10 ms·

Whenever I hear air taxi, I think about water bottles and airport security. I don't want some rich dude flying over my house just because he/she can afford to

Whenever I hear air taxi, I think about water bottles and airport security. I don't want some rich dude flying over my house just because he/she can afford to take a airtaxi from the airport to city center while everyone else uses car or train. For other use cases they can do what they want. Australian outback perhaps. But airspace pollution and a potential small airplane crashing down in a city? No way.

nostromo 4y ago
They do this already. They're called helicopters.
- ben_w 4y ago
  On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, making it cheap enough that mono-millionaires can do it regularly is going to make a big difference compared to the status quo.
  - wildmanx 4y ago
    > mono-millionaires Ah right, moving it from 0.1%-ers to 1%-ers is really going to make a big difference.
    - brrrrrm 4y ago
      About 10x, right?
    - jxf 4y ago
      Roughly 10% of Americans are millionaires, for reference (though I doubt all of that is liquid).
      - wildmanx 4y ago
        Alright, the actual figure is $1,2M for the 90-percentile household net worth. For the individual that's to be divided by 3 (since there are about 120M households in the U.S.). We are at the 96-percentile for $3M household net worth. So yeah, 4%-ers then. Really makes a big difference to my point. This is totally gonna change everybody's life. (I.e. those who can afford it, while the majority is scraping by from paycheck to paycheck.)
      - edg-l 4y ago
        this comment reminded me of this http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/ http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        Sources online show that about 8% of Americans are millionaires, with a significant bump during COVID (probably because of the stock market.) About 10% of households are. It's hard to find precise qualifications for how they determine that, though. The households figure doesn't include primary residence value (why?), and the individual statistics don't mention liquidity. I suspect that only a small percent of that 8% actually has $1+ million liquid.
        idlehand 4y ago
        Definitely not liquid cash, but assuming that a not insignificant portion of those people are retirees or planning to retire soonish (which is when net worth peaks), I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of decently liquid assets like stocks and bonds are higher than you might think.
      - Deritio 4y ago
        Owning a house doesn't just allow you to fly business all the time
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I don't know. The idea that a bunch of people with a couple of millions of dollars in wealth can now zip around above my house (and further alienate themselves from civic reality, even more so than cars do) seems like a pretty bad outcome.
    - ghastmaster 4y ago
      That is essentially how progress begins in every industry. Wealthy people pay for new tech with their vast fortunes, and many times, their lives. Once they work out the kinks and economies of scale take over, the less wealthy enjoy the same tech at higher levels of safety and lower prices.
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        I wonder how often that's true, or a myth of uber-capitalism - sort of a trickle-down theory for tech. AFAIK, it's often government that pays for new tech, and then once it has a profitable nitch, corporations.
        ghastmaster 4y ago
        That is true to a large extent today. Sadly, most of the foundations of the tech we have today is based on tech we had developed before governments were involved to level they are today. Cars, trains, engines, CRT, film, computers, telephone, building materials, and much much more, are seemingly only being tweaked. The rapid pace of truly innovative tech has waned. Is this because of government involvement? Is this because our understanding of basic science allowed us to pass some threshold, only to be stymied by the increasing complexity and having to devote more time and material to test the nuances? Blockchain was supposedly created by a single person. The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States has mentioned creating a digital currency. As they pump more money into that idea and develop some neat tweaks or totally control blockchains, will we look back in 50 years and say, "Look at how much the government did for blockchain." forgetting that it exists in the first place to spite them?
      - donthellbanme 4y ago
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  Well, _electric_ helicopters or electric helicopter-equivalent-vehicles would be a step forwards, correct?
- staunch 4y ago
  > They do this already. They're called helicopters. This is dangerously close to the infamous HN Dropbox critique[1] :-D And it's likely wrong in the same way. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
    Past performance is not an indicator of future performance?
- vidarh 4y ago
  Helicopters are expensive to rent. If Lilium achieves even 10x the cost they've suggested they can reach in the past, they'll be attractive to a customer base who'd never be able to afford regular helicopter rides.
prvit 4y ago
> airspace pollution Bit of a fake concern, no? >potential small airplane crashing down in a city Is that really much worse than a SUV driving into a building?
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > Is that really much worse than a SUV driving into a building? Yes
  - SapporoChris 4y ago
    Think of it this way. If an SUV drives into your building you can sue and make some money. But if some really rich person crashes their flying gizmo into your building you can sue and make a lot of money!
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      So, are you saying that you think that the worst that happens in car crashes is "someone could sue"? please don't waste our time.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      I can't sue if I've been incinerated by an uncontrolled lithium battery fire.
      - voldacar 4y ago
        Neither could you sue if you had been struck and killed by an SUV. The end state of your reasoning is that nobody can ever do anything that involves risk because someone might die and be unable to sue. Sounds like an awful world
        woodruffw 4y ago
        Emphasis on "killed." I don't want to be struck by an SUV, but one hitting my apartment at ordinary NYC residential street speeds (at least, pre-COVID) is less likely to kill me than a plane crash. Risk is a community exercise. You don't (or rather, shouldn't) get to externalize disproportionate risks upon the commons because it makes your life easier. (An example of such a consideration: what happens when the fire department shows up? They know how to deal with a car accident; are they going to have the presence of mind not to douse a vehicle that looks like a normal personal aircraft in water?)
inglor_cz 4y ago
Air taxis are really useful in places divided by natural obstacles. Hop over a fjord, hop over a mountain range. Much cheaper and eco-friendly than building bridges and tunnels everywhere, especially if the population density isn't high.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- idlehand 4y ago
