# Stacking trips (not UberPool)



## CityGirl (Nov 29, 2014)

Has anyone had any of the new stacked trips yet?

I'm not thrilled about it because a lot of times I have other plans to go offline in a certain area or after a certain trip. I am not going to be deciding en route and presumably have my GPS guidance interrupted for a second fare when I have not finished the first--I definitely do not want new pax calling me with any b.s. questions like they sometimes do. I am not sure how this is going to work. Dislike random changes!!










LESS DOWNTIME

An exciting update to trip requests is coming, designed to help you complete more trips and increase earnings. Starting today, you can accept your next trip request even when you're already on a trip.

*How It Works*

Now you'll get requests for trips that start nearby your current rider's dropoff location before the trip is over. Skip the wait and accept upcoming trips so you can go straight to your next ride.

*How It Looks*

While on a trip, you'll get a notification to accept your next request. After accepting, the screen will go back to the current trip to help avoid confusion. See below:



*FAQs*

Why the change?

This update to trip requests is expected to drastically lower ETAs for riders and partners alike. Riders will enjoy quicker pickups, increasing ratings, and partners won't have to drive as long to their pick-ups.

How do I start getting requests before my trip is over?

As long as you or the rider has entered the destination into the Uber app, we will automatically look for requests near your rider's dropoff location.

What if my current rider wants to make multiple stops?

If the rider has already entered their destination upon request, kindly confirm with them if it is their final destination. If not, you may change the destination in the Uber app to the final destination so you are less likely to receive your next request too early.

Is this uberPOOL?

No. The two riders will never be in your vehicle at the same time.　

Will the next rider know that I'm on my way to them?

Yes. The next rider will see a popup in the rider app stating that the closest vehicle for them is completing another trip nearby, and we will also show the first drop-off point on the map for clarification.

Can I opt-out of receiving requests like this?

At this time we are unable to opt-out partners individually from this change.

Why can't I see the next rider's information before accepting my next trip?

You will be able to see this information after the next Uber Partner app update in the coming weeks.

As always, please let us know if you have any more questions!

Thank you for your partnership,

Uber Operations

Uber Technologies Inc. 1455 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103Get HelpView OnlineUnsubscribe


----------



## CityGirl (Nov 29, 2014)

Then again, it solves the Period 1 insurance gap problem, doesn't it?

http://www.uberpeople.net/threads/s...sit-outside-does-my-ca-insurnace-cover.27380/


----------



## berserk42 (Apr 24, 2015)

Yeah, if the normal ping information is shown (and the ETA is from the first trip end point), I may do it, assuming first trip is going to the input destination and is only one destination. Probably would just cancel second ride if first pax adjusts route/destination after acceptance.

Curious to see how this works out for anyone here. Have had no option to use this yet.


----------



## cfluser (Jun 15, 2015)

This will cause problems for those folks that enter a destination that is _very_ wrong, and verbally tells you where they meant to go. Several times at night I get very bad destination, and the rider says sorry I know I did it wrong, but I am trying to get to "abc street", and the destination never gets updated. That would really suck to get a 2nd trip request in southern part of city when I am actually headed a ways north....

They need to do more to get riders to enter destinations and or incentive to update them when not correct.


----------



## berserk42 (Apr 24, 2015)

PlatypusMuerte said:


> This will cause problems for those folks that enter a destination that is _very_ wrong, and verbally tells you where they meant to go. Several times at night I get very bad destination, and the rider says sorry I know I did it wrong, but I am trying to get to "abc street", and the destination never gets updated. That would really suck to get a 2nd trip request in southern part of city when I am actually headed a ways north....
> 
> They need to do more to get riders to enter destinations and or incentive to update them when not correct.


No doubt. I would reject second pings if on one of those rides. But if you're playing a guarantee game or your acceptance rate is already very low, this would not be ideal.


----------



## cfluser (Jun 15, 2015)

berserk42 The only guarantee game I play is that my 2 teenagers burn through cash faster than I can print it LOL


----------



## vect0r (Jul 12, 2015)

Any idea if declining one of those counts against our acceptance rate?


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

CityGirl said:


> Has anyone had any of the new stacked trips yet?
> 
> I'm not thrilled about it because a lot of times I have other plans to go offline in a certain area or after a certain trip. I am not going to be deciding en route and presumably have my GPS guidance interrupted for a second fare when I have not finished the first--I definitely do not want new pax calling me with any b.s. questions like they sometimes do. I am not sure how this is going to work. Dislike random changes!!
> 
> ...


My text never made it into the post.

CityGirl Too bad Uber is unable to implement this without being completely duplicitous yet again. This seems to be yet another attempt at forcing drivers away from also driving for Lyft. It also forces you yet again to work more, yet again putting IC status into question.

Ultimately, they sure as hell need to learn to stack calls. Accurate time estimates, that lack of uncertainty made possible by the fact the only idle cars or hired........ That is the best part of their schtick from the position of the passenger. Should be interesting.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

vect0r said:


> Any idea if declining one of those counts against our acceptance rate?


Of course it will!


----------



## SCdave (Jun 27, 2014)

Okay so here I go..

1) Driver ignores the 2nd Request while he has a PAX in his vehicle (the 1st Trip). This is for safety, or just personal policy/strategy for trying to make a profit as a driver.

2) Uber has policy to reprimand Drivers with threatening text/emails about low(er) acceptance or even deactivation.

3) Driver then feels that his relationship with Uber is threatened. Instead of just ignoring that 2nd Trip Request and letting it timeout, he/she now accepts that 2nd Trip request or try's to cancel, or just F'ks around with the Uber Driver App while he/she should be focusing on...well, driving.

