The Perception of The Stakeholders

participants did not question the technical feasibility of eVTOL PAVs in general and confirmed the main issues found by the consortium such as noise, automation, parking, availability of this transportation (weather). Additional aspects were mentioned as well such as the idea to also have a usability of the vehicle “on the ground”, which would allow for flying just above street level and be able to “swim” with the car traffic. Generally, doubts about the benefits of PAVs, even after a lively debate about potential advantages, remained and a major part of the participants judged the idea as “Over-Engineering”. In their opinion the level of automation needed to have PAVs safely operating in a city environment would already solve the congestions problems on the ground if implemented in today’s cars.

Later, three focus groups were prepared in three different countries (Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom) and conducted in November 2013 and January 2014 and had the aim to explore the perceptions and expectations which people have regarding this new technology.

Key aspects of the discussion were the participants’ feelings and impressions related to the existence and availability of PAVs in their local environment and the issues and challenges associated with this travel option. The focus group discussions were divided into two main parts. The first part was about the current local traffic situation and how people experience their way of traveling in the cities, especially their daily commute. The second part of the discussion started with a small narrative imagining the existence of small personal air vehicles available for personal commuting. This narrative was used to familiarize people with eVTOL PAVs as an additional transportation option and make them think about the concept of flying vehicles.

In a first step of this second part people got time to get acquainted with this idea and to get answers to their questions regarding the characteristics and capabilities of eVTOL PAVs and about the design and structure of the whole eVTOL PATS. In a second step people were then able to connect challenges and issues they found with different eVTOL PAV design options (business concepts, level of autonomies). The discussions brought out very lively and critical perceptions; potential challenges and solutions were voiced by the participants. A detailed review of the myCopter study was provided in previous chapter.

As a general observation from all three focus groups one could state that the major issues regarding eVTOL PAVs that were raised are safety problems (on the ground and in the air for the PAV itself), environmental issues (visual impacts, noise), challenges with respect to infrastructure (city architecture, integration into existing ground traffic, maintenance &

service), organizational and business models, level of autonomy, system design & operational aspects, privacy & legal issues, as well as thoughts about user groups and areas of application.

The participants brought in a lot of personal opinions, comments, and valuable criticism

regarding the PAV concepts and future eVTOL PATS. They also made several suggestions regarding future design options and operational models for both personal air vehicles and transportation systems accommodating them. However, it is impossible to draw a single, generalized conclusion from observations. The picture is rather mixed in various ways. People switched between two perspectives – that of the potential user who sees attractive new transportation options and that more outside perspective of residents or people on the street who might be affected by the potential impacts of PAVs. Most participants did not express clear preferences regarding fully automated or self-piloting, ownership models and loss of control debate.

Based on those findings, data for European and North American cities were gathered and analyzed to assess the number of eVTOL PAVs (and the related infrastructure needs) required to substitute a share of car commuter traffic by eVTOL PAV that is enough to significantly reduce urban congestion and contribute to the project’s overall goal.

These data, supported by more detailed data from various German cities, allow for some (preliminary) conclusions on eVTOL PATS requirements regarding eVTOL PAV design (range, speed, …) as well as well as plausible mission scenarios and infrastructure requirements:

• To have measurable impact on traffic congestion in metro areas, eVTOL PATS would have to substitute a substantial share of car traffic during peak hour(s). Experts consulted by ITAS estimated that a net substitution of 10 % of recent car traffic could have this effect, if this reduction in travel times does not induce new traffic or shifts from other transportation modes (like public transportation or cycling)

• The clear majority (ca. 90 %) of commuting trips to work is shorter than 25 km and does not take longer than 30 minutes.

• Peak hour delays in most European cities are no longer than 15 min, in very rare case up to 30 min (based on the assumption of 30 min travel time to work under free flow conditions)

• Key factors for modal choice are availability, cost, reliability, and door-to-door travel times.

• Door-to-door travel times for eVTOL PATS will heavily depend both on the eVTOL PAV concept (pre- and post-trip routines, level of autonomy, speed) and eVTOL PATS infrastructures, especially within cities.

• Weather data indicate that availability / reliability may be further limiting factors.

The next contributive study is based on Airbus Research by the Boston Consulting Group.

The Airbus research describes the empirical findings of potential user perceptions and

expectations related to urban air mobility. Three focus groups were prepared in three different countries (Germany, US, and China) and had the aim to explore the perceptions and expectations which people have regarding this new technology and to discover motivational needs and levers for urban air mobility as shown in Figure 5.1.

Fig. 5.1 Airbus Depth Analysis with Target Customer in Three Regions, source: Boston Consulting Group (2017).

As a general observation from all three focus groups, one could state that Airbus urban air mobility scenarios was with very positive spontaneous feedback. In summary it can be said that all three focus group discussions were very lively and insightful with good grades. The participants brought in a lot of personal opinions, comments, and valuable criticism regarding urban air mobility. They also made several suggestions regarding clear advantages such as reduced travel time, higher predictability, easily accessible with individual destination choice, secure technology, friendly environment, and questions instead of concerns (50 km reach sounds good when will it be 100 km? Are 6-8 hubs per city enough to reach it in max. 10 minutes? Can I prebook?). The question was not “do I want it?” but “when will I get it?”.

One of the main aims in the study was to understand how different archetypes see emerging eVTOL air mobility advantages. Understanding psychological predisposition will be key to tailoring the urban air mobility. Figure 5.2 provides value proposition for this purpose.

