Sell the sizzle not the steak (but there’s no steak)

[NorthEast Ohio]

Source:

Electric air taxi Archer says it's partnering with United Airlines to fly New Yorkers to and from NYC airports in as little as 5 minutes

FAA clearance is still pending, though.

fortune.com

Archer hoped the FAA would resolve these outstanding issues by the end of last year, but New Year’s came and went without clearance. Industry officials say they believe clearance will come soon.

Archer plans to pick up passengers at various locations in Manhattan: the East 34th Street Heliport, Downtown Skyport, and West 30th Street Heliport. From there, they can fly via eVTOL (electric vertical takeoff and landing) aircraft to the three surrounding major airports, as well as other regional gateways. Flights would be aboard the company’s human-piloted, four-passenger Midnight devices.

 

[Roller]

I can just look at it and say “nope”

The operations off manhattan, helicopter and amphibian, they are back and forth 1hr legs ALL DAY LONG, electric isn’t going to do that unless they can swap the battery in the time it takes to splash gas on a turbine aircraft, have a assembly line of charged batteries, plus what’s the payload?

Can easily fit 8 or so in the amphibians and 6 in most of the rotorcraft there

 

[Bell206]

The operations off manhattan, helicopter and amphibian, they are back and forth 1hr legs ALL DAY LONG

The actual helicopter flight time is 5 to 20 minutes depending on what route you take. Well within the Archers range. Again, perhaps you should take moment to actually learn about the topic before commenting?

 

[Roller]

The actual helicopter flight time is 5 to 20 minutes depending on what route you take. Well within the Archers range. Again, perhaps you should take moment to actually learn about the topic before commenting?

One of the most popular routes is E23rd to East Hampton area

 

[Bell206]

One of the most popular routes is E23rd to East Hampton area

Except the Archer is only going to the NYC area airports. 5-10 minutes. Again, read the article. And Joby will be providing the same service but partnered with the Delta. Neither are going to the Hamptons at this point but actually have the range to do so.

 

[donjohnston]

Looks like every other story about air taxis and "flying cars" that have been popping up for the past 20 years.

 

[Roller]

Except the Archer is only going to the NYC area airports. 5-10 minutes. Again, read the article. And Joby will be providing the same service but partnered with the Delta. Neither are going to the Hamptons at this point but actually have the range to do so.

View attachment 140035

Seems more spectacle than substance

The amount of traffic that goes from E23rd to the airport wasn’t high when I was in that neck of the woods

 

[Bell206]

The amount of traffic that goes from E23rd to the airport wasn’t high when I was in that neck of the woods

Well, you must have spent most of your time in the subway then. While there are a couple other heliports in NYC which all have been serviced by a number of helicopter operators over the decades, one of the current principal NYC helicopter operators generates millions from its NYC airport shuttle business. So perhaps you may want to update your facts a bit, again.

Looks like every other story about air taxis and "flying cars" that have been popping up for the past 20 years.

Not really. The Archer mentioned in the article is currently in Phase 4 out of 5 of its FAA type certification process.

 

[Roller]

Well, you must have spent most of your time in the subway then. While there are a couple other heliports in NYC which all have been serviced by a number of helicopter operators over the decades, one of the current principal NYC helicopter operators generates millions from its NYC airport shuttle business. So perhaps you may want to update your facts a bit, again.


Not really. The Archer mentioned in the article is currently in Phase 4 out of 5 of its FAA type certification process.

I was on a certificate that did much of that flying

Some flights went to the airport, for sure, but a huge number went 40+ min away

Having a aircraft that can only do a slice of the flying doesn’t seem to make sense vs a tried and true airframe that can do all of their flights

 

[Flocker]

Archer recently completed construction on their manufacturing facility on the airport here in Covington GA (CVC). They're coming!

 

[Pugs]

Flights would be aboard the company’s human-piloted, four-passenger Midnight devices.

