Uber taxis moves into helicopter taxis
This weekend i noticed Uber have rented a helicopter for transport across the water from Denmark to Sweden for an Avinci music concert. An interesting concept. I wonder how this is commercially certified? Could we be seeing more of this to come? 1950 kr (approx 200 pounds per person) for an Uber helicopter taxi.
|
They did the same last year in Dubai, taking passengers to the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. No idea what the uptake was though.
|
Avicii is cool, flying in by chopper - whats not to like ??
|
Also Sao Paolo and Vegas. The former would be worth it to avoid car-jackers. The latter seems pointless given how close the airport is to town.
|
Uber Copter to Offer Helicopter Rides in New York City Starting July 9
Uber Technologies Inc. is testing a helicopter service in New York City, according to documents outlining the program obtained by Bloomberg.Passengers will be able to use the Uber app to book a flight through the service, called Uber Copter, the documents show. Tests flights took off from a Manhattan heliport near Wall Street to John F. Kennedy International Airport.After Bloomberg asked Uber for comment Wednesday, the New York Times published a story about the program. It says customers will be able to book flights starting July 9 in New York City and that the average ride will cost $200 to $225 a person. Eric Allison, the head of Uber’s flight business, told the Times that the company plans to eventually offer helicopter rides in other cities. In Manhattan, the helicopters depart and land from a heliport near the Staten Island Ferry, while at Kennedy, they depart and land at a helipad near Terminal 8.Passengers will be picked up or dropped off by car in Manhattan, and at Kennedy, they’ll be met at the helicopter tarmac by a car and driven directly to their terminal or picked up at the terminal and taken to the helicopter tarmac, Mr. Goel said.The helicopters will be operated by HeliFlite, a Newark-based company with a fleet of twin-engine helicopters. Two pilots will be on every flight, and passengers will be shown a 90-second safety video before taking off.Many helicopters, including those to be used by Uber Copter, have neither the space nor the weight capacity to accommodate large bags. Passengers will only be allowed to bring on one personal bag and one carry-on weighing no more than 40 pounds. https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0e45109d4c.jpg |
One can only hope the pilot won't have his gaze glued on his phone screen for turn-by-turn directions. Sudden u-turns from the right lane are optional.
|
“one carry-on weighing no more than 40 pounds.” Well that is a pretty generous carry-on allowance, I wonder if the airlines will accept it? |
Originally Posted by Offchocks
(Post 10488138)
“one carry-on weighing no more than 40 pounds.” Well that is a pretty generous carry-on allowance, I wonder if the airlines will accept it? |
Do their pilots have to lease the helicopter,...as that seems to be their business model.
|
This is a very impressive launch, twin engines, two pilots and all this for $200 per head! I assume this is the Uber pool service option flying in an S-76 or similar? If this is the case we can only begin to imagine what luxury we might get to fly in if we take the Uber X option! Any ideas what we might get to fly in if we opt for the Uber comfort? |
Not the first time Uber has tried this service. I did this in Shanghai in 2015, back before Uber threw in the towel here (could not compete with Didi)
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5eb9a78eaf.jpg https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....034a70dbb9.jpg https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....09c10939bc.jpg |
Heavily subsidized to gain traction, then prices will likely increase greatly. Landing fees at JRB and JFK alone eat up the cost of 2+ passengers unless there are big negotiated deals on both ends. |
Nothing new here. Laughed when I read the phrase ‘on demand’ - when else would you want to hail a taxi? similar to Blade - nothing more than tech aiding a ride-sharing brokerage. Safer to do it under EASA than FAA regs - as global helicopter community were once again reminded of the shallow level of safety oversight in USA and how unscrupulous companies are quick to take advantage - regardless of how many commercial passengers they leave tied into a chopper at the bottom of the harbour. |
Originally Posted by EESDL
(Post 10488780)
Laughed when I read the phrase ‘on demand’ - when else would you want to hail a taxi?
