2026: THE YEAR UBER CRACKS
Article by Rob Finlayson Operations Manager City Cars Glasgow
rob@citycarsglasgow.co.uk
For more than a decade the direction of travel in the UK private hire and taxi trade has been presented as inevitable. App based platforms will replace local operators. Algorithms will replace experience and scale will replace accountability. Anyone who’s questioned the narrative has been dismissed as outdated or resistant to change.
As we move into 2026, that narrative is beginning to unravel, piece by piece.
This may well be remembered as the year the app only model finally shows its limits in the UK, and the year traditional private hire and taxis reassert themselves as a dominant force in the market, not out of nostalgia but because the fundamentals are starting to matter again.
Platforms such as Uber reshaped the market by offering frictionless booking, aggressive and sometimes unrealistic pricing and the promise of endless supply of both work for drivers and drivers for customers. For a time that model worked, particularly in major cities where driver numbers were high and losses could be absorbed elsewhere.
Across the UK driver supply is tightening and margins are thinning for drivers. Operating costs continue to rise, with insurance as well as new vehicles remaining stubbornly expensive. Government and licensing authorities are starting to tighten the rules and regulations surrounding the trade and despite still fragmented and wildly differing licensing standards across the country, there are early signs of a push towards greater consistency and enforcement. At the same time customer expectations have
hardened and
reliability is no longer a nice to have option. It is now the expected baseline. This is where the app based model begins to struggle.
Standards once tightly controlled by local operators are now diluted by scale. Vehicle quality varies wildly
32
and local knowledge is inconsistent at best and non-existent at worst. Accountability is often unclear. When something goes wrong customers are routed round in circles within in app support flows that prioritise efficiency over a beneficial resolution. Responses are templated, standardised and frequently disconnected from the reality the customer is experiencing. And very rarely will a decision be made on the grounds that is it “The right thing to do”.
For UK customers this is an increasingly frustrating experience. A cancelled booking minutes before pickup, a sudden surge in prices with no obvious explanation, or a request for help that goes nowhere erodes trust. When the service is no longer the cheapest option, the tolerance for lower standards disappears quickly. It is easy to see why customers are now looking back to traditional alternatives.
Drivers are feeling the pressure even more than the customers they serve. Support for drivers has become increasingly remote and transactional. Issues that would once have been resolved by a phone call or a quick drive into the base are now filtered through support systems that are simply “computer says no”. Decisions are opaque, the right of appeal is minimal, and communication is largely one-way.
Overlay that with commission structures that are becoming harder to fathom or predict and the strain on drivers is starting to show. Drivers increasingly report commissions that vary dramatically job to job, in some cases ranging from single digits to levels approaching 40–50% once fees and adjustments are factored in. When you simply don’t know what you are paying on each job, a fixed weekly radio or settlement fee suddenly feels far more appealing than it did even twelve months ago. Flexibility, once sold as Uber’s greatest strength, increasingly feels like volatility.
Local operators have always worked based in reality, operating within local regulations, understanding their geography and building services based on trust, communication and accountability with customers and drivers alike. They manage situations, prioritise work and speak to drivers. They use judgement and common sense rather than relying solely on algorithms.
FEBRUARY 2026 PHTM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74
