> If it's cheaper they should say

I think you would be pleased at the very first selling points on their website, as well as on the product page. It seems they have at least considered the most obvious issue in their product space.

It might be cheaper when internalizing the externalities of CO2 emissions. Once/If we start properly taxing the impact of these emissions, this plane could offer much cheaper flights then fossil fuel driven competition.

Island hoppers?

Very few highways between the Hawaiian islands. Or Caribbean. Probably plenty of other places.

There are tons of places in the world with short haul flights today, even if good highways exist.

Every one of those planes is a potential target for replacement.

You’re arguing most short haul flights shouldn’t exist. Maybe do, but they do.

I mean, for the all-electric distances it's pretty much a given that it's cheaper: fuel consumed is the largest item on airlines' expenditure. The bigger question is at what distance you start having to burn more fuel than if you weren't lugging batteries round with you. If it's [eventually] commercially competitive at 400m range it's going to be useful on a variety of routes currently operated by ATR-42s and Saab 340s etc, the sort of thing that's definitely not operated by 40 year old 9-seaters. If it isn't... well islands still exist, they're just a fairly small niche