Minnie Vans "Uber" like transport begins soon!

[writerguyfl]

Let the market decide. If this happens, we all win.

Except here you have a company that entered the market and decided to skirt or outright ignore existing regulations/laws that established firms have to follow.

Doesn't Mears have some kind of deal that lets them run cabs for Disney and wait at all the resorts for riders to show up? They can't be happy about this!

I wonder if the Disney-Uber service will allow cars to wait right at the resort or if you have to call ahead of time to have them show up. I've always been spoiled that at the times I need a cab, I can just have the valet waive one over and we are on or way with no phone call needed.

Mears Transportation has been a Disney partner for decades. It would have been foolish for Disney to start this service without consulting their current transportation partner. My guess is that Mears was part of this conversation.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

Except here you have a company that entered the market and decided to skirt or outright ignore existing regulations/laws that established firms have to follow.

Regulations should not decided the market, the consumers should.

 

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

I honestly wonder what "soon" means. I won't use Uber or Lyft or any of the ride sharing services. Like others, I disagree with the business model and I don't feel comfortable with the service. When I plan on getting really blitzed, we use Mears Taxis. Sure, they're a little expensive, but they have no problem moving around on property and they know exactly where they're going. If I need a special car like a mobility van that takes FOREVER, but if I just need a regular car, I've never had a problem.

That being said, I would use this service. What concerns me is Disney isn't exactly an "after hours" operation. Food courts close around 10-11, pools close at 10, Disney Springs closes at midnight, but the Boardwalk is open until 2. I am concerned that Disney will not cater to their late night patrons like us and will limit the hours of the service to about 9pm or so. I hope they run until 2am, even with limited service, but I just see this operating in the same time frames as all transportation.

While driving to the Poly a week or two ago, I stopped in the left turn lane to the resort when the light turned red. A Mears taxi swung around me on the left side and ran the red light to make the left turn. So dangerous. For all the consumer protections they are supposedly required to follow, they don't provide a lot of consumer safety.

I don't know if all Mears taxis are this bad, but I have no desire to use them after seeing that.

 

[Madonna3]

While driving to the Poly a week or two ago, I stopped in the left turn lane to the resort when the light turned red. A Mears taxi swung around me on the left side and ran the red light to make the left turn. So dangerous. For all the consumer protections they are supposedly required to follow, they don't provide a lot of consumer safety.

I don't know if all Mears taxis are this bad, but I have no desire to use them after seeing that.

Ok but what prevents any driver from doing the same thing?

 

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

Ok but what prevents any driver from doing the same thing?

Probably nothing for Uber. I guess I was thinking that, if consumer safety is what is associated with the high cost of taxis (which is what some of the people have said in this thread), it may be safety on paper and not actual safety (we see a lot of that in education. So many of our resources in public schools are spent working toward looking good on paper and not being good in the classroom. In fact, our required efforts to look good on paper often negatively impact our ability to be effective in the classroom).

I am not particularly inclined to trust Uber or Mears with my safety, but I would be inclined to trust Disney. I would absolutely use a Disney-run ride service. I would bet Disney drivers would be threatened with losing their jobs if they did something that compromised a guest's safety. It doesn't seem that taxi companies take the guest's safety in consideration or expect their drivers to follow basic traffic laws, based on some of the terrifying rides I have had in taxis in New York City and Washington, D.C., and on what I saw near the Poly last week.

 

[TeresaWen]

I use uber because (in order of importance to me)
1) so easy - the app is awesome and reliable.
2) fast! - never have a real wait in Orlando
3) no exchange of cash. No driver telling me after a $40 taxi ride that the credit card reader is not working
4) cheap. About 1/3 the cost of a taxi

If Disney can meet these i'll try. Pixie dust not a consideration for a car ride

If they make it difficult or impossible for guest to choose uber that is something I will need to figure out. Not all guests in the parks stay onsite. Uber makes our trip a dream. Loosing uber without a comparable replacement would present a real problem. It would NOT and I repeat NOT drive me to stay onsite.

 

[ThurlFan]

Regulations should not decided the market, the consumers should.

As someone who supports rule of law, I will give my business to a company that complies with existing regulations. Now, I'm all for working to change or remove those regulations if they are onerous; let the people speak. But while the rules are on the books they need to be adhered to.

 

[ChipnDale79]

As someone who supports rule of law, I will give my business to a company that complies with existing regulations. Now, I'm all for working to change or remove those regulations if they are onerous; let the people speak. But while the rules are on the books they need to be adhered to.

If the government has a problem with Uber and the lack of regulations, they would make it a lot harder for Uber and other services to continue.

I understand in some cases Uber is not allowed to pick up customers, like here in Charlotte they are not allowed at the Charlotte Airport because of contracts with the Airport.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

As someone who supports rule of law, I will give my business to a company that complies with existing regulations. Now, I'm all for working to change or remove those regulations if they are onerous; let the people speak. But while the rules are on the books they need to be adhered to.

I do not support laws just because they are "on the books". Most laws are "on the books" because someone paid to have them written and placed "on the books". Almost all are written to protect those with money or power, not you or me, and certainly not the consumer. When we talk about how special interests own our country, this is exactly what we are talking about.

When you closely examine the laws in this particular arena, you will find that they were proposed by wealthy people who owned businesses and wanted those businesses protected. They had the laws placed on the books to make it absurdly expensive for a new competitor to enter their markets. You are free to support these laws if you wish, but please take the time to research that which you support. You might just find your support wavering.

