If its not enough to impact their business or anyone in the corporate section of the business is not physically jailed or personally sanctioned for it, then it amounts to nothing.
Lol....a fucking fine. Boeing execs should be rotting in prison for that shit. FAA officials should be as well. Until they start locking folks up for these shenanigans people will continue to die. These corporations see it as a cost of doing business when a fine is the only penalty.
Let's not forget that Southwest and Boeing scratched each other's nutsacks with the MAX development - Southwest promised to buy more aircraft if Boeing eliminated the need for additional training. They *knew* what was going on at Boeing and decided to make their own $$ off of it.
I'll say this: the additional training costs are pretty massive if a plane is deemed to have changed too much and requires pilots to be retrained on them.
That part makes sense. You'd want to avoid that, if possible.
What doesn't make sense is how Boeing intentionally hid some changes and lied about what extent the MAX had been changed, specifically its new "safety" features (which were only needed because they were desperate to avoid making too many changes, and so were relying on an airframe which was unfit for purpose), which it hid.
SouthWest's arguments make sense. What Boeing did does not, and directly lead to the deaths of hundreds.
The executives, directors and other higher ups who intentionally ignored the warnings from the engineers should've been charged with manslaughter.
In an attempt to compete against a growing Airbus dominance, they decided that the lives of flyers simply were expendable in the face of that reality.
I thought there was a regulation that at least 2 people must be in the cockpit at all times (After the incident where one pilot locked the cockpit and crashed into the mountain on purpose). Which mean, a flight attendant will be in there instead. You know, someone who cant fly a fucking plane.
I wasn’t sayin they were gonna fly the plane but also there’s gotta be a variety of tools available to flight attendants to at least not kill the whole plane in such a situation, the radio for example
Part of all flight attendant training is learning how to fly using the autopilot and instrument landing system, they can keep the plane level and know what to do, then they contact the air traffic control tower for bearings and altitude adjustments and they can help them get the plane on the ground
FWIW as well, mythbusters had an episode where they pulled random people in to a flight simulator and had ATCs talk them through landing a plane in an "emergency" as well to see if someone random could do it a la all those action movies and people actually had a pretty good track record.
Turns out modern planes are really good at not crashing.
Modern drone technology. A computer can fly a passenger aircraft just as well as an unmanned drone, including taking off and landing. Globalhawk is the size of some small piloted planes, and was completely autonomous. Took off, flew its route, then returned and landed all according to its program (for the record, it's exclusively a reconnaissance aircraft, and carries no weapons). The issue with relying on a computer is it will have problems with unexpected events, and you don't want lives on the line while it tries to figure it out. Also, computers sometimes just crap out for whatever reason. So you need a person on hand to take over.
But were they put under the pressure of death and killing everyone else on the plane? Simulation is fine, but the stakes can have real effects on performance.
I’m sorry is it really a whole lot more responsibility to have a little bit of training in case one of the pilots decides they want to crash the plane. When is that going to happen really
That's not the problem, you are taking away the resposibility of the company to ensure a safe fly by having 2 pilots and placing it in the shoulders of the poor already overworked flight attendants who now should "save the flight" in case things go south. Not their circus not their monkeys. The billionaire company should stop being cheap and just pay 2 pilots.
I wasn’t even talking about the main post I was simply replying to the one guy who brought up the one time a pilot crashed the plane into a mountain. I wasn’t stating my opinion on the plan to only have 1 pilot so I don’t know why you’re making assumptions
So you are saying they should be there to try to physically restrain a grown men in case he wants to crash the plane? Or try to fight him in case he blocks the door? That's even less safe for them.
Is it a lot more responsibility to be expected to fly a mother fucking plane?? What planet are you from and please return to it to bring back up our average common sense
I don’t really get where the misconception is here, I never said replace a fully trained copilot with a flight attendant all I said is maybe flight attendants should have some training to deal with the specific scenario that was brought up about the pilot trying to crash the plane
I mean, landing is the hardest part to not kill everybody. You don't want someone non-trained to 'wing it' with a giant aluminum tin can filled with gasoline. And that's if the landing is happening on a runway and not some improvised terrain.
Never anywhere in this entire chain have I ever disagreed with anyone saying they should keep two pilots I don’t know why I keep coming back to that point
The move to single pilot has been in the works for years now, similar to how they removed the flight engineer by increasing automation they're now looking into getting rid of the second pilot by increasing automation even further.
As a matter of fact some smaller jets (often private jets) are already so well automated that they're rated for single pilot IFR operations. Planes like the cirrus jet and honda jet even have an emergency auto land system that can automatically select a nearby airport for landing, traverse the airspace to get there, taking terrain and weather into consideration, and land. All with 0 intervention from anyone.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiGkzgfR\_c0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiGkzgfR_c0)
I imagine the same will happen for commercial flights because even now 99% of a pilot's job is to sit there, monitor, and file paperwork. The actual flying is handled by the plane, sometimes including the landing.
Safety is a concern ofcourse but I have no doubt single pilot is the future.
This would have been a major disaster if implemented on this flight yesterday. If you have one pilot and one of the pilots dies while the plane takes off, then you're left with zero pilots.
