# 8.9 surge. damn!!!



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

https://www.facebook.com/uberfreedom/photos/pb.1583946215198154.-2207520000.1445136779./16447903


----------



## TurboChris (Sep 30, 2015)

Wow!


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

yup. strike will work if we unite.


----------



## bart2puck (Jul 26, 2015)

Lol this map is fake. I was driving all night fri sat and this did not occur.


----------



## UberMeansSuper (Aug 3, 2015)

Font's a little off. "1-800-BULL-SH!T, this is Travis..."


----------



## Emp9 (Apr 9, 2015)

i think its fake , i was checking from time to time, and never saw anything like that, in fact im pretty sure surges are capped at 5x


----------



## vip (Jul 10, 2015)

I saw surge go up to 6.3 I my area over the weekend. I was shocked. It was right when a college football game let out. The traffic looked horrible on the map. It would have been impossible to locate or pick up a pax.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

jrboy said:


> https://www.facebook.com/uberfreedom/photos/pb.1583946215198154.-2207520000.1445136779./16447903


FAKE
https://www.facebook.com/uberfreedo...total_comments=4&comment_tracking={"tn":"R9"}


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

i wonder what the plan will be for the next strike?


----------



## papilovesyou (Dec 24, 2014)

that was new years surge map.. noone got it though


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

i guess this is the plan



__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1644735342452574


----------



## bart2puck (Jul 26, 2015)

this is the guy leading the strike? oh boy.....

1) uber took notice - they noticed there were 30-40 drivers (-3:03) out of no less then 17,000 drivers in the SF area. They probably chuckled.
2) (-1:40) goto airport lots and park without turning on app - again, pissing off drivers that cant/wont strike, does nothing to get more drivers on board. Strikes are about uniting those who demand more. This tactic, plus the cancel tactic does 100% exact opposite.
3) we got media coverage (0:00)- A screaming baby gets attention, does mean it gets what it wants. Someone that has no view into the operating costs of Uber is demanding an arbitrary non-negotiable 60% raise. 
4) surge = strike is working? (-2:41) - had a 3.1x in dc on friday night. talk to a few riders. guess what. 4 colleges within a sq mile had parents week, that is a tonnnn of people going out to dinner. It is extemely specious to say the surge was because of the strike. As the great Lisa Simpsons once told Homer. "I have a bear repellant rock, you dont see any bears around. do you?" "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."


The mindset of this guy is so far away from what a real strike is made of, what it can do.


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

bart2puck said:


> this is the guy leading the strike? oh boy.....
> 
> 1) uber took notice - they noticed there were 30-40 drivers (-3:03) out of no less then 17,000 drivers in the SF area. They probably chuckled.
> 2) (-1:40) goto airport lots and park without turning on app - again, pissing off drivers that cant/wont strike, does nothing to get more drivers on board. Strikes are about uniting those who demand more. This tactic, plus the cancel tactic does 100% exact opposite.
> ...


1.he is referring to 30-40 drivers protesting at uber hq. true small numbers protested in person. but that's because of fear of deactivation. many drivers just chose to go offline. 2. who cares if we piss off non striking drivers. 3. media coverage was important because it brought awareness to pax concerning the deception and to people considering driving for uber. 4 it would have surged more but many pax took other means of transportation, because of our effort to get the word out to our pax. and if you don't think pax downloading lyft has a lasting effect you better ask lisa.


----------



## bart2puck (Jul 26, 2015)

That is exactly the problem. "who cares if we piss off non striking drivers". how do you expect to get more people on your side if you keep pissing them off?


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

bart2puck said:


> That is exactly the problem. "who cares if we piss off non striking drivers". how do you expect to get more people on your side if you keep pissing them off?


we are helping drivers. if you are driving for uber you're doing it all wrong anyway. uber is the one screwing drivers. telling pax not to tip us for our service is an insult to all drivers.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

jrboy said:


> we are helping drivers. if you are driving for uber you're doing it all wrong anyway. uber is the one screwing drivers. telling pax not to tip us for our service is an insult to all drivers.


