Uber to Resume in Calgary December 6 2016

[Cappy]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...458511?cmp=rss

"We're leaders, not followers"

Stupid.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Swarly

Or the fact that he sure isn't acting in the best interest of anyone who doesn't own a taxi plate.

I don't think getting mad a the mayor now is the correct thing to do. Attack specific issues of the plan you find unreasonable. Uber will operate in Calgary under the proposed bylaws. It might be 10cents per km more than Edmonton but it will be here.

The current complaints are over $500 per year. or $10 per week. If the make or break point of a part time driver is $10 a week. The business model doesn't work, not the regulation.

Uber now at least has moved into the unreasonable or at least not clearly correct position in my mind trying to scrape what it can out of the city. As a business this is what they should be doing. But to say the set of recommended regulations vs Edmonton's regs is about protecting the Taxi industry is absurd

[Fuzz]

The problem is Uber relies on high churn rates for drivers, as they realize being an Uber driver is a fools errand. If the barriers to entry are high, Uber may have to give into driver demands. By being able to ignore them and recruit new drivers, they avoid having to make concessions. If the barrier to entry is to high(as they suggest it is in Calgary) they won't get new drivers. That's probably why they prefer Edmonton's system of Uber paying the fees, as opposed to drivers.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GGG

The current complaints are over $500 per year. or $10 per week. If the make or break point of a part time driver is $10 a week. The business model doesn't work, not the regulation.

This is Uber in a nutshell. Their business model doesn't work with career drivers. It only works if they get people who already have jobs and want this on the side, and those people aren't going to do it if they have to go spend $500 to get started.

Uber knows this, that's why they fight these battles in every city and try to get the citizens on their side by saying the cities aren't being fair.

[GGG]

From that link above

Edmonton's fee is 50k plus 6 cents per trip. This would also mean that other entrants such as lyft or Joe blow's ride sharing would have to negotiate a deal with the city to operate. You can see why Uber wants the Edmonton model. In the Calgary system you could drive for whatever company you wanted for your $220 with Edmonton's each company has its own rules. Uber has created an artificial barrier to entry in the Edmonton Model.

Calgary's fee is $220 per driver. There are 1311 taxi plates in Calgary so lets say Uber doubles the market. That would make the uber's fee about $40 per year plus trips. It would take an average 3000 trips to equal the $220 fee of Calgary so likely for part time drivers the Edmonton model is cheaper. However it creates artificial barriers to competition.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Uber knows this, that's why they fight these battles in every city and try to get the citizens on their side by saying the cities aren't being fair.

Watching the reactions on each Uber thread on /r/Calgary has been interesting. Their support with that segment of the public has declined rapidly. Especially since the city's bylaw proposals and the transparent attempt to play off the Calgary-Edmonton rivalry.

Also, what Fuzz said. Uber's viability depends not only on unfair competitive advantages relative to other taxi services, but on the necessity of having a supply of drivers that exceeds demand. What Uber really wants is an army of minimum wage (or less) labour.

[Addick]

Uber is starting to sound as bad as the taxi drivers who claim that cities are now taking away their ability to make a living. People need to realize that Uber isn't the alternative model but rather one company using an alternative model.

[Otto-matic]

Gary Bobrovitz ‏@garybtvnews 2m2 minutes ago
Calgary City Council approves new regs for @uber - bylaw & service starts April 4 - @GlobalCalgary #taxi

Ramit Kar says @Uber_Calgary is no more, bylaw means ridesharing will not come back to #yyc #yyccc

[Fuzz]

But council wouldn't agree to change the fee schedule or background-check requirements.
It did, however, vote to loosen the inspection requirement.
Instead of getting vehicle inspections every six months, the requirement is now one per year, unless a vehicle exceeded 50,000 kilometres of total travel in the previous year. In that case, six-month inspections would be required.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...2016-1.3458511


Basically what I suggested a couple pages ago....
So basically the doors are now open, let's see if Uber pouts in the corner, and if another company comes in. If, in a year we don't see anyone wanting to enter the Calgary market, perhaps the costly items can be revisited.

[getbak]

Boo hoo, Uber. If they can't make it work, surely someone can. Who wants to start up a Made in Calgary solution?

There's lots of unemployed people in this city, it couldn't be too hard to write an app that would do this, could it?

[Bunk]

My guess is perhaps Uber continues to play hardball, but Lyft swoops into the market almost immediately. Then forcing Uber to follow.

[HotHotHeat]

Come on Lyft. Save the day.

[Weitz]

Why would any ride sharing come here? Better yet who would be a driver?

[Joborule]

Yeah, Uber can take a hike if that's not good enough for them. Someone else will come in since the market is clearly starving for it.

[Bunk]

Considering places like New Zealand or say New York City have more stringent requirements (e.g. NYC requires a medical exam and a defensive driving course) and it operates there, this is just clearly pouting because they didn't get it exactly their way. Simple police check, $220 fee (base on City cost recovery) and a single annual vehicle inspection seems eminately reasonable. The Province seems close to finalizing the appropriate new insurance product that bridges the gap between personal and commercial use of a vehicle like this.

[cam_wmh]

As an aside, lately there are tons of cabs at most hours of the night downtown/beltline/mission.

[GGG]

Good work calling Ubers bluff. They will be here once insurance allows them to be. the taxi drivers renting plates will jump into uber right away.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Considering places like New Zealand or say New York City have more stringent requirements (e.g. NYC requires a medical exam and a defensive driving course) and it operates there, this is just clearly pouting because they didn't get it exactly their way. Simple police check, $220 fee (base on City cost recovery) and a single annual vehicle inspection seems eminately reasonable. The Province seems close to finalizing the appropriate new insurance product that bridges the gap between personal and commercial use of a vehicle like this.

If the class 4 requirement stays, then that also requires a medical. The class 4 also has a longer more thorough road test.

[Regular_John]

I gotta say, I'm more then a little surprised to see Uber dropping the ball from a PR perspective this time. Up until this point they've been playing the public sentiment like a fiddle, not some second rent fiddle either, we're talking top tier philharmonic level fiddle playing.

But man this most recent play is a complete 180 from the way the wind blows. "Give in to our demands are you're not invited to my birthday party!" level stuff.

But as others have said, if Lyft, or some other player decides to play by the new rules, then Uber will follow suit. The ruthless capitalism in their blood won't leave a market unserviced by them.

[Weitz]

Don't see how you can do this on the side to make money. Which isnt this whole thing supposed to be for?