First Electric Air Taxis Set To Fly in Singapore by 2023

Singapore is set to host the world's first electric-powered air taxi service by the end of 2023, according to Volocopter GmbH, which is developing the vertical-takeoff craft. From a report: The German manufacturer is committed to starting operations within three years once it completes flight trials, evaluation and certification in collaboration with the city-state, it said in a statement Wednesday. Tickets for a 15-minute trip costing 300 euros ($364) are already on sale. Volocopter completed a demonstration flight over Singapore's Marina Bay area in October last year, and the first commercial route is likely to fly tourists over the same district, offering spectacular views of the skyline, the company said. Later services could including cross-border journeys. Singapore is at the forefront of plans to introduce flying taxis thanks to a more welcoming regulatory regime than in some other countries. While the craft could replace helicopters and light aircraft on some routes, they'd also be small and nimble enough to fly deep within cities and land with minimal space. "Singapore is renowned for its leading role in adapting and living new technologies," Volocopter Chief Executive Officer Florian Reuter said, adding that local capabilities in battery research, material science and route validation for autonomous operations will be central to the project.

More government-funded innovation FAILURE

[poptopdrop]

If it's worth doing, let the private sector take the risks.

( Although maybe they figure the publicity - like here - justifies the waste. )

Re:More government-funded innovation FAILURE

[Smidge204]

> If it's worth doing, let the private sector take the risks.

He said, unironically, on the internet born from government contracts.

Capitalism won't take risk without obvious reward, and the rewards need to be good enough to justify it. It is inherently very conservative in that respect.

It's almost always governments - often via military R&D - that does the groundwork to develop technologies and demonstrate their capabilities. Once the hard part is done, and the big risks have been paid for by taxpayers, the private sector comes in and finds a way to exploit it for profit... only then do we get anything approaching innovation.
=Smidge=

Re:

[poptopdrop]

Sorry, I agree. I support goevrnment fundingo science ( and healthcare ! ).

But I meant government funding for applications like flying cars, where the immediate commercial gains are obvious and there are many private ventures already chasing them.

Sorry for the unclear post. They'll make me a Slashdot Editor now :-(

Re:More government-funded innovation FAILURE

[OneHundredAndTen]

If it's worth doing, let the private sector take the risks.

( Although maybe they figure the publicity - like here - justifies the waste. )

Right. Like the Internet itself, or the Apollo program. It is not true that everything that the government messes up everything it does, and it is not true that everything tackled by the private sector ends up in triumph.

Re:

[poptopdrop]

"Like the Internet itself, or the Apollo program"

Or healthcare in grown-up countries, or ITER, or the Channel Tunnel, or etc. etc.

I agree.

Re:

[Zak3056]

"Like the Internet itself, or the Apollo program"

Or healthcare in grown-up countries, or ITER, or the Channel Tunnel, or etc. etc.

I agree.

Not going open the giant can of worms that is any healthcare debate, but the Chunnel was built by private companies, and ITER is a project with an ever increasing timeline and an ever increasing budget where the primary goal appears to be to allow member nations get to hand out contracts to cronies... not exactly a shining example of national projects done right.

Re:

[greytree]

Apollo and much of the Internet was "built by private companies".

Re:

[garyisabusyguy]

Sure, maybe you should call up Paul Moller and ask him how it is going...

Oh yeah, going nowhere but making the rounds with hat in hand for money from governments like the PRC

Re:More government-funded innovation FAILURE

[sdinfoserv]

ignorant nonsense. Private / publicly traded companies have 1 goal – make profit. Any extra costs, additional testing, safety, adds cost and is avoided. All those “job killing regulations” like clean air, clean water, worker safety were all put in place because corporations over and over have proven to put profit over human life. Some things are too important to leave to a greedy board of directors.

Re:

[poptopdrop]

"Ignorant nonsense"

Yes, it read that way. Apologies.

Re:

[stabiesoft]

The article is not clear on who is paying. It actually looks like Volocopter, as the tickets are being sold by them. Singapore is simply the first government agency giving them to OK to fly.

