Everyone is so concerned about going from 2 pilots to 1 pilot on most flights. That is a ways off.

What I do think the next step will be is reduction of pilots required for long haul flying. You don’t need 4 pilots to fly a 12-16 hour flight. A simple change of the FAA rules could make those flights legal for 3 pilots. There are other examples where the I think you will see a reduction in pilots required for long haul flying.

Exactly on point. Movement will start with long haul from 4 to 3 pilots then 3 to 2 pilots well before just 1... Just a step by step reduction with their own set of problems.

*Said this for a decade now: Watch for the implementation of 4 to 3 and then open your eyes. Probably keep at least 1 for insurance blame purposes...

On int'l flights, anything over 7:45 requires 3 pilots and anything over 11:45 requires 4 per our contract.

13.S is still four pilots over 12 hours scheduled block, not 11:45.

The takeaway from this discussion is that both the FARs have to change and pilot groups have to accept a degradation of their contractual language, which is unlikely. Only a non-unionized airline or one where the pilot group has not already bargained for work rules (maybe pax airlines leaning on 117) that beat the FARs would be directly impacted by the FARs changing.

Why do you think you don't need four pilots for flights over 12? Current FARs are designed around the idea that no pilot should be in the seat over 8hrs. Last I checked, if you go over 12, you need four pilots to make that work. Is the FAA and/or congress pushing for this change anytime in the foreseeable future? If so, that's news to me. Is there new fatigue science that would support a reduction of crewmembers on long haul flights? Again, news to me if there is.

Is there technology in the works that may (key word) allow for a crew reduction at some point in the future? Surely. But that tech will require big changes in infrastructure and aircraft design, which will drive big costs for operators. It will need to undergo extensive testing. Most of the countries in the world will have to agree on implementation (Europe ain't flying a reduced crew into JFK without approval from US authorities). Pilot unions will have to buy off on the idea (good luck with that). Public concerns will need to be addressed. Finally, individual pilots will have to make an assessment each day, much like they already do under part 117, as to whether they are fit to operate in what will undoubtedly be a higher stress and workload environment.

In short, there are a LOT of hurdles for this idea to overcome. Not saying it can't or won't happen eventually, but judging by the speed at which major changes tend to happen in aviation, I wouldn't be too worried unless maybe I was in high school & considering the career.

So very true. Hey, maybe we'll go the other way like ATC controllers and get more required rest - bahaha...🤣 It's all about the clam$.

Its that wishful thinking coming through I guess

All that may be true, and it may even be certified in a few decades. But we're left with the notion that passengers are not going to put themselves in a position to be at the mercy of someone on the ground with no skin in the game.

And what if the ground facility security is breached? There could be wackos in the ground control station, just like there could in the air..the list goes on

There were navigators, engineers, Second Officers, First Officers - oh wait, we're predominately made up of First Officers. Doubtful for many many years or decades for total control "with no skin in the game" especially on the passenger side. Flesh is easy to blame and better for insurance companies is a guess. Just a reduction in force on long haul with the advent of "Otto pilot." Keep those 797 type ideas on the drawing board forever although Airbus is always testing the water as we all know.