Merged: To hand fly, or use the automatics?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Olfactory?
There was really no need to bring what is an excelent thread down to that level Red. However, since you raised it, here's my reply.
The day a machine can smell fumes/smoke and know how to deal with it you might have a point. Until then......
The day a machine can smell fumes/smoke and know how to deal with it you might have a point. Until then......
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't trying to lower anything Gary.
I was just pointing out the difference in technology in say the last 50 years.
Imagine then what will be around 50 years from now.
This thread is about exactly that with pilots becoming more systems analysts than they are pilots at least compared to pilots of 50 years ago.
How much hands on flying do pilots do on modern commercial aircraft today compared to the aircraft of the day 50 years ago.Isn't that what this thread is about?
Technology is driven simply by money or more accurately the need to save money.
I bet pilots were saying something very similar back in the 50's and 60's so I'm afraid you won't have to wait long Gary
I was just pointing out the difference in technology in say the last 50 years.
Imagine then what will be around 50 years from now.
This thread is about exactly that with pilots becoming more systems analysts than they are pilots at least compared to pilots of 50 years ago.
How much hands on flying do pilots do on modern commercial aircraft today compared to the aircraft of the day 50 years ago.Isn't that what this thread is about?
Technology is driven simply by money or more accurately the need to save money.
The day a machine can smell fumes/smoke and know how to deal with it you might have a point. Until then......
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the sky, mostly
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish,
Savings can be made by using automation to accurately fly optimum altitudes/profiles/speeds/tracks - NOT by putting monkeys up front or on the spanners.
A popular saying comes to mind - “You think safety is expensive, try having an accident”.
Just have a look at many third world airline accidents and incidents. They simply would not have happened with a competent well trained crew.
There are some areas where you can only save so much!
Savings can be made by using automation to accurately fly optimum altitudes/profiles/speeds/tracks - NOT by putting monkeys up front or on the spanners.
A popular saying comes to mind - “You think safety is expensive, try having an accident”.
Just have a look at many third world airline accidents and incidents. They simply would not have happened with a competent well trained crew.
There are some areas where you can only save so much!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RED,
I think you will find that with the way TCAS/ADSB/RNP and all other technology is going, that air traffic controllers will go before pilots.
All that needs to happen is for a requirement of all aircraft to have a serviceable appropriate transponder and gnss, plus redundency.
New technology will develop that will sequence aircraft on an appropriate RNP and give time/speed information without human intervention.
I think you will find that with the way TCAS/ADSB/RNP and all other technology is going, that air traffic controllers will go before pilots.
All that needs to happen is for a requirement of all aircraft to have a serviceable appropriate transponder and gnss, plus redundency.
New technology will develop that will sequence aircraft on an appropriate RNP and give time/speed information without human intervention.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RedTBar
The US military is already using pilotless aircraft so it's only a matter of time before it creeps into civilian aircraft.
There is a massive difference between using a pilotless aircraft to do surveillance and launch precision strikes against targets, and asking Aunty Dot, Uncle Elmer, and their 6 kids to spend 12 hours in a plane at 35,000 ft which is being flown by remote-control, by someone sitting in an armchair in the basement of a building in Oonawhoopwhoop.
The funniest thing I ever heard on this topic was a certain navigator (nice bloke actually, but delusional and fuelled by Bundy, which makes people say stupid things) about 20 years ago say to me "you know, technology will get rid of pilots before it gets rid of navs".
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you won't get me on one, I would rather go by camel. It was bad enough when the took away the Flight Engineer (another set of eyes, another set of hands, another set of experience) to give the drivers away and leave a "systems operator" (and dog) is too much for me!
It's an interesting problem....how would a remote controlled a/c deal with things like this; you're cleared to line up, the wind changes and there are 40 birds sitting on the strip 200 meters in front of you, the cabin crew ding dong to say that the guy in row 23 won't stow his bags and is walking about the aisle. I'm not saying it can't be done I'm just wondering how it would be done, would the wind change be adjusted for by the remote pilot who has the info on the screen in front of him/her? would the birds be detected by a runway radar and the info passed onto the remote controller? Would the cabin crew ding dong the remote controller rather than the tech crew? If that is the case and the remote controller leaves the a/c sitting on the threshold for an extra 2 mins while this stuff is being sorted then who tells the remote controller of the a/c on a 6nm final that he needs to go-around and what happens if there is any sort of comms failure?
