Look at the history of airline labor purchasing behavior. They will push for this. First spot will be four crew to three. And cargo. It’ll take a few years to sort it out. Single pilot ops is the straw-man monster. 2.75 pilot ops is the problem. If the airlines can turn a “2 hours too long for two-crew” into a two-hours of single pilot cruise… that’s a win

If you give much thought to it at all, you'll come to realize if you need one pilot, you need two. I don't see single pilot ops ever being a thing in transport category aircraft.

That said, I do think technology will get to a point where no pilot is required. I'm certain I'll at least be retired (if not dead) by the time the tech arrives and all the FAA red tape is done so I don't lose any sleep over it.

Agree 100%

Also we are all forgetting that the flying public will have zero interest in being a passenger with no pilots.

Single pilot tosses out decades of what we know about CRM.

No pilots is a cyber security issue. Half of our nation’s infrastructure is getting hacked daily. With the weaponization of airplanes the risk of a hack is far too high. There is no scenario in this generation where they get the hacking problem solved. In fact it’s only going to get worse.

Here are two real questions you must ask yourself.

Will pilots be willing to sign an LOA ... For let’s say 40 to 50% reduction in pay and maybe some retirement in exchange for another guarantee 10 years of employment.

OR...

another question we could ask pilots at every airline. are you ready for “Doomsday action”. The day one airline tries to bring that (type of plane)onto their fleet...Is every unionized pilot ready to walk out on an illegal strike to save our entire industry...yes... that means every pilot.

bringing in new type of airplane takes years to fulfill your fleet. go on strike and shut down the entire flying across the nation you’re going to have lots of leverage.


All this assuming you are the type thinking it gets to that point

What say you?

Do the math, pilot pay is a rounding error in the cost of running an airline.

The airlines would have to dramatically incentivize pilot retention due to the very long ROI timeline once you commit to training and dues-paying.

Otherwise the pilot supply pipeline would stop instantly as soon as anyone makes a plausible move to develop an unmanned airliner. Even a single-pilot airliner would have a chilling effect on training starts. So there would be this "valley of death", about a couple decades long, where airlines would have to somehow incentivize people to take the plunge and remain at the wheel (instead of pursuing new careers). EVERYBODY from PPL up knows that this is a long game for pilots. Airlines would probably have to guarantee a long period of employment and/or a great severance package to get anyone to sign up, and to retain the younger folks. Probably a generous retirement or huge lump sum, with eligibility at age 65 or when displaced by automation, sooner of the two.

Garmin recently certified a full auto-descent and auto-land system on the Piper M600 single-engine turbine. I flew one not long ago. Press just one button and the aircraft will descend from the flight levels, avoid traffic, avoid weather to the extent possible, broadcast automated messages to ATC, and land itself at the nearest suitable airport, taking into account things like weather, runway length, and so on It's astonishingly good.

​​​​​​Systems like these won't replace pilots, but they certainly make it a lot easier for the sort of ops Cathay is considering to be approved/ certified.

Kinda spooky actually, watching the SLS (Piper's name for the system) do its thing.

So question, who has right of way at an uncontrolled field? The auto-Piper or the Debonair flown by the 74 year old man wearing an “I’d rather be FLYING” hat?

I’d normally say the aircraft with the disabled pilot, squawking 7700, and making automated distress calls on CTAF has the right of way. But perhaps the hat worn by the Debonair pilot changes things?