Wikiposts
Search
The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

More on Uber Air

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 29th Feb 2020, 01:23
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,602
Likes: 0
Received 69 Likes on 28 Posts
Ozebusdriver

The video you posted did not appear to have a person on board!
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 02:05
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 3,071
Received 138 Likes on 63 Posts
Everyone said that about Uber and cars... “unqualified” drivers and standard vehicles belonging to private owners. The federal government didn’t fight against it...
CASA will have to throw a lot of money at it to stop it. If Uber has a lot of cash it will be hard to stop them.
However this move by Uber actually undermines CASA's authority and ability to regulate. That will never be allowed, ever. Just have a look at the whole Glen Buckley saga. That was a similar move to franchise out an AOC and move control from CASA to another authority. CASA won't stand for it.

The other issue for CASA is if Uber are allowed to do what they did in cars then it opens the door in aviation for everybody else to do it. Now I think that would be amazing for the industry and will be a massive economic boom for GA, however CASA do not want to be in that situation where they lose control of regulating the industry. So it is never ever ever ever going to happen. Ever. At any cost.

Cars and Planes are regulated in a totally different manner. Just look at the CAR 206. A tradie can drive around in a van all day long with all manner of equipment and supplies in the back. The same tradie jumps in an aeroplane he needs to get an AOC.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 06:28
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,681
Received 43 Likes on 28 Posts
Hahaha!...loved the statement...”its always tomorrow in Australia.”
Yeah we in Oz GA know all about that !
CAsA and yesterday’s men are not into common sense and new ideas
aroa is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 06:56
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,561
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
I know it is a dummy in there...but .CAN carry a human...which is the end game if ever an authority other than a former iron curtain country allows it.
For this little black duck there is noooo way I would even fly in an Uber with the designs they have..let alone that thing. But, it shows which way technology can go. look at some of the scifi flicks with aliens making a beachhead on the US coast and some of the flying contraptions that resemble lunar landers with high pressure stabiliser jets...all good when the gear is ticking over but will hang in the sky exactly the way bricks do if things go quiet.
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 08:04
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Mordor
Posts: 1,315
Received 54 Likes on 29 Posts
Originally Posted by Ex FSO GRIFFO
Question...…..Will those little props 'autorotate' in the event of.... ??
Of course not - they are fixed-pitch.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 15:06
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded
No comments on this, yet? Surprised.

Do you folks in Oz think the civil authorities actually expect this to happen anytime soon -- and actually want it to happen? It's a damned far-fetched notion for an urban area, it seems to me. Unless the extent of the plan is merely to serve the local oligarchs and their high-ranking minions. Kinda like helicopter service today.
Weird. When I posted the above comment, while this thread was under R&N, there were no responsive posts showing up (for me).

I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only one who thinks this is preposterous -- and would be a bad idea even if it were not.
OldnGrounded is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 21:42
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Straya
Posts: 33
Received 15 Likes on 5 Posts
This will be my part time job.
Gazza mate is offline  
Old 29th Feb 2020, 22:40
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded
Weird. When I posted the above comment, while this thread was under R&N, there were no responsive posts showing up (for me).

I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only one who thinks this is preposterous -- and would be a bad idea even if it were not.
I think most sane people know that this concept is about as feasible as living on Mars anytime soon!
a
Apart from the fanciful technical stuff Insurance Co's would be shaking their heads!
machtuk is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 02:06
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Every approved landing area would also need a development approval from the appropriate local council. Anyone who has been through that process knows how easy and timely that process is?

Wunwing
Wunwing is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 21:38
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,681
Received 43 Likes on 28 Posts
Good to see a mention of CAR 206, Neville. Thats the reg supposed to be changed 30 years ago , and in the passing decades always just "talk" about removing it because it is 'ultra vires' the Act and unlawful.
And in the past the idiot screechers and sqwarkers of CAsA having a rave in the Senate telling them .." we are a safety regulator , NOT a commercial regulator". BS tru. Pull the other one.
206 denies you the right to free trade and thus earn a living...just because an aircraft is involved.
Bureaucrats rule OK !
aroa is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 08:17
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 3,071
Received 138 Likes on 63 Posts
Good to see a mention of CAR 206, Neville. Thats the reg supposed to be changed 30 years ago , and in the passing decades always just "talk" about removing it because it is 'ultra vires' the Act and unlawful.
And in the past the idiot screechers and sqwarkers of CAsA having a rave in the Senate telling them .." we are a safety regulator , NOT a commercial regulator". BS tru. Pull the other one.
206 denies you the right to free trade and thus earn a living...just because an aircraft is involved.
Possibly Uber are going to challenge this assertion by CAR 206. They are notoriously libertarian and have shown no regard for any established law in any country they operate in and not afraid of a law suit.

If they don't do that I can't see how it will ever work legally. I assume Uber expect the operator to contract to them and somehow operate in a Monopsony. Problem for Uber there is that nothing is stopping the operator going off on their own as they control the AOC and just need a reservation system.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2020, 08:00
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: on the ground
Posts: 444
Received 32 Likes on 11 Posts

Uber Elevate sale set to put plans for 1000 Melbourne flying taxis on ice


Uber's sale of its aviation division has raised questions about its plans for up to 1000 commercial flying taxis in Melbourne from 2023.
nonsense is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2020, 22:30
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Received 20 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by nonsense
Uber Elevate sale set to put plans for 1000 Melbourne flying taxis on ice

Uber's sale of its aviation division has raised questions about its plans for up to 1000 commercial flying taxis in Melbourne from 2023.

classic. It's almost like Uber's realized it was going to get infinitely more difficult to keep this charade up as they got closer to a self imposed delivery date. So they found a way of moving the problem
elsewhere so they won't be under the spotlight when it never happens.
kingRB is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2020, 00:34
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,878
Received 193 Likes on 100 Posts
I like the way it says the SALE of the division, however in the next paragraph is says they PAID Joby $75m to take it over !!
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2020, 01:36
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,289
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sale - really!!!!!!!!!

When I receive something in return (Usually payment of some kind) I have sold something

When I get nothing in return I have given it away

When I pay someone to take it away the idea of it having been sold doesn't enter my consciousness.

This is certainly a very novel interpretation of the act of selling. I guess it might help stop the shareholders getting too upset.
27/09 is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2020, 12:43
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Sydney
Age: 53
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Really, no surprise here.
scotton is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.