# Message for UBER Corporate



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:

1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
3) Require drivers to be proficient in the language of the area they serve

The three items above will eliminate the vast majority of drivers that are hurting the company. Please implement these changes as they will result in higher profits for UBER.

Obviously, the changes will not be plausible in all markets.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate


That was the old policy. The courts made them not do that anymore.



> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer


I don't think it is possible to make a profit if you drive a car that new. Not at current Uber rates, anyway.


----------



## Atom guy (Jul 27, 2016)

The reason there are so many crappy drivers in crappy cars is because Uber kept lowering the rates, making it unaffordable for good drivers with nice cars to keep driving, so Uber had to lower their standards to keep enough drivers in the system. But the low fare model means constant turnover, so drivers never become experienced enough to provide good service.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> That was the old policy. The courts made them not do that anymore.
> 
> I don't think it is possible to make a profit if you drive a car that new. Not at current Uber rates, anyway.


A) What court ruling. Please cite your evidence.

B) It is not possible for drivers to make a profit. However, requiring newer cars would eliminate many of the troublesome drivers.


----------



## Jufkii (Sep 17, 2015)

Uber wouldn't even come close to meeting rider demand if they implemented your 2 suggestions. Then what?


----------



## UberAnt39 (Jun 1, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


1) If they want to treat the drivers as employees, the IRS and the various states are quite open to the idea. Go for it. 
2) Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Jufkii said:


> Uber wouldn't even come close to meeting rider demand if they implemented your 2 suggestions. Then what?


There are more than enough drivers that qualify under the standards I am suggesting.


----------



## NorCalPhil (Aug 19, 2016)

Ribak said:


> B) It is not possible for drivers to make a profit. However, requiring newer cars would eliminate many of the troublesome drivers.


This is ridiculous. It certainly is possible to make a profit with a car 3 years old or newer. But putting that steep a restriction on vehicle age would decimate the driver roles.

Why would you suggest a rule change to 3 or newer and then state that it isn't possible for drivers to make a profit with a newer car? Do you expect drivers to work for free? Just break even?


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Ribak said:


> A) What court ruling. Please cite your evidence.


It was a settlement, not a ruling. This forum doesn't allow a link to the source.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> It was a settlement, not a ruling. This forum doesn't allow a link to the source.


Bogus. Links are always allowed.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

NorCalPhil said:


> . It certainly is possible to make a profit with a car 3 years old or newer.


It makes it a LOT harder. If I have to buy a $3000 car every 3 years versus a $20,000 car every three years, that's $5666 in costs every year that I wouldn't have had otherwise. As it is this is practically minimum wage.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Ribak said:


> A) What court ruling. Please cite your evidence.
> 
> B) It is not possible for drivers to make a profit. However, requiring newer cars would eliminate many of the troublesome drivers.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.re...016/4/25/11586386/uber-driver-tips-settlement

Its just a small part of the settlment but it was one of them.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Bogus. Links are always allowed.


Try linking to the rideshare guy blog in a post. It is banned.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

NorCalPhil said:


> This is ridiculous. It certainly is possible to make a profit with a car 3 years old or newer. But putting that steep a restriction on vehicle age would decimate the driver roles.
> 
> Why would you suggest a rule change to 3 or newer and then state that it isn't possible for drivers to make a profit with a newer car? *Do you expect drivers to work for free? Just break even*?


I thought that was an obvious fact. At best, drivers will break even when taking into account the entire picture (earnings - costs offset by tax savings). UBER is from drivers who are merely doing the gig for fun...not for profit.



steveK2016 said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.re...016/4/25/11586386/uber-driver-tips-settlement
> 
> Its just a small part of the settlment but it was one of them.


The ruling applies only in Mass and Cali


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Ribak said:


> I thought that was an obvious fact. At best, drivers will break even when taking into account the entire picture (earnings - costs offset by tax savings). UBER is from drivers who are merely doing the gig for fun...not for profit.
> 
> The ruling applies only in Mass and Cali





> *What does this mean for Uber drivers?*
> The biggest change for U.S. drivers outside of California and Massachusetts is that they cannot be deactivated from the platform - Uber's term for getting fired - for failing to accept a minimum number of ride requests.


----------



## NorCalPhil (Aug 19, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> It makes it a LOT harder. If I have to buy a $3000 car every 3 years versus a $20,000 car every three years, that's $5666 in costs every year that I wouldn't have had otherwise. As it is this is practically minimum wage.


Why would you spend $20k on a car to drive strangers around when you could do the same for much much less, even with the 3 year rule. (I drive a 2016 that I paid $6500 for)


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Thank you for the correction. Hopefully the appeal will make it to the Supreme Court for the correct decision.


----------



## NorCalPhil (Aug 19, 2016)

Ribak said:


> I thought that was an obvious fact. At best, drivers will break even when taking into account the entire picture (earnings - costs offset by tax savings). UBER is from drivers who are merely doing the gig for fun...not for profit.


Interesting. Seattle must suck worse than I thought. Don't have those issues here.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Thank you for the correction. Hopefully the appeal will make it to the Supreme Court for the correct decision.


Only a crazy person would want uber to consider them Employees.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Ribak said:


> I thought that was an obvious fact. At best, drivers will break even when taking into account the entire picture (earnings - costs offset by tax savings). UBER is from drivers who are merely doing the gig for fun...not for profit.


Yes because I like having piss and vomit on my car seats. Uber is fun... for a job that makes profit. Take the profit out and it isn't fun anymore... at least not more than to do a trip or two a year. But after doing 1400 trips I'd rather not do it for no pay.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> Yes because I like having piss and vomit on my car seats. Uber is fun... for a job that makes profit. Take the profit out and it isn't fun anymore... at least not more than to do a trip or two a year. But after doing 1400 trips *I'd rather not do it for no pay*.


Exactly my point. The ideas I am suggesting would leave only the best drivers to continue with UBER


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

NorCalPhil said:


> Why would you spend $20k on a car to drive strangers around when you could do the same for much much less, even with the 3 year rule. (I drive a 2016 that I paid $6500 for)


I'm having a hard time finding a 2008 for under $10,000 around here. Lyft requires 2008 or Newer but Uber is 2002. When I'm up for a new vehicle inspection for Lyft I think I'll probably just quit and do Uber only.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

NorCalPhil said:


> Interesting. Seattle must suck worse than I thought. Don't have those issues here.


The SF Board postings contradict that point.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Exactly my point. The ideas I am suggesting would leave only the best drivers to continue with UBER


Best drivers... but for how many trips a year? I doubt you'll get more than a handful of people willing to do even 100 trips a year if they can only break even.


----------



## emdeplam (Jan 13, 2017)

Way too many drivers! This is good for driver and pax. Uber Listening????


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> Best drivers... but for how many trips a year? I doubt you'll get more than a handful of people willing to do even 100 trips a year if they can only break even.


Do I really have to spell it out???? The current business model results in no profit for the drivers. The best solution for that is to eliminate the underperforming drivers. Implementation of my suggestions will result in more business for the drivers who are able to meet he requirements. Thus, in the new order, profits will be a reality.


----------



## 4.9 forever (May 31, 2017)

Ribak said:


> There are more than enough drivers that qualify under the standards I am suggesting.


Please cite your evidence.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Do I really have to spell it out???? The current business model results in no profit for the drivers.


I make profit now. I wouldn't make profit if I had to have a 2015 car next year when I renew.


> The best solution for that is to eliminate the underperforming drivers.


That's why Uber deactivates based on rating. My Uber rating is 4.81 which is better than the average rating. Why should I be deactivated just because my car is old? Old car doesn't mean bad performance.



> Implementation of my suggestions will result in more business for the drivers who are able to meet he requirements. Thus, in the new order, profits will be a reality.


It will result in even longer ETA pings. In my market a ping with an ETA of less than 10 minutes is unusual. With less drivers, you will get more pings, but ETA times will go up, reducing profit per trip and depreciating your 2015, 2016, and 2017 cars even more.

In my opinion pay per mile is not high enough to make it profitable for using the newer cars. If you could reliably find 2017 model cars for $6500 like NorCalPhil said, then maybe. But seems he got lucky. Ideally your car is good for 3 years, so you'll be buying almost new cars. If you bought a 3 year old used model car and it is only good for a few months how is that any good?

Under the current system you could buy a 3 year old car and drive for 3 years and it would still be good. Under the proposed system you could not. So the value of a 3 year old car to an Uber driver under the current system is much higher than under the proposed system. Operating costs are higher for the same model car under the proposed system because you will have to sell that 3 year old car after only a few months. Unless you can consistently sell the used car every year for what you paid for it after adding thousands of miles and puke stains, it seems like it will be a cycle for significant loss. Sales tax alone on average will make for a major loss if you are constantly selling vehicles.



emdeplam said:


> Way too many drivers! This is good for driver and pax. Uber Listening????


Will it be good for pax when there are so few drivers that no one can catch a ride with one? The only way it is good for pax or drivers is if it causes major surge, which could be good for drivers.

I think Uber is reducing surge payout for drivers though and keeping it for themselves. I've not seen a surge over 3x in over two months. Is there a new 3x surge cap for driver payout?

For the pax Surge would not be good... not except for maybe some small percent of pax that want to pay more for a better vehicle.... in which case, why not use Uber SELECT?