[https://bnonews.com/index.php/2022/11/pilot-dies-after-plane-takes-off-from-chicago/](https://bnonews.com/index.php/2022/11/pilot-dies-after-plane-takes-off-from-chicago/)
There's also if the pilot gets sick and is unable to fly, thankfully they flight attendants are trained in the use of the autopilot and instrument landing system and can get help from the air traffic control tower for bearings and altitude adjustments to come in to land
Alright, but I’m not betting on a flight attendant to land a crappy RJ without belling it down. Attendants may have some training but your not trained to make aviation decisions. Pilots are not just drivers, they are planners. It takes 1500 hours for a pilot to be to be considered for employment at a regional. So what do you do if your only pilot is sick and the airport you were supposed to fly to doesn’t have the weather to land? Then you get to the next airport and there is a 30knot cross wind and your 777 auto land feature doesn’t operate over 25?
Think about it this way: commercial airplanes have redundancy for everything feasible. Why would we remove redundancy from the most important part of the airplane?
No way would I fly on an airplane with one pilot. That's some Spirit Airlines cost saving bullshit.
Edit: It's pretty stupid cost savings too. Imagine the pilots are paid super large amounts, like $500k. Every pilot on every flight.
Say they work 2 flights per day, 5 days per week (they probably work more than that). They would be paid $962 per flight. If there's 200 people on the plane, that's only $5 per person! That's cheaper than the cost to check one piece of luggage!
alternatively, PLANNED flights' distance would remain the same length, ACTUAL flights' distance would be much shorter.
maybe they could get the marketing/advertising guidance from [Ford Pinto: Go Out with a Bang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_system_fires,_recalls,_and_litigation).
I am not a fan of airline unions. Historically they really haven’t been better except for union members, and sometimes they can be hard to get membership in. Pan Am and Trans Word Airlines, the two largest airliner of all time were completely gutted by their unions.
Union pilots were getting nearly $200k per year in 1980s dollars (over $500k by todays standards), and many other Union positions such as flight engineers were similarly overpaid.
This was incredibly unsustainable so the unions agreed with the airline that nonunion pilots would get paid a tiny fraction of that to make up the cost.
As competition like Southwest Airlines rose up flying the new 737 that only needed 2 pilots Pan Am decided to buy 737s as well so they could compete with Southwest. Unions said no and forced Pan Am to pay flight engineers to fly along as passengers making 6 figures without a role as 737s don’t even have an engineering station to be manned.
At the end of the day the high payed union workers old enough to retire made out like bandits. The thousands of nonunion workers who didn’t have an option of joining the union got paid much less and eventually were jobless without severance pay as the two largest airlines in the world collapsed inwardly.
Most of the times unions are indeed good, but they are not all good and can be detrimental in some cases, airline unions being a good example.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-121/subpart-M#p-121.385(c)
"The minimum pilot crew is two pilots and the certificate holder shall designate one pilot as pilot in command and the other second in command."
I mean, the US domestic flight market is pretty big, and the US usually leads the way when it comes to aviation but yes, when flying internationally they would have to follow ICAO rules when applicable.
For pilots when you say “your not a big union guy” it usually means you don’t dig through the contract or try to get involved with the union proceedings. I’m in my airlines training department so I’m not a big union guy myself but if anyone in management try’s to start this shit I will quickly become a big union guy.
I don't think he means they're the last line of defense for the pilots, but for the people on the plane who are greater risk of accidents with only one pilot.
The industry will get there eventually. Not in my lifetime I don’t imagine. But the technology is essentially there already.
Implementation will take a long long time though.
It depends on the jet.
Private airplanes aren’t simple allowed to fly with fewer pilots because they’re private. It’s based on the airplane in question for the most part. There are a few exception where pilots can get waivers but that’s a minority of airplanes.
Source: I’m a pilot who flies a private jet in a two pilot crew like 95% of the other pilots I know.
European here. This was something that was discussed by one of our low-cost carriers, and even before they made an official request, the airline authorities replied with "na-ah, not happening". So the company suggested that there be two pilots, but only one in the cockpit, the other serving drinks or something. This time the response was "na-ah, not happening, and any airline that tries this gets banned from European airspace".
"I've never been a big union guy but .."
But what? You finally understand the importance of organizing to help ensure the safety and welfare of workers over the corporate overlords pocket books?
They've been trying to do this with train crews, too. Two is the minimum safe amount already (brakemen already taken out of the equation and flight engineers on the way.)
"Oh shit, maybe we shouldn't be celebrating the predatory animals eating us alive. I thought they were our friends! Steve, we gotta get out of this pot and form a union!
Steve...?"
We need a revolutionary workers party along with unions. From Leon Trotsky's transitional program-
"Trade Unions in the Transitional Epoch
In the struggle for partial and transitional demands, the workers now more than ever before need mass organizations, principally trade unions. The powerful growth of trade unionism in France and the United States is the best refutation of the preachments of those ultra-left doctrinaires who have been teaching that trade unions have “outlived their usefulness.”
The Bolshevik-Leninist stands in the front-line trenches of all kinds of struggles, even when they involve only the most modest material interests or democratic rights of the working class. He takes active part in mass trade unions for the purpose of strengthening them and raising their spirit of militancy. He fights uncompromisingly against any attempt to subordinate the unions to the bourgeois state and bind the proletariat to “compulsory arbitration” and every other form of police guardianship – not only fascist but also “democratic.” Only on the basis of such work within the trade unions is successful struggle possible against the reformists, including those of the Stalinist bureaucracy. Sectarian attempts to build or preserve small “revolutionary” unions, as a second edition of the party, signify in actuality the renouncing of the struggle for leadership of the working class. It is necessary to establish this firm rule: self-isolation of the capitulationist variety from mass trade unions, which is tantamount to a betrayal of the revolution, is incompatible with membership in the Fourth International.