There may be good/easy answers to these questions but I think they will cost a lot of money....eg this poor chap getting bombarded with info in his bunker by radio might as well be sitting in the flight deck. There would be little cost savings in salary as pilots are already approaching salaries that are near national averages in many countries. Framer
There may be good/easy answers to these questions but I think they will cost a lot of money....eg this poor chap getting bombarded with info in his bunker by radio might as well be sitting in the flight deck. There would be little cost savings in salary as pilots are already approaching salaries that are near national averages in many countries. Framer
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There would be little cost savings in salary as pilots are already approaching salaries that are near national averages in many countries.
I don't think anyone is saying that you would get rid of pilots completely but it is not beyond suggestion that they could have just one pilot there as Tbar said a systems analysts for those odd and rare occasions.
I doubt framer is right and the savings including super,hols,accommodation,sick leave amount to a considerable amount.....
I don't remember the exact amount but we were told that to reduce the crew by one flight attendant saved the company millions across the fleet.So you can imagine how much they would save by reducing the tech crew ranks by one per aircraft...
I doubt framer is right and the savings including super,hols,accommodation,sick leave amount to a considerable amount.....
If that is the case you end up with a small savings in salary assuming he is cheaper than a pilot in the flight deck. Surely this is off-set by the costs of things like (in my scenario) the ground radar for birds, the comms set up to provide acceptable redundancy, the cost of whatever magical system tells the a/c on finals that he needs to go-around and then determines his intentions and conveys that to the other a/c etc etc.
As for the salaries, I was talking yesterday to a chap who is stumping up $10k USD as a training bond to fly right seat on a B737 on $1700USD a month......which is to be taxed. That is not a training wage....that is it. I kid you not.
A while ago I talked to a B737 Captain who was earning the same gross salary in 2009 as he was in 1981 doing the same job on the same a/c type.
I can't remember what the Colgen F/O was earning but I'm pretty sure it was around or below the national average.
In a developed western country I recently worked in the Flag Carriers turbo prop link operation (considered a prestigious job)had pilots flying for about 10k more than the national average wage......
I did say "approaching" .
I think that is the trend. All four of those examples are from different countries. I stand by the statement at this stage.
Framer
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off Topic
Originally Posted by lowerlobe
I could be wrong but I doubt that even with LCC's but show me some figures.
Manassas-based Colgan Air today struggled to defend itself as details emerged about the low pay of its pilots, their long commutes and the need of some to hold second jobs to make ends meet.
Colgan faced a number of questions from the National Transportation Safety Board about its pilots in the second day of public hearings that cover the crash of Continental Connections Flight 3047 that killed 50 people near Buffalo on Feb. 12 this year. The NTSB is in its second day of public hearings into the crash, which was the deadliest U.S. transportation accident in seven years.
Under questioning from the board, Mary Finnigan, Colgan's vice president for administration, reported that Rebecca Shaw, co-pilot of the crash plane, drew an annual salary of $16,200 a year. The board also said that Shaw once held a second job in coffee shop while working as a pilot for the airline in Norfolk, Va.
Asked by a board if the Colgan expected Shaw to reside in the New York area, near her base in Newark, Finnegan responded: "Pilots are told what the pay scales are. Our pay scales are within the industry standard."
Later on, asked if Colgan made cost-of-living adjustments to assist employees who reside in expensive areas such as New York, Harry Mitchel, Colgan's vice president of flight operations, said no program existed for pilots. But, he added that Colgan had such a policy for managers.
The testimony offers a rare, behind-the-scenes look into regional airline world that has grown significantly over the years as major airlines contract out air service to regional airlines that serve small cities. Colgan was operating the Buffalo flight as regional airline partner of Continental Airlines. Regional carriers often fly jets that seat 78 passengers or less and turboprops, like the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 involved in the crash.