----------



## Jufkii (Sep 17, 2015)

Ribak said:


> There are more than enough drivers that qualify under the standards I am suggesting.


What facts ,figures,studies,etc are you basing that statement on?


----------



## Veju (Apr 17, 2017)

Well it's easy to see who drives an old vehicle in this thread.


----------



## NorCalPhil (Aug 19, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> I'm having a hard time finding a 2008 for under $10,000 around here. Lyft requires 2008 or Newer but Uber is 2002. When I'm up for a new vehicle inspection for Lyft I think I'll probably just quit and do Uber only.


Go shop the rental car sites like hertzcarsales. They unload cars with 1 year/30k on them for below KBB. They offer certified cars with warranties as well.


----------



## RaleighNick (Feb 18, 2017)

Why on earth would you want a 90% acceptance rate?!?


----------



## unPat (Jul 20, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


Uber is looking for a new CEO. You will be a good fit .


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


Why do I get the feeling you didn't major in math?


----------



## emdeplam (Jan 13, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> Why do I get the feeling you didn't major in math?


'Major' haha we Uber drivers. There is diploma or no diploma


----------



## rembrandt (Jul 3, 2016)

This theory ( or hypothesis) of cutting the number of drivers will only work if,

Uber is the only rideshare company in the market - a monopoly. Competition will recruit these ex uber drivers and will offer much better ETA to the riders. Uber can't compete if the ETA is longer than the competition. Fewer drivers will also cause Uber surge which will make Uber more expensive than the competition.
Uber forms syndicated cartel with other rideshare companies to implement the same and fix the price - illigal under anti- trust law.
Uber must be willing to shift focus on rideshare profits from the IPO profit at the stock Exchange by cashing out the privately held shares. This will require Uber to have a bigger market share to allure the prospective investors and that is difficult if Uber has fewer drivers than the competition.
It is difficult to reconcile the interests of Uber and that of the drivers.


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

Arguing for a three-year vehicle rule does not equal "better" drivers.

The crudest stereotype of "Mr. No-speak-English" can get onto HyreCar or get an UberXchange lease with a 2016 Prius and then be one of those "better" drivers you speak of even though the passenger can't really communicate with the driver.


As an aside, Uber has said -- publicly -- that it would love it if the vehicle rule was 15 years or newer. The 10-year rule, used for example in Seattle-metro, crimps its driver pool.


----------



## emdeplam (Jan 13, 2017)

Dammit Mazzacane said:


> Using the three-year rule does not equal "better" drivers.
> 
> The crudest stereotype of "Mr. No-speak-English" can get onto HyreCar or get an UberXchange lease with a 2016 Prius and then be one of those "better" drivers you speak of even though the passenger can't really communicate with the driver.


Pax can count on newer car. Non English foreigner or A to B native not too different. At least enjoy the new seats


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> .


100% of uber drivers with a car 3 years or newer will have a car payment.
How will this translate to higher profits vs the drivers with older cars and no payment?



Ribak said:


> B) It is not possible for drivers to make a profit.


Please cite your evidence. I need to tell my wife asap so we take the money we're saving for our vacation and use it for a newer car, so we can start making money.


----------



## Spotscat (May 8, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Exactly my point. The ideas I am suggesting would leave only the best drivers to continue with UBER


I own a 2006 Lincoln Navigator with 155,000 miles on it that I drive X & XL. It looks almost as pristine as the day I bought it. It is in excellent mechanical shape, and will stay that way until I in trade it in or die.

I drive a tractor-trailer and train student drivers in OTR operations as my "real" job. I have 2.5 million safe miles driven, as well as 30+ years of experience operating in all the lower 48 states and Canada. I've chained up and gone over Snoqualmie, Siskiyou, and Donner more times than I can remember. I've driven in rush hour traffic in every major city in the United States at one time or another, in all weather conditions.

Tell me again how requiring me to have a vehicle that is 2014 or newer is going to improve the company by keeping the "best drivers".


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Ribak said:


> A) What court ruling. Please cite your evidence.
> .


He wants us to cite our evidence yet a few days ago he stated that he thinks tips are still included in the fare. 
*This uberfunitis lover has no credibility *


----------



## NoDay (Jul 25, 2017)

Instead of limiting it to 3 years etc. 
3 years would make cars unattainable to people like me. I have a great driving history, can pass any background check and keep my car pretty clean. Just because I don't have a car < 3 years old, doesn't mean I should be excluded. 

What if Uber required drug testing? Don't know how that would work given that we're not employees. But more than once I've heard about drivers smoking something illegal on the job. Or the frequent, "our driver came in and smoked with us!" To these customers i say, your an idiot. 

There are plenty of ways Uber could cut down on their 'driver parnters' but why would they want to? We're not employees, so it has no affect on their companies turnover when looking for employees. Their biggest concern is cost to aquire, which I'm sure is not that much by comparison of their cost earned before driver burn out.


----------



## Cigars (Dec 8, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Do I really have to spell it out???? The current business model results in no profit for the drivers. The best solution for that is to eliminate the underperforming drivers. Implementation of my suggestions will result in more business for the drivers who are able to meet he requirements. Thus, in the new order, profits will be a reality.


Uber is also making a few significant concessions to drivers. Most importantly, the company will no longer be able to deactivate-i.e., terminate-drivers at will. Instead, they will have to be terminated "for sufficient cause," Liss-Riordan writes. Drivers will "receive warnings in most instances and thus opportunity to correct any issues prior to deactivation." They will also no longer be subject to deactivation for low acceptance rates.

https://qz.com/667569/uber-will-pay-100-million-to-settle-the-biggest-legal-threat-to-its-business/

You are complaining about Ubers current business model.'
Uber's current model is accidental.

Uber started as a Black Car service.
When Lyft and some others entered the game and lowered standards, kalanick threw a conniption fit.
He railed that drivers needed to supply their own commercial insurance, be licensed by the city, have commercial plates, etc.
If not, it was illegal and needed to be shut down.
Quote "Every Lyft trip is criminal".
http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2013/07/24/t-bst-uber-lyft.fortune/index.html

When no one shut down Lyft, then Uber followed suit.
What Uber is today was never conceived as part of its model. It morphed.

Your demand that only 3 year old cars should be used, is basically a demand that Lyft have 3 times as many drivers willing to work for 1/2 price.
This would crush Uber. Your economic genius is the reason you are an indentured servitude driver and not on Uber's Board.
Your lack of economic understanding is demonstrated by using a new car to do this nickel job.
Do you understand that the depreciation on a newer car costs you more than gasoline???


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Ribak said:


> There are more than enough drivers that qualify under the standards I am suggesting.


No there aren't. If there were enough, Uber would have those requirements.


----------



## TNCMinWage (May 18, 2017)

Ribak said:


> I thought that was an obvious fact. At best, drivers will break even when taking into account the entire picture (earnings - costs offset by tax savings). UBER is from drivers who are merely doing the gig for fun...not for profit.
> 
> The ruling applies only in Mass and Cali


If Uber is for fun and no profit then why do you care if there are too many drivers and you aren't making a profit?


----------



## SuperManBas (Oct 29, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.re...016/4/25/11586386/uber-driver-tips-settlement
> 
> Its just a small part of the settlment but it was one of them.


Thanks for that share!


----------



## B - uberlyftdriver (Jun 6, 2017)

'sup? you still drinking the koolaid?

the best drivers with financed cars and no business sense


----------



## Adieu (Feb 21, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


Hahahahahaahahhahahahahahahahahaha

Knock out everyone in their right minds and watch the ship sink...

Recently had a week when my acceptance rate hit 2% LOL



Ribak said:


> There are more than enough drivers that qualify under the standards I am suggesting.


Then why are they paying signup and referral bonuses????


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Adieu said:


> Then why are they paying signup and referral bonuses????


Someone has to do the dirty work. The low level drivers will clean up the messes while the high level ones will enjoy the benefits. It's how life works.


----------



## Adieu (Feb 21, 2016)

Ribak said:


> I thought that was an obvious fact. At best, drivers will break even when taking into account the entire picture (earnings - costs offset by tax savings). UBER is from drivers who are merely doing the gig for fun...not for profit.
> 
> The ruling applies only in Mass and Cali


There are big cities in America that ARENT in the Greater LA Metropolitan Area and Greater Boston Agglomeration????

...first I heard of this



Trafficat said:


> I'm having a hard time finding a 2008 for under $10,000 around here. Lyft requires 2008 or Newer but Uber is 2002. When I'm up for a new vehicle inspection for Lyft I think I'll probably just quit and do Uber only.


I drive a 2009 XL for $4600....and only because i wanted something cool

My buddy has a 2010 uberx....that he bought ~100k miles ago for $2200



Ribak said:


> Do I really have to spell it out???? The current business model results in no profit for the drivers. The best solution for that is to eliminate the underperforming drivers. Implementation of my suggestions will result in more business for the drivers who are able to meet he requirements. Thus, in the new order, profits will be a reality.


Uhm....no.

The people you described ARE the lost & confused underperformers.

Leave them alone on the platform, and fatalities would rise exponentially, whole neighborhoods would be underserved 24/7, and Lyft would gobble up 90% market share by month's end


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Trolls are just another form of stray. If you feed them they will never leave.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


I get 88 cents a mile on X rides, and 80 cents on pool rides.