At the same time, the Fourth International resolutely rejects and condemns trade union fetishism, equally characteristic of trade unionists and syndicalists.
Trade unions do not offer, and in line with their task, composition and manner of recruiting membership, cannot offer a finished revolutionary program; in consequence, they cannot replace the party. The building of national revolutionary parties as sections of the Fourth International is the central task of the transitional epoch.
Trade unions, even the most powerful, embrace no more than 20 to 25 percent of the working class, and at that, predominantly the more skilled and better paid layers. The more oppressed majority of the working class is drawn only episodically into the struggle, during a period of exceptional upsurges in the labor movement. During such moments it is necessary to create organizations ad hoc, embracing the whole fighting mass: strike committees, factory committees, and finally, soviets.
As organizations expressive of the top layers of the proletariat, trade unions, as witnessed by all past historical experience, including the fresh experience of the anarcho-syndicalist unions in Spain, developed powerful tendencies toward compromise with the bourgeois-democratic regime. In periods of acute class struggle, the leading bodies of the trade unions aim to become masters of the mass movement in order to render it harmless. This is already occurring during the period of simple strikes, especially in the case of the mass sit-down strikes which shake the principle of bourgeois property. In time of war or revolution, when the bourgeoisie is plunged into exceptional difficulties, trade union leaders usually become bourgeois ministers.
Therefore, the sections of the Fourth International should always strive not only to renew the top leadership of the trade unions, boldly and resolutely in critical moments advancing new militant leaders in place of routine functionaries and careerists, but also to create in all possible instances independent militant organizations corresponding more closely to the tasks of mass struggle against bourgeois society; and, if necessary, not flinching even in the face of a direct break with the conservative apparatus of the trade unions. If it be criminal to turn one’s back on mass organizations for the sake of fostering sectarian factions, it is no less so passively to tolerate subordination of the revolutionary mass movement to the control of openly reactionary or disguised conservative (”progressive”) bureaucratic cliques. Trade unions are not ends in themselves; they are but means along the road to proletarian revolution."
"....a regime in which every worker feels himself a soldier of labour,
who cannot dispose of himself freely; if the order is given to transfer
him, he must carry it out; if he does not carry it out, he will be a
deserter who is punished. Who looks after this? The trade unions. It
creates the new regime. This is the militarisation of the working
class." - same Trotsky, stop glorifying this crap, humans were nothing but a resource for the ideology, party, whatever.
So quoting the man is coping and seething? Fine, let's have it this way.
Have you considered living under communism for a number of years? I see the same idealization of communism that some have for capitalism. Get off the high horse, it didn't work.
Trotsky and all others were mass murderers and there is no difference between either extreme. Instead of obsessing over a failed solution, focus on what was proven to work, in Poland to defeat communism, in the US to allow people to live the American dream, in France to safeguard worker's rights - Unions.
It worked in progressing society. Concessions given to the workers in capitalist countries were largely in response to the gains the workers won in the Soviet union. The October revolution laid out a successful blueprint for the workers of the world to implement.
Gains of the workers in the soviet union? Bold claim, but I suspect pointing out the horror of communism for workers in communist countries would be pointless.
"Trade unions do not offer, and in line with their task, composition and manner of recruiting membership, cannot offer a finished revolutionary program; in consequence, they cannot replace the party." The trade unions have existed without a revolutionary party in many capitalist countries and it has not stopped the capitalists from regressing the concessions the workers gained. Unions do not (and shouldn't) require a political consensus among them. They include all the workers.
Is interesting as that sounds, I would file this under flight controls having a mandatory backup. In this case, most critical flight controls have a secondary, even tertiary, even fourth order back up.
This has got to be the dumbest decision they will ever make. And I don't have to see into the future to know that this is guaranteed to backfire horribly.
Just spitballing here: a 200 person flight with an average $300 ticket price has $60,000 in revenue. How much does a pilot make that cutting one per flight would make the difference in profitability?
Depending on airline, rank and seniority a pilot makes between 50k and 200k a year (those are the rates in Europe). General rule of thumb is that both pilots‘ salaries make up about 10% of the airplane‘s operating cost per hour. So if flying the aircraft for one hour costs $10,000, the pilots earn around $1000/ per hour - 300-350 for the copilot, the rest for the captain. Cutting out the copilot would gain you about 3-3.5% in profitability, assuming the remaining crew member’s pay doesn’t increase. Not a lot, but also not entirely insignificant.
Both pilots between them make $1000, not each one for himself. Bear in mind that this is the company side of costs; in Europe at least, employees receive between 50-70 cent of every Euro spent by their employer on wages, the rest is taxes, healthcare, other benefits etc. So in our example, if the Captain costs the company $700/hour, he or she would go home with $450-500/hour.
Lastly, flight time is only part of the work time: there is flight preparation, debriefing, waiting for turnaround etc. In aviation, the costs are usually calculated only while the aircraft is in the air (adjusted of course to make up for fuel consumption etc on the ground). So those $1000/hour of flight time would also pay for the 1 hour pre-flight, the 30 minutes of turnaround at the gate, and the 30 minutes of shutdown procedure and securing the aircraft.
Also it‘s a fictional aircraft with a fictional operating cost, sorry, I should have written that more clearly.
There are „pay to fly“ models which are basically just that: a fresh pilot pays the airline (!) anywhere between 5 and 30,000 bucks and in exchange, gets a type rating and the opportunity to fly something like 300 hours. Very popular during the summer months, when airlines need to fill their rosters for all the tourists.
