This is one of the primary reasons I've bought into the eVTOL revolution. I'm also skeptical about these filling city skies, due to safety, noise pollution, etc. But the market for emergency and special purpose vehicles alone is enormous.

The US market size for existing _air_ ambulances is itself $4.5 billion dollars annually. The market size for standard ambulances is nearly 10x that.

When you expand this to the rest of the world, you can easily see a 100+ billion market for these sorts of vehicles, whether in ambulance services, firefighting, agricultural, or any number of other activities.

It's still possible we develop near-to-city eVTOL airport systems for short distance travel. But even absent that, I still think there's a big market opportunity.

For critical patients helicopters are already used. For patients who need to get to a hospital but are short-term in stable condition, is the extra expense of an air ambulance justified, in a health care system that is already unaffordable?

> For critical patients helicopters are already used.

I'm sure they are used based on a cost/benefit calculation - not everyone gets them. If eVTOL reduces the cost, many more can benefit, or those funds can be shifted to something else.

The ability to replace road ambulances is, I think, inherently a cost claim. After all, capability is already solved with, as you say, helicopters.

I keep thinking remotely controlled cargo operations, especially around bad terrain and difficult water features. Great for proving design and catching bugs for initial years.