4) Driver gets in accident.

5) Complete the story....


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

This will be just like Uberpool - the second rider will cancel in the majority of cases.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

elelegido said:


> This will be just like Uberpool - the second rider will cancel in the majority of cases.


That would be awesome as long as it's before we drop off 1st pax. Helps acceptance rate.

Will the pax be able to see we have another pax to drop off? Because if they do they will cancel for sure as they never want to wait and will want their OWN private driver.

I don't think we have this in houston but need to check email. But so many drivers I imagine there'll be one free most times anyway and this won't come into play.


----------



## LEAFdriver (Dec 28, 2014)

I didn't get the email shown here....so I'm assuming its only in CA? Has anyone done one yet? I'm with SCdave .....seems like there would be more cons than pros.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Will the pax be able to see we have another pax to drop off? Because if they do they will cancel for sure as they never want to wait and will want their OWN private driver.


LOL, good point. With UberPool and now this, maybe they need to change that tagline.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

LEAFdriver said:


> I didn't get the email shown here....so I'm assuming its only in CA? Has anyone done one yet? I'm with SCdave .....seems like there would be more cons than pros.


I didn't get it either. Or today's earnings statement for last week.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

elelegido said:


> LOL, good point. With UberPool and now this, maybe they need to change that tagline.


It does claim your next pax is made aware and shown where you will be dropping your current riders.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Huberis said:


> It does claim your next pax is made aware and shown where you will be dropping your current riders.


Fuzzyelvis' point was that Uber's tagline is "Everyone's private driver". But if your "private" driver first has to drop someone else off, or pick someone else up who will share your ride with you, then it's not so private any more. It's not Everyone's Private Driver; it becomes more of a shuttle service, like those big blue SuperShuttle buses that go round neighbourhoods collecting pax and taking them to an airport.


----------



## sidewazzz (Jun 30, 2015)

I like it


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Fuzzyelvis' point was that Uber's tagline is "Everyone's private driver". But if your "private" driver first has to drop someone else off, or pick someone else up who will share your ride with you, then it's not so private any more. It's not Everyone's Private Driver; it becomes more of a shuttle service, like those big blue SuperShuttle buses that go round neighbourhoods collecting pax and taking them to an airport.


This is not supposed to be a shuttle style service. It is an attempt to find a way to queue calls behind drivers. The only strangers the pax will be forced to confront will be their driver/ future buddy.

This is supposed to allow Uber to book cars that are not simply idle, but en route to dropping pax.


----------



## hanging in there (Oct 1, 2014)

CityGirl said:


> Has anyone had any of the new stacked trips yet?
> 
> I'm not thrilled about it because a lot of times I have other plans to go offline in a certain area or after a certain trip. I am not going to be deciding en route and presumably have my GPS guidance interrupted for a second fare when I have not finished the first--I definitely do not want new pax calling me with any b.s. questions like they sometimes do. I am not sure how this is going to work. Dislike random changes!!
> 
> ...


I see a few good and bad points. Overall it may turn out to be a good thing but as with all else in Uberland, it all depends on the implementation.

pros:

1) It could help a driver stay busier with less idle wait time, less travel time to next pax, and less uncertainty of "should I park it and wait, and for how long, or should I reposition myself to try and get a ride, or a better ride?"

2) It could help build Uber's customer base, and your immediate business, if the alternative would have been "no Uber available in your area" and the pax decides to seek out alternative transportation.

cons:

1) It will have the effect of reducing the potential for surges in the area of the second pickup

2) It could commit a driver to a so-so or minimum ride since there would be little to no opportunity to think about the decision to accept the ride while performing another ride at the time. Then if better opportunities pop up, too bad. You have already made a commitment, unless you want to take the cancellation hit.

3) How close is "close"? Is there going to be an unacceptable cutoff radius of a certain distance or ETA from the drop-off point to the second pickup point? That's entirely in Uber's control right? Not yours. Again, little to no time to study and decide while you are in the middle of driving pax #1. Sometimes ETA's can be very deceiving and incorrect, say, if there are road closures, bodies of water, mountains, traffic control or lack of it, etc that are not being accounted for.

4) It can't be opted out of? Wow, I can see that not only sucking for some drivers, but also opening up a legal/liability can of worms in terms of distracted driving, as another poster mentioned previously in this thread.


----------



## berserk42 (Apr 24, 2015)

Yeah, I think the distracted driving concern will cause this potentially good idea to not leave its test market. Of course we have all hit the accept button while driving around (okay, 99% of us have --- and this is explicitly illegal in my state as well as others...at least, I don't think the taxi exceptions apply to TNC's), but theoretically we don't need to be in traffic to do that for the first request. We would pretty much HAVE to be in traffic when the second request comes in though.


----------



## UberXTampa (Nov 20, 2014)

berserk42 said:


> Yeah, I think the distracted driving concern will cause this potentially good idea to not leave its test market. Of course we have all hit the accept button while driving around (okay, 99% of us have --- and this is explicitly illegal in my state as well as others...at least, I don't think the taxi exceptions apply to TNC's), but theoretically we don't need to be in traffic to do that for the first request. We would pretty much HAVE to be in traffic when the second request comes in though.


When you change the volume or radio station in your stereo while driving, is that illegal? I guess not and never in any place I know. Nobody heard of it. If I use an iPad as my only navigation device, if the iPad is affixed to the dashboard just at the same level as the stereo and from a distance you can't tell if it is the iPad or the dashboard, pushing a button to accept a trip request or pushing another to start navigating shouldn't be illegal. If you use a separate navigation device and run multiple applications like Lyft and uber on a phone while also trying to text and call from same phone doesn't seem a right setup; I see that Kind of a setup as the problem.

