Anything relying on total "remote control" is definitely at risk, for the reasons Ozcan mentions.
But how about a scenario where - like the much quoted DLR - there's a "driver" on board, who only overrides if there's something serious amiss?
I'm sure if we can trust systems to fly right up to the flare, then there's enroute stuff that can be automated.
The counter argument, is, I guess, that having crew on board won't save money so why bother with all the expense of developing such a system. The only then, I can think of, is if it's safer?
(And now, with no supporting facts either way, I disappear in a puff of badly thought through hypothesis.
)