 

[ThurlFan]

I do not support laws just because they are "on the books". Most laws are "on the books" because someone paid to have them written and placed "on the books". Almost all are written to protect those with money or power, not you or me, and certainly not the consumer. When we talk about how special interests own our country, this is exactly what we are talking about.

When you closely examine the laws in this particular arena, you will find that they were proposed by wealthy people who owned businesses and wanted those businesses protected. They had the laws placed on the books to make it absurdly expensive for a new competitor to enter their markets. You are free to support these laws if you wish, but please take the time to research that which you support. You might just find your support wavering.

I didn't say I support them.

 

[ChipnDale79]

Except here you have a company that entered the market and decided to skirt or outright ignore existing regulations/laws that established firms have to follow.

They aren't skirting anything, if they were, the Government would shut them down.

 

[Madonna3]

They aren't skirting anything, if they were, the Government would shut them down.

They do. A lot.

 

[writerguyfl]

They aren't skirting anything, if they were, the Government would shut them down.

• Uber ignoring the laws of Australia: https://thewest.com.au/opinion/gareth-parker/ubers-disregard-for-the-law-of-the-land-ng-b88372648z
• Uber ignoring the laws of New Zealand: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/81629658/ubers-liquid-ride-why-its-ignoring-nz-laws
• Uber ignoring the laws of Thailand: http://siliconangle.com/blog/2014/1...-under-martial-law-and-ruled-by-the-military/
• Uber/Lyft ignoring laws in Bay Area (CA): http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investiga...citations-at-Bay-Area-Airports-278283631.html
• Uber ignoring self-driving car laws in CA: https://www.yahoo.com/tech/uber-ignoring-california-rules-self-driving-cars-classic-233802298.html
• Uber ignoring court order regarding lawsuit: http://www.businessinsider.com/waymo-letter-accuses-uber-of-ignoring-court-order-2017-4
• Uber facing fine for ignoring drunk driver complaints: https://thetechportal.com/2017/04/14/uber-ignore-drunk-driver-complaints-california-fine/
• Uber facing lawsuit for violating Chicago wheelchair laws: http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/uber-facing-lawsuit-chicago-violating-wheelchair-laws-n666226
• Uber uses software to block code enforcement officials: https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/03/u...tify-and-sidestep-code-enforcement-officials/

Those are just articles from the first couple of pages of an internet search. I'm certain I can find more, if desired. For the record, I'm not saying that 100% of the accusations are true. I don't have time to fact-check every piece of information. But as the saying goes: Where there's smoke, there's probably fire.

As for the Us government shutting them down, it's not that simple. They have deep pockets that fund many lobbyists.

 

[Tardisblue]

As someone who supports rule of law, I will give my business to a company that complies with existing regulations. Now, I'm all for working to change or remove those regulations if they are onerous; let the people speak. But while the rules are on the books they need to be adhered to.

United followed policies and procedures because they were on the books and it has already caused them millions in stock valuation and will cost them additional millions in legal fees. Just because something is on the books doesn't mean it's the correct way to go about doing something. What ever happened to common sense and decency?

 

[ThurlFan]

United followed policies and procedures because they were on the books and it has already caused them millions in stock valuation and will cost them additional millions in legal fees. Just because something is on the books doesn't mean it's the correct way to go about doing something. What ever happened to common sense and decency?

They do have the right to deplane passengers. You agree to that when you purchase a ticket (hooray fine print). I agree it's a crappy rule. I don't believe that they have the right to use excessive force, and certainly agree the whole ordeal was handled exceptionally poorly.

Definitely a case where common sense was absent.

Segue:
Civil Disobedience is a valuable tool in the quest for justice ( e.g. the civil rights movement). However, skirting rules in order to increase profitability, as some people accuse Uber of, doesn't really fit that paradigm.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

As for the Us government shutting them down, it's not that simple. They have deep pockets that fund many lobbyists.

Uber is losing money an at incredible rate. They do not have "deep pockets" - they have empty pockets. Heck, they don't even have a COO. They are a technology start-up company with some financial backing, but no political or financial leverage. They are fighting against companies with deep pockets.

 

[rteetz]

Uber is losing money an at incredible rate. They do not have "deep pockets" - they have empty pockets. Heck, they don't even have a COO. They are a technology start-up company with some financial backing, but no political or financial leverage. They are fighting against companies with deep pockets.

Disney doesn't have a COO...

 

[BuckeyeBama]

They do have the right to deplane passengers. You agree to that when you purchase a ticket (hooray fine print). I agree it's a crappy rule. I don't believe that they have the right to use excessive force, and certainly agree the whole ordeal was handled exceptionally poorly.

The airlines have different wording around refusing to board a passenger vs. refusing to transport a passenger. Once you are allowed to board, the "contract" changes. Unless you break one of their rules, they cannot deplane you. What United has been doing is a breach of contract. It took an explosion like this to get them to reconsider something that should have cost them long ago.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

Disney doesn't have a COO...

To be more clear, they didn't even have someone responsible for overseeing their daily operations. Disney has many people in those roles.

 

[rteetz]

To be more clear, they didn't even have someone responsible for overseeing their daily operations. Disney has many people in those roles.

Uber was looking at former Disney COO Tom Staggs for the role.