Airhoss

You sir are truly a grand master of the arts!

Seneca Pilot

The VTOLs don't have to land on the runways only on the airport property where the passengers catch a dedicated shuttle to the arrival area of the terminal. Separate controller for them only and they come in and go out low below the arrival and departure corridors/floor of the airspace. They could just close off an area of an outer parking lot and light it until dedicated areas were built. I think they see it as a larger project where many less people drive in and use parking. I don't know if it would work out but it is doable. It would take coordination with government agencies so it will take ten times longer than necessary and cost ten times as much so doubtful it will impact our careers much. Maybe the next generation.

jumppilot

You are talking like you think United made this investment to actually fly these things.

I’m more cynical. I’m more of the belief that this investment was “required” by the deep state (kidding...kinda) to push along the development of electric aircraft due to CARES funding.

However, Occam’s razor says United wants to make money off this investment, not fly these things.

Seneca Pilot

I guess time will tell. According to the press release I saw the investment was in the form of an order for 200 rather than a bunch of money. We all know that is probably not a firm order and likely a letter of intent but the firm will use it to raise funds and continue development.

I think the concept of taking a VTOL aircraft to the airport instead of driving there, paying for parking and hoping the car starts when you get back from you week trip and having the price baked into the tickets is interesting as long as the cost difference is reasonable. For an extra fifty or sixty bucks on my ticket I would do it, I understand I am not normal in that regard. I am willing to pay for convenience. I know people that will drive eight miles to save a penny on gas and they would never be the customer for this type of time and trouble saving convenience.

BurritoBeach

Funny, I thought the same thing. Kind of like France is pushing alternative energy (hydrogen) as a requirement for government aid to the French aerospace industry, I could see some sort of “requirement” to push CARES3 through.

Once this is all behind us and things have settled down, it can (hopefully) quietly be dropped and buried. But for now United gets some press about how great we are and all that.

jumppilot

After the Solyndra debacle, it makes sense for the feds to funnel money into individual ventures via CARES money. That way when it inevitably goes bust, politicians hands are clean. The politics of saving companies is cleaner than starting companies.

A lot of money changes hands through channels you wouldn’t even imagine.

I mean, really, this doesn’t make any sense unless United hopes to profit off this, or is forced to do it. A multi-million dollar investment in unproven technology and regulatory unknowns, when we are on life support from Uncle Sam, is a complete waste of tax payer dollars.

cadetdrivr

Anybody who thinks this is anywhere near a firm order should read the second to last paragraph of Archer's SEC Exhibit 99.3 which outlines the relationship with UAL:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...atlascrest.htm

Smokey23

I'll add to the skepticism pile-on...

We already have Urban Air Mobility: they're called helicopters, and they have flight limitations that I do not see these UAMs making great strides over anytime soon. The industry/investor hype is so reminiscent of the driverless car phenom that was seemingly just around the corner a few years ago. That one sure has gone quiet, hasn't it? (I'm pretty sure Elon said my Tesla would be out there by now making money for me all by itself between my drives)

Not saying UAMs won't happen. Like most of these new ideas, technical feasibility and commercial viability are two vastly different hurdles. For now it will plod along, powered by pixie dust, wishful thinking, and lots of your tax dollars.

oldmako

The program that funded Solyndra is generally thought to be a big success.

https://www.newsweek.com/goverment-l...s-money-284538

​​​​​​(Reuters) - The controversial government program that funded failed solar company Solyndra, and became a lighting rod in the 2012 presidential election, is officially in the black.

According to a report by the Department of Energy, interest payments to the government from projects funded by the Loan Programs Office were $810 million as of September - higher than the $780 million in losses from loans it sustained from startups including Fisker Automotive, Abound Solar and Solyndra, which went bankrupt after receiving large government loans intended to help them bring their advanced green technologies to market.

The report's findings are more of a political victory than a financial one. It took the program three years to break even after Solyndra's failure, while during that same time the Standard & Poor's 500 index increased 67 percent.

Still, the federal loans program is a success for taxpayers, judging by the numbers in the new report, the DOE said. After Solyndra's 2011 collapse, the program was sharply criticized by Republican lawmakers as a waste of public money and a fountain of cronyism. The outcries mounted as others in the program failed, and the DOE issued no new loans between late 2011 and this year.

Under the program, the DOE issues a loan guarantee for about 50 to 70 percent of a project's cost. The borrower then secures a loan from either the U.S. Treasury or a private lender. Most of the program's loans have come from the Treasury, Davidson said."Taxpayers are not only benefiting from some of the world's most innovative energy projects... but these projects are making good on their loan repayments," Peter Davidson, executive director of the Loan Programs Office, said in an interview on Wednesday. Davidson took over the loan program in May of 2013.

The losses are not expected to rise significantly, while "every month money continues to roll in" from interest payments, Davidson said.

"We feel very confident that going forward our portfolio is much less risky than it has been," Davidson said.

Since DOE approved loans for the five utility-scale photovoltaic projects, 17 more have been funded by private investors who would not have taken on that risk five years ago, Davidson said.That is because most of the projects that received government loans are large power plants that are now feeding electricity into the grid, Davidson said. They include massive photovoltaic solar and solar thermal power plants in California and Arizona, wind farms and geothermal energy facilities.

"The loan guarantee program has been successful in bringing to market good projects with good credit support that absolutely would not have been built," said a spokesman for NRG Energy Inc, an energy company that owns three solar power plants that received DOE loan guarantees.

The DOE's loan program was created in 2005 under the Bush Administration, but its program for renewable energy projects was funded in 2009 as part of the Obama Administration's economic stimulus, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The DOE also approved loans for next-generation vehicles that funded both the defunct Fisker as well as Tesla Motors Inc, which last year repaid its $465 million government loan 9 years early.

Of the $30.3 billion in loans and loan guarantees issued by the Loan Programs Office, $21.71 billion has been disbursed. At least one company has yet to draw down its DOE loan.

Solar wafer maker 1366 Technologies Inc was required under the terms of its loan to fund a small factory itself before it could tap its government money to finance a larger facility. It expects to break ground on that factory early next year.

In the meantime, the promise of the DOE loan guarantee gave private investors the confidence to put up nearly $90 million for the smaller facility.

"Those funds would not have been there if the DOE had not been there as a partner," Chief Executive Frank van Mierlo said in an interview.

Losses make up 2.28 percent of the loan program's total commitments, or 3.6 percent of the amount disbursed.

The government has not recovered any funds from Solyndra. It's $528 million loan makes up most of the program's losses.

The government recovered $53 million from Fisker, which received $192 million of its $529 million loan commitment. Fisker's assets were acquired by Chinese auto parts producer Wanxiang in February for $149.2 million.

This year, DOE began lending money again. They have programs in the works that will support both renewable energy and fossil fuel projects. In February it approved $6.5 billion in loan guarantees to build two nuclear reactors in Georgia, and it issued a conditional $150 million commitment to help build a wind project off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

sleeves

Definitely part 107. No pilot will be required.