Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by legitster 3588 days ago
Dumping is really only applicable if they are undercutting their prices in specific regions. If I am under-charging across my entire lineup, that's just on me.
2 comments

Which they absolutely do. AFAICT, Uber doesn't subsidize rides in Europe because predatory pricing is illegal there. But they do in new markets in the US and used to subsidize heavily in China, which opens them up to charges of dumping, it seems to me.
> because predatory pricing is illegal there

Legality hasn't exactly been a problem to Uber's expansion. Why would this particular situation be different?

There's a bit of a difference on which government body enforces which rule.

In quite a few countries, taxi rules are governed by cities - so the municipality government is the enemy.

Anti-monopoly/ predatory pricing rules are at least national level - and if you are unlucky you can go against the EU itself, which historically has not been afraid to slap companies with gargantuan fines that would never be allowed from the pro-business USA SC.

You might want to read this: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/23/a-list-of-the-bigg...

This is well above any fine from the EU.

Could be because the European Commission is known for giving multi-billion-dollar fines to foreign corporations for anticompetitive behaviour?

Uber might feel that the risk-reward ratio is not good enough here to be acting in bad faith.

According to the GP they specifically don't do that in the EU.
Uber has lots of problems with legality in Europe. In Germany it's basically nonexistent. Note that the regulation for taxis in Germany really makes sense (for instance background checks for drivers).
Dumping is for products that are being exported. Uber isn't exporting anything.
Which they do as read on another thread - 18$ for a 45min ride in SF, the driver gets $50.
It's still worth considering that the passenger risks having to share the car, so the lower price is most certainly justified.

I doubt Uber is trying to run those cars with only one passenger at a time.

even with a full car they're still losing a lot of $.
I don't know what's the definition of "full" here, but I'd guess they leave the middle back seat empty. 3*18 is still 54 so there's clearly some profit to be made.
oh, that's a good point -- i was forgetting they can pair up 4 different paying customers. i think it must be rare though -- i see full ubers and full lyfts fairly often, but i've only ever seen 2 couples (& it's only $1 more for a pair).
Nope, I've had the unpleasant experience of a full pool a few times, they'll fill the back seat if they can.
But only if they are fully occupied > 90% of all time (which is IMHO not really feasible).