> To give you an idea, it was easier to start SpaceX than it would be to get the FAA to allow "urban air mobility." So regulation is the real challenge, not technology.
I though the regulatory hurdles around "urban air" come straight from the need to protect people and property from the dangers of a) falling aircraft (which would become a real concern as the use scales up), and b) excessive noise. And I'd guess c) dust clouds. We'd have to invent propulsion that's much more quiet and doesn't push air around for air taxis to make sense. So this would make the root cause of those regulatory problems be technology problems (or perhaps even physics problems).
Large-scale urban air transport would also have to be entirely autonomous. Drunk/distracted driving is already a major issue and cause of death in the United State. In three dimensions and when failure of control can result in collision with any arbitrary part of any structure, this is obviously a non-starter. So getting the FAA to sign off means not only producing a design that must be, elevator style, mechanically essentially incapable of failure, but also getting them to sign off on an autonomous low-altitude flight system for use in dense airspace.
1) a flying car is going to be treated like operating an airliner if money changes hands to carry passengers. To give you an idea of what that costs, consider that an adequate tourism helicopter is $2 million.
2) otherwise, there's a rule for built-up areas that requires flying 500' over people and structures. That doesn't count for landings on regular airports and EMS helicopters on top of hospitals, but does pretty much everywhere else. Not terribly useful for commuting downtown.
3) the FAA regulates airspace and airports, but municipalities generally say no in urban areas when private citizens ask to operate helicopters off-airport. Steve Jobs found that out when he tried to get permission to use one for personal "urban air mobility" either in Palo Alto or Cupertino.
So to conclude ...
If you wanted agreement from the FAA and municipalities to do the "urban air mobility" thing, you'd need to start with what I wrote and devise a compelling argument that satisfies their concerns. Note that wasn't done with drones, and look at how restrictive the rules are now. It will be far worse if you want to charge money to carry passengers.
Rightfully so - passengers expect to embark, travel and disembark without making the headlines.
And you need a plan for what happens after the first accident that kills a passenger. Because not just one air mobility company, but all companies, will be mercilessly hammered by the FAA. Can you afford to shutdown for a year or two while the NTSB and FAA do their thing?
I'm aware of that, but the comment blamed this on needing to be "treated like operating an airliner". In reality, tourist helicopters are much better (and more expensive) than an R44 principally for reasons other than the FAA's treatment of them. Also, I believe that the Bell 206 is well under $2 million as well.
I though the regulatory hurdles around "urban air" come straight from the need to protect people and property from the dangers of a) falling aircraft (which would become a real concern as the use scales up), and b) excessive noise. And I'd guess c) dust clouds. We'd have to invent propulsion that's much more quiet and doesn't push air around for air taxis to make sense. So this would make the root cause of those regulatory problems be technology problems (or perhaps even physics problems).