SpecialTracking

The reason is that modern aircraft have double and triple redundancy. If a pilot is about to fly across the North Atlantic and given a choice of the plane with Satcom, a Rat, Standby Nav, and an operable APU, or one without, I'll guarantee he'll refuse the latter every time. If you start reducing redundancy via the MEL, the margin of safety is reduced as well. Pilots will always be needed when those systems are degraded in flight while operating in a dynamic arena.

You are confusing those who don't hand fly with technological advances in safety. The first is a matter of culture. The second is a result of the system built around us. New hires and those in transition naturally don't hand fly that much as they are still acquiring a certain level of comfort. That comes with time and the system they find themselves operating in. Some airlines hand fly more than others. Some require certain levels of automation while others leave it to the discretion of the pilot. The aviation system is built and stretched to such a level that certain systems are essentially required. Technology has taken over to allow such a aviation system. Yes Orville and Wilbur didn't have TCAS and Satcom, but they weren't avoiding V tail doctor killers in saturated airspace with inexperienced controllers or flying vast distances over oceans.

DaBest

OK, you have a choice; fly Guppy to HI or not.
During an interview, I'm sure you have told your recruiters that your prefer not to fly a Guppy over Pacific, that you prefer B747-400 or at minimum B777, for safety reason, and 48 hours layover in Maui for fatigue.

Level of comfort - Pitch and power for desire aircraft state is universal.
If you have interviewed here before 2015 you must have taken sim check, did you use autopilot to get comfortable for your flight evaluation?

Moder aircrafts (not to be confused with 1950s Guppy with LED) B773, B787, A320, A330, A350, A380, EMB17X, EMB14X, CL-XX, are build with systems so simplified a 10 year old child can operate, specifically focused on generation that grew up on PlayStation and Xbox, and underdeveloped countries with less skilled pilots. System knowledge and oral exams are virtually none existent, you no longer need to poses extensive knowledge of specific system, only operational. You can count on one hand the number of limitations you need to remember, and memory items don't even exist anymore - use iPad or (soon to be removed) QRH. Even starting engines is limited to finding the right button (set it and forget it) computer will take care of it. The concept of sit, don't touch anything, is getting more and more evident. It's a preamble to hiring operators not pilots. Lower complexity, requires less experience and less intellect, all of this to finally justify pay, and eventually engineering pilots out of the flight deck.
Take a look at drones technology, not classified USAF, but just toys or intermediate pro; how fast they becoming more and more simplified in technology; formation flying with sense and avoid, fix separation. It's all starts as a gimmick, art, then commercial utilization and implementation. Only fools don't care about the future.

So back to Guppy over Pacific; it poses a minimal system redundancy, proven to be reliable enough and certified by all governments. It's 75% recycle parts, making it super cheep to manufacture, cheep to operators. Crews are relatively inexpensive, all yielding good return on investment and making it one of the most economical A/C on the market. That all directly impacts UAL profitability and enough $$$ to hire more pilots to fly them.
If you are not comfortable flying Guppy over Pacific, don't fly it; fly different A/C or quit. I'm sure they will find 100s if not 1000s of new pilots willing to do that.
I never met a pilot candidate, who would complain about the fleet utilization before or during interview process, but there are 1000s of them after they get in.
Perhaps we should have a box with (Flying B737, A320/A321 over oceans is safe - YES, NO) on application, so next time you are not confused, what are you getting into.

Scrappy

You mean the same airplanes that Alaska is using daily on multiple routes to the islands doing extremely well? Oh yeah, that's abnormal.

bigfatdaddy

.......disagree

SpecialTracking

There's that thought about quitting again. It's been three to four years since I've started hearing people espouse that notion. I'm still trying to understand the value of saying it.

The concept is very simple. Technology drives safety. I'm sure it's efficacy is much stronger in third world markets but it still improves the margins here.

I see you believe in the trickle down business model where the $$$ flow into our pockets. I also gather that you are squarely in the "it's safe and legal" method of dispatch. Keep in mind that the Pilot has one trump card over everything else. A Pilot can decide and say no to the process unfolding in front of him. He can say no even when $$$ or the "it's safe and legal" mantra is glaring at him.

HuggyU2

Just so I understand... you believe flying the 737 to Hawaii is unsafe?
Are you currently a 737 Captain?

SpecialTracking

I never said it was unsafe.

joepilot

It may not be UNSAFE, but it is LESS safe than a more redundant aircraft.

An absence of accidents does not mean that a system is safe, just that an accident has not happened yet.

Joe

Knotcher

And? So what if one airplane is less safe than another? If one airplane is 99.9% safe while another is 99.7% safe, is the latter acceptable to you? Less safe still can mean safe.



So how exactly are you going to measure safety?

HuggyU2

Cool. No dog in the fight.
Just trying to determine who is who, and what they fly.