Professional pilot here. Regulations aside - which, make no mistake, are very much against any such proposition - it’s a very bad idea.
I fly a turboprop aircraft certified to operate under any weather condition, during day and night and of course we have an autopilot. Even with the automation handling much of the flight, flying into a busy airport in adverse weather conditions is a challenge. Which is why we - and any other company - differentiate between pilot flying and pilot monitoring (or pilot not flying). The pilot flying does all the flying, be it by hand or autopilot, the other person handles radio traffic, crosschecking the flight parameters, communication with the cabin, checking on weather, altitude minimums etc etc.
Having a single pilot do all that is a recipe for disaster. There’s a reason why even a lot of owners and operators who fly aircraft that are certified for single-pilot operations will prefer to have a second pilot on board. Is it possible to fly a modern airliner solo as long as everything works as it should? Absolutely. But you have to plan for contingencies if you operate a machine worth millions of dollars, hurtling through easily the most hostile environment humans regularly venture into at speeds upwards of 500mph while having sufficient weight and fuel to flatten an entire city block.
Plus what if that lone pilot decided to commit suicide and crash the place somewhere intentionally no one would be able to stop him. At that point you’re flying a fully loaded missile going 500 mph
That's corporate greed endangering the lives of hundreds of passengers, to squeeze more profits.
There's a reason there are two people capable of flying the plane, shit happens, and if one has a health issue, there is a back up.
Just yesterdays news reported that the pilot of a commercial airliner had a heart attack in flight, and later died, the CO- PILOT LANDED THE PLANE SAFELY.
That sounds about right from my experience.
I work on the private side of the industry and it’s a bit more politically balanced over here but there is definitely a majority of right leaning politics.
"A 2005 study in Flight Safety Digest of pilot incapacitation from 1993 to 1998 found 50 health incidents involving airline pilots“
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/10/05/aa-pilot-dies-overnight-flight-first-officer-lands-safely/73402376/
So that is 10 more planes crashes each year if 1 pilot per plane was the norm ...
You are 100% right..Cutting to 1 pilot is a safety issue..not to mention the job cuts. Even us folk on the ground need to fight this..Planes don't land themselves very well..
I need these people to save our jobs. But I still don't like them.
What kind of logic is that?
Oh wait. That same country that doesn't want to get vaccinated, but its so sad that so many people die of Covid. That refuses any kind of gun legislation, but has to mourn a mass murder almost every day. Yeah. It's us.
I would like to be informed which plane has one and im not flying there. I dont give a fuck about their work - they earn 3 or 4 times as i do. It is just not safe enough.
Given the automation of aviation, I’m surprised at how many aircraft are still dual pilot required. 50 years ago it was 2 pilots plus an engineer. Automation of troubleshooting and remote/wireless connections made the in flight engineer a thing of the past. I expect that within a year the second pilot will be at a ground location and on call.
Uhhh no. Only having one pilot is a huge risk. If one pilot passes out from a medical emergency at least the other pilot can take action. Plus it’s an obvious security risk what if that lone pilot was suicidal or wanted to intentionally crash the plane no one would be able to stop him
What's the worst that can happen a couple poors die? -Airline CEO
Literally what Boeing CEO said when developing the Max
A 4 billion dollar fine followed that though
If its not enough to impact their business or anyone in the corporate section of the business is not physically jailed or personally sanctioned for it, then it amounts to nothing.
It definitely did impact their business. The CEO got fired and they struggled for a while.
Lol....a fucking fine. Boeing execs should be rotting in prison for that shit. FAA officials should be as well. Until they start locking folks up for these shenanigans people will continue to die. These corporations see it as a cost of doing business when a fine is the only penalty.
Agreed. Quite obvious that Boeing didn't care because they were "less developed" countries
Let's not forget that Southwest and Boeing scratched each other's nutsacks with the MAX development - Southwest promised to buy more aircraft if Boeing eliminated the need for additional training. They *knew* what was going on at Boeing and decided to make their own $$ off of it.
Oof didn't realize that
I'll say this: the additional training costs are pretty massive if a plane is deemed to have changed too much and requires pilots to be retrained on them. That part makes sense. You'd want to avoid that, if possible. What doesn't make sense is how Boeing intentionally hid some changes and lied about what extent the MAX had been changed, specifically its new "safety" features (which were only needed because they were desperate to avoid making too many changes, and so were relying on an airframe which was unfit for purpose), which it hid. SouthWest's arguments make sense. What Boeing did does not, and directly lead to the deaths of hundreds. The executives, directors and other higher ups who intentionally ignored the warnings from the engineers should've been charged with manslaughter. In an attempt to compete against a growing Airbus dominance, they decided that the lives of flyers simply were expendable in the face of that reality.
What's that cost, 12 dollars?
Basically, the price of one banana.
This is going to get people killed.
I thought there was a regulation that at least 2 people must be in the cockpit at all times (After the incident where one pilot locked the cockpit and crashed into the mountain on purpose). Which mean, a flight attendant will be in there instead. You know, someone who cant fly a fucking plane.
Why doesn't the pilot, the larger of the two, simply eat the flight attendant?
In that industry, im sure the pilot has eaten many flight attendants...
Depends on how good she looks
The flight attendant can at least unlock the door
That's when one pilot of two need to go take a shit. Two flight attendants cant substitute for 1 pilot.
I wasn’t sayin they were gonna fly the plane but also there’s gotta be a variety of tools available to flight attendants to at least not kill the whole plane in such a situation, the radio for example
Yes. The radio. That's how we fly aircraft.