You need to address your driver setup to make it as safe and as legal as possible. A Separate iPad to run driver apps on and a separate phone to call/text from are ideal combo. No need for separate navigation device. A Bluetooth headset or Bluetooth speaker system in the car would complement this setting and make it as safe as it could be.

If distracted driving is reduced by these changes, I don't see a problem with new features like call stacking.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

CityGirl said:


> Has anyone had any of the new stacked trips yet?
> 
> I'm not thrilled about it because a lot of times I have other plans to go offline in a certain area or after a certain trip. I am not going to be deciding en route and presumably have my GPS guidance interrupted for a second fare when I have not finished the first--I definitely do not want new pax calling me with any b.s. questions like they sometimes do. I am not sure how this is going to work. Dislike random changes!!
> 
> ...


Another forum member and I were discussing this possibility in another thread (can't remember which thread).

We were commenting that Uber will be forced to be more efficient in their utilization of drivers, if drivers were classified as employees.

Is Uber prepping for drivers as employees?

It could also be that Uber is losing so many drivers because of the lower rates that they are being forced to better utilize available drivers, because they forsee a potential shortage of drivers.

Maybe their driver churn rate is getting out of hand.


----------



## SCdave (Jun 27, 2014)

observer said:


> Another forum member and I were discussing this possibility in another thread (can't remember which thread).
> 
> We were commenting that Uber will be forced to be more efficient in their utilization of drivers, if drivers were classified as employees.
> 
> ...


Yes to the above good points you mention. Also that Uber pays very smart people. If they don't come up with ideas then what good are they.

Utilization, efficiencies, economy of scale, etc... are really important for the Uber Mother Ship. Utilization is a small small bit of my Net Income pie for me, a singularity, just one vehicle. Yes, important but the Fare Rate is my big concern.

Now if Uber bundled Stacking with allowing Drivers to determine a Max Distance to Pick Up + Direction + Surge Factor for Pick Up (only accept 1.5x or higher or whatever), then this is going in the right direction.

Then the Driver could set parameters and wouldn't be so focused on these common "Accept or Cancel/Skip" decision we all do to maximize our Net Profit. Would give Driver the ability to maximize profits for the day of the week, time of day, location Driver is in, and change parameters as that Drivers sees fit.

Then Driver focuses on PAX in car and can just accept Next Stacked PAX without having to focus on phone, the "next PAX" and whether to accept or cancel/skip (since my Driver preferences are already set in the App).

I get the concept but Uber is NOT giving me enough "Independent Contractor" tools to make UberPOOL and Stacking worthwhile. Once again, Uber wants to classify Drivers as Independent Contractors but "Utilitze" drivers like employees.

Nope - I need more cheese pleeze.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

observer said:


> Another forum member and I were discussing this possibility in another thread (can't remember which thread).
> 
> We were commenting that Uber will be forced to be more efficient in their utilization of drivers, if drivers were classified as employees.
> 
> ...


Here's the thread,

https://uberpeople.net/threads/drivers-poaching-long-trips.26944/


----------



## berserk42 (Apr 24, 2015)

UberXTampa said:


> When you change the volume or radio station in your stereo while driving, is that illegal? I guess not and never in any place I know. Nobody heard of it. If I use an iPad as my only navigation device, if the iPad is affixed to the dashboard just at the same level as the stereo and from a distance you can't tell if it is the iPad or the dashboard, pushing a button to accept a trip request or pushing another to start navigating shouldn't be illegal. If you use a separate navigation device and run multiple applications like Lyft and uber on a phone while also trying to text and call from same phone doesn't seem a right setup; I see that Kind of a setup as the problem.
> 
> You need to address your driver setup to make it as safe and as legal as possible. A Separate iPad to run driver apps on and a separate phone to call/text from are ideal combo. No need for separate navigation device. A Bluetooth headset or Bluetooth speaker system in the car would complement this setting and make it as safe as it could be.
> 
> If distracted driving is reduced by these changes, I don't see a problem with new features like call stacking.


Touching the phone while driving is illegal. (Frankly, I don't think police would hassle drivers about this in our circumstance).


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Huberis said:


> This is not supposed to be a shuttle style service. It is an attempt to find a way to queue calls behind drivers. The only strangers the pax will be forced to confront will be their driver/ future buddy.
> 
> This is supposed to allow Uber to book cars that are not simply idle, but en route to dropping pax.


 Ok, I'll try to explain in simpler terms. A private driver would serve only the person paying his wages.
A private driver would not have his wage payer wait while he dropped off someone else (stacking)
A private driver would not stop somewhere on the route to pick up an unknown third party (UberPool)
Therefore, the tagline "Everyone's private driver" no longer applies.
Is it clear now? I hope so, because I can't explain it any more simply!


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

elelegido said:


> Ok, I'll try to explain in simpler terms. A private driver would serve only the person paying his wages.
> A private driver would not have his wage payer wait while he dropped off someone else (stacking)
> A private driver would not stop somewhere on the route to pick up an unknown third party (UberPool)
> Therefore, the tagline "Everyone's private driver" no longer applies.
> Is it clear now? I hope so, because I can't explain it any more simply!


That already is happening. The fact of the matter is that only being able to book idle cars is not efficient. It leaves paying customers out in the cold longer than need be. What you describe is an illusion. It doesn't work that way.

