Uber and Lyft approved to pick up passengers at Sky Harbor (Phoenix: insurance, hotel)

[DetroitN8V]

Great news!

Uber and Lyft approved to pick up passengers at Sky Harbor - ABC15 Arizona

[Bondurant]

It only passed on a 5-4 vote. Very curious to see who does not support common sense and the free market.

I've only used Uber in LA but had a very interesting conversation with the driver. This was back in September. They couldn't access the airport and he said he's actually been attacked by cab drivers downtown while in his vehicle when the Uber tag was displayed. I hope drivers in Phoenix don't experience the same.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

It only passed on a 5-4 vote. Very curious to see who does not support common sense and the free market.

I've only used Uber in LA but had a very interesting conversation with the driver. This was back in September. They couldn't access the airport and he said he's actually been attacked by cab drivers downtown while in his vehicle when the Uber tag was displayed. I hope drivers in Phoenix don't experience the same.

The conservative wing of the council (DiCiccio, Waring, Gates), along with swing vote Nowakowksi, voted no. If that sounds surprising, it's because the vote was about much more than just smartphone-enabled taxi companies. Instead, the change affecting Uber and Lyft was packaged in a much more comprehensive reworking of Sky Harbor's ground transportation policy, and operators of off-airport parking lots and hotel shuttles complained that the new policy would drastically increase their fees. The four dissenting council members made it clear in their remarks that they were voting no due to concerns about collateral damage, not opposition to Uber and Lyft. Unfortunately, a lot of the media coverage ignored those nuances.

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

It only passed on a 5-4 vote. Very curious to see who does not support common sense and the free market.

"Free market", lol.. Couldn't be further from the truth, and everyone who wants a "free market" solution, *also* wants "closed market" protections & subsidies from the public. I'm no fan of the fees associated with the airport, and some of the red tape is annoying, but sky harbor is a very expensive monstrosity that needs to pay for itself, and that can only be done (fairly) through user fees.

In a "free market" like the "sharing" people envision, the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the airport become an asset to be exploited by all (but mostly exploited by the "share-ers ") & paid for largely by those who don't benefit from it.

When someone gets into a cab, they expect to be covered by insurance if they get injured because the driver is unqualified, or the vehicle is unsafe & they expect "the government" to weed out sex-offenders, robbers & rapists from the pool of drivers. They expect to be billed fairly for the trip & they *want* the government to step in when they *aren't* treated fairly.

The *reason* for all the laws, regulations& fees regarding taxis is exactly because of "free market" abuses in the taxi industry.

[Mike Warner]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

The conservative wing of the council (DiCiccio, Waring, Gates), along with swing vote Nowakowksi, voted no. If that sounds surprising, it's because the vote was about much more than just smartphone-enabled taxi companies. Instead, the change affecting Uber and Lyft was packaged in a much more comprehensive reworking of Sky Harbor's ground transportation policy, and operators of off-airport parking lots and hotel shuttles complained that the new policy would drastically increase their fees. The four dissenting council members made it clear in their remarks that they were voting no due to concerns about collateral damage, not opposition to Uber and Lyft. Unfortunately, a lot of the media coverage ignored those nuances.

Thanks for the info...Bernie

[ScottsdaleMark]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

"Free market", lol.. Couldn't be further from the truth, and everyone who wants a "free market" solution, *also* wants "closed market" protections & subsidies from the public. I'm no fan of the fees associated with the airport, and some of the red tape is annoying, but sky harbor is a very expensive monstrosity that needs to pay for itself, and that can only be done (fairly) through user fees.

In a "free market" like the "sharing" people envision, the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the airport become an asset to be exploited by all (but mostly exploited by the "share-ers ") & paid for largely by those who don't benefit from it.

When someone gets into a cab, they expect to be covered by insurance if they get injured because the driver is unqualified, or the vehicle is unsafe & they expect "the government" to weed out sex-offenders, robbers & rapists from the pool of drivers. They expect to be billed fairly for the trip & they *want* the government to step in when they *aren't* treated fairly.

The *reason* for all the laws, regulations& fees regarding taxis is exactly because of "free market" abuses in the taxi industry.

Bingo. This is why I've never taken an Uber/Lyft/other unlicensed livery. It's not fair to the people who pay for their medallions, comply with the rules, offer set rates 24/7/365, and have to comply with all sorts of laws and rules.

I'm not saying cab drivers are the salt of the earth but there was also that Uber driver in Michigan who was on a killing spree. I don't get people who think Uber/Lyft is somehow nicer/safer than a taxi. You have so many more legal protections and rights as a passenger in a regulated taxi (or limo) than in an Uber/Lyft.

I do HOPE the airport subjects the ridesharing drivers to the same fingerprint and background checks as the taxi/limo/shuttle van/etc. drivers. That may be a federal/Homeland Security issue, thankfully.

[kell490]

If you like parking at BlueSky Parking, the Parking Spot which I use both of those they say they will go out of business due to the fee increase they will now incur they lumped their shuttle service in with ubar, and lyft where they lowered fees for taxi's, and super shuttle. Phoenix City council idea try to and force ride sharing on people to get to the airport which is inconvenient for me I have always preferred to have my car at the airport.

Uber, Lyft get Phoenix City Council OK for airport pickups

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by kell490

If you like parking at BlueSky Parking, the Parking Spot which I use both of those they say they will go out of business due to the fee increase they will now incur they lumped their shuttle service in with ubar, and lyft where they lowered fees for taxi's, and super shuttle. Phoenix City council idea try to and force ride sharing on people to get to the airport which is inconvenient for me I have always preferred to have my car at the airport.

Uber, Lyft get Phoenix City Council OK for airport pickups

Huh?

[kell490]

Ill quote from the AZ Central link I put up there so you don't have to take the time to read it.

"A parade of executives from off-airport parking lots including BlueSky Parking, the Parking Spot and Sky Harbor Airport Parking — many of whom say they will go out of business or see their profits disappear with the new fee system — pleaded with the City Council to remove them from the policy so the issue can be studied further."


"The suggestion seemed to gain steam during the policy meeting, but when it was time to vote, supporters weren’t able to make a motion because of procedural rules, a political maneuver that particularly angered Councilman Bill Gates and Councilman Sal DiCiccio"

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

The conservative wing of the council (DiCiccio, Waring, Gates), along with swing vote Nowakowksi, voted no. If that sounds surprising, it's because the vote was about much more than just smartphone-enabled taxi companies. Instead, the change affecting Uber and Lyft was packaged in a much more comprehensive reworking of Sky Harbor's ground transportation policy, and operators of off-airport parking lots and hotel shuttles complained that the new policy would drastically increase their fees. The four dissenting council members made it clear in their remarks that they were voting no due to concerns about collateral damage, not opposition to Uber and Lyft. Unfortunately, a lot of the media coverage ignored those nuances.

The hypocrisy of the "pro business" party strikes again. I thought conservatives cut through red tape and increased opportunities for all. If you look at Republican's track record in this state, they have fought against progress. They opposed expansion of light rail. They oppose legalizing marijuana which would generat 100's of millions of dollars for the state. They opposed the West Valley casino. They opposed Fantasy Sports.