Re:

[garyisabusyguy]

Dirty little secret, Singapore appears to be a Capitalist country, but it would be labeled Socialist by any current American right wing standards.

And do not even attempt to push against social norms, least you be caned

Take Singapore Healthcare for example:

The government's healthcare system is based upon the "3M" framework. This has three components: Medifund, which provides a safety net for those not able to otherwise afford healthcare, Medisave, a compulsory national medical savings account system covering

Key Point

[timeOday]

The craft will initially carry a pilot and one customer, though services could switch to two passengers once approvals for autonomous operation are received.

So the innovation here is using an electric, 14(?) rotor design for helicopter services.

Ditching pilots will come later, maybe.

Price is a bit much

[YrWrstNtmr]

$350 for a one time fun ride in one of these isn't too terribly bad. I'd probably do it.
$350 as a price just for a one way taxi service across town? That's a bit much.

Re:

[Gravis Zero]

$350 as a price just for a one way taxi service across town? That's a bit much.

Not for rich people. Did you think they made this for commoners?

Re:

[ChunderDownunder]

By comparison, what's the price of a regular helicopter ride?

"The rich" buzzing about the skies is nothing new in cities such as Sao Paulo Brazil. Only in this case it's "green" electric.

Re:

[stabiesoft]

From the article, "The craft will initially carry a pilot and one customer, though services could switch to two passengers once approvals for autonomous operation are received. Ticket prices should fall sharply once flights become more widely available, according to Volocopter." So as with most things prices will fall. Cost of new. I do recall though being somewhat surprised it was a "thing" in Austin for the rich to take helicopters from downtown out to COTA for circuit of the americas race. The actually r

Re:

[Nidi62]

From the article, "The craft will initially carry a pilot and one customer, though services could switch to two passengers once approvals for autonomous operation are received. Ticket prices should fall sharply once flights become more widely available, according to Volocopter."
So as with most things prices will fall. Cost of new. I do recall though being somewhat surprised it was a "thing" in Austin for the rich to take helicopters from downtown out to COTA for circuit of the americas race. The actually ran out of choppers. Singapore probably has enough uber rich to support a small fleet of these things as I suspect it has horrible traffic. Don't forget, the Kobe Bryant crash showed that some people travel by air as commonly as we peons travel by car.

In the US, prices cannot fall (without massive subsidies) to an affordable level as long as there is a pilot required. The FAA requires pilots of aircraft carrying passengers for profit to have a commercial license, which is expensive and time consuming to acquire and maintain (they can, of course, carry passengers without charge, or charging only to cover some fuel costs, if they don't have a commercial license). So there's a price floor right there, because who with an ATP certification is going to fly

Re:

[stabiesoft]

I'd expect the FAA to approve pilotless if Singapore and other areas demonstrate reliable performance. States like AZ approved driverless cars, so I expect FAA will follow in time. Of course if the Singapore pilotless copters start crashing, approvals are going to be hard to come by anywhere in the world. If anything, I think pilotless air is safer than pilotless cars. No pedestrians, probably V2V communication, ban unpredictable human flying at those altitudes...

Re:

[fish_in_the_c]

it will never be more then a novelty and convince for the wealthy at that price. It needs to get down to the $10 or less with 50 people on board to become viable public transport.

Re: Price is a bit much

[triffid_98]

What did you expect? Personal air-transport was never going to be cheap, electric or otherwise. That said, if my kid is dying or I'm missing a court date $350 is small change.

My same response to all these stories

[dmay34]

Here's the deal.

If any company, anywhere in the world, can produce a financially sustainable private flying/car taxi service marketed to the middle class by 2030, any private flying car/taxi service of any kind that is marketed to middle class people -it doesn't have to be self-flying- I will eat the sun.

The whole sun. I'll eat it.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Response of the wealthy to your response: One side, peasant. You're between me and my helipad.

Re:

[stabiesoft]

I always think of the Simpson's episode where bill gates is flying homer around on a blimp I think over a football stadium and Homer says the people look like ants and Bill's response is They are ants.

Been hearing that for years!

[majorme]

And yet 2023 has still not come