Try start with https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... observing the strange title where the authors seems to be more preoccupied about how to convince people switching to such system than it's technical feasibility and economical feasibility on scale. Than observe that's declared "urban" but obviously it's best suited for spread areas, as ALL demos of the few commercial tools on sales show (start with the oldest on sale, the "Jetson one") try skimming news to discover that various actor have bought small lot of them, meaning there is a nascent even if so far very small market and yes it's possible. So far the main issues we have are:

- classic planes are on par with cars for very short flight, offer much bigger fuel economy for longer ones, but obviously need MUCH space for practical use, even for the "shortest" STOL, otherwise;

- ...choppers and alike consume MUCH more than cars. Enough to be too much to use for all on scale.

However many observe that the immense and largely ignored costs of big buildings and their infra + renewable progress and nuclear comeback will offer enough to sustain such system and flying stuff last for 50+ years (except the battery of eVTOL so far). Long story short: we are switching form a heavy society to a light one, able to do most of the move by air, goods included, and as much as local productions as possible, knowing that in a changing world we can't maintain roads and rails because no one know what happen next in a relatively short timeframe not only in climate terms but also in human wars terms. Essentially we need to be much more resilient, semi-autonomous, and that's incompatible with cities and their needed infra.

Of course to be realistic those who have realized that needs, also understand that so far we have no general solution, so they prefer having the people partitioned in "disposable factory units", disposable also in humans, used to create such new world while being tied in 15'-cities without any personal means able to move them for longer distance.

So far most call such crude distopic scenario a fantasy but a small step at a time the fantasy will be reality. People in many moment of the history have not moved at all except traders and ruling class or soldiers for a war. So yes, people need to move to live well, but not to live. Only goods need to move: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/trade-and-travel-time-epidemi... and https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/commute-time-savings-when-wor... also people aggregated in small not much dense areas still need a dentist, to eat and so on, meaning that such non-remote activities could be done in such areas from home anyway, the dentist have hes/her clinic on one side of hes/her land, the home on the other, the public laundry similarly it's in the basement while the owner live at the first floor. Accidentally this is the very same description of efficient cities by Strong Towns, only for moving in the modern world instead of in the ancient one. If you really try to compute such scenario you'll see that we are probably much far than the McKinsey report BUT not that far and yes it's perfectly feasible. The point is where you want to be, between the disposable humans in modern lager-camps named cities or between the Citizens outside.