Originally Posted by EESDL
(Post 10488780)
Safer to do it under EASA than FAA regs - as global helicopter community were once again reminded of the shallow level of safety oversight in USA and how unscrupulous companies are quick to take advantage - regardless of how many commercial passengers they leave tied into a chopper at the bottom of the harbour. |
Originally Posted by Gordy
(Post 10488862)
Those regulations have been changed, passengers are no longer allowed to use un-approved supplemental restraints. All countries have gaps in their safety oversight, I believe you have many crashes over there also.
|
Originally Posted by MikeNYC
(Post 10488865)
Those exact same restraints are back in use, though, with an approved LOA from the FAA and the addition of QR devices. The only difference is that now they’re “approved”. But that’s all for a different thread. |
Originally Posted by Gordy
(Post 10489018)
Exactly...QR devices and maybe longer straps.
Plenty of holes in safety oversight in too many CAAs. I agree totally. However, this was not the case in that ditching. They had been inspected and the rudimentary and obviously ‘gash’ fixings were seen but ignored. There are numerous ‘on-demand’ flights that are, in the plain light of day, ‘scheduled’. Interpretation also varies in different CAAs and there is no way your passenger is going to appreciate the differences - which is the main crutch here. Texh gives the illusion of ‘on demand’ but it turns out that flight is aggregated to a ‘dynamic schedule’ agreed by different parties - or at least that is the intended illusion. |
Originally Posted by EESDL
(Post 10489145)
There are numerous ‘on-demand’ flights that are, in the plain light of day, ‘scheduled’. Interpretation also varies in different CAAs and there is no way your passenger is going to appreciate the differences - which is the main crutch here. Here is an example. "according to a published timetable or with such a degree of regularity and frequency that they constitute a recognisable systematic series" |
Bell_ringer The definition is not in doubt - and a proposed schedule has to receive prior approval/nod from CAA etc etc. Application of Tech is a game changer. Much in the same way as here in UK where, thanks to Uber, we can ‘pre-book’ a ‘taxi’ at a moments notice - in effect it becoming an ‘instantaneous’ service, much like our Black Taxis. You might not know that our Black Taxi drivers required separate licensing and a specific level of knowledge prior to qualifying to convey as a ‘Hackney carriage’. Tech now facilitates mass dynamic conjuring of departure times from a fixed-point to another fixed-point - a set service from one collection point to another, let’s say a downtown helipad to an airport. Now, imagine that the frequency and preferred departure timings all fall into a pattern which looks remarkably the same every day, or every other day. As it would do as customers connect with onward regular, scheduled, flights. So, in effect, we produce a flight program that is a ‘scheduled service’ in all but name, but operated to different training, maintenance, oversight standards/levels. Indeed, you can be sure that the backers will have seen it as providing a set number of flights/day to determine EBITDA. Agreed that financial accounting does not make it ‘scheduled’ but the preferred peaks of demand will demonstrate that departure timings will be very, very, very similar..........and expected/planned for by the operator, owner, broker...... |
Any organisation that sits back and enjoys the status quo, providing marginal customer service at an elevated cost will eventually find itself redundant and rendered obsolete by some clever tech company. The black cabs, which most are familiar with, are in this boat.
As a consumer I am grateful I now have more choice, convenience at a better price point. Why should I pay for a cabbie's skills that has them memorise all the local routes when someone using a clever traffic and GPS app can deliver the same result for less? Tech is outpacing law makers and businesses will use grey areas until everyone else catches up. What is the difference between an operator setting up their stall and offering flips or ferries and what Uber is doing? Uber are using tech to make the process accessible to a broader base but aren't changing the dynamic. Under your definition, every sight-seeing operator is offering scheduled flights, you would have to apply airline standards to every flight which would have a remarkable effect on cost. Uber do these helicopter flights around the world, mostly for marketing. They aren't making the experience any more or less safe than it already is. |
Firstly, in FAA land, "scheduled air taxi" under part 135 means the flight departs on a set schedule whether there are passengers or not. That is the difference between "scheduled" and "on demand".
