Quote:
Journeyman drivers
The above analysis obviously ignores the position of journeymen drivers – those drivers who do not own the taxi they drive, and are obviously in a similar position to the bulk of the New York drivers. But the position of the UK journeymen is no different – they effectively pay for the use of the plate, but this is not done quite as transparently as in New York – the plate rental is normally part of artificially inflated payments made to use the taxi.
Quote:
A jouneyman driver has the opportunity to purchase his own plate from someone leaving the trade. This is not indicative of an unmet demand for taxis, just plates as previously stated.
I don't quite get the point here Cap - the point being made is that the medallion rentals in NY show quite clearly where the money paid by the jockey is going, whereas in the UK it's not quite so clear.
It was clear enough in Dundee for example, since the plates were being rented for a fixed sum, but in the more general case in the UK, such as in Brighton, where the plate AND car is being rented, it's not so clear.
Quote:
the plate rental is normally part of artificially inflated payments made to use the taxi.
Quote:
Whilst I am no fan of artificially high vehicle rentals it would seem that what is needed is a comparision between restricted and derestricted areas for this statement to be correct (although if there is one elsewhere in the document I need to apologise
)
Even the Inland Revenue don't know that
As I said, there's a black market in restricted plates in some areas of the UK, so where the plate per se is being leased, it's pretty obvious.
As regards the more general case, it's plain that if someone buys a plate then they'll expect higher rentals based on the value of the premium.
I asked about the price of renting an Octavia in Brighton the other night for example, but reply was there none.
Quote:
This position is best demonstrated by considering a fleet owner who buys a taxi for £20,000 in a restricted area as compared to a fleet owner who buys a similar vehicle in an unrestricted area. Both intend renting the vehicle to journeymen drivers. If the former taxi is to be rented out in Manchester (say) then the purchaser will also need a plate at an artificially inflated value, and if this costs £45,000 then obviously the total investment will be £65,000 rather than the £20,000 in the unrestricted area.
Quote:
An anecdotal scenario.
In my experience it is normally the case that a fleet owner will rent out a vehicle where the finance agreement has elapsed, thus maximising the income from the vehicle.
Again I will point out a contradiction in the document, as it was earlier implied that after delimitation virtually all vehicles are owner driven.
Well I could hardly list every vehicle and premium in the UK, I was just trying to illustrate the principle - you can put your own figures in and see what comes up
I don't see the relevance of the point about the finance agreement, it's the economic effects of the plate premiums that are being considered.
As for your last point, please don't tell GA, but again this is not relevant to the principle being described.
There are clearly non-driving owners in London (say) but the point is the excess rentals being paid in restricted areas. Remeber that GBC expressed surprise at Edinburgh rentals for example, but the reason for them was the restricted numbers.
Login
Register
FAQ
