7 ms·

A service like this existed until a few years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Helicopter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Helicopter It took just a few mi

A service like this existed until a few years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Helicopter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Helicopter It took just a few minutes to get to EWR or JFK and cost $159. The biggest selling point was not only the short commute, but that you went through security at the helipad very quickly, rather than waiting at the airport. I believe they were a victim of the financial crisis and died around that time.

dannylandau 12y ago
Maybe by facilitating the service via an app will make the difference here. A much bigger audience and probably a lot easier to book.
- nerfhammer 12y ago
  Possibly by having the service on-demand they have fewer liabilities so you don't go out of business if demand drops off, which is what did in US Helicopter. Helicopters as a Service. On the other hand if they're too successful maybe the company they're chartering from could decide to offer service themselves and cut them out
  - woah 12y ago
    A helicopter company is going to have a hard time hiring iOS developers and managing a software development project, not to mention the most important part: the brand.
  - adevine 12y ago
    They're not the carrier. From the bottom of the page: Gotham Air is not a direct air carrier but rather provides technology and information services enabling consumers to obtain aircraft charter and shared aircraft charter services from FAA certified and DOT registered air carriers who exercise operational control over all flights .
    - nerfhammer 12y ago
      Right, they don't own any aircraft or facilities. It's like uber pool for helicopters
    - larrys 12y ago
      Exactly I've seen a few services like this advertised exactly the same way (WSJ ads some run by former industry execs). Interesting thought that the picture of the heli contradicts that (says "Gotham Air" on the side). That's no small point actually. Gives someone who doesn't read the fine print the idea that they do operate the aircraft. I understand why they do that but it is a bit deceptive.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Enough to sue them for misleading advertising or something like that? It needs to be done, just to make a point.
        larrys 12y ago
        I would imagine that the chance of getting sued is quite small. What individual would sue and what harm would they claim? Government FTC most likely would not care and if they did all they would have to do is change the picture. Likewise if there was an accident someone would have to say they relied on that information and was mislead. Unlikely (especially in the case of death how do you prove that?). Plus it is common practice to operate like this by similar parties. Here is a similar company for jets: http://www.bluestarjets.com/ http://www.bluestarjets.com/ Note how they do the same thing but don't have any logos on the jets. http://www.bluestarjets.com/?page=company-payment-legal http://www.bluestarjets.com/?page=company-payment-legal My guess is that the "Gotham Air" will disappear from the home page picture.
        mikeash 12y ago
        A significant chunk of US airline flights are operated by a company other than the one whose logo is on the airliner. It mostly applies to the smaller regional "feeder" names, like United Express (actually operated by Cape Air, CommutAir, ExpressJet, and a bunch of others), and American Eagle (operated by AVAir, Chaparral Airlines, Command Airways, and more). I have no idea if Gotham plans to actually operate that way, but I'd be shocked if there were actually a legal problem if they did.
  - imglorp 12y ago
    Having it on-demand means they are possibly flying under FAA part 135 regs (charter/commuter) instead of 119 (scheduled carrier) so the expense might be a little lighter there. That said, someone's got to pay the mortgage on a $2.6 million ship, plus fuel and maint and salaries etc etc.
ovb 12y ago
And before US Helicopter, there was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Airways http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Airways New York Airways had one notable accident: http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/may-16-1977-helicopter-accident-on-top-of-pan-am-building-kills-five/?_r=0 http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/may-16-1977-hel...
- Alex3917 12y ago
  The NYC helicopters in general have a terrible track record. There are constantly articles about them crashing into the rivers, into buildings, into other helicopters or planes, etc. Someone else in the thread posted an article about how the overall helicopter fatality rate compares with the car fatality rate, and while it's hard to say for certain, it doesn't look promising.
  - rpmcb 12y ago
    I'd be interested in sources for these claims. Lots of hyperbole in this comment.
    - Alex3917 12y ago
      7 crashes between 1995 - 2011, and that's only into the same two rivers. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/helicopter-crash-timeline-east-river-helicopter-crash-seventh-nyc-river-1995-article-1.959734 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/helicopter-crash-timelin...
      - downandout 12y ago
        Is that bad though? I'm guessing there are at least hundreds of thousands of helicopter flights in New York annually. ~1 accident per year doesn't sound very dangerous to me. As for the concept, it's Uber for helicopters. As long as there is a need (I don't and would never live in New York so I have no idea what the demand for this is) then it may very well be successful.
dankohn1 12y ago
I did the $159 a few years ago before they shut down. My flight out of JFK was delayed by 2 hours, making the expense seem kind of ridiculous. Also, my flight was in a different terminal, meaning I had to leave and then re-enter security, which also kills the time advantage.
- orbitur 12y ago
  I don't know. I think I'd pay $160 to not sit in traffic for 3 hours, just to wait in an airport/go through security for another 2. That means extra time to get things done before you fly out.
  - melling 12y ago
    There's a train to the airport.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
    As someone who lives in a city with a population of approximately 100,000 in the greater metro area - Launceston, Tasmania - I'd like to take a moment to reflect on your comment. Google Maps tells me Manhattan to JFK Airport is a 32 kilometre taxi ride and takes three hours, plus it takes two hours to clear security at the airport. I'm a little astounded by those numbers. Five hours to get from the couch at home to the airport. Astounding. I'm through the airport and in Melbourne city in under 2 hours. I would definitely pay $100 to reduce that. I think $100 helicopter flights is something I would do with friends just to get a drink across town occasionally. How novel!
    - mkopinsky 12y ago
      The numbers above are an exaggeration. I lived in the north end of manhattan (the part furthest from JFK) and an hour to get to JFK was on the long side - typical is probably 40-80 minutes. It doesn't take two hours to clear security at an airport either - typical is anywhere from 10 to 45 minutes.
      - 12y ago
bengali3 12y ago
Yes, only marketing improvements here.

