Airbnb Hosts: Extenuating Circumstances: Fair Or Not? Why? And Alternatives?

I believe Airbnb offering their own “travel insurance” is the right solution. I doubt the regulatory barriers are significant if Airbnb only insures their own product and I’m certain they wouldn’t actually call it insurance. The major barrier to implementing the change is abuse since this change would now put 100% of the burden on Airbnb whereas currently it is about 20% Airbnb and 80% hosts. It would take money/effort/manpower to do it successfully and I firmly believe this is why Airbnb doesn’t implement a lot of the changes we want to see.

Also, I’d like to point out that the small hosts should be aware that they have a lot more to lose from an EC cancellation in terms of the percentage of Airbnb revenue than the large multi-listing agencies. We should be happy the “big guys” have the leverage with Airbnb and the cash to collect and analyze data that allows them to fight for all hosts.

2 Likes

Agreed. Until the OP explained in his second post that he’s representing an agency, I didn’t understand the question, my thought being that if a guest gets an Airbnb refund and claims on his/her travel insurance, then what concern is it of mine? Sure, they have just scammed their insurance company but there are far worse things done in the world every day.

People here know how long I’ve been hosting and I don’t think I’ve ever had an EC cancellation. The cancellations I have had, and it’s not many over the years, have been months in the future anyway and guests cancelling is just a normal part of the hospitality business.

When we signed up with Airbnb, we agreed to their terms. And there are many other ways to get guests. Relying on Airbnb seems a bit daft, right?

1 Like

But some cities are removing them. I’m hoping for the domino-effect :grin:

1 Like

Some cities are setting limitations on STR. But they still are not removing listings from Airbnb‘s platform – only Airbnb can do that.

1 Like

But some cities are making Airbnb do that. Have a look at Boston :grin:

I understand that, but your earlier wording made it sound like cities had some sort of control over the AirBnB listing platform. They don’t; AirBnB just chooses to play ball because they perceive the alternative (lawsuits, increased bad publicity) to be worse for them.

But they do! Boston forced Airbnb into having to remove the listings as opposed to just making the listings illegal. It was a big push by Boston. They effectively took control of the airbnb lising platform in Boston. It was a really big deal when it happened. Other cities are following suit. It’s considered a precedent now.

“As per our legal settlement, we are prepared to work with the City to take the appropriate action against listings that have not provided a license number, so that they are no longer available as short-term rentals,” said an Airbnb spokesperson.

Edit to add: I can’t friggin wait. I might personally go to talk to our mayor. LOL.

1 Like

But even if cities couldn’t force Airbnb to help them, handing out a few fines will convince many remote property owners and their managers out of business.

3 Likes

It’s true but it seems that it hasn’t been very effective overall. It took San Francisco a couple of years to get on top of it. I followed this story in Boston because of the difference, that the deal was that Airbnb had to be responsible, which is new to the scene. And it’s not only more effectvie but makes it more appealing to cities to enact regulations because enforcing the regulations has been an issue - not just in my city but others too (resources, money, etc.). Forcing Airbnb to do the ground-level enforcing saves a lot of resources and makes it easier for ciities to have regulations. IMO, from following the story/issue.

It’s really quite incredible when you look at the numbers. Although, Boston’s regulations are a bit stricter than some in some ways. E.g. If we were in Boston, owner-occupied with our 3 unit house, we would only be allowed to rent one of the units as a STR, not both. Our 3rd listing is technically part of our apartment so we could list that additionally but only if we called it a “private room” with “private entrance” - it could no longer be “an entire place” or we couldn’t list it. It’s pretty strict really.

Here are some numbers from a week ago that are intersting:

Last month, Airbnb boasted more than 6,000 listings in Boston. The city says as of Friday, they’ve only applied for registration of just over 1,800 and just 775 have been approved.

That is quite the loss. If other cities, and some are already set to do so come Jan 1, follow this similar path, Airbnb will actually need its home hosts more than ever.

I don’t think the little bit of compromise on the review system is a coincidence. Surely we shouldn’t get too confident but I think moves like Boston’s bode well for small hosts. Just my 72 cents or so :wink:

2 Likes

Since they started offering the non-refundable option to the moderate and flexible bookings perhaps they start there…making those non-refundable bookings EC proof…? They should be anyways, otherwise, just leave the pricing as it is…

Maybe they could charge the host for it instead of the guest? I am not a proponent of that but it is an idea…