Part of the trouble is that by transferring the burden of ownership on the shoulders of the driver, the number of drivers on the road is not linked to or limited by the cost of operating the fleet.

Uber is able to run extremely low prices in mature markets ( do what they want really) because for one, the sheer surplus of cars virtually insists on it, and Uber doesn't need to respect the costs of keeping a car on the road. That so many Uber drivers are so very casual about it further bolsters the issues.

It is one thing for drivers to try to somehow fight Uber, protest, disrupt the usual patterns in order to force Uber to somehow raise rates. What the walk off may do more effectively though less consciously is address the very real issue of having way too many drivers on in a mature market if sustainability is a concern. Uber divorced itself from the reality of operating the cars (that will not change when they get to driver-less cars btw), there are too many cars on the road.

Simply raising rates will not suffice, there needs to be a different way of modulating the number of drivers logged on. The current system rewards those who can afford to cherry pick, the very people who don't need to drive full time. It benefits the person with money, looking for a hobby. The people who need to really hammer it out, they pay for the system so it can operate as designed by suffering through noncompetitive money losing rates with the hope of getting lucky or a foothold.

At the very least, the walk off suggests that drivers can consciously decide for themselves that it in their interest to determine when they do or do not drive in a way that is not directed by the app or surge pricing itself. That alone is a significant step forward or could be.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

jrboy said:


> 1.he is referring to 30-40 drivers protesting at uber hq. true small numbers protested in person. but that's because of fear of deactivation. many drivers just chose to go offline. 2. who cares if we piss off non striking drivers. 3. media coverage was important because it brought awareness to pax concerning the deception and to people considering driving for uber. 4 it would have surged more but many pax took other means of transportation, because of our effort to get the word out to our pax. and if you don't think pax downloading lyft has a lasting effect you better ask lisa.


Drivers are cluck..cluck..cluck chicken! If you can't show up in person & support drivers in your local market then your bad! Deacivation? DFW drivers were not worried about that on Friday & Monday. Drivers were not deactivated. When media shows up numbers are important.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Huberis said:


> Part of the trouble is that by transferring the burden of ownership on the shoulders of the driver, the number of drivers on the road is not linked to or limited by the cost of operating the fleet.
> 
> Uber is able to run extremely low prices in mature markets ( do what they want really) because for one, the sheer surplus of cars virtually insists on it, and Uber doesn't need to respect the costs of keeping a car on the road. That so many Uber drivers are so very casual about it further bolsters the issues.
> 
> ...


Gaming UBER X with very selective SURGE ONLY participation is really the preferred method for many X drivers. X is by design only viable in SURGE mode. So drivers game it, and customers game it too. Only they're (customers) are trying to defeat the SURGE. The funny thing is that UBER is artificially manipulating the SURGE at the same time. What a world!


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

Huberis said:


> Part of the trouble is that by transferring the burden of ownership on the shoulders of the driver, the number of drivers on the road is not linked to or limited by the cost of operating the fleet.
> 
> Uber is able to run extremely low prices in mature markets ( do what they want really) because for one, the sheer surplus of cars virtually insists on it, and Uber doesn't need to respect the costs of keeping a car on the road. That so many Uber drivers are so very casual about it further bolsters the issues.
> 
> ...


even with less cars on the road you will still be driving at the same rates. yeah you will get more pings equaling more money but also more miles on your car, more gas more wear and tear, etc. we have expenses, so we must be able to drive at better rates in order to make a profit. you are stating the same type of concept that uber tries to deceive us with,- rate cuts = more earnings for the driver. that's bs. uber may not respect the cost to the driver but the driver needs to take that into account for himself. we can't just ignore that there is a cost to drive and pretend that we are making what uber says we are making, when in fact we are making less than minimum wage. you think that the real issue is having too many cars on the road, well it may be an issue, but the real issue is uber's corruption and deception. e.g. telling pax to not tip us, $2.40 minimum trip, srf increase, no cancellation fee, threats of deactivation..................


