Post by High Priestess on Mar 22, 2020 2:38:13 GMT
Many, many hosts are very angry with Airbnb over its decision to claw back all their income as guests cancel reservations during this global pandemic.
community.withairbnb.com/t5/COVID-19-Discussions/Airbnb-completely-threw-their-hosts-under-a-bus-regarding-Covid/td-p/1257864
community.withairbnb.com/t5/Hosting/Airbnb-completely-threw-their-hosts-under-a-bus-regarding-Covid/td-p/1263191
Of course guests should cancel these reservations, that much is not in question, as it is dangerous if not impossible to travel now in most parts of the world.
The argument many hosts are making, though, is often not the right argument. Hosts are arguing that "there's no coronavirus in my area/ there are very few cases in my country" so this EC should not apply to me. That's not a valid argument. Consider Italy. Italy started out with zero cases of coronavirus, then it had one. Now the name of this nation is synonymous with the danger of exponential increase of coronavirus cases. So it's not really valid to argue that there's no risk in your area because there is only one or two cases.
Then too, the greater issue for guests, even if your city or state had no cases, would be in using an airplane to get to your region, when (1) many flights are being cancelled and more air travel restricted, (2) more borders are being closed, (3) people traveling on a plane are necessarily in close proximity with each other in a confined area for a long period of time, and this poses considerable danger in and of itself.
The better argument IMO, is the longer one which backs up and examines the whole context from the get-go. The problem is that Airbnb should NEVER have coerced hosts into being unpaid travel insurers, made to take the hit if a guest ends up with personal circumstances that cause them to have to cancel their trip. This is what travel insurance is for, and Airbnb can and should have sold travel insurance from the get-go.
Once a company has an Extenuating Circumstances policy like this, of course it would have to apply it in a situation like this. Because as many hosts have said, "if this isn't an extenuating circumstance then what is?" Of course it's an extenuating circumstance, but it was in my view ethically wrong (unfair treatment of its host partners) to have ever set up any extenuating circumstance policy in the first place. "Extenuating Circumstances" causing an overriding of the contract's cancellation policy, should not exist and never be applied.
That said, we are relatively powerless as hosts to force Airbnb to do the right thing by hosts, and to change their policy on this. Hosts could leave the platform en masse, but this is difficult for many to do because for many it's still the "best game in town" or even the "only game in town" as they discover the problems with alternate platforms.
community.withairbnb.com/t5/COVID-19-Discussions/Airbnb-completely-threw-their-hosts-under-a-bus-regarding-Covid/td-p/1257864
community.withairbnb.com/t5/Hosting/Airbnb-completely-threw-their-hosts-under-a-bus-regarding-Covid/td-p/1263191
Of course guests should cancel these reservations, that much is not in question, as it is dangerous if not impossible to travel now in most parts of the world.
The argument many hosts are making, though, is often not the right argument. Hosts are arguing that "there's no coronavirus in my area/ there are very few cases in my country" so this EC should not apply to me. That's not a valid argument. Consider Italy. Italy started out with zero cases of coronavirus, then it had one. Now the name of this nation is synonymous with the danger of exponential increase of coronavirus cases. So it's not really valid to argue that there's no risk in your area because there is only one or two cases.
Then too, the greater issue for guests, even if your city or state had no cases, would be in using an airplane to get to your region, when (1) many flights are being cancelled and more air travel restricted, (2) more borders are being closed, (3) people traveling on a plane are necessarily in close proximity with each other in a confined area for a long period of time, and this poses considerable danger in and of itself.
The better argument IMO, is the longer one which backs up and examines the whole context from the get-go. The problem is that Airbnb should NEVER have coerced hosts into being unpaid travel insurers, made to take the hit if a guest ends up with personal circumstances that cause them to have to cancel their trip. This is what travel insurance is for, and Airbnb can and should have sold travel insurance from the get-go.
Once a company has an Extenuating Circumstances policy like this, of course it would have to apply it in a situation like this. Because as many hosts have said, "if this isn't an extenuating circumstance then what is?" Of course it's an extenuating circumstance, but it was in my view ethically wrong (unfair treatment of its host partners) to have ever set up any extenuating circumstance policy in the first place. "Extenuating Circumstances" causing an overriding of the contract's cancellation policy, should not exist and never be applied.
That said, we are relatively powerless as hosts to force Airbnb to do the right thing by hosts, and to change their policy on this. Hosts could leave the platform en masse, but this is difficult for many to do because for many it's still the "best game in town" or even the "only game in town" as they discover the problems with alternate platforms.