ReportWire

Tag: taxis

  • Trump says Americans will receive $2,000 tariff dividend

    President Trump said Sunday that most Americans would receive a $2,000 dividend payment as a result of his administration’s tariffs levied against foreign countries.

    Trump announced the potential payments on his Truth Social platform, calling opponents of his tariffs “FOOLS” in a post.

    “We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion,” the president wrote. “Record Investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place. A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”

    Congressional approval would likely be necessary to provide the payments. There is no specific plan at this point for the dividends, which could cost the government hundreds of billions of dollars.

    The post by Trump comes after a difficult week for the president.

    The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that questions whether Trump exceeded his authority in levying tariffs against foreign nations without congressional support. Most of the justices on the bench, including conservative justices such as Chief Justice John G. Roberts, appeared skeptical of the president’s authority under the Constitution.

    Most of the justices seemed to take the view that the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise taxes, duties and tariffs, not the president.

    That blow came on the heels of Democratic wins throughout the country on Tuesday.

    Since taking office, Trump has implemented steep tariffs on specific goods as well as particularly high tariffs on goods from specific countries such as India and Brazil.

    Trump said in remarks on Thursday at the White House that revocation of the tariffs would be “devastating” for the U.S.

    On Sunday in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that he had not yet spoken with Trump about the proposed dividend.

    “The $2,000 dividend could come in lots of forms and lots of ways,” Bessent said.

    Noah Goldberg

    Source link

  • Supreme Court justices sound skeptical of Trump’s tariffs

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded skeptical Wednesday of President Trump’s claim that he has the power to set large tariffs on products coming from countries around the world.

    Most of the justices, both conservative and liberal, said Congress, not the president, had the power to impose taxes and tariffs. And they agreed Congress did not authorize tariffs in an emergency powers law adopted in 1977.

    It has “never before been used to justify tariffs, and no one had argued it before this case,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told Trump’s top courtroom attorney. “The imposition of taxes on Americans … has always been a core power of Congress.”

    Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that tariffs involve the president’s power over foreign affairs. They are “regulatory tariffs, not taxes,” he said.

    Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed.

    Imposing a tariff “is a taxing power which is delegated by the Constitution to Congress,” Kagan said.

    Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he too was skeptical of the claim the president had the power to impose taxes based on his belief that the nation faces a global emergency.

    If so, could a future president acting on his own impose a 50% tax on cars because of climate change? he asked.

    Gorsuch said the court has recently blocked far-reaching presidential regulations by Democratic presidents that went beyond an old and vague law, and the same may be called for here.

    Otherwise, presidents may feel free to take away the taxing power “from the people’s representatives,” he said.

    But Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned the challenge to the president’s tariffs.

    Kavanaugh pointed to a round of tariffs imposed by President Nixon in 1971, and he said Congress later adopted its emergency powers act without clearly rejecting that authority.

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she was struggling to understand what Congress meant in the emergency powers law when it said the president may “regulate” importation.

    She agreed the law did not mention taxes and tariffs that would raise revenue, but some judges then saw it as allowing the authority to impose duties or tariffs.

    The tariffs case heard Wednesday is the first major challenge to Trump’s presidential power to be heard by the court. It is also a test of whether the court’s conservative majority is willing to set legal limits on Trump’s executive authority.

    Trump has touted these import taxes as crucial to reviving American manufacturing.

    But owners of small businesses, farmers and economists are among the critics who say the on-again, off-again import taxes are disrupting business and damaging the economy.

    Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court’s six Republican appointees have voted repeatedly to set aside orders from judges who had temporarily blocked the president’s policies and initiatives.

    While they have not explained most of their temporary emergency rulings, the conservatives have said the president has broad executive authority over federal agencies and on matters of foreign affairs.

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • California consumers get surprise sticker shock ordering imports online

    Every year, Ventura County resident Carlos Soto buys a Liverpool Football Club jersey for his son to celebrate the start of the soccer season. This year it was delivered with an additional bill of $107.

    “The UPS guy said he couldn’t release it unless I paid more,” said Soto, who owns the Historia Bakery Cafe in Thousand Oaks. “Until this tariff thing started, I’ve never, ever had a bill on top of my purchase.”

    Soto declined the payment and requested a refund for the jersey, which he bought from the team’s official website for around $150.

    Since President Trump reversed a decades-old tariff policy in August known as de minimis, online shoppers like Soto are sometimes getting hit with high, unexpected extra charges.

    De minimis used to allow goods valued at less than $800 to enter the country duty-free. The tariff exception applied to more than 1.30 billion packages sent to the U.S. from overseas in 2024, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

    Social media is full of reports of individuals struggling with surprise bills for their deliveries. On Facebook and elsewhere, buyers are venting about hundreds of dollars due on mouse pads, makeup and bridesmaid dresses. One person on Reddit faced a $4,700 fee on a specialized desk chair from Bulgaria.

    While the new fees are often already baked into product prices, some goods land in America without the tariffs being paid. That’s when the person receiving the package is expected to fork over the difference.

    Package delivery companies have been scrambling to educate consumers about the new tariff regime, but still, some are surprised.

    UPS, FedEx and DHL have each posted frequently asked questions and resources online to support customers who may owe tariffs on their items. Large numbers of customers are calling with complaints or confusion when presented with unexpected bills — UPS said it is working through a backlog of brokerage-related issues.

    “Our brokerage services are designed to ensure shipments comply with regulations [and] pay necessary duties and taxes,” said UPS spokesperson Jim Mayer. “If the shipper or receiver have not paid these costs, UPS generates a bill so the shipment can be released by Customs and Border Protection.”

    Mark Hartlidge, a small package compliance manager at UPS, called the changes this year a “rollercoaster ride” in one webinar hosted for customers.

    “If you import anything to the United States, you most likely have been impacted,” he said in July. “These changes can be very difficult to understand.”

    While large companies and online retailers have the staff and infrastructure in place to make the transition smoothly, smaller businesses that export directly to the U.S. are sometimes failing to inform consumers about the extra costs and when they are due.

    Washington, D.C., resident David Herr, who restores classic cars, recently ordered an auto part from Belgium for about $200.

    “I knew I was going to have to pay some import fee, but I had no idea what it was going to be,” Herr said. “I didn’t know if that was included in the price, or if that was going to be collected by customs or somebody else.”

    When Herr’s package arrived via UPS, the delivery driver presented him with a hefty charge of $493.

    “It’s kind of awkward how the fees are collected,” he said. “There’s not a lot of clarity on who’s collecting them and where they’re going.”

