We parked our car at the Austin airport for six days, and my brother then picked it up to use during his three-day visit to my mother. He left it in airport parkinglot when he flew off three days later, a few hours before we returned.
This exchange was a clear Pareto improvement: he avoided the cost of renting a car, but he saved me three days of charges for parking ($30). I can’t think of anyone who was made worse off by this exchange, and both of us were made better off. My mother commented how altruistic I was to let him use the car; but, as is so often the case, my motive might just as well have been pure selfishness.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
So … if we can get to a point where ANYONE can use one’s car while it would otherwise be in the airport parking lot (returned on time of course and maybe with some money to the car owner) then we would really have a win-win. Sounds like a web 2.0 business plan to me.
“I can’t think of anyone who was made worse off by this exchange”
Both the airport parking garage and rental car companies lost revenue from this exchange and were as such “made worse off”. But you’re right in that it’s a great deal for the two private parties–I have done this a few times.
To be complete, you’d need to include the cost of wear & tear on your car. Plus, unless you’re looking at this solely from the past perspective, you’d need to consider some form of risk because he might have totaled your car or at least dented it.
You subsidized your brother’s not renting a car in exchange for $30 in parking fees. Because nothing visible happened to it and you don’t count wear, you feel better off.
@ 2)
It is not worse off for the parking garage because the car is not IN the parking garage. True, he is not paying to use a space… but that is because his car is not taking up their space.
The retal car company and parking garage did not necessarily lose revenue because it is possible that someone else parked in the spot or rented the car that his brother would have otherwise used.
The car rental place is no worse off, they’re in the exact same position they were in anyway. If it’s like Atlanta, the airport parking lot doesn’t care because someone else parked there to take his spot.
If something had happened to your car while your brother was using it you would have been worse off. And arguably you could already be worse off if more than $30 in “wear and tear” occurred while your brother was using your car.
$30 for three days parking? On-Site? That’s cheap.
Guess I’m used to EWR parking rates.
But if you lived in Europe where many cities have efficient rail/tram/bus service you could have easily traveled to the airport without a car, and your brother could have visited without needing a car.
Everyone could save on hidden costs of traveling linked to auto parking, rental, gas. No special agreements necessary.