From the article:
> CityAirbus has an 80km range and can fly at 120kmh
That's a 40 minute flight compared to roughly a 1 hour drive and vastly more expensive. Is this really useful?
> CityAirbus has an 80km range and can fly at 120kmh
That's a 40 minute flight compared to roughly a 1 hour drive and vastly more expensive. Is this really useful?
Then again, it's an individual solution to a societal problem. I would prefer a solution for the masses, like getting rid of cars in cities and improving public transport.
But some people do not want to be part of "the masses", they want to fly around in flying taxis because they think they're better than everybody else. That's why companies like these exist (and hopefully fail).
WFH really means convert your room into an office or rent a coworking space. Is anyone paid extra for that? Nope! And it's really not for everyone either, you cannot get interactive with coworkers in the same way.
you just need a computer and the company usually mails one to you
As for the social aspect - to the degree it's possible at work you can cultivate that online and during occasional get-togethers. It's not worth the time waste and environmental destruction associated with commuting.
As to converting the room into an office, I think everyone that works with a computer has a desk and a chair at home. You just need to put the company machine on it.
I want to move there.
Or the pollution from tire/paint/asphalt.
If both ends happen to be right by the same line then you can do better, of course — connections and stop distributions are what drag things back to that value.
My old apartment and employer were 8 km apart*, Google says 48 minutes by public transit, 28 minutes by car, 30 minutes cycling, for average speeds of 10/17/16 km/h respectively.
Public transport has a huge cost advantage, it lets me learn the language during my commute, and it's a huge space saver relative to personal cars, but it's nowhere near as fast as you'd expect from the peak speed.
* by foot, or 7 km as the crow flies.