Flying Cars Have Arrived! eVTOL Panel Archer, Joby, Wisk | All-In Summit 2024

The future of urban mobility is taking flight with electric vertical takeoff and landing vehicles, transforming how we navigate congested cities.

For our next panel, we are going to have a quick introduction to each of the three electric vertical takeoff and landing vehicle companies, also known as the eVTOL companies. We will see a video introducing Joby, followed by Adam from Archer, who will introduce Archer, and then Brian from Wisk. After these introductions, we will engage in a conversation. Please stay tuned; we will be back in a minute.

I founded Archer in 2018 to change the way the world moves. Urban congestion isn't sustainable, and this leaves the average American stuck in traffic for dozens of hours per year. To combat that challenge, we built Midnight, an all-electric aircraft purpose-built to fly back-to-back trips over congested cities. Midnight takes off vertically like a helicopter, then its propellers transition down to fly like an airplane. It is designed to be piloted and carry four passengers, traveling at speeds of up to 150 mph.

Since 2018, we've made an incredible amount of progress in bringing the Midnight aircraft to market. Our nearly 10,000-person team has designed, built, and tested the key enabling technologies to bring electric aviation to market. This progress has enabled us to raise nearly $1.5 billion to get started. However, our goal has remained the same since day one: to achieve commercial launch. Our high-volume manufacturing facility in Georgia will open later this year, and we have incredible partners helping us bring this vision to life. Stellantis, the owner of Jeep, Ram, and Maserati, has invested nearly $300 million to date. United Airlines has ordered up to $1.5 billion of Midnight aircraft, and with Southwest, our goal is to offer passengers 3-hour multimodal journeys across California.

We have an industry-leading contract with the Air Force and recently delivered our first aircraft as part of that contract in Los Angeles. We also announced plans for flight networks connecting Sofi Stadium, USC, LAX, and beyond. We can't wait to bring Midnight to a city near you.

Peter Thiel reminded us yesterday that flying cars are the peak of the hardware revolution that never quite happened. However, as you just saw, we are closer than ever to making it a reality. The aircraft designed by our three companies take off vertically like helicopters, perform a complex maneuver to transition onto the wing, and then fly like an aircraft. When the founder of our company, Larry Page, first joined this mission, the technologies enabling these aircraft to fly were just starting to become possible.

The team I lead has built the enabling technologies in electrification and autonomy that are making this possible. You can see the prior five generations of aircraft that we've designed on the screen behind me. This iterative design-build approach has enabled us to reach the point where we are now building Generation 6, which is the first candidate for FAA certification of a passenger autonomous aircraft. This aircraft is designed to take advantage of all the prior technologies we developed through those iterations and to operate without a pilot on board during those missions.

There are two technology trends that we are all utilizing to create these aircraft: motors and the simplification that is coming to your cars and batteries, as well as the advances that are also being applied to your cell phones. The second trend is autonomy, which has many components. For the first time in a commercially certifiable way, we must demonstrate how we can operate and supervise an aircraft from the ground. This involves displaying information in a way that is safe from a human factor standpoint to supervise that aircraft, using sensors on the airplane similarly to how you would for an autonomous ground vehicle. We are creating the software and computation necessary to fly that aircraft autonomously.

=> 00:06:51

The future of air travel is here, and it’s all about making it safer, quieter, and more accessible for everyone.

In the realm of aviation technology, there are two technology trends that we are all utilizing to create these aircraft motors. The first trend is the simplification that is coming to cars, batteries, and cell phones. The second trend is autonomy, which encompasses many components. For the first time, we need to demonstrate, in a commercially certifiable manner, how we can operate and supervise an aircraft from the ground. This involves displaying information in a way that is safe from a human factors standpoint, allowing for effective supervision of the aircraft. We also need to utilize sensors on the airplane similarly to how they are used in autonomous ground vehicles. This requires the development of software and computational capabilities to enable autonomous flight.

It's important to note that when we create robots, people do not disappear; rather, they adapt their roles. We are using these aircraft for deployment testing in networks, particularly in Los Angeles. Last year, we successfully flew the first electric Vall aircraft in the Los Angeles area, showcasing the potential of these aircraft and how people can engage with them. Additionally, we are working on improving the human interface with air traffic control. Even though our aircraft are autonomous, they still need to interact with today’s air traffic control systems.

