SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
LAX bans Uber and Lyft from picking up passengers at the terminal
It's about to get even harder to hail an Uber or Lyft at Los Angeles International Airport. Ride-hailing vehicles will be banned from making pickups outside LAX's terminals under new rules announced by officials on Thursday, the Los Angeles Times reports. Instead, passengers wishing to get picked up by Uber or Lyft will have to take a shuttle to a parking lot next to Terminal 1.
It's a new twist in the increasingly fraught relationship between airports and the app-based car service companies that have added to some of the confusion and congestion at most travel hubs. With more people flying than ever before and a growing share of those people expecting to use their smartphones to summon cars to pick them up, the traffic situation outside of airport terminals has reached a breaking point.
LAX is in the midst of a $14 billion revamp[*] of its aging roads and terminals. Construction has led to some road closures, while airlines are adding routes leading to an increase in passenger pickups and drop-offs.
"We understand that trying to get into the central terminal area is a challenge and has been for a long time, and we've been working to make that much better," Keith Wilschetz, deputy executive director of the Operations and Emergency Management Division at Los Angeles World Airports, told the LA Times. "This is a way we can do that."
[...] Other airports have adopted similar tactics in recent years. San Francisco International Airport, for example, recently moved almost all ride-hailing passenger pickups to the top floor of the main parking garage. Some passengers said the change has made pickups more efficient, even though it involves a longer walk from the gate. Similar changes are expected to take place at Boston's Logan International Airport.
Meanwhile, Uber and Lyft have tweaked their apps for drivers in the hopes of making drop-offs and pickups more seamless. Both companies have added a feature called rematch that allows drivers who have just dropped off a passenger to pick up a new customer without leaving the airport and waiting in an off-site area.
[*] See: LAX airport is getting a $14 billion makeover and new 'happy face' machines to rate satisfaction.
Related: Logan Airport Uber and Lyft changes set to take effect in October
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday October 07 2019, @10:58AM (8 children)
Make flying classier and less affordable, instead of turning airplanes into cattle cars every penniless Tom, Dick and Harry can cram themselves into to go on stupid city trips and pointless vacations to tourist traps several times a year. You'll have helped the planet by preventing thousands of needless carbon-dioxide-spewing flights, by making people think twice before booking a ticket, and those who do pay more to fly will have better amenities, and will generate less road traffic around the airports.
So, make flying what it used to be like before the 80s, essentially.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07 2019, @11:41AM (1 child)
You still have to get past the grope agents. They are not going away.
Buses might be better. They are less classy, and slower, but have bigger seats.
Driverless electric cars could be even better. Electric because you brought up carbon dioxide. They would take less time than a bus because you decide when to make stops, and you can sleep in it, allowing it to travel up to 24/7. If you dare.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 07 2019, @12:48PM
'
I reckon you mean "driveless trams". You know? Those vehicles connecting to an aerial wire to have power up to 24/7 (of course "up to", since 24/7 means "all the time" and you can't have more than that - large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 07 2019, @12:29PM (5 children)
If you confine people at home, then there would be no need to fly and they can be kept out of the way until humane ways are found to reduce their population.
(Score: 5, Funny) by c0lo on Monday October 07 2019, @12:55PM (3 children)
Depends on the pressure you use to confine them. E.g. it would be a serious energy expenditure to reach some hundred of GPa of confinement pressure.
The good thing though: if the confinement recipient ruptures, you'll see them flying all over the place. Once.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by Fnord666 on Monday October 07 2019, @01:11PM (1 child)
Fun fact. Coffee hurts when it spews out of your nose from laughing. Other than that, thanks for the chuckle.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Monday October 07 2019, @01:36PM
Yeah, well, that's barely a bit over atmospheric pressure though. Imagine 10000 times of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 07 2019, @01:18PM
Throw in a TV and the people don't tend to be very energetic. Low confinement pressures are possible.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday October 07 2019, @02:46PM
Isn't that the very reason gaming was invented?
Once upon a time these people would commit crimes outdoors such as Skateboarding. And setting foot upon elderly people's lawns. Now they just stay inside glued to their games.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.