Stellantis to build electric 'air taxis' with Archer

These are same as airplane,they will be under FAA regulator

The concept seems interesting, I wonder how are the prices going to be for those that first use these "air taxis" and the kind of infrastructure that will be needed for the service.

The concept seems interesting, I wonder how are the prices going to be for those that first use these "air taxis" and the kind of infrastructure that will be needed for the service.

The infrastructure is already present, as noted below. Also in NY the Downtown Manhattan Heliport will be used.

The plan is for these aircraft to fly between New York and Newark Airport initially, then expand to other cities such as Los Angeles, Miami and San Francisco where United has a significant presence.

The infrastructure is already present, as noted below. 

The text you quote do not mention any infrastructure being already present, it only mentions where it is planned to be used. There is no basis to assume preparation has already been made, no source that indicates this is the case, specially when the production is only to begin next year.

The text you quote do not mention any infrastructure being already present, it only mentions where it is planned to be used. There is no basis to assume preparation has already been made, no source that indicates this is the case, specially when the production is only to begin next year.

Yes it does.

Oh, you don't understand what infrastructure means? Not surprising.

Well, for air taxis, the infrastructure includes=--surprise!----airports.

From the text which you did not comprehend:

The plan is for these aircraft to fly between New York and Newark Airport initially,

Oh, you don't understand what infrastructure means? Not surprising.

So your argument is that these taxis are meant to be used exclusively between airports? because that completely contradicts the point made in the article about "Uber or Lyft of the skies" (not to mention your own claim of the Manhattan heliport), for any destination different from airports obviously infrastructure will be required.

So, do you have any source that says the intended objective of the taxis is to move between airports? because other sources clearly mention that the end purpose is to move within cities or regions. Which would obviously require more infrastructure than what is already available. You don't only need something to be available, you would need to demonstrate everything necessary for the full service planned to be available, which is obviously not the case.

An expensive toy just for 20 miles and just 4 passengers.

You really cornered yourself here.

The infrastructure is already in place for these air taxis.

You already have given up trying to prove this the moment you recognized no source has ever said the taxis are meant solely to move between airports.

The article does say:

The plan is for these aircraft to fly between New York and Newark Airport initially

And the plan for autonomous cars was to have no passengers initially, this obviously means the actual purpose (in both case) is differente, as many other sources have pointed out, clearly refuting your misunderstanding.

They would not need an airport for vertical takeoff. A land space would be enough. Based at the airport.

wallaceToday  03:44 pm JST

They would not need an airport for vertical takeoff. A land space would be enough. Based at the airport.

They already have the infrastructure--such as the airport in Newark, as the article indicates.

They would not need an airport for vertical takeoff. A land space would be enough. Based at the airport.

The taxis are described to be used as an option for transport in densely populated cities, to fulfill that purpose the space for landing would be necessary also at the destination, but also would need a charging station, safety measures, etc. Without multiple destinations (and the necessary infrastructure there) the value of vertical takeoff would be much diminished, why would anybody want to ride an air-taxi that has less flexibility than what helicopters already have?

They already have the infrastructure--such as the airport in Newark, as the article indicates.

So your argument is that this is the only infrastructure for their planned use? because that can still be proved false according to many sources, including this article that clearly describe this as only the initial plan.

The taxis are described to be used as an option for transport in densely populated cities, to fulfill that purpose the space for landing would be necessary also at the destination, but also would need a charging station, safety measures, etc.

Yeah, like at airports:

The plan is for these aircraft to fly between New York and Newark Airport initially, then expand to other cities such as Los Angeles, Miami and San Francisco where United has a significant presence.

Without multiple destinations (and the necessary infrastructure there) the value of vertical takeoff would be much diminished, why would anybody want to ride an air-taxi that has less flexibility than what helicopters already have?

Multiple destinations (with necessary infrastructure) are mentioned in the article:

The plan is for these aircraft to fly between New York and Newark Airport initially, then expand to other cities such as Los Angeles, Miami and San Francisco where United has a significant presence.