To enhance our capabilities, we utilize existing flying cars, also known as helicopters, which are piloted. We take the sensor packages and computational abilities from these helicopters to refine the algorithms used for functions such as detecting and avoiding other traffic in various lighting conditions. It is crucial that we can operate these aircraft without relying on GPS, especially considering the conflicts occurring globally today.

Once we have established this technology stack, we need to transform it into a functional airplane. The insights shared by Peter regarding the challenges of entering this industry in the 1990s are now more relevant than ever. The ability to perform aerodynamics, mechanical engineering, and aircraft creation is increasingly important. By the end of this year, we aim to fly an aircraft that will represent the first attempt at certifying a passenger-carrying autonomous aircraft.

As we discuss the technology, it is essential to provide a basic introduction to Vall, including the vehicle itself and the capabilities of our pilots. For those who will interact with these systems, whether autonomous or not, it is vital to address the biggest issues they will care about before these technologies are introduced into their communities. Joe B, what are your thoughts on this?

I believe the number one issue for everyone boarding an aircraft is safety. Passengers are particularly concerned about whether this new mode of transportation will significantly change how they navigate their cities and save them time. To achieve this, we need to establish takeoff and landing locations that are conveniently located near both the passengers' starting points and their destinations. Following safety, the next priority for people is noise. It is crucial to create an acoustic signature that allows communities to perceive this mode of transportation as a real advantage, enhancing the value of living in those areas.

Considering the future, when we envision a scenario with a thousand of these aircraft flying around, particularly in a place like Menlo Park, California, will there be a need for specific air highways? What is the current thinking regarding how regulatory bodies will enable commercial flight as quickly as possible?

If we take a step back, we can see that the product already exists: helicopters. In fact, helicopters are significantly more complex than what we are developing. We are creating a much more simplified version that is inherently safer and fully redundant.

=> 00:11:05

The future of air travel isn't just about flying cars; it's about creating a seamless, efficient system that integrates with existing infrastructure, starting with airports and expanding globally.

As we consider this new mode of transportation, one question arises: do you guys think that when you see a thousand of these things flying around, they will be forced to have very specific air highways that they have to adhere to? What is the best thinking right now in terms of how the regulatory bodies are going to enable you guys to actually fly commercially as quickly as possible?

To address this, Brian mentioned that if we take a step back, the product exists; they're called helicopters. A helicopter is actually way more complex than what we are building. We are developing a much more simplified version of what exists, which is safer and fully redundant. This should inspire confidence for people to want to come and take these vehicles. However, the initial rollout will be quite slow.

If you think about every major city in the world, they have hospitals that utilize helicopters. This product is already in existence everywhere. If we took our most bullish estimates and tripled them, we still would not replace helicopters. Therefore, to get to the point where you're asking about thousands of vehicles in the air over one city, or even hundreds, is pretty far away. Even if we could deploy tens of thousands of vehicles and become trillion-dollar companies, there still would not be thousands of vehicles in the air.

To make the product truly great, we do want liquidity and a lot of vehicles on dense routes. This way, users don’t have to worry about availability, similar to how Uber operates. You just get a thumbs up if it's available or a thumbs down if it's not. It doesn’t matter what seat you get; it saves time, and that’s where we’re all trying to get.

Adam then asked if this service would be like Uber, where you share a ride with people you don’t know, or if it would be more of a private service. The response was clear: the vision is a service that's available for everyone. The good news is that these vehicles can be scaled because they are much simpler than helicopters. We don’t have all the limiting factors that helicopters have, allowing us to push prices down and make it very affordable. Additionally, it offers a dramatically faster trip; you could cross Los Angeles in just a few minutes instead of sitting in traffic for an hour or two.

Yesterday, we heard from Teedra, the CEO of WEO, about their first launch city, Phoenix. The layout was good, but it was mostly regulatorily amenable. Brian was then asked about the version of Phoenix for Evol. He responded that Houston is where we're working most specifically. This choice is not just because Woody lives there; it’s because the airport network in Houston is quite good, connecting several airports in the area.