According to the Regional Airline Association, 74 percent of the nation's 640 airports with scheduled airline service are only served by regional airlines. There are 70 regional airlines in the United States. Pilot jobs at the airlines are often considered entry-level jobs in the industry. Mitchel acknowledged that Colgan jobs were a "stepping stone" to higher-paying jobs at bigger airlines.
Pilots who work for major carriers flying large jet planes typically earn about $125,000 per year, on average.
Colgan has about 430 pilots and experiences an annual attrition rate as high as 30 percent, according to the safety board. Captains at Colgan Air typically earn between $50,000 and $53,000 per year.
The safety board also delved into the long commute for regional airline pilots. According to the NTSB, 93 of the Colgan's 137 Newark-based pilots identified themselves as commuters, including 49 of them who commute greater than 400 miles and 29 who live more than 1,000 miles away.
Both pilots were based at Colgan's Newark, N.J., office but lived in other cities and commuted to work by catching planes. Oftentimes, pilots commute to work by using privileges afforded to them by informal agreements among airlines that allow non-working pilots to sit in the jumpseat, or an open seat, when available and at little to no cost.
Shaw had an especially long, cross-country commute. On the day before the accident, Shaw left Seattle on an overnight FedEx flight to the East Coast. She arrived in Newark at 6:30 a.m. after a changeover in Memphis.
The board has said Shaw sent numerous text messages throughout the day, an indication that she wasn't getting adequate rest. Although Renslow arrived in Newark three days before the flight from Tampa, Fla., he was observed sleeping in the airline's crew lounge, a practice forbidden by the airline, according to the NTSB. The board has said it has found no evidence that either had accommodations in Newark.
Kitty Higgins, an NTSB board member, called the long-distance commuting and crew-room sleeping an other fatigue-related factors "a recipe for an accident and that's what we have here."
She continued, "Where does that all come together for somebody to say, 'Wait a minute. What is going on here?"
Colgan officials said the airline has made a number of policy improvements, including strengthening a policy that limits the pairing of inexperienced pilots in the cockpit. Colgan is currently in discussion with its pilots' union on flight and duty time rules and commuting policies.
The scheduling practices at Colgan are already under federal scrutiny. The Federal Aviation Administration has sent 16 letters of investigation probing whether Colgan was over-scheduling pilots between November 2008 and March 2009.
An FAA spokeswoman said the investigation was part of a routine review of the airline compliance with scheduling rules, which seek to ensure that pilots are getting sufficient rest. The spokeswoman said the current investigation was not triggered by the Buffalo crash.
Colgan faced a number of questions from the National Transportation Safety Board about its pilots in the second day of public hearings that cover the crash of Continental Connections Flight 3047 that killed 50 people near Buffalo on Feb. 12 this year. The NTSB is in its second day of public hearings into the crash, which was the deadliest U.S. transportation accident in seven years.
Under questioning from the board, Mary Finnigan, Colgan's vice president for administration, reported that Rebecca Shaw, co-pilot of the crash plane, drew an annual salary of $16,200 a year. The board also said that Shaw once held a second job in coffee shop while working as a pilot for the airline in Norfolk, Va.
Asked by a board if the Colgan expected Shaw to reside in the New York area, near her base in Newark, Finnegan responded: "Pilots are told what the pay scales are. Our pay scales are within the industry standard."
Later on, asked if Colgan made cost-of-living adjustments to assist employees who reside in expensive areas such as New York, Harry Mitchel, Colgan's vice president of flight operations, said no program existed for pilots. But, he added that Colgan had such a policy for managers.
The testimony offers a rare, behind-the-scenes look into regional airline world that has grown significantly over the years as major airlines contract out air service to regional airlines that serve small cities. Colgan was operating the Buffalo flight as regional airline partner of Continental Airlines. Regional carriers often fly jets that seat 78 passengers or less and turboprops, like the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 involved in the crash.
