>I highly doubt we will see electric powered aircrafts (bigger than small* experimental crafts) in our lifetimes.
The whole point of electrifying flight is that it makes small aircraft economical for airlines. The future of inter-city transport will be light aircraft with less than 20 passengers flying out of of small regional airports. Driving to LAX and waiting in security to get on a huge jet and fly for 90 minutes to SF sucks, but so does the drive. We're stuck with two terrible options there. Driving to a tiny airfield and hopping directly onto an electric plane that costs the price of a bus ticket will change everything about the way people live. They will never replace turbine engines for long haul routes, but the vast majority of commuter flights will be completely electric within 30 years.
The answer is - railway ;) . I doubt that small craft (any prop type) will ever be so quick overall - they are aircrafts and require all aircraft related checks and control, safety for passengers, safety from passengers etc. And about price I don't know, maybe it will be slightly cheaper than jets. So you'll have slightly cheaper businessjet prices, which are still astronomical.
Rail is an option in less developed countries, or places like Europe and Japan where the easements have existed for centuries. But building a new high-speed rail line in the US is basically a nonstarter at this point.
Electrified aviation will be more than 10x cheaper vs turbine based. Practically the entire cost of aviation is in the engine, with its' associated fuel logistics, maintenance requirements, and pilot training.
No, the longer we wait, the more expensive it will become. The population of the US is increasing and it's almost all going to cities. We should be building rail ASAP to meet the needs of now and the future.
Maybe we need federal legislation to make it less of a hassle to build a new rail line but we should focus on actually solving the problem. I don't see how thousands of 20-person electric airplanes is a scalable solution.
High-capacity / High-speed rail is a non-starter over low-capacity planes with a bunch of low-capacity airfields littering the country? Density is the future and a bunch of small electric planes will not come anywhere close to meeting the demands necessary.
It will take a lot longer than 30 years to develop and certify such aircraft, then build out the infrastructure. Small general aviation airports just aren't set up to handle a bunch of passengers. A minor decrease in fuel costs won't have a transformational effect. And passenger security screening will still be required.
Flights are cheap because airlines cram hundreds of people into a huge plane. That's the only way jet travel is economical; small jets are incredibly expensive to operate by comparison. The entire need for security arises from the fact that you are being put in a massive plane with hundreds of other people. If you make light aircraft travel economical, you get rid of the need for security as well.
The whole point of electrifying flight is that it makes small aircraft economical for airlines. The future of inter-city transport will be light aircraft with less than 20 passengers flying out of of small regional airports. Driving to LAX and waiting in security to get on a huge jet and fly for 90 minutes to SF sucks, but so does the drive. We're stuck with two terrible options there. Driving to a tiny airfield and hopping directly onto an electric plane that costs the price of a bus ticket will change everything about the way people live. They will never replace turbine engines for long haul routes, but the vast majority of commuter flights will be completely electric within 30 years.