Operating at airports initially is a good starting point because, as Brian explained, these aircraft come with a footprint. They require people and operations, and you can’t just drop them in the middle of a city on day one. Starting at airports as an initial operating area is quite beneficial.

Furthermore, Brian noted that New Zealand has been incredibly forward-thinking in terms of evolving their airspace network. They have implemented more digital communications and have improved the ability to integrate uncrewed aircraft with crewed aircraft in the same airspace. We’ve been doing quite a lot of work in New Zealand on that front.

However, it’s important to recognize that this does not start in the US. The regulatory environment here is challenging, and both of us work in the UAE extensively. Brian mentioned that Joe B met with the head of the Civil Aviation Authority in the UAE, and he himself is leaving tonight to meet him as well. This indicates a strong international focus in the development of this new mode of transportation.

=> 00:14:46

Innovation in aviation is thriving globally, but the U.S. regulatory environment is holding back progress.

New Zealand has been incredibly forward-thinking in terms of how to evolve their airspace network. They have implemented more digital communications and developed an ability to integrate uncrewed aircraft with crewed aircraft in the same airspace. Consequently, we have been doing quite a lot of work in New Zealand on that front.

However, I believe it is super clear that this evolution does not start in the US; it really starts internationally. The regulatory environment here presents challenges. Both of us work extensively in the UAE, and if I were to guess based on the press you put out, Joe B met the head of the Civil Aviation Authority in the UAE yesterday. I am leaving tonight on a plane to meet him as well. We are targeting Abu Dhabi, while they have been focusing on Dubai. The reason for this is the heavy support for new innovation in the region.

The challenge we face is that the existing environment today makes it very hard for us. These are companies that were started in America, with American engineers who have raised capital from the American venture community and are listed on American stock exchanges. Yet, we still can't launch in America, which is quite challenging. I think part of this issue relates back to what Bill Gurley discussed last year regarding regulatory capture. The barriers are significant, and as things go wrong with incumbents, it becomes even harder for us to move forward. I don’t believe this is done on purpose, but it is indeed a significant challenge.

On a more positive note, I would say that the amount of bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle in Washington is off the charts. There is also strong local support from various states. Just yesterday, I was in Montreal at the International Civil Aviation Association conference, which convened 1,800 people to focus on advanced air mobility. It is exciting to witness the momentum building in this area, and it is imperative that the US continues to lead in aviation, which is one of our most important exports and vital to our economy.

To delve deeper into this, I can see how Joe Ben and Adam, as pure-play startups, have to find the willing parent. However, they benefit from Boeing's support. Is that why your answer was Houston? Because they have that regulatory gravitas to assist, or are you still mostly on your own trying to figure things out?

The journey of our company began with Larry, transitioned to Kittyhawk, and eventually became a joint venture. We sold the company to Boeing last year, but we still operate as an independent entity, much like the WHMO-Google relationship. Our primary focus is on pioneering the pathway for the introduction of autonomous aircraft, which is a longer journey. Joe Ben and Adam will likely operate before us, as piloted aircraft are coming before uncrewed ones.

I believe that autonomy is key to the future of aviation in the small airplane space. If we examine the causes of incidents and the accident rates in helicopters right now, they are simply unacceptable. I am passionate about solving this through automation. For us, the question is how to ensure that the US leads in this area. We are working to pioneer the regulatory pathway to make this happen here in the United States, while also collaborating globally, as mentioned with New Zealand, where regulators are eager to innovate in aerospace.

Adam mentioned the concept of regulatory capture, and one of our close associates, Sky Dayton, who is on Joby's board, wrote a compelling essay. It is clear that much of the pushback against the vision you have, Brian, actually comes from the pilots' unions themselves. I find this situation a bit perplexing.

=> 00:18:45

Innovation in aviation is stalling due to a natural conservatism in the system, but we need to embrace new technology to enhance safety and efficiency in air travel.

We are on a longer journey, and the question is then, on that journey, how do we make sure that the US leads in that? We are trying to pioneer the regulatory pathway to ensure that it happens here in the United States. However, we are also working around the globe. For instance, in New Zealand, there are regulators who potentially want to lean forward and innovate in aerospace or some other aspects of the problem that we are trying to solve.

