CNN Money Article on Pilotless Planes...
 

Pilotless planes could save airlines billions. But would anyone fly? - Aug. 7, 2017

Taking pilots out of the cockpit could save airlines billions. But would anyone buy a ticket?
The aviation industry could save $35 billion a year by moving to pilotless planes, according to a new report from UBS. Just one problem: The same report warns that only 17% of travelers are willing to fly without a pilot.
UBS said that the technology required to operate remote-controlled planes could appear by 2025. Further advances beyond 2030 might result in automated business jets and helicopters, and finally commercial aircraft without pilots. [read more]

I could never see there being fully automated planes. There will always be a pilot, even with all these people talking about cargo companies using fully automated planes, What happens if something goes wrong the computer cant fix and the plane ends up in a neighborhood instead of a grass field 2 miles the other way?

This is one of the questions no advocate of "pilotless" planes can answer.

Agreed and agreed. However, the fact that airlines and aircraft manufacturers are pursuing it with vigor means a lot.

I guess in CEO's eyes, money is more important than people.....:rolleyes:

Which airlines are persuing it? Last time I checked every Airbus and Boeing ordered has 2 pilots in their cockpits. We are still flying 40 year old technology, and there has been no talk of the next Boeing or Airbus having less than 2 pilots.

When have commercial aircraft manufacturers not based their products on what the airlines want? Previous articles have mentioned it, but very quietly.

What ever supposed savings could be made by flying without pilots would soon be lost by a downfall in cash flow due to the theoretical 83% of people who would choose not to fly on a pilotless plane...Also unlikely that much of the savings from having no pilots would result in a dramatically lower ticket price.

Might see single pilot airliners at some stage, the job might change a bit, but i wouldn't be too worried of a pilotless jet if i was in the shoes of a new pilot starting out today.

With all the talk by the techies that 50% of jobs or whatever the number will be replaced by robots in the next however many of years. It'd be more likely that pilots and airline staff would lose to jobs to airline revenue decreasing due to mass unemployment-no disposable income for holidays/airline tickets- layoffs at the airlines, which then comes around full circle with the question being asked- whats the point of automating most jobs anyway when people end up having less and eventually no money to spend?.

CNN said yesterday that a B1B could fly as high as 30,000 ft. so there is that.

I'm a bit late to the party on this thread.

The public will go wherever the cheapest flights are. They'll soon forget about the lack of pilots up front if it saves them a few dollars.

Of course the irony of the CNN article is that pilotless aircraft won't be cheaper. Why are Airbus and Boeing still using a lot of 60s and 70s technology on their aircraft? The answer is that it is prohibitively expensive to get the new technology through the regulators approval processes.

Then there is the issue of liability. Pilotless aircraft are every ambulance chasing lawyer's wet dream. Us pilots are quite handy scapegoats when an aircraft goes down in the ocean, but what if the aircraft is pilotless? Who takes the wrap then? The media and lawyers want a scalp when there is an air crash, so they'll come after airline management or the aircraft manufacturer management.

I think what we are more likely to see is much greater levels of automation, overseen by pilots on ever decreasing wages, and receiving less and less training.