    The popular fast fashion website Shein, which is based in Singapore, advertises a guarantee that the price at checkout is the final price for the product.

    “There’s lots of chatter about tariffs, but here’s why you don’t need to worry about paying anything extra after checkout,” the Shein website says.

    Temu, another low-cost online retailer that previously relied on de minimis, states on its website that for its customers, there are “no import charges for all local warehouse items and no extra charges upon delivery.”

    Meg Moore, an avid online shopper from the Chicago area, said she plans to change her shopping habits.

    She had her eye on the annual beauty product advent calendar from the London-based brand Liberty, which retails for $365, but decided against it due to the tariffs.

    “They’ll add at least $100 just to send it here,” she said.

    De minimis, which is Latin for something of little importance, dates to 1938 when Congress passed the exception to boost trade and save the time of inspecting and calculating taxes on every package.

    Lawmakers increased the duty-free threshold from $1 to $5 in 1990 and again to $200 in 1993. Under the most recent threshold of $800, the number of packages entering the U.S. duty-free had skyrocketed.

    Trump has called the rule a “scam” that weakens American businesses and allows dangerous goods to enter the country without oversight. Packages that claim the exemption are not inspected as thoroughly by U.S. Customs personnel.

    Trump ended the so-called loophole for goods sent from China in May before eliminating the practice for goods from all other nations in August. Documents and gifts under $100 are still exempt from import taxes.

    Soto in Thousand Oaks decided to search for a Liverpool jersey in California. But he’s still waiting for the refund on the jersey he sent back.

    “When it comes to politics and government, I’ve always kind of turned away from it,” he said. “But this time it actually hurt my pocket.”

    Caroline Petrow-Cohen

    Source link

  • Tariffs and birthright citizenship will test whether Trump’s power has limits

    WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices like to talk about the Constitution’s separation of powers and how it limits the exercise of official authority.

    But Chief Justice John G. Roberts and his conservative colleagues have given no sign so far they will check President Trump’s one-man governance by executive order.

    To the contrary, the conservative justices have repeatedly ruled for Trump on fast-track appeals and overturned federal judges who said the president had exceeded his authority.

    The court’s new term opens on Monday, and the justices will begin hearing arguments.

    But those regularly scheduled cases have been overshadowed by Trump’s relentless drive to remake the government, to punish his political enemies, including universities, law firms, TV networks and prominent Democrats, and to send troops to patrol U.S. cities.

    The overriding question has become: Are there any legal limits on the president’s power? The Supreme Court itself has raised the doubts.

    A year ago, as Trump ran to reclaim the White House, the justices blocked a felony criminal indictment against him related to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, mob attack on the Capitol as Congress met to certify Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election, for which Trump was impeached.

    Led by Roberts, the court ruled for Trump and declared for the first time that presidents were immune from being prosecuted for their official actions in the White House.

    Not surprisingly, Trump saw this as a “BIG WIN” and proof there is no legal check on his power.

    This year, Trump’s lawyers have confidently gone to Supreme Court with emergency appeals when lower-court judges have stood in their way. With few exceptions, they have won, often over dissents from the court’s three liberal Democrats.

    Many court scholars say they are disappointed but not surprised by the court’s response so far to Trump’s aggressive use of executive power.

    The Supreme Court “has been a rubber stamp approving Trump’s actions,” said UC Berkeley law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “I hope very much that the court will be a check on Trump. There isn’t any other. But so far, it has not played that role.”

    Roberts “had been seen as a Republican but not a Trump Republican. But he doesn’t seem interested or willing to put any limits on him,” said UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. “Maybe they think they’re saving their credibility for when it really counts.”

    Acting on his own, Trump moved quickly to reshape the federal government. He ordered cuts in spending and staffing at federal agencies and fired inspectors general and officials of independent agencies who had fixed terms set by Congress. He stepped up arrests and deportations of immigrants who are here illegally.

    But the court’s decisions on those fronts are in keeping with the long-standing views of the conservatives on the bench.

    Long before Trump ran for office, Roberts had argued that the Constitution gives the president broad executive authority to control federal agencies, including the power to fire officials who disagree with him.

    The court’s conservatives also think the president has the authority to enforce — or not enforce — immigration laws.

    That’s also why many legal experts think the year ahead will provide a better test of the Supreme Court and Trump’s challenge to the constitutional order.

    “Overall, my reaction is that it’s too soon to tell,” said William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and a former clerk for Roberts. “In the next year, we will likely see decisions about tariffs, birthright citizenship, alien enemies and perhaps more, and we’ll know a lot more.”

    In early September, Trump administration lawyers rushed the tariffs case to the Supreme Court because they believed it was better to lose sooner rather than later.

    Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the government could face up to a $1-trillion problem if the court delayed a decision until next summer and then ruled the tariffs were illegal.

    “Unwinding them could cause significant disruption,” he told the court.

    The Constitution says tariffs, taxes and raising revenue are matters for Congress to decide. Through most of American history, tariffs funded much of the federal government. That began to change after 1913 when the 16th Amendment was adopted to authorize “taxes on incomes.”

    Trump has said he would like to return to an earlier era when import taxes funded the government.

    “I always say ‘tariffs’ is the most beautiful word to me in the dictionary,” he said at a rally after his inauguration in January. “Because tariffs are going to make us rich as hell. It’s going to bring our country’s businesses back that left us.”

    While he could have gone to the Republican-controlled Congress to get approval, he imposed several rounds of large and worldwide tariffs acting on his own.

    Several small businesses sued and described the tariffs as “the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.”

    As for legal justification, the president’s lawyers pointed to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. It authorizes the president to “deal with any unusual or extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”

    The law did not mention tariffs, taxes or duties but said the president could “regulate” the “importation” of products.

    Trump administration lawyers argue that the “power to ‘regulate importation’ plainly encompasses the power to impose tariffs.” They also say the court should defer to the president because tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security.

    They said the president invoked the tariffs not to raise revenue but to “rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits and to stem the flood of fentanyl and other lethal drugs across our borders.”

    In response to lawsuits from small businesses and several states, judges who handle international trade cases ruled the tariffs were illegal. However, they agreed to keep them in place to allow for appeals.

    Their opinion relied in part on recent Supreme Court’s decisions which struck down potentially far-reaching regulations from Democratic presidents on climate change, student loan debt and COVID-19 vaccine requirements. In each of the decisions, Roberts said Congress had not clearly authorized the disputed regulations.

    Citing that principle, the federal circuit court said it “seems unlikely that Congress intended to … grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

    Trump said that decision, if allowed to stand, “could literally destroy the United States of America.” The court agreed to hear arguments in the tariffs case on Nov. 5.

