This article is published in Business Aviation & AAM Report part of Aviation Week Intelligence Network (AWIN), and is complimentary through Nov 07, 2026. For information on becoming an AWIN Member to access more content like this, click here.

Vertical CEO Defends Progress As Financial Pressures Mount

Vertical Valo
Credit: Vertical Aerospace

Vertical Aerospace CEO Stuart Simpson believes the stock market is overlooking the company's technical progress, even as financial difficulties raise questions about whether it can sustain the long road toward certification of its Valo electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing (eVTOL) air taxi.

In an interview with Aviation Week, Simpson highlighted piloted transition flights at July's Farnborough International Airshow, an approaching critical design review (CDR), and the appointment of former Airbus executive Fabrice Bregier as board chair as evidence of positive momentum.

“Everything we've said we'd do, we've done,” Simpson said. “We hit every milestone, and we've spent less money than we said. We will keep delivering on all our milestones.”

The path forward will not be easy. Vertical warned in an August interim financial filing of material uncertainty over its ability to continue as a going concern.

Without additional capital, the company expects existing liquidity and financing facilities to support operations through the third quarter of 2027, falling well short of a planned 2029 certification target.

The company said in September it has retained Jefferies to explore “strategic alternatives,” including potential partnerships.

On Oct. 2, Vertical also disclosed it had received a warning from the New York Stock Exchange after its shares fell below the $1-per-share minimum average closing price requirement. It has six months to regain compliance.

Since then, the stock has continued to nosedive, sinking below 50 cents for the first time on Oct. 13.

While Vertical has financing commitments, Simpson conceded the company is reluctant to draw heavily on its equity facilities at the currently depressed share price.

“We can realistically access as many as we want because it's there, it's committed," Simpson said. "The issue is more about dilution. Like, do we really want to access at this point?”

Ben Goldstein

Based in Rhode Island, Ben covers advanced air mobility and is a contributor to Aviation Week’s Business Aviation & AAM Report.

Comments

1 Comment
I'd never fly in one of those things. Lose a motor or if a battery has an internal short, there will be one heck of a big fire! I sure as heck wouldn't want to be onboard. I flew high-powered electric R/C models back in the day and saw the above failures. Losing a motor in a powered sailplane was no big deal. Just glide in for a landing. Battery fire would melt plastic and light balsa and plywood on fire! Been there done that. Then there is charging. Fast charging WILL NOT bring a pack up to 100% charge and shortens battery life. That is a given. Trying to get electrics to carry passengers I think is a stupid waste of money and would never invest in a business like that. A short full charge turnaround is just impossible. Plus will likely have to run 100's of amps into a motor. Shoot my little motors would draw 25 to 35 amps off small packs on a meter during ground testing and only had 5 to 7 minutes flying time on a pack. I would let my packs cool down and sit for a week before charging up again. That greatly preserved battery pack life. Eventually, they wouldn't hold a charge anymore. When a pack would die in a full sized craft, it would likely be junked entirely as the batteries would cost more than the airframe to replace!! Full sized electrics are a stupid concept. Play with it if they like but will never be practical unless battery weight goes down, life goes up and charging technology becomes as good a filling tanks with JP4!!!