Useful load "about" 1000 lbs - subtract pilot and your typical set of three humans and their bags to the airport I hope they just have a carryon. Not like you can take less fuel with an electric plane to gain capacity but things that fly are all great so I wish them the best.

 

[Dana]

one of the current principal NYC helicopter operators generates millions from its NYC airport shuttle business

They make money by keeping the choppers flying... if they're on the ground charging batteries between flights they're not earning revenue. If they can quickly swap batteries it might work, but even then would there really be a competitive advantage vs. a conventional helicopter?

 

[Bell206]

Having a aircraft that can only do a slice of the flying doesn’t seem to make sense vs a tried and true airframe that can do all of their flights

But the existing helicopter methods have limitations. Regardless, the use of eVTOLs is part of a larger program that has been on the books for many years and their use for the airport routes from urban centers is the 1st step in that transition with NYC, Chicago, and LA routes being the initial focus for the service.

I was on a certificate that did much of that flying

Interesting. Who's certificate and what did you fly?

If they can quickly swap batteries it might work, but even then would there really be a competitive advantage vs. a conventional helicopter?

Except in NYC there are limitations on helicopter ops so the turnaround rates don't really figure into the equation per se. As to battery charging, Joby and Archer both use a fast charge system where the C rate is timed in minutes for a runs like this. Where the competitive edge will come from is the lower DOCs and the ability of the eVTOLs to operate where helicopters can't within a dense urban environment. But one just needs to look at the current headlines to see how helicopters have long been despised in NYC to see where the eVTOLs will have a definite edge.

 

[Roller]

But the existing helicopter methods have limitations. Regardless, the use of eVTOLs is part of a larger program that has been on the books for many years and their use for the airport routes from urban centers is the 1st step in that transition with NYC, Chicago, and LA routes being the initial focus for the service.


Interesting. Who's certificate and what did you fly?


Except in NYC there are limitations on helicopter ops so the turnaround rates don't really figure into the equation per se. As to battery charging, Joby and Archer both use a fast charge system where the C rate is timed in minutes for a runs like this. Where the competitive edge will come from is the lower DOCs and the ability of the eVTOLs to operate where helicopters can't within a dense urban environment. But one just needs to look at the current headlines to see how helicopters have long been despised in NYC to see where the eVTOLs will have a definite edge.

I’d also wonder where on the 23rd street pad or the airport ramps they are going to store all these batteries, that area space is at a super premium

 

[WDD]

 

[Roller]

Useful load "about" 1000 lbs - subtract pilot and your typical set of three humans and their bags to the airport I hope they just have a carryon. Not like you can take less fuel with an electric plane to gain capacity but things that fly are all great so I wish them the best.

Interesting

How does this make money with that tiny payload and the huge infrastructure foot print it will need, you hit the nail on the head with the “fuel” weight issue, hardly any of those other operators are topping the tanks for that reason, also pound for pound you get a lot more out of jet fuel than you do batteries.

I always wonder who invests in these things and if it’s just a marketing or tax break type of deal vs a actual investor doing their due diligence and thinking “gee this will work”

 

[DaleB]

I always wonder who invests in these things and if it’s just a marketing or tax break type of deal vs a actual investor doing their due diligence and thinking “gee this will work”

In this particular case United gave them $10MM and Stellantis $150MM. Since their major investors include a bunch of VC firms, Im guessing that's the bulk of it. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/ACHR/holders/

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I’d also wonder where on the 23rd street pad or the airport ramps they are going to store all these batteries, that area space is at a super premium

Considering that you think lead ingestion is healthy, your opinion on this is equally suspect.

 

[Dana]

Where the competitive edge will come from is the lower DOCs and the ability of the eVTOLs to operate where helicopters can't within a dense urban environment. But one just needs to look at the current headlines to see how helicopters have long been despised in NYC to see where the eVTOLs will have a definite edge.

Where can an eVTOL operate that a helicopter can't?

