Race to the bottom

[Zeta_Reticuli]

Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer

You could do the same by carving out 20% of middle management

As I have said many times before, the one role that should be replaced by automation/AI is management roles I cannot see how a computer could do a much worse job. Qf and Cx would be in a strong position right now had their management been automated...

[Chronic Snoozer]

Computers can’t chuck bags?

[Zeta_Reticuli]

Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer

Computers can’t chuck bags?

they wouldn't need computers for that had management been removed years ago...
reality is every business generally performs better when management isnt in sight. Management breed disgruntled staff and militants.

[Mach E Avelli]

Originally Posted by Buckshot

Even if technology can be developed for single pilot ops, how would it prevent hull losses such as MU5375, 4U9525, MI185, MS990 and possibly MH370?

It won't, and in fact makes it more likely. Unless there is some form of ground over ride for when our single pilot gets lonely up there and has a brain-fart.
Which is why I am happy to be the poster boy pax on the first pilot-less flight, once they get the technology bugs fixed. In my lifetime unlikely, but in the next quarter century, feasible.

[Lapon]

Originally Posted by Orange future

Im always interested to read this opinion, it pops up occasionally when discussing airline costs.

Do some simple maths. Multiply the average pilot wage by the number of pilots on the books and then project that out per annum for the life span of a pilotless aircraft.

Now name any airline that wouldn't rather see that money in the coffers instead of spent on labor that can be replaced even when controlled for the related infrastructure costs to support ground based control systems.

Those figures would look very impressive im sure.... until you compare them to every expense item on an airlines books.

Thats why alternative fuels are the bigger prize and the focus, not the already modest wages of a couple of people at the front of the tube.

[43Inches]

Airlines are too cost sensitive to focus on anything other than day to day business. New fuel sources, crew cost reductions, retrofitting technology, fleet replacement etc are all side projects being given time as time permits in varying amounts based on cost return over time. Usually this is all done by a third party, not the airlines them selves. However once one airline figures out a way to get something cheaper, or take advantage of new tech, it filters through the system very quickly, or is made law and has to be complied with. MPL is a good example of how regulators cave to perceived airline crew shortages, as they will also cave to allowing single pilot cruise in long haul, then cave to allow it lower as its proves safe until one day the whole flight is single pilot with HAL. This will happen quickly once the first step is taken and not take more than a decade to the finality. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not studied the history of changes in the airline industry.

WRT to Australia and its anti tech viewpoint, it has to make you laugh some of the antics. Australia was pretty much a laughing stock for converting 767 to have FE positions, Kendell wanted SAABs minus the autopilot, until SAAB said it would cost more to remove it, Easterns bought Dash 8s and elected to remove an FMS to save money and then found out the units were made to talk to each other which caused ongoing issues. If you want a real chuckle, some at Ansett were aiming for A320s with a FE station. Maybe history will repeat and we will be last to have single pilot cruise approved, however I'm thinking QF current management would definitely be the front lobbyist trying to drop a crew member if they could, especially from long haul, remembering that each crew has significant costs on international when you include allowances, accommodation etc etc...

PS the timeframe I'm talking of is from start to having an approved single pilot airliner in operation, not the whole world fleet going single pilot at once. Obviously that will take longer and some airlines will stick with old tech and wear the extra operational cost in lieu of higher capital cost. Rex will be still flying 2 pilot SAAB 340s in 2122.

[t_cas]

If anyone writing these comments had actually sat in the front of a modern jet and flown across the planet…. They would then realize how far away total automation is. Single pilot….. redundancy is there for a reason. Systems fail.

[vne165]

The only folks who imagine automation is just around the corner, are folks who have never tried to automate anything.

[josephfeatherweight]

I’m pretty confident that my job and that of the person who sits next to me, isn’t going to be replaced by HAL in my working lifetime and I’ve still got about 15 years to go…

[Zeta_Reticuli]

Originally Posted by vne165

The only folks who imagine automation is just around the corner, are folks who have never tried to automate anything.

43inches doesnt seem to understand this though...

[vne165]

Just trying to prevent things occupying the same space at the same time in a complex environment is a challenge, let alone at speed and with multiple variations in 3D movement paths.
Mostly it's a marketing pipedream.
Laughable really.

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by t_cas

If anyone writing these comments had actually sat in the front of a modern jet and flown across the planet…. They would then realize how far away total automation is. Single pilot….. redundancy is there for a reason. Systems fail.

And if you were really involved in medium to long haul aviation at present you would also know that controlled rest has been happening for years now, where one of two pilots sleeps in the cruise with only one awake. So single pilot operations is already a thing in low stress segments of the flight, and Jetstar does it. If an engine was to fail during a pilots sleep, how long do you think it will be before that pilot will be fully awake and 100% on the ball to assist. Airbus is now going a step further and moving the sleeping pilot out of the cockpit to the cabin under project connect, and removing a third pilot required for longer flights. So any of these ideas that pilot suicide/some form of accident is less or more likely because of automation, well, pilots are already flying solo now while the other sleeps.

Now that being said, the whole premise of Project Connect is to design the cockpit for single pilot operations if you read the brief. With sleep detection and alarm systems to wake the single pilot if they should nod off. Presently the Flight Attendant plays the sleep nanny with controlled rest, in-case the single flying pilot also nods off. And I have no doubt that part of the Airbus deal will either require some form of reserve pilot initially or remote control capability. This could be a lower paid grade of assist pilot like bare MCPL trained flight attendants in the flight deck for take of and landing etc... The idea is just that the automation can handle things until someone else can intervene, for now. All these ideas are already being circulated as ways to bridge between two full paid flight crew and a single pilot situation.