For one, this has nothing to do with UberPool. It is that simple. All this does is one thing: It allows a pax to book a car en route. The whole concept of "Everyone's private driver" is in my opinion bullshit. It sounds great, but it isn't really that.

"A private driver would not have his wage payer wait while he dropped off someone else (stacking). " That statement is false. It already happens. Under proper handling, this method should decrease wait times for pax. What you describe is already how it works anyway. It simply is.

This could jeopardize the accuracy of Uber's time estimates. It is much easier to give a time estimate on a car hired while idle. Otherwise, in my opinion, waiting is waiting. If you don't allow stacking........ How is Uber "Everyone's Private Driver" if when they log on zero cars show as available for hire?

When you say "Therefore, the tagline "Everyone's private driver" no longer applies." I simply disagree. Cars need to be scheduled. I also believe their claim is bullshit and always has been. If it was a private car for hire, they would be booked in terms of by the hour not point to point. They would also most likely be booked in advance and scheduled in.

They can call the service they provide whatever they want, you are free to buy into it, zero harm done. I don't buy into it, the claim is bullshit. Is that clear now? I hope so, because I can't explain it any more simply: The claim is bullshit. It isn't that I don't get what you are saying, I simply believe you have been duped by Uber. What you bought into isn't real, asat.


----------



## berserk42 (Apr 24, 2015)

Live in Orlando, apparently. https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber...-new-ride-before-finishing-current-one.28058/


----------



## cfluser (Jun 15, 2015)

Now if Brevard/Melbourne had enough weekday riders to support this LOL


----------



## OrlUberOffDriver (Oct 27, 2014)

LEAFdriver said:


> I didn't get the email shown here....so I'm assuming its only in CA? Has anyone done one yet? I'm with SCdave .....seems like there would be more cons than pros.


No email for me. But got a second request this morning here in Orlando. Total **** up!!!


----------



## LEAFdriver (Dec 28, 2014)

OrlUberOffDriver said:


> No email for me. But got a second request this morning here in Orlando. Total **** up!!!


Details please! What happened? You never even got the email and then mid-ride your phone starts beeping with a new ride request? Did you accept? What did your current PAX say? Can you cancel a 2nd ride request?


----------



## OrlUberOffDriver (Oct 27, 2014)

LEAFdriver said:


> Details please! What happened? You never even got the email and then mid-ride your phone starts beeping with a new ride request? Did you accept? What did your current PAX say? Can you cancel a 2nd ride request?


Was a minute out from drop off app start beeping as if a request, I look and there is the box that you normally see when uber app is NOT in forground. 
I accepted, then app returned to current trip. 
As soon as I confirmed end trip it took me directly to second trip navigation. 13 ****ing minutes away! **** NO! Canceled! 
Returned me to rate first rider.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Huberis said:


> That already is happening. The fact of the matter is that only being able to book idle cars is not efficient. It leaves paying customers out in the cold longer than need be. What you describe is an illusion. It doesn't work that way.
> 
> For one, this has nothing to do with UberPool. It is that simple. All this does is one thing: It allows a pax to book a car en route. The whole concept of "Everyone's private driver" is in my opinion bullshit. It sounds great, but it isn't really that.
> 
> ...


Ok... well thanks anyway for all your interest in my posts and your comments on them. But... I'll be adding you to my ignore list - this is like trying to have a discussion with Sly .


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber Test Lets Drivers Accept New Ride Before Finishing Current One*
*http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhu...rivers-pick-up-before-finishing-current-ride/*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Hey CityGirl, did you help out Ellen Huet with this article?


----------



## picknyourseat (Mar 18, 2015)

LEAFdriver said:


> Details please!


OK, so here is my experience from today...

I received a Select/Plus request from the airport and within 1 minute of receiving and accepting that request I was promted with a 2nd request.

I accepted and proceeded to drive the 1st client from the airport to her destination 15 minutes away.

Upon completion of the first trip, I then was ready to drive to the 2nd request...back at the airport!

So, the 2nd client actually waited approximately 22 minutes for me to get them!

Not exactly efficient and potentially very bad for ratings!

The 2nd client could have had a Select/Plus car within 10 minutes easily, so this more than doubled their wait time.

Pretty sure that I will ignore these requests in the future!


----------



## berserk42 (Apr 24, 2015)

Wow. What a great rollout so far. /s

Sounds like Uber is issuing second pings based on current location, not first input destination.


----------



## CityGirl (Nov 29, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber Test Lets Drivers Accept New Ride Before Finishing Current One*
> *http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhu...rivers-pick-up-before-finishing-current-ride/*


Nope, but I think we are all kind of expressing the same sentiments. This is not a feature. It does not provide anything anyone needs. Riders who sometimes see a 10 minute wait are surprised, because it's usually MUCH faster. Besides, what do I do if my plan is to NOT pick up anyone in the area the current passenger is going (which for me is frequent)? Accept the ride without the opportunity to see the details...cancel later when I have a chance to stop and analyze it; or ignore--either one hurts my acceptance rate. I choose when and where to work, this curtails that, therefore CityGirl=employee, needs reimbursement of $4/gallon gas and some new tires after 7 months of this random services-added-pay-taken-away, nonsense.

picknyourseat brings up the really important issue, if I have to drop anyone off, I am probably not actually going to be faster than someone else.


----------



## SCdave (Jun 27, 2014)

Broken record time for me:

If Uber treated Drivers like Independent Contractors, then Stacked Rides would possibly make sense. They would allow Drivers to set parameters to increase Individual Driver Efficiency and Net Income.

