Slashdot Mirror


Airbus Details Plan To Build Flying Taxis (autoblog.com)

CityAirbus is a new program from Airbus that aims to put commuters in the air to combat overcrowded cities. It sounds a lot like an airborne Uber, writes Brandon Turkus from Autoblog: "Passengers can use an app to book passage, head to their local helipad, climb aboard with a number of other passengers, and in the words of Airbus are 'whisked away to their destination.' Each ride would cost 'nearly the equivalent of a normal taxi ride for each passenger.' Beyond the advantages of avoiding traffic, Airbus claims its new conveyance will be faster, more sustainable, and, obviously, more exciting. Initially, the program would rely on a human pilot, but as with nearly every mode of modern transport, there would eventually be an autonomous version." The company has no timeline for when CityAirbuses will be ready for flight. They did note that the autonomous functionality will be the biggest challenge. "No country in the world today allows drones without remote pilots to fly over cities -- with or without passengers," writes Bruno Trabel from Airbus Helicopters. He leads the Skyways project, "which aims to help evolve current regulatory constraints." Project Vahana, a similar project that consists of an electric-powered, autonomous helicopter used for personal and cargo flights, will be tested in late 2017.

70 comments

  1. Mile High Club! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fly United!

    1. Re:Mile High Club! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with a mule!

      http://www.wired.co.uk/article/air-mule-drone-ambulance

    2. Re: Mile High Club! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the flying cars of the future!

  2. Uh-huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They did note that the autonomous functionality will be the biggest challenge.

    Funny, that seems like the least challenging part of providing random individuals air transport for the same cost and as sustainably as ground transport, especially since we are talking about cities where walking and cycling are typically realistic options.

    1. Re:Uh-huh by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Copter style air transport requires much more energy than rolling transport, even with the inefficiencies of heavy traffic. Do we want to increase our energy usage for transportation at at time when we are telling people to be more energy aware reduce consumption?

    2. Re:Uh-huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the noise. I already have enough midnight-6AM helicopter noise, thank you very much.

    3. Re:Uh-huh by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      There's also the problem that (even if you somehow have a helicopter with operating costs closer to those of a taxi, which would be quite a departure from current models) you can't exactly just land it on any street corner; which means that you'll be limited to relatively patchy coverage around the locations where you can land. Just as with airports, the travel time to and from the landing pads will then make the overall trip time uncompetitive except for longer flights.

    4. Re:Uh-huh by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      same cost and as sustainably as ground transport

      A taxi from San Jose to San Francisco can cost $100+, and take 90 minutes or more during rush hour. Put eight of those people in a helicopter, which can do the trip in 15 minutes straight across the Bay, and that is $3000/hour of flight time. Seems like a no-brainer to me. I might occasionally use a service like that, on a busy day with especially bad traffic.

      we are talking about cities where walking and cycling are typically realistic options.

      Are you an American? Have you ever been to San Jose? Or Los Angeles?

    5. Re:Uh-huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The key is the "number of passengers" thing. It's just about within the realms of plausibility that putting a dozen people in one helicopter could be more efficient than putting them in a dozen separate taxis.

    6. Re:Uh-huh by blindseer · · Score: 1

      There is no problem with energy consumption so long as it is done sustainably, such as with nuclear power. Airbus claims that these helicopters will be electric, something I find improbable. Electric storage is much larger, heavier, and potentially more fragile than an internal combustion engine. Hydrocarbon fuels synthesized from nuclear power is feasible and as much a "carbon free" energy source as wind and solar.

      People have pointed out that nuclear power plants require so much concrete, steel, etc. that it cannot be "carbon free". These same people ignore the concrete, steel, etc. that wind and solar require. If wind and solar can be called "carbon free" then so can nuclear power.

      Helicopters require much more energy per mile than fixed wing craft but, again, if we use nuclear power to synthesize the fuel or charge the batteries then we are still carbon free. If the power is cheap enough then it is potentially no more expensive than any other transportation since the energy costs become a fraction of other costs in the system.

      Using nuclear power is essentially required for this to become feasible as even as plentiful as wind and solar may be in theory nothing can match what nuclear power can provide in practice.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:Uh-huh by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      If you can somehow force everyone to want to go to the same place, you can just put them on a bus. The problem is that people all want to go to different places.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    8. Re:Uh-huh by Gussington · · Score: 2

      More energy , more noise, more regulation, more cost. There's no way it works better than a subway and footpaths. We already have the solution, why don't we just make it cleaner/safer/cheaper and be done with it?

