Ride-hailing vs. ride-hailingTaxi, let's talk about Pudong Airport!
There are very few beneficiaries and supporters, and there are many opponents who may be damaged.
I've always been a staunch supporter of ride-hailing, which is convenient, fast, and efficient. I went to Hong Kong a few times ago, and the most unbearable thing is that there is no good online car-hailing in Hong Kong. In the mainland, I am used to Didi, and I no longer have the habit of giving money when I get off the car. In Hong Kong, you have to remind yourself not to forget to get out of the car and give money. Once, there was an emergency, and as soon as I got out of the car, a roar broke out from behind, and I didn't give money? The change of taxis in Hong Kong is generally not rounded, but rounded. 50 yuan 1 jiao, will default to 51 yuan. The change below 10 yuan is basically coins, and when you get change, there are a bunch of coins in your pocket.
Uber should have entered Beijing and Hong Kong in 2014, but it did very much in Hong Kong. The conflict between the taxi industry and the ride-hailing industry has always existed in Hong Kong. In November last year, taxi drivers had planned a strike, but it was canceled under the coordination of **.
In fact, it is not the taxi drivers who are really resolutely opposed to online car-hailing in Hong Kong, but the holders of taxi licenses.
From 2008 to 2013, Hong Kong's taxi license doubled in five years, making it a good investment product. At the time of the 2008 financial crisis, Hong Kong's taxi licences remained at 3.2 million. 5 million in January 2010, 6 million in August 2012, and 7.66 million on June 6, 2013. In just 5 years** doubled.
Many Hong Kong taxi license holders, many of them do not drive, but rent the car to the driver to collect the car rent or hand over the car to the taxi company to take care of the car owner, who entrusts the taxi company to take care of the car only need to pay 1,000 to 2,000 yuan per month for the service fee, can sit at home to collect rent. According to the statistics of the Hong Kong Transport Department in August 2013, among the owners with taxi licenses, the total number of owners with less than 10 urban taxis was 7,661, with a total of 10,990 taxis, while the remaining 127 owners owned 4,260 urban taxis, with an average of 34 per capita. The owners with the most taxi licenses have 682 urban taxi licenses, 193 New Territories taxi licenses, and 8 Lantau taxi licenses. According to the ** at that time, the valuation of taxi licenses reached 6 billion yuan.
The procedure for transferring a taxi license is not complicated, and the transfer documents and transactions can be completed within one day. Just like buying a house, buying a taxi license plate can also be used for a mortgage. In 2013, calculated at a price of 6.8 million yuan, the monthly rental income of car owners was 240,000 yuan (double shift driver), with an annual rate of return of up to 4%. Much higher than the loan interest rate at the time.
There are a number of advantages to investing in a taxi license. Compared with buying a house, the purchase of a taxi license does not require brokerage commissions, stamp duty and attorney fees, and the purchase of the same ** taxi license and building, the "scattered handling fee" that needs to be paid for investing in a taxi license is only 13 of buying a house5%, and the taxi plate itself does not affect the value of the building as it ages.
Then, in 2014, ride-hailing came. Since 2015, Hong Kong's taxi license plate has been all the way. The urban license fell by more than 50% from nearly $7 million,** to $3.57 million in 2024, compared to the high point in 2013. In July 2015, Uber began to recruit drivers in Hong Kong in a high-profile manner, and then the license plate ** went all the way down.
Under the Road Traffic Ordinance of Hong Kong, no person shall allow a person to drive or use a motor vehicle for hire or profit unless a licence has been issued, and is liable on first conviction to a fine of HK$5,000 and to imprisonment for three months, and for a second offence to a fine of HK$10,000 and imprisonment for six months. Uber's business is not legal in Hong Kong, but since its birth, Uber has been repeatedly playing with regulators in various countries.
In July 2015, a march of hundreds of taxis broke out in Hong Kong, who threw jobs in front of the headquarters to say that Uber had stolen their business and smashed their vehicles. On August 11, 2015, Hong Kong** used the method of fishing law enforcement, sent police officers to pretend to be passengers to book a service at Uber, and arrested five drivers, and subsequently, the office of Uber in Hong Kong was also searched, and the five drivers were accused of "illegally using vehicles for rental", * pointing out that Uber's service was "illegally driving a car for rent or taking passengers for payment". In mid-2017, a second wave of crackdowns was carried out, with 28 drivers.
If Hong Kong, like Chinese mainland, fully embraces ride-hailing, who benefits and who loses?
From the perspective of passengers, online car-hailing is good. Convenient, effective, in good condition, driver-friendly.
From the perspective of taxi license holders, the losses are heavy. The taxi license, which was originally regarded as a fixed income investment product, was directly halved in valuation. The rental of license plates** will also decline.
From the driver's point of view, I think the long-term perspective doesn't matter, and even the openness is better. After liberalization, drivers can also drive online car-hailing, and they may earn more money.