  These kinds of places are also generally suitable for hydropower and geothermal energy which gives considerable amounts of cheap electricity.
- Deritio 4y ago
  If population density is not high than it will not be cost efficient for the normal people.im surprised how many people here think that rich people who can afford to fly over a mountain regularly is a good thing. Perhaps in 20-50 years when we solved climate change. Those companies are not trying to just create a cheap and easy to use carplane they want to become rich which needs business viability. And I don't mind if they solve some niche problems. I mind that they want to fly over my head every 10 minutes.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    "rich people who can afford to fly over a mountain regularly" Look at the rural countryside in places like Norway. I am not talking about rich people primarily, but semi-isolated communities whose older citizens might need specialized healthcare etc. Also, this was originally a discussion about electric planes, so their effect on climate change is probably neutral-ish.
jstummbillig 4y ago
> No way. Wait until you see the motor carriages they claim are going to replace horses one day.
- tpxl 4y ago
  When a motor carriage loses power, it stops. When a helicopter loses power, it kills people.
  - underdeserver 4y ago
    When a helicopter loses power it glides, safely, to the ground - assuming it's being flown by a qualified pilot. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation
    - jackpeterfletch 4y ago
      I guess the question is - can we maintain the standard that is ‘qualified pilot’ as it is today while making it accessible enough for this to scale. Learning to drive and learning to fly isn’t the same bar today. And if Lilium think Palo Alto to San Francisco could be $50, they’re gonna need _alot_ of flights to balance their costs.
      - jstummbillig 4y ago
        I think it's safe to assume this class of vehicles (and likely any new class of vehicles from here on out) is not designed to be piloted by a human past its prototype stage.
    - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
      That is a fantasy that almost never works out in real life. Autorotation is only feasible with enough forward air speed and control authority. Most helicopter crashes happen outside that narrow zone of survivability. Even if an autorotation is semi-pulled off it's likely to be a hard landing that causes significant injuries.
p1mrx 4y ago
> a potential small airplane crashing down in a city? No way. Drones ought to have megaphones that scream DRONE CRASH IMMINENT before impact.
- bradknowles 4y ago
  Boy, that would scare the crap out of those Russian T-72 tank drivers just before they die....
somishere 4y ago
I always saw cars / roads as the great equaliser in the cities ... I lived in Sydney for a while where there were a couple of traffic snare points that were unavoidable, no matter your position in life. The Sydney Harbour bridge is one that comes to mind. There would be incidents all the time that would briefly close the bridge and you'd have execs in their batmobiles bumper to bumper with sparkies in their ford transits, nowhere to go and nothing to do. There was literally no way short of commandeering a helicopter that would get you over that bridge faster than the next bozo. Unless you wanted to slum it on public transport or a bike. Re. Australian outback, air taxi already kind of exists in light planes, helis and of course flying doctor.
- bluejekyll 4y ago
  “There was literally no way…” in a car. But bikes, walking, etc. Bikes are better for cities. Biking is not slumming it. There are some pretty fancy eBikes out there.
  - somishere 4y ago
    For sure. I cycled my ~16km return route to work almost every day (starting with a killer hill) ... tho must be said cycling in Sydney is not for the faint of heart. That said, the particular generation of execs I was referring to largely exist in a culture devoid of bicycle commutes :)
Aeolun 4y ago
> But airspace pollution and a potential small airplane crashing down in a city? No way. Why is this fine with big planes, but bad with small ones?
- Deritio 4y ago
  It's not. The big plane fly area at airports.is a hard area to life in due to all the noise. But small air taxies would first of fly much lower, always in the city and if it is cheap enough for all of us, you need more than just one. And if it's not affordable for us, than there is no real reason for us to accept this at all. And yes the big planes when they travel very high you can not hear them but it's also totally valid to have the discussion about air pollution and sky visual pollution. But air transport for goods is actually something were we all benefit. Airmail as well.
monkeycantype 4y ago
Funny you mention Australia, back when people worked in offices you could sit down on the banks of the Yarra on a Friday night, and watch chopper after chopper flying the wealthy from their Melbourne offices to their Mornington peninsula weekend homes. There’s already a pretty big rich guys who won’t take the train market.
simonh 4y ago
>I don't want some rich dude flying over my house just because he/she can afford to take a airtaxi from the airport to city center while everyone else uses car or train. Why not? He's funding the employment of the air taxi people, plus their technology development, and reducing congestion. I understand the safety concern, but I don't see how "just because" they can afford it is a reasonable objection.
- Deritio 4y ago
  It's not 'just' a safety concern. It's the safety concern and it's flying over my head. There is always a risk/benefit ratio and just because a handful of people want to spend more money so that they can fly faster from the airport to the city center than others is not worth the security implications. You are aware how much security is involved whenever you fly? We talk an expensive license, regular flying hours per year (also not cheap), air control, restricted air zones, very regular safety plain checks. Every single object on a commercial plane for example is tracked, every replacement etc. Congestion is not solved by small expensive air taxies. If a normal taxi costs x, an airtaxi has to cost 4x and more. We the people don't need to allow everyone everything just because they have the money into do so.
  - simonh 4y ago
    Like I said, safety concerns are fine, these things should be properly regulated like any aircraft, but if they can be safely regulated then I don't see a problem. >Congestion is not solved by small expensive air taxies If you expect a new transport to 'solve congestion' as a requirement for it to be allowed, we're not going to allow anything. Incremental improvements can add up. I just find these "I can't have it, so you can't either" arguments so short sighted. Lots of technologies start out the domain of the wealthy before achieving scale and mass adoption. Maybe we won't all be mass adopting air taxis, but some of the technologies that come out of these things may well end up in our cars, or houses, or benefiting us indirectly.
    - wasmitnetzen 4y ago
      Even existing regulated airplanes kill people on the ground every now and then. The risk is small, but I feel like the benefit of transporting ~100 people weighs out the risk much better than transporting ~1.