    A victory for Trump would be “viewed as a dramatic expansion of presidential power,” said Washington attorney Stephanie Connor, who works on tariff cases. Trump and future presidents could sidestep Congress to impose tariffs simply by citing an emergency, she said.

    But the decision itself may have a limited impact because the administration has announced new tariffs last week that were based on other national security laws.

    Last month, Trump administration lawyers asked the Supreme Court to rule during the upcoming term on the birthright citizenship promised by the 14th Amendment of 1868.

    They did not seek a fast-track ruling, however. Instead, they said the court should grant review and hear arguments on the regular schedule early next year. If so, a decision would be handed down by late June.

    The amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

    And in the past, both Congress and the Supreme Court have agreed that rule applies broadly to all children who are born here, except if their parents are foreign ambassadors or diplomats who are not subject to U.S. laws.

    But Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said that interpretation is mistaken. He said the post-Civil War amendment was “adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not to the children of illegal aliens, birth tourists and temporary visitors.”

    Judges in three regions of the country have rejected Trump’s limits on the citizenship rule and blocked it from taking effect nationwide while the litigation continues.

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • The White House says California uses a ‘loophole’ to give undocumented immigrants Medicaid. Experts disagree

    Of all the finger-pointing and recriminations that come with the current federal government shutdown, one of the most striking elements is that the Trump administration blames it on Democratic support for granting taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage to undocumented immigrants. The White House has called out California specifically, saying the state exploits a legal “loophole” to pay for that coverage with federal dollars, and other states have followed suit.

    “California utilized an egregious loophole — since employed by several other states — to draw down federal matching funds used to provide Medicaid benefits for illegal immigrants,” the White House said in a policy memo released Wednesday as a budget stalemate forced a shutdown of the U.S. government.

    The administration said that the Working Families Tax Cut Act, which goes into effect in October 2026, closes the loophole by prohibiting the use of taxpayer money to provide healthcare coverage to undocumented immigrants and other noncitizens.

    In the memo, the White House accused congressional Democrats of wanting to repeal those policy reforms as a condition to keep the government running.

    Izzy Gardon, a spokeswoman for Gov. Gavin Newsom, said there’s nothing to the administration’s underlying assertion that California and other states have found some sort of loophole that enables them to funnel Medicaid money to noncitizens.

    “This is false — CA does not do this,” Gardon said in a one-line email to the L.A. Times.

    Healthcare policy experts agree. California is not exploiting a “loophole,” said Adriana Ramos-Yamamoto, a senior policy analyst at the California Budget & Policy Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that studies inequality.

    “The state is making lawful, transparent budget choices to invest in health coverage with its own dollars,” Ramos-Yamamoto said in a statement to The Times. “These investments improve health outcomes, strengthen communities, and lower health care costs in the long run.”

    At issue is Section 71117 of the Republican-backed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which imposes nearly $1 trillion in reductions to federal Medicaid healthcare spending for low-income Americans over the next 10 years. The provision allows states “to finance the non-federal share of Medicaid spending through multiple sources, including state general funds, healthcare related taxes (or ‘provider taxes’), and local government funds,” as long as taxes on healthcare providers are imposed uniformly so as not to unfairly burden providers of Medicaid services.

    The bottom line, analysts said, is the administration is citing a problem with the law that doesn’t seem to exist, at least not in California.

    “The so-called California loophole references a provision in the law that ends a waiver of the uniformity requirements for provider taxes — this provision has nothing to do with using federal funds to pay for care for undocumented immigrants,” said Jennifer Tolbert, a healthcare expert at the nonprofit healthcare research, polling and news organization KFF.

    “But the White House makes the claim that California uses the money they get from the provider tax to pay for care for undocumented immigrants,” Tolbert said.

    Fact-checking the administration’s claim is all the more difficult because there are no official data on how states spend money collected from provider taxes, Alice Burns, another KFF analyst, added. What’s more, California is among several states that offer some level of Medicaid coverage to all immigrants regardless of status. And because California cannot be federally reimbursed for healthcare spending on people who are not in the country legally, those expenses must be covered at the state level.

    The White House memo goes on to claim that if Democrats were to succeed at repealing the provisions in the Working Families Tax Act, the federal government would have to spend an additional $34.6 billion in taxpayer money “that would continue to primarily be abused by California to fund healthcare for illegal immigrants.”

    This assertion also misconstrues the facts, according to KFF.

    “What we do know is that the $35 billion in savings that is referenced in the White House Fact Sheet refers to the federal government’s estimated savings … resulting from states making changes to their provider tax systems,” KFF spokesperson Tammie Smith said. That is, the projected savings aren’t connected to healthcare for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

    Political squabbling aside, California’s approach to medical coverage for low-income, undocumented immigrants is set to undergo a major shift thanks to provisions in the 2025-26 state budget that the Democrat-led legislature and Newsom approved in June.

    Starting on Jan. 1, adults “who do not have Satisfactory Immigration Status (SIS)” will no longer be able to enroll in Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, according to the state’s Department of Health Care Services webpage. Those who already have this coverage can keep it and continue to renew their enrollment. And starting on July 1, Medi-Cal enrollees who are age 19-59, undocumented and not pregnant will have to pay a $30 monthly premium to keep their coverage.

    The changes, which Newsom called for in the spring to offset a ballooning Medi-Cal budget deficit, drew criticism from some immigrant rights groups, with the California Immigrant Policy Center describing the moves as “discriminatory.”

    “In light of the militarized mass immigration raids and arrests causing fear and chaos across California, we are disappointed that the governor and the leadership in the Legislature chose to adopt a state budget that makes our communities even more vulnerable,” Masih Fouladi, the center’s executive director said at the time.

    Everyone in California who qualifies for Medi-Cal will still be eligible to receive emergency medical and dental care, no matter their immigration status.

    Tyrone Beason

    Source link

  • VIDEO: New Jersey man dances at town hall meeting to protest property tax hike

    Mhm Mr. Tilly, I started your time. Um, How was everyone’s weekend?