1 Saving time, more speed in urban mobility

2 Predictable durations, less buffer, time efficiency 3 Environmentally friendly, green

4 Exciting, cool, new, innovation & progression 5 Joy of flying over the jam, breaking rules

6 Security, redundant technology 7 cost efficiency, affordable 8 Status differentiates from others 9 reliefs urban traffic issues 10 Better quality of lifework

Fig. 5.2 Value Proposition, source: Boston Consulting Group (2017).

Figure 5.2 reveals that promises on saving time or winning relative time in terms of predictable duration and less buffer are very attractive. Green also helps positioning. But there are also highly emotional benefits that should be addressed too.

The urban air mobility use cases were also discussed in the focus groups. The Airbus study describes that airport transfer is first. The second is end-to-end city transfer and the third one is reaching offsite destinations. The fourth one is daily commuting to work. Top use cases also have high business impact.

Fig. 5.3 Uses cases in New York City, source: Boston Consulting Group (2017).

The figure 5.3 reveals that airport transfers could be more than half the trips based on today’s mobility pattern in New York city. The study also says that 80% of world’s airports are within 40 km range and 90% of world’s airports are within 50km range in figure 5.4 below.

Fig. 5.4 Distribution of Top WW Airports by Distance from Nearest Big City Center, source: Boston Consulting Group (2017).

The participants in focus groups also argued pricing and seat logic to imply business potential of urban air mobility. The benchmark for pricing was taxi and for seat logic was car.

Timing assumption was cutting travel hour in half. In focus group discussion, 2 Pax sharing was considered appropriate at the beginning and 4 Pax sharing could be the future standard and acceptable. 6 Pax and more results were in lacking credibility. With a time-reduction in half, taxi prices of 2 times in USA, 2.5 times in Germany and 6 times in China were accepted. “Air taxi” is what it should be called.

Another important source is the survey and the interviews that we have presented in detail in subsection 4.5 and intended to determine the perception, the concern and the expectation of the transportation planning staff and the regulator. The samples for the survey were only composed of individuals who were involved in two municipalities’ transportation planning departments (Istanbul and Izmir). The survey also included standardized interviews, as mentioned previously. The interviews targeted Civil Aviation Agency general manager, State Airport Operation Agency deputy manager, Izmir Municipality transportation department manager and one expert from Istanbul Municipality transportation planning department. The interviews were important not only to collect the same information as the questionnaires, but also to give space for new issues to arise during the conversation and to reach saturation of information.

We will provide a general observation here instead of discussing each question in detail again. As a general observation from all questionnaire and interviews one could state that the overall perception of the eVTOL PATS is significantly positive. Only, they are not clear about

self-piloting. They prefer on-demand air taxi transportation mode. They also think that eVTOL PATS is likely to help congestion and to contribute business and daily life quality. The support for eVTOL PATS is significantly high. They expect a safe, on-demand and cost-effective affordable eVTOL PATS which should help to relief congestion and to lessen travel time while integrating existing transportation modes. Surprisingly they put the noise in the last. They concern safety and security the most, and air traffic and the number of air vehicles in airspace are also a matter of fact to handle. Results also show that environmental impacts, namely emission and noise, can influence the decision making. Flight safety and security is seen as the most important challenge. The safety issue was coming up in all straight away.

Overall, the perception of eVTOL PATS is strongly positive and the support for the concept is significantly high though they were not well informed. Interviews with regulators may also help explain the need to be well informed and trained about the emerging air transportation mode even though they are at the top decision making about air transportation.

On the other side, despite a large influx of autonomous aircraft development in 2017, most people are still unwilling to fly in an unmanned/pilotless aircraft. Helicopter Investor asked more than 1,200 US citizens whether they would be willing to fly in an unmanned aircraft and 84.8% said NO, with only 15.2% willing to take to the air.²⁹ This may explain a need for transformation period from single-pilot monitor to full autonomous air vehicles. The aircraft we have seen so far are designed with automation capabilities but will initially start flying passengers with a pilot.

Fig. 5.5 Willing to Fly Pilotless Aircraft, source: www.vtol-investor.com

29 https://www.vtol-investor.com/blog/2018/5/21/almost-85-of-people-will-not-fly-in-an-unmanned-aircraft

Perhaps unsurprisingly, millennials are more willing than their elders to fly in unmanned aircraft, but not by much. Approximately 20% of the 18-24 and 25-34 age range would be prepared to fly in an unmanned aircraft. This drops to 14% for the 35-44 age range and 16.3%

for the 45-54 range. According to the results, men are more than twice as likely than women to fly autonomously. 136 of the 668 men questioned said they would fly in a pilotless aircraft whereas less than 10% – only 55 of the 567 women – said they would.

The public’s unwillingness to fly unmanned is, perhaps, something that OEMs pursuing an autonomous urban flight aircraft need to address. The publics unwillingness is perhaps understandable as the general populace is still unwilling to ride in driverless cars. Whilst a whole host of new cars feature autonomous options, and countries like the UK looking to bring driverless cars on the road by 2021, most people are still unwilling to ride in them. Image problem? Pilotless aircraft are linked to drones, with some of these new autonomous aircraft being designed by drone manufacturers, such as the new Ehang184. Outside of tech-focused publications, the times we generally hear most news about drones is when they crash. However, this is generally down to human error on the part of the person piloting the aircraft from the ground. While these drones are not autonomous, they are linked via namesake, with the Ehang 184 being dubbed a “passenger drone” by the manufacturer itself.

5.2 Is There a Significant Potential Benefit of Developing eVTOL Personal Air