Seems like a poor risk/benefit area to cut costs.
Compared to the expense of operating a jet liner, what fraction could the salary for a second pilot add? A fraction of a percent?
Simple
Design and certify aircraft. Set route/ticket price.
See how many passengers board
Market will determine success
You may be more correct than you realize. No one has mentioned insurance cost. When a company I flew for got a CJ on the certificate, the insurance cost to operate that plane single pilot was so high, the cost was the same as paying for the salary of a copilot. The company went with flying the CJ with 2 pilots to reduce the insurance cost. I’ll believe airlines will go to single pilot ops when I hear insurance companies say they will cover that. Not holding my breath on that happening in my lifetime.
If it’s only about money, and you find that objectionable, will you pay for all the second pilots? It’s only money?
I know this is a common attack, but it’s really silly. All businesses are constantly trying to become more efficient. It’s not greed, it’s business.
I doubt you worked for free your entire life. You just did it for the money? It was therefore wrong if you to have worked?
The price of the second pilot with all the overhead keeps going up and up. If you knew what a pilot actually cost, and how it’s increasing, you’d not have said what you did. You’d also easily bring in $300 an hour as a consultant. I’ve never met an employer who actually knew what his employees were really, truly costing them. What they do know is that number goes up all the time, and DC keeps adding more and more.
Until we vastly simplify employment laws and labor taxes, humans are going to increasingly face stiffer and stiffer competition from automation. Look at where all the capital is going. It’s going to companies with tiny work forces and big profits.
In the case of Air France 447, apparently there was no automation to continue control and execute the necessary emergency procedures with pitch and power when the primary automation disconnected. According to a documentary that I saw, test pilots for that aircraft type explained the emergency procedure was to set 5° pitch and 85% power using the backup instruments. That had to be handled manually by the pilot(s) and according to the documentary, it wasn’t done. It seems reasonable that newer algorithms could automatically control a similar emergency in the future without any input from the pilots.
Hmmm… Seems there might be a bit of protect good union jobs bias in both the association and commercial pilot responders. There have been too many unfortunate accidents with two qualified pilots aboard. Back in the railroad heyday, when the railroads tried to cut the number of conductors, brakemen, engineers, etc. the same biased insiders objected. They called it featherbedding.
You know Cargo flies CAO hazmat right over you, next to you, same runways, same airspace. All the while making much more $/#/mile.
It can afford 2 pilots, and you might want that.
Ding. And mamned and unmanned will not share the same under ATC- so call me when they flip the switch.
Yes, pilots are only a few percent of operating cost. But they’re also the only fraction that the airline can reduce. You can’t negotiate with the engines to burn less fuel…
By definition, every airline accident has had two or more pilots onboard, because there has never been a single pilot airliner. What we don’t know is the number of accidents that were prevented by having two pilots.
Wanna buy a bridge, troll;)?
You work in 4D, too, Dale?
Didn’t think so.
The featherbedding is between your ears.
I think n the last year several peoples have suddenly died, or become incapacitated…. So…. How will that work single pilot?
The automation will have to be fully capable of all phases of flight. The single pilot will be the backup.
Consider that the Garmin Autoland system is already in use. If the pilot becomes incapacitated during flight, a passenger simply pushes a button on the panel. The automation system does the rest, including communicating with ATC, to safely land the plane at the nearest suitable airport.
It is a little short sighted to think that in 10 to 15 years or so that automation systems can’t be developed that have the capability to safely conduct passenger flights, single pilot. I expect there will be more automation in the ATC system as well. The automated flight systems will communicate directly with the automated ATC system. The live controller will become the backup.
Eventually, the single pilot will no longer be needed. By then we each will have had so much experience with self-driving cars and trucks that a self-flying airplane won’t be so anxiety inducing.
A future passenger to passenger exchange on a scheduled flight might go something like this;
"Remember when flights were routinely delayed or cancelled because required flight crew were either delayed or exceeded work hour limitations?
“Yeah, not to mention the delays and cancellations due to the limitations of humans to manage the airspace system. Flying is so much easier now.”
My maxim about automated transportation on open systems (road and airways) in the civilian world is this:
If there is risk to serious injury or loss of life as a result of such transport, there must always be some person, who has the capacity to prevent injury or loss of life, who is also subjected to the consequences of an accident they have the power to prevent. I.e., if the “operator” is safe on the ground somewhere, unless forced by a military or totalitarian power, persons of free will won’t board.
Secondarily, my sense is that the insurance/legal world has a repulsion to the fact that a responsible person is not onboard, as this makes it much harder to assign liability.