Why not? He's funding the employment of the air taxi people, plus their technology development, and reducing congestion.
I understand the safety concern, but I don't see how "just because" they can afford it is a reasonable objection.
Why not? He's funding the employment of the air taxi people, plus their technology development, and reducing congestion.
I understand the safety concern, but I don't see how "just because" they can afford it is a reasonable objection.
It's the safety concern and it's flying over my head.
There is always a risk/benefit ratio and just because a handful of people want to spend more money so that they can fly faster from the airport to the city center than others is not worth the security implications.
You are aware how much security is involved whenever you fly?
We talk an expensive license, regular flying hours per year (also not cheap), air control, restricted air zones, very regular safety plain checks.
Every single object on a commercial plane for example is tracked, every replacement etc.
Congestion is not solved by small expensive air taxies. If a normal taxi costs x, an airtaxi has to cost 4x and more.
We the people don't need to allow everyone everything just because they have the money into do so.
>Congestion is not solved by small expensive air taxies
If you expect a new transport to 'solve congestion' as a requirement for it to be allowed, we're not going to allow anything. Incremental improvements can add up.
I just find these "I can't have it, so you can't either" arguments so short sighted. Lots of technologies start out the domain of the wealthy before achieving scale and mass adoption. Maybe we won't all be mass adopting air taxis, but some of the technologies that come out of these things may well end up in our cars, or houses, or benefiting us indirectly.
My issue is with the argument that simply being wealthy enough (literally 'just because' he is wealthy enough. Check the comment I was replying to.) to do this is by itself reason enough to ban it.
All this redirection back to safety is a smokescreen to distract from the actual issue I'm concerned with.
I also say 'do not start polluting the sky's
And ' keep the noise down'
Congestion would be reduced by people using trains and maybe, I would be actually willing to see this as an option, autonomously driving cars.