Boeing Expects Its Pilotless Air-Taxi To Begin Carrying Passengers 'Later In the Decade' (reuters.com) 59
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Boeing-owned Wisk Aero expects its pilotless air-taxi to begin carrying passengers "later in the decade" as it works with the U.S. regulator to secure approvals, its CEO said on Monday, amid skepticism among industry analysts about certification timelines. Wisk is one of several electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft makers that have emerged over the last few years with a promise to provide an environmentally-friendly mode of transport in congested cities. But the industry faces technological hurdles such as making batteries powerful enough for companies to make more trips on a single charge. They also need to convince regulators and the public that the aircraft are safe, a barrier that is higher when the aircraft is autonomous.
Wisk is developing a four-seater autonomous aircraft that will have a range of 90 miles (145 km).
"We are right now testing and producing the elements of this aircraft that we will hope to fly around the end of this year," CEO Brian Yutko told reporters at the Farnborough Airshow. Wisk's strategy is a departure from other major air-taxi makers, which are developing models that will require a pilot to fly the aircraft. The company has said operators of its aircraft will save on pilot costs. But industry experts at Bain say a full autonomous passenger flight is not expected before the late 2030s and pilotless aircraft will face competition from autonomous vehicles on the road. "Maximizing passenger occupancy and avoiding return trips with empty aircraft will be crucial for operator profitability," said Mattia Celli, one of the authors of the Bain report.
"We are right now testing and producing the elements of this aircraft that we will hope to fly around the end of this year," CEO Brian Yutko told reporters at the Farnborough Airshow. Wisk's strategy is a departure from other major air-taxi makers, which are developing models that will require a pilot to fly the aircraft. The company has said operators of its aircraft will save on pilot costs. But industry experts at Bain say a full autonomous passenger flight is not expected before the late 2030s and pilotless aircraft will face competition from autonomous vehicles on the road. "Maximizing passenger occupancy and avoiding return trips with empty aircraft will be crucial for operator profitability," said Mattia Celli, one of the authors of the Bain report.
Sure (Score:1)
I'd ride on only Airbus's. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
From reading this website I believe the US regulatory problem mostly applies to Boeing and the self-certification process they negotiated. Other manufacturers are Joby Aviation (California) https://www.jobyaviation.com/ [jobyaviation.com] , Volocopter (Germany) https://www.volocopter.com/ [volocopter.com] , EHang (PRC) https://ehang.com/ [ehang.com] , Supernal (Hyundai) (South Korea) https://www.supernal.aero/ [supernal.aero] They are going to have their initial certification in different parts of the world, so you might consider which you can trust.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but that assumes that the Boeing deal hasn't undermined your faith in US aviation regulators.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't trust the US certification process, it only excludes Joby and Hyundai. I assume that Volocopter is going to be certified first in Europe, and EHang first in China.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they would *themselves* do anything that would get people killed directly. But I do think they'd let a company do such a thing if they could avoid being blamed. Boeing is a case in point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it is pretty trustworthy for companies smaller than Boeing...
I agree, this was my original argument. It was commenter "hey!" who disagreed, argued that "the Boeing deal [has] undermined [his] faith in US aviation regulators."
Re: (Score:2)
I think the fact that it is willing to allow *some* companies to put people at risk means that passenger safety is *de facto* no longer an overriding concern no matter what they may say. That doesn't prove that they've done similar regulatory favors for smaller companies; it just means we probably shouldn't regard that as unthinkable anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Due to extensive tough European safety regulations (and the collapse of the USA's airplane-manufacturer regulatory regime), I would only ride on such a pilotless air-taxi service that utilizes only AirBus taxis.
This. I shopped for tickets last month, and the first criteria was "not Boeing." I will literally pay more than trust anyone I care about to a Boeing plane.
Since it is Boeing... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...is this a warning ?!?
More likely a threat.
Seems (Score:3, Funny)
like an unnecessary Wisk.
Boeing canâ(TM)t be trusted (Score:2)
Boeing canâ(TM)t be trusted to build reliable safe planes that have human pilots. Who in their right mind is going to get into a pilotless vehicle built by these Bozos?
Boeing management has destroyed all trust in the company and their products. It will take a generation to restore this companies reputation.
Can't be done. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Boeing canâ(TM)t be trusted to build reliable safe planes that have human pilots. Who in their right mind is going to get into a pilotless vehicle built by these Bozos?
Boeing management has destroyed all trust in the company and their products. It will take a generation to restore this companies reputation.
This is something I've been wondering about. When I discuss it with supposedly knowledgeable friends, the argument against killing the Boeing name, at the very least, is always about legacies and US aircraft manufacturing. But if your legacy is, "We kill people, make excuses that don't excuse anything, then kill more people, all to save a few pennies or speed up processes," I don't think you want to drag your legacy with you.
So, I honestly think the only cure for where Boeing is right now is going to be a c
Great timing. (Score:5, Funny)
The timing of this announcement couldn't possibly be better. I mean, I read that headline and I can practically hear the Saturday Night Live news guys saying, "In an official statement, the CEO of Boeing said that pilot safety has become a much more important concern to them in recent months, and they thought with their track record their best bet to save pilot lives was to remove them from the aircraft altogether.
Re:Great timing. (Score:4, Funny)
Well that's better than their previous plan, which was removing passengers from the aircraft, in mid-air.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's better than their previous plan, which was removing passengers from the aircraft, in mid-air.
Trying to determine if this or their other previous plan of removing passengers upon impact with the ground is a better or worse path.