People are starting to hate "drones", too ("drone" to the average person meaning an eVTOL of any size from a tiny quadcopter toy on up).

 

[Bell206]

Where can an eVTOL operate that a helicopter can't?

Where noise is an issue. This has been documented over the years as part of the UAM process. But drones as you state and eVTOLs are not in the same class if that makes sense. For example, helicopter ops are severely restricted in NYC for a number of reasons but mainly noise issues, so their flight paths are limited to basically following waterways vs other over-land routes. However, the noise levels produced by the current eVTOLs do not exceed the average ambient noise levels of the urban NYC environment. In other words, nobody would notice they were flying by unlike a conventional helicopter. Been many studies on this and was the single most important design requirement for the current eVTOLs to meet. Without that ability there would not be an eVTOL industry.

 

[billsgs126]

Does anyone know where I can find some suckers investors for my brainchild?

Imagine non-stop flights from New York to LA that burned NO Jet Fuel or AvGas*
Based on proven technology**
200 passengers traveling in complete comfort***
At a comfortable, safe, altitude**** where you can enjoy the scenery while flying on a cushion of air!



*Towed by a highway long-haul tractor.
**First flight in 1940. And a perfect safety record since 1945.
***No Spitfires or Warhawks!
****400-500 foot tow cable!
(We just need new suckers investors to solve that I don't own my own island pesky highway overpass situation.)

 

[tspear]

What I do not get is the economics.
I can see the operating cost benefit potential; actual reality is TBD. The noise and route benefits. But I do not see the ROI for building the darn things.

Tim

 

[Bell206]

But I do not see the ROI for building the darn things.

Once you put the reason behind their development in a proper context those answers may become more evident.

So what do you think drove their development and for what overall market?

 

[tspear]

@Bell206

I get the visionaries. I get those like the guy who founded Beta who had a specific need (sick child needing fast/local transport in high density area).
The others, such as United and Delta? Or traditional investment groups? I have seen a few proposals, and the costs projected are way too low, assumptions about market size are laughable.

Like I said, the economics just do not make sense to me.

Tim

 

[Lindberg]

Buggy whip manufacturing will never go out of style.

 

[SCCutler]

I remain skeptical of certification on these kinds of aircraft; in particular, how does the FAA truly vet the software that is such an absolutely integral part of the operational model (ie, there is no true "glide" in the event of an engine failure). Perhaps the out is an absolute power disconnect and deployment of a chute?

Will the FAA approve such a plan for a common carrier use aircraft?

 

[Salty]

Once you put the reason behind their development in a proper context those answers may become more evident.

So what do you think drove their development and for what overall market?

The reason behind their development is to bilk stupid investors, so yeah, it’s pretty evident.

 

[Bell206]

I have seen a few proposals, and the costs projected are way too low, assumptions about market size are laughable.

So again, which overall market do you think they were developed for?

I remain skeptical of certification on these kinds of aircraft; in particular, how does the FAA truly vet the software

Using the same methods they’ve been vetting and certifying other flight software currently in use. Its my understanding the software certification is the easiest part.

that is such an absolutely integral part of the operational model (ie, there is no true "glide" in the event of an engine failure). Perhaps the out is an absolute power disconnect and deployment of a chute?

This is handled by the Distributed Electric Propulsion system (DEP) onboard the aircraft that use this configuration. It was developed by NASA around 2009 and is the sole reason the eVTOL development is where it is at. Without DEP there would be no eVTOLs as they are now.

Will the FAA approve such a plan for a common carrier use aircraft?

Yes, as well as the EASA. The Archer above has started Phase 4 of the FAA type certification process and Joby is in the final portion of the FAA Phase 4 process and is at a similar phase for the EASA certification process. The 1st commercial eVTOL ops started in China this year with other countries finishing up vertiport infrastructure projects for the Archer and Joby aircraft once they receive their type certificate.