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

Txchick said:


> Drivers are cluck..cluck..cluck chicken! If you can't show up in person & support drivers in your local market then your bad! Deacivation? DFW drivers were not worried about that on Friday & Monday. Drivers were not deactivated. When media shows up numbers are important.


it doesn't matter if they are chicken or chicken shit, the fact remains that they are not willing to protest in person.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

volksie said:


> Good Morning Strikers,
> I striked (struck?) Fri-Sat but I need to drive today. It's 5:30 am & I'm seeing cars disappear as fast as they appear on the riders app with no surges. I 100% believe Uber manipulated the surge. It's wet outside and when it rains I don't sell myself for anything less than XL (my personal surge).
> Edited at 10:15 am: I'm back home after 1 good fare! I think the riders are striking too! Uber is also blocking access to the rider app while you're on drivers app.


Is that right? UBER is blocking access to the passenger app while the driver's app is active?


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

X needs to be at or above prevailing local taxi rates. They should test that sort of pricing in select markets for 6 months. I would predict a slight drop in volume, coupled with higher net revenue for drivers and UBER alike. Customers would see a drop in SURGE pricing as well. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

After that test, then UBER should test whether capping the numbers of drivers results in favorable outcomes. I contend that a smaller driver fleet would actually be smarter. Greater per driver participation and less management overhead would result.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

jrboy said:


> it doesn't matter if they are chicken or chicken shit, the fact remains that they are not willing to protest in person.


You have to do both.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

jrboy said:


> you are stating the same type of concept that uber tries to deceive us with,- rate cuts = more earnings for the driver.





jrboy said:


> uber may not respect the cost to the driver but the driver needs to take that into account for himself. we can't just ignore that there is a cost to drive and pretend


That is not what I am stating. I am suggesting that Uber has divorced itself from the cost of operating a car for hire. They have also skirted any kind of barrier in the form of meaningful regulation. That in turn permits the corruption and deception you make note of.

The problem is that the institution that is TNC foments exactly this kind of issue. It is inherent in the DNA. Uber is able to gather an almost unlimited number of drivers or at least they are able to actually take on peak demand in a way that is noticed. That isn't possible in most places if the same people also need to concern themselves with the costs to run all those cars. If Uber had ownership of those cars, they surely couldn't afford to let them sit idel the rest of the day.

I have never suggested that lower costs equals more earnings for drivers. However, a lack of limits on Uber in terms of onboarding new drivers, their ability to have such a huge surples of drivers on hand is something which is very likely to push down the prevailing base rate. Also, the surge pricing model itself is prime for abuse of both pax and driver over time. There is a long list of reasons why the 1x rate is so low in mature markets. It doesn't seem to be a matter of Kalanick simply wanting to make taking an Uber less than owning a car or taking a bus. There are all sorts of reasons which have been mentioned.



jrboy said:


> but the real issue is uber's corruption and deception. e.g. telling pax to not tip us, $2.40 minimum trip, srf increase, no cancellation fee, threats of deactivation


Corruption and deception. True enough, in my opinion, by my observation, what you re focusing on are more likely to be the side effects of that corruption you sense is pervasive. I couldn't agree with you more with respect to those two concerns, but you need to go much deeper, look at the structure which is enabling what you mention. That is just my opinion. I see the things yo mention as simple logical, easily predicted side effects.

I should openly admit, I believe the struggle to right the hip is a worthwhile one, but I do not believe the ship that is Uber is savable. I believe it will need to be a casualty of the cause if the actual industry to to deliver on its promise. Regulators will need to step in and create meaningful reform, regulate in a real way which is helpful while not being backwards as is taxi regulation.

I have never suggested that lower rates equals more money. I have always believed that the way Uber is structured, has always suggested these issues would be unavoidable for drivers. Uber is not self limited, It is the drivers who pay the cost of Uber operating without boundaries. To simply raise base rates is not nearly enough, it is naive.

