Guys, I think the relentless pursuit of Aircraft is a bit tiresome now. We are focusing too much on the pseudonym and not the argument.
One of the benefits of people like Aircraft is their contrarian attitude and i would like to use some of his(her) points to further the debate.
1. Pilotless aircraft.
The technology that allows pilotless aircraft is effectively here. For it to work with large scale passenger operations, weather avoidance, datalink communications and ground intervention would need to be enhanced, but i that is doable.
However, automation is not going to get rid of on-board crew in the near, or even distant future. I would suggest that there a a few reasons, but they would include;
A. Passenger Acceptance. All passengers I meet seem to be concerned with the quality of the crew up front. There is a human need to identify with whoever has control over us. This alone will require some sort of human authority figure on board for pax to fly.
B. Unexpected non-normals. There is always a chance that even the best designed system may encounter a problem hitherto unplanned. The most effective troubleshooter is the one at the scene. Airlines may be able to do a cost/benefit of a hull loss, but many pax wont.
C. Reality of the job. During command training at my airline there is constant reinforcement the whilst flying the aeroplane is paramount (and we get extensive training in aircraft handling in all phases of flight, both normal and non-normal) there is an almost equally strong emphasis on the management of aspects of the operation that are additional to flying, ie. coordinating with pax, cabin crew, ground staff engineers etc etc.
So, based on the above I believe that there will always be a need to have at least one person that can operate the aircraft and troubleshoot technical and operational problems at the coalface. As all the other systems in the aircraft would have redundancy, then we should probably follow suit and have 2 such people. You can call them whatever you like, but i believe that this job description fits mine as a pilot.
2. Equality of pay.
Pilots
cannot fly without engineers, cabin crew, ground staff etc. It is
not possible. At best, if all of these people went on strike, then maybe some pilots could do some of their jobs. But the roles are still necessary, it would just be somebody else doing it.
However just because every member of a team is necessary doesn't mean that we get equal pay (unless you are a marxist). Renumeration is based and responsibility, the training required to undertake a role, and as has been discussed already, supply and demand. (amongst other things)
May I suggest that pilots getting a payrise is good for all other employees of an airline. Pilots are usually at the top of the pay totem pole, so if their pay goes up, there is more scope for those under them to also go up. If, however, pilots pay falls to rates that are barely livable on, that does not auger well for a stewardess or check-n staff. There are few (if any) airlines where these staff are not paid less than a pilot.
3. The nature of the business (I am sorry for being long winded).
Can I also suggest that if a business cant price its product so that the cost of doing business is covered, then there is probably an argument that the business is economically unnecessary. I believe that there is a moral and political need for airlines operations in rural Australia, but a lot of rural infrastructure needs to be supported by the government. It is the price we pay for living in this "Big brown land". Maybe there needs to be some sort of contribution from the government. A suggestion, each person living in a rural region gets an allowance that can be spent topping up and airfare. This would be based on factors such as remoteness and levels of service at a station. A person in Dubbo might be allowed to buy a ticket to Sydney for 80% of the fare with the government topping up the rest, whilst a person from Wilcannia might only have to pay 50% of the fare. I think that for this to work there would have to be co-payment by pax (to avoid abuse of the system) and the payment would be made to the airline so that it is not seen as a system to be used to get cash.
Just my humble opinion.
Cheers.