 

[tspear]

@Bell206

The proposals I read where all about Jetson's level air taxis/ Point to point all over the major metro areas, landing in every driveway or roof. Each one predicted millions annually will be sold within a decade. e.g. they will replace cars.

Tim

 

[Bell206]

The proposals I read where all about Jetson's level air taxis/ Point to point all over the major metro areas, landing in every driveway or roof. Each one predicted millions annually will be sold within a decade. e.g. they will replace cars.

It appears you’ve never read any commercial level proposals or analyses based on your comments. For one, the Jetson is a single-place ultralight so no commercial ops. Nor can commercial eVTOLs land on private driveways or roofs as they must stick to approved vertiports. Nor will they replace cars. And the projected numbers of commercial eVTOLs are closer to about 5000 globally within the 1st 5 years of operation and up to about 150,000 globally after 25 years of operation depending on source.

So, care to guess again what market the Archer and Joby were designed for? Hint: I’ve discussed this market at length in other similar threads.

 

[Lindberg]

@Bell206

The proposals I read where all about Jetson's level air taxis/ Point to point all over the major metro areas, landing in every driveway or roof. Each one predicted millions annually will be sold within a decade. e.g. they will replace cars.

Tim

There's can be more than one business model.

 

[tspear]

@Bell206 @Lindberg

I have NO idea what your point is. Does not matter 5000 unit globally over five years, or 150K units over 25 years. That is the complete market size.
There are a dozen plus companies that all believe they will be the only seller. More realistic is no company exceeding 50%.
Each 100 Million USD invested; will cost 40K per unit sold assuming they sell 2500 units with a FCOM of 0%. Most of these companies will go way beyond 100 million by a large factor.

Like I said, the math does not pencil out for me. I am glad they are doing it, because I think it will be cool, and the tech might be great applied elsewhere. But the business model and assumptions I do not think make sense.

Tim

 

[Lindberg]

@Bell206 @Lindberg

I have NO idea what your point is. Does not matter 5000 unit globally over five years, or 150K units over 25 years. That is the complete market size.
There are a dozen plus companies that all believe they will be the only seller. More realistic is no company exceeding 50%.
Each 100 Million USD invested; will cost 40K per unit sold assuming they sell 2500 units with a FCOM of 0%. Most of these companies will go way beyond 100 million by a large factor.

Like I said, the math does not pencil out for me. I am glad they are doing it, because I think it will be cool, and the tech might be great applied elsewhere. But the business model and assumptions I do not think make sense.

Tim

First, they're not selling them. Second, no one said every one of these companies is going to be successful.

 

[donjohnston]

It appears you’ve never read any commercial level proposals or analyses based on your comments. For one, the Jetson is a single-place ultralight so no commercial ops. Nor can commercial eVTOLs land on private driveways or roofs as they must stick to approved vertiports. Nor will they replace cars. And the projected numbers of commercial eVTOLs are closer to about 5000 globally within the 1st 5 years of operation and up to about 150,000 globally after 25 years of operation depending on source.

So, care to guess again what market the Archer and Joby were designed for? Hint: I’ve discussed this market at length in other similar threads.

Pretty sure tspear wasn't referring to the Jetson One but to the concept of a flying vehicle that can carry multiple people, zip around and land anywhere.

 

[Bell206]

I have NO idea what your point is.

Google “UAM eVTOL Market Forecast.” The point you’re missing is that the Joby and Archer were designed to service a public transportation market and not a private market. Completely different dynamics. While the forecasts in the public domain tend to be variable, the private forecasts are pretty stable in their projections which are currently predicting a $15 Billion dollar revenue market after 10 years of operations at CAGRs of 25%-35%.

So you are correct that the economics don’t make sense for you and me to buy them direct from Archer, but when NYC, Chicago, London, and Tokyo buy them in bulk to expand their current public transportation offerings, no telling where it will peak. This is why you are seeing such a diverse group of top industries investing in this technology and infrastructure. UAM is not new nor is it only a US based concept. And once NASA proved helicopters couldn’t provide what UAM needed in the 90s, they went about developing new technologies to find something that could. And the result was the eVTOL.

