6 ms·

This was posted on HN a while ago; of course the numbers are aspirational but this explains their business model: https://lilium.com/newsroom-detail/why-region

This was posted on HN a while ago; of course the numbers are aspirational but this explains their business model: https://lilium.com/newsroom-detail/why-regional-air-mobility https://lilium.com/newsroom-detail/why-regional-air-mobility > If we imagine for a moment that you work in an office in Palo Alto, you could now choose to live in Hayward (5 min flight, $25), downtown San Francisco (10 min flight, $50), or even San Rafael (15 min flight, $70). > Or maybe you want to escape to Lake Tahoe for a long weekend? That would be less than an hour on a Lilium Jet, at a cost of around $250 at launch and less in the near future. It might not be something you’d do every weekend, but saving you three hours each way might well make it worthwhile for an occasional trip. Obviously at first this will be a luxury good, but it's not obvious that it'll remain out of reach for the middle class. (Sure, it'll never be cheaper than a bus.) It's a fair question exactly how much regulatory change this approach requires, but my impression is that they are trying to operate within existing constraints (I'd appreciate any insight from experts in the aviation space though).

bufferoverflow 4y ago
You would have to be making a lot of money to justify 2 such flights per day. 25 * 2 * 22 = $1100/mo = $13.2K / year.
- mbreese 4y ago
  But if you can live in a cheaper place than Palo Alto, you’ll make back that $15K per year in lower house payments. And if you only have a comfortable commute of 15-20 min each way as opposed to an hour (or more), your standard of living will be much nicer too.
  - duhast 4y ago
    House prices will adjust once air taxis take off (no pun intended).
  - theYipster 4y ago
    Perhaps not. A recent study (can't remember where, but industry specific) proposed that EVTOL economics--at scale--will settle at a CASM of $3. (CASM = cost per available seat mile. Note RASM, or revenue per available seat mile, will be higher or these businesses won't make a profit.) With a CASM of $3, this study showed that only 0.03% of the Bay Area will be wealthy enough to commute on these vehicles on anything resembling a regular basis.
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  There's likely a reason they picked Switzerland, Munich, New York and California as examples ;) I'm interested in how those prices break down. Without any more details, it's hard to know if they're realistic at all.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  Bay bridge toll + gas + parking + amortized car ownership + insurance is pretty plausibly less than that already.
  - Sebb767 4y ago
    You will have less mobility than with a car, though,so it won't replace all of it. But I agree with your main point, the actual premium will be much lower and probably worth it, considering the time saved.
sydd 4y ago
The main issue is not cost, but safety and the disturbance of others. Safety: If you crash in a car, its very likely that you survive. With these a crash is very likely deadly. To reach safety levels like commercial airplanes costs will need to rise tremendously. A commercial jet needs maintenance and checks after each flight by trained personnel, high quality parts that can be tracked from the refinery,... Privacy: You dont want these flying over your house 7/24. They fly much lower than commercial planes, with a mediocre camera you could spy on anyone. Crime: What if you divert one? Will there be security checkpoints at the entrance? Weather: I'm no aviation expert, but these look... flimsy. Are they able to run on cold weather? (batteries last much less in cold) Are they able to run in storms? Likely not, even commercial planes avoid them. Then I guess they suspend the service during storms, since with their "local" distances as big as the circumference of a storm cloud?
- hef19898 4y ago
  Safety and weather are covered by certification requirements. Those will be somewhere between small aircraft and helicopters with some eVTOL specifics. If it gets certified those bases are covered. Privacy: Regulated airspace is your friend, plis why wait for one those if you can have your own drone for the price of one Lilium ticket. Crime: Regulations also cover airport operations, so that base will be covered as well. For me the question is not if those aircraft are goong to fly (they will if it os technically possible and people fund development), but rather whether there is an actual market for those big enough to make the manufactirers and operators viable businesses. The last qiestion is hard (IMHO impossible) to answer without getting them to market first.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    There are certification requirements for both the aircraft and Ops Spec approvals for Part 135 (on-demand charter) operations. I can see that these would be certified to fly (and thus eligible for Part 91 (private) operations) far more easily than the more stringent requirements for Part 135 charter operations. The FAA thinking is that you have greater understanding as a passenger on a Part 91 operation and are better able to judge the risk yourself, whereas a Part 135 (charter) or Part 121 (scheduled airline) operation, the public cannot effectively judge the safety of the operation so the FAA holds them to a higher standard. Single engine Part 135 is possible, but there's a large amount of focus on redundancy: https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/single-engine-135/ https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/single-engine...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
roeles 4y ago
I wonder if the buildings these aircraft should land on can take the load of the downwash and the noise. In Europe there is a tilt rotor initiative. This has a smaller and more intensive downwash than a helicopter. I also recently read a report about the effects of rattle noise from Chinook helicopters affecting houses above 75dB noise levels. If my concerns are valid, I estimate travel times to increase. You would need to visit a vertiport first.

