3 ms·
It's probably a bit more faster and more flexible, with the downside of holding much less cargo. I'm not sure that's enough to displace already existing boat se
by soundwave106 9y ago
It's probably a bit more faster and more flexible, with the downside of holding much less cargo. I'm not sure that's enough to displace already existing boat services to be honest.
Few areas come to mind immediately that fit that criteria. (The only one that came to mind personally as a "maybe" was the small Pacific coastal communities stretching up British Columbia up through Alaska, that are mostly served by water taxi now. I don't see an advantage even there initially.)
One other possibility I see for this if there are significant advantages to this over helicopters in certain situations, it might compete with services currently provided that way. (EG: Could this replace a helicopter air ambulance? Is there differences (engine volume comes to mind) that it would be desirable to replace helicopters with this for the tourism market? Etc.)
- notahacker 9y agoIt's not going to compete with an air ambulance because it doesn't have the carrying capacity. In the long term it might have favourable economics and possibly even safety vs the Robinson R22, a helicopter which has sold a few thousand units. But yeah, I think there are more cases for it as an alternative low-end short range helicopter sometimes deployed as a taxi than as an Uber alternative