But Uber treats Drivers like employees. This is seen in Stacked Rides where Individual Drivers are treated as assets for System Utilization with little regard for Individual Driver Efficiency and Net Income...again.

Why would Uber do this...oh, because "we can". That is the quote isn't it?


----------



## AltaClip (Feb 12, 2015)

That's my biggest concern getting requests 13+ mins away for the 2nd stacked trip.
Otherwise I'd be willing to test/use this if it went live.



OrlUberOffDriver said:


> Was a minute out from drop off app start beeping as if a request, I look and there is the box that you normally see when uber app is NOT in forground.
> I accepted, then app returned to current trip.
> As soon as I confirmed end trip it took me directly to second trip navigation. *13 ****ing minutes away!* **** NO! Canceled!
> Returned me to rate first rider.


----------



## T.O.Blues (Jul 16, 2015)

CityGirl said:


> Then again, it solves the Period 1 insurance gap problem, doesn't it?
> 
> http://www.uberpeople.net/threads/s...sit-outside-does-my-ca-insurnace-cover.27380/


As with every new "improvement" Uber comes up with, I only see negatives. I really love the sugar coated emails, trying to sell us on how it always translates into a great experience for the riders, and a lot more income for drivers. Like they really give a crap their drivers are making less $ by the day.
In their drive to constantly grow their profits, we keep getting screwed. What else is new???


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber Test Lets Drivers Accept New Ride Before Finishing Current One*
> *http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhu...rivers-pick-up-before-finishing-current-ride/*


Interesting that the Lieu case was settled "confidentially". I'm sure it was an Uber requirement.

I think the public has a right to know.

Journalists????


----------



## SCdave (Jun 27, 2014)

Now this is an example of how Stacked trip tailored by an "App Technology Company" to benefit the Rider, Driver, and the TNC App Company.

1) Driver takes Rider #1 to Airport.

2) While Driver is within 5 minutes (or some parameter designated by App Technology Company) of dropping Rider off, the 2nd Stack is initiated.

3) There is no need to Tap or Accept the Trip using your hands while driving since the Driver has already pre-entered his acceptable terms/parameters. Therefore the 2nd Stacked Trip is setup "hands-free". Only declining/canceling the 2nd Stacked Trip would take tapping the Uber Driver Screen to complete. Accepting would actually benefit the Driver and be the norm while declining/canceling would be rare.

4) The Stacked Ride has a Pick-up location at the Airport or a nearby Hotel at the Airport or within a very short distance of the Airport and for a Drop-Off location within 5 miles (or some Driver Parameter) of where the Driver wants to return to.

_* Just using Airport as an example. Different cities, small vs large international airports would need more involved routing?. Just using a basic example of actually benefiting the Driver._

This is how an App Technology Company would work this type of Stacked 2nd Ride to benefit Independent Contractor Partner-Drivers.

A Transportation Company with Employees would do it the way Uber now has it set-up.


----------



## CityGirl (Nov 29, 2014)

"Because we can." Yep.

So listen to the experience of a passenger I had this morning. Yesterday she flew into town and went to the Uber pickup area for Terminal 1. Her first Uber driver was 45 minutes away! After some confusion he cancelled. Her second driver was 25 minutes away and he called her to see where she was, and she could hear he had another passenger getting into his car. He said "I've gotta go" and hung up, didn't even cancel the ride. Both of these initially showed they were AT the airport. Then the third driver already had a second request when he picked her up. He thought something was wrong with the system, because he obviously didn't get the memo.

If this is violating the airport FIFO, first of all, I'm going to be pissed. The *only* time this is a good idea is if that driver with an existing passenger is closer than all other drivers. If people AT the airport are getting tagged on to people who are GOING TO the airport, that is not going to work. 

On top of it all, my passenger said the airport employee manning the kiosk saw all of this and was pushing her to just go to a taxi. No!!

With too much change at once, and not thinking it through, Uber has a mess on its hands. This will get them booted out of their trial period at the airport.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

If it works well, it will decrease the number of dead miles we drive to next call during busy periods. It has to take into account where we are dropping, how much longer we have, etc... and give to closest projected car to pax. Late at night this is going to suck because I have learned from experience: get pax downtown get them home fast, check surge, if surge, turn off app, get close to town then turn app back on. Why? Because if I get a drunk pax on surge 10 minutes away, they are never there when I get there! So that stacked ride is going to be a dud most of the time when the bars close if they are all in one area like they are here in RDU.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

This is a particularly interesting thread. Personally, as a taxi driver, the thought that stacking calls is treated with such suspicion is kind of interesting. The example given was a call that came in from an airport. Airports tend to be off the beaten path. Good lineups at an airport are somewhat a matter of luck. In an ideal world, many times, this is likely to be the case: You are en route TO the airport with a pax on board to drop someone leaving town. Under current protocol, An idle driver might wind up with the ping for the incoming pax and winds up trailing the lead Uber car by just a few minutes. Now, under this new system, a driver stands a better chance of entering the port, with a call already behind them. The pax will save time, but it will be obvious to neither driver nor pax what if any time was saved..... That should happen often enough.

As for the example given, the driver assumes the pax could have gotten a ride quicker by conventional protocol. Maybe. Hard to know. Fact is, Uber drivers already are getting jerked around, sent farther than they should be, cross dispatched etc........ Uber drivers are left in the dark. There is no team work, no communication, zero coordination. 

You will still get jerked around, but you already get jerked around, at worst, this should be a zero sum gain. All it needs to do at first is provide a couple nice lineups a night where before there where none, and it could prove to be an effort n the right direction.