Secondly, I may know a little more about this incident and the new rules than most. I am a member of the Helicopter Association International (HAI), Regulatory-Safety Working Group, (RSWG), that was convened after this incident. Members include high level FAA & NTSB officials, along with "prominent" industry leaders. I was selected to the board as I am the current Chairman of the HAI Tour Operator Committee, (HTOC), and the current Chairman of the Board of Directors of TOPS, (Tour Operator Program of Safety). We have met in Washington DC twice now. The first time was to review the New York incident, (among others), and identify any regulatory gaps. We are currently working on a list of 21 areas of concern in both regulations and safety culture within the US aviation industry. Some of the interim fixes were as a direct result of this group. So, yes,this issue is being addressed. Now I am going back to flying fires till the end of fire season..... |
Melbourne (Australia) is joining Dallas and Los Angeles in 2020 with preparations for operating Uber Air electric flying aircraft from shopping centre car park rooftops commercially by 2023. Four passengers and a pilot.
More: Uber Air trial begins in Melbourne next year Uber Air trial begins in Melbourne next year You could soon be able to get a trip to the airport in about 10 minutes via the air as part of a new Uber project coming to Australia. https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a47b7b6c0.jpeg Melbourne will next year become the third world city to test a new app-hailed Uber service that will transport people by air, and other Australian cities could follow if the trial is successful. The Victorian capital is joining Dallas and Los Angeles in a pilot of Uber Air flights from 2020, ahead of commercial operations starting in 2023. The electric air taxis will, in the longer term, be able to transport people across cities for the same price as the rideshare service, UberX, the company said in a statement on Wednesday. Regional general manager for Uber in Australia, New Zealand and North Asia Susan Anderson made the announcement at an Uber summit in Washington. “Australian governments have adopted a forward-looking approach to ridesharing and future transport technology,” she said. “This, coupled with Melbourne’s unique demographic and geospatial factors, and culture of innovation and technology, makes Melbourne the perfect third launch city for Uber Air. “We will see other Australian cities following soon after.” It’s expected that a 19km trip from the CBD to Melbourne Airport will take around 10 minutes with Uber Air, versus up to an hour by car. “In the coming years, with Uber Air, we want to make it possible for people to push a button and get a flight,” Uber Elevate head Eric Allison added. Uber Air services use drone like special aircraft that can take off and land vertically from designated hubs - called skyports - like shopping centre rooftops, and carry four passengers and a pilot. In Melbourne, Uber is working with Westfield shopping centres owner Scentre Group, which has seven centres in the city, to help deliver its service. “We are curious to understand the role our platform may be able to play in the delivery of Australia’s future mobility options and how this could integrate with current ground transport which already includes ridesharing,” Scentre chief strategy and business development officer Cynthia Whelan said. Victorian Government Assistant Treasurer Robin Scott said the Uber Air trial plays up the state’s leadership in “transformative technologies”. Other Australian companies involved in helping to provide the infrastructure needed for the pilot include Macquarie Capital and Telstra, as well as Melbourne Airport. |
Uber announced Melbourne as a trial city, the national broadcaster ABC, decided to characterise the story with a science fiction slant by using the term “flying cars” and evoking Blade Runner. At first I was spitting cornflakes at Alexa, screaming at her that the craft won’t be driving on roads and it should be described as a drone or helicopter taxi. But “helicopter” or “drone” both have negative connotations for suburban and city dwellers and the ABC were putting a positive spin on the story by avoiding these terms. “Flying taxi” the most appropriate choice of words? Mjb |
Looks like a helicopter to me.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ee3e0dc66e.jpg Daily Telegraph article... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...sts-next-year/ |
Uber's own publicity seems to show other concepts such as this...
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b2bdd7528b.jpg Looks like they have decided on a standard cabin module and are playing around with different configurations - maybe the "helicopter" style is to prove the concept before moving onto a more "drone" like machine? |
Not sure how many of these things are going to be able to fit on a roof - with such a significant footprint. Moot point until we accept such things flying over cities rather than desert sites. i can think of many great applications for drones - anything rather than moving people - in an age when we are turning to VR, why do we have to use such step-change tech to transport humans on such a scale? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:00. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.