6 ms·

The flying taxi market may be ready for takeoff: study

34 points by prostoalex 7y ago

kolbe 7y ago
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.
redis_mlc 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    You didnt even mention the experimental/ultralight folks which is pretty much a free for all. Though they cant flyover populated areas.
    - redis_mlc 7y ago
      Those are not allowed to be used in commercial operations.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    An air-taxi would be 135 by definition. It's easier than 121 but not that much easier. But if the taxis do not require pilots (perfectly reasonable for air travel) and electric engines do require much less maintenance, satisfying 135 regulations can become easier than satisfying 91 with normal planes. Disruption is done by increasing the quality of your equipment. It's perfectly viable, although it has to follow a slow certification schedule.
  - redis_mlc 7y ago
    > On #4, the FAA actually has multiple levels of safety. No, you're misinformed. From an operating standpoint, when you carry more than 10 pax, all operators are treated like an airline. There are different Parts but the end effect is the same for 121 and 135: https://www.avweb.com/features/full-text-of-the-faas-new-one-level-of-safety-rules/ https://www.avweb.com/features/full-text-of-the-faas-new-one... "One level of safety" is an FAA term, and describes their philosophy when there are paying passengers.
mdorazio 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ska 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      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.
  - 7y ago
lerie1982 7y ago
I think the problem is air traffic control, not so much flying taxis?
- Someone 7y ago
  Most helicopters fly without air traffic control, under visual flight rules. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/new-york-city-helicopter-problem.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/new-york-city-helico...: ”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 7y ago
    > 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
forkexec 7y ago
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?
Jagat 7y ago
"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.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
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 7y ago
  Gonna guess that at large speeds they are quieter than a car...
  - rhacker 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      Depends how high they fly.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rhacker 7y ago
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 7y ago
  Heaviside is trying to directly attack noise pollution of their electric plane. I think it was 38db at 1500ft.
listenallyall 7y ago
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#f6e57154f3a4 https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0816/037.html#f6e57154f3a... https://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2006/0918/043.html?partner=yahoomag https://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2006/0918/043.html?partne...
anfilt 7y ago
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.

34 points by prostoalex 7y ago

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.

redis_mlc 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  You didnt even mention the experimental/ultralight folks which is pretty much a free for all. Though they cant flyover populated areas.
  - redis_mlc 7y ago
    Those are not allowed to be used in commercial operations.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  An air-taxi would be 135 by definition. It's easier than 121 but not that much easier. But if the taxis do not require pilots (perfectly reasonable for air travel) and electric engines do require much less maintenance, satisfying 135 regulations can become easier than satisfying 91 with normal planes. Disruption is done by increasing the quality of your equipment. It's perfectly viable, although it has to follow a slow certification schedule.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  > On #4, the FAA actually has multiple levels of safety. No, you're misinformed. From an operating standpoint, when you carry more than 10 pax, all operators are treated like an airline. There are different Parts but the end effect is the same for 121 and 135: https://www.avweb.com/features/full-text-of-the-faas-new-one-level-of-safety-rules/ https://www.avweb.com/features/full-text-of-the-faas-new-one... "One level of safety" is an FAA term, and describes their philosophy when there are paying passengers.

mdorazio 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ska 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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.
- 7y ago

lerie1982 7y ago

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

Someone 7y ago
Most helicopters fly without air traffic control, under visual flight rules. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/new-york-city-helicopter-problem.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/new-york-city-helico...: ”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 7y ago
  > 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

forkexec 7y ago

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?

Jagat 7y ago

"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.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

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 7y ago
Gonna guess that at large speeds they are quieter than a car...
- rhacker 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    Depends how high they fly.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rhacker 7y ago

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 7y ago
Heaviside is trying to directly attack noise pollution of their electric plane. I think it was 38db at 1500ft.

listenallyall 7y ago

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#f6e57154f3a4 https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0816/037.html#f6e57154f3a... https://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2006/0918/043.html?partner=yahoomag https://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2006/0918/043.html?partne...

anfilt 7y ago

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.