Taxi Driver Online

Can't be bothered looking at the source documents for this, but there's a link below if anyone feels the need

But some of the stuff here just doesn't make sense - there's the usual ride-hailing stuff, but it also veers between taxi and private hire, but as far as I know they're just mixed taxi/PH fleets in Aberdeen, so it's all a bit confusing.

On the other hand, there's a specific private hire firm mentioned in the list, but I've never heard of it, and its online stuff suggests it's confined to Glasgow and a couple of neighbouring authorities, so maybe some of the Aberdeen readers on here could shed some light...

Even accepting that there is a specifically private hire-only provider in Aberdeen, the highlighted paragraph below in particular doesn't make sense to me...

Anyway, whether this is just rearranging the consultation deckchairs, or whether it might genuinely presage substantial change in the industry, who knows?


Exclusive: Uber to have say in Aberdeen taxi talks as firm pushes to increase fleet in city

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/ne ... axi-talks/

This comes after a ride-hailing firm boss slammed the council's previous system...

Uber could soon be given a seat at the table as Aberdeen City Council plots a shake-up of the way the taxi industry is represented in talks.

A licensing report reveals that the ride-hailing giant could have its own representation alongside the city’s taxi bigwigs during crunch meetings.

Uber say they are fully backing the changes, with it being an “important step forward” to meeting “huge demand” in Aberdeen.

Private hire firm bosses previously said it was “unreasonable” that Uber were represented solely by their competitor during behind-closed-doors council talks.

But local taxi trade chiefs have warned this must not lead to the group “losing sight of drivers”.

What are the changes?

An assembly called the Taxi and Private Hire Car Consultation Group steers the council through its decision-making on all issues relating to the industry.

This could include the controversial Street Knowledge Test, which Uber says has stymied its progress in Aberdeen – and called for to be scrapped.

According to the new documents, the San Franciscan firm could soon have a platform to formally plead for such changes.

The current group has only one representative for all licensed taxi booking offices during these meetings with the council.

This figurehead is Rainbow City Taxis boss Russell McLeod – who has previously said that Uber must “play by the same rules” as everyone else if they want a piece of the Aberdeen market.

However, under the new proposal, individual representation would be given to all of the big-name players in the Granite City Taxi game.

The group would now be made up of:

Rainbow City Taxis
Aberdeen Taxis
Chariots Private Hire
ComCab
Leadryde
Aberdeen International Airport
Uber

What does this mean for Uber in Aberdeen?

Back in May, Uber’s head of cities Matthew Freckelton questioned why he was being represented at important council talks by one of his business competitors.

An Uber spokesperson told us of their hopes licensing chiefs will rubber-stamp the proposed rejig on Wednesday.

They said: “We’re keen to work collaboratively with the council and other stakeholders to improve the private hire sector in Aberdeen.

“We know there’s huge demand from local people for safe, affordable and easy options to get them where they need to go, and we believe this report is an important step toward achieving that.”
Taxi bosses less enthusiastic about changes

However, not every member of the group is as welcoming of the changes.

A joint statement from taxi firm bosses say that although they will support whatever decision is made, no one should “lose sight that the trade is about drivers”.

They added: “Our view is that the consultation group was never intended to be about anyone directly representing their own business, but now it seems we are there to directly represent our businesses.

“The consultation group was created to act on behalf of drivers, which it has always done.

“Drivers need to be represented and booking offices cannot and should not be able to dictate licensing policy, which could be detrimental to drivers.”

You can view the full proposed changes here.

Had a very quick look at that document linked at the bottom, and it seems like membership is based purely on the basis of having a booking office licence, so in substantive business terms it may not mean very much, but means representation on this group...which in turn may not mean very much...

Recall, for example, that Uber had such a booking office licence in Aberdeen a couple of years before lockdown, but did nothing with it, and eventually either surrendered it or didn't renew it until post-lockdown

Private hire firm bosses previously said it was “unreasonable” that Uber were represented solely by their competitor during behind-closed-doors council talks.

The private hire firm in the quote is Uber.
They are not in the taxi private hire consultation group TPHCG and complained that the owner of Rainbow taxis ( 350 drivers ) represents all the offices. Uber (2 drivers ) want to be in the TPHCG so they are not represented by another company.

Everyone is entitled to have their say, be they traditional firms or these young upstarts.

Of course, it's down to councillors to decide on what's what, but shutting Uber out of discussions makes no sense.

All they will do is lobby big time behind the scenes.

_________________
IDFIMH

Thanks - that would have been my best guess, but the plural makes it sound like there are several 'private hire bosses' as opposed to just Uber - thus different firms, or at least a few different people as opposed to simply Uber's Mr Freckleton, presumably.

The singular 'competitor' also sounds a bit odd, but makes sense if only Rainbow was the sole representative, but also makes it sound like there's only one competitor in Aberdeen, as opposed to several.

And, of course, it's that age-old problem I keep banging on about - if the article hadn't kicked off with the usual 'ride-hailing firm boss' referring to Uber, then it would have made more sense rather than then changing the terminology to 'private hire bosses'

Apart from that, it all makes perfect sense

Or at least, all the average reader will glean from that is that Uber is now on the consultation body. In terms of nuance, detail and explanation, they'll be none the wiser

(And maybe the non-Uber, non-Rainbow firms above are relevant to all the twists and turns, but let's keep things straightforward )