    VIDEO: New Jersey man dances at town hall meeting to protest property tax hike

    Updated: 6:01 AM PDT Sep 6, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    Americans are famous for our creative dissents against taxes — just take the Boston Tea Party. Last week, a New Jersey man carried on the tradition at a town meeting by dancing to express his response to a property tax hike.In a video livestreamed on Cranford TV-35, Will Thilly, a candidate for the Cranford township committee, gets out of his seat and dances his way up to the podium. An official tells him, “I started your time,” and Thilly holds up his finger as he continues dancing.He pauses to grab a bottle of water and pieces of paper before asking the audience about their weekends. “Did you know I could do the backspin? Anybody?” he says. “Wanna see me do the backspin? No? I’m gonna do the backspin.”After proceeding to do so and unsuccessfully motioning for the audience to applaud, Thilly jumps into his remarks.”Well, why did our taxes go up so much? We were told the referendum was going to bring it up for an average household about $400,” he says. “And mine went up, like, 900 bucks. I think we were told, like, that was from the schools or something? But the school referendum said it would only go up, like I said, 400 bucks on an average assessed home.””So I wanted to know why it went up, if it did much more than that,” he goes on. “And what extra expenses were incurred by the schools that weren’t told to the public when we voted on that referendum?”Thilly then moonwalks back to his seat.”Thank you, Mr. Thilly,” Cranford Mayor Terrence Curran then says, according to NBC. “I like the interpretative dance.”Cranford is a town of less than 25,000 people as of the 2020 census, located 18 miles southwest of Manhattan. Thilly’s campaign website says he is running to “tell you the truth, to fight for what you need, and to defend our Town and schools,” explaining that he opposes “$150 million in 30-year tax exemptions to billionaire developers” for a development in his town.

    Americans are famous for our creative dissents against taxes — just take the Boston Tea Party. Last week, a New Jersey man carried on the tradition at a town meeting by dancing to express his response to a property tax hike.

    In a video livestreamed on Cranford TV-35, Will Thilly, a candidate for the Cranford township committee, gets out of his seat and dances his way up to the podium. An official tells him, “I started your time,” and Thilly holds up his finger as he continues dancing.

    He pauses to grab a bottle of water and pieces of paper before asking the audience about their weekends.

    “Did you know I could do the backspin? Anybody?” he says. “Wanna see me do the backspin? No? I’m gonna do the backspin.”

    After proceeding to do so and unsuccessfully motioning for the audience to applaud, Thilly jumps into his remarks.

    “Well, why did our taxes go up so much? We were told the referendum was going to bring it up for an average household about $400,” he says. “And mine went up, like, 900 bucks. I think we were told, like, that was from the schools or something? But the school referendum said it would only go up, like I said, 400 bucks on an average assessed home.”

    “So I wanted to know why it went up, if it did much more than that,” he goes on. “And what extra expenses were incurred by the schools that weren’t told to the public when we voted on that referendum?”

    Thilly then moonwalks back to his seat.

    “Thank you, Mr. Thilly,” Cranford Mayor Terrence Curran then says, according to NBC. “I like the interpretative dance.”

    Cranford is a town of less than 25,000 people as of the 2020 census, located 18 miles southwest of Manhattan. Thilly’s campaign website says he is running to “tell you the truth, to fight for what you need, and to defend our Town and schools,” explaining that he opposes “$150 million in 30-year tax exemptions to billionaire developers” for a development in his town.

    Source link

  • GM admits to ‘numerous’ failings in Cruise robotaxi debacle that saw CEO embarrassed and pedestrian dragged 20 feet 

    GM admits to ‘numerous’ failings in Cruise robotaxi debacle that saw CEO embarrassed and pedestrian dragged 20 feet 

    General Motors Co. blamed poor leadership for mishandling its Cruise robotaxi crisis, an admission the company is hoping will help get its cars back on the roads.

    A report by the law firm Quinn Emanuel, which was paid by Cruise, outlines how executives took an adversarial approach with regulators after one of its autonomous cars struck and seriously injured a woman. Federal prosecutors are now investigating the incident, which led Cruise to halt its fleet nationwide and undercut GM Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra’s vision to transform the carmaker from a 20th-century metal bender to a transportation company of the future.

    In a Thursday blog post, Cruise said it accepts the conclusions of the report. The company also disclosed that it’s facing probes from the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission. It pledged to work with those investigations, in addition to having more robust processes for working with regulators. Kyle Vogt, former Cruise CEO, did not respond to a text message seeking comment.

    “The reasons for Cruise’s failings in this instance are numerous: poor leadership, mistakes in judgment, lack of coordination, an ‘us versus them’ mentality with regulators, and a fundamental misapprehension of Cruise’s obligations of accountability and transparency to the government and the public,” the report said. “Cruise must take decisive steps to address these issues in order to restore trust and credibility.”

    The report concludes that Cruise officials didn’t intentionally deceive regulators, but that their initial disclosures were inadequate.

    For GM and Cruise, making the report public is a crucial step to getting its robotaxis back on the road. It’s particularly important that the companies repair relations with the state of California, which suspended Cruise’s license to operate driverless vehicles after company officials misrepresented details of the October collision in San Francisco. Within weeks, Vogt resigned, and Cruise fired nine executives and cut almost a quarter of its workforce.

    It’s been an embarrassing saga for Barra who has touted its self-driving technology as a key pillar of GM’s plan to double revenue by the end of the decade. She’s pivoted by slashing spending on Cruise to contain losses and announcing plans to return billions to shareholders.

    The company faces a hearing on Feb. 6 to determine what it owes in fines to California.

    Connectivity Issues

    The fateful incident occurred on Oct. 2, when a Cruise vehicle named “Panini” ran over a woman who’d been struck by another car and thrown in front of the self-driving vehicle.

    The robotaxi stopped after detecting the person, but incorrectly classified the accident as a side-impact collision and initiated a pullover maneuver with the pedestrian pinned between its wheels. It dragged her 20 feet, causing severe injuries.

    Cruise reported the incident to California regulators and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, but in early communication with some of the regulators it didn’t disclose that the woman was dragged and only communicated that the car had stopped after hitting her, according to documents reviewed by Bloomberg News.

    The report released Thursday found that on Oct. 3 Cruise shared a video of the incident with the San Francisco Mayor’s Office, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, California DMV and other government officials. In each of those meetings, it intended to play it in full. In some cases, connectivity issues prevented the video from being shown, but the company sent it to regulators in the weeks after those meetings, the report found.

    Cruise never verbally pointed out that the woman was being dragged, preferring to let the “video speak for itself,” the report says. Cruise also showed an incomplete video to the media, the report said, because the company was fixated on shifting blame to the human driver that first hit the pedestrian.

    “Cruise’s passive, nontransparent approach to its disclosure obligations to its regulators reflects a basic misunderstanding of what regulatory authorities need to know and when they need to know it,” Quinn Emanuel concluded.