Drivers talk as if it is routine to be sent 20 minutes for a pax already....... One example is just that, see how it plays out over a month's time.

On the downside: Clearly, Uber seems intent to use this a method to further dictate how much and when you drive. That is a result of their own choosing. That does not need to be a part of this protocol. They seem to want to control how you work and make it still tougher to drive Lyft too. This thread also shows the general level of distrust towards managerial decisions, rightly so. Uber is being duplicitous in the end.

The basic premise of stacking calls is simple common sense. Problem is the model has been about flooding the market with drivers and letting the app just run on auto pilot while drivers pay for mistakes via a poor trip rating.......... This could test the rating system in a new way when things do go wrong.


----------



## AltaClip (Feb 12, 2015)

I asked my area Mgr about a potential new 'stacking' option being tested in the US and he had no idea what I was talking about. He thought I was explaining 'pool' feature.
Uber Mgrs often plead ignorant so as not to give any useful information but I really do think he was clueless in this case lol.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

Apparently it's only happening in a few cities in the US as they test it, we'll see how it goes.


----------



## AltaClip (Feb 12, 2015)

I think it has potential unlike pool and other so called enhancements which mostly just stick it further up the drivers


----------



## SCdave (Jun 27, 2014)

Huberis said:


> This is a particularly interesting thread. Personally, as a taxi driver, the thought that stacking calls is treated with such suspicion is kind of interesting. The example given was a call that came in from an airport. Airports tend to be off the beaten path. Good lineups at an airport are somewhat a matter of luck. In an ideal world, many times, this is likely to be the case: You are en route TO the airport with a pax on board to drop someone leaving town. Under current protocol, An idle driver might wind up with the ping for the incoming pax and winds up trailing the lead Uber car by just a few minutes. Now, under this new system, a driver stands a better chance of entering the port, with a call already behind them. The pax will save time, but it will be obvious to neither driver nor pax what if any time was saved..... That should happen often enough.
> 
> As for the example given, the driver assumes the pax could have gotten a ride quicker by conventional protocol. Maybe. Hard to know. Fact is, Uber drivers already are getting jerked around, sent farther than they should be, cross dispatched etc........ Uber drivers are left in the dark. There is no team work, no communication, zero coordination.
> 
> ...


Yes, basic premise of Stacking is simple. But is Uber working it as a Transportation Company or as an App Technology Company just connecting Riders to Drivers.

Uber is saying with all Uber Trips but even more so with the Stacked 2nd Trips:

" You, the Drivers, are an employee. We are defining how far you are willing to drive dead miles (and pay out of your own pocket not ours), where you will pick up, where you will drop off, and how much you will get paid to do all of this for".


----------



## OrlUberOffDriver (Oct 27, 2014)

Disgusted Driver said:


> Apparently it's only happening in a few cities in the US as they test it, we'll see how it goes.


Not going well. This morning got a request, no sooner I tap accept and map to pick up comes up, I get another in top of the first one. 
Tap accept again for "2 request waiting" screen goes black. Nothing I could do, closed app, open again and nothing ...just as if I had nothing to go to. 
Lost both!


----------



## AltaClip (Feb 12, 2015)

Those kind of bugs are very frustrating but eventually get fixed. I'm more interested in the logic behind the stacking to ensure pax aren't waiting too long (increasing cancel or bad rating odds) and drivers are not driving more than 5-7 mins to the next pickup.



OrlUberOffDriver said:


> Not going well. This morning got a request, no sooner I tap accept and map to pick up comes up, I get another in top of the first one.
> Tap accept again for "2 request waiting" screen goes black. Nothing I could do, closed app, open again and nothing ...just as if I had nothing to go to.
> Lost both!


----------



## AltaClip (Feb 12, 2015)

Anyone know what cities / areas this is being tested?


----------



## UberXTampa (Nov 20, 2014)

Clearly they are piloting a beta version of the trip stacking feature with the intention of increasing the resource utilization.
If successful, both Uber as well as drivers would win.
Just give them a chance to fix the bugs and make it work. Software development is not an easy thing. If it were, everyone would do it.
How about sending Uber emails with suggestions on everything you want done differently?
Some of us might have a real good suggestion that Uber might actually listen to.
For example, in a market where this feature is being rolled out, they should have provided an option to opt out for a day/week/month or completely. some of us miht hate to be part fo the stacking approach.
Let's say, stacked trip request is explained when you log on to the app that has the feature in it for the very first time. Then it gives you an option to opt in or opt out in this experiment. If you opt in, you will be more positive and forgiving when a problem comes up. if you opt out, you have nothing to worry about, let other drivers take care of the experiment.

I think this is what Uber consistently does wrong: They do things, "because they can", and not "because it is the right thing to do". They have to adjust that cocky behavior.


----------



## SCdave (Jun 27, 2014)

UberXTampa said:


> Clearly they are piloting a beta version of the trip stacking feature with the intention of increasing the resource utilization.
> If successful, both Uber as well as drivers would win.
> Just give them a chance to fix the bugs and make it work. Software development is not an easy thing. If it were, everyone would do it.
> How about sending Uber emails with suggestions on everything you want done differently?
> ...


Maybe conducting the beta version in a smaller market might have been wiser?

Fixing bugs is common.

Drivers not being able to Opt-In to the Trial/Beta version but having to pay in added expenses and lost income for the Trial/Beta is, well, you know, really...how do I say this...Uber.


----------



## Viera Uber (Dec 29, 2014)

PlatypusMuerte said:


> berserk42 The only guarantee game I play is that my 2 teenagers burn through cash faster than I can print it LOL


Preach it brother! My GF and I have 4...3 of which are in college.