Most rides are pool rides.

In 1977, forty years ago, when gas was 50 cents per gallon, when my rent for my one bedroom apartment was $150,
the taxi meter in the taxi I leased was 80 cents per mile, and I kept the flag drop, which, translated into uberspeak, is the booking fee which today we get no part of. Waiting time was $10 per hour.

Today, I'm getting about the same rate as I was 40 years ago, and the waiting time today is $9 per hour, and apartment rent is ten times higher than it was then, and gas if five times higher. I used to make, in 1977, including tips, about $250 per week, which, adjusting for inflation, today is a little over $1000 per week. how many of us make this much? I make about half that much.

The point is,
Pay us fare rates that provide adequate compensation for use of our vehicles, and a rate that can be lived on, and glad to oblige.

Until then, you have no right to place such a demand on drivers.

If you are asking drivers to purchase new cars, forget it, it's cost prohibitive.


----------



## Statia (Jan 19, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Exactly my point. The ideas I am suggesting would leave only the best drivers to continue with UBER


Go drive a limo. Your suggestions are ridiculous. And for you to make a statement that people only drive Uber for fun is totally out of line what do you know about people and what their circumstances are that they've had to turn to Uber to make money?



Ribak said:


> Do I really have to spell it out???? The current business model results in no profit for the drivers. The best solution for that is to eliminate the underperforming drivers. Implementation of my suggestions will result in more business for the drivers who are able to meet he requirements. Thus, in the new order, profits will be a reality.


No one is going to take your suggestions seriously because your living in a self absorbed bubble.



Cableguynoe said:


> He wants us to cite our evidence yet a few days ago he stated that he thinks tips are still included in the fare.
> *This uberfunitis lover has no credibility *


Must be part of Lil Cindy squad.


----------



## Nick781 (Dec 7, 2014)

I treat driving for uber like tinder but its usually the same results on both apps 0 scores, I end up treating myself to some nice magazines and some menthol lube at the end of the night.


----------



## PowersAssociates (Dec 13, 2016)

Ribak said:


> There are more than enough drivers that qualify under the standards I am suggesting.


Show YOUR evidence? You want others to show their evidence, you haven't shown your data about your two suggestions fixing Uber's problems. No way there would be enough drivers if only cars 3 years or newer were on the road.

Good thing Uber passed on your resume at the corporate level, they would be out of business if they followed your advice. Your business acumen must be through the rough since you are a rideshare driver like he rest of us rocket surgeons that decided to drive Uber for fun


----------



## Maquis (Jul 6, 2017)

Hurting Uber? Have you looked at what they are charging customers and paying you? I get a minimum ride -- Uber's charging people $7-8, giving me $2.50. What kind of brown-nosing moron can you be? Have you been driving longer than 2 weeks? You should be refusing to accept every other Pool request. Otherwise you are their *****.


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


Their drivers are not hurting the company. The lack of visibility into the job and low per minute and per mile are hurting the company. Have you taken an i.q. test recently? I am curious. I can tell you with 100% certainty the following;
1. You are not informed. If you were informed you would know that uber did exactly opposite of what you recommend last year for obvious and well deserved reasons
2. Doing what you just said will result in a complete collapse of the service and the screening of almost every fare even if rolled out slowly and with preparation
3. You are a unicorn


----------



## Newuberer (Jul 6, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


Lol 90% acceptance rate. Drivers have lower acceptance rates because they don't want to drive to a 18 minute pick up to make $4.


----------



## Flacco (Apr 23, 2016)

[QUOTE="
2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer

[/QUOTE]

Are you familiar with depreciation?


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Statia said:


> Go drive a limo. Your suggestions are ridiculous. And for you to make a statement that people only drive Uber for fun is totally out of line what do you know about people and what their circumstances are that they've had to turn to Uber to make money?
> 
> No one is going to take your suggestions seriously because your living in a self absorbed bubble.
> 
> Must be part of Lil Cindy squad.


Manesh needs Ribak


----------



## Statia (Jan 19, 2017)

UberLaLa said:


> Manesh needs Ribak


Oh how I wish my darling Manesh would come and rescue the thread with his charm  We seem to have a dirty rotten scoundrel alert


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Statia said:


> Oh how I wish my darling Manesh would come and rescue the thread with his charm  We seem to have a dirty rotten scoundrel alert


Manesh actually just sent me this...something about unable to log into UP any longer:

_Deerest man Ribak I requirres servicces of you kinds. Ideas of mkaing drievs for good naturedness is ways all ths shuld be yees. Plees makes certan trunks is of lrgest sises and all itms can bes placd insides with roooms for wife and chldrens! Manesh is owed miny rupies in trps and rieds so plees be prepars for much drievs of Manesh and his familys. Curry canndy is familys favrite kinds and water from Ganges sparking watrs is most best watrs for Ribak too provieds for the drievs.

Exsitedlly waits yours replises

Manesh_


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


Lmao. If uber followed your suggested path it would be out of business in a month. First the newer cars are generally driven by prima donas. How are you going to get your pretty little car up a dirt road in the winter or fit 2 big furry dogs inside without messing up you pretty interior. There are car services everywhere that provide new and fancy cars. They are are Loosing business to uber and lyft, right and left. Most riders are more impressed with the cleanliness, lots of room, great amenities such as COLD water, Starbucks, hand sanitizer, ibuprofen etc. Most riders want functionality in a vehicle and could care less the age of the vehicle. I drive a 2006 ford escape. Have over 3000 trips, maintain a 4,98 average rating and make bank on tips. Oh did I mention I have hail damage from the last storm. I suggest you quit uber and go to work for a swanky car service. You can stand out side your Mercedes and polish the door handles while ubers race by , full of riders. Get over yourself powder puff.


----------



## cdm813 (Jan 9, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


And then watch you lose all ridership to Lyft as there will be about 15% of drivers left, surge prices will be insane, and no one will want to pay $30 for a 2 mile ride.

Good work.


----------



## Bpr2 (Feb 21, 2017)

Ribak said:


> A) What court ruling. Please cite your evidence.
> 
> B) It is not possible for drivers to make a profit. However, requiring newer cars would eliminate many of the troublesome drivers.


Troublesome drivers just get new car

Whoops wrong account

Thing is though, the troublesome drivers will just get a new car and the cycle continues.


----------



## Fuber in their faces (Feb 19, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


I could still drive if this were the case but
1.) Im not a fan of driving 25 min to make $3.25 and then deadhead 25 min back.
2.) Im definitely not a fan of running my brand new explorer into a shitheap. Id rather drive my older saab that is already only worth anything to me. Its a nice car and nobody minds riding in it. Especially with a dvd player in the dash.



Ribak said:


> Someone has to do the dirty work. The low level drivers will clean up the messes while the high level ones will enjoy the benefits. It's how life works.


Except they give all the rides to the NEW drivers, who CANT be high level because they have to follow gps and have no clue where shit is.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


Wow, so you want to reduce the number of drivers by 95% just so YOU can make more money. *************



Ribak said:


> Exactly my point. The ideas I am suggesting would leave only the best drivers to continue with UBER


Having a new car doesn't make you a better driver


----------



## Strange Fruit (Aug 10, 2016)

Uber wants longterm success, and that has nothing ti do with providing good driving jobs. They're gathering data from our driving and keeping the customer base. We are place fillers for self driving cars. It doesn't matter what forum drivers think, or who writed another whiny post about eliminating "the not good drivers". That's their plan. Uber isn't a company for driving jobs. They're not gonna change the plan.


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uber-youre-on-alert-leading-labor-advocacy-group_us_5984997fe4b0bd823202972e
*Uber You're on Alert - Leading Labor Advocacy Group Partners with National Limousine Association*
08/07/2017 by Shannon McDeez








For years, drivers who work for ride-hail app companies like Uber and Lyft have been coming forward with claims of poor working conditions, including one driver who gave the infamous quote regarding being treated "only a little better than slaves". Every major ride-hail app company opts to categorize its workers as independent contractors, thereby sidestepping their obligation as the employer to provide adequate healthcare, workman's comp, insurance, and vehicle maintenance reimbursements.

Uber has been sued by many of its drivers for multiple reasons, including poor treatment and misrepresenting the earning potential of their drivers, which they settled with the FTC for $20 million. They are also settling a separate case with the FTC over claims of predatory leasing offers which

Uber has claimed will help get drivers in cars and on the road at the best rates possible. These claims have proved to be utterly false, with court documents containing damning statements like "Uber's communications with at least one auto company have acknowledged payment terms and conditions that are inconsistent with Uber's promises to Drivers."









Reuters/Lucy Nicholson
Uber drivers protesting against how they have been treated.
In light of these and other substandard working conditions, the National Limousine Association (NLA) has joined forces with Jobs With Justice to rally behind ride-hail app drivers in hopes of fair treatment as well as stopping Uber from making false promises about income and car leases.

