Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

American Airlines Reserves 50 Flying Taxis (theregister.com) 41

Posted by BeauHD from the we-are-living-in-the-future dept.
American Airlines has committed to making pre-delivery payments for 50 Vertical Aerospace VX4 electric VTOL aircraft. The Register reports: The commitment [PDF] comes just over a year after the aviation giant made a pre-order for 250 of the flying taxis, with an option for a further 100. Vertical Aerospace claims its VX4 will be 100x quieter than a helicopter and have a top speed of 202mph. Its range will be at least 100 miles and it can carry five people (including the pilot). Being electric, the aircraft will also have zero operating emissions, the company said.

In a recent letter to shareholders [PDF], Vertical Aerospace boasted that the prototype VX4 was nearly complete and would be kicking off its flight test program in the summer of 2022. It also talked up its pre-order book, which stands at up to 1,350 aircraft with a value of $5.4 billion, according to the company. However, it is the move by American Airlines to reserve its first 50 aircraft with a pre-delivery payment commitment that makes a fleet of eVTOL aircraft seem closer to reality than science fiction. The report notes that the VX4 still needs to be certified by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), and US Federal Aviation Agency (FAA).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

American Airlines Reserves 50 Flying Taxis More

American Airlines Reserves 50 Flying Taxis

Comments Filter:

  • A Sikorsky S-65 is also technically a helicopter.

    • Which One?

      The loudest one they could find

      • Also, "100x quieter" is a pretty meaningless term. Sure, that is what it might be on the decibel scale, but it's not how perceived noise levels work.
        • Well it's definitely not a 99% reduction in decibels, which is a log scale. The loudest possible sustained sound in air is 194 dB [hearinghealthmatters.org]; 1% of that in decibels would be about 2 dB which is barely above the lower threshold of human hearing.

          So assuming we are talking about power per unit area instead, 100x is 20 dB [physicsclassroom.com]. So for example on that link, normal conversation is 60 dB while a vacuum cleaner is 80 dB.

  • All the glamour of a taxi and all the efficiency of an airline. On a serious note, "at least 100 miles" usually means the range is 101 miles in perfect conditions. To ensure that you can always "make your route" you probably need to plan for a 50 mile range. It's still not clear how this is better than driving a car.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GoTeam ( 5042081 )

      It's still not clear how this is better than driving a car.

      Because this is supported by blockchained NFTs!

    • Its not for you or me. This is so assholes like Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk can be ferried from an airport to some large building with a helo pad. 5 passengers and a pilot makes the cost of the pilot on a per passenger basis more expensive than a leer jet. Its not going to be taxi-like affordable. Its going to be taxi-like in terms of ferrying someone to a destination.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      It's still not clear how this is better than driving a car.

      I take it you've never tried to get out of Sea-Tac airport and go to downtown Seattle, Bellevue or Tacoma at rush hour. May the gods help you if you need to go as far as Everett. I'm sure there are a lot of other airports for which this is true as well.

      Slightly related note, I've been told that some of the new Amazon office buildings have been built with reinforced roof structures to support landing pads for air taxis.

      reserve its first 50 aircraf

      • I don't understand how air taxis solve the general problem of traffic congestion during rush hour except for the very few that can afford them. I guess "screw you, I got mine."

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          Ten active air taxis mean 40-80 fewer vehicles on the highway, a drop in the bucket but it's something. These are not being designed to cost like an executive helicopter, the price point that they're aiming at is 3-8 times a normal taxi ride which would be affordable for quite a lot of people. The majority of these systems are planned to be automated as well as the simple ability to go strait from Point A to Point B without having to follow roads will save costs.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      It's quite a bit better than driving for getting from the helipad on your penthouse to the helipad at the private aviation ramp at your local airport. Since it's quieter than a helicopter you won't piss of your neighbours as much.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by adrn01 ( 103810 )
      200 mph for 100 mi range = 30 min flight time. I wonder how they plan on refueling? Surely the batteries don't recharge in under an hour. Do the batteries just swap out like an electric mower or hand tool? I didn't see anything addressing this on their website.

  • Rotor wash (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RemindMeLater ( 7146661 ) on Tuesday July 19, 2022 @07:04AM (#62715326)
    I'll bet these will be primarily used for rich people to "skip the line" and fly from international airports to their mansions or downtown or similar routes. I don't expect they'll be drop-in replacements for a taxi stand (or equivalent) as the rotor wash from lifting a ton of material into the air will be enough to scatter everyone within a half block.

    • This.

      I fly a lot. Mostly AA domestic. Their level of service once you get to a certain revenue average per flight is stunning.

      Hopping an air taxi to skip a 75 minute ground cab downtown? Worth it.

    • Think private shuttle service from your corp headquarters to your private airfield. If you happen to be a 1%er.

    • Re:Rotor wash (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Tuesday July 19, 2022 @09:31AM (#62715658)

      I'll bet these will be primarily used for rich people to "skip the line" and fly from international airports to their mansions or downtown or similar routes. I don't expect they'll be drop-in replacements for a taxi stand (or equivalent) as the rotor wash from lifting a ton of material into the air will be enough to scatter everyone within a half block.

      Erm, rich people already skip the queue. People like that don't fly into the same airports as you or I. Even when they do they're whisked away to a private terminal. Take London Heathrow, if you're flying commercial you can use the private terminal at £2,500 a head... but that's for peasants, if you're proper rich you fly your private jet to Farnborough and get a helicopter from there. No risk of even coming close to the common people.