Adam mentioned the concept of regulatory capture, but one of our besties, Sky Dayton, who is on Joby's board, wrote a great essay. One of the things that is clear is that a lot of the pushback to the vision that you have, Brian, actually comes from the pilots unions themselves. I think it's a bit of a weird set of incentives. Would you like to talk about that for a second?

I think it's less salacious than that and more clinical. I mean, I’ll give an example. My vision for the future is that we are going to have a prolific amount of uncrewed small aircraft operating and doing the kinds of missions that we just discussed. However, I believe that large aircraft will continue to be piloted for probably as far as the eye can see. The practical aspect of it is that, in 2023, there were 30 million global flights carrying billions of passengers. Here’s a statistic that just blows my mind: for scheduled service airlines, there were zero accidents in 2023.

So, it’s less about a cabal trying to prevent certification and more about a natural conservatism in the system. The attitude is, "Hey, we've done it, it's working, so why change it?" When new technology shows up, I understand the perspective of a regulator sitting on the other side of that wall, thinking, "Man, this is kind of working."

To put you on the spot, I can see when Joe, Ben, and Adam say, "Hey, point A to point B instead of hours in traffic, you're there in 10 minutes," if there are really no pilot errors—unlike in cars where there are still far too many unnecessary deaths—how do you measure the incremental justification for the investment? The statistic I just gave you is for large aircraft scheduled air carriers. If you look at the small airplane market or the helicopter markets, it is orders of magnitude worse.

So, the question is, how do you bring the level of safety of those large aircraft down into the smaller aircraft? You have to start. There is definitely a panel that exists in China, and guess what? There are two groups that are already certified there. They started, and that’s how you do it. You have to get moving and create an environment where we can all start flying stuff from A to B.

When you are using a large aircraft, you are dividing the two pilots' expenses among 300 or 100 seats. In this case, you would have a pilot on a Joby flight, but really, the pilot is not doing anything; they are there to make the passengers feel safer, as I understand it.

Yes, the pilot is there. Even with what Brian is doing—pioneering incredible work on autonomy—you still have someone on the ground who is making sure that the weather is safe and handling lots of other operational logistics. The benefit is that you can take that person out of the aircraft and put them on the ground, allowing you to fit another passenger in the aircraft. You gain a lot of operational flexibility because the pilot does not necessarily have to be in the plane at the same location at the same time.

Over time, a pilot can begin to operate multiple aircraft. In a Joby flight, my understanding is that it is automated, so the pilot is just monitoring it. They are ensuring that all operations are going to go safely. The pilot is not flying; there are sticks available for the pilot to take over in an emergency situation, but it is essentially on autopilot. There are many computer systems that assist the pilot in flying, and when one rotor goes down, the system is designed to handle it.

=> 00:22:34

The future of aviation is here: with advanced electric propulsion and multiple redundancies, we're not just flying safer, we're redefining what flight can be.

Another passenger in the aircraft mentioned that you get a lot of operational flexibility because you don't necessarily have to have the pilot and the plane at the same location at the same time. A pilot can, over time, begin to operate multiple aircraft. My understanding is that the aircraft is automated, so the pilot is essentially just monitoring it, ensuring that all operations go safely. The pilot can also fly using the sticks, meaning that in an emergency situation, they would take over. However, it is primarily autopilot that manages the flight.

There are many computer systems that assist the pilot in flying. One of the great advantages of this system is that when one rotor goes down, the aircraft does not necessarily crash. In traditional helicopters, if a rotor breaks, it can lead to disaster. In contrast, our system has layer upon layer of redundancy; we have six propellers, each driven by separate motors, with each motor having its own inverter and battery pack. This redundancy extends to the flight computers as well, ensuring that everything is massively redundant. This approach mirrors what we did in big commercial airlines, which is why we achieve the incredible safety that Brian mentioned.

In fact, we haven't had a passenger death in the United States since 2009. The last three passenger jets that went down were all regional jets, which are known to have a collection of problems. So, what would it take theoretically to ensure safety? When considering edge cases, we recognize that there are certain conditions we are not certifying for, such as flight in known icing. For instance, if you live in the Northeast, there will be a few percent of the time when we won't be able to offer service; we will ground the aircraft during icy conditions.

