse or better than 17 to taxi? Uber has to wait for their next to surely ?

a ten minute drive on uber near me was around 7 bucks.

Have you ever used uber? There's no tipping, no "credit card isn't working" bs, cars are generally nicer/have water, drivers more polite (because there are ratings)... I'd pay more to use an uber to be honest.

Uber shouldn't have to wait in line with the other taxis, since they're there to pick up a specific individual, and not any random person looking for a taxi.

Uber is acting more like a friend/relative picking you up than anything else, and as such, the $17 fare represents a $17 fare (or whatever the amount happens to be), and not "a 15 minute wait for a measly $17 fare".

Like airplanes, taxis are only making money when they're in transit with a fare. So, because they're losing money waiting in line, it discourages them taking short fares because it doesn't give them the opportunity to make as much money, lowering their overall hourly rate.

It isn't about the money, it is all about attitude.

I have bags, it is too far to walk, and I just need to get to the hotel. I don't want to feel like an ass for asking for help getting there.

Being in a car where the driver does not want you in it is uncomfortable. Having to pay for that feeling is just as bad. I have had situations where I have been at an airport or a hotel and the cab driver doesn't want to drive me to the location, and there is a doorman or someone else yelling at the driver that they will take me.

Charge me more. I just want to get to my hotel or to the airport.

Related, I hate the uncertainty of tipping. I go out of my way to not take cabs because I never know if I tipped enough or overpaid. Just tell me how much to pay and no attitude.

The Uber fare is cheaper for sure. However, even the taxi fare was only about $10 at the time. The point is that they have a minimum fare from the airport, and part of the drivers' discontent probably comes from the fact that they have to explain this policy to customers (who predictably don't like being forced to pay it).

Uber drivers are civil because there are actually consequences for them if they are not.

You ever call up a cab company to complain about one of their drivers being rude? They laugh and hang up. There is zero accountability for a rude cab driver.

So what is the insurance situation in the US? In Germany the guests were transported uninsured which made the whole model not only pointless but dangerous for both the driver and the guest.

>But the worst part was that every freaking time the cab driver would give me attitude for the short fare (ostensibly because they have to wait in that long line).

Woah. I thought that only happened in India. Didn't know it was the same story elsewhere. But now, lot of the airport cabbies have decided to join 'the enemy' rather than try and beat it. Lot of them do Uber pick-ups while waiting for their turn at the airports (from what they tell me its a very long queue and they usually get only 1 ride per day).

Its a much worse situation in India, except here as far I know there is no difficulty in obtaining badges/medallion (they hand them out like candy). Instead we have to deal with unionism/thuggery, terrible service and exorbitant rates. Tuk-tuks in most cities ignore meter pricing.

I am scared by the prospect of Uber becoming entrenched, but I think that is a risk we have to take, to break the current status quo. Uber really is a life-changer here. This industry needs to be disrupted, and if Uber has to bend/ignore a few rules (which the existing taxis in India ignore anyway), I think that is a worth-while cost.

When I was in LA I went to rent a car with FlightCar, and needed a ride to their parking lot from LAX. When I got into a taxi and told the driver where I wanted to go and for what purpose, he got so mad saying that I should've waited for the rental place bus and I explained to him that this one didn't have one. I had to pay $20 because he said so. Thankfully FlightCar reimbursed me for the value, but god damn I was pissed.

>Stop blaming the consumer, lobby to get rid of the medallion/regulatory model

That's your advice to working class cabbies? Shut the fuck up and donate more money to politicians?

I'd be a lot more sympathetic if their unions didn't create the regulatory hell-hole that we call the cab market of 2015.

The fact that there's somebody out there who think unions invented medallions so that investors could profit from taxicab drivers blows my mind.

Unions, when invented, were a great thing. That anybody thinks there's still any good unions around proves P.T. Barnum right: There's a sucker born every minute.

The sad thing is that in Europe the employee unions managed to sell many benefits as reasonable for the employer unions, like: - Paid sickleave that doesn't count as vacation - Several weeks of vacation per year - Voluntary and paid overtime for all workers, including salaried - Maternity/paternity leave of several months - Several month notice for layoffs - Minimum wages high enough to support you

Of course it's not all sunshine and rainbows, there are all kinds on smaller stupid things the unions insist keeping alive as they might worsen the benefits of some workers (even if they would benefit some other workers).

They also have managed to make themselves seemingly irrevelevant, as many younger workers believe all those existing benefits are rights that cannot be taken away.

Some of the main benefits of unions are now rights that cannot be taken away. More things are laws that will be hard to change, even if Unions were to suddenly disappear. OSHA rules, workers comp, etc, will not go away easily. Unions have bloated and stagnated in their bargaining power, though, and I do think collective bargaining would work much better with smaller, more nimble groups and better, more modern methods of communication.

Not to mention the absolute lack of _usable_ public transportation. It is laughable what they got there compare to any major city in China for example.

> Walk an hour home carrying my luggage?

Uh...take the bus?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com