      • Fair enough.. s/rich/wealthy/ I'll bet these rides go for a few hundred apiece which saves you some time and keeps you away from the cattle in coach.
  • The concept is cool enough, embellishing makes it less cool. This is an electric VTOL aircraft designed to take groups of passengers from one airport to another. It will be less noisy, less expensive and, once regulations catch up with civilian VTOLs, reduce delays at airports.

    A taxi picks you up wherever you happen to be, carries just you or your party, and drops you off directly at your destination. Stop lying for clicks.
    • I think this is as close to a flying taxi as you would want to get. It is an aircraft, so it can make an emergency landing if something gets wrong. It can also start and land vertically, so basically wherever it is permitted (and yes, it is possible to obtain temporary landing permits for non-airfield locations). This is one of the few "flying taxis" that actually looks safe to fly. The only "problem" is that it needs more than the parking space of a car to land.
      • You can call a bus a passenger car all you want, it doesn't make it true. "saying a bus is as close to a passenger car as you would want it to get" also doesn't make it a passenger car. We'll have flying taxis when drones are picking up individuals from one place and taking them to another. If you don't think that's a good idea you may have some good points. But that STILL doesn't make this a taxi.
        • What term would you think would be more accurate for this? Personal flying shuttle perhaps? It doesn't really match what most people think of when they think of a traditional helicopter or traditional aircraft, in that it services much shorter routes.

          At $4M each we could just call it a rich person's toy for skipping airport security, but those already exist - we call them private jets. On the opposite end from this there already exist private jets that the wealthy can hire to fly them across oceans o

          • A taxi as people think of it can be hailed or summoned by anyone on short notice to take them wherever they are going (within reasonable proximity, anyway.) It seems unlikely that this fleet will be operated on that basis.

            My argument does not include affordability, mind. But I think you'd see some people pool money and take air taxi trips for entertainment if they could just get one with a phone.

            • A taxi as people think of it can be hailed or summoned by anyone on short notice to take them wherever they are going (within reasonable proximity, anyway.) It seems unlikely that this fleet will be operated on that basis.

              That's fair. I suspect the manufacturer wants to call it a taxi primarily on the basis of its comparatively short flights (compared to airplanes). I agree that this would almost certainly not be something that people could easily hail on a whim to get somewhere.

              I'm not sure what would be a better term for this though, aside from "short distance aircraft" or something of that sort.

              • I believe that the nearest approximate role is commonly called "short-hop", except this is even shorter since it can do VTOL at one or both ends of the journey. Perhaps an even shorter-hop name makes sense. Is a skip shorter or longer than a hop? A jump is clearly longer.

                • I believe that the nearest approximate role is commonly called "short-hop", except this is even shorter since it can do VTOL at one or both ends of the journey. Perhaps an even shorter-hop name makes sense. Is a skip shorter or longer than a hop? A jump is clearly longer.

                  I suspect that might be why they went for the name "taxi". I agree it doesn't really fit the use that we're used to, but "short-hop" likely brings up images of bush pilots and/or loud and uncomfortable small planes for a lot of people, and that probably isn't what the manufacturer wants people to think of.

                  I'd say the manufacturer should have tried to come up with a better term, as I do agree it isn't really a taxi in terms of convenience or cost. At the same time we need the next revolutionary techno

      • With exposed props, you won't be landing this just anywhere. Probably this will only be legally able to land at airports and approved landing strips or helipads. Not going to be landing in your driveway or anywhere else in public with those giant spinning knives

        • With exposed props...

          Would you be so kind as to link the regulation on exposed props vis a vis airports?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Junta ( 36770 )

        The landing requirements and range make it pretty far from where most would want a taxi to get.

        So 100 mile range, if going from one airtaxi hub to another. Meaning you have to get transportation to one, then to the destination hub, then from that hub to your final destination... At this rate it's highly probable that the overhead of incorporating those hops to your trip and waiting for available craft will eat up any time benefit versus a 90 minute drive.

        When you get to the promise of 'pick you up from som

      • it can make an emergency landing if something gets wrong

        That's debatable. Look how small the wings are and how much of the cross section is engine pods, and what's with those sharp angles in the wings, they lacking 3D modeling skills or something? The aerodynamics look like shit to my eyes. Gliding to a landing will be a controlled crash at way over 100 kph. Need a full sized airport runway for that but good luck getting to a proper airport gliding like a brick, or even with a single motor out.

    • The other problem these things have is that helicopter flights are actually not that expensive. Normally you pay for only the actual flight time, which in most of the situations where you'd use a helicopter (downtown to airport etc) is really short. So while the per hour fee is high, you're normally not paying for an hour.

      Where these things would be really great is for short haul point to point travel as you can save all the hassle of having to go to an airport etc. But that needs batteries improvements tha

    • They're lying for seed capital.

  • This is a SPAC investment advertisement (Score:3)

    by sonoronos ( 610381 ) on Tuesday July 19, 2022 @10:00AM (#62715746)

    Given that this company hasn't yet flown a prototype, and virtually all of its rivals have, the only way it would diffierentiate itself is if it actually flew a passenger at the time of the demo - which the others have not.

    As far as investments go, this company is about as bad as any other.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      If American Airlines is willing to put down money before the prototype has even flown it makes me wonder how many of their execs have invested in this company. Sounds to me like they want to ensure getting their money back (at American shareholder expense) if the company crashes and burns.

  • Very funny. This 3D CAD special has yet to fly, so yeah lets buy dozens of them. Can't say I hate the design, it's more or less sensible, but the proof is in the endurance. And the safety! Tiny wings and big, dirty motor pods everywhere, this thing is going to stall at 100 kph at least. Like landing the space shuttle, except with way crappier pilots.

Slashdot Top Deals

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Close