Maybe the .001% of people in the world market, and even then, of those people, approximately a much smaller amount would be capable of flying such a vehicle properly. They might be financially able to purchase, but will they be competent enough not to crash it within the first month? I seem to recall Dodge Vipers being notorious for being crashed within the first week of ownership due to lack of proper training (which was subsequently provided in advance of delivery IIRC). We're talking airplanes here.
Obviously the FAA doesn't control global airspace, as evidenced by a Malaysia Air passenger jet flying over an active combat zone and being shot out of the sky by a SAM. Sometimes the FAA does good work. Sometimes not, but it's definitely the foremost "authority" in aviation.
It might imply that some would be autonomous, but that's not a genuine "flying car" now is it? It's an "autonomous passenger transport pod" that could describe anything from a hyperloop to an automated self-propelled wheelchair. All this dancing around to try and make it seem like the idea isn't a fool's errand is interesting, I will grant that.
That's fine, you can use whatever inaccurate terms you'd like but I won't share that approach.
Personally, having grown up in an aviation family and being a studied gear-head, I simply don't share your confidence that individual control is inferior to automation at the root. In fact, I think until AI is comparable to the human brain, arguing that automation and programming is better is wrong; moreover it's unsuitable for a conversation regarding powered flight is irresponsible. There are simply no technological systems which have proven themselves trustworthy - thus far, I concede - to being a replacement for the human brain and synapses.
I too believe that only a live, thinking animal beneath my flanks possess the sufficient intelligence to navigate the potholed streets of our fair city and that those trusting in cold hard iron are bound for a fool's errand. I am certain that this "automobile" is a fad that will in due time run it's course and that we will all be back to the trusty steed by decade's end.
We have machine operated lifts and trains, almost self driving cars, aircraft autopilots and having witnessed my own efforts at flying a plane I think a computer could quite likely do a safer job.
Oh really? Because there's a bunch of Air France wreckage just North of South America regarding a computer fuck-up that wasn't properly ajudicated by the pilots in command, which would have saved the passengers (as it had in other instances where the pilots saved the plane). That's just a high-profile one by pilots who were easily more qualified than you or I to be in charge of a major airliner.
It crashed because the pilots didn't know what they needed to know. That is not a computer fuck-up. Pretty bad example to pick when you're arguing against autopilot being superior to humans.
Obviously the FAA doesn't control global airspace, as evidenced by a Malaysia Air passenger jet flying over an active combat zone and being shot out of the sky by a SAM. Sometimes the FAA does good work. Sometimes not, but it's definitely the foremost "authority" in aviation.