47 ms·

Almost nothing in this article seems unreasonable. If I give you money for your goods for X amount of time, that is renting. You are engaged in commerce and fal

by yardie 9y ago

Almost nothing in this article seems unreasonable. If I give you money for your goods for X amount of time, that is renting. You are engaged in commerce and fall under the laws and regulations of commerce. Not sure why it’s being called a war. None of the legislators have called for an outright ban.

varjag 9y ago
What really happens here is foreign companies monopolizing local black/grey markets. Unlicensed taxis or rental properties were a thing before the internet. Just that municipalities know how to deal with them; they went in stupor when global billion dollar companies started doing that too, giving it a whiff of legality but not really. Governments are notoriously slow to react to changes in ecosystem, and in this case it's other businesses pushing back, in a way that should make any free market advocate proud.
cornholio 9y ago
I think enforcing by legislative means the profit-sharing system traditional players have with the airports is completely unreasonable. They go out as far as to call it a safety issue. Yes, the playing field is not level, but that's what competition means: the sharing companies have found a way to go around the onerous taxes imposed by airports and there is almost nothing the airport can do to stop a private individual drop a car in it's short term parking lot for another individual. There's no safety or congestion issue, it's the entire point of the short time parking spaces.
- CPLX 9y ago
  There's no obvious reason why airports charging people who use the airport as a transportation hub is unreasonable or onerous by definition.
  - rocqua 9y ago
    There are to reasons airports need to charge rental companies if we ignore 'they are abusing their local monopoly'. The first is congestion due to the pick-up process. Clearly, this affects both the new players and the old players. The second reason is land-use by the parking lots in which available cars are stored. This doesn't affect the new players. Now, airports might be charging for both, and simply be afraid that the cash-cow of charging reasonably for the land-use of parking lots is going to disappear. For a real answer, you'd need to actually compare the difference in cost between congestion and land-use.
    - ghfbjdhhv 9y ago
      Frequently, the rental car facilities are some distance from the airport, and the airport is just gatekeeping a bus service to the off-site rental facility. I don't think that land that facility lies on is a very scarce resource. Having a driver meet you with a car at the terminal is a much better experience IMO, whether it's a taxi, a Lyft, or a rental. If the pickup area is too congested, the airport should address that problem directly with a toll to access that area. A targeted ban that happens to help incumbents in a particular industry doesn't seem like the best way.
  - cornholio 9y ago
    For a completely private airport that builds its own road and transit infrastructure, sure. Most real airports have massive public investment and infrastructure and enjoy a strong local monopoly - with the specific purpose of acting like a public transportation hub. Therefore, any charge that moves from services provided, on a needs basis, to an indiscriminate tax, on a per person basis, can be seen as onerous in light of the public investment.
    - CPLX 9y ago
      But if there's a precedent that people landing in the airport and renting cars pay a tax why should some companies be able to avoid it and not others. This argument is nonsensical.
      - cornholio 9y ago
        Because the new players don't need the services airports provide. Which turns into a tax or a monopoly rent, there is a long a list of such "precedents" that the market and regulators shut down.
        CPLX 9y ago
        If they don't need the service the airport provides they can meet people arriving on planes somewhere that's not an airport. Otherwise it seems to me that they need the service the airport provides.
        michaelmrose 9y ago
        The service the airport provides is the fact that lots of people are there. In other news if I meet you in starbucks to buy a laptop from craigslist they aren't getting a cut. If they meet the car at Walmart do we expect the walton family to get a cut? If they drop the car off at their home do we expect the HOA to get a cut? At some point we could acknowledge that the airport isn't a party to the transaction.
rocqua 9y ago
It is reasonable insofar as the regulations are not set-up to protect the incumbents. With a little lee-way for regulations not being that needed for the new business model. However, it seems clear to me that requiring turo renters to enter the VIN of their car to check for recalls is just reasonable regulation. The same goes for having the cars be inspected yearly. Now, any laws for the actual pick-up process are a different beast, but non of those are mentioned in the article. Note that the example of turo wanting to make it illegal for car-owners to register cars with a recall seems like they are just trying to push these costs away. In the end, it is the responsibility of the rental company that their cars are safe. If the company deems signed statements from car owners sufficient due-diligence, that is their choice. If they do not trust such statements, the solution is to demand more in your due-diligence, not to make it illegal to 'lie' on these statements. That presumes that turo already has it in their TOS for car-owners that cars are required to be un-recalled. If not, adding that should be their first step. Immediately going for legislation when you can just amend contracts is a massive over-reach.

