Legal representatives of five taxi drivers organizations of the Mexico City International Airport (AICM) filed a complaint this Monday with the Ministry of Public Administration (SFP) to investigate the delivery of 300 plates to the Executive Protaxi to operate the transportation service land of passengers to and from this air terminal.
In the letter, also addressed to the head of the Internal Control Body of the AICM, the representatives of Yellow Cab of the New AICM; Porto Executive Land Taxi; Site 300; New Image Land Transportation and the Society of Airport Permit Holders and Auxiliary Services, which group together around 1,400 permit holders, claimed preferential treatment towards Protaxi Executive based on false facts and statements.
They claimed that according to information disseminated about a commercial trial The ACIM stated that, with the delivery of the 300 sets of federal plates, a debt claimed by Protaxi Executive would presumably be settled, without there being a ruling condemning the air terminal to any payment.
In addition, they rejected the existence of a study by the AICM that supports the need to incorporate 300 transport units “in the face of the lack of vehicle fleet to transport them (users) to their destination (and) resort to requesting and contracting other types of ground transportation services that are regulated or contrary to applicable federal legislation.”
“That is, the representative of PROTAXI EJECUTIVO SC, unilaterally and discretionally, determined that the vehicle fleet for the provision of land transportation services for passengers to and from the AIRPORT must be increased by 300 units and that the permits and agreements right of access must be assigned to the client in an alleged and non-existent “right of preference” that in reality translates into EXCLUSIVENESScontrary to what the Airport Law and its Regulations provide, regarding the granting of the airport services, as is the case, as well as the Law of Roads, Bridges and Federal Motor Transportation and the Regulation of Federal Motor Transportation and Auxiliary Services, in what corresponds to the permits for the provision of the service in question,” indicates the letter from the dissatisfied taxi drivers. .
They also pointed out that whoever claims to be a representative of the AICM may have involved the general director of the airport himself, without his knowledge, in an operation in which the administrative responsibility of issuing an opinion was assessed for onerous purposes, which in terms of law should not be be necessarily favorable for the exclusive issuance of the 300 sets of federal license plates.
“Regarding the commitment acquired by the representative of AICM, it is worth noting the subjectivity, irregularity and lack of foundation and motivation thereof, as well as the inadmissibility and illegality of said commitment, mainly due to the fact that such public servant lacks the power to agree in the terms carried out and even more so, without having a sentence of obligation by AICM, such as the one recognized,” claimed the representatives of the taxi drivers.
CSAS
Related
Time.news Editor (TNE): Welcome to our interview today! We have the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Laura Mendoza, a transportation policy expert, to discuss the recent complaint filed by various taxi driver organizations against the Mexico City International Airport regarding the allocation of 300 taxi permits to Protaxi Executive. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Mendoza!
Dr. Laura Mendoza (LM): Thank you for having me! It’s a pleasure to be here.
TNE: Let’s start with the basics. Can you provide a brief overview of the situation surrounding the complaint filed by the taxi driver organizations?
LM: Certainly! Five taxi driver organizations representing approximately 1,400 permit holders at the Mexico City International Airport have formally complained to the Ministry of Public Administration. They’re challenging the recent allocation of 300 federal plates to Protaxi Executive, which they believe was done without proper justification and appears to favor one provider over others.
TNE: Why do these organizations feel they were treated unfairly in this situation?
LM: They argue that the allocation was based on false information. Specifically, the taxi organizations claim that there’s no legal ruling or justified need for the additional vehicles, which Protaxi Executive purportedly utilized to resolve a debt without a court mandate. They believe this could mislead regulators and threaten fair competition within the passenger transport sector.
TNE: That raises an interesting point about competition. How does this decision impact the overall taxi service market at AICM?
LM: The decision could have significant implications. By granting extra permits to one company, you potentially diminish opportunities for other organized taxi services to compete effectively. If the organizations are correct in their claims, this preferential treatment could undermine the integrity of the regulatory framework and lead to a monopoly-like situation that harms consumers by limiting their choices.
TNE: You mentioned that the taxi organizations doubt the necessity for an additional vehicle fleet to service the airport. What guidelines generally govern such allocations?
LM: Typically, allocations like these should stem from rigorous demand studies that analyze passenger volumes and the capacity of existing transport services. In this instance, the organizations are demanding transparency regarding any studies that justify the need for 300 additional vehicles, which they believe have not been presented.
TNE: In your opinion, what steps should regulatory bodies take in response to this complaint?
LM: It’s essential for the Ministry of Public Administration and the AICM to conduct a thorough investigation into this matter. They should verify if proper protocols were followed in the approval process for the additional permits and ensure that there’s transparency surrounding studies that justify such expansions, if they exist. Additionally, they should engage with all stakeholders, including the organizations who filed the complaint, to foster a fair resolution.
TNE: It sounds like this issue could evolve into a larger debate about regulatory practices. What can we expect in the near future regarding this situation?
LM: I anticipate that we will see increased scrutiny on how taxi services are managed at the AICM. Stakeholders, including consumers, will likely demand a clearer understanding of how services are allocated and regulated. Moreover, this situation may set a precedent for similar grievances by other transport service providers in the future, prompting a larger conversation about fairness and transparency in transportation policies.
TNE: Thank you, Dr. Mendoza, for providing such valuable insights into this pressing issue. It will be interesting to see how the authorities respond and the ramifications for the taxi services at AICM.
LM: Thank you for having me! I look forward to seeing how this unfolds as well.