When it comes to wind speed or gusting conditions, we are actually very tolerant. Interestingly, our aircraft performs better than traditional winged aircraft in these conditions. NASA has been working on wildfire prevention and conducted an acoustic survey where they deployed a whole array of microphones. They measured the acoustic signature of our aircraft during hover and transition, showing that it is really low and can fit into the environment.

During a recent conversation with NASA about wildfire prevention, they noted that these types of aircraft could be game changers. Traditional helicopters struggle with turbulent conditions caused by wildfires. However, our aircraft, with its six motors and rotors, is less likely to experience a situation called Vortex Ring State, which affects vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. It is unlikely that all six rotors would enter this state simultaneously. Additionally, one of the interesting findings from the Osprey is that by tilting the rotors forward, you can quickly exit Vortex Ring State.

The new classes of aircraft and the capabilities offered by electric propulsion are significant. We haven't discussed enough how electric propulsion is a game changer. Regarding the acoustic issue, the background noise level in cities is around 65 dB. We set this as our threshold, aiming for aircraft noise to be below this level during takeoff and landing. We want to ensure that the noise does not exceed the background noise level, making it more acceptable for urban environments.

=> 00:26:19

Electric propulsion is revolutionizing urban air travel by drastically reducing noise levels, making it a viable option for cities.

Electric propulsion is a game changer that we haven't discussed enough. Can you talk about the acoustic issue? Please provide some context regarding the decibel tolerance in urban environments. What is the current situation in cities, and how does it compare to existing noise levels from things like diesel trucks and helicopters? What do we need to achieve for electric propulsion to be ubiquitously accepted in cities, and what technology is required to make the necessary acoustic breakthroughs?

The background noise level in cities is around 65 dB, and we set that as our threshold. We want aircraft to be below this level during takeoff and landing, ideally below 45 dB during overflight. We have achieved both of these goals. For comparison, a garbage truck can be around 80 to 90 dB, making it one of the loudest sources of noise. A jet engine measures around 110 dB, while helicopters range between 80 and 100 dB. One of the most annoying aspects of helicopters is their low-frequency sound, which travels long distances through the atmosphere and can shake buildings.

Regarding the technology needed to address these acoustic challenges, it’s quite complex. When I started my journey with Joy in 2009, I had been dreaming about this for a long time. It’s incredible to see the industry we’ve built and the excitement surrounding the rollout of this technology. Just yesterday, thousands of people gathered to focus on the issues of integrating electric propulsion into their cities worldwide, which is very encouraging.

The key to reducing noise is that we are spinning the propellers slower with electric engines. This approach provides about 90% of the benefit in noise reduction. From there, we work on various efficiencies to further minimize noise.

Now, let’s discuss the convenience of car ownership. In America, the idea that everyone should own a car has become deeply ingrained. The primary benefit of a car is its point-to-point capability, allowing travel from any point A to any point B. However, using electric aircraft presents challenges, particularly the inconvenience of traveling to a port or a bus station. In densely populated areas like New York, public transport works well, but in most U.S. cities, taking a car is often more convenient and time-efficient.

I believe we are currently in a phase similar to the automotive industry in the 1890s, where we are still in the early stages of mass production. Back then, cars were primarily used as taxis. Today, we are looking to use electric aircraft in a similar manner. We still need to save people time, and there will only be select routes where this technology will be a game changer due to its multimodal nature. Over time, if we can reduce the acoustic signature of these aircraft, the dream is to eventually land them at your home, rather than requiring a dedicated vertiport.

Let’s talk about propulsion for a moment. The trade-offs between energy density, cost, and speed are all variables that often work against each other. What were some of the design decisions you made, and did you have to revisit or change any of those decisions during the process? The biggest challenge in building these aircraft is the time it takes to develop them. It is very expensive and does not fit typical funding models, which makes it challenging for venture capitalists to invest.

=> 00:30:03

Innovation in aviation is all about balancing speed, range, and payload while pushing the boundaries of battery technology to make air travel more accessible and eco-friendly.

We can get the acoustic signature down if we can make these aircraft even quieter than they are today. Rather than needing to go to a dedicated vertiport to do this, the dream is to eventually be able to land them at your house.

