>Airbnb said it would also accelerate the use of instant bookings, which lets renters book places immediately without host approval.Maybe I'm naive but it seems like that policy would be perceived by hosts as extremely hostile. Homeowners have both a financial and emotional vested interest in their homes so letting strangers book it without a cursory check isn't going to work. Having no checks would work for real estate holders who aren't emotionally attached to their homes but not homeowners who live in the same house they rent.
Even if it's irrational and discriminatory, homeowners want to maintain some semblance of control over who stays at their home. It's the homeowner who has to pay for damages/misbehavior -- whether directly or by home insurance deductibles and higher premiums. (As I understand it, AirBnb's coverage guarantee only kicks in
after the homeowner exhausts his personal insurance.)
Does anyone know the bulk of AirBnb's business revenue? Is it homeowners renting out a spare bedroom? Or is it people renting out non-owner occupied beach houses and lofts?
EDIT ADD: Every time an AirBnb thread about racism comes up, many commenters are confused or ignorant about what the law actually says. To copypaste a previous comment:
Those anti-discrimination laws don't apply to hosts' private homes or bedrooms.[1] Paraphrase of law: "All persons shall be entitled ..., and accommodations of any place of public accommodation,..., without discrimination ... other than ... a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent ... which is actually occupied by the proprietor ... as his residence"
In other words, if a homeowner has a spare bedroom across the hall from her 13-year-old son's room, and doesn't want to rent to transgender, black, or 65-year-old guests, it is legal for her to discriminate on those attributes.
On the other hand, if the AirBnb host is renting out a non-owner-occupied beach house, the discrimination laws would apply.
[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a:
Maybe I'm naive but it seems like that policy would be perceived by hosts as extremely hostile. Homeowners have both a financial and emotional vested interest in their homes so letting strangers book it without a cursory check isn't going to work. Having no checks would work for real estate holders who aren't emotionally attached to their homes but not homeowners who live in the same house they rent.
Even if it's irrational and discriminatory, homeowners want to maintain some semblance of control over who stays at their home. It's the homeowner who has to pay for damages/misbehavior -- whether directly or by home insurance deductibles and higher premiums. (As I understand it, AirBnb's coverage guarantee only kicks in after the homeowner exhausts his personal insurance.)
Does anyone know the bulk of AirBnb's business revenue? Is it homeowners renting out a spare bedroom? Or is it people renting out non-owner occupied beach houses and lofts?
EDIT ADD: Every time an AirBnb thread about racism comes up, many commenters are confused or ignorant about what the law actually says. To copypaste a previous comment:
Those anti-discrimination laws don't apply to hosts' private homes or bedrooms.[1] Paraphrase of law: "All persons shall be entitled ..., and accommodations of any place of public accommodation,..., without discrimination ... other than ... a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent ... which is actually occupied by the proprietor ... as his residence"
In other words, if a homeowner has a spare bedroom across the hall from her 13-year-old son's room, and doesn't want to rent to transgender, black, or 65-year-old guests, it is legal for her to discriminate on those attributes.
On the other hand, if the AirBnb host is renting out a non-owner-occupied beach house, the discrimination laws would apply.
[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a: