x-ray wrote:
Perhaps the way it’s going to work is if an Uber vehicle isn’t available, they’ll pass it on to a local ‘Autocab’ company and charge them an admin fee/percentage of the fare ?
Indeed, Uber will presumably want a cut of the fare, but that begs the question what the local PH operator is gaining? Or does the driver take the hit and ends up paying both Uber and the firm?
But you say that if an Uber vehicle isn't available they'll pass it on to an Autocab office. But the local cars are going to be shown on the Uber app, presumably, or Uber won't be taking bookings in the first place?
Read what Uber is saying again:
Uber wrote:
Every month thousands of people open the Uber app in places the company doesn’t operate to try to get a trip. Through Autocab’s iGo marketplace, Uber will be able to connect these riders with local operators who choose to take their booking.
So it'll either make no difference when people open the Uber app in areas Uber doesn't have any cars in currently, or the local operator's cars will have to be showing on the *Uber app*?
Which would mean more and more people using the Uber app in that area to book cars, so the local operator loses direct bookings, which would then go to their cars via Uber and Autocab.
So Uber could go from nothing in an area to a significant market share there, using a local operator's cars. The local operator has thus lost a significant market share of direct bookings, which are now coming via Uber. Uber has to make something from this, and the local operator will lose out as a consequence.
And the next logical step is for Uber, having built up a 'critical mass' of local business via a local operator, to cut out the local operator and start using its own cars
Predictably, Uber's spiel is that this will all being doing existing despatch operations a favour, but there's no such thing as a free lunch.
And there's lots of other issues that will be thrown up, such as competition law, fare-setting, operator licensing, door stickers etc.