
The flying taxi market may be ready for takeoff: study - prostoalex
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/the-flying-taxi-market-is-ready-to-change-worldwide-travel.html
======
mdorazio
We have flying taxis. They're called helicopters and they're pretty much
exclusively used by very wealthy people for commute-type scenarios. What is
yet to be shown by any of the "giant drone" prototypes I've seen to date is a
realistic cost projection showing a ~10x reduction in comparison to a
helicopter with similar safety levels within the next 10 years. I have also
yet to see how these aircraft will deal with FAA regulations - a flying car is
great in theory until you're subject to all the same rules as normal aircraft.

~~~
quaquaqua1
To be thoroughly honest, I said the same thing about Tesla 10 years ago and
the technology did in fact get wayyy cheaper. New economic realities are upon
us.

But like you said, safety is harder when you are airborne. Can't imagine what
NYC would be like with 1000 helicopters in the sky.

~~~
ska

      New economic realities are upon us.
    

I don't see anything about tesla that wasn't reasonably perceivable 10 years
ago, or anything like a new economic reality. People have been saying for
decades that electric cars will work well if and when we can get the battery
cost down a bit.

We haven't seen the kind of reduction above poster is positing in electric
cars yet, and that's beyond the 10 year window (and we aren't going to, as
drive train isn't enough of the cost).

~~~
kmonsen
Yeah, electric cars are all about battery cost which is coming down rapidly
due to economies of scale. Tesla was great in taking the initial cost and that
together with $7500 tax rebate made them feasible in the beginner.

It looks like they are here to stay, but I would warn they still make a lot
less cars at a lower profitability than most major car makers.

------
rhacker
They need to start making zones of quiet/loud at this point. I travel the
country and I can't believe the number of places where you just hear
airplanes, __all__ day long, including after 1am. Sometimes it's a helicopter.
It gets really aggravating that the helicopter (on flight radar) turns out to
just be a private owner, at 1 am.

Basically having their fun at your expense and about 2000 - 20000 other people
that have to hear it.

It's getting worse. I feel like the flight school things is extremely out of
control. It used to be a few flights a day at specific airports. Now flight
schools are operating out of pretty much any city with greater than about
15000 people, and what is worse they flight right over the town, and then up
to 200 miles out. Then they reach their loop area and just loop. You end up
hearing them pass over about 30 times an hour when they do this.

So I just cringe when I see comments in here about how the sky is mostly
unused space, why don't we just cram it full of noisy shit.

~~~
hndamien
Heaviside is trying to directly attack noise pollution of their electric
plane. I think it was 38db at 1500ft.

------
kolbe
I was recently coaxed into clicking on a fake company's web site that was
clearly just designed to collect data on feasibility of flying taxis. Under
several monikers, I very much exaggerated my willingness to take them at very
high prices in hopes that I would help bring this industry one step closer to
reality. I apologize to whatever VC now thinks I will pay $150 each way for a
Fresno-SF air taxi.

As an economist, I will reiterate: never trust surveys. Even disguised ones.

------
Jagat
"The flying taxi market may be ready for takeoff" just like how Level 5
autonomous cars were "just around the corner" 4 years ago.

The moment it causes a death, the dates will be pushed ahead by a few years,
and VC money will dry down meanwhile.

------
redis_mlc
It's a fun read, but:

1) Urban areas have a lot of towers and wires to fly low

2) A single accident with pax will kill an air-taxi business

3) comfortable 4 pax helicopters are $2 million each, so aerospace and
affordable don't go together. Eclipse tried to make a cheap jet using
"friction-stir welding", so that was the gimmick last time around.

4) FAA has "one level of safety" \- there's no exception for wannabe
"disrupters"

~~~
asdfadsfgfdda
On #4, the FAA actually has multiple levels of safety. Small airplanes,
including even some small jets, are certified to part 23 standards. Airliners
are certified to part 25 standards, which are more stringent.

Even operationally, a part 121 operator (schedule airline) has the strictest
requirements, followed by a part 135 operator (on-demand charter), followed by
a part 91 (private, not for hire).