According to the Regional Airline Association, 74 percent of the nation's 640 airports with scheduled airline service are only served by regional airlines. There are 70 regional airlines in the United States. Pilot jobs at the airlines are often considered entry-level jobs in the industry. Mitchel acknowledged that Colgan jobs were a "stepping stone" to higher-paying jobs at bigger airlines.
Pilots who work for major carriers flying large jet planes typically earn about $125,000 per year, on average.
Colgan has about 430 pilots and experiences an annual attrition rate as high as 30 percent, according to the safety board. Captains at Colgan Air typically earn between $50,000 and $53,000 per year.
The safety board also delved into the long commute for regional airline pilots. According to the NTSB, 93 of the Colgan's 137 Newark-based pilots identified themselves as commuters, including 49 of them who commute greater than 400 miles and 29 who live more than 1,000 miles away.
Both pilots were based at Colgan's Newark, N.J., office but lived in other cities and commuted to work by catching planes. Oftentimes, pilots commute to work by using privileges afforded to them by informal agreements among airlines that allow non-working pilots to sit in the jumpseat, or an open seat, when available and at little to no cost.
Shaw had an especially long, cross-country commute. On the day before the accident, Shaw left Seattle on an overnight FedEx flight to the East Coast. She arrived in Newark at 6:30 a.m. after a changeover in Memphis.
The board has said Shaw sent numerous text messages throughout the day, an indication that she wasn't getting adequate rest. Although Renslow arrived in Newark three days before the flight from Tampa, Fla., he was observed sleeping in the airline's crew lounge, a practice forbidden by the airline, according to the NTSB. The board has said it has found no evidence that either had accommodations in Newark.
Kitty Higgins, an NTSB board member, called the long-distance commuting and crew-room sleeping an other fatigue-related factors "a recipe for an accident and that's what we have here."
She continued, "Where does that all come together for somebody to say, 'Wait a minute. What is going on here?"
Colgan officials said the airline has made a number of policy improvements, including strengthening a policy that limits the pairing of inexperienced pilots in the cockpit. Colgan is currently in discussion with its pilots' union on flight and duty time rules and commuting policies.
The scheduling practices at Colgan are already under federal scrutiny. The Federal Aviation Administration has sent 16 letters of investigation probing whether Colgan was over-scheduling pilots between November 2008 and March 2009.
An FAA spokeswoman said the investigation was part of a routine review of the airline compliance with scheduling rules, which seek to ensure that pilots are getting sufficient rest. The spokeswoman said the current investigation was not triggered by the Buffalo crash.
Last edited by breakfastburrito; 19th Jan 2010 at 06:34. Reason: Formatting
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
breakfastburrito....
No I'm not.....
Google is a wonderful tool isn't it?
Colgan.....WTF....Try looking at the bigger picture and not some small commuter airline.....why not use GA as well....
I said LCC's as well as inferring legacy airlines not some regional airline that you managed to pick from the internet world of obscurity....
Would you like to publish QF pay scales for their mainline pilots or even J*...
Even your own post shows the truth....
Are you telling me that $125,000 is an average wage around the world?
You are wrong.
Google is a wonderful tool isn't it?
Colgan.....WTF....Try looking at the bigger picture and not some small commuter airline.....why not use GA as well....
I said LCC's as well as inferring legacy airlines not some regional airline that you managed to pick from the internet world of obscurity....
Would you like to publish QF pay scales for their mainline pilots or even J*...
Even your own post shows the truth....
Mitchel acknowledged that Colgan jobs were a "stepping stone" to higher-paying jobs at bigger airlines.
Pilots who work for major carriers flying large jet planes typically earn about $125,000 per year, on average.
Pilots who work for major carriers flying large jet planes typically earn about $125,000 per year, on average.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lowerlobe, we could sit here all day & argue the toss on this one. Please start a new thread if you wish to discuss it further.
I posted my reply as being off-topic, this thread is actually about automation.
I posted my reply as being off-topic, this thread is actually about automation.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this thread is actually about automation.
From the start of the industrial revolution employers have sought ways to reduce the number of people needed to achieve a task by way of automation...