Same as starliner (Score:2)
Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Pilots are expensive to train, and hence expensive to kill. Passengers? Not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Right on the money!
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Pilots may be expensive, but they're very handy to blame when your aircraft is defective. Who will they blame when there are no pilots?
Re: (Score:1)
Pilots may be expensive, but they're very handy to blame when your aircraft is defective. Who will they blame when there are no pilots?
Obviously the passengers touched something
Where does it land? (Score:4, Interesting)
That being said, I think of a Taxi that picks me up at a given building I'm in and takes me to another building (point to point), say when I want to get around the busy streets of New York or Chicago. This thing is definitely not that, so what service are they going to provide? Where does it land, and how far do I have to walk to get to my destination? If it has to land at certain specified areas, then it's more of an aerial subway or trolley than a taxi.
Re:Where does it land? (Score:4, Interesting)
which is wholly owned but independent of Boeing.
Ah, this is obviously some strange use of the word 'independent' that I wasn't previously aware of.
Re: (Score:2)
This may be a shocker to you, but the CEO doesn't do everything. Therefore the CEO of Boeing, Dave Calhoun, is the boss of CEO of Wisk, Brian Yutko, but does not direct their operations. So the major qu
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not worried about the CEO. I'm worried about the board, which theoretically doesn't do anything, except make decisions that affect everything.
Re: (Score:3)
You are assuming good faith! Boeing has already proven multiple times that it cannot be trusted. The umbrella can always pressure the subsidiary: in this case, for the worse. (BTW the sergeants got it right: When you ASSUME, you make an ASS of U and ME!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BINGO!!! Per batray: “Boeing can’t be trusted to build reliable safe planes that have human pilots. Who in their right mind is going to get into a pilotless vehicle built by these Bozos?”
And to parent Whateverthisis, you actually got most of it right. The Wisk air taxi is VTOL and can probably take off from and land on any sufficiently large roof space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Removing pilots (Score:2)
The company has said operators of its aircraft will save on pilot costs
I thought they removed the pilot to increase payload or battery size.
Pilotless Boeing aircraft, you say? (Score:2)
If one were to consider this PR blurb using a healthy dose of cynicism (or perhaps realism), it becomes obvious that it is unlikely Boeing will ever put a pilotless aircraft on the market. If there's no pilot, who are they going to blame for the crash?
The first passengers should be (Score:2)
Yep the species is doomed (Score:3)
2024. Climate change is causing grief, we're being told to save energy reduce travel emissions (of which air travel is the worst) and what is the industry's answer? ... Bitcoin mining datacentres firing up coal power plants, and personal air transport ensuring that we absolutely maximise the amount of emissions per trip we possibly can.
*facepalm*.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is causing grief {{citation needed} (Score:2)
"Climate change is causing grief", as in more people eat more food, fewer hurricanes, fewer deaths from cold? The grief you mention is caused by the work of attribution 'scientists' who feed scary headlines to the mass media.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love how idiots like you telegraph their idiocy. You didn't need to put "scientists" in quotes. We understood your delusions long before we got to that part of the sentence.
Anyway you're who I'm talking about. You're the reason our species is doomed.
Nope. (Score:2)
Considering that a door from one of their shitty airliners almost came through the roof of my house a few months back off an aircraft that had only been in service for a few months, you would have to tie me up, drug me, and force me into some autonomous air vehicle made by Boeing.
Not going to fucking happen.
Just like the starliner (Score:1)
Here its a company that was based in Science & excellence.
Then came the MBA's
The rest is history
Re: (Score:2)
Here its a company that was based in Science & excellence. Then came the MBA's The rest is history
This is the Human Lament
We pulled ourselves kicking and screaming from the dark ages to the age of science.
Then we decided greed was more important than reality.
Then we created new priests, called MBAs, focused on the new religion of greed.
MBAs decided that greed is only important when it gives immediate return, focusing our entire species on the next quarter year.
Problems slowly crop up that are much longer term than, "We need at least 200% ROI within one fiscal year, break-even must be within a quar
boeing excels again (Score:2)
This has to be one of the most tone-deaf "executive decisions" I have ever heard of.
Sure, the company who makes planes that people are afraid of riding in will make them pilotless.
That ought to increase public confidence, right?
Their entire pool of executives should have to take a pilotless craft to and from work every day.
Boeing expects to still be in business in a decade (Score:3)
?
Tell me more about that part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the "we loose money on every sale but make up for it in profit" strategy? Boeing has made a net loss every year for 5 years running. Their revenue is irrelevant.
That said they are in the USA at least "too big to fail".
Embraer's Eve eVTOL (Score:2)
similar concept to the announced Eve eVTOL taxi announced by Embraer on the same airshow..
On a different subject! (Score:2)
If it's Boeing, I ain't going (Score:2)
Enough said
Sometimes jokes tell themselves, eh? (Score:3)
Eliminates retraining of Pilots... (Score:1)
...and we all know that Boeing will do ANYTHING, include put thousands of lives at risk, to eliminate pilot retraining needs.
Export to Russia (Score:2)
Soooo (Score:2)
For those that reply with how there are soooooo much fewer other drivers and such in the air than on the ground, I do think you are largely ignorant of the rules of flying... Have you ever been pilot in command? Once you can honestly answer yes to that question, then I will presume your answer may have value. Until then, nope, not intere
Will Boeing pay... (Score:2)
for extra insurance on my house, in case it crashes into our second floor bedroom? Will they pay for the computer-controlled, radar-guided anti-aircraft gun on my roof to keep it from crashing into my 2nd floor bedroom and killing us?
Take off but get stuck there (Score:2)