3 ms·

I don't think it's strictly true that nobody has the problem of wanting to travel medium distances quickly. In fact, everyone has that problem - that's why the

I don't think it's strictly true that nobody has the problem of wanting to travel medium distances quickly. In fact, everyone has that problem - that's why the roads are congested and the trains are busy. It might be more accurate to say that the kinds of flying taxis these companies are proposing - noisy, highly constrained location, unsolved airspace congestion issues at scale, probably quite unsafe - are not really a solution. But even so, there's clearly demand for helicopter transfers to airports - if an electric flying taxi can deliver that at half the per-hour cost and equivalent safety, then it's a win.

rsynnott 2y ago
> But even so, there's clearly demand for helicopter transfers to airports I mean, maybe some? How much? For instance, to take Paris, the example from the article. You can apparently get a helicopter from Paris to CDG for 4000 euro, taking 17 minutes (from a not-particularly-central point). Last time I was in Paris, the RER took 30 minutes from the airport to the center, and cost a couple of euro. I'm sceptical that helicopters to airports could ever be a huge business, even if you cut the price by ten times.
- thrw42A8N 2y ago
  400 euro, 4-6 people... I'd do it.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    Maybe once, as a novelty, but if you're using the airport a lot, the train is probably less fuss.
    - acjacobson 2y ago
      Manhattan is a better example - there is no fast alternative route between the city and airport, and that's why you see a lot of helicopter transfers. I can see this working in a lot of US cities where public transport is poor and the airport is far away - Seattle, LA, Bay Area etc.