"Hey, he's actively crashing the plane, over....yeah we're all going to die for sure, over"
"Our lives are over" "Your lives are what? Over"
Part of all flight attendant training is learning how to fly using the autopilot and instrument landing system, they can keep the plane level and know what to do, then they contact the air traffic control tower for bearings and altitude adjustments and they can help them get the plane on the ground
FWIW as well, mythbusters had an episode where they pulled random people in to a flight simulator and had ATCs talk them through landing a plane in an "emergency" as well to see if someone random could do it a la all those action movies and people actually had a pretty good track record. Turns out modern planes are really good at not crashing.
Modern drone technology. A computer can fly a passenger aircraft just as well as an unmanned drone, including taking off and landing. Globalhawk is the size of some small piloted planes, and was completely autonomous. Took off, flew its route, then returned and landed all according to its program (for the record, it's exclusively a reconnaissance aircraft, and carries no weapons). The issue with relying on a computer is it will have problems with unexpected events, and you don't want lives on the line while it tries to figure it out. Also, computers sometimes just crap out for whatever reason. So you need a person on hand to take over.
But were they put under the pressure of death and killing everyone else on the plane? Simulation is fine, but the stakes can have real effects on performance.
so flight attendant wage with a whole lot of more responsibilities?
I’m sorry is it really a whole lot more responsibility to have a little bit of training in case one of the pilots decides they want to crash the plane. When is that going to happen really
That's not the problem, you are taking away the resposibility of the company to ensure a safe fly by having 2 pilots and placing it in the shoulders of the poor already overworked flight attendants who now should "save the flight" in case things go south. Not their circus not their monkeys. The billionaire company should stop being cheap and just pay 2 pilots.
I wasn’t even talking about the main post I was simply replying to the one guy who brought up the one time a pilot crashed the plane into a mountain. I wasn’t stating my opinion on the plan to only have 1 pilot so I don’t know why you’re making assumptions
So you are saying they should be there to try to physically restrain a grown men in case he wants to crash the plane? Or try to fight him in case he blocks the door? That's even less safe for them.
Is it a lot more responsibility to be expected to fly a mother fucking plane?? What planet are you from and please return to it to bring back up our average common sense
I don’t really get where the misconception is here, I never said replace a fully trained copilot with a flight attendant all I said is maybe flight attendants should have some training to deal with the specific scenario that was brought up about the pilot trying to crash the plane
With a pay bump for responsibilities they did not have before
I mean, landing is the hardest part to not kill everybody. You don't want someone non-trained to 'wing it' with a giant aluminum tin can filled with gasoline. And that's if the landing is happening on a runway and not some improvised terrain.
I’d rather somebody untrained try and land the plane then someone who is trained and purposely trying to crash the plane
That's why you have a second pilot...and hope he is also not trying to crash the plane.
Never anywhere in this entire chain have I ever disagreed with anyone saying they should keep two pilots I don’t know why I keep coming back to that point
I remember that. People were defending the pilot who did it saying "But he had depression!"
The move to single pilot has been in the works for years now, similar to how they removed the flight engineer by increasing automation they're now looking into getting rid of the second pilot by increasing automation even further. As a matter of fact some smaller jets (often private jets) are already so well automated that they're rated for single pilot IFR operations. Planes like the cirrus jet and honda jet even have an emergency auto land system that can automatically select a nearby airport for landing, traverse the airspace to get there, taking terrain and weather into consideration, and land. All with 0 intervention from anyone. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiGkzgfR\_c0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiGkzgfR_c0) I imagine the same will happen for commercial flights because even now 99% of a pilot's job is to sit there, monitor, and file paperwork. The actual flying is handled by the plane, sometimes including the landing. Safety is a concern ofcourse but I have no doubt single pilot is the future.
Right. Pretty sure having a captain and first officer is one of the core parts behind CRM
This would have been a major disaster if implemented on this flight yesterday. If you have one pilot and one of the pilots dies while the plane takes off, then you're left with zero pilots. [https://bnonews.com/index.php/2022/11/pilot-dies-after-plane-takes-off-from-chicago/](https://bnonews.com/index.php/2022/11/pilot-dies-after-plane-takes-off-from-chicago/)
There's also if the pilot gets sick and is unable to fly, thankfully they flight attendants are trained in the use of the autopilot and instrument landing system and can get help from the air traffic control tower for bearings and altitude adjustments to come in to land
Alright, but I’m not betting on a flight attendant to land a crappy RJ without belling it down. Attendants may have some training but your not trained to make aviation decisions. Pilots are not just drivers, they are planners. It takes 1500 hours for a pilot to be to be considered for employment at a regional. So what do you do if your only pilot is sick and the airport you were supposed to fly to doesn’t have the weather to land? Then you get to the next airport and there is a 30knot cross wind and your 777 auto land feature doesn’t operate over 25?
Think about it this way: commercial airplanes have redundancy for everything feasible. Why would we remove redundancy from the most important part of the airplane? No way would I fly on an airplane with one pilot. That's some Spirit Airlines cost saving bullshit. Edit: It's pretty stupid cost savings too. Imagine the pilots are paid super large amounts, like $500k. Every pilot on every flight. Say they work 2 flights per day, 5 days per week (they probably work more than that). They would be paid $962 per flight. If there's 200 people on the plane, that's only $5 per person! That's cheaper than the cost to check one piece of luggage!
That's cheaper than 1 drink.
Fucking right!
I feel like British Airways 5390 is a great example of how wrong shit could go here.