    9. Re:Uh-huh by rhodium_mir · · Score: 0

      This is why the slave trade was never profitable.

      --
      You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
    10. Re:Uh-huh by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bell 206 BIII chopper, pilot plus 4 passengers with a Rolls Royce Allison turbine engine. According to the specs, it can take 4 passengers 100 miles in 50 minutes at a fuel usage of around 40 gallons.

      Compare that to a VW Bluemotion with a claimed efficiency of 60 mpg, and a probable real world traffic efficiency of 45 mpg. So real world 100 mile journey would be say 2.2 gallons and a 110 minute journey. If each passenger in the chopper did the journey seperately, then you're still only looking at 10 gallons of fuel compared to the 40 gallons for the Bell.

      And that doesn't take into account the capital cost of a $400000 chopper versus a $40000 car.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    11. Re:Uh-huh by tobiasly · · Score: 1

      Funny, that seems like the least challenging part of providing random individuals air transport for the same cost and as sustainably as ground transport, especially since we are talking about cities where walking and cycling are typically realistic options.

      Trebuchet.

    12. Re:Uh-huh by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I guess it can work if scaled up. Take them from multiple places (one vehicle per source) to a central point, mix them up, and then fly from the hub to the multiple places.

      While that sounds like it would add substantially to journey time, given these vehicles can travel line-of-sight, without stopping, in most cases the overall journey time should be shorter than by taxi.

      It'd be a like mass transit with worse energy costs but with way cheaper infrastructure costs. I'd rather do mass transit, but in the US at least that has crazy opposition.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re: Uh-huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed a zero on the helicopter, plus figure $150,000 per year on maintenance.

  3. We have it already! by I4ko · · Score: 1

    Let's see - small personal size helicopter.. sounds a lot like http://www.auto-gyro.com/en/ doesn't it? Only with a remove pilot, which .. I dunno, I will enjoy flying myself.

    1. Re:We have it already! by I4ko · · Score: 1

      Or another link to the original company http://www.elaaviacion.com/?pa...

    2. Re:We have it already! by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      I wish I could see... that has got to be the poorest artist impression ever (of the Airbus craft, not of the autogyro)

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:We have it already! by PPH · · Score: 1

      As long as it sounds like this, I'll be happy.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  4. Fifth Element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    is here!!!

    1. Re:Fifth Element by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      Autowash.

  5. %* FBI FBI FBI Probably a lie FBI FBI FBI[singing] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How would you sniff for bombs and terror? It could be swarms of air taxis carrying jihad. The only defense would be the US spy drones with Amazon stickers on them.

    Total fucking dipshits.

  6. What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are some things that man was not just meant to do - At least until the time is right.

  7. Re:%* FBI FBI FBI Probably a lie FBI FBI FBI[singi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IT sounds like the FBI will be trying to create jobs for themselves when they have to leave Slashdot.

  8. Sorry, the FAA says no. by gavron · · Score: 5, Informative

    The FAA has already said no to ridesharing. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

    The FAA has already said no to "Uber in the sky". http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
    And http://marginalrevolution.com/...
    And https://fee.org/articles/how-t...

    The reason for it is that the FAA has different rules for carrying yourself as a private pilot, carrying others for commercial gain, fare-sharing, etc. The regulations for fare-sharing mean you actually ALL have to be going TO GO DO the same thing, not just going to the same place. https://www.tnooz.com/article/...

    The FAA has a higher requirement of pilots, equipment, and maintenance when used to carry passengers (other than private pilots who are NOT getting reimbursed).

    Ehud
    OB DISC: I'm an FAA certificated commercial helicopter pilot

    1. Re: Sorry, the FAA says no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (drops bag of money at FAA door)

      We announce that sky Uber is now legal!

      If that doesn't work...

      (drops bag of money at politicans door)

      The laws have changed, Sky Uber is legal!

    2. Re: Sorry, the FAA says no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why'd this get voted -1? That's exactly what big business does. Uber as it standsis continuously declared illegal but they're still here.

    3. Re: Sorry, the FAA says no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why'd this get voted -1? That's exactly what big business does. Uber as it standsis continuously declared illegal but they're still here.

      Because this site is filled with rose-colored-glasses-wearing idiots

    4. Re:Sorry, the FAA says no. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wait, the FAA is now saying airlines can't take passengers on their flights?!

