Alright, pass those costs on. What's the alternative? We live with a less efficient system because we're used to car renters subsidizing everyone else?
It seems rather silly and inefficient that people have to pay more for their airport coffee or airplane tickets just because rental car companies decide stop paying their fees.
>> What's the alternative? We live with a less efficient system because we're used to car renters subsidizing everyone else?
Car renters aren't "subsidizing" everyone else. The article makes clear that rentals are just one of a variety of revenue sources for airports. Looked at another way: why should public transit riders pay for the infrastructure to support rental car agencies and shuttles?
Also, assuming FlightCar is truly disruptive, they should be able to provide a more efficient and cost-effective service despite paying the airports an appropriate use fee.
[Entertainment companies] are less fearing change than trying to maintain their funding system.
[Cell phone companies] are less fearing change than trying to maintain their funding system.
[Game companies] are less fearing change than trying to maintain their funding system.
Isn't that what holds back a lot of companies--why change if they're making enough money as it is. In some ways, I feel like that's the big thing that held Sony back and let Apple dominate the MP3 player market.
EDIT: This is just a comment on the headline, not anything in the article -- just to be clear!