HDRW wrote; This may work in the USA but over here we're crowded enough that you'd find it hard to prang a 172 without hitting someone on the ground (OK, an exaggeration!), and there's no space to build new airfields anywhere useful.
What would be the point of taking the cargo to somewhere remote, when it's wanted at its (presumably usually urban) destination? The extra surface transport costs may well scupper the economics.
...but I don't think *anyone* has AutoTaxy, even in testing?
The reason I say remote airfields is because i work in the mining industry, and indirectly with autonomous mining trucks. These trucks do not have a problem driving around the pit, havent hit anything yet. In fact, on a site visit the Supervisor took me to a ramp, we parked on the ramp and one of these trucks came around the corner making a beeline straight at us. I have to tell you one hand was on the door handle. Yet this truck detected us, and drove straight around. Talking to the Supervisor and what i found interesting was that he trusts these trucks a lot more than one with a human in it.
Now when i say remote airfield, relating it to mining, these autonomous trucks have there own pit, they are seperated from those with humans in them. However there are auxiliary pieces of machinery (graders, dozers etc) with humans in them interacting with these trucks, and there has never been a collision caused by an autonomous truck. In fact its been the other way around, humans are the ones colliding with autonomous trucks!
So maybe they could split the airfields, one side autonomous aircraft, the other with humans, dont know.
So i dont believe ground interaction, or autonomous taxying would be a problem. However when they get into the air, thats a different kettle of fish that i will leave to you more experienced gents and gals, for i am a mere private pilot.