Originally Posted by Roller Merlin
AirRabbit your view that the "F22 as a last manned platform" and "UAVs may inevitably lead to automated civil transport" does not stand up.
This is not an argument for automation at all but one of risk. The purpose of the military aircraft is to achieve a military mission, where the risk of failure is weighed against the gains sought. The machine is simply a platform to achieve that. Replacing humans here is to reduce the risks.
The the civil airline seeks to attract the customer, get them on and off safely, fed, watered, saved significant time (otherwise they would take alternative means), and moreover to keep them happy, confident and assured they are safe in an environment they would otherwise avoid. This assurance of their safety extends to their loved ones, the community, shareholders in the airline etc. Retaining humans in the aircraft is to also reduce the risks.
I for one would never put my family on an aircraft without trusted people up front. Automation applied to reduce risks is great, provided there is an off switch.
Well, you may believe that my view does not stand up … would that you are correct. Should operations personnel resume the responsibilities of operating airlines, your position would be bolstered quite a bit. However, should the current trend – bean counters running the airlines – continue, I wonder whether your view or mine (and mine isn’t optimistic or desired, I assure you!) would prevail.
The airlines are faced with a limited capability of managing costs … and you know them as well as I. You are also aware of the costs over which management has virtually no control. I leave it to you … what is the largest and what is the smallest outlay of corporate funds? Capital expenditures (airplanes, buildings, computers, etc.)? Facilities leasing (buildings, aircraft, computer systems)? Direct operating costs (fuel, landing fees, electricity)? Personnel salaries and benefits? What would be the most logical of these areas to dramatically cut – presuming that dramatic cuts would ever be required?
As for your comments regarding “attracting the customer, getting them on and off safely, fed, watered, saved time, and keeping them happy…” - when applying those same intents to the customers of Federal Express, UPS, Airborne Express, DHL, and the dozens of other similarly placed operations, the meaning becomes altered quite a bit. What does it mean? I submit that it depends on what decisions are being made in the board rooms of those operators.