Jobs With Justice is the only non-profit of its kind, fighting for the rights of workers across countless industries with the goal of building an economy that works for everyone. "Americans are united in the desire to work hard for our families and our futures," said Jobs With Justice Executive Director Sarita Gupta. "Unfortunately many ride-hailing services rig the rules to rob working people from leading a good life. When ride-hailing firms misclassify employees as independent contractors they decline to take responsibility for the safety and security of the people who make their businesses run. Our partnership with the National Limousine Association's Ride Responsibly™ initiative will help shed light on how transportation networking companies exploit drivers, consumers, and our communities."









www.jwj.org
"In a society that increasingly values convenience over safety and responsibility, it is the obligation of the NLA to raise awareness about how ride-hailing services, for financial gain, are circumventing fair labor laws and are not adhering to the same safety standards and regulations that are often applicable to taxis and limousines," said Gary Buffo, President of the NLA. "Our partnership with Jobs With Justice is a vital step towards bringing these urgent matters to the forefront of conversation here in the United States. Ride-hailing services are misleading passengers, exploiting drivers and putting our economy at risk."

We consumers must always remember that we are the ones who ultimately hold the power when it comes to free market capitalism. As this story grows, more and more people are beginning to realize that using these ride-hail apps supports companies who mislead and mistreat its workers. Boycotts of these apps have commenced even in major cities like New York and Los Angeles. "I really love Uber and Lyft for the convenience they offer, especially having lived in a major city like Boston where it wasn't exactly easy to get a cab," said Jenny Travis, a 24-year-old Account Manager at a New York City ad agency. "However, I can't in good conscience use their services now knowing how they treat their drivers. While health insurance is often offered as a 'benefit', it is considered standard in 2017 for most full-time jobs. I fear a world where most full-time jobs don't come with the benefits that help you live from day-to-day."

Learn more about this initiative and how you can support mistreated drivers here.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

This knucklehead should have checked out Uberpeople.net before making that purchase


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> This knucklehead should have checked out Uberpeople.net before making that purchase
> View attachment 146393


There is probably a very good reason he got rejected.



Statia said:


> Go drive a limo. Your suggestions are ridiculous. And for you to make a statement that people only drive Uber for fun is totally out of line what do you know about people and what their circumstances are that they've had to turn to Uber to make money?.


I currently drive a 2017 Prius and intend on trading it in every 2 years for a new model.
I do not know anyone on this list personally, so you are correct, I have no knowledge of the circumstances that resulted in the driving decision. However, regardless of the circumstances, one must be grateful for the opportunity. Treat the customers as they are the number 1 priority (because they are). My idea would eliminate the vast majority that are not grateful.



Statia said:


> No one is going to take your suggestions seriously because your living in a self absorbed bubble.


 The suggestion is not for the drivers. It is for UBER Corporate. You are correct. The Corporate office will not implement the ideas.



Statia said:


> Must be part of Lil Cindy squad.


I do not know this individual. However, Manesh appears to be an illiterate loser.


----------



## yojimboguy (Mar 2, 2016)

I understand. The OP wants Uber drivers to be dilettante hobbyists rather than people who need the work to make a living.

I kind of like the idea of rich folk toting me around while their money slowly drains away.

I'm with ya!


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Exactly my point. The ideas I am suggesting would leave only the best drivers to continue with UBER


One of the reasons why Uber has soo many driver's is because back in the day, riders were saying they won't use Uber anymore because there wasn't enough driver's available.

Uber is in a death match with Lyft right now for market share. If I was looking for a ride and I saw it takes 8 minutes for an Uber and 4 minutes for a Lyft and the price is quoted roughly the same, who do you think I'm gonna choose?


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Ribak said:


> The ideas I am suggesting would leave only the best drivers to continue with UBER


Anyone can go get a new car.
Anyone can accept 90% or rides.

How does that make them the best drivers?


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> Anyone can go get a new car.
> Anyone can accept 90% or rides.
> 
> How does that make them the best drivers?


The financial burden will result in the underperforming drivers getting frustrated with the high standards and leaving on their own.

In the long run, only the best drivers will remain.


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

Cableguynoe said:


> Anyone can go get a new car.
> Anyone can accept 90% or rides.
> 
> How does that make them the best drivers?


Very good question.


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Ribak said:


> A) What court ruling. Please cite your evidence.
> 
> B) It is not possible for drivers to make a profit. However, requiring newer cars would eliminate many of the troublesome drivers.


The decision to no longer remove drivers from the platform was a concession made in the Lisa-Rordan (or whatever) class action for CA and Mass drivers. The judge threw out the pittance that Uber offered because the millions were too little but kept the concession of acceptance rate since deactivating drivers for such made self-contractor definitions questionable.

Any drivers in these two states have an update about where this class action is in the legal system right now?


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

Ribak said:


> In the long run, only the best drivers will remain.


That would result in higher demand and not enough supplies


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Ribak said:


> Exactly my point. The ideas I am suggesting would leave only the best drivers to continue with UBER


It may leave the best cars but, baby, I promise you, this does not equate to the best drivers. Come on now.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Grahamcracker said:


> Very good question.


I already replied to Noe on his question.



Cou-ber said:


> It may leave the best cars but, baby, I promise you, this does not equate to the best drivers. Come on now.


It actually does. Simply by the elimination of many unworthy drivers who are not up to the standards of UBER.


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

Ribak said:


> I already replied to Noe on his question.
> 
> It actually does. Simply by the elimination of many unworthy drivers who are not up to the standards of UBER.


It would be impossible for Uber to meet demand under these guidelines.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Grahamcracker said:


> That would result in higher demand and not enough supplies


I am suggesting the changes only for UBER because the platform exists. In the beginning, LYFT (and similar services) would get additional business and higher revenue. However, the customers would catch on pretty quick that the better quality and standards are in place elsewhere. At that point the caliber of riders on other ride share services would match the drivers (the low level drivers with the low level customers). A win-win for all.


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

NoDay said:


> Instead of limiting it to 3 years etc.
> 3 years would make cars unattainable to people like me. I have a great driving history, can pass any background check and keep my car pretty clean. Just because I don't have a car < 3 years old, doesn't mean I should be excluded.
> 
> What if Uber required drug testing? Don't know how that would work given that we're not employees. But more than once I've heard about drivers smoking something illegal on the job. Or the frequent, "our driver came in and smoked with us!" To these customers i say, your an idiot.
> ...


Until 2 months ago every Houston Uber driver had to get a drug test, finger prints, physical, warrant check, background report and car inspection as well as what is called a TNC license in order to drive within city limits. All at driver's dime ($140-160).

You may recall Austin, TX being in the news when overnight Uber and Lyft who'd spent millions to campaign against these same requirements there pulled out like little biatches and voted for them. Really super awesome of those two companies. City of Austin even said they would pay for finger printing but the brats pulled out.

Point is that this does and can and should work nationwide and would lend credibility to drivers and raise the bar so pax can feel more at ease even if an illusion at best.

So it does work and yep there ya are.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Grahamcracker said:


> It would be impossible for Uber to meet demand under these guidelines.


If the guidelines are put into place, the under performing drivers would be replaced by the qualified ones who could meet the new standards.


----------



## Statia (Jan 19, 2017)

Ribak said:


> There is probably a very good reason he got rejected.
> 
> I currently drive a 2017 Prius and intend on trading it in every 2 years for a new model.
> I do not know anyone on this list personally, so you are correct, I have no knowledge of the circumstances that resulted in the driving decision. However, regardless of the circumstances, one must be grateful for the opportunity. Treat the customers as they are the number 1 priority (because they are). My idea would eliminate the vast majority that are not grateful.
> ...


Uber does not care about you wake up this company is based on an app not people


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

Ribak said:


> I am suggesting the changes only for UBER because the platform exists. In the beginning, LYFT (and similar services) would get additional business and higher revenue. However, the customers would catch on pretty quick that the better quality and standards are in place elsewhere. At that point the caliber of riders on other ride share services would match the drivers (the low level drivers with the low level customers). A win-win for all.


Lyft had a program that gave driver's with newer cars to keep 90% of their miles/minutes instead of 75% and they ended that program


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cou-ber said:


> Until 2 months ago every Houston Uber driver had to get a drug test, finger prints, physical, warrant check, background report and car inspection as well as what is called a TNC license in order to drive within city limits. All at driver's dime ($140-160).
> 
> You may recall Austin, TX being in the news when overnight Uber and Lyft who'd spent millions to campaign against these same requirements there pulled out like little biatches and voted for them. Really super awesome of those two companies. City of Austin even said they would pay for finger printing but the brats pulled out.
> 
> ...


Point well made. Some markets would not be able to handle the change.


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Ribak said:


> I already replied to Noe on his question.
> 
> It actually does. Simply by the elimination of many unworthy drivers who are not up to the standards of UBER.


Why does a 2012 car make a driver unworthy? Such a bs tacky crappy thing to claim. A person is no less worthy of squat if they drive a 4 year old car. Dafuque is that convoluted thinking? Dang.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Statia said:


> Uber does not care about you wake up this company is based on an app not people


100% agree. For some reason, the majority of drivers (on this form) do not get it. Drivers are the least important piece of the puzzle. I am not expecting UBER to care about me. Why would they?


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Ribak said:


> Point well made. Some markets would not be able to handle the change.


Well, they'd just have to figure out how then wouldn't they? They could come here and ask. We are friendly. Drivers here hate that these requirements were removed since now our streets are saturated with every screw off imaginable and some of those screw offs are driving 2017s. Go figure.


