I fly most weeks commercially as a passenger but from time toting take business trips flying myself. Some months ago I decided to do a Helsinki trip with a fuel stop in Roskilde and advertised all four legs on SkyUber. I ended up with 1 passenger on the legs to and from the uk. I thoroughly enjoyed having the company in the cruise and found it a very worthwhile experience as well as appreciating the cost share element. I will certainly continue to advertise any similar trips as long as it remains legal
Originally Posted by
tmmorris
My take on all the 'disruptive'/'sharing economy' services I've come across is that they aim (or claim to aim) to be offering the opportunity for ordinary punters to share their resources (empty room/flat, spare seats in the car or plane) but owe their success to people who are using their services to avoid the regulation placed on 'proper' services (hotels, taxis, airlines/AOC/air taxi).
Those regulations were put there for good reasons, whether that is physical safety (hotels have fire safety requirements, obligations to look after your stuff; AOCs require proper company ops etc.) or safety from dangerous people (taxi drivers are usually checked out, and there are some horrendous AirBnB stories about barmy owners).
I beg to differ.
Yes, regulations were put there for good reasons. But on the basis of a backward looking view of the world. The technological shift has changed the paradigm unalterably.
You cite airbnb as an example of bad practice. The complaints re airbnb account for a minuscule proportion of the travel enabled. How else could I have found an opportunity to stay with my kids with a delightful family in Hoi An a while back.
The regulated operators, hotels, airlines or whatever also have a minuscule proportion of cases where regulation fails to protect. Just ask the Chapiones teams' families. Or German Wings.
In the first case, Rogue operator: yes. Regulated: yes, whatever you may think about the country in question etc. In the second, Rogue Operator: unquestionably not. Regulated: yes. But there, some would argue, regulation was the issue. Not the aviation regulations but existing German privacy law which in this case treated the right of an individual to medical privacy as sacrosanct irrespective of the responsibilities the person held for the lives and safety of others.
As I see it the issues here are that change in society was traditionally slow and regulation proceeded at the same pace. Change is now incredibly quick and we have not yet figured out how to adapt our political and regulatory processes to respond to the new realities of the world.
It all sounds a bit like horse breeders bemoaning the creation of the internal combustion engine to me.