You don't have the big picture...I can't cite enough sources to give you decades of education and industry experience.
I've been involved with RPA/UAV operations for the Air Force now for almost three years. You sir are the one with your "head in the sand". If you'd like, PM me that you'd like to discuss the topic further over the phone and I can offer you my number. Nobody is advocating this is happening tomorrow, but for you to constantly take the stance it'll never happen, or never has even the most remote possibility of happening, is truly the one "at a loss" in this conversation.
That's plausible if rest requirements are met.
Thank you for finally "walking towards the light". After taking the position the last seven pages about the thought itself being impossible, you come to the conclusion that, yes, "remote ops with a reduced person crew" could see the light, sometime in the future. Thank you again for "opening your eyes".
THIS IS NOT PLAUSIBLE! THIS IS WHAT YOU DON'T GET! "UAV TYPE CAPABILITIES" WILL GUARANTEE NUMEROUS CATASTROPHIC, FATAL ACCIDENTS ! THE USAF HAS LOST 50% OF THE PREDS TO NON_COMBAT ACCIDENTS! EXISTING UAV TECHNOLOGY WILL NOT WORK FOR AIRLINERS! YOU NEED NEW, BETTER, FAR MORE EXPENSIVE TECHNOLOGY!
You know of not what you talk, "and that's all I got to say about that". (In my best Forest Gump impression.) Either lay off the caffeine, or remember to look at the screen every so often to see that you're typing with ALL CAPS LOCKS ON. Very annoying man, grow up.
The odds of both pilots keeling over is statistically low enough that the FAA is OK with it. It has never happened during the jet age that I am aware of.
The FAA is OK with both pilots becoming incapacitated in flight? Really? Shoot, then why in the heck those "pesky" regulations about me wearing my oxygen mask above certain altitudes when the other pilot leaves the flightdeck? 
Why even take a flight physical anymore if the FAA is ok with losing two pilots in flight, but not one and having the back-up of a machine? Better yet. You know what's considered an adequate source of navigation and airplane control during single pilot Part 135 operations? ...................That's right Johhny, you win the prize.......it's THE AUTOPILOT!!!
They can't do ANYTHING tomorrow, it would take decades. But the real question is why would they do it??? Who's paying, and why?
Why would a contractor make money building something for the government or private sector? Why? I only have two responses to that, and if you'd like, feel free to google them after this schooling. HALLIBURTON & KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT. (Caps Locks intended for effect.)
YES, THEY ARE "EXPENDABLE"...do you not even understand the current regulatory structure of the industry you are in???
SINGLE PILOT 91/135 OPS ARE ALLOWED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SOMEONE CHARTERING AN AIRPLANE KNOWS WHAT HE'S GETTING INTO!
Ludicrous statement and EPIC FAIL at best to discuss the issue at hand. Thank you, move along, nothing to see here.
The general public (part 121) on the other hand, is not "informed" and has to have everything taken care of for them.
Oh yeah, and after 10,000 posts you have got to be near the top as far as talking a lot about things which you do not and apparently cannot fully comprehend.
That right there is the Pot calling the Kettle black. Again, PM me if you'd like to be proven wrong over the phone too.
I'm not going to feed this troll anymore. Bur either way, we'll know for sue in 20 years. Out.
Assuming your on "blood pressure" medication, no? If not, might want to be tested for hypertension because you're becoming far too melodramatic for a simple discussion about future possibilities. Enjoy the Collins line in the CRJ's.