Adam, let's talk about propulsion for a second. Energy density, cost, and those trade-offs in speed are all variables that kind of just work opposing each other. What were some design decisions you guys made? Did you have to remake some of those? Did you change your mind at some point? Please walk us through that process.

The biggest challenge, I think, of building these aircraft is just the time it takes to do it. It is very expensive and does not fit any typical model, meaning the venture guys don't like it. They often say, "Sorry, you want a billion dollars up front to build this? That's terrible." So, you get rejected. I don't think I met with you, but like everybody rejected probably all of us up here. So, it's not a typical scenario, you know what I mean? That's the reality.

There was this crazy period of time in 2021 when the capital markets opened up; it was a dream scenario where we could raise a lot of money from the public markets. That was nuts! So that allowed this to happen. From there, what we did was say, "Okay, what is the business case?" We looked at what we call hero routes, where there are a lot of people doing these trips, like Manhattan to JFK. It's like 30 million people go from Manhattan to one of the three big airports in New York.

All we have to do is have a couple of vertiports around the city, which already exist—there's downtown, Wall Street, and the west side—and just put them into the three airports. That'll be an amazing thing to start with. So, we focused on short routes, specifically 20 to 50-mile routes, and designed an aircraft around that. The goal was to create the fastest thing we could do to get to market so we don't die before the investors decide, "Nah, we're kind of done with this one. Now on to the next thing."

Oh, and then there's AI—let's everybody go all in on AI! So, I'm just moving as fast as we can. That was the biggest trade-off. It was always about determining what is the minimum thing we need to do to get that done. We had to look at speed, range, and payload. Payload is definitely the hardest because batteries are heavy, and there's just physics you're always fighting against.

Regarding speed, the difference between these planes is that they want to fly around 120 mph. If you go faster, it's just more drag, which kills your battery faster. So, the difference between 120 and 150 mph on a 10-mile flight doesn't really matter. It's more about how to go at least that 20 to 50-mile route at around 120 mph and do that as fast as possible.

What kind of batteries did you guys choose? We opted for lithium-ion cells—commercial off-the-shelf stuff. The cells we use can be found today; there are millions of them made for power tools and supercars, and they are pretty conventional.

As for the range, the aircraft we are designing is intended to go up to 100 miles, but the real design focuses back on rapid backtrack 20 to 50 miles. What do you guys need in terms of battery technology improvement from where we sit today? Or do you not need any? What's on the horizon in terms of battery technology improvements, and what does that unlock in terms of range?

The batteries that we are certifying our aircraft with have a specific energy of about 300 watt-hours per kilogram. To put that in context, when I started the company in 2009, we had cells that had sufficient specific power to do a vertical takeoff, but we were at about 170 watt-hours per kilogram. So, we've almost doubled the specific energy in the cells over the last 15 years.

In our lab, we have cells that provide a 10 to 25-minute flight. Our sweet spot is also in those shorter range flights, and we want to be able to do a lot of flights between replacements, both for the environmental impact and the economics of replacing those battery packs. When the plane takes off, that's a lot of energy usage. The wings tilt forward, and now you're flying more like these Ospreys as a plane, which reduces energy consumption. However, on landing, you have to be very careful and use a lot more energy. Is that correct?

Yes, and there are different trade-offs you can make.

=> 00:34:10

The future of air travel is closer than you think, with plans for commercial flights launching as early as 2025.

The third dimension which really matters is This Is The Life. We have the cells we are taking for certification, which give us a 10, 25 M flights. Our kind of sweet spot is also in those shorter range flights. We want to be able to do a lot of flights between replacements, both for the environmental impact of it and also from the economics of replacing those battery packs.

When the plane takes off, there's a lot of energy usage involved. The wings tilt forward, and now you're flying more like these ospreys. As a result, the energy consumption goes way down. However, on landing, you have to be very careful and use a lot more energy. Is that correct? Yes, there are different trade-offs you can make. Basically, the more propulsors you have, the smaller each propulsor is, and the heavier your disc loading is, the higher the amount of power you're using in hover. This means the harder you're pulling on the batteries. However, having more propulsors also gives you more redundancy, so there’s a trade-off there.

