₦airaland Forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoJ4x4p4VVQ

Former presidential aide and Nigeria’s Ambassador to Mexico, Reno Omokri, has sparked debate over the reasons behind Uber’s exit from Nigeria, arguing that the country’s growing rail infrastructure made it increasingly difficult for the ride-hailing company to compete.

But his explanation has come under scrutiny on air, with Ayo Mairo-Ese and Rufai Oseni challenging the logic behind the argument.

Omokri, speaking on Sunday Politics on Channels Television, attributed Uber’s departure largely to improvements in Nigeria’s transportation infrastructure, particularly rail services in Lagos and Abuja. He cited Lagos’ Blue and Red Lines, the planned Green Line and the Abuja rail connection to the airport as examples of cheaper transportation alternatives available to commuters.

According to Omokri, Uber’s model was built around providing relatively affordable, mass-market transportation and competing with conventional taxis. He argued that improved public transportation had changed the equation, allowing commuters to travel between major destinations at a fraction of the cost of some ride-hailing trips.

But that explanation raises a fundamental question: if rail infrastructure was the main reason Uber could no longer compete, why did the company remain in Nigeria for years despite the existence and expansion of other forms of public transportation?

That appears to be the crux of the pushback from Ayo Mairo-Ese and Rufai Oseni.

The challenge is essentially whether the presence of rail automatically translates into the collapse of demand for ride-hailing services.

Rail and ride-hailing do not necessarily serve exactly the same market.

A train operates along fixed routes and stations, while a ride-hailing vehicle offers door-to-door transportation. For commuters travelling beyond railway corridors, or those needing first-mile and last-mile connections, services such as Uber can still offer an important convenience.

That distinction makes the debate more complicated than simply saying “rail replaced Uber.”

There are also broader economic and operational issues surrounding ride-hailing in Nigeria.

Fuel prices, vehicle maintenance, driver earnings, consumer purchasing power, regulatory requirements and competition within the mobility sector can all influence whether a ride-hailing business remains commercially viable.

In fact, other voices have framed Uber’s departure as exposing wider challenges in Nigeria’s transportation and regulatory environment, rather than simply being the result of improved rail infrastructure.

The controversy, therefore, is not necessarily about whether Nigeria’s rail development has affected Uber.

It almost certainly has affected the transportation choices available to commuters.

The bigger question is whether that impact was significant enough to explain Uber’s exit from the Nigerian market.

And that is where the argument from Omokri is being questioned.

Fuel prices, vehicle maintenance, driver earnings, consumer purchasing power, regulatory requirements and competition within the mobility sector can all influence whether a ride-hailing business remains commercially viable.

SamGift0817:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoJ4x4p4VVQ

Former presidential aide and Nigeria’s Ambassador to Mexico, Reno Omokri, has sparked debate over the reasons behind Uber’s exit from Nigeria, arguing that the country’s growing rail infrastructure made it increasingly difficult for the ride-hailing company to compete.

But his explanation has come under scrutiny on air, with Ayo Mairo-Ese and Rufai Oseni challenging the logic behind the argument.

Omokri, speaking on Sunday Politics on Channels Television, attributed Uber’s departure largely to improvements in Nigeria’s transportation infrastructure, particularly rail services in Lagos and Abuja. He cited Lagos’ Blue and Red Lines, the planned Green Line and the Abuja rail connection to the airport as examples of cheaper transportation alternatives available to commuters.

According to Omokri, Uber’s model was built around providing relatively affordable, mass-market transportation and competing with conventional taxis. He argued that improved public transportation had changed the equation, allowing commuters to travel between major destinations at a fraction of the cost of some ride-hailing trips.

But that explanation raises a fundamental question: if rail infrastructure was the main reason Uber could no longer compete, why did the company remain in Nigeria for years despite the existence and expansion of other forms of public transportation?

That appears to be the crux of the pushback from Ayo Mairo-Ese and Rufai Oseni.

The challenge is essentially whether the presence of rail automatically translates into the collapse of demand for ride-hailing services.

Rail and ride-hailing do not necessarily serve exactly the same market.

A train operates along fixed routes and stations, while a ride-hailing vehicle offers door-to-door transportation. For commuters travelling beyond railway corridors, or those needing first-mile and last-mile connections, services such as Uber can still offer an important convenience.

That distinction makes the debate more complicated than simply saying “rail replaced Uber.”

There are also broader economic and operational issues surrounding ride-hailing in Nigeria.

Fuel prices, vehicle maintenance, driver earnings, consumer purchasing power, regulatory requirements and competition within the mobility sector can all influence whether a ride-hailing business remains commercially viable.

In fact, other voices have framed Uber’s departure as exposing wider challenges in Nigeria’s transportation and regulatory environment, rather than simply being the result of improved rail infrastructure.

The controversy, therefore, is not necessarily about whether Nigeria’s rail development has affected Uber.

It almost certainly has affected the transportation choices available to commuters.

The bigger question is whether that impact was significant enough to explain Uber’s exit from the Nigerian market.

And that is where the argument from Omokri is being questioned.

In another news...this time a year ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-SZTTI6Urc?si=AdJMEg25FCS1-9b6

Any big corporation that has to rempatraite dollars, is definitely not making that much profit at the same quality of service they are known for.

The ocean has turn red in most industries.