Businessman says Manchester Airport's drop-off charges have added £50 to his monthly Uber bill

A businessman who travels through Manchester Airport every week says the cost of his minicab rides have gone up by £50 a month since new drop-off charges were launched.

Michael Cowell, 34 from Altrincham, travels regularly in his role as a furniture design company director.

Last month, hub bosses introduced ‘kiss and fly’ drop-off charging, with drivers paying £3 for five minutes or £4 for ten minutes - and £25 for stays over that.

The airport has long had a £4 minimum car parking charge in place. But drivers used to avoid paying this by using forecourts to pick up - against airport rules.

However forecourts have now been taken over by the drop-off charging bays - which means drivers picking up passengers now have no choice but to pay.

Michael now claims Uber drivers he has used are passing on both pick up and drop-off charges - plus a premium for waiting time - taking his average journey cost from £17 to £23, and his monthly outlay from around £136 to £184.

And that’s when Michael can even get a cab - he says Uber drivers have started to refuse pick-ups from T3 because of the inconvenience and cost.

He added: “Last week fifteen different Uber drivers cancelled on me and I had to get a black cab for £31 because Uber drivers have started to boycott T3 to avoid the hassle of going through the car park now the forecourts are no-go areas.

“Between Manchester Airport’s policies and Uber I’m much worse off. There must be loads of people in the same boat.”

(Image: Manchester Evening News)

The dad-of-two, whose work takes him to destinations across the UK, Ireland and France, added: “It sounds like small costs but it adds up pretty quickly for someone like me.

“I understand the airport needs to pay for its expansion but this new parking system hasn’t gone down well.

“It’s harder to drop off and it’s harder to pick up because you are now forced through a car park. It’s expensive.

“I’d like the airport to make it work better and review the charges because they’re unfair.”

He added: “I’d like to see the director of the airport comment on this. I’ve got this old-fashioned mentality that the leaders of an airport should get involved when there’s clearly a problem.

“Yet when I complain I just get this stock answer which doesn’t address my complaint.”

A Manchester Airport spokesman said private hire companies were responsible for setting their own fares and that drivers can apply for a discount scheme.

The spokesman added there was a free drop-off option at the Jet Parks 1 which cab drivers can also use to avoid fees.

A Manchester Airport, spokesman, said: “As we developed our new forecourt arrangements, we considered the interests of a significant number of user groups. This included frequent commercial users, such as private hire operators, for whom a discount scheme was developed.

“While it is the decision of each private hire firm whether they pass on this discount, it was our intention in creating the scheme that passengers would be the ultimate beneficiaries. We will continue to monitor the situation.”

An Uber spokesman confirmed drivers were passing on the charges from the airport, but declined to comment further

Source Manchester Evening News.

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2OXJEpJ
via IFTTT https://ift.tt/2MMnsBv https://ift.tt/12cqxIH

IT’S WIN LOSE OR DRAW FOR THE TRADE BUT NOT FOR THE LTDA. THEY’RE FIGHTING THEIR OWN FIGHT, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US!...by Sean Paul Day

Everyone should be outraged at the  statement released by The LTDA that  they gave evidence to the Met in relation to claims that ex-Uber General Manager Jo Bertram “misled” the High Court. 

The action taken by The LTDA isn’t merely passivity, but an orchestrated attempt to appear active in their pursuance to bring Uber (or whoever) to book. The reality being, it is yet another postural, but meaningless exhibition that’ll have no bearing on how the company operates, and no consequences for the actual act of perjury which allowed them to retain their licence. 

Let us be under no illusion, the interview with the Met conducted in front of the LTDA’s legal team- which I take to mean Demidecki- is not dissimilar to other demonstrable- yet disingenuous -attempts to satiate the LTDA’s TAXI readership. A tactic used to coerce readers into thinking that the association is at the coal face of the action, whilst at the same time costing The LTDA nothing. 

The reality is this, the legal route offers only two effective options, the first is to serve litigation papers against Uber for obtaining their licence by deceptive means. Most underestimate the enormity of this. In respect of the company’s relationship to the driver, Uber acts as either the principle or the agent (to be determined at the employment tribunal appeal) and there  are 40000+ of them. A licence obtained by fraudulent means would render it null and void meaning  journeys undertaken by its drivers are illegal. As far as Insurance payouts go, you could say, they were compromised somewhat? It beggars belief, that the LTDA have not yet started proceedings. 

The second option, is to file a lawsuit against TfL for breaking a long standing trade agreement by creating a‘corporate structure’ that allowed Uber’s operation to infract heavily on the working practices and earning potential of licensed taxi drivers. embedded in the system allowing its drivers to work on the ‘on demand’ market even though the driver does not meet 'Required Standard' criterion and the vehicle does 'Conditions of Fitness' opposed to bookings that have been accepted by Uber 

Certainly, under the previous administration, TfL decidedly went against the true meaning of the law as laid out in the 1998 PH Regulations to assist Uber’s smooth incorporation into the market. TfL would have known the contravention existed and that Uber’s modus operandi was in transgression of it. The consequences here are huge, as it would mean TfL was party to the perjury in the HC (Remember, this was a case brought by TfL seeking a HC ruling on what constituted a meter only) The crux here is, TfL claim to have been hoodwinked by Uber. Yeh, right! 

Everyone should recognise that this is win, lose, or draw for the trade, and what the trade needs - and deserves - is drastically improved representation from The LTDA. The above options are the only effective avenues the trade should be concerned with. Furthermore, there should be zero  tolerance for the tired old distractions that have served as a disincentive to their readership in the past. Will the trade get the representation it deserves? Well, members who have been pushing for it tirelessly for two years have just had their branch suspended, pending an investigation into intimidation tactics being used in the run up to the Branch Elections. Another distraction away from what the LTDA should be doing,  Stalling for time is preferable as effective action could work out quite costly. But surely it’s the members money, and The LTDA should be doing right by them. 

Our fight is with the LTDA until they themselves finally decide to take up the fight. The old coppers club moaning to the Met about Jo Bertram ain’t gonna cut it with me, that’s for sure!

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2NQNGjM
via IFTTT https://ift.tt/2LjPfoB https://ift.tt/12cqxIH