Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 267 posts

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#81

Post by rsj_hn »

gkiely wrote: post #75
rsj_hn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would fly domestic automated flights if the automation was proven as safe, the above conditions were met, and the price was 40-50% cheaper. You believe pilot salaries are 40-50% of airline ticket prices? A pilot makes ~130K per year and flies, say, 2 trips a day, so ~500 trips a year. So on a plane with 200 people, they are each paying about $1.30 per pilot. Two pilots, round it up to $5 per trip. That's how much…

I didn’t phrase this well, good call out. Now that I’ve thought about it what I’m actually trying to ask is… What would it take to drop flight prices 50%? Automated flights, a change in fuel technology, 0 marketing spend, reduced maintenance? More specifically, what is the bare bones cost to transport a human from point a to b, safely, in the same or less time it takes a flight.

> What would it take to drop flight prices 50%?

1. Free fuel. Fuel is the biggest cost of flights. For domestic flights, about half the ticket cost.

2. No taxes/government mandated fees (including fuel taxes). These are the second biggest cost, and for international flights, can easily be half the ticket price, but for domestic flights, about 20% of the ticket price.

3. Free planes. Planes are the third biggest cost.

4. Free administration. The Airline bureaucracy is the fourth biggest cost.

5. Free Stewardess labor. Fifth biggest cost.

6. Free Pilots.

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#82

Post by josefx »

rysertio wrote: post #68
WalterBright wrote: post #31

All you gotta do is watch a few episodes of "Aviation Disasters" to conclude that the pilot needs a backup - the copilot. After all, when the pilot goes to the potty, who is flying the airplane? The computer? LOL. When something unanticipated goes wrong, the computers are COMPLETELY USELESS because it wasn't programmed to deal with unanticipated problems. Me, I'll pay a bit extra for my flight to have 2 pilots. Pilot…

But would that pilot have to be in the plane to fly it? We have been using remote controlled killer drones for years now.

Just look at the MCAS disaster. The only override that wasn't under its control required someone present in the cockpit to basically physically lift the plane using a normally automated control.

This illustrates two things: First the design of the software used in commercial airplanes is bat shit insane and second, the fallbacks require that a trained person is physically present on the plane.

> We have been using remote controlled killer drones for years now.

While Boeing has shown some talent at killing people the goal of commercial airplanes is usually to get their passengers to their destination alive.

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#83

Post by GekkePrutser »

noahtallen wrote: post #73
akiselev wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pilot shortage is all up and down the stack, including in GA [1], commercial, and military. There simply isn’t enough pilots anywhere in the pipeline. It doesn’t help that most PPLs tend towards wealthy professionals who sure as hell aren’t sitting in an aluminum tube nonstop six to twenty hours at a time. Instead of using pilots’ love of flying to siphon off recruits from other professions theyve used it to keep…

The sad thing about GA is that it’s just so cost prohibitive. You’re talking tens of thousands of dollars just to get the basic license, and even then it’s not that practically useful (you can’t even fly at night or in weather without an instrument rating). I would love to get my PP, but even in a well-paying field it’s just inaccessible without dedicating a lot more than I’m ready to give.

You can get the JAR-PPL SEP license for 10k exactly here in Europe (Spain -prepaid course) and everyone tells me that the US is cheaper.

It's expensive yes but not out of reach of most people.

Once you start looking into CPL, night rating, multiple engine etc that's when it gets expensive.

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#84

Post by josefx »

biomcgary wrote: post #63
fasthands9 wrote: post #6

> Prior to 2010, pilots needed just 250 hours to start flying for a commercial airline. The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 raised this requirement from 250 hours to 1,500 hours. >co-pilots in foreign countries are required to have just 240 hours, with some of those hours occurring in a simulator. This is from a different article but feel like this is lower hanging fruit than…

Why not require a pilot with 1.5k of hours and allow co-pilots with 250+ hours for cargo and 500+ hours for passenger? It would decrease the upfront cost of getting trained as a pilot before getting paid.

Some accidents where caused by pilot and copilot providing conflicting input. Having two pilots pilots with significant training differences has the potential to make things worse.

