The only point of being in business is to make money- it is now as it was in the twenties. Most businesses will take any steps they can to reduce costs and overheads and maximise profit. If they don't, their management team is failing them and should be replaced.
The main question is, what does that company then do with its profits- does it pay its shareholders, invest in new equipment, invest in its people? If it does all three, it is probably a good company to work for. If it doesn't, it is like some airlines today- profits to the managers/owners, lots of new kit, not much for the employees.
In any event, the question driving this thread is automation and the elimination of the flight crew from the flight deck (or a reduction in status to observers).
The technology is not yet mature enough to allow this to happen. Even if it were, the regulatory framework doesn't exist to allow it to be implemented. Such a uses of technology almost certainly contravenes a lot of existing legislation (certainly in Europe); the sort of legislation that protects the rights of the consumer. Getting to an automated airliner that flies with no human intervention is almost certainly not possible in the forseeable future for these reasons.
Even if it were, the chances of it being accepted quickly by the travelling public are remote. There is no precedent for fully automated flight; the few other forms of transport that are "driverless" (such as elevators, some trains, airport shuttles etc) are also failsafe- the brakes come on and you stop. An aircraft can never be failsafe.
Even if you could get over the hurdles of technology, regulation, consumer rights, and public acceptance, this technology is unlikely to be cheap. It would almost certainly cost the modern equivalent of Concorde to develop to a satisfactory level. As we all know, few manufacturers can stump up the development costs, and few airlines can afford the end result. The cost saving you achieve by eliminating the pilots is simply not that big.
For certain, none of the second-tier airlines could afford to participate.
And finally, the first time one of these pilotless aircraft crashes, the whole programme will be thrown into chaos (and there will be accidents, as there have been (spectacularly) with FBW aircraft.
Yes, the pilot is not foolproof from an ultimate safety point of view (which is why there are two of them, after all), but there is still a way to go yet in the quest to eliminate pilot-induced accidents (which are, by the way, extremely rare in any case- especially in the West). If the primary purpose of technological advance was safety, we would be doing something about the carnage on the roads. We don't, because it isn't profitable.
I really do believe there is life in the old wetware yet. Automation may come- especially as the rise of nanotechnology and biocomputing continues- but not in my lifetime (than God).