Not even remotely...his comment was right on the money. Airbus has offered and has the technology to build and deliver aircraft that are 100% automated. Thus far, no carrier has been interested in buying one. But that is only a matter of time. When the public at large can handle pilot-less airliners believe me...they'll be flying on one. In the US we are at most 5 years away from a consumer being able to purchase a self-driving car. Once that technology becomes widespread and the public has adjusted their perception of being chauffeured around by a computer it's just not that much of a stretch from self-driving car passenger to pilot-less airplane passenger.

Look at this economically, for the sake of argument if a startup airline began offering round trip tickets from NY to LA for $150 but on a pilot-less aircraft do you really believe they won't fill seats? I'm not saying those numbers are accurate insofar as ticket pricing but the airlines, ESPECIALLY, the cargo companies are salivating at the prospect of doing away with pilot salaries and labor issues.

 

You're vastly overstating the viability of pilotless airliners. That is a loooooong ways off. There's not even a push for single pilot airliners or freighters. Heck, the cargo airlines continue to utilize 3 pilot machines.

I do think autopilots for cars are very close to entering the general market, though.

 

No...I'm not. There were numerous articles last years in the trade magazines regarding Airbus's offer to build 100% automated airframes.

Here's one..I'm too lazy to dig up more: LINK

You vastly underestimate where the technology actually is because you don't want it to be true. Neither do I. You have to put your ego aside and realize that our trade is getting dumbed down and whittled down. I have an ego to. After nearly 2 decades of flying professionally it was difficult for me to admit where technology is going and where it is as well. A year ago I would have agreed with you and argued your point for you. But I read up on it bound and determined to prove a friend(an aerospace engineer) wrong. Automation is taking over. If you really don't believe that the technology isn't there yet you just aren't paying attention just like I wasn't. This is happening, we all need to come to peace with it. Though I don't think anyone flying today will loose a job to "George" outright I do think some sectors of flying particularly the cargo side will see "robot freighters" very soon.

The FAA is also running a study to determine the near term viability of requiring auto-land to be used over hand flying if so equipped. We are in an interesting period. There will be rapid changes in technology that we never saw coming implmented virtually "overnight" througout the next few decades in all walks of life and business.

 

Yes the technology exists....today. However what is the benefit of removing the pilot from the vehicle. In military applications it makes sense because you increase your loiter time and remove the possibility of giving up a pilot to the enemy if he gets shot down.

None of that applies to the airline sector. So what would be the benefit of removing the pilot? Airlines don't have to pay him or her? You would still need someone to monitor they just would not be on the vehicle. Does not make sense to remove the pilot.

That being said, you could easily make the argument for less pay because less skill is required.

Trains still have engineers and you could have automated that decades ago.

 

Those articles tend to overstate things to promote the technology. The real world viability of it is not there, despite the technology being available. Like I said, the actual implementation has proven otherwise. You mentioned robot freights, but look at what the freighters actually do- they continue to run 3 pilot airliners.

As far as autolands being required, that's downright laughable. Autolands are sloppy and highly limited in windy conditions.

 

Not to mention that the FAA has actually been swinging the other way, encouraging pilots to hand fly more as they've become increasingly concerned about the deterioration of manual skills - see SAFO 13002 issued this January.

 

Look, you guys are preaching to the choir here. But, and I mean this with the highest respect for my fellow pilots, you guys are in a bit of denial. Your points are all fair, quite poignant, concise, spot on but they are heavily biased and unfortunately irrelevant. Take your potential job loss out of the picture, remove your perspective and look at it from the pov of an airline CEO. I'm with you guys, but you are not addressing the primary driving force toward cockpit automation:

$$$$ Cha Ching!!!!

If you don't believe that airline CEO's and BOD's aren't salivating at the chance to replace pilots with Windows 20 then well...dare I say they got you fooled. Think about it, how wise would it be for say Doug Parker to publicly acknowledge a corporate policy towards acquiring pilot-less aircraft once the tech is completely viable? Airbus has not put a huge amount of effort into maturing the technology because they have no takers on it. But that is not because no one wants them, it's because no airline wants to go out on that limb today. Parker would have his house stormed with pilots holding pitchforks and torches if he placed an oder for "George jets."

But some carrier, probably much sooner rather than later will bite. And that will be all it takes for Airbus to deal with the kinks...funding is everything with aviation tech development.

The fact that some cargo carriers still fly guys sideways is also irrelevant. Old technology will always co-exist side by side with the state of the art even at the same company. I.e. that United 787 sitting on a gate parked next to a 767-3 (yes I know the 76 has no FE but you see my point) in the same livery. That comparison is meaningless. It's all about the economics. No company will park old planes overnight in lieu of new ones. Fleet integration is a never ending process of airframe renewal and timeout. Most airlines are equipped with the last 3 or 4 generations of technology at any given time.

 

The technology might be around the corner to allow for a pilotless airliner. However there is no computer technology to allow for hackers to not take control and start piloting an Airbus-391, 700 passenger jet, straight into the ground.

 

My point about the cargo carriers is that they have shown over and over again that they will buy cheaper, older aircraft in lieu of new technology. Case in point: FDX is replacing 40+ year old 727s with 20+year old 757s.

On the economics: it is (and will continue to be for some time) much more expensive to operate drone technology than a manned aircraft. They are becoming popular in the military because of the extended loiter time capability and when one get's shot down no one dies. The next generation of fighters will likely not have pilots.

Notice how even in the military, there is no plan to replace the pilots in the non-combat aircraft.

Engineers love to tout being able to replace pilots, but the economics of it and the actual moves being made by airlines and militaries don't back that up at all.

 

The technology is there, but as said before, it can't be secured. That means it's a no-go, end of story.