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#85

Post by mym1990 »

oceanplexian wrote: post #60
Retric wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, I think remote backup drivers for self driving cars is fairly reasonable, but remote pilots just brings to mind thousands of passenger filled bombs.

At least to start it’s pretty simple. Have a single physical pilot with the ability for a remote pilot to take over in the event of incapacitation, bathroom breaks, etc. The real pilot can always override the remote piloting system through some kind of physical disconnect.

I would surely hope that to start they would keep 2 pilots in the cockpit and have a remote pilot on standby and record X number of miles without things hitting the fan.

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#86

Post by vore »

pigtailgirl wrote: post #14
totalZero wrote: post #4

I'm not sure I'd want to travel on commercial aircraft if the regulators eliminate pilot redundancy.

-- interesting - total opposite for me - #1 cause of commercial aircraft accidents is pilot error - by a long shot - personally - looking forward to the day humans are not involved in flying an aircraft -- https://nci.edu/2021/06/08/the-most-common-causes-of-aviatio... https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oam...

We should really just petition the FAA to eliminate all pilots entirely right now: it'll eliminate the #1 cause of commercial aircraft accidents.

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#87

Post by mym1990 »

bsder wrote: post #78
akiselev wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pilot shortage is all up and down the stack, including in GA [1], commercial, and military. There simply isn’t enough pilots anywhere in the pipeline. It doesn’t help that most PPLs tend towards wealthy professionals who sure as hell aren’t sitting in an aluminum tube nonstop six to twenty hours at a time. Instead of using pilots’ love of flying to siphon off recruits from other professions theyve used it to keep…

> There simply isn’t enough pilots anywhere in the pipeline. Really? Can you back that up with some reference somewhere? From talking to aspiring airline pilots, it seems that their career trajectory is terrible until they actually land their butt in the seat of a major airline plane. How can we have such a shortage of pilots and at the same time have such lousy pay and working conditions for the infeed?

Not sure if sarcasm, but are you asking how there is a shortage in airline pilots when the incentives to start looking at a career in the field are terrible?

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#88

Post by mym1990 »

shitlord wrote: post #11
totalZero wrote: post #4

I'm not sure I'd want to travel on commercial aircraft if the regulators eliminate pilot redundancy.

If autopilot can control an airplane, then couldn't someone also pilot the plane remotely (as if it were a drone)? That would provide some pilot redundancy. I imagine airlines could also save money on staffing if the copilot didn't have to be physically present.

My gut feeling is that when companies cut costs by cutting safety features, it doesn't play out favorably for consumers.

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#89

Post by Ekaros »

rsj_hn wrote: post #81
gkiely wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t phrase this well, good call out. Now that I’ve thought about it what I’m actually trying to ask is… What would it take to drop flight prices 50%? Automated flights, a change in fuel technology, 0 marketing spend, reduced maintenance? More specifically, what is the bare bones cost to transport a human from point a to b, safely, in the same or less time it takes a flight.

> What would it take to drop flight prices 50%? 1. Free fuel. Fuel is the biggest cost of flights. For domestic flights, about half the ticket cost. 2. No taxes/government mandated fees (including fuel taxes). These are the second biggest cost, and for international flights, can easily be half the ticket price, but for domestic flights, about 20% of the ticket price. 3. Free planes. Planes are the third biggest cost.…

What about airport slots and fees?

Re: Airlines lobbying FAA to have only one pilot in the cockpit

#90

Post by mym1990 »

gkiely wrote: post #55

I take a contrarian opinion on this, the price of a flight in the US outside of major hubs is egregious. Especially during peak times or holidays. What is the long term plan here? Will there still be duo pilots in 2040? 2060? Surely long term it will be automated with remote supervision/override and a cabin crew who have basic training to emergency land. Do the testing on mail delivery, get it good enough, introduce…

You're never going to see the price of airline tickets fall by 50% due to eliminating pilots, or likely any other reason. The companies will just use the increased margins to pad their own pockets while probably raising prices under the guise of innovation or other additional features.

With the exception of a few markets that have price volatility, deflation is a really rare thing. What people get instead are products that are packed with either more performance or more features(whether useful or not) and that is justification for the slight price increases that we see from year to year.

Post reply on HN