Leaving no stone unturned in its quest to upset citizens, lawmakers, and PR professionals, Uber enabled its “surge pricing” policy in the midst of an ongoing hostage crisis in Sydney, Australia.
Surge pricing is nothing new for Uber, and it's a policy that adapts to availability and market demands in normal situations. Take, for example, the rush after a large sporting or cultural event. Uber knows more people want vehicles than supply allows, and raises pricing accordingly.
Now, with this blanket rule applied to all forms of pandemonium – controlled or other – Uber failed to abide by its self-imposed emergency situation price cap during the hostage situation in Sydney, in which an armed gunman is still holding people hostage inside a Lindt cafe. The reason, of course, is that the price cap only applies to the United States. Australia be damned.
Riders are said to have been charged a minimum of AUS $100, or about USD $85. Uber argues that surge prices are necessary to attract more drivers to a particular scene or event.
Uber has since backtracked and disabled surge pricing in the area, but only after media publicized what has been yet another in a series of questionable business tactics by the agency. It is now offering free rides out of the affected area. Riders are also able to obtain a refund if they paid the surge pricing fare by emailing supportsydney@uber.com.
This latest public affairs fiasco by Uber comes only weeks after an Uber executive Emil Michael's purported plans to hire opposition researchers in an effort to dig up dirt on Uber's critics and use it as leverage. Michael believed the comments were off the record when they went public.
Do you love Uber or do you find yourself straying due to the questionable business practices that continue coming to light?
Source: Washington Post
What an unbelievably dishonest article. It’s been well-publicized that Uber refunded all of the fares…
“Uber has since backtracked and disabled surge pricing in the area, but only after media publicized what has been yet another in a series of questionable business tactics by the agency”
In the article…………..
It seems to me that surge pricing is just set off after their algorithm determines there is a higher demand. I think it’s a little far to immediately assume that the company saw it as an opportunity and seized it. Should they have implemented an emergency cap like they do in LA? Yeah, but to say they intentionally used the situation to get more money is a bit of a stretch.