dannylandau 12y ago

Maybe by facilitating the service via an app will make the difference here. A much bigger audience and probably a lot easier to book.

nerfhammer 12y ago
Possibly by having the service on-demand they have fewer liabilities so you don't go out of business if demand drops off, which is what did in US Helicopter. Helicopters as a Service. On the other hand if they're too successful maybe the company they're chartering from could decide to offer service themselves and cut them out
- woah 12y ago
  A helicopter company is going to have a hard time hiring iOS developers and managing a software development project, not to mention the most important part: the brand.
- adevine 12y ago
  They're not the carrier. From the bottom of the page: Gotham Air is not a direct air carrier but rather provides technology and information services enabling consumers to obtain aircraft charter and shared aircraft charter services from FAA certified and DOT registered air carriers who exercise operational control over all flights .
  - nerfhammer 12y ago
    Right, they don't own any aircraft or facilities. It's like uber pool for helicopters
  - larrys 12y ago
    Exactly I've seen a few services like this advertised exactly the same way (WSJ ads some run by former industry execs). Interesting thought that the picture of the heli contradicts that (says "Gotham Air" on the side). That's no small point actually. Gives someone who doesn't read the fine print the idea that they do operate the aircraft. I understand why they do that but it is a bit deceptive.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Enough to sue them for misleading advertising or something like that? It needs to be done, just to make a point.
      - larrys 12y ago
        I would imagine that the chance of getting sued is quite small. What individual would sue and what harm would they claim? Government FTC most likely would not care and if they did all they would have to do is change the picture. Likewise if there was an accident someone would have to say they relied on that information and was mislead. Unlikely (especially in the case of death how do you prove that?). Plus it is common practice to operate like this by similar parties. Here is a similar company for jets: http://www.bluestarjets.com/ http://www.bluestarjets.com/ Note how they do the same thing but don't have any logos on the jets. http://www.bluestarjets.com/?page=company-payment-legal http://www.bluestarjets.com/?page=company-payment-legal My guess is that the "Gotham Air" will disappear from the home page picture.
        mikeash 12y ago
        A significant chunk of US airline flights are operated by a company other than the one whose logo is on the airliner. It mostly applies to the smaller regional "feeder" names, like United Express (actually operated by Cape Air, CommutAir, ExpressJet, and a bunch of others), and American Eagle (operated by AVAir, Chaparral Airlines, Command Airways, and more). I have no idea if Gotham plans to actually operate that way, but I'd be shocked if there were actually a legal problem if they did.
- imglorp 12y ago
  Having it on-demand means they are possibly flying under FAA part 135 regs (charter/commuter) instead of 119 (scheduled carrier) so the expense might be a little lighter there. That said, someone's got to pay the mortgage on a $2.6 million ship, plus fuel and maint and salaries etc etc.

ovb 12y ago

And before US Helicopter, there was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Airways http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Airways New York Airways had one notable accident: http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/may-16-1977-helicopter-accident-on-top-of-pan-am-building-kills-five/?_r=0 http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/may-16-1977-hel...

Alex3917 12y ago
The NYC helicopters in general have a terrible track record. There are constantly articles about them crashing into the rivers, into buildings, into other helicopters or planes, etc. Someone else in the thread posted an article about how the overall helicopter fatality rate compares with the car fatality rate, and while it's hard to say for certain, it doesn't look promising.
- rpmcb 12y ago
  I'd be interested in sources for these claims. Lots of hyperbole in this comment.
  - Alex3917 12y ago
    7 crashes between 1995 - 2011, and that's only into the same two rivers. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/helicopter-crash-timeline-east-river-helicopter-crash-seventh-nyc-river-1995-article-1.959734 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/helicopter-crash-timelin...
    - downandout 12y ago
      Is that bad though? I'm guessing there are at least hundreds of thousands of helicopter flights in New York annually. ~1 accident per year doesn't sound very dangerous to me. As for the concept, it's Uber for helicopters. As long as there is a need (I don't and would never live in New York so I have no idea what the demand for this is) then it may very well be successful.

dankohn1 12y ago

I did the $159 a few years ago before they shut down. My flight out of JFK was delayed by 2 hours, making the expense seem kind of ridiculous. Also, my flight was in a different terminal, meaning I had to leave and then re-enter security, which also kills the time advantage.

orbitur 12y ago
I don't know. I think I'd pay $160 to not sit in traffic for 3 hours, just to wait in an airport/go through security for another 2. That means extra time to get things done before you fly out.
- melling 12y ago
  There's a train to the airport.
- TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
  As someone who lives in a city with a population of approximately 100,000 in the greater metro area - Launceston, Tasmania - I'd like to take a moment to reflect on your comment. Google Maps tells me Manhattan to JFK Airport is a 32 kilometre taxi ride and takes three hours, plus it takes two hours to clear security at the airport. I'm a little astounded by those numbers. Five hours to get from the couch at home to the airport. Astounding. I'm through the airport and in Melbourne city in under 2 hours. I would definitely pay $100 to reduce that. I think $100 helicopter flights is something I would do with friends just to get a drink across town occasionally. How novel!
  - mkopinsky 12y ago
    The numbers above are an exaggeration. I lived in the north end of manhattan (the part furthest from JFK) and an hour to get to JFK was on the long side - typical is probably 40-80 minutes. It doesn't take two hours to clear security at an airport either - typical is anywhere from 10 to 45 minutes.
    - 12y ago

bengali3 12y ago

Yes, only marketing improvements here.