nostromo 4y ago

They do this already. They're called helicopters.

ben_w 4y ago
On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, making it cheap enough that mono-millionaires can do it regularly is going to make a big difference compared to the status quo.
- wildmanx 4y ago
  > mono-millionaires Ah right, moving it from 0.1%-ers to 1%-ers is really going to make a big difference.
  - brrrrrm 4y ago
    About 10x, right?
  - jxf 4y ago
    Roughly 10% of Americans are millionaires, for reference (though I doubt all of that is liquid).
    - wildmanx 4y ago
      Alright, the actual figure is $1,2M for the 90-percentile household net worth. For the individual that's to be divided by 3 (since there are about 120M households in the U.S.). We are at the 96-percentile for $3M household net worth. So yeah, 4%-ers then. Really makes a big difference to my point. This is totally gonna change everybody's life. (I.e. those who can afford it, while the majority is scraping by from paycheck to paycheck.)
    - edg-l 4y ago
      this comment reminded me of this http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/ http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      Sources online show that about 8% of Americans are millionaires, with a significant bump during COVID (probably because of the stock market.) About 10% of households are. It's hard to find precise qualifications for how they determine that, though. The households figure doesn't include primary residence value (why?), and the individual statistics don't mention liquidity. I suspect that only a small percent of that 8% actually has $1+ million liquid.
      - idlehand 4y ago
        Definitely not liquid cash, but assuming that a not insignificant portion of those people are retirees or planning to retire soonish (which is when net worth peaks), I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of decently liquid assets like stocks and bonds are higher than you might think.
    - Deritio 4y ago
      Owning a house doesn't just allow you to fly business all the time
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I don't know. The idea that a bunch of people with a couple of millions of dollars in wealth can now zip around above my house (and further alienate themselves from civic reality, even more so than cars do) seems like a pretty bad outcome.
  - ghastmaster 4y ago
    That is essentially how progress begins in every industry. Wealthy people pay for new tech with their vast fortunes, and many times, their lives. Once they work out the kinks and economies of scale take over, the less wealthy enjoy the same tech at higher levels of safety and lower prices.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      I wonder how often that's true, or a myth of uber-capitalism - sort of a trickle-down theory for tech. AFAIK, it's often government that pays for new tech, and then once it has a profitable nitch, corporations.
      - ghastmaster 4y ago
        That is true to a large extent today. Sadly, most of the foundations of the tech we have today is based on tech we had developed before governments were involved to level they are today. Cars, trains, engines, CRT, film, computers, telephone, building materials, and much much more, are seemingly only being tweaked. The rapid pace of truly innovative tech has waned. Is this because of government involvement? Is this because our understanding of basic science allowed us to pass some threshold, only to be stymied by the increasing complexity and having to devote more time and material to test the nuances? Blockchain was supposedly created by a single person. The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States has mentioned creating a digital currency. As they pump more money into that idea and develop some neat tweaks or totally control blockchains, will we look back in 50 years and say, "Look at how much the government did for blockchain." forgetting that it exists in the first place to spite them?
    - donthellbanme 4y ago
SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
Well, _electric_ helicopters or electric helicopter-equivalent-vehicles would be a step forwards, correct?
staunch 4y ago
> They do this already. They're called helicopters. This is dangerously close to the infamous HN Dropbox critique[1] :-D And it's likely wrong in the same way. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
  Past performance is not an indicator of future performance?
vidarh 4y ago
Helicopters are expensive to rent. If Lilium achieves even 10x the cost they've suggested they can reach in the past, they'll be attractive to a customer base who'd never be able to afford regular helicopter rides.