bufferoverflow 4y ago

You would have to be making a lot of money to justify 2 such flights per day. 25 * 2 * 22 = $1100/mo = $13.2K / year.

mbreese 4y ago
But if you can live in a cheaper place than Palo Alto, you’ll make back that $15K per year in lower house payments. And if you only have a comfortable commute of 15-20 min each way as opposed to an hour (or more), your standard of living will be much nicer too.
- duhast 4y ago
  House prices will adjust once air taxis take off (no pun intended).
- theYipster 4y ago
  Perhaps not. A recent study (can't remember where, but industry specific) proposed that EVTOL economics--at scale--will settle at a CASM of $3. (CASM = cost per available seat mile. Note RASM, or revenue per available seat mile, will be higher or these businesses won't make a profit.) With a CASM of $3, this study showed that only 0.03% of the Bay Area will be wealthy enough to commute on these vehicles on anything resembling a regular basis.
trompetenaccoun 4y ago
There's likely a reason they picked Switzerland, Munich, New York and California as examples ;) I'm interested in how those prices break down. Without any more details, it's hard to know if they're realistic at all.
bpodgursky 4y ago
Bay bridge toll + gas + parking + amortized car ownership + insurance is pretty plausibly less than that already.
- Sebb767 4y ago
  You will have less mobility than with a car, though,so it won't replace all of it. But I agree with your main point, the actual premium will be much lower and probably worth it, considering the time saved.

sydd 4y ago

The main issue is not cost, but safety and the disturbance of others. Safety: If you crash in a car, its very likely that you survive. With these a crash is very likely deadly. To reach safety levels like commercial airplanes costs will need to rise tremendously. A commercial jet needs maintenance and checks after each flight by trained personnel, high quality parts that can be tracked from the refinery,... Privacy: You dont want these flying over your house 7/24. They fly much lower than commercial planes, with a mediocre camera you could spy on anyone. Crime: What if you divert one? Will there be security checkpoints at the entrance? Weather: I'm no aviation expert, but these look... flimsy. Are they able to run on cold weather? (batteries last much less in cold) Are they able to run in storms? Likely not, even commercial planes avoid them. Then I guess they suspend the service during storms, since with their "local" distances as big as the circumference of a storm cloud?

hef19898 4y ago
Safety and weather are covered by certification requirements. Those will be somewhere between small aircraft and helicopters with some eVTOL specifics. If it gets certified those bases are covered. Privacy: Regulated airspace is your friend, plis why wait for one those if you can have your own drone for the price of one Lilium ticket. Crime: Regulations also cover airport operations, so that base will be covered as well. For me the question is not if those aircraft are goong to fly (they will if it os technically possible and people fund development), but rather whether there is an actual market for those big enough to make the manufactirers and operators viable businesses. The last qiestion is hard (IMHO impossible) to answer without getting them to market first.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  There are certification requirements for both the aircraft and Ops Spec approvals for Part 135 (on-demand charter) operations. I can see that these would be certified to fly (and thus eligible for Part 91 (private) operations) far more easily than the more stringent requirements for Part 135 charter operations. The FAA thinking is that you have greater understanding as a passenger on a Part 91 operation and are better able to judge the risk yourself, whereas a Part 135 (charter) or Part 121 (scheduled airline) operation, the public cannot effectively judge the safety of the operation so the FAA holds them to a higher standard. Single engine Part 135 is possible, but there's a large amount of focus on redundancy: https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/single-engine-135/ https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/single-engine...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

roeles 4y ago

I wonder if the buildings these aircraft should land on can take the load of the downwash and the noise. In Europe there is a tilt rotor initiative. This has a smaller and more intensive downwash than a helicopter. I also recently read a report about the effects of rattle noise from Chinook helicopters affecting houses above 75dB noise levels. If my concerns are valid, I estimate travel times to increase. You would need to visit a vertiport first.