When do you each think we’re going to pick a quarter in a year? For instance, fourth quarter 2025 or second quarter 2026? You all have to answer it; you agreed backstage. Americans will be able to give money to get in one of these, not just for a test flight, but in a major city in America. When will we all be able to use it, not just yours?

These guys should answer for themselves, but I think they'll get it done in 2026. I want to give him some heat; I say first quarter 2026. We'll be a couple of years after that, but that's an incredible thing. I mean, we're less than a year plus away. That's crazy!

Now, you should tell me how you feel about my expectations. I think pretty clearly there's a route to do this internationally next year. So, I think we'll launch with passengers next year. He said in the US, I know I'll start there in 2025. My job is to make sure we have a safe aircraft. I think probably fourth quarter 2025 is realistic. If Pete Buttigieg called and said, "Hey, there's a way to do this in the US," I'm going to help cut through all the red tape, and we're going to help you get it done. My phone's on; I'm ready. Call me!

Why didn't we invite Pete? He seems dynamic. He was actually very close to being here. I think we're on a timeline which we publicly announced to begin commercial service in the UAE next year. You think Q4 2025 as well? I think that's likely at the back end of next year. We will begin operations before that, but we will not be able to buy a ticket yet.

Have you figured out the flight profile that you're going to start with? For example, is it airport to X or something like that? We have four vertiports that we are planning to build in Dubai, and the RTA would like one from the airport to the Wynn, which opens in 2027. However, from Dubai to the new Wynn is a little far because it's in Rock, so it's a bit far away.

There's a Wynn in Dubai that's opening. We got to go! Kidding aside, I want to talk to you guys. We talked yesterday about this; it’s taken longer to get approval to launch Starship than it did to launch. This sort of push on regulatory is something we’re hearing over and over again. You work with the FAA closely. Can you describe the path to bring them along, get the certifications that you need, and how much of a push or pull that is in each of your businesses?

I guess I'll just start. From the autonomy standpoint specifically, we’re really trying to push the frontier. Whenever you’re engaging with a regulator, whether it’s aviation or biotech or something else, if you’re really on the frontier, it means that the regulator doesn’t necessarily understand the technology any better than you do. Part of it needs to be a journey where you’re going together to really learn how to make it safe. At some point, you need to be regulated; there needs to be a process where you put forth the requirements and engage in what those requirements are.

=> 00:38:01

Innovation thrives at the frontier, but it requires a collaborative journey with regulators who understand the technology.

In discussing the challenges and advancements within the aviation industry, it is essential to recognize the autonomy standpoint. We are striving to push the frontier of technology. However, engaging with regulators can be complex, especially when they may not fully understand the technology as well as we do. This situation necessitates a collaborative journey where both parties learn how to ensure safety. At some point, regulation is necessary; there must be a process in which we present how we will meet the required standards. From my perspective, this process works reasonably well, although I wish it were more responsive and engaged, particularly concerning the deep technical subjects we need to advance.

A significant challenge in aviation stems from demographic shifts within the industry. As Peter Thiel noted, there has been a generational gap; many experts at the FAA who have regulated systems and contributed to the creation of safe airplanes have retired, while new entrants into the industry may lack the necessary expertise. It is crucial to cultivate a workforce that understands the systems we are developing. Furthermore, I believe it is vital for individuals from the industry to participate in the regulatory framework. This involvement is essential because, without it, regulators may develop an aversion to embracing technological innovation. Thus, a rotation of knowledgeable individuals who are not economically motivated but understand the technology is necessary.

In contrast, let’s consider markets with a regulatory framework that promotes accelerated innovation, such as China. There is currently an A/B test underway regarding companies developing eVTOL technology in China. The Chinese government can intervene to accelerate outcomes, which raises the question of whether we will see eVTOL technology entering the market more rapidly in China, similar to the advancements seen in nuclear energy and other government-prioritized tools. Companies like EHang and Autoflight are making significant progress, and there is considerable enthusiasm in China. The regulatory pathway there is more forward-leaning, which may lead to more rapid iterations.

In the United States, the FAA is also making strides with the introduction of something called Mosaic. This initiative is aimed at smaller aircraft, particularly those designed for personal ownership, and will allow for much more rapid development with a lighter regulatory touch. To provide context, the FAA has done an incredible job and has been increasingly supportive. When I first approached them in 2009, they viewed our ambitions as somewhat unrealistic, doubting our ability to build an electric aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing. However, after regular collaboration beginning in 2015 and formal certification efforts starting in 2018, we have made significant progress.