      Or is the FAA simply saying that what those "ride sharing" services do amounts to commercial air transport, requiring appropriately licensed pilots amongst other things? Airbus is simply proposing to develop and build, well, an air bus. Presumably these things will not be used by ride or fare share services, but used by taxi companies with the right licenses and pilots with a CPL. FAA isn't going to say no to that (though they might have something to say about what this does to the safe use of airspace)

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:Sorry, the FAA says no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you answered your first question, but as to the latter... the original article on autoblog says they'll
      a. do it for the same price as a taxi
      b. one day no human pilot

      As for a. no Part 135 operation can possibly compete with Jack's Medallion Cab. The cost of a three-dimensional operation is exponentially higher than a road/land-based one. Economies of scale don't work where regulatory costs are the driving force. A helicopter doesn't cost $2M because that's the cost to manufacture it... it costs that because of all the certification and liability. A maintenance shop doesn't need $80/mechanics, but a Part 135 shop needs $80-$120/hr A&Ps who participate in the (required) drug and alcohol program. The ramp personnel... etc.

      Which gets to the fact that "people show up and board an aircraft" requires a ramp and ramp personnel. Unless, of course, you can make it totally safe and not requiring any safety personnel or briefing (think regulatory hurdles there)...

      And lastly that no human pilot thing... *lol*.

      Ehud

    6. Re:Sorry, the FAA says no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's where the Uber reference comes in. In many countries rolling transport is heavily regulated for safety, insurance, fee structure and so forth. Should be a good thing, but can also be used as a way to maintain monopoly. Anyway, Uber just comes in, breaks the law, then faces it in court.

    7. Re: Sorry, the FAA says no. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      and when Barney "Let's crash the copter into the White House and kill the President" Gumble happens it will get shut down so fast you hear the server disks crashing.

    8. Re:Sorry, the FAA says no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Airbus is a European company. I'm pretty sure they'd be overjoyed to get a couple of cities in Europe to agree to let them try this out, without coming within 5000 miles of FAA airspace.

      If they could prove the concept in, say, Bonn or Paris or Prague, the FAA would change its tune soon enough.

    9. Re:Sorry, the FAA says no. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Well, the FAA might want to change their rules, and make them more XXI century-ish.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    10. Re:Sorry, the FAA says no. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      FAA did not say no to any of these things. All it said was, "ridesharing is commercial aviation. Pilots must comply with certification, aircraft must be deemed airworthy by FAA standards". Once you meet these criteria, then FAA will not stop ride sharing.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    11. Re:Sorry, the FAA says no. by BlueStrat · · Score: 0

      Wait, the FAA is now saying airlines can't take passengers on their flights?!

      No, the FAA is saying (like every other agency/dept. of the Federal government) that they choose which laws to enforce (or not), how they're enforced (or not), against whom they're enforced (or not), and when they're enforced (or not) based on what increases their and their crony's wealth, control, & power the most. The US has become no better than some corrupt 'banana republic' as far as Rule of Law goes. If you're extremely wealthy and connected in the US you're untouchable and likely to be elected POTUS.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    12. Re:Sorry, the FAA says no. by mrprogrammerman · · Score: 1

      I imagine a lot of private pilots do get reimbursed. Their friends/coworkers want to fly somewhere. The private pilot offers to take them but there's an understanding that they will reimburse him for flying expenses.

    13. Re:Sorry, the FAA says no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FAA says that imperils the private pilot's certificate. See above. The "passenger" and the private pilot have to be going to the same thing to do the same thing. It's not enough that they "go to the same place". If the private pilot accepts the "compensation" they could lose the certificate.

      So yes, I imagine a lot of private pilots do get reimbursed. Not as per the regulations.

      E

    14. Re: Sorry, the FAA says no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it's big business (established airlines) that don't want the laws changed to make "sky uber" legal, just as existing taxi companies don't want Uber to be legal.

    15. Re: Sorry, the FAA says no. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      How will he get through all the AAA that surround the White House?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    16. Re:Sorry, the FAA says no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Airbus is simply proposing to develop and build, well, an air bus.

      There are a few* innercity canals & inland waterways that 'simply use a tour boat', yet the Coast Guard requires the pilots to be licensed through their program and the boats to be subject to their maintenance/safety protocols. Whereas most people consider being 'subject' to anything a mark against their freedoms, consider this: these air busses crash one day and folks get up in arms about the lack of safety maintenance. Or they're used to transport cargo instead of people, and one day this cargo is discovered to be harmful, people again get up in arms. The air busses one day become old & need replacing, are they just scrapped or can they be part of a fed program, etc.

