3 ms·

UberPop is not allowed in France because the drivers don't have a license to do taxi-like activities. In France, you need a license delivered by the state or be

by conradk 11y ago

UberPop is not allowed in France because the drivers don't have a license to do taxi-like activities. In France, you need a license delivered by the state or be a so called "VTC" (vehicle with chauffeur), which is somewhat like a taxi except that VTCs cannot pick up clients without getting a reservation from a customer. The licenses taxis pay are, in some cases, extremely expensive (about 250k euros in Paris), which is why taxis are opposed to all kinds of competition (Uber and UberPop included).

yaantc 11y ago
To provide a bit more context: the number of licenses is very limited. When sold by the state the license is cheap, but then it can be resold privately and then the price will skyrocket as there is a too limited offer. This creates lots of nastiness. Private taxis typically get their license on the private market, it's a significant investment for them and they count on being able to resell it when they retire. Big companies can lobby to get a good share of the (very limited number of) new licenses, when any. It's been clear that this limited number of licenses should go. But the question is how to deal with it. The reasonable approach would have been a planned and regular increase, leading to a gradual depreciation of the market price of the license that all could have taken into account. But the taxis always opposed this (with good lobbying from big taxi companies, who of course enjoy the quasi monopoly situation and are good at lobbying politics and playing their drivers). And the state has no money to pull the licenses out, compensate for loss and get rid of the scheme quickly. So the taxi system hasn't changed much so far. Now we're in the state where new entrants are coming, reducing the taxi monopoly bit by bit with taxis screaming all the way through. That will (hopefully) force changes.

by conradk 11y ago

yaantc 11y ago

To provide a bit more context: the number of licenses is very limited. When sold by the state the license is cheap, but then it can be resold privately and then the price will skyrocket as there is a too limited offer. This creates lots of nastiness. Private taxis typically get their license on the private market, it's a significant investment for them and they count on being able to resell it when they retire. Big companies can lobby to get a good share of the (very limited number of) new licenses, when any. It's been clear that this limited number of licenses should go. But the question is how to deal with it. The reasonable approach would have been a planned and regular increase, leading to a gradual depreciation of the market price of the license that all could have taken into account. But the taxis always opposed this (with good lobbying from big taxi companies, who of course enjoy the quasi monopoly situation and are good at lobbying politics and playing their drivers). And the state has no money to pull the licenses out, compensate for loss and get rid of the scheme quickly. So the taxi system hasn't changed much so far. Now we're in the state where new entrants are coming, reducing the taxi monopoly bit by bit with taxis screaming all the way through. That will (hopefully) force changes.