----------



## Statia (Jan 19, 2017)

Ribak said:


> I am suggesting the changes only for UBER because the platform exists. In the beginning, LYFT (and similar services) would get additional business and higher revenue. However, the customers would catch on pretty quick that the better quality and standards are in place elsewhere. At that point the caliber of riders on other ride share services would match the drivers (the low level drivers with the low level customers). A win-win for all.


What part are you not understanding?? You are not an employee you are a contracted partner therefore you have no rights do you not understand that they don't want employees it's not about the drivers Uber is based on an app. We are tools so that they can gather data to study the pattern because they're trying to do away with drivers are you not seeing the full picture are you that blind? Wake up


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cou-ber said:


> Why does a 2012 car make a driver unworthy? Such a bs tacky crappy thing to claim. A person is no less worthy of squat if they drive a 4 year old car. Dafuque is that convoluted thinking? Dang.


It's like walking around with holes in your socks.



Cou-ber said:


> Well, they'd just have to figure out how then wouldn't they? They could come here and ask. We are friendly. Drivers here hate that these requirements were removed since now our streets are saturated with every screw off imaginable and some of those screw offs are driving 2017s. Go figure.


 But are they maintaining a 90% acceptance rate?



Statia said:


> What part are you not understanding?? You are not an employee you are a contracted partner therefore you have no rights do you not understand that they don't want employees it's not about the drivers Uber is based on an app. We are tools so that they can gather data to study the pattern because they're trying to do away with drivers are you not seeing the full picture are you that blind? Wake up


I understand 100%. That is why I have no complaints about the pay rate, tips, accepting pools etc... Ideally, the ones that complain about such things should leave immediately. Otherwise, be grateful for the opportunity.


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Ribak said:


> It's like walking around with holes in your socks.


It goes from A to B.

I don't know what you're doing to your car but my 2012 is pimp as shite. And it's summer. We don't wear any socks here. Dude, you gotta be less snobby for the profession you've entered.

If drivers were any lower on the hierarchy of society, we'd need a shovel to start digging.

Don't go all elitist because you may be able to replace a car every 3 years but some of us got dead beat fathers and a system that doesn't enforce jack to help them, kids to support, colleges to pay for and no health insurance. I'd argue that most who could even meet a >3 year old car requirement are not even willing to drive rideshare at all. If you can do this, why the hell would you waste your time?


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

Ribak said:


> If the guidelines are put into place, the under performing drivers would be replaced by the qualified ones who could meet the new standards.


Ok, I see what you're saying however the demand from riders would skyrocket from the deficit of available driver's. Other rideshare companies would thrive on Uber's high standard on driver's.

Like I said before, if I was looking for a ride and I could get a Lyft in 3-4 minutes compared to Uber's 8-9 minute wait, I am likely going to pick Lyft. There would be soo many more driver's available on other rideshare companies if Uber raised the bar to that level, that Uber would lose it's riders for faster pickups.

If I needed a ride and someone with an 8 year old car was closest to my pickup spot, I would choose the closest, not the newest car.


----------



## Statia (Jan 19, 2017)

Ribak said:


> It's like walking around with holes in your socks.
> 
> But are they maintaining a 90% acceptance rate?
> 
> I understand 100%. That is why I have no complaints about the pay rate, tips, accepting pools etc... Ideally, the ones that complain about such things should leave immediately. Otherwise, be grateful for the opportunity.


 You should have a problem with the pay rate especially since you have a brand new car and plan on trading it in every two years if you think you're going to be able to do that driving Uber you're living in a fantasy because two years from now there might not even be any drivers and then what are you gonna do about your car payments? Just because you got a new car and now you're stuck with that bill does not mean that the rest of the world is going to run out and do the same thing we actually use our common sense


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cou-ber said:


> It goes from A to B.
> 
> I don't know what you're doing to your car but my 2012 is pimp as shite. And it's summer. We don't wear any socks here. Dude, you gotta be less snobby for the profession you've entered.
> 
> ...


Correct on the older model cars. That is why I am constantly referring to the drivers in my postings. Cars are Cars. However, I am simply trying to decrease the pool of drivers by disqualifying them from the system. A mean and slimy thing to do....indeed.



Grahamcracker said:


> Ok, I see what you're saying however the demand from riders would skyrocket from the deficit of available driver's. Other rideshare companies would thrive on Uber's high standard for driver's.
> 
> Like I said before, if I was looking for a ride and I could get a Lyft in 3-4 minutes compared to Uber's 8-9 minute wait, I am likely going to pick Lyft. There would be soo many more driver's available on other rideshare companies if Uber raised the bar to that level, that Uber would lose it's riders for faster pickups.
> 
> If I needed a ride and someone with an 8 year old car was closest to my pickup spot, I would choose the closest, not the newest car.


Correct. I am saying in the long term, most of the high end customers would pick the high end drivers.


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Ribak said:


> Correct on the older model cars. That is why I am constantly referring to the drivers in my postings. Cars are Cars. However, I am simply trying to decrease the pool of drivers by disqualifying them from the system. A mean and slimy thing to do....indeed.
> 
> Correct. I am saying in the long term, most of the high end customers would pick the high end drivers.


Are you even driving? Uber doesn't have any high end riders. Who are these unicorns of which you speak?


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Statia said:


> You should have a problem with the pay rate especially since you have a brand new car and plan on trading it in every two years if you think you're going to be able to do that driving Uber you're living in a fantasy because two years from now there might not even be any drivers and then what are you gonna do about your car payments? Just because you got a new car and now you're stuck with that bill does not mean that the rest of the world is going to run out and do the same thing we actually use our common sense


Car is 50% paid off already. UBER is currently set up for drivers who are making at least the average salary in their city. UBERing is just a hobby for them or a second source of fun money.


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

Ribak said:


> I am simply trying to decrease the pool of drivers by disqualifying them from the system


This is where your system fails. Your trying to decrease driver's on the system. The rider demand would go through the roof. Uber wouldn't have enough available driver's to supply demand.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cou-ber said:


> Are you even driving? Uber doesn't have any high end riders. Who are these unicorns of which you speak?


By "high-end", I am not referring to luxury rides. I am using the term to go along with the guidelines I suggested....since those that do not qualify would be the "low-end" ones.



Grahamcracker said:


> This is where your system fails. Your trying to decrease driver's on the system. The rider demand would go through the roof. Uber wouldn't have enough available driver's to supply demand.


In the short run...no. In the long run, most definitely yes.


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

It's estimated Houston has over 40,000 drivers and at any given time here they are groveling for pings. 

Where are you? 

Finally, it was the City of Houston who imposed the standards, not Uber. I agree Uber would lose drivers wherever such standards were placed but I know this would not leave any rider SOL if it did.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Ribak said:


> The financial burden will result in the underperforming drivers getting frustrated with the high standards and leaving on their own.
> 
> In the long run, only the best drivers will remain.


First of all, Uber will never do this. But you know this.

But even if they did, wouldn't work. It would fail. 
The good drivers are the ones that would be frustrated and leave on their own. Why not be able to pay your car off after a few years and now have extra money in their pocket? With your plan they wouldnt be able to.

Your idea is lousy. Like really really bad. You make Uber's decision making seem pretty solid.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cou-ber said:


> It's estimated Houston has over 40,000 drivers and at any given time here they are groveling for pings.
> 
> *Where are you?*
> 
> Finally, it was the City of Houston who imposed the standards, not Uber. I agree Uber would lose drivers wherever such standards were placed but I know this would not leave any rider SOL if it did.


Seattle.



Cableguynoe said:


> First of all, Uber will never do this. But you know this.
> 
> But even if they did, wouldn't work. It would fail.
> The good drivers are the ones that would be frustrated and leave on their own. Why not be able to pay your car off after a few years and now have extra money in their pocket? With your plan they wouldnt be able to.
> ...


I have very few complaints with UBER's decision making as far as drivers are concerned. I just wish they would make it more difficult on drivers (with tougher requirements) so many would leave on their own.


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

Ribak said:


> By "high-end", I am not referring to luxury rides. I am using the term to go along with the guidelines I suggested....since those that do not qualify would be the "low-end" ones.
> 
> In the short run...no. In the long run, most definitely yes.


I don't know about that. Uber MIGHT be able to to meet the Monday through Thursday demand on your suggested system, however it's the part time weekend warriors that supplement the weekend/holiday/special event demand.

I respect your idea however I feel like Uber started with this high standard and they lowered the standard to meet demand


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Grahamcracker said:


> I don't know about that. Uber MIGHT be able to to meet the Monday through Thursday demand on your suggested system, however it's the part time weekend warriors that supplement the weekend/holiday/special event demand.
> 
> I respect your idea however I feel like Uber started with this high standard and they lowered the standard to meet demand


You seem to have a solid understanding of Economics and the Concepts of Supply & Demand.

Maybe I should go in a different direction and make the following suggestion (to UBER Corporate) for 1 new guideline:

1) Drivers much be proficient in the primary language of their country (written and verbal).


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Ribak said:


> I am suggesting the changes only for UBER because the platform exists. In the beginning, LYFT (and similar services) would get additional business and higher revenue. However, the customers would catch on pretty quick that the better quality and standards are in place elsewhere. At that point the caliber of riders on other ride share services would match the drivers (the low level drivers with the low level customers). A win-win for all.