Someone else pointed out that perhaps like some other occupations, a job on the flight deck is headed the same way as has been the case for the last number of years.This is shown by the loss of a job for flight engineers and navigators as well as a reduction in flight crew numbers since the advent of glass cockpits and other technological advancements...
Then someone posted the comment that reducing the number of pilots by automation would not save the airlines money....which is the issue you took up.
I was simply pointing out the folly of that statement....
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh god, back to the pilot & dog / pilot-less aircraft pipe dream.
Where do I start? Just a few random thoughts, but not limited too:
Lawyers
No manufacturer's lawyer is ever going to sign-off on the pilot-less aircraft, the reason for the simple reason of responsibility. It would all fall on the manufacturer. There would be no dead pilot to blame.
Engineers
The pilot-less aircraft is the engineering wet dream, engineering out the pilot is all about ego, not cost saving. Can it be done with the 99.999+% reliability that we have today at an acceptable cost?
Infrastructure
Think about the infrastructure that needs to be installed in just terms of communications. An ultra high reliability two-way data link with a robust signalling protocol & guaranteed message delivery. There would also have to be a continuously revised failsafe flightplan/groundplan on the assumption that the data link could fail at any point in the flight.
The sheer cost & time to develop this would be enormous. It however, can be done.
Every single major aerodrome would need to be fitted out with every component of such a system before it could be used as a "automated destination". So what would operators do in the transition period? They would still have to have crew aircraft fitted with a conventional flight deck AND the fully autonomous equipment for city pairs that weren't "fully automated". Increase costs for long term gain, this is not how capitalism works.
There would only ever be one smoking hole in the ground from pilot-less RPT aircraft, public confidence would be shattered by a single fatal accident.
Dog & Pilot show
There is a very good reason why all FMC entries are cross checked by a second crew member. I have lost count of the number of incorrect entries that have made & been picked up the other crew member PRIOR to execution.
Once again, the first fatal "single pilot" accident would put an end to such a practice.
Pilots & ATC provide a very flexible adaptable system. Automation, being rule based is the opposite of adaptable. Bean counters focus on costs incurred, rather than costs saved through this system adaptability. A less adaptable system would in all likelihood increase costs that dwarves those of having two pilots at the controls.
In short we won't have a dog & pilot show or a pilot-less RPT aircraft any time soon. There is not even the faintest mention from the industry for the next generation A350/B737 replacement. With the current development cycle a timeline in excess of 30 years would be the earliest before such a technology could be deployed, notwithstanding my reasoning.
Where do I start? Just a few random thoughts, but not limited too:
Lawyers
No manufacturer's lawyer is ever going to sign-off on the pilot-less aircraft, the reason for the simple reason of responsibility. It would all fall on the manufacturer. There would be no dead pilot to blame.
Engineers
The pilot-less aircraft is the engineering wet dream, engineering out the pilot is all about ego, not cost saving. Can it be done with the 99.999+% reliability that we have today at an acceptable cost?
Infrastructure
Think about the infrastructure that needs to be installed in just terms of communications. An ultra high reliability two-way data link with a robust signalling protocol & guaranteed message delivery. There would also have to be a continuously revised failsafe flightplan/groundplan on the assumption that the data link could fail at any point in the flight.
The sheer cost & time to develop this would be enormous. It however, can be done.
Every single major aerodrome would need to be fitted out with every component of such a system before it could be used as a "automated destination". So what would operators do in the transition period? They would still have to have crew aircraft fitted with a conventional flight deck AND the fully autonomous equipment for city pairs that weren't "fully automated". Increase costs for long term gain, this is not how capitalism works.
There would only ever be one smoking hole in the ground from pilot-less RPT aircraft, public confidence would be shattered by a single fatal accident.
Dog & Pilot show
There is a very good reason why all FMC entries are cross checked by a second crew member. I have lost count of the number of incorrect entries that have made & been picked up the other crew member PRIOR to execution.
Once again, the first fatal "single pilot" accident would put an end to such a practice.
Pilots & ATC provide a very flexible adaptable system. Automation, being rule based is the opposite of adaptable. Bean counters focus on costs incurred, rather than costs saved through this system adaptability. A less adaptable system would in all likelihood increase costs that dwarves those of having two pilots at the controls.
