Who's Really Flying The Plane?

[Guest]

Yeah, that's what I would have said. It was Friday and the truck was loaded for a weekend backpacking/camping trip with the kids. It was a deliberate decision to completely blow off the MultiQuoted keyboard debate over meaningless bullshit and get outside and do something worth my time. I will say, it was a fine post... double spaced with lots of quote brackets and all.

You made the right call blowing off a response to me.

I was just busting your balls.

I'm not interested in nit picking this either.

[Wandering Dog]

Okay, let me put it this way. You're an airliner manufacturer with a finite R&D budget. You want to build an airliner that people will buy. Do you spend the lions share of your budget on making fuel efficient, lightweight aircraft, possibly even using alternative energy sources, at a time when fuel costs are perpetually rising, or do you undertake a massive, costly, and risky project on eliminating pilots from the cockpit, which may or may not pan out with regards to the flying public, while your competitors are also focusing on fuel costs and eating up your market share?

Do you seriously believe there's any realistic scenario in the future in which that investment will be worth the payoff? With the upward trending price of oil and fuel costs being the vast majority of operating expenses for an airline?

Anyone can just say "oh yeah it'll happen someday because the FUTURE!". But if you actually sit down and think about how that situation would possibly play out, it becomes less and less plausible.

Yeah, because if there's one phrase to describe military aerospace R&D funding in the 50s, it's "cash strapped".

Now that I think about it, it is possible, and even probable, that a remotely piloted airliner can happen, but if and only if we come up with a cheap energy solution to power aircraft engines. But that's a pretty ######ing big "if".

I'm guessing the changes will be incremental and unrelated to the airline industry until both sides of the equations meet. I don't think anyone here was talking about a crash research program and I don't think people are saying "The FUTURE!" either. Generational change is required culturally, not to mention everything else.

[HiFlyer]

I think there's a second order impact that may also become a limitation. Its easy to contemplate the technical requirement to fly an aircraft without a pilot, and even to calculate the economics of the craft, but its not just a matter of flying one aircraft...its about eventually flying hundreds or thousands of them at once. With a manned aircraft, "all" you need is a pilot, a VHF radio, and an assigned comm channel. With unoccupied aircraft, all the data will have to be monitered by the operating agency (the airline) and the ATC organization (FAA or whatever national agency controls the airspace). That will take a completely different communications and control architecture, potentially huge amounts of satellite connectivity over areas not covered by dense ground-based data link networks and potentially interconnected carrier to ATC links. Not an insignificant issue when expensive satcom links have to be used by thousands of aircraft!

[Danny Noonin]

Your estimation is way oversimplified to be anywhere close to accurate. I'm no CFO, but I do know that because of unions, the percentage of your cut of a revenue haul is more than (leg x pilot wages)/(fare x pax). Because of unions, most pilots are pay protected to receive the greater of scheduled vs actual hours flown. Every trip usually results in some sort of pay protection. Cancelled? You get paid. Sent home a day early? You get paid. Vacation? paid. Sick leave? paid. Recurrent ground school? Paid. How many of your guys are getting min monthly guarantee for not actually flying revenue flights? Answer: Lots. How much are you having to shell out of your own pocket every time the company has to do a system bid? Nothing. You get many, many thousands of dollars worth of sim time with check airman and training department personnel. All of you are getting paid and none of you are working revenue flights. Is your company contributing a percentage of your min monthly guarantee to a retirement program even though you are on military leave? Most do and that means you are receiving benefits while not working for your company. You are confusing your paycheck with a company's labor expense. They are not the same thing.

You're right. These are some valid labor costs that I did not include in my caveman math. Not the whole story either, but it's not worth quibbling through them one by one. Of course my accounting was simplified. But by nowhere near a factor of ten. Not even close.

But if you know the airline industry and unionized (or even non-unionized) pilot groups, then you know that the pilots will NEVER go for this since it literally means the demise of their own jobs. You also know that if you can't flip a switch and go from all piloted airplanes to all UAVs the next day, that the airlines will need contract concessions from the pilots to operate these UAVs even one time. Like I said. There is zero chance of that happening. Why would anyone intentionally vote themselves out of a job? It's a matter of pure survival for them and they will not cave in this lifetime.