Riders don't give a rat's buttocks about quality. They want a cheap ride. And Uber doesn't give a hoot about standards either. They left Austin overnight because Austin wanted higher standards for its citizens. Unfortunately, rideshare must have given some suction favors to the state politicians because those chumps took power away from city municipalities and wiped out their standards. Uber is the honey badger. Surely you know this.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Ribak said:


> I have very few complaints with UBER's decision making as far as drivers are concerned. I just wish they would make it more difficult on drivers (with tougher requirements) so many would leave on their own.


The rating system will weed them out. Or multiple complaints. 
Don't worry Ribak, Uber doesnt like bad drivers either. They're on the case.



Ribak said:


> 1) Drivers much be proficient in the primary language of their country (written and verbal).


*must be


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Ribak said:


> Seattle.
> 
> I have very few complaints with UBER's decision making as far as drivers are concerned. I just wish they would make it more difficult on drivers (with tougher requirements) so many would leave on their own.


Dayam, y'all were my heroes for being so progressive and united not too long ago and being the only city allowed to come close to anything resembling a union of drivers. You must not be very popular there.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cou-ber said:


> Riders don't give a rat's buttocks about quality. They want a cheap ride. And Uber doesn't give a hoot about standards either. They left Austin overnight because Austin wanted higher standards for its citizens. Unfortunately, rideshare must have given some suction favors to the state politicians because those chumps took power away from city municipalities and wiped out their standards. Uber is the honey badger. Surely you know this.


Some riders care. Once they see the higher standards, many will gravitate towards them.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> The rating system will weed them out. Or multiple complaints.
> Don't worry Ribak, Uber doesnt like bad drivers either. They're on the case.
> 
> *must be


LOL. Well, I fail right off the bat.


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Ribak said:


> Some riders care. Once they see the higher standards, many will gravitate towards them.


Did not impact demand here whatsoever nor did it result in an elite pool of high end drivers in lambos. The riders that care either hire a town car or drive themselves. Come on.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cou-ber said:


> Dayam, y'all were my heroes for being so progressive and united not too long ago and being the only city allowed to come close to anything resembling a union of drivers. You must not be very popular there.


I am not popular anywhere (at least not on this planet). The move to Unionize in Seattle is far from dead. Still waiting on Judge's decision.



Cou-ber said:


> Did not impact demand here whatsoever nor did it result in an elite pool of high end drivers in lambos. The riders that care either hire a town car or drive themselves. Come on.


Correct, that is the actual "high-end" = luxury. My definition of "high-end" is based on my original guidelines.


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Ribak said:


> I am not popular anywhere (at least not on this planet). The move to Unionize in Seattle is far from dead. Still waiting on Judge's decision.


I loooooove Seattle drivers. Good for them.

FYI I was deactivated prior to the lawsuit for a 51% acceptance rate. I had a 4.92 rating, speak English beautifully and drive like a boss.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cou-ber said:


> I loooooove Seattle drivers. Good for them.
> 
> FYI I was deactivated prior to the lawsuit for a 51% acceptance rate. I had a 4.92 rating, speak English beautifully and drive like a boss.


Ok...edit to guideline....90% acceptance rate applies only to those who are not fluent in the language of their local area.


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

Ribak said:


> .90% acceptance rate applies only to those who are not fluent in the language of their local area


Lol.
Welp... count me out. I'm not good with speaking pigeon. I do much better with *******.


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Ribak said:


> Ok...edit to guideline....90% acceptance rate applies only to those who are not fluent in the language of their local area.


Ribak, you must be this little speck of a red island in a deep blue sea. How is osmosis not making you more....rephrase...how is osmosis not making you less rigid and unyielding? You may need to relocate. I fear for you now living there. Be well, man.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Cou-ber said:


> I loooooove Seattle drivers. Good for them.
> 
> FYI I was deactivated prior to the lawsuit for a 51% acceptance rate. I had a 4.92 rating, speak English beautifully and drive like a boss.


You just moved up my list of favorite people on this forum..



Ribak said:


> Ok...edit to guideline....90% acceptance rate applies only to those who are not fluent in the language of their local area.


Quit trying to make up rules, Uberfunitis. I know it's you.
Get out there and drive. The people need you!


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> You just moved up my list of favorite people on this forum..
> 
> Quit trying to make up rules, Uberfunitis. I know it's you.
> Get out there and drive. The people need you!


I drove this morning before work. Not able to go out during my lunch hour. Will make it out again at 5PM. One and Only One Ribak.


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Here's my guideline to add--all rides can have that crazy ass "safety" or "booking" or whatever fee they each call it but no commission is deducted until the fare is $10 or higher.

I am beeyyyyyoooonnnnndddd sick of fat cats getting more fat on millions they can't spend in their lifetimes. The inequity is out of control and if these flipping corporations do not start behaving with some soul and shaving a bit more off their bs bonuses to executives this country will collapse and we will see just as many stray people as we do stray animals because it is absolute intolerable (I am gonna get a timeout for this) flaming bullshit how income is distributed here.

It infuriates me to no end the rampant greed and lack of accountability.

Uber leased 1,000 cars to drivers in some po-dunk country that they 100% knew had been recalled for safety issue. Fire in the dash-spontaneous combustion. Corporate stance was to just leave the cars on the side of the road. It's this kind of white collar greedy bullshit that makes me want to impose guidelines on the corporations.

MofojevbbsvsuxnehebzvAguqn z



Cableguynoe said:


> You just moved up my list of favorite people on this forum..
> 
> Quit trying to make up rules, Uberfunitis. I know it's you.
> Get out there and drive. The people need you!


How did I miss this list before?? Jajaja jajaja

Thanks boo!


----------



## Brian G. (Jul 5, 2016)

Ribak said:


> A) What court ruling. Please cite your evidence.
> 
> B) It is not possible for drivers to make a profit. However, requiring newer cars would eliminate many of the troublesome drivers.


This won't happend why even think this would work haha. You must think everyone is as fortunate as you huh?


----------



## roadman (Nov 14, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


One of the dumbest posts I have read here.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

roadman said:


> One of the dumbest posts I have read here.


Thank you. I didn't put much thought into it.


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Ribak said:


> Thank you. I didn't put much thought into it.


Ribak you just stirring up the pot. I should t but I kinda like you. Quit while you're not ahead. All gravy. We all want less drivers. Better ways to do it however. Uber and Lyft want more riders so they lower prices and the more savvy drivers (of which I am not apparently a part) will get that they are being raped for no fun money. Then the good ones bail with or without 36 month or less vehicles.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Ribak said:


> The financial burden will result in the underperforming drivers getting frustrated with the high standards and leaving on their own.
> 
> In the long run, only the best drivers will remain.


Best for riders is not the same as best for drivers. If by underperform you mean make money, it's often the worst (as far as riders are concerned) drivers who make more money.

Best meaning 90% acceptance rate and so on is good for the riders, but will ensure unerperformance, monetarily-wise, for the driver.



Ribak said:


> I already replied to Noe on his question.
> 
> It actually does. Simply by the elimination of many unworthy drivers who are not up to the standards of UBER.


What standards? The standard for uber IS for older cars and crappy drivers since that's what they allow. They've SET their standard.



Grahamcracker said:


> Ok, I see what you're saying however the demand from riders would skyrocket from the deficit of available driver's. Other rideshare companies would thrive on Uber's high standard for driver's.
> 
> Like I said before, if I was looking for a ride and I could get a Lyft in 3-4 minutes compared to Uber's 8-9 minute wait, I am likely going to pick Lyft. There would be soo many more driver's available on other rideshare companies if Uber raised the bar to that level, that Uber would lose it's riders for faster pickups.
> 
> If I needed a ride and someone with an 8 year old car was closest to my pickup spot, I would choose the closest, not the newest car.


I'd go for the driver with the old car even if he was farther away. I figure he needs the money.

Drivers who don't need the money will quit the first time any bodily fluids make their way onto their back seat.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cou-ber said:


> Ribak you just stirring up the pot. I should t but I kinda like you. Quit while you're not ahead. All gravy. We all want less drivers. Better ways to do it however. Uber and Lyft want more riders so they lower prices and the more savvy drivers (of which I am not apparently a part) will get that they are being raped for no fun money. Then the good ones bail with or without 36 month or less vehicles.


You got my attention with "pot" in the first sentence....but then I took a second read and realized it was in a different context. Believe it or not, I respect you and like the fact that you speak your mind. Sometimes the consequences of stirring the pot get out of control. Power on and best of luck in Houston.


----------



## jfinks (Nov 24, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


I'm proud of my 33% acceptance rate. Most of if it is from stacked trips that show no info on pickup destination and dumb trips 15-20 minutes away. You know why drivers don't take those long trips? Because riders like Ribak want drivers to drive 20 minutes to take them to Walmart 1 mile away and make $2.66 with no tip.


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Best for riders is not the same as best for drivers. If by underperform you mean make money, it's often the worst (as far as riders are concerned) drivers who make more money.
> 
> Best meaning 90% acceptance rate and so on is good for the riders, but will ensure unerperformance, monetarily-wise, for the driver.
> 
> ...


Sure, but when requesting for an ride, you'll see ETA before you see age of the vehicle.


