this is reasonable. I’m still comfortable with the risk given the exorbitant prices right now.

Agreed. The cost of travel is getting insane.

But you're still paying it, so it will continue. If the cost of the fullsize car in Hawaii was enough to push you to alternatives, the prices would drop closer to the value renters perceive in having the car. Alternatives usually exist, but it takes effort to find them. Car rental in general is inching closer to becoming a niche, borderline irrelevant product for many people.

For who? Maybe young people traveling highly urban environments. Car rental for vacations is for sure not niche.

Car rental demand is very high in Hawaii, and I suspect it will remain that way for some time.

Until the cost exceeds the perceived value. Even for vacations, alternatives usually exist, but can take initial extra search effort. Once found, the savings can be substantial. Not just Turo, either. There are maybe less than 10% of possible use cases for vacations where renting a car has no viable alternatives.

The Hawaiian tourist board said a few months ago that hopefully the high prices will show that most people don't need a car every single day of their stay. Many people were probably booking by default, and didn't seriously look for alternatives. The rates will stay high as long as people complain but accept them anyway.

Even if this is true (I don’t think it is) this has nothing to do with consumer behavior. People are still renting cars.

Well, if the fleet had 500 cars, and now only has 100, there can be a maximum of 100 customers. There may be 100 customers now, who were blindsided by the high rates after making the rest of their itinerary, and have credits expiring soon. But the question is how consumer behavior will shift over time, now that people know to expect a different situation than they got used to. People will still rent cars, but, especially for retail customers without fixed-rate corporate contracts, likely much less.

A few weeks ago, the NY Times ran an article about the rental car shortage, and how rental companies are trying to find ways to enforce higher prices through artificial scarcity in the future. The risk of course is that eventually 500 cars could have been purchased, a decision was made to only buy 100 again, but this time, just 50 people are still interested. The rates and availability could hypothetically go down, but at that point, customers won't know or care, having moved on. Uber is already in a similar situation, where people who once reflexively booked now stop and think if it's really necessary for many trips. Uber admitted recently that many rate requests no longer result in a booking, and cancellations often no longer result in another request. Adjustment takes time, as you said, but it can culminate with people still traveling and no longer searching for their old favorite methods.

The rental companies and consultants interviewed seemed to consider this a real possibility. The comments section had several hundred people saying they rented for what will hopefully be the last time when they took a vacation last summer. The high rates and bad customer experience all around pushed them to seriously consider alternatives, and many claim they already found something acceptable.

Does anyone have any experience with Avis charging cancellation fees in regards to AWD usage?

I have a reservation booked with an AWD which was about a third of a the price of all other rentals. I have a backup rental booked in case it doesn't work, but I was worried about this wording in the agreement:

Does this mean they would attempt to collect the entire amount in the event that they reject the use of the AWD?

I find it odd that you're even in this thread unless you're seeking out codes yourself. A honest suggestion, if it's dear to your heart: how about writing to Avis Corporate Security about your e-mail verification suggestion rather than trying to stifle peaceful FT conversations? The answer is for Avis to change (if they even care that much) rather than trying to play whack-a-mole in every potential conversation on the subject across the globe.

Since we're listing odd things, I also find it odd that a corporation provides different vehicle rates to different customers for what's arguably the same product. When our car was in the shop and our insurance policy covered the car rental, the rented vehicle rate sent to my insurance was TRIPLE the walk-up leisure rate in spite of having identical conditions, all because my insurer and the rental company had their own "legal scam" going to rake in the highest amounts possible from other insurance companies.

I also find it odd how some Avis rentals of late can sometimes cost upwards of $800 a day.
Or how I could be deemed 'liable' by Avis for damages that have been on a vehicle for months and quite possibly already been attributed and charged to previous renters, but aren't openly admitted to by the agent before my taking possession of the car.
Or how Avis customers are often taunted with coercive insurance upsells.
Or how Avis customers in snowy regions are often given cars with summer tires mounted because the customer didn't pay for an extra "winterized" package.

But, yes, some people have been known to actually pay a fair price for a car rental (rather than be "legally gouged") while acting in less than 100% truthful ways. The sky is falling.

The issue is that by allowing discussion of fraud, FT could be deemed complicit and suffer repercussions.

I find huge value in FT and all the contributions by the many folk who partake and have helped me find great value in my travel spending and would miss it were something to happen.

Everyone loves a hidden discount or mistake fare, but outright fraud points the wrong way on my personal compass, ymmv.

Maybe the Hawaiian tourist board should stop "hoping" and (a) do some actual research about this, and/or (b) educate people about alternatives.

Someone who's touring an island to sightsee all over the place (on their own pace, and thus not with a tour group) is likely to need a car every day.

Someone who has a beachside hotel and is just lounging on the beach every day is likely to just need transportation to/from restaurants, nightclubs, whatever. But they may not be aware of what alternatives there are, because they may have, for example, heard of rideshare shortages too.

Whether one is going to Hawaii or elsewhere, I encourage those FTers who are college or university graduates to investigate whether their alma mater(s) have rental car contracts with the majors, and if so, whether alumni are entitled to utilize those rates for leisure travel. (Some college/university contracts are limited to employees only; others are more liberal.) I can legitimately book a midsize with Hertz on Kona in mid-January for a base rate of $190/week with my undergraduate school's code, and $195/week with my law school's code. (And no, I'm not going to identify the schools on FT. ;) )

Just do a Google search for "[name of your school] car rental discount" or "[name of your school] Hertz discount", etc., and see if anything comes up. You might have to contact your school's purchasing office and/or the rental company's corporate office to determine whether alumni are entitled to use the school's contract "leisure" code, but given the potential savings these days, it might be worth that investment of your time. In the case of Hertz, it has landing pages for my alma maters' contracts which expressly welcome alumni to use the discount. With Avis/Budget, I verified alumni eligibility with my college's purchasing office, and more recently with Avis' contract manager after I got a reservation reminder email with the AWD warning language. So now, it's just a question of what proof of one's status as an alumnus would be required at time of car pickup. (I plan on bringing a certified copy of my college transcript along on future rentals that I make using my alma mater's code.)

One caveat: your school's alumni association might list discount codes that are different -- and much less favorable -- than the school's own contract codes.

Possibly the most concerning point is that if you do use a corporate code, it defaults your liability (and other) insurance coverage policies to a company agreement. You then get in an accident, are legitimately investigated for proof of employment, and could be on the hook for.. a lot. At least that is my theory. I got a non owner car insurance policy for this reason alone (though i rent a ton)