So, even if the technology becomes feasible...even if the broke federal government would front serious coin to completely revamp it's systems to support commercial UAV operations (far beyond anything in the pipeline like Next Gen) for the interest of reducing non-governmental labor costs in a sector that is profitable right now...even if aircraft manufacturers will fund R+D for entirely new classes of aircraft without the promise of buyers...even if airlines would mortgage themselves to their ears to buy UAVs that the public may or may not even board...even if insurers will actually insure a passenger UAV...and even if the Gen Y kids have such faith in technology that they feel safe enough with a UAV to save $1.83 or even $20 on a ticket versus a piloted airplane...all enormous "ifs"...I really don't ever see the day where the pilot groups would allow this. This is not a blue-collar unionized manufacturing group of employees that could (theoretically) get other jobs. What does a 50 year old airline captain do if flying jobs all go away? His resume is a bit thin at that age, don't you agree? Dudes can say all day long that technology advancements have overcome labor and job considerations a million times in history. But this situation would be different. The pilot groups hold some serious contractural cards here. This is not the same as forcing concessions via bankruptcy. If they're going to lose their jobs anyway with no comparable career to transition to, they have absolutely nothing to lose by striking a company into the dirt. You know they would, too. They would have no choice.

And that's why this will not happen.

By the way, I say this all as a guy who hated being an airline pilot and never wants to go back. So I don't consider myself to even have a dog in this fight.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Danny Noonin

[Guest]

Just like that whaling union kept us from using electricity, or the carriage driver union kept cars off the road.

Do you really think those two examples are appropriate economic comparisons for this discussion?

[pawnman]

Do you really think those two examples are appropriate economic comparisons for this discussion?

Let's face it, jobs are replaced by technology all the time. Even union jobs...just ask a GM employee what percentage of the welding is done by robots now versus 30 years ago. Airline technology is not immune from this shift.

Even the idea that you'll need huge amounts of bandwidth is under the assumption that these things will be controlled by guys on the ground. It's feasible that in the near future, the computers can respond to voice commands from ATC (just like the Kinect lets me open Netflix and pick a movie without touching my Xbox controller). We probably have all the technology we need to build a fully automated airliner right now...the next step will be integrating it all in a single aircraft.

[Guest]

Let's face it, jobs are replaced by technology all the time.

Agreed.

So anyway, do you really think the two examples you gave are appropriate economic comparisons for this discussion?

[Danny Noonin]

Let's face it, jobs are replaced by technology all the time. Even union jobs...just ask a GM employee what percentage of the welding is done by robots now versus 30 years ago.

Not the same. You're not suggesting an evolution with UAVs. You are suggesting a complete revolution.

What do you think the UAW would do if GM said they were converting all of their factories to manufacture their vehicles purely via robots and that every single UAW worker would be out of a job? Do you think organized labor has any ability and motivation to put pressure on a company, especially when the survival of the entire workforce is at stake?

[Guest]

Quite frankly, it is the market, not the unions that will make this happen if it ever does.

Anyone advocating that we will also have automated ATC with no humans in the loop?

[pawnman]

Not the same. You're not suggesting an evolution with UAVs. You are suggesting a complete revolution.

What do you think the UAW would do if GM said they were converting all of their factories to manufacture their vehicles purely via robots and that every single UAW worker would be out of a job? Do you think organized labor has any ability and motivation to put pressure on a company, especially when the survival of the entire workforce is at stake?

Probably go on strike...but if they're all being replaced by robots, it really doesn't matter, now does it?

What did the unions do when they started replacing jobs with robots? You don't think young dudes would be happy to let some routes be taken over by automated aircraft under the guise of keeping the airline afloat and saving some jobs, rather than cutting all of them? You don't think that will eventually lead to automated aircraft for some routes, and eventually, all routes?

Hell, they used to have lots of unions, yet union membership is declining with each passing year. I wouldn't bet that the unions will be able to trump economics forever in this realm either. It may not even be an American airline that rolls out the first automated airliner...but it won't take long for American airlines to jump on the bandwagon once the technology is proven.

[O Face]

Let alone the time when technology will replace the need for navigators...

...oh wait...

Now that was Funny!!!

[Danny Noonin]

Probably go on strike...but if they're all being replaced by robots, it really doesn't matter, now does it?

Yes it does, and that's what you're missing.

Unless the conversion from 100% piloted airplanes to 100% unpiloted airplanes occurs industry wide overnight, then a strike would have potentially fatal impact on a company. It would mean the airlines will bleed money by not flying (m)any flights (and therefore not generating any revenue), yet they would still have enormous expenses (such as paying off their fancy new UAVs). This would not be quick strike over pay rates either. This would be a strike to the death (because the pilots would have no choice--if they fail they'll be out of a job anyway) with the only resolutions being 1) the company caving in and deciding to not go UAV or 2) the company having a large enough operational fleet of UAVs that they can generate enough revenue to stay afloat without piloted airplanes. How long would it take to produce and field an entire fleet of UAVs? Quite a while, don't you think? Years under the best circumstances. How long do you think the airlines can afford to stay in business without money coming in? Who is going to loan them any money to buy new UAVs to achieve resolution #2 if they have no money coming in?