It's pretty ridiculous to argue that the infrastructure already exists, when the article doesn't list the required infrastructure, to be able to determine if it exists. For example, I see no reference as to how these are charged, can you run a plug from any old socket, or do you need a specialized charger? Do these plane-taxis need any kind of specialized landing space, or would any spot in a parking lot work? Etc. There are all sorts of considerations of details not listed in this article, so it cannot logically be concluded that the requisite infrastructure already exists.

The plan is for these aircraft to fly between New York and Newark Airport initially, then expand to other cities such as Los Angeles, Miami and San Francisco where United has a significant presence.

So you accept the plan is not only to use airports, (the latter are cities, not airports) this disprove your claim that the infrastructure is in place.

Multiple destinations (with necessary infrastructure) are mentioned in the article:

Again, that is not the case, that is still your baseless assumption that you gave up trying to prove with references when you accepted there is no article that says so.

Helicopters land and take off all day from the top of skyscrapers. it is about 9 miles from Newark airport to lower Manhattan so probably they would need a high voltage charge for the return trip.

Because of the short range and the necessity of minimizing electrical loads this is going to be a day/VFR (Visual Flight Rules) only kind of aircraft. There won't be enough power to support the electrical draw and added weight of full instrumentation and night lighting, and with only a 30 km or so range it will never be able to have an alternate if the destination is below minimums for an instrument approach.

probably they would need a high voltage charge for the return trip.

And not only that, this is the part where It becomes obvious the infrastructure for the intended use is not yet in place, even helicopters can't just land anywhere and for example safety/security measures are also necessary.

For example here is a good assesment of the necessary infrastrucutre for an actually viable vertiport included in an airport.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13272-021-00544-4

As the article clearly demonstrate there are requirements to be fulfilled even in airports.

I just passed through Newark 2 weeks ago and saw this air taxi being advertised.

virusrexToday  03:58 pm JST

So you accept the plan is not only to use airports, (the latter are cities, not airports) this disprove your claim that the infrastructure is in place.

It's the article's claim. There is an airport used by United in Newark. I saw it. I used it.

And an airport is considered infrastructure.

This initial phase is expected to rely on existing and retrofitted infrastructure. 

Desert TortoiseToday  04:06 pm JST

Because of the short range and the necessity of minimizing electrical loads this is going to be a day/VFR (Visual Flight Rules) only kind of aircraft. There won't be enough power to support the electrical draw and added weight of full instrumentation and night lighting, and with only a 30 km 

Isn't the range is 60 miles? Not sure though.

Will beat going through the Lincoln Tunnel.

It's the article's claim. There is an airport used by United in Newark. I saw it. I used it.

The article do not claim the airport in Newark can support the use of the airtaxi services as it is right now, that is still only your assumption.

And an airport is considered infrastructure.

And as demonstrated even by a scientific article having an airport is not enough to let the air taxis provide their service.

A parking lot is also considered infrastructure, does this mean you can use it to give the services required by every service? Having any kind of intrastructure and having the necessary infrastructure for a purpose is obviously not the same thing.

This initial phase is expected to rely on existing and retrofitted infrastructure. 

Which in no way says this retrofitting is already in place, or even that it can be done easily or cheaply.

Manufacturing does not start until 2024.

StrangerlandJan. 5  03:55 pm JST

It's pretty ridiculous to argue that the infrastructure already exists, when the article doesn't list the required infrastructure, to be able to determine if it exists

virusrexJan. 5  05:00 pm JST

The article do not claim the airport in Newark can support the use of the airtaxi services as it is right now, that is still only your assumption.

Understandable that neither of you have been to New York City.

But Newark Liberty International Airport exists as of this moment. It is there. Airplanes land there, Helicopters land there. The infrastructure is there for these "air taxis".

United Airlines will have those land and takeoff from that airport. There is no dispute about that.

Understandable that neither of you have been to New York City.

No, you want to assume that without having any knowledge because it was impossible for you to prove that the taxis are meant to be used exclusively between airports or that it has all the necessary infrastructure already in place to be used as a vertiport.

At this moment the claim that the infrastructure is already in place is baseless, just a personal belief that was easy to disprove.

I wonder where they will find the pilots necessary to fly them? The major airlines are struggling to find qualified pilots. To carry passengers the pilot will need at least a commercial rating. The flight time necessary to qualify is not cheap.