----------



## McGillicutty (Jan 12, 2015)

Sounds like a good way for Uber to try and stop drivers from cherry-picking surge trips, or determining whether the trip is too far or not. All the while creating a new distraction in the car.


----------



## bluebird (Jul 16, 2015)

Did you know an UBER Techy starts at over 100,000 per year. Look at your earnings and then tell me who you think matters to UBER!!!!!!


----------



## berserk42 (Apr 24, 2015)

bluebird said:


> Did you know an UBER Techy starts at over 100,000 per year. Look at your earnings and then tell me who you think matters to UBER!!!!!!


Duhhh, Uber is just a technology company! /s
And that's salary, not including benefits. Your uber earnings need to pay for your benefits too, if uber is all you got.


----------



## UberSneak (Dec 31, 2014)

This sounds like it could be a good thing, but with Uber's record for ruining everything they try to do, no doubt this will be bad for drivers somehow. 
And it's gonna suck for the pax when they wait for me to finish my first trip, and then get their request cancelled when I see there's a surge. I'll gladly take a slight knock to my acceptance rating. When was the last time anyone was even deactivated due to low acceptance??


----------



## Emp9 (Apr 9, 2015)

kinda sounds good that you can have a rider nearby ready as soon as you drop off the first pax. if you wish to take a break you dont accept it thats all.


----------



## Caplan121 (Jun 15, 2015)

There will definitely be some pros and cons to this procedure but we can only wait and see how it turns out


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

*This feature is straight off the taxi industry DDS,
In the taxi business this is called "Soon To Clear"*

This helps uber kill lyft, Don't make mistake if thinking this is to help uber drivers,

uber driver spends less time doing lyft,

No more ex taxi drivers like me doing the "soon to clear" thing with uber and lyft,

uber makes more money because many uber clients not see the "no Uber available in your area" so they not open the lyft app, less business for lyft.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Actually, Uber is telling you a story (what else is new?). The program can be set to allow either the driver to opt-in or opt out. If the programmer bases it on an opt-in system, only those who ask for a trip on drop off will be offered it. It could be a function of a second log-in. If the programmer bases it on an opt-out system, then it can be something similar to a limited log out.

On voice dispatch, this was easy to accomplish. If the dispatcher kept announcing a section to which you were going, you made an "en-route" bid. You could do it one of two ways: you tell the dispatcher where you are and where you are going and let him decide how soon you will drop, or, you tell the dispatcher where you are going and how soon you will drop.

Some electronic call assignment systems can work as computer aided dispatch, only. To do that, the dispatcher turns off the function in the computer that assigns calls and he then assigns them manually, in other words, he dispatches them. On some systems, he can stack up a driver with jobs. I worked on one like that. I have worked on one that was not set up to do that. The former was provided by a local rinkydink operation, the latter by an internationally known firm. The Rocket Scientists at the latter swore that the former could not be done, until I showed them the former's system. These are the same Rocket Scientists who swore that there was no such thing as a real time GPS (theirs gathers data and updates periodically). I showed these sexual intellectuals the real time GPS on the former's system, as well. The rinkydink system outperformed the biggie.


----------



## Altima ATL (Jul 13, 2015)

Way back when I lived in the UK - I drove for a 'mini-cab' company.

Taking your next job while still with rider (soon to clear - or POB) was a common practice. Normally any driver idle would have priority over anyone with a current fare, but was a way for the controller to be able to dispatch more calls - so yes I do see ride stacking as viable, but you would need to be within the last few minutes of the current trip.

As for circumventing surges - you think that Uber does not already account for the current riders about to clear in the surge zone? - Of course they do - but surges will still happen.

But for stacking - the new rider must be no more than maybe 5 minutes (or less) from your current ride drop off and should be less than 5 minutes from the end of your current ride (unless you are clearing in a less well served area - where parameters could be expanded).

Sure - probably several or more bugs to work out on it - but IMHO I think it will benefit both riders and drivers.

Also I think the next thing Uber should address is the ability of riders to 'pre-book' trips - e.g I need a ride to the airport at 8am tomorrow etc....

Slam me if you think I am loving Uber for this - I am not, but think this is a natural progression of the service they should be offering.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Altima ATL said:


> Way back when I lived in the UK - I drove for a 'mini-cab' company.
> 
> Taking your next job while still with rider (soon to clear - or POB) was a common practice. Normally any driver idle would have priority over anyone with a current fare, but was a way for the controller to be able to dispatch more calls - so yes I do see ride stacking as viable, but you would need to be within the last few minutes of the current trip.
> 
> ...


I agree, you only forgot to add, it benefits Uber too.


----------



## SCdave (Jun 27, 2014)

Altima ATL said:


> Way back when I lived in the UK - I drove for a 'mini-cab' company.
> 
> Taking your next job while still with rider (soon to clear - or POB) was a common practice. Normally any driver idle would have priority over anyone with a current fare, but was a way for the controller to be able to dispatch more calls - so yes I do see ride stacking as viable, but you would need to be within the last few minutes of the current trip.
> 
> ...


Yes, in a scenario where the Fare Rates include a Good Base Rate + Decent Time/Mileage, then Stacking for a Uber/TNC leans towards benefiting the Driver, also.

But when there is little to No Base Rate + Extremely Low Time/Mileage, then Stacking is now leaning towards predominately benefiting Uber/the TNC.

The caveat? Uber/TNCs need to provide good parameters that Drivers can set for Stacking to benefit the Driver.


----------



## robofury (Jul 14, 2015)

elelegido said:


> I didn't get it either. Or today's earnings statement for last week.