Even after 9/11, flights were still going and airlines had revenue coming in. It was the passenger demand that dropped--industry wide--and it destroyed the industry's finances for a decade. That's a rosy scenario for a company compared to what would happen here. What do you think would happen if hardly any flights were able to go at all for an extended period of time for the "pioneer" companies while the lagging airlines still flew normally? Folks would still fly while airline X was on strike. They would just take another airline. Meanwhile airline X is in real trouble with no good out.

It would be business suicide to be the first airline to try this.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Danny Noonin

[albertschu]

Not the same. You're not suggesting an evolution with UAVs. You are suggesting a complete revolution.

What do you think the UAW would do if GM said they were converting all of their factories to manufacture their vehicles purely via robots and that every single UAW worker would be out of a job? Do you think organized labor has any ability and motivation to put pressure on a company, especially when the survival of the entire workforce is at stake?

You clearly haven't been paying attention. We ARE NOT saying that you will be out of a job. We're saying that you will be wearing an apron and handing out nuts. Oh and can I have a refill on my Diet Coke?

[pcola]

I'm not nearly as smart as you guys on this subject, but I see a glaring hole in Noonin's arguments: People have to feed their families by whatever means necessary. Those initial "UAVs" will probably not be UAVs at all, but more likely RPAs. That means they will need pilots to fly them, albeit from the ground. This will be a gradual and natural sequence of events. First, the technology will evolve to the point that the public is willing to fly on (and the infrastructure can handle) a few RPA airliners in the system. Starving pilots will agree to jump ship to fly them. That will be the crack in the damn. Subsequently, more RPAs, less manned cockpits, more public trust, more technological evolution, fleetwide RPAs, more starving pilots, more old pilots preaching to the young guys about the downfall of the industry, young guys with hungry families, etc. Eventually, start weeding out the need for pilots altogether. Just how I see it playing out... It will take decades, not something we have to worry about for the most part, but I mostly agree with gearpig's rationale. Technological evolution and progress is inevitable. We are in the information age...

[Danny Noonin]

You clearly haven't been paying attention. We ARE NOT saying that you will be out of a job. We're saying that you will be wearing an apron and handing out nuts. Oh and can I have a refill on my Diet Coke?

Sorry, you've got the wrong person. If you're looking for someone to touch your nuts, try BQZip's mom. Or Brabus.

[Danny Noonin]

Starving pilots will agree to jump ship to fly them.

Where did the "starving pilots" come from? If they are "jumping ship" then presumably you mean from another paying pilot job, true? If so, see above about striking. And they wouldn't be starving.

If your comeback is that there are dudes out there flying for $18k at the regionals living in their parents basement and those are the starving pilots you are speaking of, why do you think they do that? Why do they go into debt and commute across the country to work for shitty pay? Is it just because they needed a job and the best job they could find with a bachelors degree only paid $18k? Or is it because they love to fly airplanes and are willing to put up with some shit to do it?

So is that also why the retention rate in preds is so high right now? Because pilots are purely motivated by feeding their families and not by flying airplanes in which they themselves are sitting? What if by taking the RPA job as you suggest the evolution would be, these ship jumpers also accelerate the conversion to the purely automated UAV? Do you think these pilots/UAV technicians would not understand the cliff they just drove off?

I'm just asking.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Danny Noonin

[pcola]

I was talking more about when the company says "its an RPA gig or your job." Airlines strike... I get it. People also scab. Ask the manufacturing industry. For every factory worker on strike, there are two willing to take their job for 3/4 pay without union benefits. Like you said, we have a whole fleet of qualified pilots making 18 bucks an hour. You think those guys wouldn't scab a major airline RPA job for 3 times their pay when the major's union goes on strike? For every pilot out there not willing to do the job, there are more in line that are willing. When the technology advances such that less expertise can accomplish the same job, the union's won't be as powerful.

Edited April 3, 2012 by pcola

[Danny Noonin]

Like you said, we have a whole fleet of qualified pilots making 18 bucks an hour. You think those guys wouldn't scab a major airline RPA job for 3 times their pay when the major's union goes on strike?

No they won't. First of all, the dudes making $18 an hour aren't qualified to work at the majors because they don't have enough hours for an ATP. And make no mistake, there would be federal mins, even for RPAs. Especially at the beginning.

Also--and much more importantly--they would have to give up their seniority number at their old job to take a temp job as a scab. Then they would never get their old job back after the strike ends so why would they do that? They're also all union themselves and would be pariahs forever if they were to get their job back or any union job for the rest of their lives. Example: if they commute to work no one would ever let them ride the jumpseat again. Dudes to this day keep scab lists in the cockpit and deny guys rides. Its not like they are going to pay for a flight to work and can't afford to live in NYC so they couldn't do it. Even if they didn't commute, dudes literally would not talk to them again. Their entire airline existence would be miserable from then on.

