Uber and Lyft Waive Fees for Victims of Las Vegas Attack

11560 Views 130 Replies 33 Participants Last post by heynow321, Nov 9, 2017

BurgerTiime

Discussion Starter · Oct 2, 2017

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/10/uber-and-lyft-waive-fees-for-victims-of-las-vegas-attack.html

Photo: David Becker/Getty Images
In the hours following the deadliest mass shooting America has ever seen, Uber and Lyft were swift to respond to the needs of their affected customers, changing their pricing structures in the Las Vegas area in order to better assist victims of the attack.

In a statement made to Mashable, Uber said that charges would be waived for all rides that occurred "around the affected area" Sunday evening, and confirmed that the company would continue to offer free trips for passengers going to and from a variety of crisis-related locations.

Our hearts ache for everyone affected by this senseless tragedy. We stand ready to support the victims and the Las Vegas community as they recover from this devastating act. Shortly after hearing about the incident, we worked to ensure all rides from around the affected area were free of charge. Additionally, we are providing free rides to and from area hospitals, the family reunification center, and United Blood Services donor centers for those who wish to donate blood.

The report by Mashable also confirmed that while competitor Lyft did not offer free rides to affected passengers at the time of the attack, the company did waive the fees associated with "Prime Time" (its version of surge pricing) citywide last night, after being made aware of the situation.

We're heartbroken. Our thoughts are with the victims and their loved ones. We suspended Prime Time immediately after we understood what was happening. We also communicated to drivers about the developing situation.

Both companies have been intensely criticized for their responses to previous terror attacks, which often resulted in passengers facing exorbitant fees due to high surge pricing in the midst of a crisis. Though they refunded the affected customers after the fact, the majority of critics cited the move as too little too late, as the damage to those trying to flee the attack was already done. This was likely the inspiration behind the swift, proactive measures taken by Uber and Lyft this time around. And it is likely why customers have had such a resoundingly positive response to the companies' actions:

See less See more

Reactions: 4

1 - 20 of 131 Posts

Disgusted Driver

· #2 · Oct 2, 2017

That's wonderful and all but what about the drivers? It's great pr for them but the drivers are bearing most of the expense.

Reactions: 5

Jo3030

· #3 · Oct 3, 2017

Just for PR purposes.
They should still pay the surge rates to the drivers.

Reactions: 5

uberdriverfornow

· #4 · Oct 3, 2017

Uber and Lyft can't have it both ways, if they want to call us independent contractors then nothing should change on the driver side. They are paying us according to the agreement. If they want to lose money giving out free rides to customers that's their business.

Hopefully people in that area can chime in on anything that should change to driver rates.

Reactions: 5

Disgusted Driver

· #5 · Oct 3, 2017

uberdriverfornow said:
Uber and Lyft can't have it both ways, if they want to call us independent contractors then nothing should change on the driver side. They are paying us according to the agreement. If they want to lose money giving out free rides to customers that's their business.

Hopefully people in that area can chime in on anything that should change to driver rates.

I agree yet uber has a long-standing rule that they cap surge in a state of emergency. We bear the brunt of that because we are asked to drive in hazardous conditions for maybe 2x.

Reactions: 2

getawaycar

· #6 · Oct 3, 2017

Disgusted Driver said:
I agree yet uber has a long-standing rule that they cap surge in a state of emergency. We bear the brunt of that because we are asked to drive in hazardous conditions for maybe 2x.

What hazardous conditions? The shooter was dead long before Uber waived the fees.

As a passenger what's the point of using rideshare if its going to be more expensive than a traditional taxi? At least a taxi doesn't try to gouge you with surge pricing because their price is always the same.

Jo3030

· #7 · Oct 3, 2017

I agree -- we shouldn't be driving in hazardous conditions.

Reactions: 5

Disgusted Driver

· #8 · Oct 3, 2017

getawaycar said:
What hazardous conditions? The shooter was dead long before Uber waived the fees.

As a passenger what's the point of using rideshare if its going to be more expensive than a traditional taxi? At least a taxi doesn't try to gouge you with surge pricing because their price is always the same.

I was using state of emergency/ hazardous conditions as an example of when uber is doing something for their customers on our backs.

As to why you would pay more for rideshare than a taxi, that's easy. If you want a fast clean ride, you'll pay it. If there are plenty of cabs around then you won't.

Uberfunitis

· #9 · Oct 3, 2017

Jo3030 said:
Just for PR purposes.
They should still pay the surge rates to the drivers.

That would actually be bad PR I believe as it shows that the drivers are profiting because of a tragedy, that their motivation is not to be helpful but to chase extra earnings. By showing them responding at normal pay it shows everyone pulling together and helping the community.

Disgusted Driver

· #10 · Oct 3, 2017 (Edited)

what right does uber have to give away or discount the labors of their independent contractors? Legally they probably have a right to set the price at anything above 0 but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
I should take care of the public in times of emergency but the public does not need to take care of me? Seems a bit onesided. Uberfunitis You have no trouble accepting market forces when it gets you a cheap ride but you reject market forces in this case. Seems like your guiding principal is cheap ride even if it screws the driver.

Reactions: 5

Uberfunitis

· #11 · Oct 3, 2017

Disgusted Driver said:
what right does uber have to give away or discount the labors of their independent contractors? Legally they probably have a right to set the prove at anything above 0 but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
I should take care of the public in times of emergency but the public does not need to take care of me? Seems a bit insides. Uberfunitis You have no trouble accepting market forces when it gets you a cheap ride but you reject market forces in this case. Seems like your guiding principal is cheap ride even if it screws the driver.

