Recently, the ban on online car-hailing at Shanghai Pudong Airport was lifted and services resumed, but after this round of controversy, we can't help but think about several questions. Cruise taxis offer an abundance of affordable services, so why do passengers still prefer to choose online ride-hailing? Wu Xuecheng, deputy director of the department, pointed out that cruise cars do not pick passengers or cars, and can evacuate large passenger flows in an orderly manner, while online car-hailing vehicles may cause mutual equality and safety hazards due to the need to find "exclusive" vehicles. This explanation is reasonable and sufficient, but it is worth pondering why passengers do not choose convenient and safe cruise cars, but hesitate to take online ride-hailing.
Why are all ride-hailing platforms banned, but only "Airport Travel" can continue to serve? The staff explained that it was not an online car-hailing service, but a "pick-up butler". Although this answer is straightforward, in fact, "airport travel" is expensive, even twice as expensive as a taxi, but this kind of ** can gain a foothold at the airport, raising people's questions, what is the reason why it can stand alone?
What is the truth that there is only 5 days between the ban and the reinstatement? Why does a regulation related to people's livelihood swing repeatedly in a short period of time? Does it mean that the provisions have not been fully examined before being implemented, or that there have been omissions in considering the pros and cons? This situation raises questions about whether there was negligence on the part of the personnel involved. The fact that the original provisions may not be applicable to the actual situation reminds us that when formulating regulations that have a bearing on people's livelihood, we must fully consider public opinion and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach.
Behind this series of problems, we can see that managers do not conduct a detailed examination of the actual situation before the implementation of the regulations, and lack of sensitivity to public opinion in the process of formulating the regulations. Policies should be tailored to real needs, not forced for selfish or purpose-driven purposes. This twist and turn also reminds us that the regulations on people's livelihood must be carefully considered and carefully examined before they can truly achieve good social results.
We leave more room for readers to think, will there be similar situations in the future? What is your take on this incident? Feel free to leave a comment to share your views. The lifting of the ban on ride-hailing services at Pudong Airport has been accompanied by a series of problems, revealing some issues worth pondering in the formulation and implementation of regulations. The fact that passengers choose ride-hailing rather than cruise cars may reflect the demand for more personalized services. Even though cruise cars provide adequate services, passengers may value the flexibility of ride-hailing and the ban on ride-hailing services at Pudong Airport, whether it has been fully justified and considered, and whether there are deeper reasons behind it, have left questions in the minds of citizens. In this context, for the whole incident, we need to dig deeper into the truth behind it.
The question of why some passengers still choose online ride-hailing despite the fact that cruise cars provide enough services may involve service differences and individual needs. Cruise cars provide a traditional and universal service, while ride-hailing is more focused on personalization and efficiency. Riders may choose ride-hailing for more flexible travel arrangements, a more comfortable in-car environment, and more efficient payment methods. This trend reflects the increasing demand for transportation services among urban residents.
The above content information is ** on the Internet, and the author of this article does not intend to target or insinuate any real country, political system, organization, race, or individual. The above content does not mean that the author of this article agrees with the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. The author of this article is not responsible for any of the above or related issues, and does not assume any direct or indirect legal liability.