----------



## brianboru (Nov 3, 2016)

Ribak said:


> I currently drive a 2017 Prius and intend on trading it in every 2 years for a new model.


Do yourself a favor. Estimate the mileage you will have on your car in two years and then look and see what trade in value a 2015 Prius with that kind of mileage has. I think you will be unpleasantly surprised. Your plan has you eating the highest depreciation years that a vehicle has.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Grahamcracker said:


> Sure, but when requesting for an ride, you'll see ETA before you see age of the vehicle.


Of course if there was a requirement for all vehicles to be 3 years old or newer....that would eliminate the issue.



brianboru said:


> Do yourself a favor. Estimate the mileage you will have on your car in two years and then look and see what trade in value a 2015 Prius with that kind of mileage has. I think you will be unpleasantly surprised. Your plan has you eating the highest depreciation years that a vehicle has.


The car will be paid off by the time I trade it in. UBER'ing is my second job.


----------



## Statia (Jan 19, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Car is 50% paid off already. UBER is currently set up for drivers who are making at least the average salary in their city. UBERing is just a hobby for them or a second source of fun money.


Lmao what fairytale do you live in?


----------



## jfinks (Nov 24, 2016)

Cou-ber said:


> Riders don't give a rat's buttocks about quality. They want a cheap ride. And Uber doesn't give a hoot about standards either. They left Austin overnight because Austin wanted higher standards for its citizens. Unfortunately, rideshare must have given some suction favors to the state politicians because those chumps took power away from city municipalities and wiped out their standards. Uber is the honey badger. Surely you know this.


What suction flavor do you like?


----------



## Statia (Jan 19, 2017)

brianboru said:


> Do yourself a favor. Estimate the mileage you will have on your car in two years and then look and see what trade in value a 2015 Prius with that kind of mileage has. I think you will be unpleasantly surprised. Your plan has you eating the highest depreciation years that a vehicle has.


There you go math is the universal language numbers don't lie


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Statia said:


> Lmao what fairytale do you live in?


I am not sure....I don't even know if I will live Happily Ever After. I guess maybe Snow White....I would be one of the 7 Smurfs. You're a smart lady and I respect the fact that you are balancing motherhood with driving (based on reading a previous post). I will stick to my opinions regarding the UBER experience. Please do not take my comments too seriously.


----------



## brianboru (Nov 3, 2016)

Ribak said:


> The car will be paid off by the time I trade it in. UBER'ing is my second job.


That is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you paid cash for the car. You need to see how much your plan loses you because you are eating the depreciation. Just run the numbers and take a look.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Thank you. I didn't put much thought into it.


We know. Which is why it doesnt make sense.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

brianboru said:


> That is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you paid cash for the car. You need to see how much your plan loses you because you are eating the depreciation. Just run the numbers and take a look.


Gosh Darn it. I'm a magician....not an accountant.



Cableguynoe said:


> We know. Which is why it doesnt make sense.


Well....I have some other ideas that I have put a lot of thought into....and they don't make sense either. At least I am consistent.


----------



## brianboru (Nov 3, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Gosh Darn it. I'm a magician....not an accountant.


Well, that explains your magical thinking. Try impersonating an accountant for a few minutes and look at the numbers.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

brianboru said:


> Well, that explains your magical thinking. Try impersonating an accountant for a few minutes and look at the numbers.


If I look at the numbers, that would give me a dose of reality. Thus I choose to ignore that. Don't give me the truth...I can't handle the truth.


----------



## brianboru (Nov 3, 2016)

Ribak said:


> If I look at the numbers, that would give me a dose of reality. Thus I choose to ignore that. Don't give me the truth...I can't handle the truth.


lol


----------



## Statia (Jan 19, 2017)

Ribak said:


> I am not sure....I don't even know if I will live Happily Ever After. I guess maybe Snow White....I would be one of the 7 Smurfs. You're a smart lady and I respect the fact that you are balancing motherhood with driving (based on reading a previous post). I will stick to my opinions regarding the UBER experience. Please do not take my comments too seriously.


I'm not your entertaining me. Nothing on here can be taken too seriously we have enough driving around these passengers.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Statia said:


> I'm not your entertaining me. Nothing on here can be taken too seriously we have enough driving around these passengers.


Very good. Hope all is well and you are not affected much by the flooding.


----------



## Statia (Jan 19, 2017)

Ribak said:


> I am not sure....I don't even know if I will live Happily Ever After. I guess maybe Snow White....I would be one of the 7 Smurfs. You're a smart lady and I respect the fact that you are balancing motherhood with driving (based on reading a previous post). I will stick to my opinions regarding the UBER experience. Please do not take my comments too seriously.


Not only motherhood but raising a child with special-needs that's really one of the only reasons why I do this gig because I need the flexibility in order to be with my son throughout the day. My week days are full of therapy appointments. Honestly the only thing Uber really needs to do is raise the rates and not pocket half sometimes even more.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Statia said:


> Not only motherhood but raising a child with special-needs that's really one of the only reasons why I do this gig because I need the flexibility in order to be with my son throughout the day. My week days are full of therapy appointments. Honestly the only thing Uber really needs to do is raise the rates and not pocket half sometimes even more.


Mad props to you for that. Also, I have heard the higher rate suggestion numerous times. How about fixed rates? The thing I would really like is an incentive payout for "achievable targets" or targets based on performance (acceptance rate, 5 star ratings, completed trips). Wishful thinking....


----------



## Statia (Jan 19, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Very good. Hope all is well and you are not affected much by the flooding.


Luckily I don't live in a flood zone I also don't drive in flood zones I did one time and I will never do it again


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Correct on the older model cars. That is why I am constantly referring to the drivers in my postings. Cars are Cars. However, I am simply trying to decrease the pool of drivers by disqualifying them from the system. A mean and slimy thing to do....indeed.
> 
> Correct. I am saying in the long term, most of the high end customers would pick the high end drivers.


Oh you mean like how Select is just skyrocketing in profitabilty right now?

</sarcasm>


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Statia said:


> Not only motherhood but raising a child with special-needs that's really one of the only reasons why I do this gig because I need the flexibility in order to be with my son throughout the day. My week days are full of therapy appointments. Honestly the only thing Uber really needs to do is raise the rates and not pocket half sometimes even more.


You're my UP.net crush


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

jfinks said:


> I'm proud of my 33% acceptance rate. Most of if it is from stacked trips that show no info on pickup destination and dumb trips 15-20 minutes away. You know why drivers don't take those long trips? Because riders like Ribak want drivers to drive 20 minutes to take them to Walmart 1 mile away and make $2.66 with no tip.


Im damn proud of my *100% acceptance* rating and *0% cancellation* rating!

Only because it means i havent driven in quiet a bit, lol.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> You're my UP.net crush


I thought SadUber was your UP.net crush.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

steveK2016 said:


> Im damn proud of my *100% acceptance* rating and *0% cancellation* rating!
> 
> Only because it means i havent driven in quiet a bit, lol.


Even when I don't drive a lot, I can't stay out of the 20's



Ribak said:


> I thought SadUber was your UP.net crush.


He's my bff


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

Ribak said:


> Of course if there was a requirement for all vehicles to be 3 years old or newer....that would eliminate the issue.


Different topic with another member. Had nothing to do with the original topic.


----------



## AllGold (Sep 16, 2016)

Why is anyone responding? If you can't tell from the "I (heart) Uber Pool" avatar and the absurd original post, this is an obvious troll and should be ignored.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

AllGold said:


> Why is anyone responding? If you can't tell from the "I (heart) Uber Pool" avatar and the absurd original post, this is an obvious troll and should be ignored.


I just changed the avatar (a few minutes ago). Please do not judge me or discriminate against me because of my beliefs.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Ribak said:


> I just changed the avatar (a few minutes ago). Please do not judge me or discriminate against me because of my beliefs.


We're not judging you. We're just telling you that you're wrong. And that you're a troll. 
Like uberfunitiss, you'll argue the same point over and over and over, even when it doesn't make sense. 
And like uberfunitiss, you eventually changed your avatar to one that you knew many wouldn't like. 
Hmmmmm, what did I say about you and uberfunitus a few weeks ago? Same person. 
That's right. 
You couldn't help yourself


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> We're not judging you. We're just telling you that you're wrong. And that you're a troll.
> Like uberfunitiss, you'll argue the same point over and over and over, even when it doesn't make sense.
> And like uberfunitiss, you eventually changed your avatar to one that you knew many wouldn't like.
> Hmmmmm, what did I say about you and uberfunitus a few weeks ago? Same person.
> ...


My original guidelines were suggestions and a matter of opinion. I was simply responding to questions about the guidelines. I have posted multiple times before that I am NOT a fan of pool. I think you of all people should understand that I am very inconsistent in my postings. I have changed my avatar 4 times since joining this Forum.


----------



## chuxdaddy (Jun 15, 2017)

NorCalPhil said:


> This is ridiculous. It certainly is possible to make a profit with a car 3 years old or newer. But putting that steep a restriction on vehicle age would decimate the driver roles.
> 
> Why would you suggest a rule change to 3 or newer and then state that it isn't possible for drivers to make a profit with a newer car? Do you expect drivers to work for free? Just break even?