      In the end, the reason the feds get involved is to, (believe it or not), ensure these crafts' safety and legitimacy, maintenance, and eventual replacement. Something commercial entities 'can' do but don't often want to be bothered with such obstacles to profit. Hence the origination of these regulatory agencies to begin with.

      * I understand Richmond Virginia, and San Antonia Texas to be a couple examples.

    17. Re: Sorry, the FAA says no. by shentino · · Score: 1

      (taxi and airline lobbies drops even BIGGER bags of money)

      Sky Uber is still illegal!

  9. Don t care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flying cars. I was promised flying cars and I will have them if I have to conquer the ENTIRE Klingon Empire.

  10. Re:Here's how this 'autonomous' thing will play ou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dude... she's obviously subtly hinting that you invite her over and fuck her brains out. What is wrong with you kids these days?

  11. I'm certificated! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not really, but I say I am when on the internet -- and wonder why!

  12. Fighting congestion? by mattyj · · Score: 1

    I sorta feel like these heli-pads would be a point of congestion ...? Kinda like every train station and parking lot in every city? I'm not seeing how this avoids congestion.

    And good luck getting your helipads built around a city like San Francisco. Gigabit internet now comes down from the power lines because people whined too much about a little metal box on every corner. Or even buried under the sidewalk on every corner. (here's an idea. replace all those useless mailboxes with last-mile fiber access points. Problem solved.)

    I hear the 'Simply just live near where you work!' crowd already. Hey look, we all can't work stuffing envelopes from home. And guess what? Lots of people already do that, anyway, but we don't live in the same building where we work. I live in the same city but my commute on non-train days still sucks. For a new system of commuting to work, you need to get people from where they live (neighborhoods where houses and apartments are) to where they work (downtown.) I don't see a time where most cities will be cool with helicopters buzzing over densely populated residential areas.

    Commercial flight works (mostly) because there's better economics in moving a couple hundred people at one time in the same vehicle. The smaller the vehicle, the less those economics work. There's a reason why so many people take a bus to work and no public transportation system in the world is made up of a fleet of cars.

    I figure Airbus has smart people working for them somewhere, but this just seems rather unfeasible. And frankly just kinda dumb.

    I'm waiting for a new startup to propose public zip-lines as a means to disrupt the moving economy.

    1. Re:Fighting congestion? by Gussington · · Score: 2

      I sorta feel like these heli-pads would be a point of congestion ...? Kinda like every train station and parking lot in every city? I'm not seeing how this avoids congestion.

      It doesn't. The whole idea is stupid
      The biggest issue in urban transportation is congestion. Cars do not solve that. Automated cars so not solve it. Flying cars do not solve it.
      The only solution involves increase packet size from 1 person per vehicle to 100+. That means buses and trains and footpaths (the only options that scale)
      The pedestrian/train model has proven to work. It currently moves 80000 people/hour in some places. Until any other model comes close to this, it's not even worth entertaining as an urban transport solution.

  13. I saw this coming, except the pilotless part by blindseer · · Score: 1

    With more and more people getting out of huts made of grass and mud and into houses made of brick and wood we are going to see these same people with the means to do more than hike, bike, or ride a horse to get somewhere. With economies of scale aircraft have been getting cheaper, aided by more automation, improved materials, etc. to bring costs down. I thought it nearly inevitable that at some date we'd see more point to point aircraft services to the point that nearly any grass strip is an airport.

    What problem I see is a regulatory resistance. People getting pilot's license won't be the problem. Neither will the increased air traffic. The regulatory resistance will come from the TSA being unable to poke through the luggage of people taking off and landing at privately owned airports.

    I've flown from some small airports before on commercial flights and the TSA cannot even keep up with that. I've boarded a plane without having gone through a TSA checkpoint only to have to do so *AFTER* I got off the plane and landed at a larger airport. What was the point of that? I already completed my flight? The only answer I could come up with is that the TSA had to make itself "useful" and/or impose its control on air traffic or someone might get the idea that the TSA is useless.

    Well, the TSA is useless. Expect them to kill point to point air travel only to "prove" they are providing a useful service.

    My brother in law is in training to become a pilot and has many private pilot friends which has given him plenty of experience on how useless the TSA is in providing security. An example is that just about anyone can drive up to a gate to the tarmac, claim to be a pilot going to their own plane, and be waved through. Their truck was not searched and even though they were carrying 200 pounds of equipment on the plane no one looked at it. They flew to a private airport, where there was no TSA, to unload their delivery. Upon return they flew back to the same airport, got back in their truck, and drove out of the tarmac gate slowing down only enough to wave at the "security" guard.

