None of this is relevant because nobody has designed any of them with the kind of safety and redundancy you would put in a passenger UAV.
A point i agree completely, and it is my argument, thank you that you start to follow. There is no proof what so ever that such system exists or that such system will be available in the timeframe you are talking about. Safety and redundancy in adequate way is necessary and all your mentioned systems do not have those yet. And because no such system exists your statement that those systems
are safer than piloted systems is nothing more than an assumption. And assumption is the mother of all f*ck*p.
We might now start to define, what a safer than human piloted aircraft should be able to do, and it should not be less than it does today. And it should not cost more than today, and it should be as cost effective to maintain as today. And that all these necessary investments pay out, it should be safer than those today with pilots.
Would it not be wise to take the money such a new design would cost and improve the quality of those pilots who should fly those aircraft? You yourself stated, that you observed the knowledge and skill of pilots decreased over the years, which is not due to human inability but due to neglect. There had been a higher standard out there, why not regain it?
Start with a proper preselection of pilot candidates, train and evaluate them to high standards, pay and treat them as important persons in the company and give them chances to keep up with their knowledge and skills. And put the fate of the pilot corps in the hands of people who have been there, done that and known it.
I' ve said more than i intended to say, therefore it should be enough. Lets move on.