I have two vehicles registered with Uber and one with Lyft. My 2006 GMC Envoy is too old and does not qualify for Lyft, but does qualify for Uber.


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

jfinks said:


> What suction flavor do you like?


Nutella.


----------



## cafn8d (Aug 3, 2017)

I'm *really* not looking to feed a troll here, but ...

"However, requiring newer cars would eliminate many of the troublesome drivers."

That's ... adorable.

And naive.

I drive a 5-speed, 4 cylinder 2004 Honda Accord that is in excellent condition.

It "drinks" 87, averages 30-35 mpg highway, and has enough room in the cabin and trunk to accommodate 4 passengers and their baggage.

I own this vehicle free and clear.

Moreover, I am able to do most of the maintenance on it myself (thanks, Dad, for raising me as a capable woman).

My ratings are outstanding, thanks.

But please, by all means: encourage exclusivity. Rather, why don't you just run SELECT and let me know how that works out for you in certain geos and markets where riders are unwilling or unable to subsidize your car payment?

Furthermore, let's talk about "troublesome" drivers and your implications re: the political economy of ride sharing.

Your claim seems to rest on the belief that older cars = poor (and, gasp!) possibly non-white drivers. Oh, the humanity.

"Oh. My. God. Becky!
Just look at that car!
It's just so ... old.
It looks like ...
One of those poor people's rides
But, ya know, who understands those X-drivers, anyway?
Pax only ride with her because ...
Her fares are just so cheap, 'kay? 
I mean, her ride ... is like, so 2000s
I can't believe an older car could have a "responsible" driver!
I mean, gross, look
She's just so, black?"

_With apologies to Sir Mix-A-Lot
_
My point here is that your initial premise is not only flawed, but it's also offensive.

Have a nice morning.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

cafn8d said:


> I'm *really* not looking to feed a troll here, but ...
> 
> "However, requiring newer cars would eliminate many of the troublesome drivers."
> 
> ...


Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Two points of clarification:

1) I understand and have stated that my original suggestions would not work in many markets.
2) My intention is not racially biased

For #2 above, I have stated a preference for drivers who are fluent in the language of the area they serve. For most places in the US, that would be English.


----------



## Trebor (Apr 22, 2015)

Trafficat said:


> That was the old policy. The courts made them not do that anymore.
> 
> I don't think it is possible to make a profit if you drive a car that new. Not at current Uber rates, anyway.


But surge pricing would almost always be in effect.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

AllGold said:


> Why is anyone responding? If you can't tell from the "I (heart) Uber Pool" avatar and the absurd original post, this is an obvious troll and should be ignored.


Ignorance is bliss. You have a right to disagree with my suggestions.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Ribak said:


> You have a right to disagree with my suggestions.


You disagreed with your suggestions


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> You disagreed with your suggestions


Because I am not perfect...there is always room for improvement.


----------



## Five Star (Feb 1, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


How does a 90% acceptance rate qualifies ANYONE as a "good driver"?? Or how can you say someone with a 70% acceptance is a "bad driver"??
Same question goes for the "3 year old car or newer". A brand new car would turn a dumb driver into a good one?
Are you serious??


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

My choice of terms "good" and "bad" have caused a bunch of confusion. (I do not expect you to read all the responses to understand that).

The point of the original 2 suggestions is to weed out drivers who do not meet the guidelines. This would result in the following:

More drivers would join UBER because they meet the criteria of 90% acceptance and newer cars. These drivers would be able to continue to set their own schedules and provide excellent customer service.
The unqualified drivers would leave UBER and join LYFT (or some other platform) and would serve the less desirable trips.
My suggestions would not be applicable in all markets.


----------



## stoof (Jun 22, 2017)

$5.00 minimums on rides. I'm sick and tired of driving 10+ minutes to give a 5 minute ride.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

stoof said:


> $5.00 minimums on rides. I'm sick and tired of driving 10+ minutes to give a 5 minute ride.


A very logical suggestion. I get $5 (actually $3.75) for a cancellation. Thus, your suggestion makes 100% sense for an actual ride.


----------



## Five Star (Feb 1, 2017)

Ribak said:


> My choice of terms "good" and "bad" have caused a bunch of confusion. (I do not expect you to read all the responses to understand that).
> 
> The point of the original 2 suggestions is to weed out drivers who do not meet the guidelines. This would result in the following:
> 
> ...


Again, you explanation makes even less sense then the original post.

How would a 90% requirement would attract ANY driver, GOOD OR BAD?? If anything, the fact that in order to achieve 90% drivers would have to accept all kinds of rides, including the ridiculous UBERPOOL, would actually drive good drivers away from the platform.

Pretend I'm a good driver you KNOW , I have a 4.90 rate with Lyft and I drive a 2014 Camry. Using ONLY your arguments, talk me into joining Uber...
GO!


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Five Star said:


> Again, you explanation makes even less sense then the original post.
> 
> How would a 90% requirement would attract ANY driver, GOOD OR BAD?? If anything, the fact that in order to achieve 90% drivers would have to accept all kinds of rides, including the ridiculous UBERPOOL, would actually drive good drivers away from the platform.
> 
> ...


It is not about talking you into joining UBER. The plan is to eliminate drivers that do not meet the qualifications (they would eventually leave on their own). That is just the first step.


----------



## Five Star (Feb 1, 2017)

Ribak said:


> It is not about talking you into joining UBER. The plan is to eliminate drivers that do not meet the qualifications (they would eventually leave on their own). That is just the first step.


Friend, let me quote your post from 10 SECONDS AGO:
"

_*More drivers would join UBER *because they meet the criteria of 90% acceptance and newer cars. These drivers would be able to continue to set their own schedulesand provide excellent customer service._
Now read your post from 5 SECONDS AGO and please tey to make (some)sense.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

When someone tries very hard to be a troll, they stop making sense along the way


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Five Star said:


> Friend, let me quote your post from 10 SECONDS AGO:
> "
> 
> _*More drivers would join UBER *because they meet the criteria of 90% acceptance and newer cars. These drivers would be able to continue to set their own schedulesand provide excellent customer service._
> Now read your post from 5 SECONDS AGO and please tey to make (some)sense.


Correct. They are mutually exclusive

A) More drivers would join UBER
B) It is not about me (or anyone else) convincing you to join. You would be one of the drivers who would leave.


----------



## Five Star (Feb 1, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Correct. They are mutually exclusive
> 
> A) More drivers would join UBER
> B) It is not about me (or anyone else) convincing you to join. You would be one of the drivers who would leave.


This is where I leave you my friend.... Good luck with all that!!!


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> When someone tries very hard to be a troll, they stop making sense along the way


My points are very simple to understand. I cannot help it if some people lack the intellect to comprehend them. I would anticipate, that the "leadership" of this forum may soon lock this thread.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Ribak said:


> My points are very simple to understand. I cannot help it if some people lack the intellect to comprehend them. I would anticipate, that the "leadership" of this forum may soon lock this thread.


nah. it will die on it's own, as should your troll career. 
Go watch how Uberfunitus does it. He's pretty good at it. You not so much.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> nah. it will die on it's own, as should your troll career.
> Go watch how Uberfunitus does it. He's pretty good at it. You not so much.


That is because I am not a troll. Once you open your mind, you may be enlightened and see the light.


----------



## Uber_Muie (Jun 19, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


You should be deactivated for your low IQ. Shill.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Uber_Muie said:


> You should be deactivated for your low IQ. Shill.


By definition, a Shill is "an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others."

Is that the word you intended to use?


----------



## Uber_Muie (Jun 19, 2017)

Ribak said:


> By definition, a Shill is "an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others."
> 
> Is that the word you intended to use?


Troll>


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Uber_Muie said:


> Troll>


Again, you are off base.

By definition, an on-line Troll is "a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement."

My posts are directly related to UBER. This specific ones simply lists some plausible suggestions for improvements (based on my opinion).


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Again, you are off base.
> 
> By definition, an on-line Troll is "a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement."
> 
> My posts are directly related to UBER. This specific ones simply lists some plausible suggestions for improvements (based on my opinion).


troll


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Five Star said:


> Jesus man, you guys don't get it? He's just trying to keep his topic alive and up on top.
> (I know, I just helped this idiot myself)
> Let this topic die, please....


I humbly make 1 request....Please be a bit more respectful when referencing the name of Jesus

You have every right to disagree with me. However, I would prefer you refrain from personal insults (such as calling me an Idiot).


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

Poor entitled passenger, lol. 

I hope you catch an Uber today, no AC, no English, with the nastiest vehicle available. LOL


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

UberUber81 said:


> Poor entitled passenger, lol.
> 
> I hope you catch an Uber today, *no AC, no English*, with the *nastiest vehicle available*. LOL


In Seattle...we have a "heat wave". However, it is fairly easy to live without AC. 
A good variety of vehicles....most appear to be in good condition.
No English - Guilty as charged....but this probably applies to numerous markets.

I am a fairly new driver....just completed 5 months.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Some quick suggestions for improved results and higher profits:
> 
> 1) Deactivate drivers with less than 90% acceptance rate
> 2) Require that cars are 3 years old or newer
> ...


----------



## SibeRescueBrian (May 10, 2015)

Sorry folks. This conversation has gone WAAAAAAAAY off topic.


----------