prvit 4y ago

> airspace pollution Bit of a fake concern, no? >potential small airplane crashing down in a city Is that really much worse than a SUV driving into a building?

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> Is that really much worse than a SUV driving into a building? Yes
- SapporoChris 4y ago
  Think of it this way. If an SUV drives into your building you can sue and make some money. But if some really rich person crashes their flying gizmo into your building you can sue and make a lot of money!
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    So, are you saying that you think that the worst that happens in car crashes is "someone could sue"? please don't waste our time.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I can't sue if I've been incinerated by an uncontrolled lithium battery fire.
    - voldacar 4y ago
      Neither could you sue if you had been struck and killed by an SUV. The end state of your reasoning is that nobody can ever do anything that involves risk because someone might die and be unable to sue. Sounds like an awful world
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        Emphasis on "killed." I don't want to be struck by an SUV, but one hitting my apartment at ordinary NYC residential street speeds (at least, pre-COVID) is less likely to kill me than a plane crash. Risk is a community exercise. You don't (or rather, shouldn't) get to externalize disproportionate risks upon the commons because it makes your life easier. (An example of such a consideration: what happens when the fire department shows up? They know how to deal with a car accident; are they going to have the presence of mind not to douse a vehicle that looks like a normal personal aircraft in water?)

inglor_cz 4y ago

Air taxis are really useful in places divided by natural obstacles. Hop over a fjord, hop over a mountain range. Much cheaper and eco-friendly than building bridges and tunnels everywhere, especially if the population density isn't high.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
idlehand 4y ago
These kinds of places are also generally suitable for hydropower and geothermal energy which gives considerable amounts of cheap electricity.
Deritio 4y ago
If population density is not high than it will not be cost efficient for the normal people.im surprised how many people here think that rich people who can afford to fly over a mountain regularly is a good thing. Perhaps in 20-50 years when we solved climate change. Those companies are not trying to just create a cheap and easy to use carplane they want to become rich which needs business viability. And I don't mind if they solve some niche problems. I mind that they want to fly over my head every 10 minutes.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  "rich people who can afford to fly over a mountain regularly" Look at the rural countryside in places like Norway. I am not talking about rich people primarily, but semi-isolated communities whose older citizens might need specialized healthcare etc. Also, this was originally a discussion about electric planes, so their effect on climate change is probably neutral-ish.

jstummbillig 4y ago

> No way. Wait until you see the motor carriages they claim are going to replace horses one day.

