sailingfun

It really does not matter if their are one, two ot three pilots onboard. If any of the two or three are mentally insane and want to cause a crash they can accomplish that quite easily.

rickair7777

On it's own merits, I tend to agree the juice is not worth the development squeeze for that market niche (especially with 321NEOLR coming).

But if it's the point of departure for a new FAMILY of aircraft, that might make more sense. There are rumblings to that effect. A twin-aisle upper-end "narrowbody" might make sense, given that the NMA fuselage is not a fat draggy widebody, but rather a hybrid double-bubble. Or they could just stick a narrow body on the design. That would cover the upper end of the NB market, they could let Embrear cover the bottom.

Hrkdrivr

Ref the remote backup pilot, I'm sure you've heard about crews who got no/little/inadequate help from a dispatcher when the weather was hitting the fan. Not enough dispatchers on shift for someone to help out.

How robust would remote pilot manning be? To save $$$, probably slim too.

Now when things go south, not only might you not have much help from the dispatcher, but "your" remote pilot might be too busy to take your call.

Two bodies at groundspeed zero with no skin in the game and only one in the cockpit? No thanks.

rickair7777

Oh I agree philosophically.

The real (economic) problem with one pilot on the ground is that the cost of the comms infrastructure (high-bandwidth, ultra reliable/redundant, likely sat AND ground based) would likely be more than the potential savings. Especially since you'd still need fully qualified pilots on the ground, if fewer of them. How many fewer would be debatable. 1 for 2? 1 for 10?

All these kinds of pilot replacement concepts require vastly expensive changes in the system. NOBODY (least of all airlines, who can't see beyond next quarter's earnings call) is going to invest massive sums in a crash program to solve a problem which doesn't really exist. The government could do it in theory, but the urgent elimination of a small handful of good paying union jobs (at great expense and risk to voters) is very, very low on their list of priorities... ie not on the list at all

Pilot automation, whatever it ends up looking like, will occur much as it always has: gradually and incrementally, in an evolutionary manner. Even a pilot shortage won't move it along faster... you can solve that by investing billions (probably hundreds of billions) in an automation manhattan project which will take decades to fruition... or just sponsor ab initio training and raise wages at the entry level. The later will have people lined up around the block tomorrow to sign up.

Mesabah

The thing that will really kill the NMA is the production volume. The engine is years away, but I can't imagine Boeing being able to produce these things at a price point that will compete with the A321XLR. I don't see airlines being able to invest in an aircraft, that the ROI doesn't happen for more than a decade. Airlines will have to buy these aircraft on passenger comfort alone, and sell the seats at a loss to compete with the long range narrowbody.

rickair7777

Boeing's not stupid. Either the math will work, or they won't launch it. But like I said, they may be considering things we don't know about (I'm sure they are to have gotten even this far).

atpcliff

Pax High speed rail is only efficient out to about 650 miles, then aircraft are more efficient...with current technology.
Ships are the most efficient for freight. Over land, rail freight is the most efficient.

Automobiles are efficient to about 150 miles, that is one of the reasons that US transportation efficiency is suffering...not enough high speed rail for pax, not enough freight rail, and too many trucks/autos.

BoilerUP

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/20/boei...-on-board.html

But in a statement provided to CNBC late Monday, Boeing said the NMA was not a plane that would herald a technological revolution.

“We remain focused on executing on our commitments, including evaluating the business case for the NMA. With that said, should we launch, the NMA flight deck is being designed for two pilots and we’ve been consistent that we don’t see NMA as a technology push airplane,” it read.

Back2future

The current cycle of negotiations is probably the last chance for pilots to slip in “X number of pilots in the cockpit” language. Hopefully our unions are up to the task.

rickair7777

Management would love that. Free negotiating capital for something which would never affect them personally. Way too soon IMO.

And if it comes to that, trying to indefinitely stall inevitable technological progress is a losing battle. Better to have language that simply ensures full pay to age 65 for pilots displaced by automation. Airlines will need to do that anyway, otherwise nobody in their right mind would invest in the training and dues paying to get into the career. They'll have to bridge the valley once it becomes obvious that there's a realistic timeline for the deployment of significant automation.