Lyft at SFO, where an “accommodation” has been reached to allow them to operate in the free market.
Two ridesharing/taxi alternative companies have successfully launched from California in just the last few years. Uber is well-known, already popular in Orange County and has built a greater presence compared to its less bombastic, smaller competitor, Lyft.
Their successes have caused plenty of controversy — especially where their lower cost service and technical superiority have encroached into traditional taxi, shuttle and limo operations. Airports have become battle grounds for the services, and yesterday San Francisco-based Lyft was apparently forced to email this to its Orange County drivers:
This week, after months of productive conversations, Lyft entered into a settlement agreement with the District Attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles. As part of this agreement, we’ve agreed to comply with SNA’s request to pause operations there – a compromise that allows us to continue working collaboratively on airport partnerships, like the one we reached with SFO.
We’re spreading the word to passengers that SNA pickups are blocked from the app, and drop-offs are also paused. Until everyone gets the memo, we need your help.Uber has been similarly challenged — both the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco have taken legal action.
Don’t Risk It
As another part of the settlement, Lyft is no longer legally allowed to cover the cost of airport citations. If you’re in driver mode on airport property, we’ll assume it was an accident and send you a friendly reminder. If it happens three times, we’ll need to deactivate your driver account.
We know airport rides are important to your bottom line, and to Orange County passengers who need a reliable ride. Let airport administrators know that you want Lyft rides reinstated in your city — we’ll be in touch with updates, and look forward to giving you the green light.
We understand that John Wayne Airport is technically in the 2nd Supervisorial District. Termed-out Supervisor John Moorlach and incoming Supervisor Michelle Steel need to be involved with this — a minimum, it’s Restraint of Trade that any real Conservative should abhor. John Wayne’s Airport Director Alan Murphy is known to be a sensible and competent administrator, and we’d be surprised if he got his arm twisted (or worse) by the large taxi lobby and has special privileges (like parking) already at SNA. If any taxi union thugs we’re involved, I guess we wouldn’t be surprised. Murphy reports to the County Executive Office which reports to the Board of Supervisors.
The bottom line here is that a legitimate business that has recruited dozens of free agent drivers in the OC, is being hobbled by unfair restrictions on their ability to make a living. Both Uber and Lyft drivers that service other airports like LAX have suffered with significant fines and in some cases, vehicle confiscations.
As far as we know, Long Beach Airport is unaffected by these likely illegal bans.
The Board needs to step into this, and right away. Ridesharing services are valuable and very well liked by consumers (my friend Jon Fleischman is a big Uber fan), particularly as they’re less expensive and, simply put, aren’t cabs. It’s unfair that consumers can’t have a choice, and more than unfair that a small minority of entrepreneurs are being punished and threatened for just making a living.
The way around this, of course, is to have your Lyft driver go “offline” (out of Driver Mode) at the Bank of America lot across from the airport, and then cover his/her extra mileage and time to the terminals with a decent tip. For pickup from John Wayne, simple take the free parking shuttle to the Main Street lot and call for your lift from there (and not the terminal).
So yeah, that works around the problem and perhaps lets your Lyft driver violate the agreement with the County authorities. But do you really think that is a reasonable approach to the issue of unregulated car services? I sure don’t.
Who says “car services” need to be regulated at all? Do I need an expensive permit to drive my neighbor to the airport?
Well, the government does, and that is the question I asked in the large response. Do car services, taxis, etc need to be regulated? In some cases, it’s probably yes.
As to driving your neighbor to the airport, that is a red herring. No one is suggesting there are any issues with that at all.
But if you and 2,000 others decided to go to the airport and try to pick up fares to make a few bucks, which is exactly what Uber drivers do, that would impact things, wouldn’t it?
A friend’s son was broke, and he went away and drove for Uber for a few hours and he had money. So that is exactly how casual that stuff is. If you want to make money for three hours you can.
That said, is it reasonable to get in a strange car with a strange person, where you don’t know if you will be safe or not, and pay for a ride somewhere? Maybe that meets your standards for safety. But it probably does not meet everyone’s. Nor should it.
But the real larger question here is this:
If taxi services (like yellow cab) must be under regulation for some reason, and it’s likely the government operator of the airport has been making money off that regulation by exclusively contracting with yellow cab or another licensed regulated taxi service, they can’t just look the other way when an unlicensed, unregulated competitor like Uber or Lyft shows up, because they have a contract. Money has been changing hands, perhaps helping to defray our taxes. I am for that.
So what we need to decide is this: Should taxi services be an unregulated function, which admittedly might become a free for all, or must Lyft and Uber be regulated like all the rest?
If the regulated taxi services can only operate a certain number of taxis at the airport (likely) and we deregulate that what’s to stop 3,000 taxi, Uber and Lyft vehicles from hanging out at the airport creating huge traffic jambs? How about 5,000 on a holiday travel day?
It’s entirely possible that in the example I gave above deregulation could make the airport unusable by air travelers, drivers and car services at all because of traffic jambs, accidents, etc. What would happen if 3,000 taxi services, Uber and Lyft drivers descended on the airport and began circling? Would the airport have to be closed? Could be.
What if you had just arrived and were being picked up by family, but the streets around the airport are completely jammed by unregulated car services. Would you die there at the airport? Would all those drivers get in accidents creating much more mayhem in their efforts to make money?
Why should Yellow Cab and the other cab operators who operate under expensive regulations have to be regulated if Lyft and Uber are not? Wouldn’t that violate the regulated taxi services constitutional rights under the 14th amendment? I think so. That could be solved by deregulation, but what if the downside causes the airport to be unusable?
So it’s not at all that a “legitimate business” which is unlicensed is popular or not, (a “goodness” argument- a red herring) or is somehow hobbled by unfair restrictions, it’s whether we should have regulation at all.
It may be that we badly need regulation to prevent a feeding frenzy of car services competing to make money at the airport. Required to control the traffic and to be sure the airport remains usable.
New York City has a finite number of taxi medallions that are issued. This is regulating the traffic and preventing problems. I am not a fan of restraining business like this, but I understand why it exists.