We have achieved various stages of certification, building momentum with each step. It has been heavy lifting, as one of my colleagues, who has been a pioneer in this process, described it as feeling like a pipe cleaner for how to certify new technologies. This illustrates the ongoing efforts and challenges we face as we navigate the intersection of innovation and regulation in the aviation sector.

=> 00:41:48

Innovation in aviation is stifled by a culture of caution; we need to embrace risk to unlock the future of flying cars and save lives.

In 2009, when I first talked to them, they thought this was absolutely crazy; they just did not think we were going to be able to build an electric aircraft, let alone one that could take off and land vertically and which was quiet. We began working with them regularly in 2015 and started formal certification in 2018, achieving Stage 4 G1. By 2020, we reached G2 and then G3, and now we are working on Stage 4. With each step, we are building momentum and writing all the rules. It's very heavy lifting.

One of my colleagues, who has been the first through the pipeline, once told me, “I feel like a pipe cleaner for how to certify these things.” I think it's important to note that these innovations weren't just sitting on the shelf while a regulator was saying, "You can't use that." We have been on a journey to get these technologies ready. They are now at the point where they are ready, and the question is whether we can take that first step in the US to really get it done.

Does the US approach this from a culture of "let's just try something; if we get it wrong, we can iterate," or is it more about "we must get this right because there are all kinds of consequences, political or otherwise"? The reality is much simpler than that: the people at the top are genuinely very excited. Former FAA administrator Billy Nolan stepped down from his role and joined Archer, while the new administrator, Mike Whitaker, came from an e-talk company. However, the challenge with most regulatory setups is that there is not a lot of incentive to innovate. There’s not a downside to not doing it; rather, there’s a lot of disincentive to do it. If something goes wrong, there’s only downside, and navigating this process is hard.

Moreover, there is no policy saying, "Hey, America needs to be innovative; we need to go do this." It would be great if a leader mandated that we need to have these technologies flying safely in the next 36 months. How does that happen in our current system? I can understand how past administrations have tried to push for innovation, but is that something we could change through an executive order? I believe it’s about changing the culture—we need to break down all the barriers to get it done.

It’s not that hard; we have laid out the rules to certify these technologies. Why can’t we just conduct the tests and have them checked off? If you are a bureaucrat in one of these organizations and it goes poorly, you are in big trouble. But if it goes well, what happens? The SEC had a similar mandate to allow more accredited and sophisticated investors access to private companies, which would benefit businesses, yet they have slow-walked it.

To build on what Adam said, let’s say the SEC doesn’t do anything, or they do it and make a mistake—nobody at the SEC gets fired. The culture is not one where accountability is enforced. For example, during the 737 Max issue, did more people at Boeing or the FAA get fired, or did nobody get fired? In aviation, the stakes are different.

One thing that struck me during a recent event was Elon Musk’s expression when he talked about the safety of astronauts; he was almost crying. That’s what aerospace is all about. The industry has reached an unbelievable safety statistic because it has learned from past accidents and tragedies, which have shaped the regulations we now follow.

Currently, we are introducing new technology, and regulations often state that “the pilot shall do X” multiple times. However, we don’t have a pilot in the traditional sense. We need to rewrite these regulations. While I understand why they exist—because of past accidents—they also need to consider the potential benefits. For instance, how many lives could be saved if we implemented these technologies in countries like India or in Africa? We could deliver clean water, medicine, and supplies for disaster relief.

Flying does not cost $10,000 an hour anymore; it costs $500 an hour, and we can deploy 50 aircraft immediately. The uptime is significantly higher. Additionally, we could save lives here in the US; we lose 40,000 people every year on the roads, which is insane. We fly almost as many miles as we drive, yet driving is more than 10,000 times more dangerous per passenger mile than flying. By moving people into the air for their daily transportation, we could save thousands, if not tens of thousands, of lives.

We need to get the technology out there and start learning. I hope that Peter Thiel had it wrong and that we will see flying cars in the next couple of years. Thank you all for being here, and please join me in thanking our team.