Strike

[mercenary for hire]

I have to agree with John anyone could get making up these posters on a smartphone without even going near a printer.

[Rat Catcher]

We can but speculate but I'd read that as wanting to restrict surcharges imposed by apps and, perhaps, improved in-car information on how the meter calculates the maximum fare permitted by law.

We are a very diverse group so it is impossible to pander to every whim of every driver. Most folk are selfish so there will naturally be some disagreement with seeking a "level playing field". Those of us who own our own plates and operate heavily subsidised vehicles obviously have nothing to gain from such a principle but, for me, it is an ideological matter and a principle I wholly support. At the very least the corrupt lottery for WAV grants ought to be replaced with an orderly queue based on years experience driving a taxi within the rental sector.

[John m]

I spoke to a barrister and he explained to me what I posted .They are BOOKING Apps Service Providers to the Taxi industry not Taxi Apps .UBER provide the same service to restaurants .UBER also hire Boats and Planes .Air BnB are not landlords they are BOOKING APPS .The only people covered by the Maximum Fare act are licenced TAXI DRIVERS .So I really do not know what they think the NTA can do .Like I said free advertising for the apps .RTE and The Sun or Mirror will report Taxi drivers protest over lower fares for Partygoers .

[Rat Catcher]

Did you tell the bloke in Costa they cannot operate without a licence issued by NTA and point him to NTAs statutory obligations under Taxi Regulation Act 2003 (as amended)?

[John m]

Uber and Free Now have dispatch licences and offer fares in line and not in excess of the metered fares .Totally compliant .Their idea of surge pricing is pre fare ie booking fees or reservation fees .Sort of like ticketmasters .They charge a booking fee ,Got into trouble with the Oasis tickets for surge pricing ..Now the issue is if they can regulate one Booking Platform and not another ?

[Rat Catcher]

They can regulate them all. In fact they have a statutory obligation to do so.

[John m]

They can regulate them all. In fact they have a statutory obligation to do so.

UM can the regulate them they are commercial entities ?

[Rat Catcher]

As are we.

NTA, for example, has a statutory obligation to promote competition. Below cost selling hampers it's effectiveness in that regard and must be banned.

[John m]

As are we.

NTA, for example, has a statutory obligation to promote competition. Below cost selling hampers it's effectiveness in that regard and must be banned.

I will pick up what you just dropped and ask How do you promote competition when there is an upper sealing of the Maximum taxi fare ? the only way to promote competition is by promoting cheaper fares .In fact a case could and possibly is being made to the NTA that the advent of rideshare and fixed fares would be competition for licenced taxi metered transport providers .Beware what you ask for because what you say might not be what others hear .!

[Rat Catcher]

NTAs statutory obligation to promote competition includes but is not limited to competition on price. As far as price is concerned NTA is responsible for setting the maximum legal fare which it does through a metered system. Within that parameter any firm or driver may charge whatever they like and even outside of that parameter any driver may charge any amount he likes without limit with the written consent of his passenger.

However, allowing firms to engage in the practice of below cost selling is anti-competitive as it merely allows those with sufficient resources to monopolise the market. Similarly, advances in technology dictate that the bigger rideshare platforms can readily influence perception as far as demand is concerned and can use that perception to manipulate the market in such a way as the riders are charged inflated surge fees while drivers are paid the minimum they will accept based on what real rather than perceived demand is. These are the issues NTA needs to address in regulating licenced dispatch operators.

[Rat Catcher]

You should advise your man in Costa to study two key documents:

1) Taxi Regulation Act 2003 (as amended)
2) Uber's "Taxi Fixed Price" Terms and Conditions as stated within it's rider app.

[John m]

I like your use of the word Perception .Every licenced driver has the option to take the fare or refuse the app .You opine NTAs statutory obligation to promote competition includes but is not limited to competition on price. Exactly what I said .UBER ot OTHERS possiblbly some group who block roads can say .It is your statitory duty to promote competition .We want Rideshare licence to be introduced .Im sure that idea has been furnished to the present review .You would think after wanting double jobbers out we got door signs .Wanting lads from outside the area restricted we got shiney signs .Wanting dodgey NCT cars out we got 9 year rule .At what stage will this industry stop self flagellation most of them would be welcomed into Opus Dei .

[Rat Catcher]

I appreciate that we are getting quite technical - given that neither you nor your learned advisors understand the very basics as far as the "sealing" on price is concerned what chance do you think the less academically minded among us have?

DoT and NTA have acknowledged the necessity to review regulation of dispatch operators with specific refence to advances in technology. It's up to drivers and other interested parties to highlight the loopholes that facilitate market manipulation and whatever other concerns and/or desires they may have.

We are in a somewhat different arena now. NTA is now headed by a professional with considerable achievement in the transport sector in Anne Shaw OBE. We will not get the same protectionist policies as we did under the mean and nasty Kathleen Doyle. Kathleen was like that granny that always had a bag of sweets in her handbag and might slip you a smoke when mummy and daddy weren't looking... we won't get everything we ask for and get everything we asked for redacted when we realise that everything we asked for wasn't what we wanted, that's pretty certain. However, protecting the trade against market manipulation is in all parties' interests except those intent on manipulating the market. As previously stated you can't please everyone and many may well be upset with whatever amendments are made to the regulatory framework but it is of utmost import that the market is protected from manipulation.

[Rat Catcher]

Pass this on to your man in Costa... In conjunction with Taxi Regulation Act 2003 (as amended) it'll help him understand (and maybe explain to you) that the maximum fare permitted by law as calculated by the taximeter is not the maximum fare permitted by law.



Source: Uber Driver app.

[John m]

So if you dont know what your doing do nothing ,then if they do something you can do something .Do you remember the last protest .The Ukranian one where the troops parked up outside the City waiting to invade bit like Russia before the ructions .Who organised that and what was the agenda .Some lad from Cork was the spokesman dont think he was even a taxi driver .Might of been a dispatcher from Cork .I wont be getting involved with this .Until the people organising it are named and their connection to the Industry is known .I supported all the Previous stoppages .Sat on the Middle of O connell street to stop cars .Done me shift on the Nutts .Not interested in the agenda proposed here and the need to say PEACEFUL PROTEST ?