If the minority obeys the majority, there is no doubt that online car-hailing should be liberalized. However, for the holders of taxi licenses, their wealth is deprived. If we deprive one person of 1 million yuan, and in return, we can make 10 million people, each of whom will benefit 1 yuan. For the whole society, the loss of 1 million and the gain of 10 million are positive. Most societies, however, do not allow this deprivation. This deprivation is only justified in certain circumstances, such as revolutions, such as social changes caused by technological innovations.
Chinese mainland is one of the most open countries in the world in terms of ride-hailing. Although Didi has made mistakes, it is still a company that has grown up in its own country. Basically, ride-hailing has quickly taken over the main market in major cities in Chinese mainland.
I believe that the vast majority of people oppose the ban on online car-hailing at Shanghai Pudong Airport and the policy of Shanghai Pudong Airport. I'm no exception. I don't go to Shanghai much, and I basically only fly to Hongqiao. What policies do Pudong Airport have, but it doesn't have much impact on me. But after all, I'm a passenger, and my ass must be sitting on the passenger's side.
However, what is the reason behind the ban on ride-hailing at Pudong Airport? Some people say that it is to create a monopoly on online car-hailing for the airport travel company, but I don't think so, the main reason is to protect the interests of taxi companies.
Shanghai's taxi industry is different from other cities, with the big four companies Johnson & Johnson, Volkswagen, Jinjiang and Haibo accounting for the vast majority of the market share. Except for the listed companies and the union-owned Volkswagen, the remaining three are all state-owned enterprises. These four companies are considered to be red seedlings in Shanghai and have a profound influence.
How are these companies affected by ride-hailing? I casually took a look at the financial report of the listed company Public Transportation, 07-08 years, about 5 billion revenue, 21 years 23500 million, 22 years 23600 million, and it has also lost money, and it has recovered in 23 years, but the challenge is certainly not small. There is definitely an impact, and there are also taxi companies lobbying ** to restrict online car-hailing.
This matter, in fact, is still a conflict of interests between online car-hailing and taxis, hoping to alleviate the unfavorable situation faced by taxis with the development of online car-hailing. A group friend wrote an article on the maintenance of taxis: "I Look at the Pudong Taxi Incident" believes that at Pudong Airport, online car-hailing and taxis have no obvious advantages in terms of cost and convenience. I disagree with this group member's opinion, but the article is well written and worth reading.
Those who talk about the right to choose, and say that ** should create more choices, are actually chanting scriptures. People in the primeval forest have the greatest freedom of choice. In society, people give up part of their choices in exchange for division of labor and cooperation, and for higher productivity and a better life. The main job is to limit the individual's right to choose. If you look at the law, it basically restricts your choice. As for the cyberbullying of Mr. Zheng, it is to add some shady conspiracy and collusion, inciting emotions and swiping the screen to make traffic in the circle of friends. Everyone knows that cyberbullying is the easiest thing to get traffic. The Mercedes-Benz man Mrs. Xu before, isn't it the same? Is there any evidence to say, let's cyberstorm first and eat enough traffic.
So, why do I think Pudong Airport shouldn't ban ride-hailing?
First of all, the whole country and Shanghai have already opened up online ride-hailing, and creating a special zone will not necessarily alleviate the dilemma of taxis. If Pudong Airport really becomes a special zone for taxis to make money, the only result is that all taxis in Shanghai will go to Pudong Airport to work, and the taxi queue will be longer. The incremental benefits to taxi drivers in Shanghai will be minimal.
In addition, very few people benefit from this policy. Taxi drivers do not necessarily appreciate it, and the beneficiary of the license is the only beneficiary, but there are only a few companies, and most of them are state-owned enterprises.
There may not be many people who are superficially damaged, such as me, I haven't flown to Pudong Airport for a few years, but there are many people who feel damaged. After all, maybe I might fly to Pudong in the future.
There are very few beneficiaries and supporters, and there are many opponents who may be damaged, and this kind of policy will definitely be sprayed.
Pudong Airport issued this policy, that is, there is no understanding of network public opinion, it is purely nothing to look for, and the result is natural. was sprayed wildly by the whole country, and then withdrawn in disgrace.
Is it important for the taxi licensee to take care of the interests of the taxi licensee? After all, their license assets have suffered. First of all, I don't think it's important and doesn't need maintenance. I have never heard of Kodak's shareholders looking for policy compensation because of the emergence of digital cameras.
Second, it is useless to really protect the interests of taxi license holders by building an airport special zone. Either the online car-hailing ban will be strictly restricted from the beginning, and once it is released, there will be no good way. Online car-hailing has not been completely liberalized, but Hong Kong, where license plates are traded freely, has fallen by half in license plate transactions, and the actual license plate value has fallen in the mainland that has been liberalized.
In fact, there is another way to make the online car-hailing platform, **taxi company, online car-hailing driver, and taxi driver satisfied, and it can also increase GDP. You can think about it, what is the solution? And who will be damaged?