tpxl 4y ago
When a motor carriage loses power, it stops. When a helicopter loses power, it kills people.
- underdeserver 4y ago
  When a helicopter loses power it glides, safely, to the ground - assuming it's being flown by a qualified pilot. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation
  - jackpeterfletch 4y ago
    I guess the question is - can we maintain the standard that is ‘qualified pilot’ as it is today while making it accessible enough for this to scale. Learning to drive and learning to fly isn’t the same bar today. And if Lilium think Palo Alto to San Francisco could be $50, they’re gonna need _alot_ of flights to balance their costs.
    - jstummbillig 4y ago
      I think it's safe to assume this class of vehicles (and likely any new class of vehicles from here on out) is not designed to be piloted by a human past its prototype stage.
  - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
    That is a fantasy that almost never works out in real life. Autorotation is only feasible with enough forward air speed and control authority. Most helicopter crashes happen outside that narrow zone of survivability. Even if an autorotation is semi-pulled off it's likely to be a hard landing that causes significant injuries.

p1mrx 4y ago

> a potential small airplane crashing down in a city? No way. Drones ought to have megaphones that scream DRONE CRASH IMMINENT before impact.

bradknowles 4y ago
Boy, that would scare the crap out of those Russian T-72 tank drivers just before they die....

somishere 4y ago

I always saw cars / roads as the great equaliser in the cities ... I lived in Sydney for a while where there were a couple of traffic snare points that were unavoidable, no matter your position in life. The Sydney Harbour bridge is one that comes to mind. There would be incidents all the time that would briefly close the bridge and you'd have execs in their batmobiles bumper to bumper with sparkies in their ford transits, nowhere to go and nothing to do. There was literally no way short of commandeering a helicopter that would get you over that bridge faster than the next bozo. Unless you wanted to slum it on public transport or a bike. Re. Australian outback, air taxi already kind of exists in light planes, helis and of course flying doctor.

bluejekyll 4y ago
“There was literally no way…” in a car. But bikes, walking, etc. Bikes are better for cities. Biking is not slumming it. There are some pretty fancy eBikes out there.
- somishere 4y ago
  For sure. I cycled my ~16km return route to work almost every day (starting with a killer hill) ... tho must be said cycling in Sydney is not for the faint of heart. That said, the particular generation of execs I was referring to largely exist in a culture devoid of bicycle commutes :)

Aeolun 4y ago

> But airspace pollution and a potential small airplane crashing down in a city? No way. Why is this fine with big planes, but bad with small ones?

Deritio 4y ago
It's not. The big plane fly area at airports.is a hard area to life in due to all the noise. But small air taxies would first of fly much lower, always in the city and if it is cheap enough for all of us, you need more than just one. And if it's not affordable for us, than there is no real reason for us to accept this at all. And yes the big planes when they travel very high you can not hear them but it's also totally valid to have the discussion about air pollution and sky visual pollution. But air transport for goods is actually something were we all benefit. Airmail as well.

monkeycantype 4y ago

Funny you mention Australia, back when people worked in offices you could sit down on the banks of the Yarra on a Friday night, and watch chopper after chopper flying the wealthy from their Melbourne offices to their Mornington peninsula weekend homes. There’s already a pretty big rich guys who won’t take the train market.

simonh 4y ago

>I don't want some rich dude flying over my house just because he/she can afford to take a airtaxi from the airport to city center while everyone else uses car or train. Why not? He's funding the employment of the air taxi people, plus their technology development, and reducing congestion. I understand the safety concern, but I don't see how "just because" they can afford it is a reasonable objection.

Deritio 4y ago
It's not 'just' a safety concern. It's the safety concern and it's flying over my head. There is always a risk/benefit ratio and just because a handful of people want to spend more money so that they can fly faster from the airport to the city center than others is not worth the security implications. You are aware how much security is involved whenever you fly? We talk an expensive license, regular flying hours per year (also not cheap), air control, restricted air zones, very regular safety plain checks. Every single object on a commercial plane for example is tracked, every replacement etc. Congestion is not solved by small expensive air taxies. If a normal taxi costs x, an airtaxi has to cost 4x and more. We the people don't need to allow everyone everything just because they have the money into do so.
- simonh 4y ago
  Like I said, safety concerns are fine, these things should be properly regulated like any aircraft, but if they can be safely regulated then I don't see a problem. >Congestion is not solved by small expensive air taxies If you expect a new transport to 'solve congestion' as a requirement for it to be allowed, we're not going to allow anything. Incremental improvements can add up. I just find these "I can't have it, so you can't either" arguments so short sighted. Lots of technologies start out the domain of the wealthy before achieving scale and mass adoption. Maybe we won't all be mass adopting air taxis, but some of the technologies that come out of these things may well end up in our cars, or houses, or benefiting us indirectly.
  - wasmitnetzen 4y ago
    Even existing regulated airplanes kill people on the ground every now and then. The risk is small, but I feel like the benefit of transporting ~100 people weighs out the risk much better than transporting ~1.