    Another thing that I realized is that the TSA is not about keeping us, the flying public, safe. What the TSA is there to do is prevent another plane from landing on a building in DC. That's what the policy makers fear. They don't care about us dying in a hijacked plane, they just don't want the plane to land on their laps while they sit in the US Capitol. Privately owned aircraft is a problem for them, especially after that retired postal worker landed his autogyro on the Capitol lawn.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:I saw this coming, except the pilotless part by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      The TSA is security theater. They do nothing to address the actual security risks and vulnerabilities, which are numerous and very dangerous.

      For example, the major airport near me is extremely vulnerable to things like vehicles getting on a runway. There is less protecting those runways than there is protecting my backyard. Oh there are cameras and crap but it's far too big to patrol. Security cannot stop someone who really wants to get out there, so imagine if some terrorists on the back of a truck got on to the runways and began shooting up planes in the queue to take off. Hit the first plane and it stops, Then go down the line taking out plane after plane which can't escape, can't back up, can't go anywhere. Thousands could die. Blow up the fuel depot for extra fun. It's unprotected. Hit more than one airport like this at the same time and air travel will collapse worldwide.

      Even the TSA checkpoint is meaningless. Someone with a backpack bomb could kill hundreds queued up in those lines. You don't need to get through security. The potential victims are all nicely lined up there.

      --
      Sig for hire.
  14. Greenhouse gas emissions by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Such initiative will not help curbing down greenhouse gas emissions...

  15. Been There Done That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a few major US cities did have commuter helicopter services, aka "air taxi" service.

    Cost killed these businesses. Government wouldn't pick up the tab or take over like they did for private bus companies. So they went away.

    Who and how many will pay for a ride? Enough to break even? Will they keep paying as rates go up?

  16. So they are Promising Flying Cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They Promised those Last Century.

    It that where my Flying car is Dammit!

    1. Re:So they are Promising Flying Cars? by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Yup, and it will fail for exactly the same reasons. Noise, cost, risk, efficiency.

  17. Really? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    If it is going to be an experience as appalling as flying currently is, I'll give it a big miss.

  18. Regular Cars are Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like regular cars better. If the engines stops running, I'm already on the ground.

  19. Local helipads? Where? by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

    Where are these "local helipads" supposed to be? There are various private buildings with helipads on their roofs, and plenty of open parks and maybe some parking decks with room on their roofs, but nearly all of these are private properties not open to the public. Most of them show "PRIVATE!" when seen from the air.

    I can't think of a single spot in my city where you could do this kind of operation. Sure you could use a park once or twice, but try to make it routine and the cops will probably cite you for trespassing.

    --
    Sig for hire.
  20. The pilot problem can be solve by e70838 · · Score: 1

    You just need to have one pilot for many aircraft.

  21. If the range is short, it might work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, batteries might have 1/50, or less, the energy per weight of hydrocarbons, if the air travel distance is only several miles, it could be good enough. Maybe superconducting electric motors will have a lower operating cost than regular helicopter turbines.

  22. Do I have to take a taxi to get to the helipad? by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

    I know. They can rent out jetpacks to launch up to the helipads! It's about as likely of an idea as stupid flying taxis is.

  23. Airships? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldnt an airship to better suited for this? Distance and speed is less of a factor than bypassing ground level traffic congestion, and I imagine it would be more efficient than a helicopter.

  24. Re:Local helipads? Where? by b0bby · · Score: 1

    If (mighty big if) such a service ever came into being, I'm sure they could strike deals with the private buildings.

    I could see some use in an area like DC, where a trip to Dulles can vary unpredictably from 40 minutes to 1.5 hours. I bet a decent number of people would pay $100+ to make that in 15mins (plus the time spent getting to the helipad). There will be a Metro out there at some point, but for many people that will still be at least an hour, often crowded, and often unreliable.

  25. It's been done before, of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the day, New York Airways ran a helicopter service between the roof of the downtown Pan Am (remember them?) office building (now the MetLife building) and JFK airport. (There were also periods when it operated to Teterboro and LaGuardia.) They flew Sikorskys and Boeing Vertols.

    The heliport was closed in 1977 after a landing gear collapse caused the helicopter rotors to kill several waiting passengers and a pedestrian (a broken blade was thrown from the roof).