My weekly earning statement and summary for the bussiest hours started coming every two weeks


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Altima ATL said:


> Normally any driver idle would have priority over anyone with a current fare,
> 
> But for stacking - the new rider must be no more than maybe 5 minutes (or less) from your current ride drop off and should be less than 5 minutes from the end of your current ride (unless you are clearing in a less well served area - where parameters could be expanded).
> 
> Also I think the next thing Uber should address is the ability of riders to 'pre-book' trips - e.g I need a ride to the airport at 8am tomorrow etc....


1. That was the general rule on voice dispatch here. In some companies, the dispatcher was given the discretion to break that rule on an "open spot". You define an "open spot" as a public or open place, on a major street, where many cabs pass and people are likely to take the first thing that shows up. Hotels, bars, restaurants, certain hospitals, office buildings (daytime only) fall into this category. Rather than pull a driver from a stand or place where he could find pick-ups, you would assign the call to the driver headed that way with a customer. If that driver got a NSP (no-show), then it did not hurt him, that much. There was often similar discretion on a local or otherwise trashy job. Rather than run someone for something like that, if you gave it to a driver headed that way with someone, it did not hurt him as much.

2. Absent a human being to make determinations, I would make the five minutes a hard and fast rule for all situations. If the job originates in an underserved area, it will still be there when the en route driver drops. If another driver pops up before the en route driver drops, so much better for the customer. In consideration of the customer, there could be a feature programmed into the application that informs the customer that while there are no vehicles currently available in his area, there are ________vehicles en route and does the customer want to wait?

3. My Taxi already does this. It alerts its drivers as soon as the user posts a "pre-book". The application lets the driver see the address of the request and the due time and date. This allows drivers who want to have a trip to start their morning do so. The page will show the number of unclaimed pre-books. You can touch it, and it will show the street, date and time of all unclaimeds. If you touch the specific trip, it will show the full address, name, due date and time. It will offer you the opportunity to accept it right then. There are other call assignment systems at the various cab companies that allow the entering of time calls. Back in the paper days, we would accept the time calls no more than twenty four hours in advance. Paper tickets had, and still have, a nasty habit of getting lost. The computer allows you store advance bookings indefinitely.

I stopped accepting the pre-books on My Taxi. I gave it three tries. Every time I spent too much time hanging around for a mediocre job. Three strikes and you're out, Jack. One time, the user paid through the application and did not tip. ( I do not like getting flatted as it is, _I hate_ getting flatted on a non-cash fare, as it means that I do not receive my _full_ fare. Yes, I know, it is pennies on the dollar, but the tips are supposed to subsidise the fees, among other things). My Taxi did give the user an opportunity to enter an airport destination, but not everyone did that. I got more than a few trips from them where the user was going to an airport, but did not so indicate. In additon, My Taxi passed out smart telephones to hotel desk clerks with the application installed. The hotel employees would put in the airport icon regardless of the guest's destination, in an effort to get a quick response. If it was, in fact, an airport, what that meant was that the doorman;s or desk clerk's butt buddy was late or did not show up; either that or the hotel employee could not find a street cab willing to buy the job.


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

Get ready for lots of cancels.


----------



## Mark Mountjoy (Jan 17, 2016)

PlatypusMuerte said:


> This will cause problems for those folks that enter a destination that is _very_ wrong, and verbally tells you where they meant to go. Several times at night I get very bad destination, and the rider says sorry I know I did it wrong, but I am trying to get to "abc street", and the destination never gets updated. That would really suck to get a 2nd trip request in southern part of city when I am actually headed a ways north....
> 
> They need to do more to get riders to enter destinations and or incentive to update them when not correct.


I think stacking is greedy and rude; it can also be very overwhelming!!!


----------



## Mark Mountjoy (Jan 17, 2016)

painfreepc said:


> Get ready for lots of cancels.


I called a lady to tell her I had a trip ready and she hung up on me.


----------



## Mark Mountjoy (Jan 17, 2016)

Huberis said:


> This is a particularly interesting thread. Personally, as a taxi driver, the thought that stacking calls is treated with such suspicion is kind of interesting. The example given was a call that came in from an airport. Airports tend to be off the beaten path. Good lineups at an airport are somewhat a matter of luck. In an ideal world, many times, this is likely to be the case: You are en route TO the airport with a pax on board to drop someone leaving town. Under current protocol, An idle driver might wind up with the ping for the incoming pax and winds up trailing the lead Uber car by just a few minutes. Now, under this new system, a driver stands a better chance of entering the port, with a call already behind them. The pax will save time, but it will be obvious to neither driver nor pax what if any time was saved..... That should happen often enough.
> 
> As for the example given, the driver assumes the pax could have gotten a ride quicker by conventional protocol. Maybe. Hard to know. Fact is, Uber drivers already are getting jerked around, sent farther than they should be, cross dispatched etc........ Uber drivers are left in the dark. There is no team work, no communication, zero coordination.
> 
> ...


UBER is playing hardball.


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

PlatypusMuerte said:


> This will cause problems for those folks that enter a destination that is _very_ wrong, and verbally tells you where they meant to go. Several times at night I get very bad destination, and the rider says sorry I know I did it wrong, but I am trying to get to "abc street", and the destination never gets updated. That would really suck to get a 2nd trip request in southern part of city when I am actually headed a ways north....
> 
> They need to do more to get riders to enter destinations and or incentive to update them when not correct.


No one has a problem entering address for Uber pool or lyfr line, share ride clients are a-holes just like taxicab clients..


----------