As for the "it's an RPA gig or your job". See above about striking.

Dude you clearly don't understand the mentality of an airline pilot or a union. Many of these dudes have been furloughed before, some several times. They stuck with it anyway.I know a dude who sold farm equipment 2 days a week to put food on the table until he got recalled. Being without a job temporarily is not foreign territory to those guys and they are willing to put up with some shit to fly. Faced with the loss of their dream job, they will strike and, in my opinion, it would work though I've clearly had no success convincing the peanut gallery here.

I'm bored with all this talk of airlines, unions, and UAVs. They are my least favorite subjects. I'm out.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Danny Noonin

[HercDude]

At one point every elevator had to have an operator because it was too dangerous to get in one without someone trained in their operation. I would guess that in the 1860s there were people who said "no one will ever get in one of those things with out an operator". Airliners without a pilot (in the sense that we currently understand pilots) will happen, and probably in our lifetimes. Well maybe not in Rainman's lifetime . . . .

People who can't see that are like the set designers of Star Trek who though that in the future every computer would take up an entire wall and consist primarily of large blue and red lights that flashed in sequence.

Computers get smarter every day. Every day. To argue that a computer 50 or 60 years from now will be unable to control the air conditioner, pull a fire handle, or decide that the Hudson is the only available landing surface withing gliding distance is incredibly short-sighted.

I do think that it will be technologically fesable well before it's economically feasable and publicly agreeable. But it will happen. And you're great-great-great grandkids will have a great story to tell about how awesome you were to be part of the 169 years of human history that had people sitting behind the controls of aircraft.

[Guest]

I'm bored with all this talk of airlines, unions, and UAVs. They are my least favorite subjects. I'm out.

You hung with this one way longer than I thought you would. That was impressive...

[Ram]

You hung with this one way longer than I thought you would. That was impressive...

Wow, I didn't realize that 3-1 term came from a dude. Just thought it was weird Brit slang...cuz it's all weird.

[pawnman]

Where did the "starving pilots" come from? If they are "jumping ship" then presumably you mean from another paying pilot job, true? If so, see above about striking. And they wouldn't be starving.

If your comeback is that there are dudes out there flying for $18k at the regionals living in their parents basement and those are the starving pilots you are speaking of, why do you think they do that? Why do they go into debt and commute across the country to work for shitty pay? Is it just because they needed a job and the best job they could find with a bachelors degree only paid $18k? Or is it because they love to fly airplanes and are willing to put up with some shit to do it?

So is that also why the retention rate in preds is so high right now? Because pilots are purely motivated by feeding their families and not by flying airplanes in which they themselves are sitting? What if by taking the RPA job as you suggest the evolution would be, these ship jumpers also accelerate the conversion to the purely automated UAV? Do you think these pilots/UAV technicians would not understand the cliff they just drove off?

I'm just asking.

You don't think there will be a whole crop of UAV pilots currently in the Air Force willing to take a job with more stable hours and less queep (potentially more pay, depending on what the market conditions look like) who will be happy to fly the UAV airliners without joining the union? I do. You're saying no current pilot wants to fly these things, or allow them to fly. You are overlooking the fact that the airlines may or may not need them to. There are other sources of labor.

I haven't seen the response, so I'll ask...surely these airline unions aren't global? Because I can certainly admit that unmanned airlines may initially have trouble gaining traction against American unions, but I'm curious how pilots in, say, China, or Saudi, or Russia would fight such a move. It's entirely possible the first unmanned airliner won't be fielded by an American company.

[albertschu]

Sorry, you've got the wrong person. If you're looking for someone to touch your nuts, try BQZip's mom. Or Brabus.

Didn't say we want it, just that it is inevitable. Is Mrs. Zip also preparing for a career as a flight attendant?

Edited April 3, 2012 by albertschu

[albertschu]

It's entirely possible the first unmanned airliner won't be fielded by an American company.

无人机空中加油自主会合控制器设计

[Darth]

http://travel.yahoo.com/ideas/distracted-pilot-forgets-to-lower-landing-gear.html

Yet another reason for automation along with the guy who was BFMing Venus (and bouncing passengers around like a well hit three wood in a tile bathroom.) Sorry but I found this thread entertaining and a good break from reality and would like to see more energetic thoughts from the highly enlightened technically savy yournger generation who want to ride around in UAV/RPA objects knowing that HAL will never fail..never..fail..fail...