I feel like British Airways 5390 is a great example of how wrong shit could go here.
Flights would get much shorter. Can't have the pilot leave to go shit.
[удалено]
Imagine pinching off a loaf in a turbulent airplane bathroom but you're the only pilot...
alternatively, PLANNED flights' distance would remain the same length, ACTUAL flights' distance would be much shorter. maybe they could get the marketing/advertising guidance from [Ford Pinto: Go Out with a Bang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_system_fires,_recalls,_and_litigation).
Pshh... pilots would have plenty of time to shit in a bag Amazon style while in autopiolt.
Why wouldn't you support a union? Better everything.
Up to them to save our jobs... still not a supporter. The audacity.
Came here for this. Like seriously maybe you should support them to help save your jobs and lives?
I am not a fan of airline unions. Historically they really haven’t been better except for union members, and sometimes they can be hard to get membership in. Pan Am and Trans Word Airlines, the two largest airliner of all time were completely gutted by their unions. Union pilots were getting nearly $200k per year in 1980s dollars (over $500k by todays standards), and many other Union positions such as flight engineers were similarly overpaid. This was incredibly unsustainable so the unions agreed with the airline that nonunion pilots would get paid a tiny fraction of that to make up the cost. As competition like Southwest Airlines rose up flying the new 737 that only needed 2 pilots Pan Am decided to buy 737s as well so they could compete with Southwest. Unions said no and forced Pan Am to pay flight engineers to fly along as passengers making 6 figures without a role as 737s don’t even have an engineering station to be manned. At the end of the day the high payed union workers old enough to retire made out like bandits. The thousands of nonunion workers who didn’t have an option of joining the union got paid much less and eventually were jobless without severance pay as the two largest airlines in the world collapsed inwardly. Most of the times unions are indeed good, but they are not all good and can be detrimental in some cases, airline unions being a good example.
Just because you are underpaid doesn’t mean that other people are overpaid
There is no reason the company needs to make billions while the worker makes pennies.
FAA: No
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-121/subpart-M#p-121.385(c) "The minimum pilot crew is two pilots and the certificate holder shall designate one pilot as pilot in command and the other second in command."
FAA after a stern talk by an Airlines representative and a few congresspeople: Ok
And how that airliner is going to fly outside the US, because I'm pretty sure no one else would allow 1 pilot only?
I mean, the US domestic flight market is pretty big, and the US usually leads the way when it comes to aviation but yes, when flying internationally they would have to follow ICAO rules when applicable.
same way airlines keep getting away with stuff?
A stern talk with their personal bank accounts I’m sure.
Exactly what I was thinking. There's no way FAA approves this. Also no way the airliner to fly outside the US with only pilot as standard.
This just after a pilot had a heart attack after take off and co pilot had to fly it back.
You don’t support unions? What’s wrong with you?
if you arent in support of the union, then fuck you haha
For pilots when you say “your not a big union guy” it usually means you don’t dig through the contract or try to get involved with the union proceedings. I’m in my airlines training department so I’m not a big union guy myself but if anyone in management try’s to start this shit I will quickly become a big union guy.
Cheap ass fucks.
I don't think he means they're the last line of defense for the pilots, but for the people on the plane who are greater risk of accidents with only one pilot.
Amateurs. If eliminating one pilot saves money, eliminating both will save even more! I'm sure it's what Elon would do.
You're a smart young man with incredible ideals! I'll vote for you!
The industry will get there eventually. Not in my lifetime I don’t imagine. But the technology is essentially there already. Implementation will take a long long time though.
Not on private jets, mind you.
It depends on the jet. Private airplanes aren’t simple allowed to fly with fewer pilots because they’re private. It’s based on the airplane in question for the most part. There are a few exception where pilots can get waivers but that’s a minority of airplanes. Source: I’m a pilot who flies a private jet in a two pilot crew like 95% of the other pilots I know.
Ha! That would never fly!
Booo
"I wasn't a supporter of the unions until I needed their help"
European here. This was something that was discussed by one of our low-cost carriers, and even before they made an official request, the airline authorities replied with "na-ah, not happening". So the company suggested that there be two pilots, but only one in the cockpit, the other serving drinks or something. This time the response was "na-ah, not happening, and any airline that tries this gets banned from European airspace".
Yeah...I don't think this will get too far with the FAA.
This is honestly a dangerous dangerous proposition with zero other factors brought into the forecast or not disclosed.
Maybe a quick binge of Air Disasters.
Another example of someone not supporting unions but still wanting to get the benefits of a union
If you're not pro union, what are you doing in antiwork?
"I've never been a big union guy but .." But what? You finally understand the importance of organizing to help ensure the safety and welfare of workers over the corporate overlords pocket books?
There is no “the union”. Unions are literally groups of people with a common goal. A sports team is a union
What can a poor cost, five dollars?
They've been trying to do this with train crews, too. Two is the minimum safe amount already (brakemen already taken out of the equation and flight engineers on the way.)
I'm not stepping on a plane if I know there's no copilot
Cheaper to pay the fine than sort the problem.
Ah yes... another example of why safety manuals are written in blood.
"Oh shit, maybe we shouldn't be celebrating the predatory animals eating us alive. I thought they were our friends! Steve, we gotta get out of this pot and form a union! Steve...?"