The current reality is designed to modulate the number of drivers on the road. That absolutely needs to be accounted for. The extremely low base rates are also mostly symptoms of far greater issues. I have stated this before, Uber came to my town late. I was able to observe markets which were mature and offering poor return, new markets with high returns. I could see the transition and how it happened. All those observations did was confirm what I already assumed to be the logical outcome given that Uber doesn't own the cars and operates in a way which allows them to et the prices.

You are fighting the good fight, I respect your efforts. I believe any effort intended to disrupt this disruptor is energy well spent. that said, this industry needs deep reform, every bit as much as the taxi industry itself. To simply raise the rates would be merely putting on a band-aid and temporary at best.


----------



## Einstein (Oct 10, 2015)

Huberis said:


> To simply raise the rates would be merely putting on a band-aid and temporary at best.


I disagree.

Raising the rates while controlling the supply of cars in a given market, if done appropriately, will solve 80% of the problem.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

Einstein said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Raising the rates while controlling the supply of cars in a given market, if done appropriately, will solve 80% of the problem.


It's not the same thing. You just quoted me as saying "to simply raising the rates". You added the imperative of modulating the number of cars on the road. Those are two different things. You are correct about a need to modulate the number of drivers logged on or onboarded.

In order for that to happen - to attend to the actual number of cars for working throughout the course of the day, that is an involved process.

Most of the the discussion on this forum ends at simply raise rates. If you read through my comments, I almost always add that drivers would need to introduce an effective method for modulating the number of drivers. I have stated exactly that repeatedly.


----------



## Einstein (Oct 10, 2015)

Agreed. But most of the modulation issue can be resolved by limiting the raw supply of drivers having access to the platform. Trying to control the supply of cars in a real-time manner would only create more problems for the drivers. Drivers learn quickly where to roam or idle to find rides, as well as what times of day have peak demand. They will regulate themselves accordingly. But if there are too many drivers in the pool to begin with, everybody suffers.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

EInstein, you are preaching to the choir. My basic contention is that drivers involved with the effort to increase rates seem largely unwilling to take on the need to in turn acknowledge that the number of drivers will somehow need to be modulated, regulated or somehow curbed.



Einstein said:


> f there are too many drivers in the pool to begin with, everybody suffers.


agreed.


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

all that don't matter if travis don't care about nothing but profit for uber.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

jrboy said:


> all that don't matter if travis don't care about nothing but profit for uber.


The low rates are more about antitrust issues. It is about protecting his market share. Uber doesn't make money. Uber does however leverage a lot of venture capital and they invest it in developing intellectual property to be licensed. Kalanick wants that app on every phone. He can study your behavior patterns and needs. He can market to you, on and on. That in and of itself is its own thing that goes way beyond driving people from A to B.

Travis gives zero regard for Uber's profitability. They lose money. Look at what they did with Carnegie Mellon's robotics department for example. The Wall Street Journal had a good piece. They have all kinds of coals in the file. Ask yourself if Uber fits the mold of a Ponzi scheme.


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

Txchick said:


> You have to do both.


i don't believe so. if we simply unite and go offline we can make more of an impact. uber does not have cars. uber does not drive uber, we drive uber.


----------



## jrboy (Sep 14, 2015)

Txchick said:


> You have to do both.






__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=942852602460616


uber is just an app


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Huberis said:


> That is not what I am stating. I am suggesting that Uber has divorced itself from the cost of operating a car for hire. They have also skirted any kind of barrier in the form of meaningful regulation. That in turn permits the corruption and deception you make note of.
> 
> The problem is that the institution that is TNC foments exactly this kind of issue. It is inherent in the DNA. Uber is able to gather an almost unlimited number of drivers or at least they are able to actually take on peak demand in a way that is noticed. That isn't possible in most places if the same people also need to concern themselves with the costs to run all those cars. If Uber had ownership of those cars, they surely couldn't afford to let them sit idel the rest of the day.
> 
> ...


Outstanding comments. I'm not sure UBER is smart enough to see these obvious truths.


----------