~~~
83
You didnt even mention the experimental/ultralight folks which is pretty much
a free for all. Though they cant flyover populated areas.

~~~
redis_mlc
Those are not allowed to be used in commercial operations.

------
anfilt
Whenever I read about air such ideas this the question is can the costs be
lowered enough enough for wider usage. Before we even get to the operating and
purchase cost of the air craft. All these taxi ideas seem always over look one
the largest costs.

The biggest problem short taxi like air travel tend forget about is the
infrastructure. Your going to need a lot of landing and take off locations for
it to be any use. You just can't land anywhere unless you have pilot that can
see areas clear of cars, power lines, and people or other hazards. So any
autonomous system is going to need lots landing and take off areas. Even with
a pilot they probably would still be needed.

The next largest costs of an air-craft is generally initial purchase. Then the
required on going maintenance to ensure the air-frame remains safe. While an
all aircraft electric may reduce the mechanical complexity. It does nothing to
reduce the labour cost per hour required to inspect an air-frame, and repair.
Also unlikely traditional aircraft a battery pack is more complex than a fuel
tank, any problems with it can be dangerous for any aircraft that do not use a
fixed wing design.

Also with a completely electric air craft energy density is even more
important than a car. This effectively limits them to short distances. While
energy costs may be lower than fuel. Fuel for small aircraft is cheaper than a
lot people realize.

Lastly, while getting rid of a pilot for routine flight is already in our
technological grasp. Unsurprisingly any failures or sudden problem are going
to be hard to handle. For instance how would an autonomous air-craft choose a
safe landing location if it detects problem that requires landing right away.
A busy street would be less than ideal where as a human could easily see less
occupied areas. It also would need to make sure that there are not tree
branches or power lines are crossing any part of it's chosen landing zone. It
would also need to detect that it's not landing on anything like a car or
anything else.

------
listenallyall
Just feel obligated to post two articles, from 2004 and 2006, about the
imminent proliferation of air taxis. This isn't to disparage the author, Rich
Karlgaard, who was (is?) simply very optimistic and enthusiastic about private
air travel. But the history of the companies he discusses -- Adam Aircraft,
POGO, DayJet -- demonstrates that the viability of air taxis is highly, highly
questionable.

[https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0816/037.html#f6e57154f3a...](https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0816/037.html#f6e57154f3a4)

[https://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2006/0918/043.html?partne...](https://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2006/0918/043.html?partner=yahoomag)

------
Ididntdothis
I already have a lot of helicopters flying over our place. Unless they solve
the noise problem I sincerely hope flying taxis won't take off. I really don't
need more noise.

~~~
dzhiurgis
Gonna guess that at large speeds they are quieter than a car...

~~~
rhacker
A single car driving on the street only affects the homes that knowingly
bought a car on the busy street. A helicopter, or 1000 of them per day,
affects about 90x more homes on a single pass.

~~~
dzhiurgis
Depends how high they fly.

------
forkexec
Regardless of a myriad of safety, insurance and licensing questions: how much
more energy will it use (that will just add to climate change) than ground
transportation?

------
lerie1982
I think the problem is air traffic control, not so much flying taxis?

~~~
Someone
Most helicopters fly without air traffic control, under visual flight rules.
[https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/new-york-city-
helico...](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/new-york-city-helicopter-
problem.html):

 _”One might imagine that the Federal Aviation Administration is fully in
charge of Manhattan’s crowded airspace. But the agency isn’t even aware how
many helicopters hover over the city on a daily basis. The FAA doesn’t
generally monitor chopper traffic, which operates under Visual Flight Rules
(VFR): Unless pilots approach an airport, they’re required to communicate only
with other pilots in nearby crafts, and not with air traffic control. This
means that depending on where a given pilot is, they may not have to speak
with anybody at all.”_

Presumably, these would, too (until too many accidents occur)

~~~
redis_mlc
> Most helicopters fly without air traffic control, under visual flight rules.

So that's a strangely-worded statement. Let me unpack it ...

Almost all helicopters are not IFR-equipped or operated under IFR (including
EMS), so they must fly under visual meteorological conditions using VFR rules.

And although they can fly without ATC facilities in some airspace, usually
they use ATC for takeoff and landings to airports, and arrivals and departures
to airports, and for position reports.

So what you meant to say was, "Almost all helicopters fly under VMC conditions
using VFR rules, and communicate with ATC except when they are in an airspace
where they're not required to.

But they do broadcast Mode-C and ADS-B at all times in airspace that requires
it, which goes to ATC:

[https://www.rotor.org/resource?ArtMID=493&ArticleID=1061](https://www.rotor.org/resource?ArtMID=493&ArticleID=1061)