    Mortifying Move

    California’s Department of Motor Vehicles suspended Cruise’s license on the same day GM reported its third-quarter earnings. On a call with Wall Street analysts hours earlier, Barra had touted the business’s potential.

    “We do believe that Cruise has tremendous opportunity to grow and expand,” she said. “Safety will be our gating factor.”

    California’s move was a huge blow for Cruise, which Vogt had said was on a path to $1 billion in revenue by the end of this year.

    Up to that point, Cruise was pushing hard to roll out its robotaxi service outside of the San Francisco market. Vogt was determined to establish operations, customer bases and name recognition across the country before its biggest competitor Waymo did, according to people present at management meetings.

    The people, who asked not to be identified describing private deliberations, likened the race to how Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. competed in the early days of ride-hailing.

    There were signs the technology wasn’t working smoothly before the California authorities took action. One of its cars collided with a Toyota Prius in June of that year. That same month, a bug caused about a dozen Cruise vehicles to all stop in one intersection, blocking traffic for hours.

    GM executives, including general counsel Craig Glidden, pressed the startup on whether its processes were robust enough, people familiar with the matter said at the time. There was debate within Cruise about reducing the number of vehicles driving in parts of San Francisco to lower the odds of more incidents.

    Vogt dismissed the concerns and pressed on, the people said.

    Cruise then tussled this past summer with San Francisco’s city attorney and fire department over more incidents. Vogt told his staff that Cruise had to stand up to regulators the way Tesla Inc. CEO Elon Musk does, two of the people said.

    Big Aspirations

    Barra had big aspirations for Cruise when she acquired the business for $1.1 billion in early 2016. GM envisioned lowering the cost of rides in driverless vehicles below what Uber and Lyft charged and seizing a share of what former Cruise CEO Dan Ammann said was a $1.6 trillion market.

    In a 2017 presentation, Ammann said Cruise would marry Silicon Valley software with Detroit manufacturing chops that Waymo lacked. The company later unveiled an electric shuttle called Origin that was purpose-built to be a robotaxi, and Cruise hoped to run a service by the end of 2019.

    “We think it will change the world,” Ammann said at the time.

    Cruise managed to land multibillion-dollar investments from the SoftBank Vision Fund, Microsoft Corp., Honda Motor Co. and T. Rowe Price As of early 2021, the business was valued at around $30 billion.

    Those ambitions have since been scaled back. GM bought the Vision Fund out of its investment two years ago and has halted production of the Origin. Honda’s CEO suggested this month that it’s unlikely to launch a service with Cruise in central Tokyo by early 2026 as planned.

    Barra’s team still believes Cruise has good technology and plans to re-establish the business — with tighter control. Before October, GM wanted to give the company independence to maintain a startup culture, said people familiar with the matter.

    That’s no longer the case. Glidden, the general counsel, has been named the self-driving company’s co-president, Barra is non-executive chair and GM board member Jon McNeil is vice chairman of Cruise.

    GM’s shares rose 1.3% Thursday in New York.

    — With assistance from Dana Hull

      David Welch, Bloomberg

      Source link

    1. Fox News debate with DeSantis puts Newsom on the defensive

      Fox News debate with DeSantis puts Newsom on the defensive

      California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis turned their feud over blue and red state policies personal Thursday, clashing for more than 90 minutes over crime, taxes, COVID-19 pandemic policies, immigration, book bans and other divisive issues in an unorthodox debate that both men hoped would propel their national political ambitions.

      California has “failed because of his leftist ideology,” DeSantis said of Newsom, whom he called a “slick politician.”

      “There’s one thing … that we have in common,” Newsom said. “Neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024.”

      The forum in Georgia between the liberal Democrat and the conservative Republican, hosted by Sean Hannity on Fox News, culminated months of shadow boxing between the two governors, who have used their states’ opposing partisan approaches to governing to attack each other.

      Newsom was on the defensive for much of the debate as Hannity focused on taxes, crime, late-term abortions, California’s high gas prices and other topics on which conservatives believe they have the upper hand politically. Newsom responded by ignoring or reframing many of the questions.

      DeSantis, who has seen his once-promising presidential campaign sag, recognized an opportunity to take down the leader of the most prominent Democratic-led state, which he attacked as a bastion of unhinged progressive policies that have led to lawlessness and mass departures.

      Newsom, who may run for president in 2028, saw an opportunity to cement his reputation as a warrior for Democratic values, unafraid of Fox News and Republicans, as he savaged DeSantis’ vision of freedom as phony in a state where books are banned and abortion rights are curtailed.

      The risks for both men were clear. Some viewers may see the obvious downgrade in DeSantis’ campaign as he battles a governor who is not running for president, instead of former President Trump, the overwhelming favorite to win the GOP nomination, or President Biden, the man he hopes to ultimately unseat. Newsom could come off as too eager for attention and overconfident in believing he could dispatch DeSantis, who came well prepared, in a debate moderated by Hannity.

      It’s unclear whether Thursday’s debate will change minds on policy. But viewers got a clear contrast in a nation where differences are more often being played out in the states, which are increasingly dominated by a single party.

      Noah Bierman, Taryn Luna

      Source link

    2. Regulators give green light to driverless taxis in San Francisco | CNN Business

      Regulators give green light to driverless taxis in San Francisco | CNN Business



      CNN
       — 

      California regulators gave approval Thursday to two rival robotaxi companies, Cruise and Waymo, to operate their driverless cars 24/7 across all of San Francisco and charge passengers for their services.

      The much-anticipated vote, which followed roughly six hours of public comment both for and against driverless taxis, came amid clashes between the robotaxi companies and some residents of the hilly city. San Francisco first responders, city transportation leaders and local activists are among those who shared concerns about the technology.

      The California Public Utilities Commission regulates self-driving cars in the state and voted 3-to-1 in favor of Waymo and Cruise expanding their operations.

      That means residents and visitors to San Francisco will be able to pay a fare to ride in a driverless taxi, ushering in new automated competition to cab and ridehail drivers.

      “Today’s permit marks the true beginning of our commercial operations in San Francisco,” said Tekedra Mawakana, co-CEO of Waymo, in a press release.

      Cruise spokesperson Drew Pusateri said in a statement to CNN that the 24/7 driverless service is a “historic industry milestone” that puts Cruise “in a position to compete with traditional ridehail, and challenge an unsafe, inaccessible transportation status quo.”

      Until Thursday’s vote, Cruise and Waymo could offer only limited service to San Francisco residents.

      Cruise – a subsidiary of General Motors – could charge a fare only for overnight rides occurring between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. in select parts of the city. Waymo, owned by Google’s parent company Alphabet, could charge a fare only for rides with a human driver in the vehicle.