In short we won't have a dog & pilot show or a pilot-less RPT aircraft any time soon. There is not even the faintest mention from the industry for the next generation A350/B737 replacement. With the current development cycle a timeline in excess of 30 years would be the earliest before such a technology could be deployed, notwithstanding my reasoning.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do I start? Just a few random thoughts,
I agree,very random actually....but if it helps make you feel better keep telling yourself that....
I imagine flight engineers,navigators and blacksmiths not that long ago said exactly the same thing....
Interestingly,on another thread a question was asked about QF 737 pay scales.Remembering what you said about pilot pay scales being close to national wage average I thought I would read it....
Year 1 F/O currently $148.52/ hour. I'm not sure how many hours the 737 drivers are doing these days but 900 plus or minus a bit would be in the ball park. As you can see, 900 hours per annum is going to give you $134K. EPs, sims, etc extra. Year 4 F/O is on $156. A 6% bonus is payable if the execs give themselves 100% of their bonus. 3% bonus if they give themselves 50% of their bonus, etc. 3% pay rises due in Sep 2010 and Sep 2011.
Year 1 Captain rate is currently $232. Same deal for the rest of it above.
Not sure how their super works or what it is based upon but it's in addition to the above numbers. Obviously DTA and allowances are on top also.
Year 1 Captain rate is currently $232. Same deal for the rest of it above.
Not sure how their super works or what it is based upon but it's in addition to the above numbers. Obviously DTA and allowances are on top also.
When considering automated flight decks we are not talking about small regional commuter airlines as you were mentioning we are talking about legacy and LCC airlines.
So breakfastburrito, if you think that airline execs are not thinking and asking Boeing and Airbus of ways to lower that cost by way of automation you are dreaming.
Nunc est bibendum
With respect, he was talking about LCCs around the world, not just in Australia.
Further, I've summarised a 50 page document into two paragraphs. Quoting completely out of context means that you don't get the full picture.
Further, I've summarised a 50 page document into two paragraphs. Quoting completely out of context means that you don't get the full picture.
Stick to flying Keg! You have quoted Year 1 basic hourly rates for Capt and F/O and added that there are other matters to be added. In summary, the pay rates and 'bottom lines' go only one way: UP. Do you mean to say that some active drivers, other than PUIT, get less than the year 1 level?
Nunc est bibendum
Ken, this discussion is nothing to do with legacy airline rates.
The pay rate I quoted is accurate and will go up. The hours however can decrease significantly if the flying program changes. As I said before, I've paraphrased a big document into two paragraphs and so there are many nuances (such as the potential reduction to income of up to 30% from the maximum permissible) that I haven't mentioned. Therefore anyone using those numbers on their own is quoting them out of context.
Now, back to the discussion about automation.
The pay rate I quoted is accurate and will go up. The hours however can decrease significantly if the flying program changes. As I said before, I've paraphrased a big document into two paragraphs and so there are many nuances (such as the potential reduction to income of up to 30% from the maximum permissible) that I haven't mentioned. Therefore anyone using those numbers on their own is quoting them out of context.
Now, back to the discussion about automation.
. (Where I'm currently, sitting a cool one would be noice!!)
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There would be little cost savings in salary as pilots are already approaching salaries that are near national averages in many countries
With respect, he was talking about LCCs around the world, not just in Australia.
My point is that with the cost of flight crew, airlines will continue to lower cost through automation....They have already done so with navigators,flight engineers and even by setting up LCC's.
To refer to pay scales made by crew flying regional/commuter airlines is more than a little disingenuous.You can point out pay earned by apprentices everywhere which is basically what pilots working for regional/commuter/GA airlines are doing...but it is not relevant to what legacy and LCC carriers are paying compared to national average wages.
This is all about automation..do you think that the aero industry generally is spending a lot of money on automation just to make your life easier or is it something else....They may say that their efforts are designed to making aviation safer but it is also and mainly about money.
Automation is all about money.We are all aware of what business execs are about and that is cutting costs while loading their own pockets and guess how they are trying to do that.....