by yardie 9y ago

varjag 9y ago

What really happens here is foreign companies monopolizing local black/grey markets. Unlicensed taxis or rental properties were a thing before the internet. Just that municipalities know how to deal with them; they went in stupor when global billion dollar companies started doing that too, giving it a whiff of legality but not really. Governments are notoriously slow to react to changes in ecosystem, and in this case it's other businesses pushing back, in a way that should make any free market advocate proud.

cornholio 9y ago

I think enforcing by legislative means the profit-sharing system traditional players have with the airports is completely unreasonable. They go out as far as to call it a safety issue. Yes, the playing field is not level, but that's what competition means: the sharing companies have found a way to go around the onerous taxes imposed by airports and there is almost nothing the airport can do to stop a private individual drop a car in it's short term parking lot for another individual. There's no safety or congestion issue, it's the entire point of the short time parking spaces.

CPLX 9y ago
There's no obvious reason why airports charging people who use the airport as a transportation hub is unreasonable or onerous by definition.
- rocqua 9y ago
  There are to reasons airports need to charge rental companies if we ignore 'they are abusing their local monopoly'. The first is congestion due to the pick-up process. Clearly, this affects both the new players and the old players. The second reason is land-use by the parking lots in which available cars are stored. This doesn't affect the new players. Now, airports might be charging for both, and simply be afraid that the cash-cow of charging reasonably for the land-use of parking lots is going to disappear. For a real answer, you'd need to actually compare the difference in cost between congestion and land-use.
  - ghfbjdhhv 9y ago
    Frequently, the rental car facilities are some distance from the airport, and the airport is just gatekeeping a bus service to the off-site rental facility. I don't think that land that facility lies on is a very scarce resource. Having a driver meet you with a car at the terminal is a much better experience IMO, whether it's a taxi, a Lyft, or a rental. If the pickup area is too congested, the airport should address that problem directly with a toll to access that area. A targeted ban that happens to help incumbents in a particular industry doesn't seem like the best way.
- cornholio 9y ago
  For a completely private airport that builds its own road and transit infrastructure, sure. Most real airports have massive public investment and infrastructure and enjoy a strong local monopoly - with the specific purpose of acting like a public transportation hub. Therefore, any charge that moves from services provided, on a needs basis, to an indiscriminate tax, on a per person basis, can be seen as onerous in light of the public investment.
  - CPLX 9y ago
    But if there's a precedent that people landing in the airport and renting cars pay a tax why should some companies be able to avoid it and not others. This argument is nonsensical.
    - cornholio 9y ago
      Because the new players don't need the services airports provide. Which turns into a tax or a monopoly rent, there is a long a list of such "precedents" that the market and regulators shut down.
      - CPLX 9y ago
        If they don't need the service the airport provides they can meet people arriving on planes somewhere that's not an airport. Otherwise it seems to me that they need the service the airport provides.
        michaelmrose 9y ago
        The service the airport provides is the fact that lots of people are there. In other news if I meet you in starbucks to buy a laptop from craigslist they aren't getting a cut. If they meet the car at Walmart do we expect the walton family to get a cut? If they drop the car off at their home do we expect the HOA to get a cut? At some point we could acknowledge that the airport isn't a party to the transaction.

rocqua 9y ago

It is reasonable insofar as the regulations are not set-up to protect the incumbents. With a little lee-way for regulations not being that needed for the new business model. However, it seems clear to me that requiring turo renters to enter the VIN of their car to check for recalls is just reasonable regulation. The same goes for having the cars be inspected yearly. Now, any laws for the actual pick-up process are a different beast, but non of those are mentioned in the article. Note that the example of turo wanting to make it illegal for car-owners to register cars with a recall seems like they are just trying to push these costs away. In the end, it is the responsibility of the rental company that their cars are safe. If the company deems signed statements from car owners sufficient due-diligence, that is their choice. If they do not trust such statements, the solution is to demand more in your due-diligence, not to make it illegal to 'lie' on these statements. That presumes that turo already has it in their TOS for car-owners that cars are required to be un-recalled. If not, adding that should be their first step. Immediately going for legislation when you can just amend contracts is a massive over-reach.