      Now, Cruise and Waymo can charge a fare for their driverless rides and 24/7 access to San Francisco streets as they do so.

      Cruise officials told state commissioners at a recent public hearing that it deploys about 300 vehicles at night and 100 during the day, while Waymo officials said that around 100 of its 250 vehicles are on the road at any given time.

      The autonomous ride-hailing service offered by Cruise and Waymo allows users to request a ride similar to Uber or Lyft. There is a difference, of course: The car has no driver.

      Members of the public packed the commission’s San Francisco headquarters to share their thoughts with state commissioners in one-minute increments during the meeting. Critics pointed to driverless cars freezing in traffic and blocking first responders, while advocates said they felt the cars drove more defensively than human drivers.

      Although the decision ultimately laid in the hands of state regulators, who delayed the vote twice, local officials also expressed their dissent.

      The San Francisco Police Officers Association, San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association and the San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 all wrote letters to the CPUC in the week leading up to the originally scheduled vote on June 29. Each expressed concerns that autonomous vehicles could impede emergency responders.

      “The time that it takes for an officer or any other public safety employee to try and interact with an autonomous vehicle is frustrating in the best-case scenario, but when they can not comprehend our demands to move to the side of the roadway and are stopped in the middle of the roadway blocking emergency response units, then it rises to another level of danger,” wrote Tracy McCray, president of the San Francisco Police Officers Association in June, “and that is unacceptable.”

      The San Francisco Fire Department has recorded 55 incidents of driverless vehicles interfering with their emergency responses in 2023 as of Wednesday, the department confirmed to CNN.

      In one incident reported by the department on Saturday, a Waymo car pulled up between a car on fire and the fire truck aiming to put it out.

      Other instances include robotaxis driving through yellow tape into the scene of a shooting, blocking firehouse driveways such that a fire truck farther away had to respond to the scene, and requiring firefighters to reroute, according to Fire Chief Jeanine Nicholson.

      “It should not be up to my people to have to move their vehicle out of the way when we’re responding to one of our 160,000 calls,” Nicholson told CNN in June.

      Robotaxi companies have often touted their safety records. Out of 3 million driverless miles, a Cruise car has not been involved in a single fatality or life-threatening injury, according to the company. In a February review of its first million driverless miles, Waymo said their cars caused no reported injuries and that 55% of all contact events were the result of a human driver hitting a stationary Waymo vehicle.

      2022 was the worst year on record for traffic fatalities in San Francisco since 2014, according to city data. Cruise said that when benchmarked against human drivers in comparable driving environments, its vehicles were involved in 54% fewer collisions overall.

      The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency said in a California Public Utilities Commission meeting on Monday that it had logged almost 600 incidents involving autonomous vehicles since the technology first launched in San Francisco. The agency said they believe this is “a fraction” of actual incidents due to what they allege is a lack of data transparency.

      Genevieve Shiroma, the dissenting commissioner in the 3-1 vote, recommended the commission delay the vote until they received a “better understanding of the safety impacts” of the vehicles.

      “First responders should not be prevented from doing their job. The fact that an injury or fatality has not occurred yet is not the end of the inquiry,” Shiroma said. “The commission needs a better explanation regarding why these events occur.”

      Source link

    3. Dubai to start robotaxi trials next month in major autonomous push | CNN Business

      Dubai to start robotaxi trials next month in major autonomous push | CNN Business

      Editor’s Note: A version of this story appears in CNN’s Meanwhile in the Middle East newsletter, a three-times-a-week look inside the region’s biggest stories. Sign up here.


      Abu Dhabi, UAE
      CNN
       — 

      Dubai is rolling out its first round of robotaxis next month, as a part of a plan to alleviate congestion and accidents.

      Five fully autonomous electric taxis, operated by a General Motors subsidiary called Cruise, will begin test driving on an 8km (5 mile) stretch in the upscale Jumeirah district of the United Arab Emirates city, according to Ahmed Bahrozyan, the CEO of Dubai’s Roads and Transport Authority (RTA).

      Dubai hopes to become the first Middle Eastern city to introduce driverless taxis, Bahrozyan said. Autonomous taxis currently operate in several cities around the world, mostly in the US and China.

      Cruise operates commercial robotaxis in US cities like San Francisco, but Dubai would be the first launch of the cars outside the US, Bahrozyan said.

      “We are doing our own set of tests and trials in Dubai… every city has its own characteristics,” Bahrozyan said in an interview with CNN. “We have weather conditions that are certainly different than the US.”

      RTA plans to roll out 4,000 self-driving taxis by 2030, adding to the fleet of 12,000 traditional taxis in the city. Rides are expected to be slightly more expensive than an ordinary taxi but in the same price range as a private car like Uber.

      Cruise entered a contract with the RTA for 15 years, and after this period the taxi market may open up to competitors. Bahroyzyan said he foresees autonomous vehicles eventually making up the majority of the Middle East tourist hub’s taxi fleet.

      A year after GM’s Cruise robotaxis were launched in California, the company was forced to cut its fleet in half in the state following a series of collisions. The collisions outlined the potential challenges of driverless cars.

      Bahroyzyan said there will be “zero compromise on safety.”

      Dubai issued a law in April to regulate autonomous vehicles, setting benchmarks for technical, operational and safety aspects of cars. Selling and buying autonomous cars was also regulated.

      WeRide, a Chinese autonomous car technology company began trialing robotaxis in the UAE’s capital, Abu Dhabi, in 2022.

      In July, the UAE granted WeRide a license to trial all its vehicles, from robobuses to robosweepers, but the company began testing certain routes a year prior.

      The Middle East is a “key focus area” for driverless cars and WeRide said it hopes to deepen its presence in the region. WeRide also has a collaboration with the Saudi Artificial Intelligence Company to develop a robobus route.

      Saudi’s Transport General Authority introduced self-driving buses during the 2023 Hajj season in July, shuttling pilgrims in Mecca, according to local media.

      Source link

    4. What’s going on with all the runway close calls | CNN Politics

      What’s going on with all the runway close calls | CNN Politics

      A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



      CNN
       — 

      There have been six close calls on US runways this year, which has led to a fair amount of news coverage, some alarm among the flying public and a lot of calls for answers – including from the acting head of the Federal Aviation Administration Billy Nolen, who testified on Capitol Hill this week.

      Unable to explain the spike, Nolen told lawmakers the agency wants to get to the bottom of things at a safety summit planned for next week. There are also specific investigations into each incident in Boston; Burbank, California; Austin, Texas; Honolulu; New York; and Sarasota, Florida.

