Plenty of healthy skepticism for UAM.

Their proposed advantages, compared to helos, are cheaper and quieter ops... that will make them suitable for the mass market so volume can achieve large economy-of-scale. Key to that is battery/electric power vice expensive turbines, and also using asymmetric thrust from multiple fans for control, vice complex/expensive rotor heads.

Also the whole thing might ultimately be greener than ground vehicles in high traffic metro areas... for green-ness, may end up seeing blown-wing STOL designs over fan-copters since a wing is way more efficient than powered lift.


Obvious risks are noise, safety perceptions/acceptance (both for pax and those on the ground), regulatory issues, and interaction with existing aircraft/airspace. Also while the EU will require the same 10^(-9) safety standard as 121 ops, the US industry is pushing to be allowed to use a lower standard (maybe 10^(-7) ?). That could bite them in the butt, because any accidents with these things will be news since they're new and interesting.

They ultimately hope to make them un-piloted which is likely achievable for short hops in pre-defined, segregated corridors since they don't have to dodge WX (just no-go if any WX in the area) and can land almost anywhere within seconds in the case of emergency. But there's economic risk with the pilot... their model is obviously to use a pilot initially (even at a loss) to build the market, and then transition to un-piloted. But if they can't get rid of him for technical or political reasons the math might not work out.

I think it will happen this century... but maybe not early in the century.