Waymo has received our pilot permit allowing for commercial operations at SFO

Pickup location & operations

• Service will start at SFO’s “Kiss & Fly” area near the rental car center, requiring an AirTrain ride to/from terminals; some see this as reasonable first step, others find it inconvenient vs curbside.
• Several compare with current SFO rideshare setup (walk to garage roof, staging lots, taxi priority at arrivals) and speculate Waymo could eventually help airports better manage curb congestion and dynamic staging.
• Some ask whether Waymo can handle multi‑level structures; others note Waymo already uses multilevel parking depots and Google has detailed indoor/parking data.

Freeways, routing, and driving difficulty

• Waymo already has permission for freeway use around SF, but current public rides mostly avoid highways, leading to slow, circuitous routes to suburbs or SFO if surface streets are used.
• People debate which airports are the true “stress tests” for autonomy (SFO vs LAX, BOS, JFK, etc.). Some note Waymo already handles Phoenix airport terminal traffic, but SFO access is initially limited to the remote zone.

Pricing, demand, and competition

• Mixed reports on pricing: some riders see Waymo 10–50% cheaper than Uber/Lyft (especially when factoring tips), others see it as 10–50% more expensive and positioned as a premium product.
• Many expect initial undercutting of human-driven rideshare, with concern that once scale and dominance are achieved, prices could rise (“monopoly gonna monopoly”); others counter that competition from transit, private cars, and other AVs will cap prices.
• Several note high utilization per vehicle and argue driverless fleets are fundamentally cheaper long term (no driver pay, 24/7 use, smaller cars), but acknowledge that today costs are still high and fleets small.

User experience & safety comparisons

• Frequent riders describe Waymo as smoother, more cautious, and more consistent than typical Uber drivers, and dramatically more capable than current Tesla “robotaxi” pilots, especially in bad weather and complex urban settings.
• Tesla’s system is repeatedly characterized as Level 2 driver assist vs Waymo’s Level 4 robotaxi; there is sharp disagreement over whether Tesla can “catch up and outscale” or is years behind structurally.
• Some value Waymo for privacy and comfort (no small talk, consistent driving), others worry about pervasive sensors, recording, and remote monitoring.

Regulation, politics, and airport turf

• SFO approval is seen as a big political shift after a period of local hostility and protection of taxis/unions; some attribute the change to city leadership turnover and competitive pressure from San Jose’s faster approval.
• Commenters clarify that airports are city‑controlled whereas city streets are regulated at the state level, which is why airport access lagged broader SF deployment.

Traffic, labor, and monopoly concerns

• Debate over traffic impact: some think cheaper AV rides will draw people from transit and increase congestion; others argue high utilization and smaller fleets could ultimately reduce total vehicles.
• Multiple comments highlight likely job losses for taxi/rideshare drivers, especially from lucrative airport rides, and broader worries about automating even gig work.
• A few fear an eventual dominant AV platform (Waymo or otherwise) with strong network effects and question whether regulators are prepared for that structure.

Autonomy, aviation, and tech tangents

• Long subthread compares self-driving cars to autopilot/autoland in aviation: consensus that routine flight is easier to automate than dense urban driving, but emergency handling, ATC interaction, and infrastructure reliability make fully autonomous airliners an extremely high bar.
• Some argue autonomous flight is technically easier but economically and regulatorily less compelling than autonomous cars; others note drones’ high mishap rates and insist that for commercial passengers, humans in the loop will be required for a long time.

Public transit vs robotaxis, US vs Europe

• Europeans lament lack of meaningful AV deployments locally and blame regulation, but others respond that Europe already has better mass transit and less need for car-based solutions.
• Extensive debate pits AVs against metros, trams, and buses: many argue trains are the only real cure for urban traffic and that AVs are “bandaids” for car‑centric US planning; others see AVs as complements that can solve first/last‑mile issues and make car‑free living more feasible.
• Several stress that US low density and poor rail make door‑to‑door car travel structurally attractive, while European commenters caution against sacrificing walkability and transit for more cars, automated or not.

Global access, apps, and rollout scope

• Non‑US visitors complain they can’t easily use the Waymo app due to app‑store region restrictions, though some non‑US Android users report success.
• Multiple comments remind readers that today’s deployments cover only small, geofenced zones in a handful of metros; most Americans have never ridden in or even seen a Waymo yet, though visibility in cities like SF, LA, Phoenix, and Austin is growing quickly.