Posted on 08/02/2016 9:25:11 AM PDT by rpierce
The storm was so bad that the ceilings in the media tents began to bow, and we took this as our cue to leave. We were well-informed of our options: One could easily escape the Democratic National Convention by public transit or Uber car, but not Lyft, taxi, or a kind friend. Our Lyft that morning had been nearly turned back by Uber staff —
and we soon discovered why.
Uber had reportedly struck a deal with the DNC that it had also offered the Republicans in Cleveland: In exchange for free rides for VIPs, Uber and its customers would receive privileged access to a semi-secure rideshare purgatory by police lines outside the convention center. Other car services were ostensibly allowed to come and go as well, but in practice the access was far more contentious, with some Uber staffers blocking access points and turning away non-Uber cars.
Free market Republicans rejected the Uber monopoly, but the Dems were down. The convention not only provided a market opportunity for Uber, but a convenient political one as well. The company had faced legal opposition and stiff fines in Philadelphia ahead of the convention, but a generous offer of logistical support to a city about to be inundated with tens of thousands of road-clogging visitors could do a lot to repair a bumpy relationship.
But this was before the storm hit.
Waterlogged and sweltering, we squished our way into Uber’s humid, blue-lit branding campaign —
— until Keegan arrived and quickly informed us that he really, really needed to pee. He’d been driving since 6 a.m. that day, he said, and planned to be on the road until 4 a.m. every day of the convention.
Uber spokesperson Craig Ewer and other Uber drivers refuted Keegan’s claims, but Philadelphia Limousine Association president Ali Razak wasn’t necessarily surprised by them.
That night, Uber had a more vexing logistical problem to solve at its hotel party for convention delegates: A picket line of disability rights activists, cab drivers, and former Uber drivers who said they’d been left with subprime loans on Uber cars after the company deactivated them.
Uber may have viewed its deal with the DNC as a corporate sponsorship on par with putting Coke products in the convention vending machines over Pepsi, and perhaps the DNC did as well. But as much as they might’ve desired convenience and free coffee, it was clear by day two that Uber had miscalculated the liberals’ priorities and values. W
Later that night, we saw a Philadelphia emergency services vehicle with a lit-up Uber dashboard sign. When it stopped to drop passengers at a Planned Parenthood party, I tried to take a photo, but the driver flashed a light in my face.
At week’s end, I called a cab to take me to the airport. After waiting 23 minutes, I gave up and turned on the Uber app. Charles arrived, looking weary. A lifelong Philadelphia resident, he said he’d only gotten one ride in two hours from the convention center the night before, which would leave him shy of earning the guaranteed payments Uber offered drivers during convention week if they picked up one ride per hour. He said he’d been driving all night to try to make up for his losses, he wasn’t sure about his future with Uber, and he didn’t know who he’d be voting for after the chaos of this week had subsided.
Uber had reportedly struck a deal with the DNC that it had also offered the Republicans in Cleveland: In exchange for free rides for VIPs, Uber and its customers would receive privileged access to a semi-secure rideshare purgatory by police lines outside the convention center. Other car services were ostensibly allowed to come and go as well, but in practice the access was far more contentious, with some Uber staffers blocking access points and turning away non-Uber cars.
Free market Republicans rejected the Uber monopoly, but the Dems were down. The convention not only provided a market opportunity for Uber, but a convenient political one as well. The company had faced legal opposition and stiff fines in Philadelphia ahead of the convention, but a generous offer of logistical support to a city about to be inundated with tens of thousands of road-clogging visitors could do a lot to repair a bumpy relationship.
I can drive for either - I also hate monopolies. If you qualify to drive for one, getting the other (without mentioning the other, of course) is easy.
I like Lyft better, BTW. They provide for the customers to leave a tip (Uber discourages it), and they don’t change their rates to screw the drivers. Also, they don’t limit fares (which is great for me as a driver); I had one ride of about 15 miles on New Year’s Eve for about $200. Let’s just say that if I were an Uber customer and had to pay that much, I’d never use them again.
So now we’re adding Uber and Coke to our DNU (do not use) list?
I’m curious if anything in the article struck you as inaccurate or implausible. I don’t live in metro areas that have it and so I don’t have much experience. I mostly thought the exclusive sponsorship dealmaking by Uber seemed contrary to their stated philosophy and legal arguments against the entrenched taxi companies.
Central planners fail again.
Uber has no problem with “entrenched tax companies,” as long as Uber is part of the deal. In New York City, for example, Uber has joined the NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission in a legal battle to get Lyft outlawed.
So a city-owned, taxpayer-funded emergency vehicle was used to transport crones to a Planned Parenthood party. Philadelphians should be ashamed.
Aren’t a couple of ex-Obozo leeches high up the chain at Uber? Plouffe?
I don’t agree with the deal that was struck but the article us a bit misleading. There is a company in the Philadelphia area called Emergency Vehicle Solutions Group that also used the vehicles as Uber cars. They have lights and all of the items you would expect on a police car (but the lights are yellow LEDs not blue or red).
I was picked up by one of these at a car dealership in the Philly suburbs. If you look at the photo, you can see the company name.
Nope, seems entirely plausible.
Uber wants to run all of the cab companies out of business, as well as its direct competition like Lyft. It engages in monopolistic practices wherever it can get away with it. I am sure that when the competition folds or diminishes a lot, that they jack up their rates. Good for it and its drivers, not so much for other cabbies or the public.
“stated philosophy and legal arguments”
No offense, but that passage literally left food on my monitor.
ROFLMAO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.