The FAA doctrine is "one level of safety." What that means is that: 1) a flying car is going to be treated like operating an airliner if money changes hands t

The FAA doctrine is "one level of safety." What that means is that: 1) a flying car is going to be treated like operating an airliner if money changes hands to carry passengers. To give you an idea of what that costs, consider that an adequate tourism helicopter is $2 million. 2) otherwise, there's a rule for built-up areas that requires flying 500' over people and structures. That doesn't count for landings on regular airports and EMS helicopters on top of hospitals, but does pretty much everywhere else. Not terribly useful for commuting downtown. 3) the FAA regulates airspace and airports, but municipalities generally say no in urban areas when private citizens ask to operate helicopters off-airport. Steve Jobs found that out when he tried to get permission to use one for personal "urban air mobility" either in Palo Alto or Cupertino. So to conclude ... If you wanted agreement from the FAA and municipalities to do the "urban air mobility" thing, you'd need to start with what I wrote and devise a compelling argument that satisfies their concerns. Note that wasn't done with drones, and look at how restrictive the rules are now. It will be far worse if you want to charge money to carry passengers. Rightfully so - passengers expect to embark, travel and disembark without making the headlines. And you need a plan for what happens after the first accident that kills a passenger. Because not just one air mobility company, but all companies, will be mercilessly hammered by the FAA. Can you afford to shutdown for a year or two while the NTSB and FAA do their thing?