Originally Posted by
Magpuller
Look, you guys are preaching to the choir here. But, and I mean this with the highest respect for my fellow pilots, you guys are in a bit of denial. Your points are all fair, quite poignant, concise, spot on but they are heavily biased and unfortunately irrelevant. Take your potential job loss out of the picture, remove your perspective and look at it from the pov of an airline CEO. I'm with you guys, but you are not addressing the primary driving force toward cockpit automation:
$$$$ Cha Ching!!!!
If you don't believe that airline CEO's and BOD's aren't salivating at the chance to replace pilots with Windows 20 then well...dare I say they got you fooled. Think about it, how wise would it be for say Doug Parker to publicly acknowledge a corporate policy towards acquiring pilot-less aircraft once the tech is completely viable? Airbus has not put a huge amount of effort into maturing the technology because they have no takers on it. But that is not because no one wants them, it's because no airline wants to go out on that limb today. Parker would have his house stormed with pilots holding pitchforks and torches if he placed an oder for "George jets."
But some carrier, probably much sooner rather than later will bite. And that will be all it takes for Airbus to deal with the kinks...funding is everything with aviation tech development.
The fact that some cargo carriers still fly guys sideways is also irrelevant. Old technology will always co-exist side by side with the state of the art even at the same company. I.e. that United 787 sitting on a gate parked next to a 767-3 (yes I know the 76 has no FE but you see my point) in the same livery. That comparison is meaningless. It's all about the economics. No company will park old planes overnight in lieu of new ones. Fleet integration is a never ending process of airframe renewal and timeout. Most airlines are equipped with the last 3 or 4 generations of technology at any given time.
My point about the cargo carriers is that they have shown over and over again that they will buy cheaper, older aircraft in lieu of new technology. Case in point: FDX is replacing 40+ year old 727s with 20+year old 757s.
On the economics: it is (and will continue to be for some time) much more expensive to operate drone technology than a manned aircraft. They are becoming popular in the military because of the extended loiter time capability and when one get's shot down no one dies. The next generation of fighters will likely not have pilots.
Notice how even in the military, there is no plan to replace the pilots in the non-combat aircraft.
Engineers love to tout being able to replace pilots, but the economics of it and the actual moves being made by airlines and militaries don't back that up at all.