Flying-car future looks like a dystopia

Flying cars! So futuristic! A world in which they’re buzzing around the skies must be dazzling – like a Popular Mechanics feature come to life!
Well, yeah. About that. It seems increasingly likely that aerospace companies and startups are rushing to embrace a world of vertical take-off robotaxis. Just don’t be surprised if it looks a lot more like “Blade Runner” than “The Jetsons.”
A Boeing Co. prototype flying taxi completed its first test flight and Airbus SE’s drone-style self-driving air taxi will follow – both of them trailing in the wake of Alphabet Inc. founder Larry Page, whose Kitty Hawk vehicle took its maiden flight in New Zealand last year. Even Japan, whose attachment to vintage technology is getting in on the act.
It’s quite possible that these vehicles have a viable future, because they’re already a mature industry. In current parlance, “flying car” essentially means an aircraft that could take off and land vertically from a suburban backyard. But we have a name for those sorts of vehicles already: helicopters.
The truth is, they’re not so different. The reason helicopters are associated with the military and the ultra-rich while the rest of us get about on the ground or in fixed-wing airplanes is that they’re horribly inefficient and, as a result, expensive.
In a conventional plane, lift is provided by the wings, so fuel is really only needed to drive the vehicle forward. Rotorcraft such as helicopters and drones, on the other hand, use most of their fuel just staying airborne, and will start descending as soon as their engine cuts out.
Hybrid modes like the Boeing and Kitty Hawk air taxis and military vertical take-off vehicles like the Harrier and V-22 Osprey have wings for cruising flight, but still use prodigious amounts of energy to get airborne.
The most efficient aircraft per passenger, per kilometer are mostly mid-size short-range jets and turboprop-powered regional airliners. Larger aircraft do worse, in large part because of their long ranges and extra engines. Small planes carrying just a few passengers are equally bad.
Commercial jets can already fly themselves in most circumstances, including landings. The reason pilots still exist is that passengers and people living under flight paths naturally expect aircraft to have a near-perfect safety record. That in turn requires onboard fail-safes and tight monitoring of urban airspace.
The challenges of traversing the world’s emerging metropolises without getting stuck in an endless traffic jam are substantial and likely to get more so in the coming decades. It’s no surprise that Boeing, Airbus and Alphabet’s Page see a substantial market for flying cars among the world’s emerging billionaire class.
Flying cars may have their share of whizz-bang charm for those who can afford them. For the rest of us, stuck on a sweaty train in the middle of an endless commute, more down-to-earth solutions look a lot more attractive.
—Bloomberg

James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a retired U.S. Navy admiral and former military commander of NATO, and dean emeritus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He is also an operating executive consultant at the Carlyle Group and chairs the board of counselors at McLarty Associates.