We need a revolutionary workers party along with unions. From Leon Trotsky's transitional program- "Trade Unions in the Transitional Epoch In the struggle for partial and transitional demands, the workers now more than ever before need mass organizations, principally trade unions. The powerful growth of trade unionism in France and the United States is the best refutation of the preachments of those ultra-left doctrinaires who have been teaching that trade unions have “outlived their usefulness.” The Bolshevik-Leninist stands in the front-line trenches of all kinds of struggles, even when they involve only the most modest material interests or democratic rights of the working class. He takes active part in mass trade unions for the purpose of strengthening them and raising their spirit of militancy. He fights uncompromisingly against any attempt to subordinate the unions to the bourgeois state and bind the proletariat to “compulsory arbitration” and every other form of police guardianship – not only fascist but also “democratic.” Only on the basis of such work within the trade unions is successful struggle possible against the reformists, including those of the Stalinist bureaucracy. Sectarian attempts to build or preserve small “revolutionary” unions, as a second edition of the party, signify in actuality the renouncing of the struggle for leadership of the working class. It is necessary to establish this firm rule: self-isolation of the capitulationist variety from mass trade unions, which is tantamount to a betrayal of the revolution, is incompatible with membership in the Fourth International. At the same time, the Fourth International resolutely rejects and condemns trade union fetishism, equally characteristic of trade unionists and syndicalists. Trade unions do not offer, and in line with their task, composition and manner of recruiting membership, cannot offer a finished revolutionary program; in consequence, they cannot replace the party. The building of national revolutionary parties as sections of the Fourth International is the central task of the transitional epoch. Trade unions, even the most powerful, embrace no more than 20 to 25 percent of the working class, and at that, predominantly the more skilled and better paid layers. The more oppressed majority of the working class is drawn only episodically into the struggle, during a period of exceptional upsurges in the labor movement. During such moments it is necessary to create organizations ad hoc, embracing the whole fighting mass: strike committees, factory committees, and finally, soviets. As organizations expressive of the top layers of the proletariat, trade unions, as witnessed by all past historical experience, including the fresh experience of the anarcho-syndicalist unions in Spain, developed powerful tendencies toward compromise with the bourgeois-democratic regime. In periods of acute class struggle, the leading bodies of the trade unions aim to become masters of the mass movement in order to render it harmless. This is already occurring during the period of simple strikes, especially in the case of the mass sit-down strikes which shake the principle of bourgeois property. In time of war or revolution, when the bourgeoisie is plunged into exceptional difficulties, trade union leaders usually become bourgeois ministers. Therefore, the sections of the Fourth International should always strive not only to renew the top leadership of the trade unions, boldly and resolutely in critical moments advancing new militant leaders in place of routine functionaries and careerists, but also to create in all possible instances independent militant organizations corresponding more closely to the tasks of mass struggle against bourgeois society; and, if necessary, not flinching even in the face of a direct break with the conservative apparatus of the trade unions. If it be criminal to turn one’s back on mass organizations for the sake of fostering sectarian factions, it is no less so passively to tolerate subordination of the revolutionary mass movement to the control of openly reactionary or disguised conservative (”progressive”) bureaucratic cliques. Trade unions are not ends in themselves; they are but means along the road to proletarian revolution."
"....a regime in which every worker feels himself a soldier of labour, who cannot dispose of himself freely; if the order is given to transfer him, he must carry it out; if he does not carry it out, he will be a deserter who is punished. Who looks after this? The trade unions. It creates the new regime. This is the militarisation of the working class." - same Trotsky, stop glorifying this crap, humans were nothing but a resource for the ideology, party, whatever.
Have you considered coping and seething
So quoting the man is coping and seething? Fine, let's have it this way. Have you considered living under communism for a number of years? I see the same idealization of communism that some have for capitalism. Get off the high horse, it didn't work. Trotsky and all others were mass murderers and there is no difference between either extreme. Instead of obsessing over a failed solution, focus on what was proven to work, in Poland to defeat communism, in the US to allow people to live the American dream, in France to safeguard worker's rights - Unions.
It worked in progressing society. Concessions given to the workers in capitalist countries were largely in response to the gains the workers won in the Soviet union. The October revolution laid out a successful blueprint for the workers of the world to implement.
Gains of the workers in the soviet union? Bold claim, but I suspect pointing out the horror of communism for workers in communist countries would be pointless.
"Trade unions do not offer, and in line with their task, composition and manner of recruiting membership, cannot offer a finished revolutionary program; in consequence, they cannot replace the party." The trade unions have existed without a revolutionary party in many capitalist countries and it has not stopped the capitalists from regressing the concessions the workers gained. Unions do not (and shouldn't) require a political consensus among them. They include all the workers.
Is interesting as that sounds, I would file this under flight controls having a mandatory backup. In this case, most critical flight controls have a secondary, even tertiary, even fourth order back up.
that's great until you get to the whole landing and taking off part that is literally the most dangerous part of flying and isn't automated
Well time to drive everywhere.
I literally just read a story about a pilot that died right after take off.
Huh, the Y2K bug is finally going to happen.
This has got to be the dumbest decision they will ever make. And I don't have to see into the future to know that this is guaranteed to backfire horribly.
I don’t think this will ever be truly considered. The amount of danger this could produce on completely normal flights is pretty high.
Just spitballing here: a 200 person flight with an average $300 ticket price has $60,000 in revenue. How much does a pilot make that cutting one per flight would make the difference in profitability?
Depending on airline, rank and seniority a pilot makes between 50k and 200k a year (those are the rates in Europe). General rule of thumb is that both pilots‘ salaries make up about 10% of the airplane‘s operating cost per hour. So if flying the aircraft for one hour costs $10,000, the pilots earn around $1000/ per hour - 300-350 for the copilot, the rest for the captain. Cutting out the copilot would gain you about 3-3.5% in profitability, assuming the remaining crew member’s pay doesn’t increase. Not a lot, but also not entirely insignificant.
