Originally Posted by
Grumble
So are you advocating on say a LAX-Sydney leg, the crew gets up, goes in the back, and turns the jet over to someone remotely?
Yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about, because that is exactly what companies are working towards as we discuss this subject.
Not only do you still have to hire and pay people to fill that remote seat,
at a significantly reduced pay rate than what a 777 guy is making or should be making but now you have the added cost and expense of not only the facilities and equipment but the people to maintain them as well.
Minimal compared to current or HOPEFULLY future payrates for WB pilots So you're putting in place an even bigger more expensive, possibly less reliable system.... all to save one or two relief pilots?
Amortized over a decade, with the ROI being the same, it's not my belief that it'd be viewed as cost prohibitive?
Do you work on the side writing the Presidents budget proposals too?
Ok, the Presidents budget proposals comment was funny, only because of the emoticon behind it though. (would've taken it as a "low blow" without the funny face) "I work for our Commander-In-Chief, I don't have to "agree with his policies".
I don't "disagree" with your assessment of initial costs being "cost prohibitive", but you should know as well as anyone, (assuming you're either in the military now, or military retired) that something cost prohibitive today is a "contractor's best deal" tomorrow.
Forgot to Bid posted the "economics" of reducing the amount of "pilots in the cockpit". I can't find those numbers, but to think that a Ground Control Station (GCS) having the ability to operate not only one, buy a myriad of unmanned assets at one time (technology available today) isn't "spreading the cost" and making it a viable solution would be turning a blind eye to something that could very easily become a reality in the next decade or two.
Good thoughts/discussion,
GJ