      I talked to CNN’s Pete Muntean, who not only covers aviation but is also a pilot and flight instructor, for his perspective on what the heck is going on.

      Our conversation, conducted by phone, is below. Stick with it for an interesting bonus story on how low-flying planes are used to find poachers in Africa.

      WOLF: Six close calls in recent weeks. Are these all distinct events? Or should we view them as one larger issue?

      MUNTEAN: There’s definitely a constant theme because they’re the same type of event, which is officially known as a runway incursion. It is where two airplanes essentially get in the way of one another on or near the runway.

      These types of events can range from really minor to more egregious. What we saw at JFK in New York in January, that had to be one of the more egregious ones. The air traffic controller had to swoop in and stop a flight that was barreling down the runway toward a crossing, taxiing (Boeing) triple seven from taking off.

      That is a more extreme, severe example. There have been some examples where the airplanes get within a few hundred feet of one another, maybe as close as 100 feet. One of the cases like in Austin.

      But they’re not really caused, necessarily, by the same thing. That’s, of course, something that investigators will look at.

      (On Wednesday) the acting head of the FAA on Capitol Hill said that if there are dots to connect, they’ll connect them in this safety summit next week, although it doesn’t seem like there was any real common trigger. No common cause.

      RELATED: FAA to conduct sweeping safety review after multiple incidents

      WOLF: Who is supposed to keep these from happening? Is it the air traffic controllers? Is it the pilots? How is it supposed to work?

      MUNTEAN: There are multiple different layers of safeguards in place in the air traffic system, especially at these busy airports where there are a lot of airliners coming in and out in a lot of varying conditions, a lot of different times of day.

      Some of the responsibility falls on air traffic control. Of course, it’s their job to keep airplanes from running into one another. Some of the responsibility falls on the flight crew to keep it so that they follow the instructions of air traffic control, that they remain vigilant all the time, if they’re taxiing across runways or taking off from a runway that’s crisscrossing with another one as they’re about to land.

      The good news is that in commercial aviation in the US – which has a stellar track record, by the way – there are two trained pilots at all times. And there are a lot of eyeballs essentially making it so that these things don’t happen.

      The pilots can intercede at any point, and in some cases they have. They’ve just essentially called their own go-arounds to make it so that they don’t come in contact with an airplane. In some cases, the air traffic controllers will call it. The onus is on a few different layers here.

      I’m a pilot, but I just did a demonstration with a former NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigator at a busy airport, Dulles (in Virginia), and it begs pointing out that some of the safeguards are as simple as paint on the runway and taxiways to remind pilots not to taxi too close to the runway. Some of it is in the phraseology that’s used on the radio. Some of it is in the procedures and training the pilots get.

      I think every pilot that’s out there now – and if you talk to professional pilots this is something that weighs on them – this has been a chronic problem for aviation for a while. But now, because of these headlines, it’s especially top of mind for pilots and air traffic controllers and regulators and safety advocates.

      WOLF: You said it’s a chronic problem. Is there any indication or any data to suggest this is happening more often? Or are we in the media just paying attention to it?

      MUNTEAN: I think these events are getting more attention. No doubt that these six that we have seen so far this year are extreme. Usually they don’t happen with such severity, with such frequency.

      But the FAA, at every layer of aviation from commercial aviation on down to small airplanes and private airports, they’re always trying to remind pilots to remain vigilant. Something that pilots really train for in their first flying lesson is how to behave in and respect the environment around an airport.

      In some ways, it’s like flying with a loaded gun. You have to be really, really careful.

      The reason why these are happening, one pilot told me – who’s the representative for a large union of airline pilots and a major airline – he said the system is just under so much pressure right now. There’s a lot of corporate pressure for airlines to get back on their feet after the pandemic.

      There’s a lot of new pilots flying right now, who may have matriculated from regional airlines to larger airlines. A lot of the old guard have retired. Pilots have left just because they were given voluntary leave packages as a result of the downturn of the pandemic.

      There are a ton of different factors at play.

      The fact that we’re sort of paying attention to these more just sort of highlights that nobody can ever let their guard down.

      WOLF: Is the current air traffic system that we’re using technologically up to snuff?

      MUNTEAN: I think it is. And I think the FAA would say that it is, because they have added in so many layers of technology to make it so that these incidents are avoided.

      They have technology that can sense, at some larger airports, whether or not a pilot is lined up with the wrong thing, if they were aiming for a runway but instead aimed for a taxiway to land on – which has happened before.

      They have more lighting on the pavement that warns pilots, essentially like a stoplight, to make it so they don’t go rolling across a runway as they are taxiing across one.

      There are even systems that make it so that they can sense, using radar and other technologies, where airplanes are on the ground and not just in the air. Some of these runway incursions are caused simply by airplanes being in the wrong place as they are taxiing and not necessarily in the air.

      I think the system is up to snuff. I think the FAA would say the system is up to snuff. But they’re also using this as a moment to sort of reinspect and have some introspection on the matter and whether or not they could be doing more to make it so that these problems can be avoided.

      WOLF: You already pointed out that commercial aviation in the US is incredibly safe.

      MUNTEAN: The last time there was a fatality was 2018, which was kind of a freak accident, where a person got hit on a Southwest flight by a fan blade that broke up in a jet engine.

      We’re reporting on crashes that don’t happen. These are close calls, sure, but nobody’s been hurt. Nobody’s been killed. So it kind of shows, in a way, how safe the system is.

      WOLF: Is there a spot in the system that is particularly weak? Is it takeoff or landing? What is the thing that makes pilots most nervous?

      MUNTEAN: The common theme is having so many airplanes close together. That’s sort of the inherent flaw of an airport, right? You bring in airplanes and take off and land. You may be using multiple different runways at the same time. There’s a lot of demand in the air traffic right now.

      Every airport is different, right?

      Some airports may have a lot of runways that are parallel and a lot of taxiways that are parallel to one another, like at Dulles the other day, where we went. There are three runways lined up: one left, one center and one right. They’re all headed the same direction to the north. You have to be really careful that you’re lined up with the right one.

      There are a few different things that you can do in the airplane to mitigate that and make sure that you have a safeguard of your own. But I think it really varies by the airport. In some places, there are intersecting runways. There are taxiways that have confusing turns.

      The FAA does granular looks at things like this, where they say something like this taxiway design isn’t all that great, there may be a blind spot here, as you’re taxiing you may approach this at a 45-degree angle or it could be a 90-degree angle where somebody in the cockpit can see more.