I am for market forces when not in time of disaster and tragedy to me that is price gouging and taking advantage of the situation. The statement that I replied to said it would be good PR to pay surge to the driver even though the passenger was not being charged surge. I do not think that would make for good PR on Ubers part at all especially as the general public sees the drivers and Uber as one.

Reactions: 1

heynow321

· #12 · Oct 3, 2017

uber is not some public utility. riders have should have NO expectation of a cheap and always available ride. there is no guarantee of that. If you're going to completely forfeit your transportation needs to a private independent contractor 3rd party, you always run this risk.

if you want a guaranteed cheap ride that's always available whenever you want it, drive your own car.

Reactions: 5

Uberfunitis

· #13 · Oct 3, 2017

heynow321 said:
uber is not some public utility. riders have should have NO expectation of a cheap and always available ride. there is no guarantee of that. If you're going to completely forfeit your transportation needs to a private independent contractor 3rd party, you always run this risk.

if you want a guaranteed cheap ride that's always available whenever you want it, drive your own car.

The same concept applies to fuel for example in most states the owner of the gas station can get in trouble if they inflate their prices after an disaster or emergency.

There is no expectation that a taxi or an Uber or even gas will be there when you need it but there is an expectation that people will not take advantage of the situation and profiteer off the disaster or emergency.

Reactions: 1

heynow321

· #14 · Oct 3, 2017

i have no problem with "gouging" if it's based off dramatic increases in demand. high prices cure high prices. if the price for a commodity is high, it serves as a fantastic motivator for suppliers to get more of that commodity to whatever given market place is paying for it, thus eventually creating lower prices from over supply.

what's better? a more expensive ride to compensate the stupid driver for the insane risk and liability he is assuming or no ride at all b/c those are the only two choices.

Reactions: 2

Uberfunitis

· #15 · Oct 3, 2017

heynow321 said:
i have no problem with "gouging" if it's based off dramatic increases in demand. high prices cure high prices. if the price for a commodity is high, it serves as a fantastic motivator for suppliers to get more of that commodity to whatever given market place is paying for it, thus eventually creating lower prices from over supply.

what's better? a more expensive ride to compensate the stupid driver for the insane risk and liability he is assuming or no ride at all b/c those are the only two choices.

There are laws against gouging in most places so while you may make a higher profit, the government will attempt to recover as much of that profit plus additional punitive amounts if they can, and they should in my openion. Not only that you have some very bad PR to deal with if you show that the company tried to profit off a tragedy.

What you propose is not the only two choices they can and in fact they did offer normal pricing, and it worked out, people got their rides home that they needed from what I have seen and drivers and the companies did not profit more than normal to make it happen.

hulksmash

· #16 · Oct 3, 2017

Uberfunitis said:
That would actually be bad PR I believe as it shows that the drivers are profiting because of a tragedy, that their motivation is not to be helpful but to chase extra earnings. By showing them responding at normal pay it shows everyone pulling together and helping the community.

Of course drivers motivation is to chase extra earnings. Even first responders won't work for free, the city has to pay them overtime. They also get compensated for the inherent risks, for which drivers don't. I don't think the public would care if the drivers profited as long as it wasn't at the riders expense.

I actually think it would be great PR for Uber if they paid drivers extra without collecting extra from riders. They'd look good for the public since they didn't jack up prices, and because they enticed additional drivers to come help. They would also look good with drivers for compensating them for the added risk and chaos.

What Uber did was bend over for the public more than necessary (giving rides for free instead of just keeping them at base rate) while underpaying drivers based on demand, and potentially creating a shortage of drivers. Lyft had the right idea by just shutting off prime time...but again they would also create a driver shortage unless they offered up some incentive to the drivers.

See less See more

Reactions: 3

Uberfunitis

· #17 · Oct 3, 2017

hulksmash said:
Of course drivers motivation is to chase extra earnings. Even first responders won't work for free, the city has to pay them overtime. They also get compensated for the inherent risks, for which drivers don't. I don't think the public would care if the drivers profited as long as it wasn't at the riders expense.

I actually think it would be great PR for Uber if they paid drivers extra without collecting extra from riders. They'd look good for the public since they didn't jack up prices, and because they enticed additional drivers to come help. They would also look good with drivers for compensating them for the added risk and chaos.

What Uber did was bend over for the public more than necessary (giving rides for free instead of just keeping them at base rate) while underpaying drivers based on demand, and potentially creating a shortage of drivers. Lyft had the right idea by just shutting off prime time...but again they would also create a driver shortage unless they offered up some incentive to the drivers.

I have not seen people complaining about being stranded, so it would seem that compensation was high enough to get enough drivers to do what was needed.

heynow321

· #18 · Oct 3, 2017

hulksmash said:
e...but again they would also create a driver shortage unless they offered up some incentive to the drivers.

exactly. how many drivers do you think hightailed it BACK to the scene to pick up more people when they figured out there was an active shooter? only the most brain dead among us....

Reactions: 1

PrestonT

· #19 · Oct 3, 2017

Disgusted Driver said:
That's wonderful and all but what about the drivers? It's great pr for them but the drivers are bearing most of the expense.

As a LV driver, I have zero problem with driving at base fare during these dark hours. There are plenty of us drivers that don't need to be paid surge to get out there and get not only the victims but visitors and locals moving.

Honestly, if this were something foreseeable like a hurricane, I might feel differently. Since we weren't hit by a hurricane, I can't say for certain.

Reactions: 3

Uberfunitis

· #20 · Oct 3, 2017

heynow321 said:
exactly. how many drivers do you think hightailed it BACK to the scene to pick up more people when they figured out there was an active shooter? only the most brain dead among us....

I don't think the city wanted them to be close enough to be in danger in fact I would say that would have been causing a major problem for the police.

Reactions: 1

1 - 20 of 131 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.