 

[tspear]

@Bell206

Yeah, I have previously read a few of the summaries. I have NOT read them in detail.
There is a very significant issue with all those optimistic predictions.
There is zero infrastructure, regulations, processes, thoughts... or anything on how this will or will not work withing the airspace system.
Just look at Archer, they want a dozen dedicated routes to the three major airports around NYC. The application was submitted I believe in 2023. We are now 1/3 of the way through 2025 and the FAA has yet to release an NPRM which will most likely be required for altering the airspace.

Every summary I have previously read, just assumes it will all work like the highway system. The FAA does not work that way, ATC is NOT designed to operate that way. The TCAS systems are not designed to handle it. The list goes on.

All of this is very solvable. However, it takes significant planning, and will very likely take years to accomplish at any scale.

Tim

 

[WDD]

Don’t assume that top executives / decision makers / investors 1) aren’t affected by FOMO, 2) are fully informed and rational, and 3) aren’t influenced by others telling them and how they themselves feel about how smart and progressive they are.

 

[Bell206]

There is zero infrastructure, regulations, processes, thoughts... or anything on how this will or will not work withing the airspace system.

The FAA, NASA, and various cities have been working on these details since the 1970s. For example, the infrastructure for the NYC, Chicago, and LA initial Part 135 route checks is already in place. Pilot regulations and to a certain extent operational regs have already been approved under the general heading of the Powered-Lift category and SFARs.

Just look at Archer, they want a dozen dedicated routes to the three major airports around NYC. The application was submitted I believe in 2023.

The FAA will not process the application and approve the routes until the aircraft completes type certification and is capable of flying those routes. And since this is a new category of aircraft there is a lot of work being done under special rules until a formal rule can be completed. For example, the eVTOLs are being certified under Part 21.17 Special Class standards as the Powered-Lift standards are not complete. EASA is following the same path as well.
Joby
Archer

The FAA does not work that way, ATC is NOT designed to operate that way. The TCAS systems are not designed to handle it. The list goes on.

Not really. The FAA addressed all your concerns back in the 2000s by incorporating the UAM airspace control within the NextGen program. All UAM aircraft will be managed via ADSB and the UAM airspace will have various restrictions, etc. There are mountains of reports, articles, etc. in the public domain that go into great detail how all this will work.

As I stated, the UAM concept has been around for 50+ years and the only thing it was missing was a viable aircraft. To think the FAA, Joby, and Archer started yesterday on prepping for this is… well, is simply not true. All the “significant planning” has already been done and is simply waiting on the aircraft to be issued their type certificate. Whether you want to believe that or not is fine too. I've been involved with the UAM process on and off since my participation with the NASA HeliSTAR program in Atlanta in 1996. And from what I've seen and experienced recently, its going to happen sooner than later and I doubt seriously UAM and eVTOLs will ever go away and will become a new norm in aviation.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Does anyone know where I can find some suckers investors for my brainchild?

Imagine non-stop flights from New York to LA that burned NO Jet Fuel or AvGas*
Based on proven technology**
200 passengers traveling in complete comfort***
At a comfortable, safe, altitude**** where you can enjoy the scenery while flying on a cushion of air!

View attachment 140076

*Towed by a highway long-haul tractor.
**First flight in 1940. And a perfect safety record since 1945.
***No Spitfires or Warhawks!
****400-500 foot tow cable!
(We just need new suckers investors to solve that I don't own my own island pesky highway overpass situation.)

Whoa, what is that thing??

 

[billsgs126]

Whoa, what is that thing??

A Messerschmidt Me321 cargo glider designed for the planned invasion of England. Could carry 200 troops, a PzkwIV, or a field gun tractor and crew.

Heinkel designed the He111Z to tow it. They ended up being used to resupply Rommel in Africa.