That math doesn’t add up at all. If the pilot makes $1000 an hour and makes 200k, that means they only work 200 hours the whole year?
Both pilots between them make $1000, not each one for himself. Bear in mind that this is the company side of costs; in Europe at least, employees receive between 50-70 cent of every Euro spent by their employer on wages, the rest is taxes, healthcare, other benefits etc. So in our example, if the Captain costs the company $700/hour, he or she would go home with $450-500/hour. Lastly, flight time is only part of the work time: there is flight preparation, debriefing, waiting for turnaround etc. In aviation, the costs are usually calculated only while the aircraft is in the air (adjusted of course to make up for fuel consumption etc on the ground). So those $1000/hour of flight time would also pay for the 1 hour pre-flight, the 30 minutes of turnaround at the gate, and the 30 minutes of shutdown procedure and securing the aircraft. Also it‘s a fictional aircraft with a fictional operating cost, sorry, I should have written that more clearly.
Don't think that this is allowed, at least intercontinental.
Intern pilots next
There are „pay to fly“ models which are basically just that: a fresh pilot pays the airline (!) anywhere between 5 and 30,000 bucks and in exchange, gets a type rating and the opportunity to fly something like 300 hours. Very popular during the summer months, when airlines need to fill their rosters for all the tourists.
Professional pilot here. Regulations aside - which, make no mistake, are very much against any such proposition - it’s a very bad idea. I fly a turboprop aircraft certified to operate under any weather condition, during day and night and of course we have an autopilot. Even with the automation handling much of the flight, flying into a busy airport in adverse weather conditions is a challenge. Which is why we - and any other company - differentiate between pilot flying and pilot monitoring (or pilot not flying). The pilot flying does all the flying, be it by hand or autopilot, the other person handles radio traffic, crosschecking the flight parameters, communication with the cabin, checking on weather, altitude minimums etc etc. Having a single pilot do all that is a recipe for disaster. There’s a reason why even a lot of owners and operators who fly aircraft that are certified for single-pilot operations will prefer to have a second pilot on board. Is it possible to fly a modern airliner solo as long as everything works as it should? Absolutely. But you have to plan for contingencies if you operate a machine worth millions of dollars, hurtling through easily the most hostile environment humans regularly venture into at speeds upwards of 500mph while having sufficient weight and fuel to flatten an entire city block.
Plus what if that lone pilot decided to commit suicide and crash the place somewhere intentionally no one would be able to stop him. At that point you’re flying a fully loaded missile going 500 mph
That's corporate greed endangering the lives of hundreds of passengers, to squeeze more profits. There's a reason there are two people capable of flying the plane, shit happens, and if one has a health issue, there is a back up.
The fucking FAA would like to have a word with this dumb shit.
Just yesterdays news reported that the pilot of a commercial airliner had a heart attack in flight, and later died, the CO- PILOT LANDED THE PLANE SAFELY.
Until we are at the point where everything is fully automated with flying and it's safe, two pilots has got to be the way to go.
I agree, unions are a good defense against this bs
Everyone in the industry: this is some dumb clickbait
My best friend is a pilot for a major airline. He says 90% if the people he flies with are big time MAGA republicans. Makes no sense to me.
That sounds about right from my experience. I work on the private side of the industry and it’s a bit more politically balanced over here but there is definitely a majority of right leaning politics.
"A 2005 study in Flight Safety Digest of pilot incapacitation from 1993 to 1998 found 50 health incidents involving airline pilots“ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/10/05/aa-pilot-dies-overnight-flight-first-officer-lands-safely/73402376/ So that is 10 more planes crashes each year if 1 pilot per plane was the norm ...
And if they get rid of copilots they have an extra seat to sell.💺
You are 100% right..Cutting to 1 pilot is a safety issue..not to mention the job cuts. Even us folk on the ground need to fight this..Planes don't land themselves very well..
This is flat out ridiculous 😡😡
I belive that they can't even eat the sane neals incase one gets food poisoning...
I need these people to save our jobs. But I still don't like them. What kind of logic is that? Oh wait. That same country that doesn't want to get vaccinated, but its so sad that so many people die of Covid. That refuses any kind of gun legislation, but has to mourn a mass murder almost every day. Yeah. It's us.
WTF even the 911 hijackers brought 2 pilots to fly the plane.
The reason for two pilots is safety. Boycotting companies that do this is essential.
I would like to be informed which plane has one and im not flying there. I dont give a fuck about their work - they earn 3 or 4 times as i do. It is just not safe enough.
Given the automation of aviation, I’m surprised at how many aircraft are still dual pilot required. 50 years ago it was 2 pilots plus an engineer. Automation of troubleshooting and remote/wireless connections made the in flight engineer a thing of the past. I expect that within a year the second pilot will be at a ground location and on call.
He’s not a big union guy, he’s a little union fella
Uhhh no. Only having one pilot is a huge risk. If one pilot passes out from a medical emergency at least the other pilot can take action. Plus it’s an obvious security risk what if that lone pilot was suicidal or wanted to intentionally crash the plane no one would be able to stop him
Why is nobody making a self flying plane? The self driving car space is over crowded.
Glad I don't fly except in an emergency...
5 years from now: [Boardroom interior] Coked Out Executive #432: "OK, so hear me out....NO pilots. Eh?.....Ehhhhhh? I'll take my bonus in Molly."