greenbadgecabby wrote:
TDO wrote:
I'm not sure how you can support drivers paying inflated rentals to those who control the plates.
I never said at any stage i did, i think your trying to hard to de-cry everyone at once with your opinions, perhaps getting a bit muddled?
Not at all Mr Greenbadgecabby, I rarely get muddled
If it'll help you, I'll briefly summarise our exchanges on this thread.
You opened with:
After reading this little lot, one realises how lucky we are in London. £50k for a plate and thats before LTI take another £30k of you for their plastic fords! God i need to sit down and have a drink. Oh that means i can't work tonight! Damn it, still never mind. Happy New Year to all, see you on the other side . . . .
I replied:
Yes, Mr Greenbadgecabby, that's why many drivers outside London have to pay such inflated rentals in order that they can work.
You then sidetracked by claiming that I was making it sound like working in London was a breeze, but I'm not sure where you got that from, as I explained. However, you closed by saying:
Anyway the 'knowledge' is open to one and all, so if you cant beat 'em join 'em . . . .
I replied:
As per all other LAs in the UK.
But in many cab ownership is not open to all and thus drivers pay inflated rentals merely to rank up. That was the point of my post, not whether or not being a driver in London was a breeze.
You then said that you cousin worked in Edinburgh and did 'just fine'. I replied that since you didn't say whether he was a plateholder or not (ie whether he was paying inflated rentals or not) then you hadn't appreciated the substantive point I was making (about the inflated rentals).
You then replied:
I mean just that, his takings match mine and he works in a restricted plate area where he rents a TX.
He pays about £40 more per week than I will, so the point was there is not a great difference between the 'unrestricted' London (apart from a small matter of 3 years doing the knowledge in your own time and 3 yrs of lost earnings) and a restricted area like Edinburgh (12 weeks to get license and £25,000 for a plate, oh that equates to almost 3 years lost earnings whilst on the knowledge?)
So despite several opportunities, you never condemned drivers paying inflated rentals, and indeed your attitude to the Edinburgh scenario seemed to be that it wasn't a problem.
I then pointed out that on the Edinburgh forum you said:
£285 a week? Jesus! i thought the london trade prices were a bit o.t.t.
How many hours do you have to work to pay that???
Don't you have any trade organisations that represent the trade? Its not always the answer, but we (LTDA) found drive in's get the attention of the Carriage Office and Ken Livingston. (or whatever your licensing body is)
I won't complain too much with my £180 rent per week in January (full flat!)
This seems to express some incredulity at the inflated rentals being paid in Edinburgh, to principle that I condemned at the outset, but which you hadn't earlier, but on the other hand expressed incredulity at on another forum.
I then said:
Anyway, however much a driver is paying in inflated rentals for the plate doens't really matter, it's the principle that many have a problem with.
I can quite understand people who have a vested interest in restricted numbers arguing for thier retention, but since you have no stake, I'm not sure how you can support drivers paying inflated rentals to those who control the plates.
Answer me this, if when you start renting you had to pay £100 over the odds because only some people in London were allowed to run cabs (say numbers were restricted to 10,000), presumably it would bother you?
You then latched on to that portion of my post in bold italics and said:
I never said at any stage i did, i think your trying to hard to de-cry everyone at once with your opinions, perhaps getting a bit muddled?
Clearly you didn't actually say that, but since I put the point to you several times, and you ignored it, and indeed seemed to defend it in the context of Edinburgh, then I think my assumption in bold italics above was a fair one.
And still you (presumably deliberately) don't say whether or not you support the principle of drivers paying inflated rentals to those who are allowed to control ownership of a city's taxi fleet.
So perhaps you could finally make you views on this known, and it it helps, answer the specific question I posed earlier in relation to London:
Answer me this, if when you start renting you had to pay £100 over the odds because only some people in London were allowed to run cabs (say numbers were restricted to 10,000), presumably it would bother you?
Login
Register
FAQ
So it would be reasonable to suggest you seem to have a bit of a hang up about the London trade. I can't help it if we are the cream down here . . or if its quiet where you work, still look on the bright side all this free time to reply to our entries.
