@Noddy74 Thought might be interested. Bit of a milestone, Dubai has just completed the world’s first flying taxi station (vertiport) near Dubai International Airport.

Not a concept anymore, this one’s built and ready.

This is the first of a few planned stations, with more coming across:

• Downtown Dubai
• Palm Jumeirah
• Dubai Marina

Flights are meant to be ~10 minutes vs ~45 by car, priced around Uber Black.

Still early, but interesting to see real infrastructure going in, not just talk anymore.

Do you remember Beyond 2000? It was that pretty naf 80s/90s sciencey/future tech program on Channel 10, that was all about flying cars and putting ants on treadmills to power your home. Stuff that was technically possible, but commercially questionable.

Well, it's taken a little bit longer than people thought but the future is here peeps!

There are now several listed companies that are going flat out to get to market with an electrically-powered Vertical Take Off and Landing (eVTOL) aircraft, that will initially target the CBD to airport commute. I have a very small highly speccy investment in one; the New York Stock Exchange-listed (but England-based), Vertical Aerospace. Cue cool photos...

Established in 2016 and listed in 2021, Vertical is on a mission to be certified and flying commercially in 2028. We get a little more detail about the steps that need to be undertaken each time they report, but so far they've completed testing of thrustborne flight (going up and down vertically) and wingborne flight (flying horizontally). They have received their Permit to Fly to test transition flight (going from thrustborne to wingborne and back again), which should be complete by the end of 2025.

Their two major competitors are Joby Aviation and Archer Aviation, both US-listed and US-based. Joby is at a similar level of development to Vertical, maybe slightly ahead. Archer is a little further back. There are others such as Eve and Volocopter but they're further back still. There are a few things that separate Vertical.

First, it is seeking European certification (EASA and CAA for the UK). Joby and Archer are seeking US FAA certification. For the contrasts I turned to ol mate Chattie.

Vertical's management make similar points i.e. that EASA is more front ended and prescriptive. But that's a good thing at their stage of development. The hard work is done and the steps they need to undertake are well documented.

Second, their airframe is bigger and can be configured for six passengers - compared to the competitions four. This gives more favourable operator economics. It also gives a higher luggage load per passenger. That's not insignificant. Users aren't likely to be turning right when they board their flight, so you'll need a load commensurate with business/first class baggage limits.

Third, the airframe was designed to be able to accommodate a hybrid (batteries and gas turbine) option. This could be the game changer, particularly in light of expected European defence spend increases. The hybrid option can extend the range from 160 km to 1000 km. So, it can take off and land like a helicopter, but go further and is almost silent when landing. Ironically, it could be that Donald and MAGA have provided a pathway for Vertical to get non-dilutive investment that will give them the capital to get to market.

Finally, Vertical is just a lot more efficient than Joby and Archer. Between 2021 and mid-2025 they spent US$400 million, compared to US$1,586 million from Archer and US$1,321 million for Joby. Now that is according to them, but I checked it on Tikr and it's roughly right.

Yet despite all of that Vertical's market cap is a fraction of their competitors. At US$385 million they're a microcap in the US context. Hell,@Strawman could probably get a Q&A if he wanted. Compare that to Joby and Archer at $12 billion and $5 billion respectively. This slide pretty much sums it up:

But we've got helicopters! Isn't this like designing a crypto when we've got Bitcoin? Well, no. I asked Chattie to give me a no-holds-barred pros and cons of each.

eVTOL isn't going to replace copters anytime soon, but clearly there are use cases for which it is better suited.

Could anything go wrong? Ah, one or two things. I could list all the risks, but I think we'd find out once and for all whether Strawman posts have a word limit (although I think @Bear77 might have proven they don't on occasion :) ). Funding is an immediate one. One of the things they revealed this month was they would need circa US$700 million to get to 2028 full certification. They have around US$117 million in the bank and plan to spend US$235 million in the next 12 months. In short, they need cash. However, a focus for 2026 is executing a partnership with a "Global Strategic" i.e. getting a key investment. Ideally they can do that without significant dilution e.g. a government defence investment. That might be more than a little naive though.

I'm looking for several catalysts in the next 12 months:

• completion of transition testing
• Global Strategic partnership
• retrofit of hybrid (they're targeting first sale next year - I think they're talking about a conditional purchase order i.e. no cash)
• Critical Design Review i.e. whatever they've got on paper is what they get certified (through 2027 and 2028) and commercialise
• Growth in the order book (currently US$6 billion). They have this as a target, which if fine, but without seeing the fine print I'm less interested in this one. I'm not sure how hard it is to get a purchase order out of operators who can cancel at any time.

So there you go. A bit different hey? Fun fact, Beyond 2000 started as Towards 2000 on the ABC in 1981. They dropped it in 1984, in favor of starting a new science program named Quantum. Hosts of Beyond 2000 have included Simon Reeve, Amanda Keller and Tracey Curro. Grant Denyer and Matt Shirvington (he of the poorly supported running tights) presented on the spiritual successor called Beyond Tomorrow.

[Speccy hold]