      Also when conditions are changing – we saw in the Austin incident the weather was abysmal at that time. It was very low cloud ceilings and very low visibility where the pilots were able to get an indication that there was somebody on the runway, an approaching FedEx flight and a Southwest flight that was still on the runway that hadn’t taken off yet.

      They weren’t necessarily able to see that (Southwest flight), so far as we know, by their eyeball.

      There are a lot of things at play. You can’t just say it’s any one different thing. And remember, these pilots are often going in and out of different places multiple times a day. The responsibility is on everybody.

      WOLF: Do pilots face the same sort of difficult lifestyle we’ve been hearing about for train operators?

      MUNTEAN: There’s a ton of regulation that protects pilots. We see that occasionally getting better. Even flight attendants have gotten longer rest rules recently, where they’re able to rest between trips for a longer period of time.

      There’s always friction between organized labor, work groups and the companies that they work for. A lot of times it comes down to regulators and what they are able to do for workers. Pretty much every major airline right now – their pilot groups, as well as a lot of major flight attendant groups – are going through contract negotiations with their companies.

      Some of the safety and protection, unions would say, comes from a good deal that protects not only their ability to work but also keeps pilots and passengers safe. Organized labor and unions have a lot to say about this, and they want to make sure that they are treated fairly to make it so that these incidents don’t happen.

      I just talked to Dennis Tajer, who’s the representative of the Allied Pilots Association, which represents all the American Airlines pilots, and he said this is something that we’ve kind of been pounding our fists on the podium about, we’ve said for about a year that the air traffic system and the aviation system and the airline system are just under too much pressure, and now you’re seeing the result of that.

      It’s on not only regulators like the FAA, the Department of Transportation but also companies to make sure that these major airlines – which are huge corporations – to make sure that their pilots are safe and doing the job properly with the proper amount of rest, with the proper amount of resources.

      WOLF: Right. It’s in nobody’s interest for there to be an incident.

      MUNTEAN: Everyone says safety is a top priority, of course.

      But depending on your viewpoint, safety can have a lot of different meanings.

      WOLF: It’s always been my sense that air traffic is one of the most, if not the most, government-regulated systems in the country. Unlike other areas where there might be a move toward deregulation, this is something the government controls and is going to continue to control.

      MUNTEAN: It’s super regulated because a lot of the rules are, frankly, written in blood.

      When you talk about this runway incursion issue, the landmark case is the Tenerife accident (in 1977), where KLM and Pan Am 747s that both diverted to Tenerife, an island near Spain, ran into one another and killed a bunch of people. There were some survivors, but it was a classic runway incursion incident.

      One of the airplanes was back taxiing down the runway, as the KLM crew essentially blasted off without regard for where the other airplane was. They couldn’t see it because the weather was poor.

      These regulations are often born out of horrible disasters. And I think the thing to point out here is that we have avoided disaster in these six cases, but in some cases came pretty close. It underscores why things were so regulated and also why the regulators are taking this so seriously.

      WOLF: What are you looking out for?

      MUNTEAN: I would point out these things are still under investigation. And the National Transportation Safety Board has tried to shed a lot of light on this issue. I asked Jennifer Homendy, the chair of the NTSB, why do you think these things are happening more?

      She said, well, it’s possible that these things are happening more. It’s also possible that these things are getting more attention. It doesn’t matter; it’s good that these things are being brought to the spotlight.

      That could ultimately have a huge impact on safety. Aviation is not waiting for another Tenerife. They’re taking these one-off scares and really trying to learn from them.

      WOLF: You sound very passionate about all of this.

      MUNTEAN: I love flying more than anything. The cool part of my job is I get to talk about aviation for a living, and it’s something I’m so passionate about.

      I also instruct and teach people. I just came back from this incredible trip in Kenya where I got to instruct for the Kenya Wildlife Service Airwing, flying with essentially rangers, who are also pilots, with an anti-poaching air force.

      And that was just incredibly cool, but the focus is safety. Maybe I’m a little biased, but aviation is just like something I always geek out on. It’s fun to talk about. …

      I was invited with a group of instructors to go there, and we were in a national park south of Nairobi, called Tsavo West. We flew with 19 different pilots. Three instructors from the States essentially go down and audit their flying ability and safety.

      They’re very, very good pilots. Because they fly at a few hundred feet, guarding against poachers and spotting wildlife, they don’t have a ton of margin for error. We did a lot of brush-up things with them, and they were all very appreciative, and it was a very cool and rewarding experience flying smaller airplanes.

      Those are the type of airplanes that are best suited for that mission, because they can fly low and slow and have a lot of visibility. You can’t do that in a jet.

      It’s sort of like flying into Jurassic Park, because you see elephants all the time, and we saw rhinos and more zebras than I can ever count, and giraffes. But these pilots do a really important job, and (it) was really cool to be a part of it.

      Source link

    5. Larry Page’s electric air taxi startup is winding down | CNN Business

      Larry Page’s electric air taxi startup is winding down | CNN Business



      CNN
       — 

      Kittyhawk, the electric air taxi startup backed by Google co-founder Larry Page, announced Wednesday that it plans to “wind down” operations.

      “We have made the decision to wind down Kittyhawk. We’re still working on the details of what’s next,” the company wrote in a brief statement shared on its LinkedIn and Twitter pages. Kittyhawk did not immediately respond to a request for further comment.

      Kittyhawk had the lofty mission of “building autonomous, affordable, ubiquitous and eco-conscious air taxis,” according to its website. It was founded by Sebastian Thrun, a former Google executive who led the company’s self-driving car efforts.

      The startup operated in secret until 2017, when it publicly unveiled its first aircraft — an ultralight electric plane dubbed Flyer that was designed to fly over water. Page, one of the world’s richest men, was said to have invested $100 million in flying car startups, including Kittyhawk.

      Flyer was ultimately retired in 2020, after more than 25,000 successful test flights, according to the company, and it reportedly laid off many of those who had been working on Flyer at the time. The company launched other electric aircraft prototypes and announced a partnership with Boeing in 2019.

      The shuttering of Kittyhawk will not impact its joint venture with Boeing, which has been dubbed Wisk. In a tweet, Wisk said that it remains “in a strong financial position,” with both Boeing and Kittyhawk as investors.

      Like Kittyhawk, Wisk is developing an “all-electric, self-flying air taxi” that it says “rises like a helicopter and flies like a plane,” according to its website. This “aircraft will remove the need for a runway and allow you to land where you need to be,” according to the company.

      Source link