It's true that one of the few things the government of the Republic is consistent about is that now, in Guadalajara, it allows mafias that offer fake Uber services and rewards concessionaires that make people wait for hours for a ride. Returning to Benito Juárez. Is removing Uber an improvement? How does it benefit tourists, both national and foreign, to arrive and suffer delays all to protect abusive practices? The person who designed this doesn't love Mexico. The Navy? Will taxis provide better service? At a reasonable price relative to the quality of the experience? It forced platforms to provide social security for their drivers. If not, ask about the success of direct flights from Monterrey or Guadalajara to destinations like Madrid. Instead, the government decided to remove the platforms and favor cartelized taxis: insufficient and expensive. It's one more of the convoluted things of the president. At the last minute, the regime that inherited the World Cup gives a slap to Benito Juárez. How? Upon arrival, you don't know if there will be platform cars, or if it will take you hours to get an authorized taxi; you also don't know if it's safe to go out on the street to look for an Uber. The left (they say they are) that governs the country and the capital forgets one of its achievements. Those who use them don't hesitate to pay a little more as long as they don't have to set foot in AICM. The airport? They are going to fly to the capital and want to know how to get out of the airport. Because the previous 'chaos' had a certain virtue: it was what it was, and almost everyone was at peace. The worst that can happen is that after so much work, and with national guards chasing Ubers, fewer and fewer friends will call us simply because they are disappointed in a Mexico City that has become too complicated again. A metrobús and a metro station that takes you to Pantitlán are not even an aspirin. Or that people take permitted taxis or platform taxis, that these compete and meet the demand. Uncertainty in that too, what an achievement of the government. Because now, even for those who have been traveling by air for decades, CDMX represents a bad novelty. From the AICM, with a bad reputation. Who wins with the measure? But which? These are descriptions. But then it takes these drivers' clients and delivers them to concessionaires (will they pay IMSS to their collaborators?) I'm talking about the capital. There is no other option but to think that yes, that is, to think badly. They gave this city an image that they are now crushing. Their parking lots have been collapsed by demand for years, and putting satellite parking without a good internal transport network will be a patch, which, like almost all patches, will soon show its seams. The best would be for people to arrive and leave on public transport. Some friends 'from the province' by no means neophytes in travel call me with a question that first seems the most strange and then the most logical. After the arrival of engineer Cárdenas in 1997 at the Head of Government, living here, visiting the exDF, went from a nightmare to a source of pride. Now, for reasons that no one really understands, obradorismo is going in the opposite direction: it complicates people's lives just because. Our airport is not fixable. Terminal 2 is sinking, terminal 1 stinks. The image of CDMX. Unless they are determined to make a 'mall', will the travel experience improve? Outside the AICM? Unlikely. Doubtful. Well.