With the flight attendant scenario you lose a fully paid co-pilot but obviously pay the new crew position more, but overall there would be a large saving as they would be filling the role of pilot for take off and landing and flight attendant for duties outside that, including evacuation once cockpit actions have been completed. So you have still removed a crew member from the payroll.

[By George]

Boeing have had 'Pilot response required' EICAS message for decades. Works well.
I agree there is more automation on it's way but I still think completely automated aircraft are many years away. I have yet to see a computer that can think out of the box. Only the one between your ears works that way. Imagine a computer trying to save QF32. Dozens of ECAM messages, 21 out of 22 systems damaged. One ECAM message alone proves my point, 'FUEL WINGS NOT BALANCED' with the checklist commanding cross-feed to transfer fuel from the good side to the side with a major fuel leak. The QF crew quickly deciding that was not a good idea. Computers have their place and so do humans.
Interesting to watch automation confusion in the SIM with the pilot pressing buttons all over the place trying to get the bloody thing to do what he/she wants. There is room for improvement on both sides of the human/computer argument but I strongly believe in keeping humans in charge. An overnight with 'HAL' sounds like a very dull evening to me.

[Mach E Avelli]

AI is unlikely to completely control aircraft this century, but what might an airline pilot's life look like by 2050? In the role of UAV pilot it could mean:
* No more airline food
* A relaxation of medical standards - many conditions which ground pilots today won't matter, because pilots will be grounded anyway
* No more nervous walking the plank into full-motion simulators (managements will love getting rid of those costly things) - proficiency will be assessed at specialised fixed terminals
* No more airline food
* Far less fatigue - shifts won't be driven by the need to be on board for a whole 18 hour flight, but are more likely to be around 6 to 8 hours = longer healthier life
* No more pressure to stay on duty when feeling crook, because there is no reserve pilot down-route - a temporary relief pilot will be at the console next door and a replacement sitting at home an hour away
* No more waiting around for the crew shuttle bus in some sh!thole country - where the drive to the hotel is the most dangerous part of the job
* No more checking in to some sh!thole hotel in said sh!thole country - where if the food doesn't get you the bedbugs will
* No more divorces or sexual harassment claims because of what happened (allegedly of course) at the hotel room party
* Did I mention no more airline food = longer, healthier life

[Chronic Snoozer]

Originally Posted by Mach E Avelli

AI is unlikely to completely control aircraft this century, but what might an airline pilot's life look like by 2050? In the role of UAV pilot it could mean:
* No more airline food
* A relaxation of medical standards - many conditions which ground pilots today won't matter, because pilots will be grounded anyway
* No more nervous walking the plank into full-motion simulators (managements will love getting rid of those costly things) - proficiency will be assessed at specialised fixed terminals
* No more airline food
* Far less fatigue - shifts won't be driven by the need to be on board for a whole 18 hour flight, but are more likely to be around 6 to 8 hours = longer healthier life
* No more pressure to stay on duty when feeling crook, because there is no reserve pilot down-route - a temporary relief pilot will be at the console next door and a replacement sitting at home an hour away
* No more waiting around for the crew shuttle bus in some sh!thole country - where the drive to the hotel is the most dangerous part of the job
* No more checking in to some sh!thole hotel in said sh!thole country - where if the food doesn't get you the bedbugs will
* No more divorces or sexual harassment claims because of what happened (allegedly of course) at the hotel room party
* Did I mention no more airline food = longer, healthier life

No more radiation.

[Mach E Avelli]

I forgot : No more lining up at security behind a bunch of bogans bound for Bali.
Although if your gig is in the USA you will have to check in the assault rifle at the door - or leave it with the kids to take to school.

[tossbag]

Although if your gig is in the USA you will have to check in the assault rifle at the door

Look at the bright side, you can still take your handgun to work.

[Orange future]

Originally Posted by Lapon

Those figures would look very impressive im sure.... until you compare them to every expense item on an airlines books.

Thats why alternative fuels are the bigger prize and the focus, not the already modest wages of a couple of people at the front of the tube.

Labor is the most significant cost for an airline and one of the few that can be controlled.

The cost/productivity of labor is one of the few factors that airlines can control and is often the decider between profit and loss.

Sustainable Alternative Fuels (SAF) constitute around 0.1% of total jet fuel consumption world wide and presently SAF costs 2-3 times as much as jet fuel.

IATA expect SAF’s to increase to only 3% by 2030 and 50% by 2050 at which point its possible that SAF will become price competitive.

But for the foreseeable future, it is labor costs that airlines will be focusing on and reducing cockpit crew numbers will be a significant factor in this.

Both Boeing and Airbus have invested substantial amounts of money into research and development of single pilot and pilotless airliners. The single pilot or reduced crew cockpit will happen sooner than you think.

[Icarus2001]

Labor is the most significant cost for an airline and one of the few that can be controlled.

Where do you get that from? Crew costs are about 10-13% of operating costs.

[lucille]

Between ILS airport pairs, the technology has long been here to fully automate. Now consider the immense complications of the Tesla autopilots being able to manoeuvre in a totally random environment. In contrast, the aircraft autopilot in a highly controlled environment is simplistic. Check out the Piper M600 Emergency auto land by Garmin. I’m not even sure it needs an ILS to guide it to touchdown. All this in a tin pot GA single. Imagine what Airbus and Boeing could do if they put their minds to it.

Everything an airline pilot does is either rule driven or can be made rule driven. And thus ripe for automation.

Pilot salaries are merely an annoyance to management. Their biggest constraint is rostering and complying with those pesky flight and duty limitations. And this is why automation is inevitable.

On the positive side bush flying in PNG and offshore Heli ops will be the last to be pilotless.