Yeah, and we'll be out of a job Scotty.

 

cluebird sez: "google zapmail"

 

Before the FAA allows UAV airliners to begin service, they'll demand to see a great many hours of "proving flights" in airplanes which have both the robot system and safety pilots on board. Then the manufacturers will have to convince airline CEOs that the system will save money, and do so quickly, not just in the long run. (Today's revolving-door executives aren't interested in the long run.) Then the airlines will have to see if customers, regardless of what they might say now, will actually book flights on UAVs.
Until all of these things happen, such airliners are just a dream.

 

HA! Nice one..........

 

A few years back, the FAA seemed ready to allow controlled cockpit napping by one crewmember in cruise. Crews like the idea of sanctioning what they were already doing anyway. Airlines liked the idea because they wouldn't have to hire new crewmembers if different rest rules were implemented. All the players were onboard.

Then the MSM got a hold of the story, the flying public was outraged, and the idea vaporized almost overnight.

Wonder what the MSM will do with the concept of UAV transports, pax or freighters?

 

I got a CSX freight line runs right by my subdivision. Those trains have a three-man crew. When they start whittling them down I'll get worried.

 

I think it's likely, but I also think we're looking at a 20-25 year time-frame. There are a LOT of airframes out there that have many more years on them.

 

Systems evolve along a cost/benefit line that eventually finds a minimum cost for maximum productivity.

Think about autos. It would be quite easy to automate cars in the U.S., especially on interstates. It's been predicted all my life. Yet it is not anywhere near happening. The technology is there, but the cost/benefit doesn't add up.

If you're just fully automating an existing airframe, you'd save the cost of the crew. The dirty little secret is that crew costs are 5% or less of direct operating costs. So the automation and infrastructure would have to be cheaper than 5%. It won't even come close.

As for a new airframe, you're talking about a 787-size development program. Billions upon billions of dollars. All for the scant economic advantage of not having a crew. It just doesn't add up.

These theories always come from military guys (former, in this case - now FAA). I've never heard anyone in the commercial aviation industry talk about this.

 

Zap Mail, part deux

 

Let's not forget about all of the pilot shortages that have been predicted. I believe we were to have 3 since I started flying in 1977 and I have yet seen one come to fruition here in the USA.