I am not familiar with this story in detail. Yet on the face of it, these services are not directly equivalent. Without knowing details of their implementation, it is clear that in principle, FlightCar has the potential to be disruptive, by the usual definition of the term. This is because it utilises assets more efficiently: land, labour and vehicles. The airport's existing financial arrangement is not really relevant since FlightCar could, presumably with some operational difficulty, operate outside of the boundaries of the airport. What you see as a loophole, I view as an indicator of a business model which became broken by technology and a trend toward more responsible use of scarce resources. You may not like it, and public opinion may even be with you, but I don't see how this is not classic disruption.

I actually agree with you. They could operate completely outside the boundaries of the airport, in which case they would not have to pay the use fees to the airport.

The problem is that part of their value prop to customers is that they offer airport pickup (they send a black car to bring you from the airport to the rental agency). This puts them in a position where the airport has a right to demand use fees, since they are using the same roads and infrastructure as any other rental car service.

Reducing costs by not using the infrastructure, and therefore completely circumventing the need to pay the use fees, would be disruptive. Using the infrastructure but refusing to pay is not disruption. They are not doing anything more efficiently, they are just refusing to pay.

This issue should be understood as completely distinct from their core car-sharing business model, which is disruptive to the rental car industry.