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

181–190 of 267 posts

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

#181

Post by jwie »

You can’t know what was prevented due to the copilot being present. This is the problem. Nobody appreciates the value of the unbroken window. I’m willing to bet a horrifyingly large amount of value exists in a human copilot.

They say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but companies never allocate resources as if that were true.

If prevention becomes a cost center, some jackass is going to try to cut it. They couldn’t measure the prevention. It was just another line item on the wrong side of a ledger.

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

#182

Post by kwanbix »

phkahler wrote: post #164

This makes no sense to me. The cost of having a copilot is one shared by every carrier. Eliminating that does not give one a competitive advantage as all carriers will get a similar cost reduction. It smacks an elitist "fuck employees, we hate having them, it's our money" That's not even considering the safety implications.

And what happens if THE pilot has a heart attack or similar problem that prevents it from flying the plane?

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

#183

Post by mrtksn »

phkahler wrote: post #164

This makes no sense to me. The cost of having a copilot is one shared by every carrier. Eliminating that does not give one a competitive advantage as all carriers will get a similar cost reduction. It smacks an elitist "fuck employees, we hate having them, it's our money" That's not even considering the safety implications.

Maybe its not competitive advantage against other airlines but is definitely competitive advantage against other forms of transport. If they can reduce cost they can reduce price and this may result in growth of the market. It will also increase the supply of human resources which would make fast market expansion possible.

I don't know about the security implications but I'm inclined to believe that lowering costs is good for business.

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

#184

Post by fetzu »

iHateStylo wrote: post #104
csours wrote: post #95

I'm kind of surprised that no one has mentioned the possibility of pilots having malicious intent.

Indeed wasn’t there a rule made specifically after the Germanwings suicide crash? I see it all the time: crew walks in, pilot goes to the toilet.

It seems that it was made into a rule but dropped a year later [0] (by the EASA, so in Europe at least). According to the Wikipedia article on Germanwings 9525, even Germanwings dropped that two-person rule a couple of years later [1]. I don’t know what the FAA rule regarding this is.

[0] https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/news/minim... [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39749803

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

#185

Post by acdha »

Calamitous wrote: post #173
phkahler wrote: post #164

This makes no sense to me. The cost of having a copilot is one shared by every carrier. Eliminating that does not give one a competitive advantage as all carriers will get a similar cost reduction. It smacks an elitist "fuck employees, we hate having them, it's our money" That's not even considering the safety implications.

I suspect it has more to do with the availability of employees rather than the cost. But I’ll admit that’s based on my hearing anecdotal tales rather than hard facts.

Isn’t that the same thing? What I’ve heard is that the pay isn’t attractive enough to get enough new pilots and a ton of older ones retired when the airlines screwed them during the pandemic. If you have a reputation for dumping your employees any time you can save a little money, the base pay expectations are going to need to go up.

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

#186

Post by jeffrallen »

jwie wrote: post #181

You can’t know what was prevented due to the copilot being present. This is the problem. Nobody appreciates the value of the unbroken window. I’m willing to bet a horrifyingly large amount of value exists in a human copilot. They say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but companies never allocate resources as if that were true. If prevention becomes a cost center, some jackass is going to try to cut it.…

The entire practice of CRM (crew resources management) exists because of the value of the second human. It is a formal mechanism to recognize that multiple minds, looking at the same input, might diagnose different problems and that the sum of those opinions is more valuable than one alone.

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

#187

Post by noisy_boy »

phkahler wrote: post #164

This makes no sense to me. The cost of having a copilot is one shared by every carrier. Eliminating that does not give one a competitive advantage as all carriers will get a similar cost reduction. It smacks an elitist "fuck employees, we hate having them, it's our money" That's not even considering the safety implications.

My understanding is that qualified pilots are in short supply and by removing the position of copilot, the collective pilot pool doubles which also somewhat reduces the leverage pilots have over airlines due to supply shortage.

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

#188

Post by hattar »

mrtksn wrote: post #183
phkahler wrote: post #164

This makes no sense to me. The cost of having a copilot is one shared by every carrier. Eliminating that does not give one a competitive advantage as all carriers will get a similar cost reduction. It smacks an elitist "fuck employees, we hate having them, it's our money" That's not even considering the safety implications.

Maybe its not competitive advantage against other airlines but is definitely competitive advantage against other forms of transport. If they can reduce cost they can reduce price and this may result in growth of the market. It will also increase the supply of human resources which would make fast market expansion possible. I don't know about the security implications but I'm inclined to believe that lowering costs is…

What form of travel are airlines competing with in the US? Travel by train is basically so bad that it’s for entertainment purposes only and any distance over 300 miles is more expensive and time consuming by car.

The fact that the airport/TSA experience can be so difficult and airlines are still fine is a testament to the lack of viable alternatives.

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

#189

Post by arthurgibson »

phkahler wrote: post #164

This makes no sense to me. The cost of having a copilot is one shared by every carrier. Eliminating that does not give one a competitive advantage as all carriers will get a similar cost reduction. It smacks an elitist "fuck employees, we hate having them, it's our money" That's not even considering the safety implications.

I view this as more of a public safety concern. There are plenty of areas to cut costs imo.

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

#190

Post by Wowfunhappy »

mrtksn wrote: post #183
phkahler wrote: post #164

This makes no sense to me. The cost of having a copilot is one shared by every carrier. Eliminating that does not give one a competitive advantage as all carriers will get a similar cost reduction. It smacks an elitist "fuck employees, we hate having them, it's our money" That's not even considering the safety implications.

Maybe its not competitive advantage against other airlines but is definitely competitive advantage against other forms of transport. If they can reduce cost they can reduce price and this may result in growth of the market. It will also increase the supply of human resources which would make fast market expansion possible. I don't know about the security implications but I'm inclined to believe that lowering costs is…

Not even other forms of transit--if transit is cheaper, people will travel more.
Post reply on HN